The Stealth War Against
The Truth of the Gospel
By William Handschumacher
The Stealth War in the Early Church
TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION ABOUT THE CONFLICT BETWEEN JAMES AND PAUL...
James the half brother of Jesus (who wrote the epistle of James in the New Testament) is associated with Peter and the Jewish apostles in Jerusalem and taught the Jewish kingdom gospel that sought justification through works of the Mosaic Law and faith in Christ. The adherents of this gospel continued to teach a form of righteousness through works for several years following Christ's crucifixion. Until the apostle Paul arrived on the scene, the Jewish "works oriented" gospel was the only one taught to the people and it came directly or indirectly from the 12 Jewish apostles in Jerusalem. However, Paul's meeting with Jesus our Lord on the road to Damascus changed everything. If you read the opening salutation of James' epistle you'll see that his target audience was "circumcised Jews" and not the "uncircumcised gentiles" under Paul's apostolic authority. This is one reason I said earlier, that as modern day Christians reading an English translation of the Scriptures, WE MUST discern what is said AND TO WHOM. Why? Because there are two administrations discussed AND IN OPERATION in the New Testament section of our Bible. One administration (the old covenant and its religious principles) is being "phased out" by God himself because of Israel's act of crucifying the Messiah of their kingdom. The old covenant religious system finally collapsed in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, as Jesus predicted. God will deal with Israel about their grievous sin at a future time (not to be discussed here). The other administration (the new and better covenant based on Christ's blood) is being "phased in" AT THE SAME TIME. It's the overlap (gray area) of these two administrations, covering a time span of some 70 years that causes massive confusion and disagreement among believers because GOD IS CHANGING THE GOSPEL MESSAGES and the New Testament section of our Bible covers this transition. The overlap of these two blood covenant administrations occur during the lifetime of the authors of the New Testament section of our Bible. What James said is proper for his target Jewish "circumcised" audience--but wrong for "uncircumcised" gentile believers that are under Paul's authority and new covenant principles. Here is the opening salutation of the book of James:
"James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings."
Notice that the epistle of James is addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel (understood in those days as the Jewish circumcision).
Reformed theology claims that the instruction James gives is binding on modern day Christians even though he clearly does not address his epistle to us. The average Christian just assumes that it must be meant for them because the translators and scholars that assembled our English Bible placed it in the New Testament canon. Reformed theology teaches that the New Testament Church is the "new Israel" (or Israel has been replaced with the Church), so for them the salutation of James that addresses his epistle to the Jewish circumcision does not matter. This means that his message of justification by works applies to the Church under Grace as well. However, the rules of context demand that the salutation of James DOES MATTER. This common and popular teaching makes it appear that the Bible contradicts itself. Paul teaches a "free justification" message and James seems to contradict him with a "justification by works message". The confusion is caused by the "wrong-headed reasoning" of reformed theology. James and Paul are not sending a contradicting message to the same group of believers. They are each sending a different message, with each message aimed at a different group of believers.
"...being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Words of Paul from Rom. 3:24)
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (Words of James from James 2:24)
Paul's position on justification by "works" can also be summed up in the following Scripture:
"NOW TO HIM THAT WORKETH IS THE REWARD NOT RECKONED OF GRACE, BUT OF DEBT. BUT TO HIM THAT WORKETH NOT, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, HIS FAITH IS COUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness WITHOUT WORKS, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Romans 4:4-8)
Notice that unlike James' gospel, Paul's gospel message says that justification is by grace and therefore “freely given”. The words "grace" and "freely" mean no works or performance are required to possess the benefit. Paul also tells us that God grants righteousness to new covenant believers by a specific type of faith that "worketh not". Other clearly understood phrases are used to describe Paul's grace gospel like, "God imputeth righteousness without works". These characteristics can never be equated to the message of James.
Most preachers attempt to dodge the controversy over this contradiction by claiming that James and Paul are really "saying the same thing" and they sincerely believe this to be true. Preachers hold this belief because he or she is probably an adherent of reformed theology that insists that they are actually "the same message". However, their teaching in this matter is wrong. When you understand that there are two administrations and not one--when you understand that there are two gospel messages and not one--you can easily see that there is no contradiction at all, and the statements of both men are proper because their gospel messages are "specifically directed" at two different groups of people living in different dispensations, both of which are recorded in our Bible. Listen to the words of the apostle Paul speaking about these two gospels....
"....when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen(uncircumcised), and they unto the circumcision." (Galatians 2:7-9)
Nearly all modern-day believers are taught (or assume) that these two gospels mentioned by Paul are both the same. It also doesn't help that most Christians "tune out" when they hear terms like circumcision and uncircumcision in the Bible. This causes them to miss an important truth. The fact that God separates and assigns these two gospels to different apostles (and different assigned audiences) should tell you that they are not the same. If the messages were the same God would combine everything together under one gospel. BUT, GOD DID NOT COMBINE THEM. Two distinct gospels are mentioned. Notice that the "gospel of the circumcision"("The twelve tribes of Israel" are the circumcision in James' epistle) is assigned to Peter, one of the chief Jewish apostles in Jerusalem. Also notice that the "gospel of the uncircumcision" (referred to in the New Testament Scriptures as the "gentiles") is assigned exclusively to Paul, who is referred to in Scripture as "the apostle to the gentiles" (Rom. 11:13). These different titles that signify different spheres of "apostolic authority" carry important meanings that almost no modern-day Christian acknowledges. Our Bible spans nearly 7000 years of human history and covers both of these gospel "administrations". Remember that the "gospel of the circumcision" is directly tied to works of the Mosaic Law because that's what the word "circumcision" implies. Yet, today the Church is only under one, which is the gospel of the uncircumcision (also known as the Gospel of Grace) given to Paul. Again, these are different messages for different target audiences. It also clears up the age-old controversy about the disagreement between James and Paul--if you can receive it.
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Words of Paul Gal. 1:11-12)
Only Paul could make this cliam. The twelve Jewish apostles (including James) could not make this claim because the gospel they preached was different!
A Popular Rebuttal
A common defense for those who adhere to "Reformed Theology" is actually based in fear. You might hear them say something like....
"So...You dispensationalists are actually throwing out part of the Bible! What gives you the right to just "throw away" the part of the Bible that you don't agree with? We know that God's Word is written to and applies to everyone. You are misleading people."
No truly "born-again" believer in Christ wants to be accused of throwing away sections of God's Word. This accusation does exactly what it's designed to do, it creates fear--and then uses that fear as a way to keep believers from asking too many questions. What we should do is look to see if God's Word supports the dispensational position. First of all, no one is "throwing out" sections of God's Word. God is asking us to "discern" the difference between two Divine covenant dispensations in the Bible and how they are applied. Acts chapter 15 offers "crucially important" evidence to help us properly discern these issues. It tells us about the future spiritual battle that the Church would fight over "the truth of the Gospel" from the period of the early church...until the end of the age (where we are now). It clearly defines the group that Paul fought during his entire ministry. This is a group we continue to fight today with different names that exist in our own ranks. Yet, if you read Acts chapter 15 with great care, you'll see what I mean. If you can receive what it says, it will destroy the bondage of the old covenant and bring a quiet confidence and assurance into your relationship with God as a "new covenant" believer.
To be as brief as possible I will give a synopsis of Acts chapter 15 below. Some Bible scholars refer to this "dispute over doctrine" to be "The First Jerusalem Council". I assume that you (the reader) have read it yourself and understand the story and context.
1) In verses 1 through 5 we are introduced to two similar groups of men, one of which were "Pharisees who believed". Note that these Pharisees were a unique group who had come to faith in Christ after his crucifixion. So far everything sounds good. It tells us that these influential religious leaders are now teaching about Christ, unlike their fellow Pharisees a few years before who hated Jesus and agreed to have him crucified.
2) The problem occurs when these "believing Pharisees" disagree with Paul's gospel message to gentile believers by insisting that it must include "circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses".
3) All the apostles and elders got together to consider this matter.
4) I found it interesting that Peter (verse 10) comments about the Law of Moses by saying, "why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Sounds like he's talking about the old covenant of bondage we read about earlier, doesn't it?
5) The council decided NOT to place the "keeping of the Law of Moses" on gentile believers except for four things that carried over.
6) It's important to note that the council did not say that if gentile believers violated these exceptions that they would lose their salvation. They only said "If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well."
7) Here's the letter the council wrote to the gentile believers (and believers in Christ living today):
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment--it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
[ End of synopsis ]
Concerning the popular "God's Word is one message" view of reformed theology...something from Acts 15 should be shockingly apparent to the reader. How could this council, which included the apostles of Christ and Saint Paul, just decide to "throw out" a major part of God's Word when defining Paul's gospel message to the gentiles, by saying that the Mosaic Law does not apply? The last time I looked, the Mosaic Law covered a large part of the Old Testament Scriptures in our Bible. The last time I looked, most of the modern church included the Old Testament Scriptures as part of "The Word of God". When we understand that God's Word is "divided" into two covenants, with two different messages, intended for two different groups of people, we can begin to see the Bible in a totally different light. This is what the "First Jerusalem Council" decided; that there are two uniquely different gospel messages included in God's Word. Notice that it was the "believing Pharisees" that wanted to make it all "one message".
Here's the problem. Just because the Jerusalem council made this final official decision about Paul's gospel didn't mean that these "believing Pharisees" (who lost the argument) considered the matter closed. Church history reveals...from that moment on that they decided to teach their wrong doctrine THAT ADDED THE MOSAIC LAW BACK INTO THE GOSPEL everywhere Paul traveled. Once Paul established a fellowship and left the city, these "Christ believing Pharisees" would come in behind him and trick the new converts into believing "a different gospel of Christ". When you understand the situation, you will know who Paul is talking about in his epistles when he uses terms like "false brethren"--those that teach "a different gospel"--those that preach "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4)--Satanic "angels of light" (2 Cor. 11:14) transforming themselves into "ministers of righteousness" (2 Cor. 11:15)--grievous wolves entering in not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29)--and other such inflammatory and insulting names. Some Christians today would say that Paul needed a refresher course on "walking in love". Yet, Paul was walking in love. He loved the new gentile believers enough that he didn't want them led astray in their faith. Since these false ministers claimed to believe on Christ, they probably preached about how he died for our sins and rose from the dead. Yet, the salvation (promise of eternal life) of their Christ was connected to the various works and practices of "keeping the Mosaic Law" in order to be justified. That's why Paul called their Jesus, "another Jesus" and their gospel, "a different gospel". Here's the shocker: These "Christ believing Pharisees" used the same Scriptures found in our Bible as their defense. They accomplished their agenda by ignoring and abusing the context of Scripture. It's still going on today. That's why their doctrine is so convincing and deceptive. Even the elect of God can be deceived by it.
I was astonished and dismayed once I discovered the meaning behind this "unpopular" and often neglected area of New Testament Scripture. Why? I was trained to think like these "believing Pharisees" as a young inexperienced Christian. I can only imagine the intensity of Paul's anger as he watched those under his care seduced by these religious "believers in Christ" who appeared to be following and preaching the Christ of the new covenant, but were not. I've worked my entire Christian life with a desire to see the body of Christ come together in unity. But now, my Christian worldview is turned upside down and my dream of unity looks impossible. Everywhere I turn I'm confronted with this wrong way of believing among Christians, who sincerely think they have a grasp of Biblical truth. This kind of theology is truly "pandemic" in its size and scope. Once you see the problem, it changes your whole perception of the church world. The modern Christian church is not one big happy family as long as these popular unbiblical practices are allowed to define it. And...if you're someone who is constantly asking God to show you the truth--be careful what you ask for, you might get it. Truth doesn't always show up the way we want it. This truth can literally "blow you out of the water" if you insist on holding the popular "seeker sensitive" mentality that's common in churches today. I call it, "big tent Christianity". Some Christians wrongly call it "walking in love". It's a humanistic effort within the worldwide Christian Church to unify traditions and beliefs that God does not want to "unify". This kind of false unity is promoted to accomplish man's theological agenda, not God's goals. Yet, it sounds spiritually persuasive when you hear it preached. Real Biblical truth always brings division. God set it up that way. This kind of division is designed to "purify" and purge doctrines and traditions that are false. Paul never practiced this kind of "unity at the cost of truth evangelism" found in the modern church world.
The Two Kinds of Covenant Righteousness
I slowly began to comprehend that many famous and popular Christian authors, musicians and preachers were teaching the doctrine of the "believing Pharisees" while claiming that they were preaching "the Word of God". To the casual inexperienced observer their words seem to be correct. However, an all-important question must be asked: Which covenant in their "Word of God" message are they preaching--the old covenant, the new covenant, or a mixture? I've had Christian friends say to me that it doesn't really matter if it's found in God's Word. They say, "God's Word says it, I believe it, and that settles it." It doesn't really matter? Paul said that it mattered when he commanded his young disciple Timothy to "rightly divide God's Word"(2 Timothy 2:15). He then used inflammatory names against those that said, "it doesn't matter" to illustrate the seriousness of the problem. One term Paul used was "satanic angels of light masquerading (or transforming themselves) as MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS". In this instance he was referring to those who taught an "old covenant works righteousness" (taught in our Bible) instead of the "free gift of righteousness" (Romans 5:12-21) that Christ's new blood covenant provided (also taught in our Bible). Most Christians fail to realize that there are two types of righteousness in the Scriptures and you have to discern which one applies. THE PREACHERS THAT OPPOSED PAUL TAUGHT THE WRONG ONE FROM THE SCRIPTURES TO GENTILE BELIEVERS! This is the reason why Paul referred to them as satanic (or demonic) "angels of light masquerading as ministers of righteousness". In Philippians 3:18 he uses another term to describe these false ministers. Paul accuses them of being "enemies of the cross of Christ". Keep in mind that these are Paul's words and not mine. It is obvious that he is very angry about this whole situation. If Paul were alive today he would be thrown out of most churches for a failure to "walk in love" with his brothers and sisters in Christ. Why did he use such an offensive term against those who appeared to be fellow Christians that believed in Christ? They perverted Christ's new covenant by reconnecting it to the "works righteousness" requirement of the Mosaic Law (the old covenant) while claiming they were preaching the "Whole Word of God". On one hand they appeared to be "friends of Christ's cross" by teaching from the Bible. Yet, their "works righteousness" message of the Mosaic Law actually exposed them as being an enemy of Christ's cross. (Important note: It's "the cross of Christ" that put the new covenant into existence) Many churches today TEACH THE SAME MESSAGE AS THESE FALSE MINISTERS IN PAUL'S DAY, yet they are universally accepted as "Christian" organizations to preserve peace and unity. No effort is made to see if they pass Paul's faith test from the Scriptures (2 Cor. 13:5). Paul's test cannot be applied today because it is designed to expose the counterfeit theology of these false, yet popular "ministers of righteousness". That would ignite bitter division and would cause a very violent spiritual war of words to erupt. In this example, we can see how context is crucially important. It is the dividing line between being a friend of Christ, or an enemy.
I started to realize these preachers and teachers that Paul called false "ministers of righteousness" can be good-hearted, loving and sincere people that claim to be preaching "the whole Word of God". However, most of these folks are completely unaware that they're teaching something "out of context" from God's Word that "perverts and corrupts" God's original intention of the new covenant. They can hold large services with 50,000 in attendance where they "preach the Word of God", and have exciting gospel worship music that "praises and glorifies Jesus", in impressive multi-million dollar church buildings (or modest church buildings). They can have large evangelistic ministry outreaches in many countries of the world and educational degrees from prestigious seminaries. It became clear to me that the average Christian has little chance of seeing the danger. Why? The majority of us are taught to ignore Paul's warnings (or the warnings are simply "redefined") by our church or denomination BECAUSE THEY ARE DIVISIVE AND DISRUPTIVE TO THE GOALS OF THE ORGANIZATION. It interferes with all kinds of modern "church growth" programs where "political influence" and literally millions of dollars are at risk. All Christians I meet sincerely claim to "believe in Jesus Christ" and "believe the gospel". But the all-important question is this: WHICH JESUS AND WHICH GOSPEL DO THEY BELIEVE IN?
Only a small minority of believers wants to face this kind of New Testament scrutiny because it's a painful process. I call these rare individuals "truth seekers". Very few church organizations will acknowledge Paul's warnings because it interferes with their personal ministry ambitions. Fear is used as a manipulation "tool" in the message of the false ministers of righteousness: Fear of being rejected by God, fear of losing salvation through sin, fear of failing to meet certain standards, fear of peer group rejection, and so on. Fear that is embedded in the principles of the old covenant is a proven and effective method to control "people of faith". When fear of this nature is used, liberty in Christ cannot exist. Various forms of theology that use this kind of fear have operated in the church for thousands of years. The new covenant eternally destroys this fear and sets us "free in Christ". All the things God required of us under the old covenant is fulfilled by Christ (on our behalf) under the new covenant. That's why it's called "good news". That's why eternal life is called "the gift of God". That's why the new covenant is referred to as "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that sets us free." This "liberty in Christ" destroys a very powerful religious "tool of control", which is why it's under attack from leaders inside the church. These are some of the reasons Paul commanded believers in the early church "to test themselves" to see if they are truly "in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5). Why did he give this command? The counterfeit message preached by these false "ministers of righteousness" can easily deceive believers because it is taught from the same Holy Scriptures (the Bible). Sadly, I think many professing Christians follow "a way that seems right, but the end is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12, 16:25). There are two covenant administrations with "two different types of righteousness" and "two different types of faith" found in the Bible. Which type of righteousness do you possess? Which type of faith do you have? Various types of reformed theology falsely teach that there is only one type of righteousness and one type of faith taught in the Bible. This is a popular belief found in many forms of "fundamental Christian doctrine". Being a Pharisee himself, Paul intimately knew about the spiritual deception the New Covenant Church faced. If we believe the doctrine of the counterfeit ministers of God that preach a "Jesus plus works gospel", or one of the many different "variants"--then according to Paul we fail the test. The frightening part is, not knowing the real consequences of this failure. Paul told us that this test is critically important. Yet, few Christians today heed his words.
James and Paul Meet In Jerusalem
(Read Acts 21: 17-40 for the story)
Paul met with James during his visit to Jerusalem. This event gives us a rare glimpse of the unstable "state of affairs" in the first century during the time our New Testament Scriptures were written. I've never heard this meeting described correctly in a church service. Paul's ministry to uncircumcised gentile believers in Christ (which omits the Mosaic Law for justification according to Acts chapter 15) was causing serious anger and unrest among circumcised Jewish believers in Christ (who were taught that the works of the Mosaic Law are necessary for justification). Note that both groups are referred to as "believers in Christ", yet were trained to believe totally different things about the Law's role in justification. Also note how James and the elders in Jerusalem describe the believers in Christ that they had brought into the faith: (James and the elders said to Paul) "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are WHO HAVE BELIEVED, AND THEY ARE ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW" (Acts 21:17-20). It is clear that James and the Jewish elders with him were excited about their group.
Acts chapter 21 proves the existence of these two groups and clearly reveals the difference between them, if you can receive it. The gentile believers were brought to "faith in Christ" under Paul's "gospel for the uncircumcision"--and the Jewish believers were brought to "faith in Christ" under the Jewish "gospel for the circumcision" that James and the other Jewish apostles preached from Jerusalem. Remember that until Jesus called Paul on the Damascus road, the only gospel being preached in the earth was the one from James and the apostles in Jerusalem--and this gospel was associated with the works of the Law because God had not yet revealed to anyone that the "works of the Law" requirement for justification were being "phased out". It is important to note that James both understood and respected the fact that these two messages were different, yet correct for their intended audiences. James held no ill will toward Paul. It is recorded in this chapter that James and these elders said to Paul that they understood that the decision of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 to omit the "keeping of the Mosaic Law" from his gospel message was correct (read verse 25). This admission by James is important in our discussion because it proves beyond a doubt that we're dealing with two different gospel messages that produced two different groups of "believers in Christ" in the New Testament canon. However, the Jewish believers in Christ (the circumcision that held to the Mosaic Law) were angry with Paul for teaching the gentiles that the Law that they revered "didn't apply". This lack of understanding probably occurred because they were not aware of the council's official decision, or that their teachers didn't tell them. The Scripture doesn't say why. To keep violence from breaking out James gives some advice to Paul to trick the crowd into thinking that their perception of his "omission of the Law" was incorrect. Emotions were running high and James was attempting to avoid a major riot in Jerusalem. The plan worked for a while, but seven days later the riot erupted and Paul was arrested. The remainder of Acts chapter 21 and chapter 22 records Paul's defense before his Jewish brethren. The situation seems to end peacefully. However, this gives us a better view of why the "justification by works" message that James preached to his Jewish disciples from the Mosaic Law is different than the "freely justified" message of Grace that Paul gives to the mostly gentile Church today. Reformed theology takes the unbiblical liberty (called "spiritualizing Scripture") of merging these "believing Jews" and the "believing gentiles" into one group--and then combining the gospel message of each group (that the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 said were separate and different) into the modern false teaching of "justified initially by grace and remaining justified through works".
Paul Rebukes Peter Concerning
His Conduct Around James
(Read Galatians 2:11-16)
Here's another powerful example. Once again we should remember that "believing Jews" (also known as the circumcision) were "believers in Christ" who were taught that justification came by works associated with the Law. This group was the first to exist after Christ's crucifixion, and BEFORE Jesus called Paul on the Damascus road. In the Galatians 2:11 example, Paul publicly accuses Peter of hypocrisy. This means Paul "publicly embarrassed" a major New Testament apostle! However, you have to understand the facts that drove Paul to take this radical action. According to the Mosaic Law it was strictly forbidden for a Jew to eat with a gentile--because under the old covenant God had previously declared the gentile races "unclean". However, we are now under the "new covenant of Christ", which changes all the previous rules and declares the gentiles "clean". God told Peter to visit the house of a gentile, and Peter resisted this Divine request. Peter had a vision--a direct encounter with God that totally did away with this Mosaic Law restriction (Read Acts Chapter 10). Concerning the uncleanness of the gentiles God told Peter, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." In other words, God was telling Peter that his relationship with the gentiles has radically changed, and that he needed to change with it. As a result, God commanded Peter (and those with him) to go to the house of Cornelius (a gentile "uncircumcised" home). Peter and his team had dinner with them and preached Christ in direct violation to a major Mosaic Law commandment. As a result of Peter's preaching, God pours out the Holy Spirit on the gentiles (as they believed on Christ during his message) just like He did on the Jews gathered in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. This one event is a major new covenant milestone in the Scriptures. It totally shocked Peter and his team who were all circumcised Jews and was trained under the old covenant to believe that circumcised Israel was the only ones entitled to such a relationship with God.
Now let's go back to Paul's rebuke in Galatians 2:11. Since the day at Cornelius' house, Peter felt the freedom to enjoy a meal with gentile believers EXCEPT WHEN JAMES AND THE CIRCUMCISION WAS AROUND. When it came time to eat and James and his group of Jewish believers were present--Peter would disappear rather than allowing them to see him eating with the gentiles. We already witnessed how a major riot broke out in Jerusalem over a similar issue when Paul visited in Acts chapter 21. Peter knew of the contention and the potential for violence. Shortly after his evangelistic encounter at the household of Cornelius, Jewish believers in Christ strongly condemned Peter for violating the Law by going into a gentile home and eating with them (Acts 11:1). This was a serious accusation in those days that many of us in the modern church will never understand. Rather than go through the experience all over again with James (who was a major leader in Jerusalem) and his Jewish "circumcision" group, Peter just avoided the confrontation and withdrew himself. Paul did not consider this a "minor issue" and proceeded to charge Peter publicly with hypocrisy. Why? Because Peter (and also Barnabas), through their act of "withdrawing", was continuing to give the Mosaic Law of the old covenant the power to reject and condemn gentiles--when God through the new covenant (Paul's gospel message) declares them clean and freely justified. He accused Peter and Barnabas of "not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel". Paul's rebuke was a defense of "the truth of the gospel"--not the "gospel of the circumcision" that included the Mosaic Law, but his gospel that omitted the Law and allowed the gentiles (the uncircumcised--those of us today) to be "freely justified". Notice that in Peter's vision, God declared the gentiles "clean" without any requirements of works on their part. This is what "freely justified" means. It's God saying that I'm declaring you "clean" and I'm giving this Divine status to you freely! Important note: The group that traveled with James DID NOT practice Paul's gospel message of free justification. IF JAMES PRACTICED WHAT PAUL WAS PREACHING, PETER WOULD NOT FEEL THE NEED TO WITHDRAW HIMSELF. Reformed theology insists that James and Paul's gospel messages were the same. This story proves that the reformed belief is false and misleading.
To understand what's really going on in the first century early church, we have to see that God's decision to begin "phasing out" the old covenant Mosaic Law (and its condemnation of the gentiles) wasn't fully understood at the time. It was something totally new. The Law had been in force for thousands of years. You cannot quickly change a religious system and the thousands of traditions and tenants that had been around that long without major problems. Christ's crucifixion only occurred a few years earlier, and Paul's gospel to the gentiles was not fully understood or accepted. This is why we see both of these "gospel messages" (one founded on the Law and the other based on Grace) in the New Testament part of our Bible.
The Book of Hebrews Reveals The
Two Ministries of Jesus Christ
"And to Jesus, the Mediator (Go-between, Agent) of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood which speaks [of mercy], a better and nobler and more gracious message than the blood of Abel [which cried out for vengeance]. So see to it that you do not reject Him or refuse to listen to and heed Him Who is speaking [to you now]. For if they [the Israelites] did not escape when they refused to listen and heed Him Who warned and divinely instructed them [here] on earth [revealing with heavenly warnings His will], how much less shall we escape if we reject and turn our backs on Him Who cautions and admonishes [us] from heaven?" (Amplified Bible--Hebrews 12:24-25 )
Our faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is imperative for New Testament salvation (Romans 10:9-10). One of the proofs of our faith in the resurrection of Christ is a belief that he continued his teaching ministry FROM HEAVEN and into the Church Age following his crucifixion and resurrection. If Jesus wasn't resurrected from the dead, then the authority and life contained in his words ended at the cross. More importantly, if Jesus wasn't resurrected from the dead his words carry no authority at all! I find it totally unscriptural to think that the words Jesus spoke on earth to the Israelites before the cross (found in our "red letter" addition Bibles) are the only "words of Christ" that carry authority. The Book of Hebrews teaches us that Jesus Christ continues TO SPEAK FROM HEAVEN AND WARNS US NOT TO REJECT THESE WORDS. However, you will not find these words of Christ printed in red. Isn't that strange? This means that Jesus wasn't finished speaking when He was crucified. The popular belief that Christ's earthly words to Israel are the only ones that carry authority marginalizes (gives lesser authority to) the new covenant in Christ's blood that began after his death. This doctrine is skillfully designed to cast doubt that the New Testament Scriptures (where gentile salvation is revealed through the apostle Paul), is actually part of God's Word. This kind of wrong doctrine (yes, it's associated with reformed theology) empowers the many religious critics of the sufficiency of Christ's blood in providing an eternally secure salvation--along with the new covenant His blood initiated. I've found that "spiritualizing the Scriptures" and redefining certain words, phrases and terms, energize many of the popular false beliefs that claim the sacrifice Jesus made with His own blood (as the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world) didn't pay the whole price for our sin. When you examine their arguments, this is exactly what these critics are saying--and there are many of them in the modern Christian church. There is no way to defend any Bible truth when methods like "spiritualizing Scripture" are used. It's a dishonest practice regardless of who uses it. In my view, that's why various theologians, pastors and preachers use it. It causes confusion among believers "by design"--and this confusion provides a vacuum for them to present their teaching in order to "clear up the confusion". Within the limits of my knowledge, I always take a literal approach to the Scriptures--and this literal approach says that Christ's words are equally important before and after his resurrection, just as the book of Hebrews teaches. Jesus is alive today!
The truth that's totally ignored in most modern Bible teaching is the "dual purpose" of the ministry of Jesus (clarified in Hebrews 12:24-25 of the Amplified Bible). Disagreement over this issue will never be settled this side of heaven simply because most Christians choose to neglect the context of God's Word, which lies at the core of this argument. Many believers only acknowledge the Jewish aspect (the earthly side) of the ministry of Jesus--but there's a second aspect that carries equal authority and life. Christ plainly said that his first coming was "ONLY for the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (the Jews as the circumcision). When a Gentile woman came to Jesus asking for help -- he replied:
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (KJV) ( Matt. 15:24 )
"I was not sent EXCEPT to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (NKJV) ( Matt. 15:24 )
"I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Amplified) ( Matt. 15:24 )
When Jesus used the word "only" in this Scripture--it means what it says. Jesus is defining the boundaries of his earthly ministry that Hebrews 12:24-25 is referring to. Most Christians that claim to reverence Christ's words--ignore or redefine these words in order to protect cherished beliefs and traditions. But, they are still his words--and mean exactly what they say whether they violate your personal theology, or not. In this role Jesus spoke "words of life" TO ISRAEL as their Messiah. He came in a physical human body and preached his earthly message of life--only to the Israelites. The second, and equally important purpose of Christ's first coming is to become the Lord of the New Testament Church. This was only possible through his crucifixion (spilling of his blood) and resurrection. The same Jesus (except he now possesses a new resurrected spiritual human body) is also speaking "words of life" to a totally different group--the Gentiles (also known in the New Testament Scriptures as "The Church"). The difference: He's speaking these words "from heaven" and not "from earth". The location is different, the message is different and the audience is different. Yet, the words originate from the same person. The words come from the same Heavenly Father and the same Jesus Christ--and through the same "Spirit of Truth and Life".
When we limit the authority of Jesus' words to his earthly ministry to Israel, we distort the New Testament Scriptures. The "believing Pharisees" that opposed Saint Paul's gospel in Acts 15 preached this one-sided old covenant message to new inexperienced gentile believers under Paul's ministry. This teaching, based on "out of context" Scripture, caused the new gentile believers to go astray in their faith. Saint Paul persistently fought these deceptive "ministers of righteousness" until his death. Remember that Paul called them "ministers of righteousness" because they taught a message of Biblical righteousness. Yet, their form of righteousness came from obedience to old covenant law (also known as the commandments) rather than new covenant righteousness--that comes only from the shed blood of Christ as a gift. A more correct label for these teachers would be "counterfeit ministers of righteousness". Again, both forms of righteousness are taught in our Bible, but only one form is valid for believers today. As a result of this study I can see how easy it is to misunderstand the New Testament when so many variants of reformed theology dominate the church world. The practice of these "believing Pharisees" frustrated the apostle Paul until his death. It continues to frustrate God's Grace, and the few that correctly teach it today. Some try to marginalize the New Testament gospel by saying that Paul's words were those of a "flawed human-being" (remember that Paul's epistles make up close to half of the New Testament part of our Bible). Paul is criticized because his grace gospel message based on the new covenant teaches principles that are radically different than the works gospel message of the old covenant directly associated with the Mosaic Law. Since reformed theology insists that the Bible only has one message, Paul's doctrine must be either redefined or subtly discredited. Skilled preachers commonly redefine the message, rather than attempting to discredit. This is the primary reason we have so many modern-day believers attempting to live their new life in Christ under the bondage of the old covenant. There seems to be no limits as to how far the supporters of reformed theology will go to defend its beliefs.
All of this takes us to the next logical question. Where do we find these words that Jesus spoke from heaven? To answer this question we must once again look at what Bible scholars call, "the Pauline Revelation". We've already looked at some of the things Paul said about his revelation of Jesus Christ. However, there are a few more Scriptures that impact our understanding of Christ's words spoken FROM HEAVEN.
"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, AND HEARD UNSPEAKABLE WORDS, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." ( 2 Cor 12:2-4 )
Saint Paul referred to these "unspeakable words" that he received at God's throne as "the Mystery of Christ" and "my gospel". This was the same gospel message being examined and approved by the Jerusalem Council in Acts chapter 15. Paul also testified that God did not reveal his "Mystery of Christ" message to anyone else but him. This is another reason the Jerusalem council had to address this controversy and make a decision--PAUL'S GOSPEL WASN'T THE SAME GOSPEL THEY WERE PREACHING. If it were the same message no controversy would exist. This is why Paul's calling and place in the New Testament part of our Bible is so important. The Lord Jesus Christ entrusted him with the gospel message (Note: this message is "Christ's words from heaven" outlining the principles of the new covenant) for the gentile nations, which includes those of us today. Proponents of reformed theology attempt to place more importance on the words Christ spoken by Him in person while he was on earth and tend to downplay his words given by proxy to the apostle Paul. Yet, the fact remains that Paul was carrying Christ's words outlining the principles of the new covenant--and our Heavenly Father didn't need anyone's approval as to how these words were delivered. God chose Paul for this Divine task.
Paul Instructs His Disciple Timothy
How To Handle God's Word
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)
When you "divide" something you separate it into two parts. God's Word as we have it today comes to us in TWO parts, and not one. It is NOT "One message for all people". Paul told Timothy to rightly (or correctly) divide God's Word. In this case it means dividing God's Word into the two different messages associated with Old Testament Law and New Testament Grace, and discerning which one applies. Notice that Paul says two things about this practice of "dividing". First, it takes diligence, meaning that it takes a lot of study and effort. Second, the practice of correctly dividing the Word brings God's approval. Reformed theology explains away and redefines Paul's instruction to divide the Word. It wrongly mixes Law and Grace together into one message--and that will always cause us to interpret the Bible incorrectly and could ultimately cost us dearly in eternity.
Unintended Consequences
When we consider all the Jewish apostles in Jerusalem, few knew the Mosaic Law better than James, the half-brother of Jesus. In his letter to the twelve tribes, he gives us a very important insight into why Paul was so harsh with those that insisted mixing the old covenant and the new covenant of Christ together. Concerning the Law James says….
"For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10)
The apostle Paul repeats this same warning....
"And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that HE IS A DEBTOR TO KEEP THE WHOLE LAW. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:3-4)
When the “Christ believing Pharisees” (and their modern counterparts in reformed theology) mix the Law with its “works-related righteousness” back into the Gospel of Christ, they reintroduce the curse that comes from violating all of it. You can’t just pick a part of the Law that you want to keep and convince yourself that God will understand. He won’t understand. If you’re going to mix the old covenant and the new covenant together you have to keep ALL OF THE LAW, or you are cursed as if you had violated all of it. That’s why Paul warns those that practice this “mixed covenant theology” that they have “fallen from Grace.” Since the Law cannot be perfectly kept, everyone is guilty of breaking all of it. This is why the Bible warns us “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The good news of the new covenant is that, Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the broken law by bearing the curse FOR US on the cross (Galatians 3:13). HOWEVER, when we insist on reinserting (or mixing) old covenant law back into the Grace Gospel of the new covenant, it places the curse of the broken law back on us again and cancels Christ’s act of bearing the curse for us. THIS IS THE REASON THESE TWO COVENANTS CAN NEVER BE MIXED. Paul is exactly right when he calls it “falling from Grace”. Paul warns us about this “curse” when he said:
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8-9)
The “God’s Word has only one message” teaching of reformed theology (and its various offshoots) is not only false, but it is dangerously false because most Christians today embrace its tenants. There are eternal consequences to this way of believing. It represents a total failure to obey Paul's admonition to "rightly divide God's Word". For the modern-day Christian this means it's possible to be cursed, while thinking that you’re one of God’s most obedient children.
Return To Stealth War--Part 1
Return To Stealth War--Part 2
Return To Stealth War--Part 3
Return To Stealth War--Part 4
Return To Stealth War--Index
|
