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 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."
"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
—————————————————————————————————————————-
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment