Jesus and Paul, not Versus

[studier]

Now this is a word salad par excellence! You, monsieur, are ze master word salad chef!

My goodness...

A few language things I noticed just glancing through:

• mm says: "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...."

• Analysis of the Greek:
  • "Of" in these verses is an insertion left in ambiguity and wide open to being interpreted differently.
  • "the gospel" in the last phrase is an insertion by the translators - it is not in the Greek - so, in reality the gospel is mentioned once, which would lean more towards a single gospel
  • The NET translation is more literal re: the gospel - they have also determined to be more specific re: the ambiguous "of" - there are other options available such as "for"
    • NET Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised

• mm says: "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."

• The Greek:
  • "is" is not a present tense. It's an aorist tense normally translated as a past, but actually timeless and normally picking up any timing from context. It also can just be summarizing the action as completed.
  • No comment on mm interpretation. Not interested.

 

[Soyeong]

My question hinged upon the other member's meaning...what level of being a doer Paul really meant in what he said because Paul also said this in relation to the Law:

Romans 3:20 — Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:28 — Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Galatians 2:16 — Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:11 — But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Galatians 3:24 — Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Sorry, I don't mean to belabor the point, but this shows that being a doer of the Law has no bearing whatsoever upon salvation. Justification is achieved only through faith in Christ Jesus who alone was a DOER of the Law at the level of justification unto salvatio...not that He needed it. We are saved ONLY by grace through faith, not through trying to be doers of the Law and the deeds of the Law. That was Paul's point as well as mine.

The reason why we should obey God’s law has absolutely nothing to do with trying to be good enough to earn our justification as the result, so a I completely agree with those verses. We can’t earn our justification even as the result of perfect obedience to the Law of God (Romans 4:1-5) because it was never given as a way of earning our justification. That has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law, which is why Paul spoke against it. However, the fact that we can’t earn our justification as the result of our obedience to God’s law does not mean that we are not obligated to obey it. Paul also affirmed in Romans 2:13 that only the doers of God’s law will be justified, which is because everyone who has justifying faith is a doer of the law through that faith. In other words, a person become someone who has faith, someone who will be justified, and someone who is a doer of the law all at the same time and anyone who is not one of those is also not the others, but we do not earn our justification as the result of our obedience.

Sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4) and Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21), so Jesus graciously teaching us to be a doer of it is intrinsically part of the concept of him saving us from not being a doer of it. Our salvation from sin would be incomplete if we were only saved from the penalty of our sin while we continued to be doers of sin, so there is an aspect of our gift of salvation that we are experiencing in the present by repenting and redirecting our lives towards be doers of God’s law. This is in accordance with Titus 2:11-13 where the content of our gift of salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly. Likewise, in Titus 2:14, Jesus did not just give himself to pay the penalty of our sin but also to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works.

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith alone. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to have faith in God is by obediently having faith in His law and it would be contradictory to think that we should have faith in God but not in His law. God’s Word is His instructions for how to have faith in God’s Word made flesh, which is why there are many verses that connect our faith in God with our obedience to His Word such as Revelation 14:12 where those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God’s commandments.

As to Jesus allegedly commissioning the twelve to spread the Kingdom Gospel to the Gentiles, let's look at how they understood the command to go and preach to every nation:

Acts 11:19 — Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

This is consistent with Jesus' earlier commandment to the apostles contrary to the overly-simplistic interpretation many perpetrate upon certain verses recounting the Lord's instructions at His ascention:

Matthew 10:5 — These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

So, dare we allow scripture to interpret scripture, it would seem that every creature was actually every Israelite scattered abroad in every nation, given that, to Jesus, Gentiles were dogs at the time of His earthly ministrythat He never changed until the fall of Israel at the stoning of Stephen:

Matthew 15:26 — But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

The Canaanite woman was seeking the ministry of His miracle working, and Jesus ignored her entirely at the first until she worshipped Him and demonstrated her faith in Him to partake of the crumbs of the blessings meant only for Israel falling to the Gentiles through faith alone...at that time.

So, as is the practice of many in ignoring what ALL of scripture has to say on a topic, I was simply pointing out how being doers of the Law was and is limited to rewards for good works and deeds, treasure stored up in Heaven, not some sort od resume for salvation as some seem to believe contrary to scriptures.

MM

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

The Gospel went out to Jew first and then the Gentiles so that Jews could have the opportunity to fulfill the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations is accordance with the promise. This is again why Jesus sent his disciples only to Jews first and then commissioned them to go to all nations. Paul also spread the Gospel of the Kingdom (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23).

 

[JohnRH]

The reason why we should obey God’s law has absolutely nothing to do with trying to be good enough to earn our justification as the result, so a I completely agree with those verses. We can’t earn our justification even as the result of perfect obedience to the Law of God (Romans 4:1-5) because it was never given as a way of earning our justification. That has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law, which is why Paul spoke against it. However, the fact that we can’t earn our justification as the result of our obedience to God’s law does not mean that we are not obligated to obey it. Paul also affirmed in Romans 2:13 that only the doers of God’s law will be justified, which is because everyone who has justifying faith is a doer of the law through that faith. In other words, a person become someone who has faith, someone who will be justified, and someone who is a doer of the law all at the same time and anyone who is not one of those is also not the others, but we do not earn our justification as the result of our obedience.

Sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4) and Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21), so Jesus graciously teaching us to be a doer of it is intrinsically part of the concept of him saving us from not being a doer of it. Our salvation from sin would be incomplete if we were only saved from the penalty of our sin while we continued to be doers of sin, so there is an aspect of our gift of salvation that we are experiencing in the present by repenting and redirecting our lives towards be doers of God’s law. This is in accordance with Titus 2:11-13 where the content of our gift of salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly. Likewise, in Titus 2:14, Jesus did not just give himself to pay the penalty of our sin but also to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works.

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith alone. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to have faith in God is by obediently having faith in His law and it would be contradictory to think that we should have faith in God but not in His law. God’s Word is His instructions for how to have faith in God’s Word made flesh, which is why there are many verses that connect our faith in God with our obedience to His Word such as Revelation 14:12 where those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God’s commandments.


Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

The Gospel went out to Jew first and then the Gentiles so that Jews could have the opportunity to fulfill the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations is accordance with the promise. This is again why Jesus sent his disciples only to Jews first and then commissioned them to go to all nations. Paul also spread the Gospel of the Kingdom (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23).

I find it interesting that the same gospel that was preached by the author of Hebrews was the same gospel that was preached to the children of Israel at the exodus/wilderness (in more fullness of revelation, of course):
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them ... Heb 4:2 (KJV)

Also, the same gospel that Paul preached was the same gospel Israel had had all along:
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily ... Romans 10:18 (KJV)

 

[homwardbound]

Again, Jesus saying that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them does not leave room to interpret Philippians as saying we should knew Jesus instead of being workers of lawfulness. Paul was not giving up being under the Law of God, but rather he continued to be a worker of lawfulness. God's law is truth (Psalm 119:142), mercy is what of the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23), Gods law is the way to have an intimate relationship with Him (Exodus 33:13), and everything in the law is in regard to how to love (Matthew 22:36-40), so that isn't don't something other than being under God's law.

there is "Under Law" and "Upholding Law"
Uholding Law Romans 3:31, Under Law Romans 7. Freed from under Law to upholding Law Romans 6,7,8
Freed to love all, without question. once receives the exchanged life of Love and mercy to all from Father in risen Son. One just loves all the same as son did=, going to that cross once for us all. All that got left is to believe God personally or not. If do, then God teaches new in love and mercy of 1 Cor 13:4-7,13 God imputes this love to those that stand and do not quit belief, will see Col 1:21-23 it is not a work of anyone anymore in of flesh and blood

 

[Musicmaster]

...However, the fact that we can’t earn our justification as the result of our obedience to God’s law does not mean that we are not obligated to obey it. Paul also affirmed in Romans 2:13 that only the doers of God’s law will be justified, which is because everyone who has justifying faith is a doer of the law through that faith. In other words, a person become someone who has faith, someone who will be justified, and someone who is a doer of the law all at the same time and anyone who is not one of those is also not the others, but we do not earn our justification as the result of our obedience.

If I may, I'd like to add to this other clarifications scripture has made:

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

So, looking at your reference...in context:

Romans 2:12-16
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves :
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

This context is not promoting the living of the Law by the body of Christ dare we consider a more systematic study of what Paul had to say about our relationship to the Law. Paul, in this section of Romans, isn't promoting the body of Christ going back to obedience to the Law for righteous living. I understand our agreement that it's not about justification as James preached to Israel, but we're called to a higher level of life, which is in the Spirit, than what attempts at obedience to the Law can possibly provide. Do you see this in the texts above?

Sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4) and Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21), so Jesus graciously teaching us to be a doer of it is intrinsically part of the concept of him saving us from not being a doer of it.

No. Jesus was speaking only to Israel under the Kingdom Gospel. Acts 15 makes it abundantly clear that the body of Christ is not under what was preached to Israel by Christ. Jesus commanding the healed leper to go and offer up the animal sacrifice of thanksgiving and peace according to the Law of Moses was and is not anything we must obey today, so we must also continue to rightly divide the word of truth into other of the things Jesus commanded His audience of Israelis, who at that time were still under the Law.

Our salvation from sin would be incomplete if we were only saved from the penalty of our sin while we continued to be doers of sin, so there is an aspect of our gift of salvation that we are experiencing in the present by repenting and redirecting our lives towards be doers of God’s law.

Living by the Spirit is not a matter of continuing in sin. Please explain how living apart from obedience to the Law, but rather by the Spirit, is a matter of continuing in sin. How do you arrive at that? Why is that even an issue to bring up? I fully believe in the Spirit guiding the believer's life by the Power of that Spirit, which is far more effective at directing us all into the ways of righteousness than what the letter of the Law was ever able to accomplish through the reading of it. We have Holy Spirit right now WITHIN us, they did not back then.

God’s Word is His instructions for how to have faith in God’s Word made flesh, which is why there are many verses that connect our faith in God with our obedience to His Word such as Revelation 14:12 where those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God’s commandments.

We are not bound by what will be required of those in the tribulation time, for saved by grace through faith will no longer be a reality for those who find themseves living in that time. They will have to endure unto the end as Jesus stated in Matthew 24 so that they SHALL be [future tense] saved. We today are already saved to the uttermost, totally apart from works of self-effort. That is Paul's Gospel to us today. Trying to live under what was for another people in another time outside of this dispensation of grace through faith, and one inevitably introduces legalistic elements that attempt to add to the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ for us today, which cannot ever be effective.

Galatians 5:1-6
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised [as an example], Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

You did indeed admit that justification is not the issue, and yet you still went back to obedience to the Law (or at least some of it) for an attempt at its benefits being other than what Paul actually stated as our relationship to the Law.

So, for our understanding, please define precisely what you're saying as to our relationship to the Law and/or commandments of Christ to Israel. I'm Israeli myself and yet not bound to the Law since I am dead to the Law. Your reference to Romans 2 where Paul was talking about people who were/are other than the body of Christ saved by grace through faith, his address is in relation to the world in general who are indeed under the Law and its curse. ALL unbelievers are under the Law and its condemnation. Paul was not calling us back to observance of the Law as some means for avoiding sin and living righteously. By the Law we know what sin is, yes, but that's not a heralding call for us to go back to its observance as the alleged means for abstaining from sin. The Spirit within is the Power by whom we abstain from sin by the Spirit Who is the Author of the Law. That's why Paul repeatedly made calls to us living and walking by the Spirit.

Are we on the same page here?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I find it interesting that the same gospel that was preached by the author of Hebrews was the same gospel that was preached to the children of Israel at the exodus/wilderness (in more fullness of revelation, of course):
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them ... Heb 4:2 (KJV)

Also, the same gospel that Paul preached was the same gospel Israel had had all along:
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily ... Romans 10:18 (KJV)

Please show to us how Paul's gospel was exactly the same as that preacahed to Israel, because he clearly stated otherwise:

Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Given this, then, how could Paul have preached to Gentiles and Jews what had already been preached that he did indeed know from man? Do you see the problem here? Paul persecuted believing Jews on the basis of what he already knew as to what was preached to Israel by the twelve apostles who allegedly were preaching what was preached in Exodus. At no time, in no verse, can I find in Exodus or even in the gospels where Israel was ever told that they are saved by grace through faith.

What we DO have is what Peter preached as the gospel from the twelve apostles to Israel that is NOT what was preached by Paul:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Their sins at that time were remitted by obedience to the command for water baptism, for there was no salvation without the remitting of sins for them. Paul, however, nowhere commanded such, in spite of his practice [not command] in some cases that later diminished and disappeared throughout his epistles, with him even revealing in his writings that he was not sent to baptize as was John who ALSO preached, but it was the Kingdom Gospel John the Baptist preached, but the Gospel of Grace preached by Paul.

Do you see the clarity in the scriptures that are easily missed by so many?

MM

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Please show to us how Paul's gospel was exactly the same as that preacahed to Israel, because he clearly stated otherwise:

Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

But Paul and the apostles were agreement about what the one gospel was. When he went to Jerusalem to check with them if he was proclaiming the right gospel, they were in agreement and added nothing else to his message.

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Galatians 2:1-2​

​

But of those who seemed to be something, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be something in conference added nothing to me: Galatians 2:6​

 

[vassal]

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

The idea that Peter was only for the Jews and Paul only for the Gentiles is not entirely correct. Galatians 2:7 says Paul had “the gospel of the uncircumcision” and Peter had “the gospel of the circumcision,” but this does not mean Peter was permanently limited to Jews. In Acts 10, God clearly called Peter to go to Cornelius, a Gentile. He gave Peter a vision showing that Gentiles were acceptable to receive the gospel. Peter obeyed and preached to Cornelius’ household, opening the way for Gentiles. This happened before Paul’s mission to the Gentiles fully began, showing that God’s timing, not a permanent restriction, determined who preached to whom. Jesus Himself did not permanently limit His followers to certain ethnic groups; He acted according to God’s timing and instructions (Matthew 28:19-20).
It is true that before coming to Christ, the world, including Gentiles, was under the Law and its judgments. But Jesus taught that anyone who hears His word and believes has eternal life (John 5:24). Through Christ, believers are freed from the Law’s condemnation (Romans 7:6). God’s plan was never to exclude Gentiles; He simply revealed salvation to them at the right time.
The parable of the fig tree (Luke 13:6-9) shows Israel’s responsibility to produce fruit. Jesus warned of judgment but also called for repentance. The salvation of Gentiles was not strictly delayed until Israel’s fall. In Acts 10 and 28, Gentiles received the gospel directly when God opened the way. Peter preached to Cornelius first, and later Paul continued to the Gentiles. Jesus even said that many would come from the east and west to sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11), showing that Gentiles were included in God’s plan all along.
Faith is the root of salvation, and works flow naturally from it. Romans 4:2 says, “Abraham was not justified by works before God.” This means God accepted Abraham because of his faith, not because of what he did. James 2:21 says, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” This shows that Abraham’s faith produced action. These two statements are not contradictory, they speak to different truths. Romans explains why God justified Abraham (faith), and James shows how that faith was proven (works). Jesus confirmed this principle, teaching that faith that obeys is alive and pleasing to God (John 14:15). True faith naturally produces works; works themselves do not earn salvation.
Baptism, as Jesus taught, is an act of obedience and a public sign of faith (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16). It does not earn salvation but demonstrates a response to faith. Faith itself is active in trusting and obeying Christ (John 15:14-15).
Finally, Scripture contains distinctions, like the Law and grace, kingdom teachings, and the fullness of salvation. Jesus often taught in ways adapted to different audiences (Matthew 13). Observing these distinctions does not contradict the Word; it follows Christ’s method of revealing truth gradually and clearly to those ready to receive it.

V

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Given this, then, how could Paul have preached to Gentiles and Jews what had already been preached that he did indeed know from man? Do you see the problem here?

Paul said he received his initial revelations from the lord, but he also learned from Peter after that

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. Galatians 1:15-18​

 

[Musicmaster]

The idea that Peter was only for the Jews and Paul only for the Gentiles is not entirely correct. Galatians 2:7 says Paul had “the gospel of the uncircumcision” and Peter had “the gospel of the circumcision,” but this does not mean Peter was permanently limited to Jews. In Acts 10, God clearly called Peter to go to Cornelius, a Gentile. He gave Peter a vision showing that Gentiles were acceptable to receive the gospel. Peter obeyed and preached to Cornelius’ household, opening the way for Gentiles. This happened before Paul’s mission to the Gentiles fully began, showing that God’s timing, not a permanent restriction, determined who preached to whom. Jesus Himself did not permanently limit His followers to certain ethnic groups; He acted according to God’s timing and instructions (Matthew 28:19-20).
It is true that before coming to Christ, the world, including Gentiles, was under the Law and its judgments. But Jesus taught that anyone who hears His word and believes has eternal life (John 5:24). Through Christ, believers are freed from the Law’s condemnation (Romans 7:6). God’s plan was never to exclude Gentiles; He simply revealed salvation to them at the right time.
The parable of the fig tree (Luke 13:6-9) shows Israel’s responsibility to produce fruit. Jesus warned of judgment but also called for repentance. The salvation of Gentiles was not strictly delayed until Israel’s fall. In Acts 10 and 28, Gentiles received the gospel directly when God opened the way. Peter preached to Cornelius first, and later Paul continued to the Gentiles. Jesus even said that many would come from the east and west to sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11), showing that Gentiles were included in God’s plan all along.
Faith is the root of salvation, and works flow naturally from it. Romans 4:2 says, “Abraham was not justified by works before God.” This means God accepted Abraham because of his faith, not because of what he did. James 2:21 says, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” This shows that Abraham’s faith produced action. These two statements are not contradictory, they speak to different truths. Romans explains why God justified Abraham (faith), and James shows how that faith was proven (works). Jesus confirmed this principle, teaching that faith that obeys is alive and pleasing to God (John 14:15). True faith naturally produces works; works themselves do not earn salvation.
Baptism, as Jesus taught, is an act of obedience and a public sign of faith (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16). It does not earn salvation but demonstrates a response to faith. Faith itself is active in trusting and obeying Christ (John 15:14-15).
Finally, Scripture contains distinctions, like the Law and grace, kingdom teachings, and the fullness of salvation. Jesus often taught in ways adapted to different audiences (Matthew 13). Observing these distinctions does not contradict the Word; it follows Christ’s method of revealing truth gradually and clearly to those ready to receive it.

V

My point wasn't that Peter never did preach to Gentiles, for we all know he did, but his primary duty was to Israel, as with the other of the twelve. Why?

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

So, dare we include the timeline of the writings, we see that Peter later no longer preached to Gentiles en mass as did Paul:

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

What this shows to us, then, is that the Gentiles received the saving gospel of grace from Paul given that under the Kingdom Gospel of works and Law, before the fall of Israel, Gentiles were saved only by joining with Israel because of that middle wall of partition that divided them...with the priesthood of Israel on one side and Gentiles on the other as dogs who were lost apart from Israel as the portal unto salvation and blessing.

MM

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

My point wasn't that Peter never did preach to Gentiles, for we all know he did, but his primary duty was to Israel, as with the other of the twelve. Why?

Because Jesus was sent only to Israel, and Peter was one of 12 chosen emissaries to continue his mission to Israel after he was gone. Later, God opened the door to the gentiles through Peter, and then later he raised up Paul to focus on the nations. Paul at the start, however, sought out Jews to proclaim the gospel, which completely undermines your assertion that Paul taught a different gospel to the gentiles. Jews and gentiles were together in the synagogues where Paul proclaimed the gospel, so they all heard the same message

 

[vassal]

My point wasn't that Peter never did preach to Gentiles, for we all know he did, but his primary duty was to Israel, as with the other of the twelve. Why?

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

So, dare we include the timeline of the writings, we see that Peter later no longer preached to Gentiles en mass as did Paul:

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

What this shows to us, then, is that the Gentiles received the saving gospel of grace from Paul given that under the Kingdom Gospel of works and Law, before the fall of Israel, Gentiles were saved only by joining with Israel because of that middle wall of partition that divided them...with the priesthood of Israel on one side and Gentiles on the other as dogs who were lost apart from Israel as the portal unto salvation and blessing.

MM

The idea that Peter and the Twelve were only meant for Israel, and that Gentiles needed a different later message, does not come from Jesus and does not match what actually happened.
Jesus Himself gave the mission. After His resurrection He said to the Eleven:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.”
Matthew 28:19–20 NKJV
Jesus did not say Israel only. He said all nations. That includes Gentiles. The same teaching, the same commands, the same obedience.
Before this, Jesus already spoke about Gentiles belonging to Him:
“And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.”
John 10:16 NKJV
There is one flock, not two messages and not two gospels.

Peter did not stumble into preaching to Gentiles by accident. God directly commanded him when the time to do so was right. In Acts 10, God gave Peter a vision, spoke to him, and sent him to Cornelius, a Gentile. Peter himself explains what this means:
“God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”
Acts 10:28 NKJV
After preaching Jesus to them, Peter says:
“In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.”
Acts 10:34–35 NKJV
This is not a Jewish-only doorway. This is salvation opened to every nation through Jesus.
This was later confirmed publicly by Peter himself in Jerusalem. At the council, Peter stood up and said:
“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”
Acts 15:7 NKJV
Peter openly states that God chose him to preach the gospel to Gentiles, not temporarily, not secondarily, but by God’s own decision.
When Peter was first questioned by believers in Jerusalem, he did not say this was outside his role. Instead he concluded:
“Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”
Acts 11:18 NKJV
That is salvation. Not by joining Israel. Not by becoming Jewish. But by repentance and faith.
The claim that Gentiles were only “dogs” with no access to salvation is also corrected by Jesus Himself. When the Canaanite woman came to Him, Jesus ended by praising her faith and answering her request:
“O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.”
Matthew 15:28 NKJV
Jesus showed that faith, not ethnicity, is what matters.
Even before Jesus came, God promised that the nations would be saved, not absorbed into Israel as a requirement, but blessed through Abraham:
“In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.”
Genesis 22:18 NKJV
The prophets say the same:
“I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.”
Isaiah 49:6 NKJV
Peter and the Twelve did not abandon Gentiles. Peter continued to affirm Gentile inclusion at the council in Jerusalem, and James agreed, ruling that Gentiles were not required to become Jews.

Jesus brought one way of salvation. Repentance, faith, obedience, and following Him. Peter and the Twelve preached that message. God Himself sent Peter to the Gentiles. Scripture never teaches two gospels or two paths to life.
There is one Shepherd, one flock, and one door. Jesus.

 

[memberofthebride]

View attachment 283475

Some may ask, "Why focus on the differences?" It's not so much the differences as it is what is relevant for us today. The Messianic Jews in Jerusalem remained zealous of the Law, and when they were dispersed out into the world because of the severe persecutions, they preached ONLY to fellow Jews, not Gentiles [although Peter did preach to a small hand full of Gentiles].

Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

Messianic Jews stood soundly upon the Law and the continued requirement for adherence to the Mosaic Law under the watchful eyes of the tweleve apostles. Gentiles did not. Gentiles were never given the Law nor commanded to follow the Mosaic Law as was Israel, which was God's priesthood on this earth until her fall and the coming down of the middle wall of partition.

Some have asked WHY the Lord would deal differently with Israel-only compared to Gentiles and Jews as the body of Christ today; which was based upon the coming down of that middle wall of partition. Given that there was a wall, that clearly shows to us two distinct groupings; with Jews on one side and Gentiles on the other, which no longer is the case today. Dare we give this some thought, combining two radically different groups, one of which Jesus referred to as "dogs" when speaking of the "children's bread," that distinction is no longer valid today, which gives to us the beginnings of an understanding as to why the Lord changed His dealings with mankind and the gospel message going from water baptism for remission of sins to saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, but a GIFT of God to us all...Jews and Gentiles.

What have your studies shown to you. Do you think the effort for water baptism isn't a work or effort on our part as was required under the Kingdom Gospel? Do you think your sins are remitted today on the basis of your effort for water baptism? Some have claimed that wasn't a work of effort on their part, but I have grave doubts someone carried them down into the water from an easy chair or a pew.

Thoughts about the chart differences and other items in this post?

MM

Comment:

If your differences were correct, you are saying in effect, there are two way to gain the Gift of eternal life.

one for the Jews and another different way for gentiles.

thus not ONE WAY, not ONE narrow path -- but two! and the gentile not being very narrow.

 

[Musicmaster]

The idea that Peter and the Twelve were only meant for Israel, and that Gentiles needed a different later message, does not come from Jesus and does not match what actually happened.

I've shown that there were indeed two different gospels, which cannot be intermixed without causing massive confusions, which is why Paul had to deal with the the damage the Judaizers who were confusing the churches Paul had planted with the Kingdom Gospel. If they all taught the same thing, then there would not have been any issue for Paul to have to travel to Jerusalem to meet with the council of the twelve.

Do you suppose the Judaizers were preaching something other than what the twelve preached? The twelve said not a word about the teachings of the Judaizers being false. The problem was that the Kingdom Gospel could not be preached to the Gentiles who were under grace without the mass confusions Paul had to deal with, even going so far as to ask who had bewitched the Gentiles.

What actually happened is that combining two different groupings under the Gospel of Grace by way of Paul going to the Jews first and then the Gentiles in each city, who both came from opposite sides of that middle wall of partition that came down with the fall of Israel in Acts 7-9-, one group who had been given the Law and the other who was not given the Law, the Gospel of Grace had to be different, with adherence to the Law no longer a requirement as is shown in Acts 15 in the instructions issued by the council to the Grace churches under Paul's ministry.

What Jesus did was work within His purpose for being sent, ministering to those to whom He was sent with very, very few deviations:

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jesus Himself gave the mission. After His resurrection He said to the Eleven:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.”
Matthew 28:19–20 NKJV

Yes, and that all changed with the decline of Israel one year later in Acts 7, prophesied by that same Jesus in Luke 13.

There is one flock, not two messages and not two gospels.

Then please explain how it is that Paul persecuted the believing Jews on the basis of the gospel preached by the twelve that he had learned from men, and then preached what he had NOT received from men but only through Christ Jesus. That clearly shows that the two gospels could NOT have been one and the same:

Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Do you not see the error in claiming there was only ONE gospel message, when in fact that which Paul preached was NOT what he had learned what was preached by the twelve? Was Paul a liar? No. What happens is that MEN are made out to be liars when claiming that which is completely contrary to what's written.

It's also interesting that we hear nothing about Peter after Acts 15 all the way through 28. Yes, Peter preached to only a small hand full of Gentiles of which we are aware, but that's it. Paul's audience was so vast by comparison that it dwarfs anything we can substantiate about Peter's preaching.

Romans 15:19-20
19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Paul was careful, then to not do as had done the Judaizers by preaching to the Jews and Gentile proselytes to whom Peter had already preached.

Acts 21:18-20
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Yes, Peter did indeed learn that the Gentiles were no longer unclean after Israel declined and fell in that vision shown to him by the Lord on that roof, with no difference existing any longer, but we are given no text whereby we are shown any tremendous success in numbers and magnitude that we are shown about Paul whose gospel was not only different but still relevant for us today.

If you disagree that there two different gospels, then please explain how that doesn't contradict not only the reality of Paul's past as a prime persecutor of Jewish believers throughout Israel and beyond and what he said to later preach that was taught to him by no man. Are you seeing that? Do you understand the text?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Comment:

If your differences were correct, you are saying in effect, there are two way to gain the Gift of eternal life.

one for the Jews and another different way for gentiles.

thus not ONE WAY, not ONE narrow path -- but two! and the gentile not being very narrow.

If you're asking about today (given that you used the present tense "are"), no. There is only one valid gospel today, which is the one preached by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. The Gospel of the Kingdom died with those who were under it after Israel's decline down into the dusts of time, but to be raised back up in the last of days at the end of the tribulation at the Second Coming of Christ.

MM

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Do you suppose the Judaizers were preaching something other than what the twelve preached? The twelve said not a word about the teachings of the Judaizers being false

Do you even read the bible?

First Peter rebuked the pharisee judaizers for tempting God and said Jews were saved by grace just as the gentiles were

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Acts 15:10-11​

​

And then James judged that the teachings of the pharisee judaizers were wrong and that the apostles and elders in Jerusalem had not sent them to teach.

And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: Acts 15:23-24​

 

[Soyeong]

Romans 7:6
Romans 8:4
Galatians 5:18

Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as with the law of sin and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law he was referring.

In Romans 6-8, Paul said that the Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, and that he served it with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, was waging war against the law of his mind, which he served with his flesh, which held him captive, and which the Law of Spirit has freed us from. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God, who refuse to submit to the Law of God. The Law of God leads us to do what is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:22) while the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5). Verses that refer something that would be absurd for Paul to delight in doing should not be interpreted as referring to the Law of God while verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin.

For example, Romans 6:14 describes the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over him and it would be absurd for Paul to delight in sin having dominion over him, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under the Law of God. In regard to Romans 7:6, it would be absurd for Paul to delight in being held captive to sin, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive (Romans 7:23).

This should also inform the way to interpret Galatians 5:16-23, where Paul contrasted the desires of the Spirit with the desires of the flesh and everything that he listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Law of God while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. The desires of the flesh causing us not to do the good that we want to do is how Paul described his struggle with the law of sin, which the Law of the Spirit has free us from, so that is the law that we are not under when we are led by the Spirit. The Law of God was given by God and the Spirit is God, so it would be contradictory to interpret that as saying that we aren't led by God when we are led by God. The character traits of God are the fruits of the Spirit and the Law of God is His instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-26) and why the example that Jesus set for us to follow can equivalently be described as walking in the Spirit or as walking in obedience to the Law of God.

Romans 2:12-16

Paul said that only doers of the Law of God will be declared righteous, so he certainly was promoting obedience to for righteous living. In Romans 2:14, Paul also said that Gentiles would by nature be doers of the Law of God, so the context supports this. Likewise, in Romans 2:6-7, Paul said that those who persist in doing good will be given eternal life.

God has not commanded anything that is not in accordance with the Spirit, but rather God's law is His instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits and His character traits are the fruits of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Likewise, the Spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 16:13) and God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142). The Spirit has the role of convicting us of sin (John 16:8) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4). In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 30:6), ad circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirt and do not obey God's law. The example that Jesus set for us to follow can equivalently be described either as walking in the Spirit or as walking in obedience to God's law.

No. Jesus was speaking only to Israel under the Kingdom Gospel. Acts 15 makes it abundantly clear that the body of Christ is not under what was preached to Israel by Christ.

Jesus commissioned his disciples to teach to the nations everything that he taught them. Are you taking the position that Gentiles don't need Jesus to save us from our sin or that sin is not the transgression of God's law? Acts 15 should not be interpreted as speaking against being followers of Christ.

Why is that even an issue to bring up?

The issue that I brought up was that there is an aspect of our gift of salvation that we are experiencing in the present by repenting and redirecting our lives towards being a doer of God's law.

for saved by grace through faith will no longer be a reality for those who find themseves living in that time.

In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him too obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. Again, it is contradictory to think that should have faith in God but not in what He has instructed.

Galatians 5:1

If God saved the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt in order to put them under bondage to His law, then it would be for borage that God sets us free, however Galatians 5:1 says that it is for freedom that God sets us free, so you are not correctly identifying what he was speaking against. In Psalm 119:142, God's law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of the Law of God that puts us into bondage while the truth sets us free.

Galatians 5:2-3

If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy the he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of God by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

Galatians 5:4

God wanted His children to repent and to return to obedience to His law all throughout the Bible and even Jesus began his ministry with that Gospel message (Matthew 4:15-23), so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning against obeying God and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we believe the Gospel of Christ. Likewise, it would be absurd to interpret Psalm 119:29-30 as if he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace.

Galatians 5:5

The Spirit has the role of leading us to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law through faith.

Galatians 5:6

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, and in Matthew 22:36-40, he summarized God's law as being about how to love, so obedience to it is faith working through love.

So, for our understanding, please define precisely what you're saying as to our relationship to the Law and/or commandments of Christ to Israel.

Followers of Christ should be followers of His example of obedience to what God has commanded.

I'm Israeli myself and yet not bound to the Law since I am dead to the Law.

We need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.

talking about people who were/are other than the body of Christ

Romans is addressed to people who are part of the body of Christ who are all under the Law of God but not under its curse.

ALL unbelievers are under the Law and its condemnation.

It is not the case that once an unbeliever becomes a believer that they become free to do what God has revealed to be sin through His law.

Paul was not calling us back to observance of the Law as some means for avoiding sin and living righteously.

Paul made it clear that we are not to sin and that it is by the Law of God that we have knowledge of what sin is, so that absolutely is supporting living in obedience to the Law of God as a way of avoiding sin in accordance with walking in the Spirit.

 

[Soyeong]

Please show to us how Paul's gospel was exactly the same as that preacahed to Israel, because he clearly stated otherwise:

Again, in Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which Paul also taught based on the Mosaic Law:

Acts 14:21-22 When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

Acts 20:24-25 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again.

Acts 28:23 When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.

 

[Musicmaster]

Again, in Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which Paul also taught based on the Mosaic Law:

Acts 14:21-22 When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

Acts 20:24-25 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again.

Acts 28:23 When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.

The question I posed wasn't about the foundational truth of Christ across all of scripture and the gospels, but rather the fact that Paul's gospel was not what he had learned from the twelve apostles. I would appreciate your addressing that in relation to Gal. 1:11-12.

Thanks

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as with the law of sin and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law he was referring.

Don't I know it. My Israeli background drove that home to us in my family. For the benefit of those reading this, the basic division in the Law are:

Moral Laws
Civil (Judicial) Laws
Ceremonial (Religious) Laws
Apodictic (Unconditional Directives) and Casuistic Laws (Case Laws, if this, then that)
The Law, the Prophets and the New Covenant

In Romans 6-8, Paul said that the Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, and that he served it with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, was waging war against the law of his mind, which he served with his flesh, which held him captive, and which the Law of Spirit has freed us from.

Yes, but he didn't command Gentiles, almost all of whom had not been raised under the Law, to follow it apart from the four items upheld by the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem in Acts 15. For emphasis, the council in Jerusalem laid down only four elements of the Law for Gentiles to observe at the level that Paul was raised under:

Acts 15:28-29
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

My Hebrew Roots acquaintances like to argue that those can't be the sum total of what's required of us because it left out abstinence from robbing banks and one's neighbors, raping another's wife, daughter, etc., and all manner of other sinful things. Paul's love for the Mosaic Law isn't reason to demand adherence by all others today. He was raised under it, and yet he called Gentiles to a much higher standard for adherence to God's moral and spiritual absolutes because of His indwelling of Holy Spirit within us, walking by the Spirit, living by the Spirit and guided in all things by the Spirit.

Given we're indwelt, we have within us a far greater force for obedience than mere words written upon and read from tablets of stone, papyrus or paper, including pounding thuds upon a pulpit. We have within us the very Author of it all who has the Power to speak this universe back out of existence.

In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God, who refuse to submit to the Law of God.

He didn't call them back to the Law. When we do a systematic study of Paul's instructions along this line of topic and couple it all together, we see he was not at all, in this one place, reversing direction by calling the Gentiles and Jews alike into adherence to the Mosaic Law when, in balance, he spoke of accomplishing that by living and walking daily by the Spirit. We have to consider ALL that he said on this topic rather than just the small points where he spoke of the Law in glowing terms.

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses pull those kinds of adjustments with interpretational rules to foist their legalism upon others, with some Evangelicals do the same. Paul was, at one point in his journeys, instructed to placate the Jews in Jerusalem because of Paul's radical departures from the Law in what he taught Jews abroad:

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

So, no, although Paul spoke good things about a Law that is worthy of our admiration, he did not call for adherence to it in the place of being led by Holy Spirit within, which rendered circumcision of being ineffective along with adherence to the Law AND the customs of the elders, which to the Jewish mind, was anathema.

The Law of God leads us to do what is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:22) while the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5).

With the Author of that Law within us, we need not look to the letter but rather to the Spirit. I'm assuming you know this, but wanted to make sure others here understand what scripture actually teaches along this line:

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Jesus commissioned his disciples to teach to the nations everything that he taught them. Are you taking the position that Gentiles don't need Jesus to save us from our sin or that sin is not the transgression of God's law? Acts 15 should not be interpreted as speaking against being followers of Christ.

Not at all. It's ONLY by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus on the third day that we are saved, but not by the Law that He upheld to Israel who, at that time, were still under the Law. Carrying that over into this modern day is an mishandling of the scriptures because of a failure to rightly divide the word of truth. That we are commanded to rightly divide the word of truth clearly shows to us that there are indeed divisions within truth - truth from truth, not truth from falsehood; meaning that not all the truths in the Bible were ever meant to be binding upon us today. This, then, shines a very bright spotlight upon your question as being emotional in nature rather than rooted in proper hermeneutics and right division. Never did Paul call Jews and Gentiles to legalistic adherence to the Law.

The issue that I brought up was that there is an aspect of our gift of salvation that we are experiencing in the present by repenting and redirecting our lives towards being a doer of God's law.

We are doers of God's Law when led by the indwelling Spirit. THAT is the holistic message Paul preached. Breaking it apart and highlighting only what seems to suggest legalistic obedience the Law based upon fixating on just one or two aspects of Paul's overall instruction to us today is not a proper handling of his epistles.

So, one is either dead to the Law or he is not. It's a choice.

MM