Romans 2 and Judgement

Craig · March 9, 2018, 2:18am

Thanks rline.
My next question for you, that will hopefully help to clear up rather than add to the confusion :
You agree that the Jewish message is still salvation by grace through faith. So how do you understand James’ and Jesus’ statements to be consistent with this, if it is not by the same sort of way that Mel and I agreed about back on July 18? (quoted below)
(There “seems” to be a contradiction between what you say the Jewish message is and what is taught by Jesus and James. This is the same sort of contradiction that “seems” to exist between Paul and Jesus. Mel and I are suggesting one answer. I may have missed it, but I can’t see where you have answered this, and I think you disagree with our answer. )

Craig wrote:

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?

Mel wrote
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.

Craig wrote
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).

Mel wrote
Exactly.

Catherine · March 9, 2018, 2:18am

Rline, I’ve responded to your comments as I’ve gone along, as I easily forget what I want to say and would struggle to bring it all together at the end.

rline:

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.

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?
Having been a Roman Catholic til I was 12 and then heavily influenced by JW teachings in my teens and onwards, the idea of TWO gospels sounds ‘crazy’. My gut reaction to hearing of two gospels was discomforting and just sounded wrong. Actually, the same reaction to first hearing of UR. It’s only by being exposed to this ‘two gospels’ idea gradually, that the bristles stopped ‘bristling’ and I could stand to think about its plausibility.

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??)

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.
I’ve always believed that the ‘good news’ is that God so loved the world (all creation) that HE sent HIs only Son etc’. The good news is that we aren’t doomed to suffer and die and that’s the end of it. Jesus is the resurrection and the life. So the good news is the same good news whether you’re a Jew or a Greek. Jesus told us in advance that: ‘this **gospel of the kingdom **will be preached in the **whole world **as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.’ Matt 24:14. The Kingdom is the means by which Jesus is reconciling creation back to the Father so that God will be All in All, and so everyone has their own part to play in the Kingdom. If that means some are in the heavenlies sorting out the angels or whatever it is they’re doing, while some are on the earth ruling with Jesus, then I have no problem with that, but I struggle to see how there are two gospels here. People have their own place in the Kingdom but ultimately it’s the same good news: God will set up a Kingdom that will not be destroyed and there will be a new heavens and a new earth etc, no more death, pain etc. All these factors apply to EVERYONE and hence why I struggle with ‘two’ gospels.

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.
This is an interesting point, so let me see if I’ve understood you correctly: Jesus is the Groom and those who comprise HIs Body will not have dealings with the Bride ie the predominantly Jewish nation during the millenial reign? This is where the analogies get confusing for me. When the Groom and the Bride marry- they become ONE- one flesh, as we would say. If someone is part of Jesus (being part of His body), then won’t they also become one with the Bride? So, if Jesus’ Body is separate from His Bride, then how does that work?? When Jesus comes at the last trumpet and brings His ‘body’ with Him (those dead in Christ), won’t they stay with Jesus, while He sets up His Kingdom? Wont they (the Body) become one with the Bride? This verse seems to suggest that this will be the case: Eph 2:15 ‘by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,’ So the marriage of the Lamb must surely involve both ‘groups’ ?

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.
Further to what I said above, I see no problem with ‘rewards’ differing for each person or the roles that they will have in the millenium. I’m struggling to see how Eph 3:10-11 is definately saying that the ‘Body’ is going to do its witnessing to the spirits etc in heaven full stop. If we look at the concordant version: '‘that now be made known to the sovereignties and the authorities among the celestials, through the eccesia, the multifarious wisdom of God, in accord with the purpose of the eons, which He makes in Christ Jesus, our Lord;’. I’m still not seeing what you’re seeing here. I read this as saying that the ‘ecclesia’ (whether they are Jew or Greek) is bearing witness (now whilst on earth and throughout the future) to the plans or purposes that God has had during the various eons. The angels etc or the spiritual rulers in heavenly places (good or bad I assume) are witnessing the unfolding of the Plan that culminates the eons ie Christ (and His body).

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” I read this to be saying that the secret IS Christ i.e God in the flesh. We are part of Christ in being His body, but I’m struggling to see how WE are the secret. We are part of the secret indeed, in that gentiles are brought in to share in the commonwealth of Israel. But surely Christ (the realisation of Israel in the flesh- I mean that national Israel was a foreshadow of real Israel- Jesus) is the secret. No Jew prior to Jesus believed that God was going to send His own Son (from Heaven) to become the sacrificial Lamb…I’ve just been pondering what I’ve just written, and let’s say I’m wrong and that the secret IS the body of Christ ie Christ in us, then even so, I’m still struggling to see how this creates two groups. Surely Christ is in all who accept Him as Messiah and so to me, the ecclesia, is anyone who believes in Christ (body or bride).

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 ?? surely ‘nations’ could include Jews as well as gentiles. If Paul happened to come across some Jews whilst giving his famous talk in Athens, I’m sure he’d have answered any questions they may have asked him. . He was the apostle to the nations, with the gospel of the nations.The OT many times states that the nations are going to be a part of God’s overall plans so I’m struggling to see how the involvement of gentiles would be a big secret. Gen 18:18 ‘Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.’’ Isaiah 2:2 etc etc. I can see that the scope of their involvement would be surprising and especially if they were not required to become Jewish, but I’m not convinced that Jews are still meant to observe the Mosaic laws, and so for me, I’m even more inclined to view the ecclesia as a mixture of Jews and gentiles who now observe Jesus’ commandments of love.

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?

Enjoying their immortality in the heavenly realms, carrying out God’s purpose of witnessing of his grace to the heavenlies.Jesus said He was going to come back and take his followers to be with Him always, so the second coming which Paul is referring to, when ‘those dead in Christ’ are raised and come with Christ to meet us the living in the air, must surely include all belivers in Him, and hence why would some of His believers be seperated from Him when He said they would always be with Him?

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. 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. I’m still not convinced. If you become ‘one flesh’ when you marry, then your bride would be your body surely??

The subjects are the nations. Yes, that makes sense.

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. I’m sure it would be, but I can’t help thinking of the JW’s who believe that the little flock only go to heaven and the rest are on earth. When Jesus told his disciples that there were other sheep not of their flock i.e not Jewish, He is saying that they too will hear His voice and surely His voice is saying the same things to all sheep ‘come and follow me’. /: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.

Thank you Rline, for taking the time to go through my questions. The main obstacles for me, in understanding how there are two gospels and therefore two distinct groups is that:

I don’t see ‘two’ groups still being the case, once you are in Christ, because you are then one new man.

The ‘gospel’ is the same ‘end result’ for all peoples and so is ‘one’ story. If I had been a ‘pious’ Jew and had been listening to Paul tell a load of uncircumcised gentiles that they were going to go to Heaven and see God and sit back and have a good view of us Jews working our socks off down here in the earthly Kingdom, I’d have thought that sounded mad (and possibly racist from a modern point of view). If however, I heard Paul telling the gentiles that they too could be part of the Messiah’s Kingdom and would even have positions of authority that formerly would only go to Jews as they were the keepers of the ordinances etc, and that everyone had a part to play in the Kingdom and ultimately in eternity, then, yes I would most likely argue the toss and be rather put out, but then hopefully Paul would show me how this ‘secret’ that had been hidden, was now being revealed and that these other sheep from a different flock, were also justified through the shedding of Messiah’s blood (which suggests that all in christ are included in the new covenant which is based on the shedding of Jesus’ blood surely??) and I’d hopefully get over my pride and see how amazing God’s plans are (and be reminded of all the OT verses that talk of the gentiles being blessed too).

Craig · March 9, 2018, 2:18am

Thanks Catherine and rline for all the work you’ve both done here in the above post, thinking this issue through and discussing it together.

Catherine · March 9, 2018, 2:18am

Craig, it’s a real pleasure to be able to discuss this subject with you guys. What’s interesting about Rline’s position is that it does seem to explain the seeming contradictions between much of the NT that emphasises ‘works’ and much of the NT that emphasises ‘faith alone’, although my own position is that ‘faith alone’ is not correct (even the demon’s believe). Because I believe that the ‘good news’ for all men to be saved involves obeying Jesus’ commandments (to love one another), then faith without love is pointless, but then maybe Rline would say, then it isn’t really faith if it isn’t accompanied by love and I would agree with that. I have lots of head knowledge about God and the bible etc, and yet only being touched by God’s love (maybe that is the gift of real faith) will motivate me to ‘act’ on that knowledge and ‘follow Jesus’. I’m in a bit of a limbo state myself in that I’m not feeling the love much (as I explained in another thread) and so I struggle to be motivated to follow Jesus and hence I will no doubt have two glasses too many of wine tonight, knowing that it is not a ‘good’ thing to do and yet still doing it.

Craig · March 9, 2018, 2:18am

Catherine wrote

I think that your position seems similar to mine and Mel’s. There “seem” to be contradictory messages but they are not really. Different emphases can be explained by different people in different situations needing different emphases. But these emphases still all belong together as the same basic message. God is wanting the same basic response of all people to himself- love, trust , obedience. They are not necessarily contradictory or opposite messages to two different groups of people. I am not sure about rline- I’ll see how he answers my last question. I am not sure if he is still maintaing the “rebellion” that they are contradictory or whether he will join us on the “dark side”. (I had better not talk too loudly in case he is listening in ).
I haven’t seen the other thread you mentioned. I’ll have a look for it.

rline · March 9, 2018, 2:18am

Hi all

Catherine, I agree that it has been a pleasure discussing all this. Thanks for your comments on what I wrote.

Um, I’m gonna stick with my response from a few days ago…

Done!

Not done.

Done!

Craig · March 9, 2018, 2:18am

Thanks rline for being gracious in putting up with my questions to try and understand and evaluate where you are coming from. I will go over your comments and try and see which response you are referring to and then leave it there. Thanks for the helpful interaction and God’s blessings to you and your family.