Is Penal Substitutionary Atonement Scriptural?

What Jesus accomplished when he died for our sins is an important question, and it has long been a question wrestled with by theologians.  Penal substitutionary atonement is a popular theory used to explain what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, especially in more recent history.  Let’s examine this theory by comparing the two major components of this theory with what scripture says about Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for our sins.

Some Important Groundwork -

It will greatly help us in understanding what Christ accomplished when dying for our sins if we first understand why we sin, and what God said would be the consequence of Adam’s sin.  

Genesis 2:17: “But from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you must not eat from it; for in the day you eat from it, to die you shall be dying.”  “To die you shall be dying” means that once Adam disobeyed God, he would begin to die and this would eventuate in his death.  Adam would become mortal, as well as Eve and all of their progeny (all humanity).  Paul gives us some helpful clarification on this in Rom 5:12: “Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind, on which all sinned —“ This is a key passage for us in understanding why we sin (miss the mark); through Adam’s sin he became mortal and passed that mortality on to the rest of humanity.  Because of this inherent mortality in all of humanity, we cannot help but sin.  We sin because we are dying, not because of a supposed “sin nature”.  The scriptures further support this truth: 1Cor 15:56a: “Now the sting of Death is sin...”  Note, the scriptural truth is not that the sting of sin is death, but the other way around.  This also gives us more insight into why “death” is our greatest enemy: 1Cor 15:26: “The last enemy is being abolished: death.”

Being humans born under Adam we inherit death, and sinning is a part of the package.  Note that God did not tell Adam that the consequence of his disobedience would be eternal conscious torment, but death.  It is also important that we understand what death really is.  Death is not life somewhere else, or life as a spirit, or any other false explanation that denies death’s reality.  The truth is the dead know nothing (Eccl. 9:5), the sensations of the dead have ceased, as they have ceased to be a living soul when their spirit returned to God and their body returns to the soil (Gen. 2:7).  Scripture and the Lord Jesus liken the state of the dead to those that are asleep: John 11:11,14: “He said these things, and after this He is saying to them, “Lazarus, our friend, has found repose, but I am going that I should be awakening him out of sleep.” ... Jesus, then, said to them with boldness then, “Lazarus died.”  Scripture never describes the state of the dead as a state of awareness, or likens it to “being awake”.  

This true death is what Christ Jesus has come to save us from, and sin will be done away with as death is, as they are a package deal. We become worthy of death as mortals who cannot help but sin, but we must keep in mind the scriptural truth that we sin because we are first dying/mortal.  I must add in here, that God had purposed and intended that Adam eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.  Rom 11:32: "For God locks up all together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all." God’s plan required that all humanity become sinners, so He could reveal His love to and for all.  

Penal Substitution  -

The definition of penal is “of, relating to or involving punishment”, and substitution means “the act of putting one thing or person in the place of another”.  The idea proposed by this theory is that God punished Christ for our sins instead of us (in place of us) when Christ suffered and died on the cross.  

Do we have a passage of scripture that states that God punished Jesus on the cross in our place?  I contend that there is not.  There are many passages that describe Jesus dying for our sakes and dying on behalf of sinners.  We know that Christ was made a sin offering for our sakes: 2Cor 5:21: "For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him." Christ dying for us and being made a sin offering for our sakes is very different than Him being punished instead of us.  In fact, it was a sin (a missing of the mark) from the relative point of view that Christ was sacrificed on the cross as one who had never sinned (or missed the mark) himself.  Christ was not deserving of death, but was obedient unto death (Phil 2:8).  From the absolute point of view, Christ’s sacrifice was not a sin.  His sacrifice was perfectly planned by the Father as the antidote for sin and death.  

Punishment was not the driving factor in God sending Jesus, His Son, to die for our sins.  I would say that punishment was not a factor at all.  Love is the driving factor.  The love of God for sinners in providing a sin offering and the love of Christ in giving Himself up as a ransom for all.  To quote James Coram: “What Divine love readily provides, Divine righteousness readily accepts.”  The lambkin (Christ) was slain from the disruption of the world in the mind of God (Rev. 13:8).  From the moment sin entered God’s universe (by His own intention) at the disruption, God had in His mind His plan through which He would reconcile all back to himself, and that plan is through the blood of Christ: Col 1:20 "and through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens."

God informs us that love was his motivation in sending Jesus to die for our sakes, not punishment:  Rom 5:6-8 "For Christ, while we are still infirm, still in accord with the era, for the sake of the irreverent, died. For hardly for the sake of a just man will anyone be dying: for, for the sake of a good man, perhaps someone may even be daring to die, yet God is commending this love of His to us, seeing that, while we are still sinners, Christ died for our sakes."

If the theory of penal substitution was scriptural, it would require this passage to read something like this: “because of God’s great anger toward His creation that has sinned, an anger that must be satisfied through punishment, God sent Jesus to be punished instead of the sinner.”  I pray that the reader can see how wildly different the thought is between what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 5 above and what I wrote.  

God didn’t send Jesus to be punished instead of us, He sent Jesus to die for sin for our sakes, or on our behalf, and He did this out of love.  God sacrificed His only Son, who was sinless and not at all deserving of death, to die for our sins and redeem/ransom us from death.  To punish Christ in any way would be unrighteous, as Christ was sinless.  God is always well pleased with His Son.  “God’s indignation educates, but it does not save.  It is not the goal and does not achieve the goal” -Dean Hough

We are included in Christ’s obedience unto death, like we were included in Adam’s disobedience.  This is beautifully summed up by Paul in 1Cor 15:21-22: "For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead. For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified."  Christ is called the “last Adam” in this same chapter, reinforcing the fact we are included in Christ as we were included in Adam: 1Cor 15:45: "If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, "became a living soul:" the last Adam a vivifying Spirit."  After Paul tells us that we sin because we inherit death through Adam in Romans 5, he again emphasizes the fact all are included in Christ’s sacrifice and that Christ’s sacrifice and the grace extended through it goes far and beyond what Adam’s disobedience brought in:  Rom 5:16,18-19 "And not as through one act of sinning is the gratuity. For, indeed, the judgment is out of one into condemnation, yet the grace is out of many offenses into a just award. ... Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for life's justifying. For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."

God’s righteousness (His justice) is not revealed in “punishment for sin”.  What does the scripture say reveals God’s righteousness?  Rom 1:16-17: "For not ashamed am I of the evangel, for it is God's power for salvation to everyone who is believing -- to the Jew first, and to the Greek as well. For in it God's righteousness is being revealed, out of faith for faith, according as it is written: "Now the just one by faith shall be living.""

God’s righteousness is revealed in the evangel, and through the evangel God shares how He will make everything right. Paul again tells us that this good news (the evangel or gospel) manifests God’s righteousness, and God’s righteousness is what rescues us (not punishes us) from the fact none can be justified through law: Rom 3:21-24 "Yet now, apart from law, a righteousness of God is manifest (being attested by the law and the prophets), yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ's faith, for all, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, for all sinned and are wanting of the glory of God. Being justified gratuitously in His grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus"

God’s righteousness in manifest through the evangel, that we will all be justified gratuitously in His grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus - His death for our sins, for our sakes on the cross and his subsequent resurrection.  I want to repeat James Coram’s quote: “What Divine love readily provides, Divine righteousness readily accepts.”  God’s righteousness demands that all that Christ ransomed on the cross be eventually saved from death, and Christ died for all sinners: 1Tim 2:3-6 "for this is ideal and welcome in the sight of our Saviour, God, Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all (the testimony in its own eras),"  

God guaranteed the justification (making righteousness) of all sinners Christ died for when God resurrected Christ from the dead: Rom 4:25; 5:1 "Who was given up because of our offenses, and was roused because of our justifying. Being, then, justified by faith, we may be having peace toward God, through our Lord, Jesus Christ,"

The website gotquestions.org in their article “What is the doctrine of penal substitution?” begins with this statement: “In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.” 

I have already shown how Christ’s sacrifice was not a punishment in our place, but I want to point out how the writers at gotquestions.org don’t understand the implications of what they have written above.  According to gotquestions.org in many of their other articles, the punishment humans must undergo for their sin is eternal conscious torment in a place called hell.  Jesus was not, and is not being eternally and consciously tormented in a place called hell, so by their own admission,  Jesus was not punished like humans are supposed to be.  They then say that because of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, God’s justice is satisfied.  Except, in their belief, God’s justice is not at all satisfied, because whoever God has not given faith to believe that Jesus died for them will still be eternally and consciously tormented in a place called hell……   Remember, the evangel is what reveals God’s righteousness, not “punishment”.

Proponents of penal substitution do not actually understand what they are promoting, and do not see the contradictions inherent to the view.  This is beside the fact that it is unscriptural, contradicted by the many passages shared in (but not limited to) this article.  

 A common passage of scripture used as a proof text for  penal substitution is 1 Peter 2:24, as the above gotquestions.org article also does: 1Pet 2:24: "Who Himself carries up our sins in His body on to the pole, that, coming away from sins, we should be living for righteousness; by Whose welt you were healed."  In this passage, Peter, in partially quoting Isaiah 53:5 is reminding the Israelites of the dispersion (1 Peter 1:1) that Christ had to die for sin to be taken away.  Christ’s suffering on the cross unto death, His blood being spilled, is what cleanses from sin and heals (Hebrews 9:22).  What this passage does not say is that Christ was punished in our place as our substitute, that notion must be read into the text.  No where in scripture is every sinner required to be punished by dying on a cross.  The sinless Jesus Christ could never be our “substitute”, we as sinners could never be a spotless sacrifice for our own sins, not to mention the rest of humanity.  To call Jesus our mere “substitute” is to grossly degrade His death on the cross for sin as the spotless and perfect, undeserving sacrifice that ransomed all.  

[Paul, through the knowledge of his evangel given to him through the risen and glorified Christ Jesus goes into much more detail than Peter and reveals the scope of what Christ’s blood will accomplish, as we saw in Col. 1:20 and the other passages shared above.]

Atonement -

Was Christ’s sacrifice an “atonement”?  

The word atonement is found in English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures as a translation for the Hebrew word kaphar, which means to cover, or to make a protective covering.  We can see the word take on this meaning in Genesis 6:14 NASB: “Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch.”  In this passage, both the words cover and pitch are translations of the Hebrew word kaphar.  The Concordant Literal Translation demonstrates that they are the same word in its translation of shelter/sheltering at both occurrences in this verse: “…and you will shelter it from the inside and the outside with with a sheltering coat.” Shelter conveys the idea of a protective covering and fits well elsewhere the word kaphar is used, such as Leviticus 16:6: “Aaron will bring near the young bull of the sin offering which is for himself, and he will make a propitiatory shelter about himself and about his house.”  The KJV translated kaphar as pitch both times in Genesis 6:14, and as atonement in Leviticus 16:6.  Only cover and shelter really fit the meaning of kaphar in all use cases. 

What is a common characteristic of these coverings/shelters that kaphar describes in the Hebrew Scriptures? It is the fact that all of these protective coverings were temporary in nature.  The protective covering on the ark protected Noah and his family inside for over a year, but it would not have protected indefinitely.  The sacrifices that Aaron and the other priests of Israel offered had to be renewed year after year.  Even then, only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies without being killed.  These sacrifices failed to do what many claim the definition of atonement is : at-one-ment, making a person at one with God.  What they did was provide a temporary shelter for the people of Israel, pointing toward the final and efficacious sacrifice of Christ’s blood: Heb 10:10-12 "By which will we are hallowed through the approach present of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time. And every chief priest, indeed, stands ministering day by day, and offering often the same sacrifices, which never can take sins from about us. Yet This One, when offering one sacrifice for sins, is seated to a finality at the right hand of God,"

The high priest could only enter God’s presence once a year, after making a sin offering for himself while bringing in a blood sacrifice for the people of Israel.  We, through Christ’s sacrifice offered once for all time, have direct access to God (Eph. 2:18). 

The KJV uses the word atonement in one place in the Greek Scriptures, Romans 5:11: “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.”  This is a very poor translation, and most later English translations have reconciliation here.  But this too fails to convey the true thought Paul was expressing when he used the Greek word katallage.  The best translation of katallage is conciliation, not reconciliation.  The keyword concordance of the CLNT has the English elements of katallage as DOWN-CHANGE and can be best defined as “a change that comes from tearing something down”.  A shorter definition is “to appease”.  In contrast, reconcile is the best translation of the Greek word apokatallasso, the English elements of which are FROM-DOWN-CHANGE.  This can be understood as “to fully reconcile, meaning both sides of an estrangement are at peace with each other.”  When two parties are both conciliated to each other, there is reconciliation.  One party can be conciliated to the other, while the other is not conciliated in return.  In such a scenario, there is no reconciliation.  Apokatallasso is found in Colossians 1:20,22 and reflects God’s ultimate goal of reconciliation with all, as well as Eph. 2:16 regarding the body of Christ.

Here is the proper translation of Romans 5:11 from the CLNT: "Yet not only so, but we are glorying also in God, through our Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom we now obtained the conciliation."  What is this conciliation that believers have obtained?  It is the fact that God sent His only perfect Son to die for His enemies in proof of His love for them: Rom 5:8,10 "yet God is commending this love of His to us, seeing that, while we are still sinners, Christ died for our sakes. ... For if, being enemies, we were conciliated to God through the death of His Son, much rather, being conciliated, we shall be saved in His life."  The greatest expression of love is to sacrifice your life for someone else: John 15:13 "Greater love than this has no one, that anyone may be laying down his soul for his friends."  God cannot die, so to express His love He sent His Son Jesus to die for the sin of all.  This is the ultimate action of appeasement, showing that He is not mad with His creation, but at peace with it.  

God, through the death of Christ for sin, tore down the enmity between us and God that was created when Adam sinned.  This enmity was demonstrated when Adam and Eve hid from God after eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Adam and Eve had to leave the garden of Eden because of this enmity, but not until God had sacrificed an animal to make clothing for them, pointing toward God’s ultimate solution for sin and death, the death of His own Son.  

2Cor 5:18-19: "Yet all is of God, Who conciliates us to Himself through Christ, and is giving us the dispensation of the conciliation, how that God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself, not reckoning their offenses to them, and placing in us the word of the conciliation." God was not reckoning the offenses of the world to them when He sacrificed His Son Jesus for their sins.  God was not appeasing Himself or His own justice, through punishing His Son in our place on the cross.  His was appeasing (conciliating) the world, through the grand display of His love for it, while they were yet enemies of (carrying enmity toward) Him!  That is what conciliation means.  That is what those that understand and believe the evangel are given as ambassadors to share with the world:

2Cor 5:20-21: "For Christ, then, are we ambassadors, as of God entreating through us. We are beseeching for Christ's sake, "Be conciliated to God!" For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him."

God has always been propitious and at peace with His creation.  His conciliatory work in sending His Son to die for His enemies is the proof of this.  Now, true ambassadors of God and Christ entreat “Be conciliated to God!”  The righteousness of God demands that He save all sinners, as God is ultimately responsible for its introduction into His universe (and He has to be, as the Supreme Diety, otherwise another god of equal power was able to bring in sin and death without God being able to prevent it).  The righteousness of God is that God works all together for good, centered on God giving His Son for sinners. Rom 8:28: "Now we are aware that God is working all together for the good of those who are loving God, who are called according to the purpose"  Believers are aware of this now, and all will believe this in the future as they come to understand in God’s time what He has done for them in his act of conciliation.  All will love God when they are conciliated toward God and there is reconciliation.  All will understand that everything God has done is for their good, whether in His purpose they were vessels of indignation or vessels of honor during the eons (Romans 9:20-23).  

Remember God’s ultimate plan, that He will accomplish through His Son Christ Jesus: 

Rom 11:32: "For God locks up all together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all."

Col 1:20: "and through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens."

Can God’s purposes fail? 

Why did God require Israel to make covering sacrifices and follow the rest of the law? The apostle Paul informs us what the purpose of the law was: Rom 5:20: "Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,"  God used Israel to show themselves and the rest of creation that no one is able to be justified through law, what law does is bring an awareness of sin, or as A.E. Knoch puts in his commentary of this verse, “It’s [law] effect was to alter the character of sin so that it became an offense.”  The law didn’t come to decrease sin, it increases it.  God uses this to make people aware of how much they need a Saviour, which God is happy to provide.  

So, Christ’s death for sin accomplished so much more than an “atonement”.  It was conciliation that Christ accomplished. Christ’s blood is worth so much more than those of bulls and goats; to say they accomplished the same thing is to grossly degrade Christ’s sacrifice. The apostle Paul gives us this information concerning the accomplishments of God through Christ, as it is in his (Paul’s) evangel that these wonderful truths are revealed.  

Conclusion-

I believe the scriptural evidence makes it abundantly clear that theory of penal substitutionary atonement fails in every measure to describe what God through Christ accomplished on the cross.  Christ’s sacrifice was not penal, God was not punishing His Son, expressing indignation, but love as Jesus was made a sin offering for our sakes.  Christ’s sacrifice was not substitutionary, Christ did not die “instead” of us but for us and we were included in Him the second Adam, just as all were included in the first Adam. Christ Jesus is our Champion.¹  Christ’s sacrifice was not an atonement, His death does not merely provide a temporary protective covering, but it accomplished conciliation.  Through His sacrifice God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself.

Here is a quote from Stephen Hill’s video series The Bloody Truth: “Why did Jesus have to die to save us?  It was the best possible way for the Father to demonstrate his love for us and to glorify his Son.  Christ is worthy of all headship and Lordship, offering his sinless life for all.”  Christ will accomplish the justification and reconciliation of all as Lord of all. As Lord of all, Christ Jesus has the authority to vivify (make alive beyond the reach of death) all sinners, thus all will be saved from our greatest enemy, death.  

Be conciliated to God!

——————————————————————————————————————————

1.  See Stephen Hill’s video series and book The Bloody Truth where Stephen refutes penal substitutionary atonement and explains how Christ is our Champion:  Video 1, Video 2,  Chapter 1 of his book can be      found Here and the rest can be found Here.

 A great talk by Guy Marks titled “Atonement contrasted with Conciliation” from the Concordant Publishing Concern is a very worthwhile listen.

All scripture references are from the Concordant Literal New Testament or Old Testament unless otherwise indicated.

What was Paul referring to when he used the word "apostasy" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3?

The apostle Paul uses the word apostasy (as translated by the Concordant Literal New Testament) only once in his letters, and it is found 2 Thessalonians 2:3.  Here is the passage in which Paul uses this word:

2Ths 2:1-5 CLNT: "Now we are asking you, brethren, for the sake of the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to Him, that you be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be alarmed, either through spirit, or through word, or through an epistle as through us, as that the day of the Lord is present. No one should be deluding you by any method, for, should not the apostasy be coming first and the man of lawlessness be unveiled, the son of destruction, who is opposing and lifting himself up over everyone termed a god or an object of veneration, so that he is seated in the temple of God, demonstrating that he himself is God? Do you not remember that, still being with you, I told you these things?"

Before we dive into this passage, I want to attempt to get a good handle on how Greek speakers contemporary to Paul used this word, or at least speakers that are more contemporary to Paul than we are today.  Fortunately, we have a good resource for this: the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, called the Septuagint, which most agree was completed by 132 BCE.  Analyzing the use of this word in the Septuagint should give us a good idea of what Paul was referring to in a scriptural context. 

The Greek word ἀποστασία, transliterated apostasia carries this definition from Strongs: Apostasy, rebellion, defection, falling way. The Greek-English Keyword Concordance in the back of the Concordant Literal New Testament tells us the English elements of the word apostasia are FROM-STANDing. This fits in with what BibleHub's helps word-studies says the the word is derived from here.

In the Septuagint, apostasia is used in at least 3 passages, those for sure being Jeremiah 2:19, Joshua 22:22 and 2 Chronicles 29:19. Lets look at Joshua 22:22 from Young's Literal Translation (YLT) first:

"The God of gods -- Jehovah, the God of gods -- Jehovah, He is knowing, and Israel, he doth know, if in rebellion, and if in trespass against Jehovah (Thou dost not save us this day!)"

And also from the Concordant Version of the Old Testament (CVOT):

"El, Elohim, Yahweh, EL. Elohim, Yahweh, He knows, and let Israel itself know: If we acted in revolt or in offense against Yahweh, do not save us this day!"

Here is where things get slightly challenging for me as someone that does not speak or read Greek or Hebrew.  From what I can tell using a couple of Greek to English interlinears of the Septuagint, the words rebellion and revolt from the YLT and CVOT respectively is where the translators of the Septuagint used the the Greek word apostasia.  One interlinear I am using places distancing; departure in English underneath apostasia.  The other interlinear places defection below apostasia.  The Septuagint and the above English versions are translations of the original Hebrew, so what Hebrew word is being translated in these ways in these two languages?  Using a Hebrew to English interlinear, we see that these translations are from the Hebrew word mered (h4777).  Strongs defines mered as: rebellion, revolt.  

Let's examine our next passage, 2 Chronicles 29:19 from the YLT:

"and all the vessels that king Ahaz cast away in his reign -- in his trespass -- we have prepared and sanctified, and lo, they [are] before the altar of Jehovah."

And from the CVOT:

"We have also prepared and hallowed all the furnishings that king Ahaz in his offense had cast off during his reign; there they are before the altar of Yahweh."

Again, using Greek to English interlinears, the words translated as trespass in the YLT and offence in the CVOT is where the Greek translators chose to use the word apostasia in the Septuagint. The interlinears I am using again place defection and distancing; departure underneath apostasia in English. The Hebrew to English interlinear tells us the Hebrew word being translated in these cases is maʿal (h4604) which Strong’s defines as: treachery, i.e. sin:—falsehood, grievously, sore, transgression, trespass.

What is interesting is that this word maʿal is also found in Joshua 22:22 that we looked at above. It is translated as trespass in the YLT and offence in the CVOT, just like it is in this verse. What did the translators of the Septuagint translate it as in in Joshua 22:22? The best I could find is this: ἐπλημμελήσαμεν which is defined as: to make a false note in music, to offend, err.

Now for Jeremiah 2:19, YLT:

“Instruct thee doth thy wickedness, And thy backslidings reprove thee, Know and see that an evil and a bitter thing [Is] thy forsaking Jehovah thy God, And My fear not being on thee, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah of Hosts.”

And from the CVOT:

“Let your evil discipline you, And your backslidings, let them reprove you; Know then and see how evil and bitter it is when you forsake Yahweh your Elohim And you have no awe of me, averring is the my Lord Yahweh of hosts.”

The best I can tell, the word backslidings, in both translations above represent the same word that the Greek translators translated as apostasia in the Septuagint. Again, the interlinears I am using place defection and distancing; departure below apostasia. The Hebrew word mᵊšûḇâ (h4878) is what is being translated here and Strong’s defines it as: apostasy:—backsliding, turning away.

There is one more Old Testament verse I want to look at, and that is Jeremiah 29:32 YLT:

“Therefore, thus said Jehovah, Lo, I am seeing after Shemaiah the Nehelamite, and after his seed, he hath none dwelling in the midst of this people, nor doth he look on the good that I am doing to My people -- an affirmation of Jehovah -- for apostacy he hath spoken against Jehovah.”

CVOT:

“therefore thus says Yahweh, Behold, I shall call Shemiah the dreamer to account and his seed. Not a man shall remain for him dwelling in the midst of this people; not one shall see the good I shall do for My people, averring is Yahweh, for he has preached stubbornness against Yahweh."

Above, I said that apostasia was used three times in the Septuagint for sure and I listed those verses and we took a look at them, but on this page, under the Thayer’s Greek lexicon section, Jeremiah 29:32 is listed as having apostasia (or a form of it) in it as well (among some others), and when I consulted this interlinear I did find a form of the word there, with defection again being placed underneath it. The other interlinear I have been using cuts the verse short, and I am not sure as to why. The English words apostacy (YLT) and stubbornness (CVOT) in Jeremiah 29:32 quoted above are translations of the Hebrew word sārâ (h5627), which Strong's defines as: apostasy, crime; figuratively, remission. I believe apostasia in the Septuagint is the Greek translation of this word sārâ, though I cannot be absolutely sure because the one interlinear I have been using cut the verse short. If anyone has a more reliable and easier to use Greek to English interlinear of the Septuagint, I would be interested in knowing about it.

What can we glean from the information we have gathered here? It should be obvious by now that what we are doing here is not an exact science, but we are trying to get an idea of what a Greek speaker thought of when the word apostasia was used in a scriptural context.  The verses we have looked at so far have used the word as describing Israel, or certain Israelites departing or defecting from the law of God, or worshiping other gods entirely.  Israelites were under covenant to follow God's law in these contexts, and trespassing, trangressing, committing offense, rebelling, revolting, falling away - all definitions we have seen as we investigated the words above - point to Israel departing from God's law and the covenant He made with them at Mt. Sinai.  

Before we circle back and look into 2 Thessalonians 3, there is another use of the word apostasia in the Greek scriptures, in Acts 21:21 CLNT: “Now they were instructed concerning you that you teach all the Jews among the nations apostasy from Moses, telling them not to be circumcising their children, nor yet to be walking in the customs."  Believing Jews in Jerusalem were being told by those of the Circumcision (those of James that Paul had to defend his evangel against in Galatians) that Paul was teaching apostasy from Moses or departing from the law of Moses.  Paul was teaching Jews among the nations departure from the law of Moses when he preached his evangel of the Uncircumcision to them, but these Jewish believers of the Circumcision were zealous for the law (Acts 21:20) and later tried to kill Paul for what he was preaching among the nations as they did not understand Paul's evangel.  It is clear to me that the usage of apostasia in this verse and context matches up very well with how the word was used in the Septuagint, taking on the meaning of Israelites departing from the law of Moses (God). 

 2Ths 2:1-5 CLNT: "Now we are asking you, brethren, for the sake of the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to Him, that you be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be alarmed, either through spirit, or through word, or through an epistle as through us, as that the day of the Lord is present. No one should be deluding you by any method, for, should not the apostasy be coming first and the man of lawlessness be unveiled, the son of destruction, who is opposing and lifting himself up over everyone termed a god or an object of veneration, so that he is seated in the temple of God, demonstrating that he himself is God? Do you not remember that, still being with you, I told you these things?"

Does what we have found in our study above concerning the word apostasia and its use fit into the context of 2 Thessalonians?  I believe it does, and in a powerful way.  Paul wrote this letter to the Thessalonians to comfort them, and assure them that the day of the Lord was not present.  How does Paul comfort them?  By emphasizing that the coming day of the Lord concerns Israel, and not the body of Christ at all.  The day of the Lord concerns Israel, the apostasy concerns Israel and the man of lawlessness concerns Israel.  These things are part of the seventy sevens segregated for the people of Israel and Jerusalem, the holy city (Daniel 9:24), and specifically the final seven of those seventy sevens.  Is this apostasy mentioned in 2 Thessalonians prophesied  in scripture?  I believe it is the covenant that the majority of Israelites will agree to at the beginning of the last seven with the governor (who is not anointed, in contrast to the Annointed governor, Jesus Messiah, Daniel 9:26) mentioned in Daniel 9:27.  This (unannointed) governor that is the master of a covenant with many in Israel is the man of lawlessness:

Daniel 9:27 CVOT "Then he will be a master of a covenant with many for one seven, he shall cause to cease the sacrifice and the approach present; on a wing of the sanctuary shall be desolating abominations. Until the conclusion of the era the decided conclusion shall be poured forth on the desolation."

This governor/king which is the man of lawlessness, committing these desolating abominations, also exalts and magnifies himself over every el (god) as described in Daniel 11:36 and reiterated by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5.  This is the man that Jesus warns Israel about in John 5:43. What must come before the man of lawlessness commits these desolating abominations, and thus unveiling him explicitly as the man of lawlessness? It is the making of a covenant for seven years with Israel, by the man that comes in his own name, not in the name of God the Father (John 5:43), as the governor that is not annointed by God. This is the culmination of Israel's apostasy as they accept the man of lawlessness.  

I want to share with you an excerpt from Vladimir Gelesnoff's booklet The Coming Conflict, that got me started on this study, from pg. 37:  

"Still another time-mark is afforded by the general characteristic, "when the transgressors are to come to the full" (Daniel 8:23).  Israel's past career has been strongly marked by prevalence of transgression. But its culmination has not yet been reached.  Every movement, individual or national, is two-sided.  There is departure from something and a turning toward something else; and the former necessarily precedes the latter.  Apostasy is no exception to the general law governing the affairs of men and nations.  Israel's apostasy attains its zenith when the one coming in his own name will be acclaimed as deliverer.  The inception of Israel's national apostasy was when they desired a king like unto the nations; and it will become full blown when they enter into covenant with the horn.  God cures the folly of His people by granting them the things on which their hearts are set.  Israel wanted flesh: He gave them flesh.  They wanted a king: He gave them a king.  They have been following the nations: He will give them into the hands of the nations.  The vision relates to the time when the measure of apostasy will be filled."

I looked up the Hebrew word translated as transgressors in Daniel 8:23, and it is transliterated pasha. It is defined as: to rebel, transgress - Meaning: to break away, trespass, apostatize, quarrel. Here is Daniel 8:23 CVOT: “And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors come to an end, there shall stand up a king of strong presence and understanding problems.” I believe this verse parallels with 2 Thessalonians 2:3 quite well: “No one should be deluding you by any method, for, should not the apostasy be coming first and the man of lawlessness be unveiled, the son of destruction.” I do not find it far fetched that "the apostasy" mentioned  by Paul could be an indirect reference to the "when the trangressors come to an end" of Daniel 8:23 and "the man of lawlessness being unveiled" being an indirect reference to "there shall stand up a king of strong presence and understanding problems". I do not doubt that the apostle Paul knew the book of Daniel very well, and used it in explaining these things to the Thessalonians.

 

With this interpretation of what Paul meant by apostasy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, some may think that this lessens or otherwise damages the expectation of the body of Christ, specifically the expectation of being snatched away before the day of the Lord is present. I wholeheartedly disagree with that, and I believe it actually reinforces this expectation of the body of Christ. 

 From A.E. Knoch's Concordant Commentary on the New Testament for 2 Thess. 2:1:

"The controlling thought in this section of the epistle is based on the teaching of the first letter. Had they fully accepted and understood what he had already written to them they never would have been led to believe that the day of the Lord was already present. In the meantime it seems that Paul has been misrepresented in this matter, perhaps by a forged letter (3:17). He now gives two of the salient signs which will be present when the day of the Lord comes: the apostasy and the man of lawlessness. Neither of these was present at that time."

Paul had already told the Thessalonians that the body of Christ, both the living and the dead would be snatched away at the same time to meet the Lord in the air at His descending from heaven for them (1 Thess. 4:13-18).  This resurrection of the dead at the same time as the Lord's descent for them precludes this from being the resurrection of faithful Israelites prophesied by Daniel in Daniel 12, as that resurrection occurs 75 days after Jesus' return for Israel.  Paul also told them that the day of the Lord would not overtake them like a thief, because they are sons of light and sons of the day, and being of the day, they are not appointed to indignation at all (1 Thess. 5:1-11), with God’s indignation being a highlighting characteristic of the day of the Lord.  This is reiterated by Paul at the beginning of his second letter to them when he reminded them they would be at ease at the unveiling of the Lord Jesus from heaven (2 Thess. 1:7)

2Ths 2:6-10: "And now you are aware what is detaining, for him to be unveiled in his own era. For the secret of lawlessness is already operating. Only when the present detainer may be coming to be out of the midst, then will be unveiled the lawless one (whom the Lord Jesus will despatch with the spirit of His mouth and will discard by the advent of His presence), whose presence is in accord with the operation of Satan, with all power and signs and false miracles and with every seduction of injustice among those who are perishing, because they do not receive the love of the truth for their salvation."

After coming to understand 2 Thess. 2:1-5 in the way I have described above, have I now changed my mind about the detainer mentioned in verses 6 and 7 being the saints of the body of Christ? No, I have not, and I believe the apostasy being exclusive to Israel supports this understanding.  The apostasy is associated with the man of lawlessness' own era, an era in which the body of Christ has no part.    Again, from Knoch's Concordant Commentary on the New Testament, for verse 7:

"The influences which will bring about the great apostasy of the end time have been at work from the beginning, but have been restrained by another, counteracting force. What is this? Some have supposed it to be the Spirit of God. But the Spirit of God will continue to work throughout the apostasy, enabling a few to endure to the end, and empowering others to be faithful unto death. It has been suggested that Satan "holds fast" his place in the celestial spheres, for when he is cast out the apostasy commences. His ejection does mark the crisis between the secret and open manifestation of the apostasy, but that which is restrained is evidently the apostasy, not a place in the celestial realms. The apostasy is restrained by the presence of the saints. When we are taken out of the midst by our assembling with Christ in the air, then the apostasy and all its terrible train of afflictions will deluge the earth with fire. Thus the apostle proves that their own presence on earth is conclusive evidence that they were not enduring the afflictions of the Lord's day."

 

In conclusion, many in the body of Christ have adopted the interpretation that the word apostasy in 2 Thess. 2:3 would be better translated as departure, with departure being a reference to the physical snatching away of the body of Christ.  Though departure may be a fine translation of apostasia, a physical departure was not the emphasis of the word in any of the other scriptural contexts in which the word apostasia was found in our study.  The emphasis was consistently on Israel departing from the law of God (Moses), and their abandonment of the covenant Israel made with God at Mt. Sinai. Therefore, I believe that is also what Paul was referring to 2 Thess. 2:3, and more specifically, he is referring to the apostasy that Israel commits when they accept the man that comes in his own name, and not in the name of the Father. The apostle Paul was familiar with the Septuagint, and quoted from it many times in writing his epistles.  I believe he was also aware of how the word apostasia was used in the Septuagint and the general meaning it carried.  

 ——————————————————————————————————————————

In this talk by James Coram on 2 Thessalonians, James brings up many interesting points that further corroborate the findings I have presented here.   This is talk number 323 under the free audio tab on the Concordant.org website.

John MacArthur Doesn't Understand Paul's Gospel

I am writing this as a refutation to a short section of John MacArthur's book  The Gospel According to Paul: Embracing the Good News at the Heart of Paul’s Teachings.  I am only writing a refutation to a short section at the beginning of his book, because, if it can be demonstrated that John is wrong about what he asserts in this short section, I believe the rest of his book can be dismissed as incorrect.  The section of his book we will discuss is from chapter one, titled "Things of First Importance".  On page 2 of the book, the section subtitled "No Other Gospel" begins.  This is the section I will go over in this blog post.  John's words will be in blue and scripture will be in orange.  I will be using the Concordant Literal New Testament unless otherwise noted.

 John begins the section with this: "Paul himself might have begun a study of this subject by stating categorically that there is only one true gospel." 

This statement written by John makes me wonder if he knows what the word "gospel" means.  I am not making that assertion, since I believe John does know what it means.  In most English translations, the Greek word euaggélion is translated as "gospel".   Euaggélion is a noun meaning "well message" or "good news".  A messenger of the Lord brought good news to Zechariah when the messenger told him that Elizabeth would bear a son, whose name was to be John.  The account of this is in Luke 1:11-18.  After Zechariah hesitates to believe and asks for a sign, the messenger says this: Luke 1:19 "And answering, the messenger said to him, 'I am Gabriel, who stands before God, and I was dispatched to speak to you and to bring you this evangel.'"  The word euaggélion is translated as "evangel" in the CLNT, which is identical in meaning as the word "gospel".  Evangel is a better translation, and this makes sense, as the English words evangelist and evangelize, mean "a bringer of good news" and " to bring good news" respectively.  Evangel, evangelist and evangelize are all derived from the same root word.  The reason for going into the definitions of these words is to help us understand that there are many instances of good news being shared in the scriptures.  Gabriel's good news he shared with Zechariah is just one example.  I will use the word "evangel" in my writing from here on out. 

Now, maybe we should give John MacArthur the benefit of the doubt, and take his statement above to mean that Paul believed that there was only one evangel by which someone can be saved. Paul never would have claimed something as silly as there is only one evangel in all of scripture.  

Let's continue with John's words: "Anyone who suggests that Paul introduced an altered or embellished version of the apostolic message would have to contradict every point Paul ever made about the singularity of the true gospel.  Although he expounded the gospel far more thoroughly and painstakingly than any other New Testament writer, nothing Paul ever preached or wrote was in any way a departure from what Christ or His apostles had been preaching from the start.  Paul's gospel was exactly the same message Christ proclaimed and commissioned the Twelve to take into all the world.  There is only one gospel, and it is the same for Jews and Gentiles alike."

At this point, I want to make clear that I am not defending the position that John is critiquing in this section of his book.  It is not my belief that Paul "introduced an altered or embellished version of the apostolic message".  My position is that the risen and glorified Christ Jesus called (overwhelmed with grace) Saul, changed his name to Paul, and gave Paul a new gospel for the nations, in which there is no Jew nor Greek.  The believers in Paul's evangel make up the body of Christ, not to be confused with the bride of the Lambkin, which is faithful Israel.  I believe Paul's evangel was a secret until it was revealed to him by Christ.  I believe scripture backs this up: Romans 16:25-26 "Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my [Paul] evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience--"  Paul's evangel given to him by Christ does not alter or embellish the gospel of the Circumcision, it is a separate evangel.  I believe the fact that they are separate is proven in Galatians 2:7-8, a passage we will return to later.   

MacArthur makes it very clear that he believes that "there is only one gospel".  MacArthur says "Paul's gospel was exactly the same message that Christ proclaimed and commissioned the the Twelve to take into all the world." What did Christ and His disciples proclaim while He was on the earth? Matthew 4:25 "And Jesus led them about the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synogogues and heralding the evangel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every debility among the people." (See also: Mat 9:35, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 4:43, 8:1, 16:16)  

What did the Twelve herald after Jesus ascended into heaven and they had received the holy spirit?   Acts 2:14-36: "Now Peter, standing with the eleven, lifts up his voice and declaims to them: "Men! Jews! and all who are dwelling at Jerusalem! Let this be known to you, and give ear to my declarations, for these are not drunk, as you take it, for it is the third hour of the day. But this is that which has been declared through the prophet Joel: 'And it shall be in the last days,' (God is saying) 'I shall be pouring out from My spirit on all flesh, And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your youths visions shall be seeing, And your elders dreams shall be dreaming, And surely on My men slaves and on My women slaves in those days shall I be pouring out from My spirit,' and they shall be prophesying. 'And I will give miracles in heaven above, And signs on the earth below, Blood and fire and vapor pillars of smoke, The sun shall be converted into darkness And the moon into blood Ere the coming of the day of the Lord, The great and advent day. And it shall be that everyone, whosoever should be invoking the name of the Lord, shall be saved.' Men! Israelites! Hear these words: Jesus, the Nazarene, a Man demonstrated to be from God for you by powerful deeds and miracles and signs, which God does through Him in the midst of you, according as you yourselves are aware -- This One, given up in the specific counsel and foreknowledge of God, you, gibbeting by the hand of the lawless, assassinate, Whom God raises, loosing the pangs of death, forasmuch as it was not possible for Him to be held by it. "For David is saying to Him, I saw the Lord before me continually, Seeing that He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore gladdened was my heart, And exultant my tongue. Now, still my flesh also shall be tenting in expectation, For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen, Nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay. Thou makest known to me the paths of life. Thou wilt be filling me with gladness with Thy face.' "Men! Brethren! Allow me to say to you with boldness concerning the patriarch David, that he deceases also and was entombed, and his tomb is among us until this day. Being, then, inherently, a prophet, and having perceived that God swears to him with an oath, out of the fruit of his loin to seat One on his throne, perceiving this before, he speaks concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither forsaken in the unseen, nor was His flesh acquainted with decay. This Jesus God raises, of Whom we all are witnesses. Being, then, to the right hand of God exalted, besides obtaining the promise of the holy spirit from the Father, He pours out this which you are observing and hearing. "For David did not ascend into the heavens, yet he is saying, 'Said the Lord to my Lord, "Sit at My right Till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet."' "Let all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God makes Him Lord as well as Christ -- this Jesus Whom you crucify!’”  Yes, I know that is a lot.  This is what Peter preached at Pentecost after receiving the holy spirit.  What Peter is explaining to his Israelite brethren is that Jesus, whom they crucified, is the Christ, the Messiah that was prophesied to die and be resurrected by God.  God then, in resurrecting His Son, made Jesus Lord.  Because of this, the Day of Lord, or the kingdom was near.  What then, did Peter tell the people to do?  Acts 2:38: "Now Peter is averring to them, "Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardon of your sins, and you shall be obtaining the gratuity of the holy spirit."  What is Peter telling them to change their mind about (repent)? That Jesus Christ was who He said He was, the Messiah, the Son of God.  This is the gospel of the Circumcision, believing that Jesus was the Messiah and being baptized in His name for the pardon of sins.  If Israel as a nation had accepted Jesus as the Messiah the kingdom would have come in after the final seven years prophesied by Daniel.  This is why Peter mentions the "last days" (Acts 2:17) in his speech, the "last days" are the final days of this eon, those final seven years before the kingdom comes in and the next eon begins.

 Something I want to draw your attention to is the fact that, before the cross, Jesus' disciples did not understand that Jesus had to suffer, die, and be resurrected by His Father.  Jesus told them this (Matthew 16:21-23) and Peter rebuked Jesus, which brought a rebuke from Jesus.  Jesus told them this more than one time (Matthew 20:17-19).  The disciples did not really understand this until Jesus explained these things to them after He had been resurrected, see John 2:19-22, Luke 24.  Once the disciples did understand, what was the matter of first importance on their minds?  Acts 1:6: Those, indeed, then, who are coming together, asked Him, saying, "Lord, art Thou at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?" The kingdom on the earth promised to Israel was and is the expectation of Israel and the twelve disciples.

Now what did Paul proclaim as his evangel? 1Cor 15:1-4: "Now I am making known to you, brethren, the evangel which I bring to you, which also you accepted, in which also you stand, through which also you are saved, if you are retaining what I said in bringing the evangel to you, outside and except you believe feignedly. For I give over to you among the first what also I accepted, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was entombed, and that He has been roused the third day according to the scriptures," This passage is considered by many to be Paul's most clear presentation of his evangel. Rom 4:24-25 is also a good representation of it: "but because of us also, to whom it is about to be reckoned, who are believing on Him Who rouses Jesus our Lord from among the dead. Who was given up because of our offenses, and was roused because of our justifying."

Are the proclamations of Jesus while He was on the earth and his twelve disciples, before and after Christ's resurrection, the same as what Paul proclaims? No, they are not. The gospel of the kingdom, that Jesus is the Messiah and the kingdom was near is not the same as Paul's gospel, which emphasizes the cross: Christ Jesus' death for sin, his entombment and subsequent resurrection after three days. The gospel of the Circumcision (kingdom) emphasizes an action the hearer must take, repenting and being baptized. In Paul's gospel, there is no action for the hearer to take. Paul's gospel is the sharing of an accomplished fact, a fact that one simply believes. It does not only become truth when someone believes. Believers in Paul's gospel are justified upon believing (reckoned righteous, Rom. 4:5). Pardon from sin and justification are two separate things.  To be reckoned righteous is to be called right, not to be forgiven or pardoned from sin.  Forgiveness or pardon can be revoked, justification cannot be, as the justified person is reckoned to have done no wrong.  MacArthur is incorrect, these two messages are not "exactly the same".

MacArthur goes on: "It was the false teachers, not Paul, who claimed that God had appointed them to polish or rewrite the gospel.  Paul flatly repudiated the notion that the message Christ sent His disciples to preach was subject to revision (2 Cor. 11)."

In this passage of scripture, Paul is defending his authority as an apostle given to him by God and Christ; Paul starts doing this back in chapter 10. I am not going to reproduce the entirety of chapter 11 here, but I believe this is the section MacArthur is most likely referencing: 2Cor 11:2-5: "for I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God. For I betroth you to one Man, to present a chaste virgin to Christ. Yet I fear lest somehow, as the serpent deludes Eve by its craftiness, your apprehensions should be corrupted from the singleness and pureness which is in Christ. For if, indeed, he who is coming is heralding another Jesus whom we do not herald, or you are obtaining a different spirit, which you did not obtain, or a different evangel, which you do not receive, you are bearing with him ideally. For I am reckoning to be deficient in nothing pertaining to the paramount apostles." 

 MacArthur presumes that Paul is defending the idea that there is only one evangel here. There is only one Christ Jesus, and this Christ Jesus is the object of both the Circumcision and Uncircumcision evangels. This does not prove or imply that there is only one evangel. Paul preached his evangel to the Corinthians, and he is warning them from paying heed to a different evangel. Paul is claiming that his knowledge is in no way inferior to the "paramount apostles". Paul understood the Circumcision evangel, as well as his own. In fact, Paul had to relay the details of his own evangel to Peter because Peter did not know it (Gal. 2:1-2). Of course Paul did not preach that the Circumcision evangel was subject to revision, Paul understood its legitimacy and its purpose, which was separate from his own.  I believe 2 Cor 11 fails as a proof text that there is only one evangel. 

 "Far from portraying himself as some kind of super-apostle sent to set the others straight, Paul wrote, "I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor. 15:9)"   

Again, I don't believe Paul was sent to "set the others straight" either. Paul's evangel is completely separate, in its message and its expectation, and Paul's message is not an "addendum" to the evangel of the circumcision.  

"Indeed, one major factor that set Paul apart from the others was the abundance of divine grace that had transformed him from what he once was (a fierce persecutor of the church) to the man we know from Scripture (an apostle of Christ to the Gentiles).  The vast scope of the mercy shown to Paul never ceased to amaze him.  His response, therefore, was to labor all the more diligently for the spread of the gospel and the honor of Christ in order to make the most of his calling."

MacArthur does well to recognize the abundance of grace shown to Paul. 1Tim 1:13-16: "I, who formerly was a calumniator and a persecutor and an outrager: but I was shown mercy, seeing that I do it being ignorant, in unbelief. Yet the grace of our Lord overwhelms, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all welcome, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, foremost of whom am I. But therefore was I shown mercy, that in me, the foremost, Jesus Christ should be displaying all His patience, for a pattern of those who are about to be believing on Him for life eonian." In 1 Timothy 1:13-16 Paul describes how God changed him by overwhelming him with grace, saving Paul, who was the foremost of sinners. Christ could have destroyed him on the spot, and Paul was deserving of this. Paul is a pattern for those that believe his evangel, the evangel of the grace of God (Uncircumcision). The message of grace overwhelms those that God has given the faith to believe. It is worth mentioning that Christ called Paul outside of Israel, among the nations. Jesus would not have done this while he was on the earth (Mat. 10:5-6).  

"He wrote, "By the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.  Therefore, whether it was I [Paul] or they [the rest of the apostles], so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:10-11). Notice he expressly stated that all the apostles preached the same gospel."

 No, Paul did not say that he and the other apostles preached the same evangel. In this section of scripture, Paul is defending the truth of Christ's resurrection and the truth of our future resurrection. Paul does share his evangel at the beginning of chapter 15 (verses 1-4), of which the resurrection of Christ is an essential part. When Paul says "Then, whether I or they, thus we are heralding and thus you believe" (1 Cor. 15:11), what truth is he specifically talking about being heralded? He answers this for us in verse 12, "Now if Christ is being heralded that He has been roused from among the dead, how are some among you saying that there is no resurrection of the dead?" It is natural that the other apostles shared the truth that Jesus had been resurrected. Jesus showed Himself to his disciples post resurrection, like Paul shares in 1 Cor. 15:5-7. Paul is not claiming here that the twelve disciples, let alone the others Jesus showed himself to after being resurrected, are heralding the same evangel. It is the singular truth of Jesus' resurrection, though this truth is essential to Paul's evangel, that Paul says both he and the other apostles heralded. The other apostles heralded the truth that Jesus was resurrected as this is proof that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah promised to Israel. MacArthur is again incorrect, Paul did not "expressly state" that he and the other apostles preached the same evangel.

MacArthur continues, "There is nevertheless a small but vocal faction in the visible church today who deny that Paul's gospel was the same message Peter proclaimed at Pentecost. Calling themselves "Pauline dispensationalists," they teach that there are at least three distinct gospel messages given in the New Testament, each narrowly applicable to a different dispensation or a specific ethnic group. They say Jesus' "gospel of the kingdom" (Matt. 9:35, 24:14) was a call to discipleship, together with the announcement and an offer of an earthly kingdom; when it was rejected by the majority of those who heard it, the offer was withdrawn and the "gospel of the kingdom" was set aside."

I do deny that Paul's evangel is the same message Peter proclaimed at Pentecost. They are not the same message nor do they use the same words, as I demonstrated earlier. I believe that God inspired the writers of the scriptures to be very precise in the words they used. God chose the writing of scripture as the primary way of communicating to mankind in this eon, we should respect the words God has chosen to use. MacArthur attempts to discredit those that disagree with him by saying "There is nevertheless a small but vocal faction" that denies what he presumes to be true. The popularity of a teaching is never a good barometer of whether something is true or not. In scripture, the precedent is typically the opposite of this. For example, Jesus and the twelve apostles were the minority in Israel when they were preaching the evangel of the kingdom. The Pharisees who were the religious leaders in Israel of that day and their followers were opposed to the truth Jesus and the disciples were heralding.

I don't call myself a "Pauline dispensationalist", though I know Paul has his own dispensation. You don't have to take my word for it, Paul tells us he has his own dispensation: Rom 11:12-15: "Now if their offense is the world's riches and their discomfiture the nations' riches, how much rather that which fills them! Now to you am I saying, to the nations, in as much as, indeed, then, I am the apostle of the nations, I am glorifying my dispensation, if somehow I should be provoking those of my flesh to jealousy and should be saving some of them. For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will the taking back be if not life from among the dead?" The definition of "dispensation" is "something that is served out", from the Greek-English Keyword Concordance in the back of the CLNT. Dispensation is under the same Greek word translated as "service", diakoni'a. Paul's evangel is served out as a service to others. It is the good news he was commissioned by Christ to share with the nations. In Romans 11, Paul is explaining how God has not finished with Israel, even though they are temporarily "cast away". In the context of this chapter, Paul's dispensation is contrasted with that of Israel, whose dispensation (the evangel of the kingdom) has indeed temporarily been put on hold. Rom 11:25: "For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering." Once the complement of the nations enters in through Paul's dispensation, his evangel, God will again take up with Israel, and their dispensation, the evangel of the kingdom when He removes the callousness that God currently has over them.

 "Next, they say, Peter's "gospel for the circumcised" (Gal. 2:7) pertained only to the Jewish nation.  It was a call to repentance (Acts 2:38, 3:19) and a summons to surrender to the lordship of Christ (2:36). This was the message preached by the apostles as long as the church was predominantly Jewish."

Again, I am not defending the position that MacArthur is critiquing. There is more than one dispensation, and more than one evangel. Concerning salvation for the eons, the two evangels preached are the evangel of the Circumcision and and the evangel of the Uncircumcision. Before I go on, lets read the beginning of MacArthur's next paragraph:

"But with the introduction of Gentiles into the church in Acts 10, they claim Paul introduced a brand-new "gospel for the uncircumcised" (Gal 2:7,9).  They say this Pauline message superseded those two earlier gospels."

 Gal 2:7-9: "But, on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they for the Circumcision-"

MacArthur makes the mistake of using a bad translation of these verses, these bad translations change the word "of" into "for" or "to". The proper translation is "evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision". The CLNT and even the KJV get this right. In fact, some versions that replace "of" with "for " or "to" admit that the translation is bad, putting "of" in the margin; the NASB does this, for example. This may seem like I am splitting hairs, but these differences fundamentally change the meaning of the sentence. Playing the music of the Mexicans is fundamentally different than playing music for or to the Mexicans. The music of the Mexicans is a certain style, like the evangel of the Uncircumcision is a certain message. Playing music for the Mexicans means the style of music can be anything. This is an important point, and correct translation proves that scripture supports the fact that the evangel of the Uncircumcision is separtate from the evangel of the Circumcision. See this interlinear of Galatians 2 that shows the correct translation is indeed “of”.

Again, I don't identify with the group MacArthur refers to as "they". I don't believe Paul's evangel "supersedes" the evangel of the Circumcision (which is the evangel of the kingdom), because Paul's evangel does not take the place of the evangel of the Circumcision. It is completely separate, with a different expectation for those that believe each evangel (earth for Israel Mat. 5:5, and the celestials/heaven for the body of Christ Eph. 2:6-7). It is true that Israel has been temporarily cast away, but they will be taken back (Rom. 11:15). Paul wants to makes sure that no one believes God is finished with His covenant nation (Rom 11:25). Rom 11:26-28: "And thus all Israel shall be saved, according as it is written, Arriving out of Zion shall be the Rescuer. He will be turning away irreverence from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them Whenever I should be eliminating their sins. As to the evangel, indeed, they are enemies because of you, yet, as to choice, they are beloved because of the fathers." Paul says that Israel is currently enemies of those who believe his evangel, but God will save ALL of Israel. This will happen when Israel is "born again". Yes, being born again is not a truth for individuals, it is for the nation of Israel. When Israel is "born again", they are given new hearts, hearts of flesh instead of stone and God writes the law on their hearts (Ezekiel 11:19, 36:26, Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10). This happens at the start of the 1000 year kingdom, and all Israel will know God and be the light of the world. Paul does not mention being "born again" in his epistles, and rightfully so, as that is an Israelite truth. Paul concerns himself with the New Creation (Gal. 6:15), which will have an effect on all of Creation, not just the nation of Israel.

"They teach it is a distinctive message that cannot be harmonized and must not be confused with the gospel according to Jesus and the gospel according to Peter.  Furthermore, they insist, Paul's gospel is the only gospel that has any immediate relevance for the present dipensation.  In effect, major portions of the New Testament--including all the major sermons and discourses of Jesus--are relegated to a place of diminished significance."

I do insist that Paul's evangel and the Circumcision evangel cannot be harmonized and are not to be mixed. These two evangels are true individually. You cannot mix grace and law. The law still plays a part in the Circumcision evangel. Here is James, a Circumcision writer: Jam 2:14,17,24: "What is the benefit, my brethren, if anyone should be saying he has faith, yet may have no works? That faith can not save him. ... Thus, also, is faith, if it should not have works: it is dead by itself. ... You see that by works a man is being justified, and not by faith only." 

Here is Paul, in heralding the evangel of the Uncircumcision: Rom 3:28; 4:2-5: "Of works? No! But through faith's law. For we are reckoning a man to be justified by faith apart from works of law. ... For if Abraham was justified by acts, he has something to boast in, but not toward God. For what is the scripture saying? Now "Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness." Now to the worker, the wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as a debt. Yet to him who is not working, yet is believing on Him Who is justifying the irreverent, his faith is reckoned for righteousness."

It is impossible to harmonize what these two men have written if one believes there is only one evangel in the scriptures. But when one understand that these two men are heralding different evangels, to different groups of people, all contradictions vanish. This is one of the most important keys to understanding the Greek scriptures, and most of christianity does not know it. Christianity as a whole wastes its time sharing a mixed gospel that is no gospel at all, this is why Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians. Some were trying to mix law into the evangel of grace Christ Jesus gave Paul to herald, and Paul would have none of this. Gal 1:6-7: "I am marveling that thus, swiftly, you are transferred from that which calls you in the grace of Christ, to a different evangel, which is not another, except it be that some who are disturbing you want also to distort the evangel of Christ."  Paul mentions the mixed evangel is not another, because he knows there is another other than his, the evangel of the Circumcision. See the series on Galatians I wrote for more on this (link at the bottom of this post). 

MacArthur employs an argument that I have heard and read many times, accusing those that believe Paul's evangel is separate of belittling Christ's words when He was on the earth, as well as the other letters not written by Paul.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  A letter written to a specific person, is of great importance to the person it is written to.  Jesus Himself, while he was on the earth said this: Mat 15:24: "Now He, answering, said, 'I was not commissioned except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'"  That is pretty clear language.  James, in the first verse of his letter, tells you who he is writing to: Jam 1:1: "James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes in the dispersion. Rejoice!"  In like manner, Peter tells us who he is writing to in 1 Peter 1: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen expatriates of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia,"  These details are important and in the scripture for a reason.  As Martin Zender often observes, if you removed Paul's 13 letters from the scriptures, you would have a consistent and continuous revelation to the nation of Israel.  Insisting that all of scripture is written to all is a mistake and leads to much error.  All scripture is for us, and we can learn and benefit from it (2 Tim. 3:16), but it is not all written to us.  The words of Jesus in the four accounts of His life and the Circumcision letters will become most important to those Israelites on the earth after the body of Christ has been snatched away and the last 7 years prophesied by Daniel is underway. In like manner, the letters of Paul will not be what these Israelites will be looking to to aid them in conquering (overcoming) during the coming Day of the Lord.  These faithful Israelites will be focusing on the letters written specifically to them.

The truth is Christ Jesus, who gave Paul his separate evangel, wants you to listen to Paul in this dispensation of Grace.  Through Paul’s evangel Christ is calling a group of believers that will reconcile the celestial realms back to God during the coming eons (Ephesians 1-3).  Israel will be shepherding the earth, while the body of Christ is reconciling the celestials.  These great truths are hidden from view when the evangels are mixed. 

"Most who hold these views also insist that it is wrong to speak of the lordship of Christ in connection with the gospel.  Our Lord's own teaching on the cost of discipleship and Peter's call to repentance at Pentecost are both set aside as irrelevant to the present dispensation.  Every theme that hints of Christ's authority is deemed as an artificial addition to the gospel message--because any reminder that Christ deserves our obedience supposedly corrupts grace with the implication of works."

It is no secret that MacArthur is a proponent of what is called "lordship salvation".  This belief is the result of mixing the two evangels, and mixing law and grace.  It is important to remember that the nation of Israel is the only nation that was given the law and under covenant to keep it.  A truth that is essential to the evangel of the grace of God is mentioned by Paul in Rom 5:20: "Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,"  This verse means what it says, in Paul's evangel, where sin increases, grace superexceeds.  This means that sin can never overcome grace.  A believer can never out-sin grace.  This is the very nature of Paul's evangel:  Rom 5:8: "yet God is commending this love of His to us, seeing that, while we are still sinners, Christ died for our sakes."  God sent His Son to die for us while we were sinners, while we were still infirm and irreverent: Rom 5:6: "For Christ, while we are still infirm, still in accord with the era, for the sake of the irreverent, died."  That is true grace and love, sending one's own Son to die for His enemies.  Rom 5:10: "For if, being enemies, we were conciliated to God through the death of His Son, much rather, being conciliated, we shall be saved in His life."  Paul introduces conciliation here, a concept which no other scripture writer mentions. The conciliation is the fact that God has effectievely removed the enmity between humanity and Himself, by sending his own Son to die for His enemies.  I have other blog posts and videos that go over conciliation in more detail.  MacArthur doesn't understand Paul's evangel, the evangel of the grace of God.  He mixes messages that are not meant to be mixed.  It is not only MacArthur that does this, most christian teachers do.  Rom 5:20 is not reconcilable with the Circumcision evangel.  The concept of conciliation and what God through Christ actually accomplished on the cross is foreign to MacArthur.

Those that insist on lordship salvation do not understand that saving grace, gratuitous grace from God, is the best trainer: Tit 2:11-12: "For the saving grace of God made its advent to all humanity, training us that, disowning irreverence and worldly desires, we should be living sanely and justly and devoutly in the current eon..."  Sharing the saving grace of God is exponentially better in training people to act sanely, justly and devoutly in this current eon than preaching the law ever has been or will be.  This is why, in the future, God will give Israel hearts of flesh and write the law on their hearts.  They will not be able to do anything but please God by following the law.  

This is not to say that Paul didn’t believe Christ Jesus was not made Lord of all: Rom 10:12 "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same One is Lord of all, being rich for all who are invoking Him." (See also Rom 14:8-9)  What Jesus Christ lovingly did was lay His life down for all mankind, and God His Father gave our Lord all authority on heaven and earth.  The statement “make Jesus the Lord of your life” is nowhere in scripture.  The scriptural truth is that Christ Jesus is already the Lord of all.

"Such a system defies Jesus' Great Commission: "Make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20)." 

Here is Matt 28:19-20: "Going, then, disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to be keeping all, whatever I direct you. And lo! I am with you all the days till the conclusion of the eon! Amen!

" Who did Jesus give this commission to? He gave it to the (at the time) eleven disciples. Have they fulfilled this commission or even attempted to? No they have have not......yet. In Acts, not once do we read of one of the disciples baptizing into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the holy spirit. It is always in the name of Jesus. Did the twelve disciples disciple all the nations? No. Was Jesus with them till the conclusion of the eon? No, he ascended into heaven. In the coming kingdom of heaven on the earth, in which Israel reigns, all of these things will be accomplished. The disciples will be resurrected, and they will be seated on twelve thrones (Matt 19:28). Israel, at that time, will disciple all the nations. Some believe that Matt 28:19 is corrupt, because this formula for baptism was never carried out in the scriptures, but it is possible the disciples were waiting until the kingdom comes in to use this formula. Jesus will be with them all of the days of the coming eon. Jesus returns to earth before this current eon ends, toward the end of the last 7 years prophesied for Israel by Daniel.

Paul never emphasized a physical baptism in his ministry, because physical baptism is a right of Israel for entrance into the coming kingdom. In fact he said he was not commissioned to baptize: "For Christ does not commission me to be baptizing, but to be bringing the evangel, not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ may be made void." (1 Cor. 1:17) Emphasizing a physical baptism would make the cross of Christ void.  Paul's evangel emphasizes the cross of Christ and what it accomplished, adding in any work, including baptism, is taking away from the completeness of the cross. The body of Christ is baptized into the death of Christ, which is not physical:  Rom 6:3-4: "Or are you ignorant that whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death? We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should be walking in newness of life."

MacArthur goes on: "Paul himself would have been a fierce opponent of "Pauline dipensationalism." He vigorously denounced the notion of multiple gospels."

Actually Paul did the exact opposite, defending his separate evangel from the evangel of the Circumcision. The first two chapters of Galatians are where Paul explicitly defends this fact. Again, see my series on Galatians where I go through every verse.

"He took pains to defend his apostolic status by documenting his perfect agreement with the rest of the apostles.  He said he learned the gospel directly from Christ Himself, just as the others had.  He stressed the truth that authentic Christianity has only "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5)." 

Yes, Paul did defend his apostleship for the nations. He did not ever say that he and the apostles to the Circumcision taught the same evangel. Paul did learn his evangel directly from Christ Himself. Paul, after 14 years, submitted his evangel to the other apostles (those of repute): Gal 2:1-2: "Thereupon, after the lapse of fourteen years, I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also along with me. Now I went up in accord with a revelation, and submitted to them the evangel which I am heralding among the nations, yet privately to those of repute, lest somehow I should be racing or ran for naught." Why would Paul need to submit his evangel to those in Jerusalem? Because they did not know it. It was not the same evangel. Again, my series on Galatians goes into more detail on this. What Paul does do is take great pains to defend his separate evangel from that that of the Circumcision and the twelve apostles.

Regarding Ephesians 4:5-- in Paul's evangel, there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism. Christ Jesus is the Lord, faith in Paul's evangel is the one faith, and baptism into Christ's death is that baptism. This verse is actually more evidence that Paul's evangel is indeed separate, because if Israel's physical baptism in water is included along with baptism into Christ's death, this makes two baptisms, not one. This verse cannot be used to prove there is only one evangel.

"Because Paul was not a member of the original core apostle company, and since his ministry rarely intersected directly with theirs, his complete agreement with them may not have been immediately obvious to all.  Furthermore, on one occasion, Paul had publicly disagreed with Peter (Gal. 2:11-21).  That disagreement was not about any point of doctrine; it had to do with Peter's potentially divisive behavior toward some Gentile brethren when Peter was in the presence of some legalistic false teachers."

Yes, Paul and the other apostles agreed that Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised to Israel and that God resurrected Him from the dead. This does not mean they preached the same evangel; we have no evidence in the scripture that Peter believed he was justified by the faith of Christ (Gal 2:16, Rom 3:21-22). These "legalistic false teachers" as MacArthur calls them are actually Circumcision believers: Gal 2:12: "For, before the coming of some from James, he ate together with those of the nations. Yet when they came, he shrank back, and severed himself, fearing those of the Circumcision." These were men from James, believers of the Circumcision. We have no reason to believe this James is different than the James Paul mentions in Gal 1:19 and 2:9. In the Circumcision evangel, Israelites still have preeminence. When James, Peter and John give Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, in Gal 2:9, they acknowledged Paul's separate evangel and ministry. This was not an acknowledgment that Paul would be taking the Circumcision evangel (or a false, mixed evangel) to the nations, while Peter and the others were to only preach to Israelites. That idea goes against Jesus' words in the so called "great commission." Peter himself said that some things Paul wrote were hard to apprehend (2 Pet. 3:15-16); James and men "of him" obviously did not fully comprehend Paul's ministry, and Peter needed to be reminded here in Gal 2. God is doing something different among the nations than He was with Israel and will be in the future. Paul goes over this in Romans 11.

"But a careful look at the biblical record reveals that Paul never set himself or his message against the preaching of the other apostles.  Even the expression "my gospel" (Rom. 2:16, 16:25, 2 Tim. 2:8) wasn't a claim of exclusive ownership or ascendancy over the others.  The expression simply indicates Paul's deeply personal devotion to the message Christ had graciously commissioned him to proclaim.  The apostles were all in full agreement when it came to the content of the gospel, and Paul was prepared to prove it.  He does so in Galatians 1-2."

I hope that I have shown that what MacArthur has done in this section is not as much of "a careful look at the biblical record" as it is a toeing of the traditional line. I don't how MacArthur can simply shrug off the fact Paul uses the expression "my gospel (evangel)" three times in his epistles. No other writer of scripture uses this expression. The words God has His writers use are there for a reason. There is much more to the expression "my evangel" than an indication of personal devotion. Paul was singled out by the risen Christ Jesus to be the herald of the evangel of the Uncircumcision and be the writer of scripture pertaining to that evangel. 

MacArthur is incorrect when he states all the apostles agreed on the content of a (single) evangel. The apostles understood there were two, after the apostle Paul submitted his evangel to them in Jerusalem. In Galatians 1-2 Paul does the exact opposite of what MacArthur claims here; Paul instead defends his evangel and apostleship as separate from that of the Circumcision.

Since MacArthur does not understand the difference between the evangel of the Circumcision and the evangel of the Uncircumcision, MacArthur spends the rest of his book mixing truths from each, and in the process making the truths void. The result is the preaching of a different evangel, which is not another (Gal 1:6-7). I do not recommend you read the rest of MacArthur's book, the premise that there is only one evangel is false. If the foundation of a teaching is false, the rest of the teaching built on this foundation is also false.




If you have taken the time to read through this entire post, I am happy. If the information I have presented here is new to you, I am sure many questions have come into your mind. I am also happy if that is the case. This post is not meant to be a deep dive on the content and implications of each evangel, the evangel of the Circumcision and the evangel of the Uncircumcision, instead I wrote this refutation to show how the most common arguments that attempt to prove there is only one evangel fall short, don't fit scripture as whole, and introduce contradictions that cannot be ignored. I can wholeheartedly recommend a book that goes into the differences of these two evangels in great detail, that book is The First Idiot in Heaven: Secrets of the Apostle Paul (And why the meek merely inherit the earth) by Martin Zender. I encourage you to get a copy and read it through. You can get a copy here: The First Idiot in Heaven.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other helpful resources:

A Study on the Two Evangels by Aaron Welch

Paul Heralds a Separate Gospel from the 12 Apostles

My Series on Galatians

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Works Cited:

 

MacArthur, J. (2017). No Other Gospel. In The Gospel According to Paul : Embracing the Good News at the Heart of Paul’s Teachings (pp. 2–4). essay, Nelson Books.