Recently, I’ve come across the teaching of ‘two gospels’ or ‘two evangels’ in a few of the threads on here. I’m interested to know if there is any truth to the idea that there are two ‘gospels’: one that is fashioned for the circumcised ie the natural Jews and one that is for the uncircumcised- the gentile believers.
If there are any ‘two gospel’ adherents on here, I’d love to hear why you believe this is true.
Hey Catherine
Thank you for inviting me on this thread. Here is a verse “Now I went up in accord with a revelation, and submitted to them the evangel which I am heralding among the nations” Gal. 2.2
Notice Paul does not say “and submitted to them that I am heralding the evangel among the nations” It is the evangel itself that is distinctive, not just to whom it was sent.
You may wonder why the Concordant version uses the word evangel instead of gospel. Well we can say evangelize, not gospelize.
We can refer to “Philip the evangelist” Acts 21.8, but not “Philip the gospelist”
Yes, Catherine. Paul spoke about these two “gospels”. But he explained that the one based of keeping the Jewish laws and ceremonies was not really a gospel, but a distortion of the one Gospel of Christ. Here is what Paul wrote:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.(Galatians 1:6-7)
Why was Titus taken with Paul as an example and test case? Why does Paul say “For I am making known to you, brathren, as to the evangel which is being brought by me, that it is not in accord with man. For neither did I accept it from a man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ” Gal. 1.10-12
Concerning Galations 1:6-7 we jump to a fast conclusion if we assume that they actually turned to the evangel of the circumcision. It was a psuedo evangel. Just like what I was brought up with in Christianity. It was neither the evangel of the uncircumcision or the circumcision.
In conclusion let me simply stress that Paul and his Apostleship has always been under attack. The uniqueness of his calling, has always been sidelined, but he is very adamant “On this behalf I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you, the nations since you surely hear of the administration of the grace of God that is given to me for you, for by revelation the secret is made known to me…” Eph. 3.1-2
I don’t have an issue with what Zender wrote Catherine but lean towards the way Paidion has put it there really is only one Gospel and it is pure grace based upon pure faith 
this could well raise and open a whole host of a ‘‘cans of worms’’
I have to agree with Paidion and Stuart.
I can see how prior to the destruction of the temple and the Jewish system of the temple etc, that the TWO groups, the Jews and the Gentiles, were still distinct to a certain extent and that you might talk differently to each group, as their understanding of the OT would be different.
I don’t get the impression from reading the NT and Paul that there are two sets of rules depending on if you’re a Jew or a Gentile. Surely the same grace is for anyone regardless of nationality. Paul talks about the two becoming ONE NEW MAN. Eph 2:15 and Gentiles being grafted into the vine which at the time Paul spoke, was formely only comprised of Jews (I see the vine as representing Jesus and the Kingdom, not the Jewish people). Rom 11:17.
The evangel or good news is surely that no matter who you are, you need not remain dead, but can gain eternal life in Jesus, in the New Earth (which seems to be a merging of heaven and earth??) Not everyone will have the same role in the new earth, but I can’t see how your role is dependant on your physical nationality.
As a citizen of the United States, I get very nervous when the idea of ‘seperate but equal’ ANYTHING gets taught as an acceptable doctrine. Now, as already been stated, Paul may have varied his approach to the Good News, depending on his audience–any good speaker does that. But the Good News, Jesus, remains the same.
People of different backgrounds will naturally have different questions too.Possibly different roles in the Kingdom based on their past experiences. But I think the Comission Jesus gave Paul to the Gentiles basically meant they could come to Him as Gentiles they didn’t have to convert and become Jews first. It was also ok for Jews to receive Jesus with Gentiles if that is where they were at the time.
Hey Catherine,
I will formally respond to your article and concerns at a later date. Especially as it concerns Romans 11. I would encourage you to listen to a 13 part series on ‘justification’ by Dan Sheridan. The teaching of Justification itself is unique to the Apostle Paul. It is not taught by Christ, or Peter. The essential difference between the two evangels is forgiveness and justification.
If I may also briefly respond to Elizabeth, when Paul finally went up to Jerusalem and ‘submitted to them the evangel’ Peter responded appropriately “But through the grace of the Lord Jesus we are believing, to be saved in a manner even as they”. Acts 15.11
It is not that Peter did not percieve a difference, but it is like what you said “the good news, Jesus, remains the same”
Thanks Puddy, I’ll check it out when my ironing pile is nice and large in the next few days. 
Hey Catherine
While the 13 parts are a good study, he only gets to chapter 2 of Romans. Since this is still a new area of study for you, I am not sure what would be most benefial for you. Maybe the message titled ‘Galations: Not-neither-but’
You will have to scroll down till you see a 16 part study on Ephesians and this message is listed a few spaces above. You may also enjoy the series ‘life and letters of the Apostle Paul’
Thanks Puddy. I’ll check it out.
Hey Cindy
I hope you will be feeling better soon. I mentioned I would respond to you. I will keep it quick. Romans 11 refers to Israel and the nations, not individuals. Israel did trip, but they did not fall Rom. 11.11. Yet it is through Israel offense that the door opens for the nations to be joint enjoyers, and a joint body, and joint partakers… It does not mean Israel will not be taken back. "For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will be the taking back be if not life from among the dead? Rom. 11.
When Israel comes back on the scene, the Nations cannot be equal. The conciliation could not occur until Israel was cast aside. I know I did not explain myself clearly,
I wish you the best.
In which of the 13 part(s) does he explain that the gospel (singular with a direct article) which is God’s power into salvation to every one who is believing, to the Jew first and to the Greek as well, for in it (singular) God’s fair-togetherness is being revealed etc., is actually two gospels, one for the Jew and one for the Greek (with one having to do with justification and the other having to do with forgiveness)?
I realize he only gets to chapter 2, but the singular gospel for Jews and Greeks was spoken of by Paul in 1:14-17.
The criteria for selecting a new apostle after Judas Iscariot (per Acts 1:21-22) was that he had to be an eyewitness of the risen Christ and also able to testify personally to Jesus’ ministry from the days of JohnBapt onward; but Jesus Himself had selected the Twelve out of His other disciples to be His apostles. While the Holy Spirit (presumably) affirmed in the selection by lot of Matthais, the risen Christ Himself selected and authorized Saul of Tarsus.
Paul’s claim to apostolic authority would have (and apparently did) clash with some of the criteria decided upon by the other apostles after the ascension of Jesus: he was evangelized (so to speak) directly by the risen Christ, so fulfilled two of the criteria, but not the third that he was a witness to Christ’s earthly ministry. But Matthais had never been chosen directly by Christ for apostolic authority! (Incidentally, this distinction may very well explain why Paul refers very little to historical deeds of Christ, since he couldn’t claim to have been an eyewitness authority.)
Consequently, Paul’s whole claim to being an apostle rested on being assigned that position by the risen Christ. He didn’t accept the evangel from a man, nor was he taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Contextually this fits exactly with the very first verse, Gal 1:1, where he addresses his audience as "Paul, an apostle not from men, neither through a man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father Who rouses Him out from the dead). It also fits with Paul’s subsequent narrative of his conversion and ministry in Gal 1 – he isn’t an agent of the other apostles, he himself is an apostle of Christ, and was acting as such without even contacting them.
Throughout all this portion, only one “evangel” is ever discussed, the same evangel that Paul used to ravage among the Jews but which the Jews now hear he is heralding among the nations.
Relatedly, in the same chapter Paul goes out of his way to stress that there is and can be only one evangel, and that the people bringing a distortion of the evangel to the Galatians are not bringing the evangel and should thus be regarded as anathema (as should he himself or a messenger of God if one of them brought a different evangel!) By this principle, if Peter and James (Jesus’ brother) had recognized that Paul was preaching a different evangel to the Gentiles than what they themselves were preaching, they would and should have anathematized him.
Where does it say that Titus was taken with Paul as an example and test case?
Paul says he brought along Titus, and mentions him as an example of a principle, but not that he brought Titus along as an example and test case. Titus is mentioned by Paul as an example that Gentiles are not required by the Law to be circumcised or hold to other speciality aspects of the Law in order to receive the evangel and be saved.
The Greek there can also read as though there is an English punctuation comma between “evangel” and “which”, “Now I… submitted to them the evangel, which I am heralding among the nations”. Paul is admittedly concerned that after fourteen years he may have altered something in accord with what he believed (v.2) to be a revelation (since even if an angel out of heaven should bring a different gospel than that which was received, this should be considered anathema), thus that he might have been racing or have run into nothing. Paul is doing the properly self-critical thing and checking with the other apostles for agreement on the evangel.
Paul does indeed say that he “has been entrusted with the evangel of the uncircumcision, according as Peter of the circumcision”, but this is immediately paralleled, “for the One Who operates in Peter into the apostleship of the Uncircumcision operates in me also for the nations”. Yet where does Paul or anyone else ever say that there are categorically two different kinds of apostleship, one kind for Gentiles and one kind for Jews?! One of Paul’s main thrusts so far is that he is equal to the other apostles in authority! The usage indicates that one apostle takes the evangel to the Jews, and one apostle (not a different kind of apostle) takes the evangel to the Gentiles. Same apostleship, same evangel, somewhat different expectations about what Jews should do in regard to the Torah compared to Gentiles: which is what Paul’s complaint is about. Judaizers (apparently from James) are making those legitimate differences integral to the evangel, thus distorting the evangel.
This same scene is paralleled in Acts 15, where Peter stands up against the Pharisee Christians at the Jerusalem council and says, “Men! Brethren! You are versed that from the beginning days God chooses among you, (that) through my mouth the nations are to hear the word of the evangel [singular, one direct article] and believe.” Peter’s whole point, backing Paul in this, is that God made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, which of course is in reference to the cleansing of hearts by faith (v.9), but his argument would have been instantly undermined if he had been testifying to two evangels, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles! – for if there had been two gospels, his argument would have been better served by not emphasizing the no-distinction between Jews and Gentiles when it comes to salvation: he should have emphasized that keeping Torah was part of the evangel for the Jews, and not keeping Torah (to such an extent anyway) was part of a distinct evangel for the Gentiles, therefore the Pharisees shouldn’t mix the two. As it is, by emphasizing a singular gospel without distinction of salvation for Jew and Gentile, his opponents would have said, “Yes, so why are you distinguishing the Gentiles by taking the side that they should not be circumcised or Torah observant?!”
To this could be added that despite being sent as apostle to the Gentiles, Paul was not distinctly and only an apostle to the Gentiles, but regularly preached first to Jews in an area and then after that to Gentiles.
This is purely a matter of historical accident and familizarization of term usage. “Gospel” is a literal translation of “evangel”, the only difference being that one is based in Greek language and the other is based in ancient Germanic languages.
Knoch himself argues for “evangel” on the ground that “evangelize” and “evangelist” are part of accepted usage; but “gospel” is also part of accepted usage on exactly the same basis. Knoch’s other rationale was that “evangel” “is not encumbered with many unscriptural associations and phrases” as “gospel”; but “evangelize” and “evangelist” should on that ground have been, for Knoch, just as “encumbered” with many unscriptural associations and phrases, seeing as how Christian “evangelical” groups tend to be trinitarian on one hand and non-universalistic on the other!
Hey Jason
It is a well written article on your part, and I know you are much more learned than me. Also the idea of the 2 evangel’s will never be popular. I doubt there are even 500 in the world that hold to the position. I have made well aware that I will not be on this system anymore. I feel my poor arguments have dishonoured God, and I need to be more devout. Yes, I believe it is scriptural, but I am not the one to be defending the position. Just one thing. I was not talking bad about the term ‘gospel’ ’ I just wanted Catherine to know there is a reason for the clv using ‘evangel’ It is not to be snobbish or different. Even this site is called Evangelical universalist, not Gospelelical universalist.
God bless, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to enjoy this site.
Hey Jason
In the next few days I will respond to your article. I am prone to discouragement. I really do appreciate the time you took to explain your outlook, as well as to show me where you feel I went wrong. I tried to have someone else fill my shoes, but they encouraged me to stick with it. I can’t believe how nice people are on this site. God is gracious is he not? On this we agree!!!
Puddy
Hey Jason
I had just written part of a lenghty article, and I lost it. I am going to send you what I write in 5 shorter articles.
When I first came on this system, I decided to use the CLV assuming others would also be using the versions of their choice. I have been tempted to actually use the term ‘Gospel’ for this thread, but I am just going to keep consistent.
You begin your article by referring to Ro. 1:14-17 You are assuming we see 2 evangel’s in this passage, am I correct?
“For not ashamed am I of the evangel, for it is God’s power for everyone who is believing - to the Jew first, and to the Greek as well” 1.16
You are correct that Paul uses a definite article before gospel. “For not ashamed am I of the evangel…” 1.16. In this passage Paul is referring to his evangel. “For in it God’s righteousness is being revealed…” 1.17
It is not just Greeks that can be ‘justified’ There are some Jews included with this evangel as well. In fact I believe only one evangel is in operation today, so that it really does involve both Jews and Greeks.
The two evangels co-existed with each other a short time, during the Acts period. The important thing is to be able to distinguish the two in scripture. It is simple: only the Apostle Paul taught justification.
So what is ‘justification’ and what is the difference between ‘justification’ and ‘forgiveness’?
The ‘evangel’ Paul taught is “to him who is not working, yet is believing on Him Who is justifying the irreverent, his faith is reckoned for righteousness” Ro. 4.5
If I was found to be guilty of murder, it would not matter how repentant I may be of my crime. I may be a completely changed person, full of love and good acts. This still does not change my guilt. Perhaps I would genuinely apologize to the victim’s family, and beg them for forgiveness. Yet what I would not think of doing is ask them to justify my actions, to agree they were right, and reckon my apology for righteousness. Maybe they will forgive me, but my guilt will always remain.
Remember when the debtor of Matt. 18 was forgiven a large amount of debt by the King, but then refused to forgive a much smaller debt owed him? Well when the King found out the actions of the first debtor, he was given “up to the tormentors till he may pay all he is owing him” 18.34
So you see there is a significant difference.
Christ concludes “Thus shall My heavenly Father also be doing to you, if each one should not be pardoning his brother, from your hearts” 18.35
Christ did not teach ‘justification’. Nor did Peter and the other disciples.
A.E. Knoch comments “Pardon is probational because it is based on behaviour. Justification is irrevocable because it is based on the blood of Christ.” Concordant commentary
You obliterate Paul’s unique Apostleship to the Nations, and instead force him into the Apostleship of the twelve to Israel. While Paul says God “seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus…” Eph. 2. 6 You place him among the twelve who have a earthly expectation and will judge the tribes of Israel. "Yet Jesus said to them, “Verily, I am saying to you, that you who follow Me, in the renascence whenever the Son of Mankind should be seated on the throne of His glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” Matt. 19.28
If the Apostle Paul was to be included with the twelve, why does he not say so? Paul was very bold, and would have defended this Apostleship. Even Luke his companion had the opportunity to clarify Paul’s Apostleship when he wrote Acts.
Look what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Cor. 15 when referring to the rousing of Christ
“and that He was seen by Cephas, thereupon by the twelve. Thereupon He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once…Thereupon He was seen by James, thereafter by all the Apostles. Yet, last of all, even as if a premature birth, He was seen by me also”
Paul makes no attempt to clarify…
You refer to Gal. 1. 23 as some kind of proof text that there could not have been two evangels. I am not sure how Concordant teaching deals with this passage, but I know how I approach it. Sometimes we can over literalize a passage. I know that sounds strange coming from my lips, but it is true, and I will give myself as an example. Recently when trying to defend the position that the second death is literal physical death, I brought up the scripture passage found in Rev. 22.9 “Let the injurer injure still; and let the filthy one be filthy still…” I basically commented that this is their permanant position. Now I did not bother to explain my belief about the eons (etc) I just expected people would understand the context of my words.
You could probably take our own words at some point (Concordant believers) to show we don’t believe in the 2 evangels.
Here Paul is making a basic statement. Paul says "Yet only they were hearing that “He who once was persecuting us, now is evangelizing the faith which once he ravaged” Also Paul is referring to the comments of other people.
The book of Galations, is concerning the evangel Paul brought to the Galations. This is the context of the book. There is only one evangel for them. These are ‘justified’ believers who could not turn to the evangel of the circumsicion even if they so desired, because a person reckoned as righteous has nothing in which to be pardoned.
How can Paul be clearer “For I am making known to you, brethren, as to the evangel which is being brought by me, that it is not in accord with man. For neither did I accept it from a man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ” Gal. 1.11-12
“Now I went up in accord with a revelation, and submitted to them the evangel which I am heralding among the nations…” Gal. 2.2. Surely these passages are clear. Paul was not going up to Jeresulem to check with Peter to see if he was heralding accurately, and yes it is clear that the subject matter is the evangel itself.