MM, The first problem is the claim that the apostles in Jerusalem preached only to Jews as a rule or as God’s permanent plan. Acts 11:19 describes what happened at the beginning, not what God commanded forever. Jesus Himself already commanded otherwise before He ascended. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” That command came directly from Jesus, before persecution scattered anyone. So preaching first to Jews was a matter of order and timing, not a different gospel and not a permanent limit.
The second problem is the idea that Peter preaching to Gentiles was a small exception. Scripture shows it was a turning point approved by God. In Acts 10, God gave Peter a vision and sent him to Cornelius, a Gentile. Peter himself explained what this meant in Acts 10:34–35, “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.” This was not Peter acting on his own. God gave the Spirit to Gentiles the same way He did to Jews, proving there was no separate path.
The third problem is the claim that Gentiles were never under God’s law at all. This is not true according to Scripture. Long before Israel existed, God judged Gentile nations for sin, which means they were accountable to His moral law. In Genesis 18–19, Sodom was judged. In Jonah, Nineveh was called to repent. God says in Amos 1–2 that He judged many Gentile nations for their sins. You cannot be judged for breaking a law you were never under in any sense. The law of God is bigger than the Mosaic covenant given at Sinai.
The fourth problem is the idea that Israel “fell” and lost its place as God’s people, causing God to change the gospel message. Jesus never taught that. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” Fulfill does not mean cancel or replace with a new rule set for Gentiles. Jesus also said in John 10:16, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” One flock, not two different systems.
The fifth problem is the misuse of the “dogs” statement. When Jesus spoke to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:24–28, He was testing faith, not setting a permanent label. In the end, He praised her faith and granted her request. This passage actually proves that faith and humility, not ethnicity, are what matter. It does not support two gospels or two standards.
The sixth problem is the claim that God changed salvation from repentance and obedience to a faith-without-action message. Jesus never taught that. Jesus said in Mark 16:16, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Jesus also said in John 14:15, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” Faith and obedience were never separated by Jesus.
The seventh problem is the attack on water baptism as a “work.” Jesus commanded baptism. In Matthew 28:19 He said to baptize all nations. In John 3:5 Jesus said, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Obedience to a command is not earning salvation. It is trusting God enough to do what He says. Naaman washing in the Jordan in 2 Kings 5 was not earning healing. It was obedience.
The final problem is the idea of “chart differences” that divide Scripture into competing messages. Jesus warned against this kind of thinking. In Matthew 7:24–27 He said those who hear His words and do them are wise, and those who do not are foolish. He did not say His words applied only to Jews for a time and then expired.
In short, the text is wrong because it invents two gospels, separates Jews and Gentiles in a way Jesus never did, dismisses Jesus’ commands as temporary, and redefines obedience as human effort instead of faithful trust. Jesus taught one path, one flock, one standard, and one Lord for all.
Those are good talking points. Thanks for providing those.
In relation to the first two paragraph, they are points that this can dispatch:
Galatians 2:7 — But contrariwise, when they saw that the
gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as
the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Some in the past have tried to deemphasize the "of" in this passage as allegedly only referring to two groupings of peoples allegedly under the same gospel, which fails the acid test of the grammatical construct within the Greek and shown to us in the English translation. It seemed easy, in their estimation, to play that word salad game, but they forgot that directional continuity in the lingual construction of the phraseology in that verse renders their analysis a measure of intellectual dishonesty given the level of wishful thinking they were foisting upon it...as if circumcision and uncircumcision are one and the same thing.
Had the meaning been what they want it to point, it would have been written as, "...the gospel of the circumcision and uncircumcision..." had it actually been a singular, and thus same, gospel message with all elements being absolutely the same. Sadly for them, that simply is not the case.
I absolutely agree with you that unbelieving Gentiles are under the Law right now. As believers we are dead to the Law, but the unbelieving world is completely under the Law and it's judgements and death except they die to the Law through Christ Jesus.
Another point; Jesus did not speak directly of Israel's fall, but prophesied it here in a way that hid the real meaning until now:
Luke 13:6-9 — He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these
three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none:
cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone
this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and
if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
One year after Stephen's stoning, Israel fell, thus the necessity for the su sequent revelation of the mystery hidden in God from the foundations of the world to Paul alone, who then conveyed it to his fellow workers and to Jews and Gentiles alike...Gentiles who did not have salvation available to them directly so long as Israel was still standing:
Acts 28:28 — Be it known therefore unto you, that
the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
That salvation sent to the Gentiles, spoken in the present tense of "
is," that clearly shows to us that it wasn't available to them before apart from joining with Israel. As an Israeli, I'm acutely aware of our failure as a nation, so I'm not anti Semitic in admitting Israel is fallen just so you know.
As to Jesus allegedly not stating the actual status of Gentiles before salvation had come to them directly apart from joining with Israel, that is a weak argument when we read the wording and consider it's clear implications in relation to positional status, especially reinforced by the identification of that middle wall of partition. Please provide a more robust critique to back your thoughts on this.
Labeling the grace position as faith-without-action, that's an argument from silence from my actual statements. Never did I state that works are not a part of our life in Christ. What I stated is that works play no part whatsoever in our salvation and its alleged retention. James spoke directly to Israel on that point (James 1:1); those who were still zealous for the Law, as Peter revealed to us. Action of good works are a natural outflow from a genuine faith, not the other way around:
Romans 4:2 — For
if Abraham were
justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
James 2:21 — Was not Abraham our father
justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
When it comes to the polar opposites of these two statements about the same man and his works, I've heard preachers try disastrously to harmonize them into a coherently unified amalgam on the basis of language. The problem with that silly nonsense in how they tried doing so is that the two different statements both speak the truth into the respective gospels wherein they are mentioned and to the audiences to whom they were intended. That alone harmonizes the two. Nothing else I have ever seen accomplishes that end.
Your point seven is cumbersome. To say that baptism is not a work, especially in relation to something as important as remission of sins under ths Kingdom Gospel at that time; contrast that with faith, which requires no muscular motion or work whatsoever compared to something that requires considerable muscular motion and activity and that today under grace remits no sin whatsoever. No. Sorry. That's a bankrupt argument from what I'm seeing.
As to the "chart differences" claim, no. The divisions within truths throughout all of scripture are very real. I dare say you don't run out into your back yard and offer up animal sacrifices for your sins because you too practice divisions with truth because of the truth divisions between the Law and the accomplished Blood of Christ.
MM
