Ok, I’m lost. I understand that there is a difference between the lack of distinction between Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ vs. the races and cultures not disappearing. You also see the two gospels as distinct and individual. I don’t see how that qualifies the gospel preached to the Jews for a return performance once the full number of the Gentiles comes in. Paul repeatedly denounces attempts at Judaizing Christians and Christianity, so why would God do that? It seems clear to me that that if Paul preached a distinct gospel from the one Jesus presented to the Jews, that Paul’s was clearly the superior version, and that now any Jew wanting to enter the kingdom would do so under the new paradigm.
Hi Melchizedek
Exactly! Why does he do this? Because it’s the mixing of two distinct and separate messages. That’s Paul’s big beef. Don’t mix the messages!
Gal 1:6-7 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all.
- They are deserting God
- God called them by the grace of Christ
- They are turning to a different gospel
- this “different gospel” is no gospel
Paul simply can’t be implying that they are turning to the Jewish gospel, which Peter and the others preached. That would mean Paul would in effect be saying “Peter’s gospel is no gospel at all.” We know that’s not true because Paul goes up to submit “my gospel” to Peter, James and John and the other Jerusalem heavyweights in Gal 2:1-2 and Acts 15. He doesn’t go up to tell them that their gospel is wrong, and “no gospel at all”. God was working in the ministry of Peter, apostle to the Jews. God was working in the ministry of Paul, apostle to the Gentiles. God was at work in both ministries. Both ministries and both messages were valid and part of God’s plan. But each message was different. This is why the pillars of jerusalem gave Paul fellowship: they recognised that God had given grace to Paul to preach his gospel to Gentiles. And if the two messages were precisely the same gospel, why on earth would Paul have had to go up to submit it before them? Moreso, Paul’s message cannot possibly be the same as Peter’s because Paul received his by direct revelation from the risen Jesus (1:12). Why would this direct revelation have been necessary if it was the same as Peter’s?
And notice what the issue was: Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1). Now if this isn’t a lock, stock and barrel Jewish message, I don’t know what is! But here’s the thing: the Acts trip doesn’t at all end up saying that no-one has to be circumcised to be saved. it ends up saying that only Jews responding to the Jewish gospel have to be circumcised to be saved. We know this because the short letter sent from the Jerusalem elders to the Gentile converts mentions nothing about circumcision.
Paul’s message and Peter’s message were different. (As more evidence of this, consider that Paul speaks of justification often, but none of the Jerusalem writers speak of it at all.)
All this said, the point of the Acts 15 trip, and what Paul reports in Gal 1 and 2, is that the two gospels (one to the Jew, the other to the Gentile) remained separate, and both remained alive and well. Neither was cancelled. Both continued.
The problem, then, came when the Gentile converts tried to mix the two. This, and this alone, is the big issue which Paul is confronting in Galatians. It’s the same issue many have today. But the reality is that the two gospels are separate, and must remain separate.
He does this because the gospels are separate and distinct, not because the Jewish gospel has been wiped out. Gal 2:9-10 make abundantly clear that once the question of circumcision of Gentiles [which was really like a test case for Gentiles having to keep the Jewish law] was settled, both gospels and both ministries continued as before.
No. Again, this is mixing the two gospels, which is the last thing we want to do. The “kingdom” has nothing to do with the gospel to the Gentiles. The kingdom is an Israel thing. Why would Paul’s version be a superior one to Jesus’ Jewish version? Both came from the same person. Just because one was delivered from the risen Jesus doesn’t make that one superior. I hope I’ve demonstrated adequately above that both gosepls continued being preached through Acts, after the Acts 15 trip.
The gospel for the Jews is a gospel of fulfilled prophecies and a kingdom gospel. Any Jew who wanted to enter the kingdom and eionian life had to “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness and pardon of sins”. Never, in all his writings, does Paul say that’s what the Gentiles need to do. But we also know that if a Jew responded to Paul’s message of grace through faith and justification (a completely different and better thing from forgiveness) then that Jew was just as much a part of the body of Christ as any Gentile. This is why Paul says that those in the body are “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
And the most amazing thing to me is that the phrase “fallen from grace”, although in common usage being associated with sexual sin, has nothing to do with that, but everything to do with keeping the law. “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” Notice that his Gentile hearers were trying to be justified by law, and in the process were alienated from Christ. This is how to fall from grace in one easy step: try to be justified by law. Why is this falling from grace? Because attempting to keep the law and thereby be justified is the opposite of the grace of God.
I hope now it’s clear that God’s not attempting to Judaize Christians by bringing back in the Jewish gospel. Believers will already be gone at this stage. Romans 11:25-32 spells out clearly that once God has finished filling the body of Christ, he will resume dealing with Israel, so that in the end, all Israel will be saved, since God’s gifts and call are irrevocable. Currently the Jewish gospel has been set aside (see Acts 28 and Rom 11:25) but in the future, it will be brought back to centre stage.
I guess I don’t quite see it this way. From a previous post covering the same passages from Galatians:
I happened to be reading through this section of scripture the other day, and noticed something very interesting: In this passage, Paul identifies what the “other gospel” to which he is referring looks like; and (surprise! ) it has nothing to do with how people attempt to use it.
Galatians 1: 6,7 state: " I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are following a different gospel–not that there really is another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ." vs. 8 “But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathema!”
Now most people stop here, interestingly. But watch what happens later: Paul goes through letting them know firstly, that the gospel he preaches is not of human origin, not having received it or learning it from any human source, but from a direct revelation from Christ, and so on.
Then we come to Galatians 2, starting at verse 11: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles, but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcison. And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews? We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. But if while seeking to be justified in Christ we ourselves have also been found to be sinners, is Christ then one who encourages sin? Absolutely not! But if I build up again those things I once destroyed, I demonstrate that I am one who breaks God’s law…”
So here, it seems that Paul is in fact saying that the Jewish way of doing things is done, even for Jews! So I still see the gospel as revealed to Paul the replacement for what came before, just as the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant.
It would seem to me that they are not only distinct, but that the Jewish gospel was being replaced as well. Paul says no one is justified by works of the law such as circumcision any longer, whether they are Jews or not. There is no longer any need for the “Jewish gospel” to be reinstated for the Jews, because the law-based aspects of it are now obsolete for everyone.
This is kind of like saying that the New Covenant isn’t superior to the Old Covenant because they both came from God. The logic doesn’t really follow.
I’m not so sure about the kingdom being only an Israel thing. That doesn’t seem to fit the overarching scriptural witness.
This is, I take it, demonstrating the point that the two gospels are distinct. I think we basically agree on that point.
Certainly: it is clear that God is not attempting to Judaize Christians; He’s done away with the whole Jewish system, which is why I’m baffled that you would view the “Jewish gospel” as God’s “A” game (at least with respect to national Israel) and one which he will re-institute for the Jews once the full measure of the Gentiles has come in. Grace through faith has replaced it all.
Hi Melchizedek
At this point I’d summarise our difference as this: you’re saying Paul was saying the different gospel was the Jewish gospel which Peter and co preached and that it had been completely superseded by the Gentile gospel. I’m saying that the different gospel was some hybrid of the separate Jewish and Gentile gospels and that the Jewish gospel, while on hold, was still valid. I hope that’s a good understanding of where we’re at.
I follow what you’re saying but I don’t think your conclusion stems from the fact that no-one will be justified by the works of the law. This is more complex than it appears, as I’ll point out later.
But a New Covenant can only apply to the same people as the Old Covenant applied to. The OC was for Jews. So too is the NC. Believers from the nations weren’t and aren’t under either. Personally, I am a Gentile and have nothing to do with the New Covenant. This makes sense since the new covenant was specifically to Israel: Jer 31:33. It also fits perfectly with the fact that Paul’s message was a mystery, something not revealed previously and not able to be found in the Jewish Scriptures.
Since I’ve been explaining myself and answering questions mostly, I thought now might be a good time for me to throw a few your way. 
Given that you’re saying the Jewish gospel is obsolete and has been replaced, how do you explain…
]Gal 2:7 “but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the good news of the uncircumcision, as Peter with [that] of the circumcision”? The “of”'s in this verse are a correct translation from the genitive case in the Greek. Despite the mainstream translations translating it as “to”, it’s “of”. This has a very different meaning. Paul seems to be quite clearly saying that there is a gospel of the Jews and a gospel of the Gentiles./:m]]that after the Acts 15 meeting, Peter and co kept preaching and they didn’t change what they preached?/:m]]that certain phrases and words Paul uses do not appear at all in all of the Jerusalem apostles’ writings, such as “justification”, “body of Christ”. Wouldn’t you expect that if their Jewish message was superseded and they were henceforth preaching the same message as Paul, that they would talk about the same things?/:m]]the book of Revelation and where it fits in God’s dealings with Israel?/:m]]the many many promises of God to Israel that have not yet been fulfilled and will apparently not ever be fulfilled, thus making God a liar?/:m]]James 2:14 “What is the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he may not have? is that faith able to save him?”, particularly contrasted with Paul’s many statements that we are saved by grace through faith alone and that even the faith is given to us by God/:m]]James 2:24 “Ye see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous, and not out of faith only”? To me, this verse is unexplainable if we think that Paul and James’ gospel were one and the same. And I bamboozled as to how it fits with Gal 2:16…unless of course we agree that Paul’s teaching on justification simply didn’t appear on the radar of the Jewish teachers, which itself shows again that the messages were and are both different and both valid./:m]
Hi rline: Well, not exactly. The different gospel of which Paul spoke was any version which attempted to return to law-keeping or rule-keeping (i.e., Old-Covenant type operating; self-effort). My point in the other thread I referenced was that people attempt to use the “different gospel” to try to heresy-hunt any version of the gospel other than the mainstream evangelical one, including any hint or flavor of universalism; but Paul’s point was actually opposite of this stance: It’s all about grace.
This is an interesting point. I hadn’t actually considered that, or its implications. Can you point me to any further resources on this idea?
Perhaps this is because there was still a need for the Jewish Gospel at the time? I’m going to assume that they kept preaching two different gospels beyond that point for the sake of discussion here, although I’m not entirely sure that’s what happened. Even given that, I don’t see how this necessitates the use of the Jewish gospel in the future, once the full measure of the Gentiles have come in. I guess rightly or wrongly, I see the Jewish gospel as having a finite end, like the Old Covenant. Feel free to show me where the scripture clearly indicates otherwise, however!
Again, I think this shows that the two messages are distinct, but I don’t see that as necessitating a re-instatement of the Jewish gospel later.
Oh, man. That’s probably a whole topic worth of discussion all by itself. I assume you’re implying that Revelation has nothing to do with God’s dealings with Israel?
As I’m sure you’re aware, the many promises have not been fulfilled yet because the time to fulfill them has not come yet. All Israel will be saved once the fulness of the gentiles has come in. I believe that this is because the gospel of the nations is the manner through which Israel will be saved in the future, since in Christ, there is no longer ay distinction. I don’t see this as evidence for a “Return of the Jedi”, so to speak. Is there something specific in the gospel of the Jews that necessitates its use in the fulfillment of those promises?
I think James’ point here is that real faith is evidenced by the works produced by it. I don’t think this contrasts with Paul’s statements.
This one is admittedly tougher, at least on the face of it. I’ll have to go to the context of that one and see if that sheds any light on the matter. I’ll have to get back to you on this one. If I were to hazard a raw guess, I’d say that James is talking about judgment and status rewards here vs. salvation. I may need to revise that after a closer look.
Perhaps those answers will give us something to move forward with… 
Edit: Revision on my guess… Having gone back and looked at the James passage, it seems clear the entire point that was being made in the verse you referenced here was actually made in the previous verse (Jas. 2:23) where it states; “23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, " AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God."
(Emphasis was original to the online translation copied and pasted.)
So it would seem that James’ point here is that our (good) works (not those of the law, but those which flow directly from our trust in God) demonstrate the genuineness of our faith. He is not making the statement that would appear to be the case from the plain reading of 2:24 in isolation. (Or 2:14, for that matter).
In other words, the mystery of what James said in 2:24 is resolved, as it is the conclusion of the point made in 2:23; that when we believe God and act on that, this demonstrates that our faith (given by God) is true. He is not saying it’s works AND faith, as it would at first appear.
Hi Melchizedek
No. 
I haven’t done mountains of reading on it or anything like that. I do remember once hearing basically that statement and realising that it was true. I think it’s probably fairly crucial to things, but like pretty much everything else, Christendom just adopts anything that sounds good, regardless of where it’s from. I think probably someone (and I’m not volunteering!) would need to do a decent study of the whole thing. But it makes sense, though, doesn’t it? And so I guess I see this as a fairly big problem for saying that the Jewish gospel is finished. If it’s true that Gentiles don’t have anything to do with the new covenant, and also that Jews are now only saved through Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles, then what happened to the new covenant? That’s how I think it through.
Totally. So do I. We just differ on when that is. I don’t think it can end until the promised Messiah reigns on the earth in the promised kingdom. Attempts to get rid of this result in things like “the church is spiritual Israel” and amillenialism.
A whole topic? Try a whole forum! 
I’m saying that if it’s true that the Jewish gospel is finito, then Revelation has no place. Personally I think Revelation has absolutely everything to do with God’s dealings with Israel. It’s all about how God will finally get Israel to the point where all Israel will be saved. It’s not to do with the body of Christ. It does include Gentiles, but only in context of the nations, not in terms of the body of Christ.
I think so. I think there are all the promises made to the patriarchs and through the prophets of the blessing to Israel and Israel ruling over the nations and Messiah ruling on His throne and the times of refreshing etc etc. There’s simply none of all this stuff in Paul’s gospel.
And I think this is the standard answer that Christians give to deal with this problem. I also think it’s wrong.
Not only do I think it contrasts, I think it’s a direct opposite.
The main problem i have with this is that it’s not what the passage says. Some highlights from verse 14 onwards
]14 - What’s the point of faith without works? Can that faith save him? [implied answer: No!]/:m]]17 - faith, without works, is dead by itself/:m]]20 - faith apart from works is dead /:m]]21 - Abraham was declared righteous out of works /:m]]22 - the faith was perfected out of the works /:m]]24 - man is declared righteous out of works, and not faith alone /:m]]25 - in the same way, Rahab was declared righteous out of works /:m]
At best, I’d say this says that faith and works complement each other. But even that is not what Paul taught. He taught that you are saved by grace alone. Works didn’t come into it, except as the things God had prepared for us to do.
Melchizidek wrote
If I understand you correctly Mel, what you are saying seems similar to what I am thinking. rline says it is the standard Christian answer-that would be a first for me.
There is a difference between “good works” which flow from trust in God and the work of the Holy Spirit, and “works of the law” which flow from human effort and take great pride in things like being an outwardly circumcised Jew (but not having a “circumcised heart”).
There is also a difference between true faith and just saying you have faith.
Paul may be arguing for true faith (that will inevitably also lead to good works) just like James is.
Paul may not be arguing against true good works which are intimately connected with faith. God has always been pleased with true good works that spring from faith. God has never been pleased with outward works of the law from an “uncircumcised heart”.
This is why Paul can write that we are justified by faith and not by works of the law (the Jewish, human effort kind) and yet also write that those who obey the law will be justified (Rom 2:13) and James can agree with him that a person is justified by what he does (the true good works springing from genuine faith) and not by faith alone (the mere words kind of faith rather than true faith that leads to good works).
rline said
Could you be confusing the two types of “works”. You agree we are saved by grace. You agree that faith comes only by God’s grace. But sometimes you seem to say that good works can’t come from God’s grace - and yet I know that you do think that true good works do come from God’s grace. Both faith and works can come from God’s grace. So I am confused by your reasoning. 
Of course. Anything’s possible
Yes and yes.
I’m hesitant to say this because I reckon you’ll find it if i have…but I’m fairly sure I’ve never said that. Good works can definitely (and should) stem as a result of God’s grace.
I think all I’m going to say now is that nothing on this thread (except the explanation I’ve offered) has yet explained how we can reconcile the “forgive or you won’t be forgiven” and the “grace alone” conundrum that it all began with. Jesus says “if you don’t forgive others, you won’t be forgiven”. Paul says “you have been saved by grace, not of works”.
I’m all ears.
Well, what I am still wondering as a solution, (because I haven’t yet heard anything that definitely proves it wrong - but I’m all ears also ), is that grace and true works of obedience are not opposites because true works of obedience spring from God’s grace.
If Jesus says “if you don’t forgive others, you won’t be forgiven” he is making the same statement as James in fairly bold terms.
True faith results in works. If there are no works, then there is no true faith. An orange tree produces oranges. God’s grace produces fruit. God’s grace produces faith and obedience (not perfect and not all at once, but it is there and it grows).
Forgiving others is a work of the Spirit in our lives and an evidence of God’s grace. Being forgiven is also a work of God’s grace in our lives. So if we say we have one, but won’t do the other, something is not right. The two belong together as evidence of the grace of God.
Jesus’ statement does not say that we are not saved by grace. Jesus’ statement is perfectly consistent with being saved by grace, because both being forgiven, and being able to forgive others come from God’s grace.
So Jesus statement is not contradictory to Paul’s statement “you have been saved by grace, not of works”.
Paul is not referring here to “works” of true obedience (like forgiving others) produced by the grace of God. He is referring to outward “works” of the law (e.g. circumcision), springing from human effort and an uncircumcised heart.
I am aware that I could be barking up the wrong tree. I hope you can follow what I am saying. Any thoughts?
Rline- I’ve read a good deal of this thread and may I ask a few questions to clarify these ‘two gospels’ and therefore ‘two groups’ of people? I will just say that I’ve come across this teaching before via Martin Zender and the Concordant folk and I’ve usually given it short shrift. Having read through this thread, I can see that this ‘two’ gospels teaching does seem to make sense.
How do the two ‘aspects’ or two groups of people fit into the Overall Plan of Reconciliation? (I’m assuming that the ‘two gospels’ are only distinct in a limited way, as the ultimate goal of Christ is to reconcile all creation to God and hence all humans whether Jew or Greek, will receive the same atonement and eternal life in the end. The two groups may have different ‘temporary’ roles in working to achieve this end result??)
If ‘those in Christ’ are resurrected before the 1000 years, then what will the ‘body of Christ’ (the mainly ‘gentile’ believers) be doing in relation to the 1000 year reign if the ‘Kingdom’ is only for natural Jews? Or am I misunderstanding you on the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ and the kingdom itself?
I’ve understood the kingdom (when established at Christ’s second coming) to comprise of Jesus as the King, His bride as the co-rulers (and thus I’ve assumed ‘the body of Christ’ to be the same as ‘the bride’) and the subjects are…?? Hmmm, I always struggle when I get to that bit. 
Yes, but I think v. 23 cleanly answers all this. Abraham believed God (demonstrated by acting on that belief), and it was accounted to him as righteousness, resulting in justification. I don’t think it could be more plain…
From the rest of your post, I’d say were on roughly the same page, yes.
Exactly.
Yes, I think this is a key point that I didn’t get around to making.
I think this is right on the point I was attempting to make. The two sides of this coin only seem contradictory, but they’re really just saying the same thing two different ways. The works produced by the fruit of the spirit are not what save us, but are the evidence of the grace through faith by which we are being saved. This seems to clearly be James’ point in that passage, especially in v. 23.
rline: I found an article which would appear to basically support your position; doctrine.org/?page_id=37
Towards the end, he makes an interesting statement that I’m not quite sure what to make of.
“6The Pauline passages are the only references that do not directly apply to national Israel. The New Testament (New Covenant) technically does not include most of the Gospels for the New Covenant was not inaugurated until the Last Supper (Matthew 26.28). When Paul mentioned the New Covenant it was to emphasize its spiritual character.”
This was unexpected for me, as I’ve never heard of anyone who advocates for this type of distinction between Israel and the Church say that most of the Gospels are not part of the New Covenant. It would seem to me that the New Covenant, if it’s only for the Jews should contain the bulk of the Jewish gospel, not the other way 'round…
There is another article that describes the issues under discussion here, talking about the differences in approach between dispensationalism and covenant theology: bible.org/article/relationship-church-israel
It would seem that you are taking more of the traditional dispensationalist approach to this, and I am taking more of the covenant theology approach, (although I’m not 100% covenant theology apparently). The author suggests a middle ground between the two approaches, which he terms “progressive dispensationalism”, which seems to be more the route you’re trying to go.
I haven’t had time to read either article thoroughly, so I’ll have to get back to them. Give them a read, and let me know what you think!
Hi Craig, Melchizedek and now Catherine and maybe others
I think at this point we’ve all stated our positions fairly clearly. There are things I’ve raised which haven’t been responded to, and I’ve no doubt that I haven’t responded to everything that’s been thrown my way. It also seems I’m in a bit of a minority ( ) which is completely fine!
What I mainly feel is that I’m not as on top of what I’m trying to get across as I’d like to be. Also, to me, this all really hinges on whether there are two distinct and ongoing gospels or not. Therefore, at this stage I’m going to partially bow out of discussion so that I can
- read the two articles Mel put forward and possibly comment
- get a better handle on the two gospels
- answer Catherine’s questions…I think I’ll do that now.
By all means. I should say that my responses will be off the cuff and not overly researched…
Well first I’ll say that I’m pleased that what I’ve written seems to have made it clearer. I think one of the biggest dangers that all of us have is finding out that something comes from a particular group or teaching or something (eg. Zender, progressive dispensationalism, etc) and then simply because of that, writing it off, or worse, pigeonholing the one who’s saying it. Now this is not at all what you’re doing but I think it’s handy for each of us to keep in mind that it makes no difference which person or group touts a teaching. We should only be concerned with whether it’s Scriptural or not. I’ll go so far as to say that if a Jehovah’s Witness teaches something which is Scriptural, then we need to face that and perhaps admit that a clock that’s stopped is still right twice a day
Can I ask why you initially gave it short shrift? The style? The teaching? The fact that it didn’t fit with what you already believed?
Yes the two gospels are what God uses to achieve his ultimate goal, which is the reconciliation of all creation and that he himself will be all in all. So they aren’t the end, but a means to an end. All humans (and other created spiritual beings) will ultimately live reconciled with God for eternity.
The two groups do have different temporary roles in the meantime. This is easy to see from something like Romans 11, where Paul explains that Israel have been hardened in part and set aside so that the Gentiles can come in, and what this will do is to cause jealousy in Israel, and then they will be grafted back in and everyone will live happily ever after. (I paraphrased that last bit ) This is just one example of how the two groups are used differently by God.
Another example is how the one group is referred to as the bride of the lamb, and the other as the body of Christ. And the groups aren’t mixed. It’s uncanny how often the gospels refer to parables of bride and bridegroom and Paul doesn’t at all.
Another example is that the eonian destiny of the two groups is different. The destiny of the saved Jews is to reign with the Messiah on the earth. The destiny of the body of Christ is to be God’s witness to the heavenlies or celestials. “that there might be made known now to the principalities and the authorities in the heavenly [places], through the assembly, the manifold wisdom of God, according to a purpose of the ages, which He made in Christ Jesus our Lord” Eph 3:10-11.
It’s important to understand that the body of Christ of which Paul speaks is again and again said to be a mystery, or secret, something that has been hidden for generations and is now revealed, meaning something that did not exist in the OT writings. This is something completely new. God had a purpose for the body and its members but he kept it hidden.
Look at Col 1:26-27 “the secret that hath been hid from the ages and from the generations, but now was manifested to his saints, to whom God did will to make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this secret among the nations – which is Christ in you, the hope of the glory”
What I think we often miss from this sort of statement is that it was unheard of that the nations would have any part in any of this. Anyone from the nations previously had to become a Jewish proselyte. Now it’s grace, grace grace and access to the Father. Notice also that Paul was making known the secret among the nations, not among all people. He was the apostle to the nations, with the gospel of the nations.
Enjoying their immortality in the heavenly realms, carrying out God’s purpose of witnessing of his grace to the heavenlies.
Yes. Kingdom is Jesus as King, His bride as co-rulers, with the Jewish apostles ruling over the 12 tribes and the nations bringing tribute to Jesus (lots of stuff in Isaiah I think)
No. Body of Christ does not equal the bride of the lamb.
The subjects are the nations.
If we break down all people like this it might help.
]Jews[list]]some enter eonian life (or the kingdom). These are the ones who cut out their eye (figuratively) to avoid the fire of gehenna. I’d say these are Jewish believers in Jesus./:m]]Others don’t enter eonian life. These are dead during the kingdom reign and will be raised for judgment at the end of the 1000 years at the great white throne judgment./:m]/:m]]Gentiles]Some are believers. These are those in the body of Christ. They have been given the gift of faith to believe during their lifetime. These will enter into eonian life but not to reign on the earth, rather to display God’s majesty to the heavenlies. Note that these include all members of the body, whether currently alive or long dead./:m]]Other are not believers. If they have previously died, they remain dead during the kingdom. If they make it through the tribulation, they are part of the subjects of the kingdom./:m]/:m][/list:u]
Let’s say the kingdom begins tomorrow. ]If I die an unbeliever today, I miss out on the whole lot but get raised for judgment (which in a strange way brings us right back to the title of this thread 
). /:m]]If I die a member of the body today (or am a member of the body tomorrow) I receive immortality in the twinkling of an eye tomorrow and live in the heavenlies. I imagine the view from up there will be pretty good./:m]]If I am a Jew who is part of the bride of the lamb (including all Jews who have previously died) then I reign with Jesus on the earth, in a real earth, with a real life./:m]]If I’m an unbeliever who is alive at the start of the kingdom, I’m a subject of the kingdom./:m]
Remember that all of this is my (pretty sketchy) understanding of how things play out.
I hope at least it’s helped answer a few questions and has no doubt raised more.
Covenants of Israel at doctrine.org/?page_id=37
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Yep.
Key point.
and again…
Not sure about this.
Wonderfully put!
Yes!
I think overall this article is an extremely clear and succinct statement and I recommend it. I’d have to say it pretty much sums up what I’m trying to say (I only wish I could have been less bumbling about it).
I agree with you that this seems strange. I get what he’s saying but I’m not sure it’s right. I think he’s just talking about the actual beginning of the new covenant.
I didn’t like the other article really. Not sure why. It didn’t help.
Thanks Mel for those links. I hope to have a look at them over the next couple of days. I just wanted to pop in a comment before I go to bed.
There seems to be two different issues being discussed and I think this is causing some confusion.
1 Is the message of Jesus (and James)** different** to the message of Paul?
2 Is the message of Jesus (and James) opposite to the message of Paul?
Things can be different without being the opposite.
rline, when comparing Paul and James, you make statements like
For it to be the opposite, James and Jesus would have to be teaching a message of salvation not by grace but by works, while Paul is teaching salvation by grace and not by works (with “works” defined in the same way by all of them). You clearly do not believe this, because you say things like
and
The question I have been asking all along is question 2- The message of Paul and Jesus “seems” opposite but is it really? You think you are answering this by your Jew/Gentile material, but in reality you are answering 1- why do the messages seem different.
So I think rline, that your material about the different Jewish and Gentile message (even if it is true in every detail) may only relate to question 1, but you are thinking that it relates to both question 1 and 2.
I think it would be theoretically possible for you to agree with everything Mel and I agreed on in answering question 2, and then still say all your stuff about the differences between the message to the Jews and Gentiles. They are separate issues. Your stuff argues why they are different- “why did they say it this way, and not that way?” Our stuff argues why they are not opposed. My problem is when you say that the messages are opposed, and think that your stuff answers why they are opposed, because you agree with us (at least sometimes ) that they are not opposed. Thoughts?
I don’t think the other article really got into enough detail; it was more about the different approaches to the topic and the difficulties with each. It really wasn’t designed to present one side or the other, but to try to come to some kind of middle ground on the topic.
The thing I found helpful about it was the way that it demonstrated the different approaches. I didn’t realize that my thinking had been so influenced by covenant theology; something that I found ironic since I was raised with a heavy traditional dispensationalist influence!
And just so you know; I do realize that God is not done with Israel and that all Israel will be saved. I wasn’t intentionally subscribing to replacement theology. I just never connected it with all the things you’ve brought up, and I think that’s where some of the confusion came from. I didn’t think it would be necessary for the Jews at that point to be brought in under that specific scheme. I think I’m still struggling with the notion that Israel and the nations will be saved by somewhat different means and (to a lesser extent) for different purposes. I’ve always been taught that the bride and body of Christ are one and the same, though I’ve become more suspicious of this in recent years. Well, I still need to go back and read the article all the way through. I’m guessing that will help my understanding of the components involved.
Hi rline,
I just had a different (or opposite? ) way of thinking about the problem.
There are two statements that seem to be opposite.
I am saying “they seem to be opposite but when I think about it, they are not. They can actually both be true for the same group of people. They can be harmonised”.
You seem to be saying “they seem to be opposite and they really are, and so my explanation is the Jew/Gentile material. But then again, when I think about it some more, they are not really opposite at all”.
But I could be totally misreading things, so feel free to disagree.
I’d be happy to disagree with you but I’d say you’ve summed it up well. 
Truth be told I think in this thread there’s been a lot of different (not opposite ) material covered and it may be the scope that has some (all? one?) of us confused.
If i had a dollar for all the things I’ve been taught which I now think are just not Scriptural, I’d have upwards of $27.50. What I’m finding exciting is the (re)discovery of what the Bible actually teaches about things and the peace that has brought.