I’m posting this as an open-ended question to those who have studied the idea that the “gospel of the circumcision” is different than the “gospel of the uncircumcision”.
The idea, as I understand it, is that the “GC” was for the Jewish believers in Christ and ended with the destruction of Jerusalem (The whole covenant was officially ended, and the GC halted permanently or until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled?).
The “GU” was “Paul’s Gospel” given to him by Christ to take to the Gentiles, and this gospel remains.
Effectively, anything that seems to contradict Paul’s teaching (James, Jude, The 4 Gospel Accounts) is outdated.
Interestingly, I have heard that the book of James was written much earlier than any of Paul’s letters. So, this “two gospels” approach could explain the difficulty of reconciling the two different teachings.
I may have summarized it incorrectly or missed a significant point.
Has anyone here read / studied / considered this? If so, what do you think?
I agree to a point. Not that what is in James etc is not valid, just as I don’t believe the OT to be invalid, but should be interpreted from a final revelation standpoint, just as the OT laws are given to point to Christ. In Colossians Paul talks about the mystery, which is the completion of the gospel. Paul also talks about his gospel, and if anyone preaches a different gospel its wrong. Paul was the only one given the revelation of the mystery, although I believe that Johns Revelation fills in pieces.
its long, but well worth the read. To sum up the bible is not in its original order, which hampers our understanding of many themes, doctrines, and our ability to rightly divide. The reason I bring this up, is because the general letters (jewish) came after Acts, then pauls epistles, finally REV.
I admit I’ve always been puzzled by the “two gospels” view to which some believers in UR (such as Martin Zender) hold. I had a discussion about it with someone several years ago on another forum (in which I argued against it) but haven’t really thought much about it since. What is it about James, Jude, and the Gospels that you think “seems to contradict Paul’s teaching?”
I’m okay with James, Jude and the Gospels, but I think they (the two gospel people) make some good points.
Saved by grace through faith vs. saved by works - this theme can either be explained or “explained away”, or it can be taken at face value, as a contradiction. If one perceives it as a contradiction (which I don’t necessarily), then the two gospels approach would seem to provide a solution, and perhaps a clarity to the gospel which is applicable today.
The Jewish letters are noticeably more ‘behavior’ and ‘do’ oriented. It’s not that Paul doesn’t talk about doing good works, though, so I can also understand why one would argue against it.
Taking the quote from Jesus below at face value, how do you explain that it’s not a different gospel?
I’ve been hearing whispers of this idea a lot lately and am interested to know where this thread will go. I haven’t studied this out myself, because it seems entirely unnecessary to make them contradictory in the first place. I’m just not sure why the two teachings (Yeshua and Paul) have to be reconciled, as there are no contradictions if you don’t remove works from salvation. I don’t think Paul ever forbade works. So yes, works are still necessary for salvation. No contradictions. (Yes, I said that. We are saved by faith that works – as were Abraham and Rahab; just as it’s always been). Do we have to work the OT law specifically? No. Well, not really – the OT Law was abrogated in its letter, but we must certainly work that which was retained in spirit. This means its necessarily extroverted and social by the way (Matthew 22:37-40). I think sola fide (in its simplest sense) has been particularly destructive. It seems to me that few Evangelicals see much advantage in living a life of discipleship and social works because of their inward, next-life and (so-called) “God-centered” view of salvation.
@Aaron:
I’m not saying anything I just posted a few verses that I found, via a quick google search, that someone would use to support it.
In my mind, I view this as a law covenant response (keep the commandments for eternal life), because Jesus hadn’t yet shed His blood to initiate the New Covenant. I also think Jesus turned the heat up in order to show the Jews their destitution.
@We are all brothers
Not that it is my stance, but I think the Two-Gospel people would say you had to do quite a bit of muddling to get to your conclusion. I’m not sure, but I think they would say Paul’s gospel was salvation by grace through faith - and yes - God wants us to love others, do good things, and those works will result in the mature believer. I think they would say that anyone espousing a gospel that says “Works saves you” is proclaiming the old good news of the kingdom. I think they would say that Paul’s statements about Abraham believing were given against the backdrop of those associates from James who were troubling people with ‘another gospel’.
Sorry, I can’t explain it very well. I should search it out. Several years ago there was a website called gospelfortoday.com that had a bit more explanation in it’s articles and forums, but unfortunately it’s no longer around.
I’m not espousing this doctrine, but I can say for me personally, it is much easier to see the goodness of God and His grace when I read Paul - especially when I was overwhelmed with a sense of my own guilt and sin and inability to perform before God. I personally see a great division between Law and Grace (the cross)… and I believe that one has to have a sense of guilt to see his own need for a Savior. But once that person changes his mind about his sins and agrees with God and enters into the Life, then all things are made new. Now that I’m on the other side - in a place where I stopped struggling for righteousness (self-righteousness), I read James and it seems beautiful and wholesome to me. However, I have noticed that of the people I know, the meanest “christians” love to quote James, and typically seem to have very little understanding of Righteousness and Victory as a free gift.
So in short, I don’t need two gospels, and I can’t debate or explain it. I was just curious to know what people here think about it, or if anyone here has seriously studied (in favor) of it, so I could hear the case for it.
The idea, at least what I’m talking about is progressive revelation.
1st law, don’t eat of the tree of knowledge. FAIL
After they are removed from the garden, there is no more chance to eat literally for the rest of us (if it is a literal story, now the law is symbolic for us to not go by knowledge, but by the Spirit of Christ, which is the tree of life). So God gives the next set of laws.
2nd set, bring offering to God at appointed time. Able WIN, Cain FAIL. We can’t bring this literal offering at the appointed time because well we don’t know what that time is, its not laid out for us, and other laws have superseded it. (now its fulfilled symbolically by us not bringing fruit of the earth/carnal/adamah is the word, but bringing the best of our life, the fatness)
3rd, the noachide laws. Eat anything that lives, they were vegetarians prior to this. Don’t eat blood, Don’t kill people.
4th, circumcision to Abraham
5th, the law at sinai, which supersedes the noachide laws, as they are not allowed to eat all animals.
etc. etc. I may have missed a lot, but the point is God can and does change His laws, but it doesn’t make those old laws worthless, as all those things were given for our example/pattern.
In the same way, Jesus came only to the lost sheep of Israel. His ministry was for them. Does that mean the gospels are worthless? NO WAY. But proper interpretation comes through the eyes of the Revelation of Mystery, which is the final revelation by God to man (for the scriptures at least).
While I do believe there was a period of covenant transition that began during Christ’s earthly ministry and lasted until the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the fact that there are different terms used for the gospel in different contexts is, I believe, no proof of “different” gospels. Several terms may be used for the same subject, and different facets of that same subject can be emphasized within different contexts. Jesus and his disciples preached “the gospel of the kingdom” (Mt. 4:23; 9:35; Mk. 1:14-15). But so did Paul, to both Jews and Gentiles (e.g., Acts 20:21-27; 28:28-31). When proclaiming this gospel of the kingdom, Jesus and his disciples preached repentance to the Jewish people (Luke 24:47), and Paul preached the same to the Gentiles (Acts 17:30). The “great commission” had this very same “gospel of the kingdom” in view (Mt. 24:14; 26:13; 28:18; Mk 13:10; 14:9; 16:15; Lk 7:22; 9:6; 20:1; Acts 8:25; Acts 14:7,21; 15:7; 16:10), and in Acts 8:25, it is preached to the Gentiles.
This same gospel is for Jew and Gentile alike, without distinction (Acts 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:12,16, etc.). Note that Paul’s entire “olive tree” scenario takes place within the context of this one gospel (Rom. 11:2). In Romans 15, we see that Paul’s “gospel of God” is in fact “the gospel of Christ.” Mark 1:1 reveals that it is this same “gospel of Christ” that is unfolded in the synoptic gospels: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…” Paul’s gospel was Christ’s (2 Cor. 2:12). Paul preached Jesus Christ and recaps Christ’s great commission in Romans 16:25-26. This “mystery” was contained in the OT prophets (Romans 16:25; Gal. 3:8.). The “mystery of the gospel” of which Paul speaks was “made manifest” by the appearing of Jesus Christ (2 Tim 1:9-10).
In Ephesians 4:4-5, Paul said that there is “one body, and one spirit, according as you were called also with one expectation of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” Here we are not only told that there is “one body,” (i.e., the “body of Christ,” of which both Jews and Gentiles were members), but that there is also “one faith.” This “one faith” presupposes and must include the “one gospel” to which the “one faith” pertains, as well as the proclaiming of the gospel itself (the “calling”). Paul proclaimed the same gospel to both Jews and Gentiles, and those Jews and Gentiles who believed were being saved through the same “one faith.”
Those who believe in two different gospels for Jew and Gentiles often speak of a “terrestrial” calling and destiny for the Jews and a “celestial” calling and destiny for the Gentiles. But this is, I believe, a mistake. The fact is that the calling and destiny of all believers (both Jew and Gentile) is “terrestrial” until Christ’s coming at the resurrection (after which time the destiny of all people will be “celestial”). That both Jewish and Gentile believers have a “terrestrial” calling is, I think, evident from the following: "And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Rev 5:9-10). While it wouldn’t be impossible for John to refer to the Jewish people in this way (as I believe Jesus uses similar language in Mt. 25:32 to emphasize the fact that the Jews present in Jerusalem for Passover in 70 AD would be “from every nation under heaven” - cf. Acts 2:5-11), it seems unlikely that John is referring exclusively to the Jewish people here given the fact that he later distinguishes Jewish believers from “a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Rev. 7:4-9). I believe this “terrestrial” reign of believers is taking place now, and that the “celestial” destiny is for all who die in Adam (both Jew and Gentile). But regardless of when one believes this earthly reign will be (whether present or future), it is clearly for all who have been ransomed by the blood of Christ and have believed the one gospel of the kingdom (which, again, we find in Scripture being proclaimed to both Jew and Gentile alike).
I have also heard it said that those who believe the “gospel of the circumcision” are the “bride of the Lamb” (i.e., the bride of Christ, who is “the Lamb”) while those who believe the “gospel of the uncircumcision” become members of the “body of Christ.” But it would be erroneous to see a distinction between the bride and body of Christ; they are simply two different metaphors that refer to the same called-out group of people that consists of both Jews and Gentiles. That Paul viewed the “body of Christ” as also being Christ’s “bride” is evident from 2 Cor 11:2, and especially Eph 5:22-33.
In light of the above, I cannot help but conclude that there is only one gospel, for all people, whether Jew or Gentile. The “gospel of the grace of God” and the “gospel of the kingdom” are one and the same, and were preached to both Jew and Gentile alike. Paul wrote:
In Acts 28, we read that Paul, from “morning till evening” expounded to the Jews, “testifying to the kingdom of God” (v. 23). Because most of them remained in unbelief, Paul goes on to say, “Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen” (vv. 28-29). Then, we read in the final two verses (vv. 30-31): “He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.”
And earlier, in Acts 13:46, we read the following: "And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.”
This is all in accord with what Christ said of unbelieving Israel in Matt 21:43: “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” The kingdom of God (God’s reign among his covenant people) was taken from Israel as a nation, and given only to those who believed, whether Jew or Gentile. God’s covenant people would no longer be a national or ethnic group; from then on, the kingdom of God would be for all people, and the “calling” to inherit the Messianic kingdom would be through the proclamation of the one gospel. There were not (and never will be) two different expectations for Jewish and Gentile believers. The gospel of the kingdom (the gospel of the grace of God) is for one and all.
But what about Paul’s reference to “my gospel” in Rom 2:16 and 16:25 (cf. 2 Tim 2:8.)? Paul’s letter to the Romans is to both Gentiles and Jews, and the same gospel is proclaimed to both groups (Rom 1:16, etc.). As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul is careful to explain the gospel to them as God’s purpose of making them to be God’s people under the Messiah, without subjecting them to the old covenant law of Moses. This is the secret that he is so concerned that the Ephesians understand (Eph 3:3-7) – the secret that was revealed to him according to that gospel of which he was made a minister. It is this mystery of bringing the Gentiles into the kingdom of God without their having to pass through the rites of the Mosaic law that was revealed more particularly to the apostle Paul than to any other apostle – hence, Paul refers to it as “my gospel.” But this different emphasis doesn’t mean the other apostles preached a gospel that led to a different salvation and destiny for the Jewish believer.
What about the “gospel of the circumcision” committed to Peter, and the “gospel of the uncircumcision” committed to Paul (Gal 2:7)? This is not a reference to two different gospels; rather, it is Paul’s way of emphasizing the two different roles that he and Peter had as ministers of the same gospel. Paul was as expressly sent by God to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter was to preach it to the Jews. The clear-cut agreement between these two apostles (Gal 2:9) “denotes a distinction of sphere, and not a difference of type” (Lightfoot). Both divisions in the work preach the same gospel of the kingdom (albeit in their own unique ways of presenting and explaining it to different cultural groups).
This “gospel of the uncircumcized” and the “gospel of the circumcized” are only two phrases in 1 verse of scripture, Gal.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;”
I believe that the NIV translates it better though, communicating its intended meaning.
“On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.”
Paul is making a comparison of their respective ministries, not that their message was different. Though of course, the needs/challenges of the Gentiles would have been significantly different than the needs/challenges of the Jews. The Jews would have seen Jesus as their Messiah, and would have need to come to realize that God was expanding the Kingdom beyond the Jews, and they would have needed to recall that relationship with God was and always had been based upon grace and faith, not upon works or obedience. The Gentiles would have needed to know that they could have relationship with God too based on grace and faith, and that Jesus was truly God in the flesh, and… They needed to know that God accepted and loved them and they didn’t need to be circumcized and become Jews, but could remain in the cultures in which they were born.
The Good News was the same for both groups, “God loves you, forgives you, and wants a relationship with you, so turn from your sins and turn to Him. He has secured your relationship with Him through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus; so put your faith in Him.”
Sherman, what do you think Paul would say to the Jews today, when they come to faith in Christ? Would he ask them to abandon the practices of the law then? Just circumcision? Or maybe “they” should keep circumcision because it belongs to them, as a people.
RedHot - So, do you see the earlier letters as less “scriptural” or less trustworthy?
Aaron - thanks a bunch for such a thorough review. You made a really great case against it, assuming your references are used in context. I’ll check those out.
If anyone knows of a really well-thought out presentation FOR the two gospels, please provide a link.
No I don’t see those as less scriptural or trustworthy at all. All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, reproof. I believe the entire bible we have to be trustworthy, because God is in control of all things, even if man tried to alter it, or whatever, we have what we have because it is in God’s plan. Are there errors? Maybe, if there are, they’re there because its part of God’s plan. “I create the light and the darkness, man devises his ways but the LORD directs his steps, I have declared the end from the beginning”
We are called to rightly divide the word of truth. So thats what I’m talking about. Just as I don’t believe we are to follow the Old Covenant laws by the letter, for the letter kills (ministry of death) but the spirit gives life. The Jews however were called to follow by the letter, because the whole thing was to point to our utter insufficiency and to Christ who is the fulfillment of the law. And everything was given for our example, the natural before spiritual, the external regulations/natural point to the spiritual. Even the birth of Christ, took place naturally(physically in time 2000 years ago), but it was given for our example, and that is Christ being birthed in us.
rom 8
18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to(in) us. 19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
Read all Gal 4 to get the context of “I am in labor pains until Christ is formed in you”
Absolutely not. Paul would encourage them to continue to worship God from their Jewish culture. Remember, Paul and the disciples continued to worship God at the Temple, even making vows and possibly sacrifices. And Paul fully affirmed the Law, that it was good, and that it was a privaledge to be part of the Jewish elect, and the covenants of promise. He was battling Legalism, not the Mosaic Law.
I just posted a few verses that I found, via a quick google search, that someone would use to support it.