Category Archives: Interpreting the Bible

The ‘Different’ Gospels of Paul and Peter?

Posted on by
Reply

Once again, the claim that Paul taught a different gospel than Peter and other 11 apostles. It’s true. I saw a mem in a Facebook group that not only made the announcement, it provided a long list of passages from the Bible! Here’s the meme:

image

DID Paul preach a “different” gospel than Peter and the other 11 apostles? No fewer than twelve passages of scripture are offered to ‘prove’ that he did. In order to find out if any of those passages actually ‘prove’ the different gospel claim, I copy/pasted all of them into a new document in order to try and find out why they were given as proof texts. Here are the results of my labor:

1. Paul used the term “my gospel” in Rom 2:16 and Rom 16:25-26. Paul was in no way claiming that he ‘owned’ or had a special, unique, or different gospel, but was simply referring to the gospel that he was commissioned to preach.

2. Paul connected himself to the gospel by using terms like “the gospel you heard/received (from me); “the gospel we preached” (Paul and his ministry team); “I (Paul) was made a minister of the gospel. There is no mention whatsoever of the gospel Paul preached being different than the gospel preached by Peter and the 11.

3. Paul mentioned “Gentiles” four times in the ‘proof’ texts. He called Gentiles “fellowheirs” (with Israel) in Eph 3:6 and stated that he was given the primary mission of ministering the gospel to the gentiles three times in the ‘proof’ texts; Eph 3:1 and 3:8, and in Gal 2:8:

Eph 3:6  That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Eph 3:1  For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

Eph 3:8  Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ

Gal 2:8  (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:

In that entire list of ‘proof’ texts, there is only one passage that talks about the gospel taught by Paul (and his team), as well as the gospel taught by Peter and the 11:

Gal 2:7-10 “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.”

Not only is there no explicit indication that there were two separate and different gospels (for the circumcised and the uncircumcised), the opposite is true. That’s not just my personal opinion. I consulted no less than seven notable commentaries and all of them agree that while Peter and the 11 were to teach the gospel primarily to a Jewish audience, Paul’s mission was to teach the same gospel primarily to Gentiles (non-Jews). Here are two examples:

“The elder Apostles recognised St. Paul because they saw that his teaching was fundamentally the same as their own. At the same time, the success of St. Paul among the Gentiles proved that his mission to them had the divine sanction, just as the success of St. Peter among the Jews specially marked him out as the “Apostle of the circumcision.” – Ellicott

“The gospel of the uncircumcision – The duty of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised part of the world; that is, to the Gentiles Paul had received this as his unique office when he was converted and called to the ministry (see Acts 9:15; Acts 22:21); and they now perceived that he had been specially intrusted with this office, from the remarkable success which had attended his labors. It is evidently not meant here that Paul was to preach only to the Gentiles and Peter only to the Jews, for Paul often preached in the synagogues of the Jews, and Peter was the first who preached to a Gentile Acts 10; but it is meant that it was the main business of Paul to preach to the Gentiles, or that this was especially entrusted to him.

As the gospel of the circumcision – As the office of preaching the gospel to the Jews.

Was unto Peter – Peter was to preach principally to the circumcised Jews. It is evident that until this time Peter had been principally employed in preaching to the Jews. Paul selects Peter here particularly, doubtless because he was the oldest of the apostles, and in order to show that he was himself regarded as on a level in regard to the apostleship with the most aged and venerable of those who had been called to the apostolic office by the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus.” Barnes

Conclusion? There has always been and will always be ONE gospel. Peter and the 11 had as their primary audience Jews while Paul had as his primary audience non-Jews (Gentiles). Period.

For an old guy like me, that conclusion should be clear to a the average High School English student, assuming they still teach reading comprehension in HS. So why the constant false claim in some circles of professing Christianity?

The answer to that question, in mu my mind anyway, is that we believe what we want to believe. You see, the ‘different’ gospel claim was the product of a form of  Dispensationalism developed in the 19th century that took the took the separation of Israel and the New Testament church taught by some Dispensationalists to illogical extremes. But that’s another story.

How can we respond to the above erroneous claims? Well, like i did for this one, we can examine ‘proof’ texts to see if they actually contain the advertised ‘proof’. We don’t do so with an eye to ‘attack’ the offered proof, but only to examine and perhaps explain the results of our labors, as I have done with this blog. I also offered the results of published here in the FB post containing the meme shown above. Perhaps it will be profitable for readers, but perhaps not.

While I realize that sometimes we need to just walk away from some posts on social media, there are times when someone just might pay attention and grow in their faith walk. All of that’s a personal decision.

BE BLESSED!

It’s the Economy, Stupid!

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve all heard that one so many times, it probably seems a bit trite. It’s a phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992, when he was a campaign strategist for Bill Clinton. His phrase was directed at the campaign’s workers and intended as one of three messages for them to focus on. Well, it seems like it’s a main theme for the ongoing campaign for the next U.S. President, and by both sides, at that! And after all, making a decent living and being able to afford some of life’s little extras while putting away something for the future is a huge concern for most, if not all Americans, especially for Ed and Norma Normally!

Before I get too far down this rabbit trail, let’s get to the point. How many of you ever been involved in a discussion about a passage of Scripture or particular topic in which your frustration level has risen to the point of wanting to scream “It’s in the text, stupid! I can’t lie. I have, and it’s not a demonstration of proper Christian behavior.

That brings me to the real topic of this article, the clarity of Scripture. There’s even a great theological term for it; “perspicuity”, meaning clarity or understandability. If we are talking about the text of Scripture we’re not just talking about a single passage or paragraph, but we are also talking about spiritual principles, and especially those that seem to say one thing in one place in the Bible, and something different in other places. Let’s get to it!

THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE

This principle tells us to let the Bible speak for itself. We should allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, since it is its own best interpreter and commentator. Move from the known to the unknown by interpreting unclear passages in the light of those which are clear. When wrestling with a difficult passage or seemingly contradictory passages consult other verses which deal with the same topic. Now that might seem simple in theory, but it’s always good to have some examples. We’ll look at just one example, having to do with a topic near and dear to our hearts, salvation.

1. Are we saved and justified by faith alone, or by faith plus works? Most, if not all of you are thinking “That’s easy, we are saved by faith!” You even have passages from the Bible already tucked away in your memory, waiting to be called upon at a moment’s notice. You’re standing at home plate, batting cleanup in the lineup, smiling at the opposing pitcher!

Then, either while reading your own Bible during your private time, or during a conversation with others, you come face to face with the following passages (NKJV):

“Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (Jas 2:17)

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (Jas 2:24)

“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (Jas 2:26)

What do you do? How do you respond to that curveball? First, stay calm, no matter how adamantly that guy in the Facebook group presses his point. Calm down and politely share the passages stored away for just such a moment, and others, if you have them:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Eph 2:8-9)

“So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Act 16:31)

“Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (Rom 3:28)

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”. (Joh 3:16)

Your conversation partner will either stubbornly stick by his guns and say to you, “You didn’t read James?. It’s right there in the text!” Or he might claim that some of the passages you shared don’t have the word “alone” and that Martin Luther added the word alone to Rom 3:28 and therefore works are required for salvation, or he might realize that both sets of passages MUST be true, since God wrote the book (the goal). The authors of those passages (James, Paul, and Luke) were divinely inspired to write what they wrote. It’s either that or somebody’s lying.

That still leaves one question that needs to be answered. What does ‘justification’ in James 2:24 mean? This is where the fun begins. Let’s examine the context of James, chapter 2, beginning with verse 14:

“ 18But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ And he was called the friend of God. 24You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

In that section of James, chapter 2 is there a connection between ‘faith’ and ‘works’? Is this a “DUH!!” moment, or what? Look again at verses 15-17 again: 

“15If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17Thus also, faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (emphasis mine)

James is most likely writing to predominately Jewish Christians in house churches outside of Palestine[i]. He is telling them that if there is someone in need among them and they just send them off with a blessing and don’t meet their need, their professed faith is dead, tot, Muerte!

Now back to verse 14:

“14What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”

What does this, along with the rest of this section of Scripture, tell us? Genuine, saving faith will always produce works. Conversely, ‘professed’ faith that doesn’t result in works was dead in the water to begin with. The justification spoken of in James, chapter 2 is justification before our fellow men.

I know that was a bit lengthy, but those two bits of Scripture, while presenting what looks like a clear contradiction is one of the best demonstrations of the letting Scripture interpret Scripture that I know of.

So what about those “James Carvill” moments? They are opportunities for stepping back, taking a deep breath, and becoming more Christlike in our communication skills!

image

BE BLESSED!

[i] Introduction to James (blueletterbible.org)