Is the Church Teaching a Corrupt Gospel? - Part 1

Part 1: What is the Gospel?

At first glance, the question "What is the Gospel?" may appear simple, even unnecessary. Yet, on closer examination, the definition proves far more important than we might initially assume. The Apostles received their gospel directly from Jesus Christ, their Saviour and King and the fulfilment of God’s promise to Israel. The Apostle Paul, however, received a specific gospel from Jesus Christ for the salvation of the Gentiles. Thus, in both cases, the Gospel is from Jesus Christ, with the core elements being "the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ." So why a second dispensation to the Gentiles?

Use of the word “dispensation” in these commentaries refers to “a divinely appointed period of time”, when God's favour and grace rest on a particular group of people—in this case, beginning with the Jews as God’s chosen, and second, the Gentiles because of Israel’s unbelief (Matt 21:33-43). We should not interpret this shift as planned by God; rather, as God’s foreknowledge responding to Israel’s rejection (Rom 9:30-33).

The core elements of the Gospel given to the Apostles, and the Apostle Paul speak of how we are saved, and thus pivot on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, it was not God’s purpose to allocate two dispensations—Paul’s Gospel was in response to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. This raises an important question: was it the same gospel extended, or the same gospel transferred from the Jews to the Gentiles? If the Gospel is defined by the core elements above, the same gospel was extended to both groups; however, a distinction must be drawn since divine authority and apostolic commission clearly shifted from the Twelve to Paul as a result of Israel’s rejection of Jesus Christ as their Messiah. This was not the Gentiles replacing Israel, but an interruption in the timeline of God’s covenant with Israel. Clearly, God did not remove His Spirit from the Apostles or from those who experienced the Holy Spirit, but the interruption was not without consequences for Israel.

Can anything be added to or removed from the core elements of the gospel and still be called “the Gospel”? These questions need to be considered when deciding whether one or both dispensations remained the same, or somehow changed over the 20 years following the resurrection. The Apostles wasted little time merging their laws and traditions into these core elements, effectively surrendering the gift offered by the cross to the sacraments and rituals of their tradition.

The Apostle Paul

1Co 15:3-4  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 

Peters Pentecost declaration - condensed

Acts 2:22-38 "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs. And you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead.

The initial pressure point that emerged was that the Apostles defaulted to the message of John the Baptist, wherein "repentance of sin and baptism in water" were continued as rituals that preceded salvation. On this issue, the two dispensations diverge—Paul categorically rejects these two traditions as prerequisites for salvation. This point of separation is where modern doctrinal confusion originates, and where common agreement on the term "Gospel" is lost. The argument for preceding conditions contradicts the core elements of the dispensation given to Paul and brings the entire sacrificial purpose of the cross into question.

While the laws and traditions upheld by the Apostles evolved from “The Law”, they never turned away from expressing their faith through the Law. By contrast, Paul states that righteousness is obtained through grace alone, apart from the Law—by believing what the Gospel says is true—thus superseding the Law and its traditions as a function for salvation. He also maintains that he received his Gospel by divine revelation from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11–12), not from the twelve Apostles. In the period following the resurrection, tensions emerged over how the Apostles and their followers taught the Gospel—seen in the tension it created with the Galatian Churches.

The conflict between Paul and the Apostles receives little attention today—we tend to overlook the "Judaizers" and their impact on the early Church, and more importantly, their influence on the Church today. Some will immediately disregard the possibility of two Gospels because the possability appears disingenuous to the Apostles; however, that possibility depends on where we begin—Christ’s achievement on the cross, or the righteousness of existing traditions and rituals that preceded the cross As we move forward, we should keep this in mind and consider the analogy of a half-empty bottle of wine—and if we want to make it last longer, we could top it up with an oxidised version of the same wine. Is it still the same wine? Some might say yes, it looks the same, it has my favourite label, and it's in the same bottle—so it must be the same bottle of wine; however, it tastes bad—it's a corrupted version of the same wine.

Paul was concerned that the Judaizers were distracting believers from salvation by faith alone, and drawing them back to rituals required under the Law, thus perverting the “Gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7). They taught the same Gospel, but also claimed that Gentiles must submit to certain rites for receiving this grace—a contrived perversion of salvation that relied heavily on obedience to observable rituals. Over the next 20 years, these Mosaic Laws and traditions became embedded in their teaching of the Gospel, and changed it to the extent that Paul describes it as "no Gospel at all". Are these differences sufficient to label the Apostles' Kingdom message as a corrupt Gospel? Yes. Does a corrupted version signify a different Gospel? If we consider that the sole purpose of the Gospel is salvation, and changing the terms changes how we are saved, then yes, on the issue of salvation, it is a different gospel. The more significant question is which Gospel do we preach and follow today?

Concerning salvation, Paul's Gospel is theologically opposed to the Apostles; Paul writes: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Romans 3:28) How we are saved becomes the inflection point that caused Paul to push back against the Apostles—Paul hammers the point that salvation is believing in the Gospel and receiving the Holy Spirit, period. For Paul, receiving the Holy Spirit and baptism are indistinguishable—the same event, not separate observable rituals leading up to salvation. Receiving the Holy Spirit does not require the symbolism of water that we see practised today—an issue settled by John the Baptist himself. Paul goes further and states that when filled by the Holy Spirit, we ARE forgiven—the forgiveness of sins is automatically imputed; it becomes a past-tense action, retrospectively gifted (Rom 8:29-30). Why? Because the forgiveness of all sin was settled in Christ at the cross. We are positionally crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20) when we receive the Holy Spirit. Thus, being saved is not a matter of repenting of sin to initiate salvation; it's a matter of believing and receiving what has already been done, which is the Gospel.

According to Paul, gentile believers are children of Abraham, NOT children of the Law—we are children of the promise. Gentiles are saved in the same manner as Abraham—by faith through believing (Gal 3:8). There was no Law over Abraham, no repentance of sin, or water baptism. The Law that exposed sin came later with Moses. The Gospel to the Gentiles was foreshadowed in Abraham, and Gentiles are saved IN the seed (Jesus Christ) of Abraham; thus, believers in Christ are fellow heirs through this seed and therefore saved by believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Gal 3:14).

To understand the significance of “believing and receiving”, we need to understand what was foreshadowed in the architecture of Old Testament prophecy. Gentile believers were prefaced in the seed of Abraham, which is Israel, and the interruption fulfils what Paul defines as bringing together “all Israel” (Rom 9:6-8), Jews and Gentiles. The timing changed because of Israel’s unbelief. Still, the mystery of the Gentiles being saved was hidden in plain sight long before Christ, and those who claim to be believers, yet malign Israel, do not fully understand that THEY ARE Israel, unless they are not.

If Christ died for all sins, and the way, the truth, and the life was settled at the cross, there is no sin that Christ hasn't already paid for. Remember, I'm talking about salvation itself (justification); do not confuse this commentary with sanctification. This theme of "believing and receiving" is the primary focus of Paul's dispensation. Therefore, where did repenting of sin, baptism in water, works, tithing, circumcision, dietary laws, sabbaths, memberships, mission statements, vision statements, special days, months, years, and a myriad of other denominational laws, structures and rules for the Body of Christ come from? Well, they came through a Gospel described in the Book of Galatians as perverted—from Jewish believers in Christ—the Apostles’ Gospel that added Jewish traditions and practices, which God had interrupted because of unbelief.

The dispensation given to the Apostles is an example of leaven being added to something Holy, reducing all it touches to a perversion made in the image of Man. We might consider reading Revelation 2-3 and ask: what causes the Church to descend into this state if not unbelief and the embrace of a corrupted version of the Gospel?

Both Gospels have their origins in the grace of God through Jesus Christ. But how they were conveyed and practised was not the same—this is clear from Paul’s reaction to the Judaizers in the Book of Galatians, the same dispute he had with the Apostles in Jerusalem some 20 years after the resurrection. It’s somewhat bemusing that today we dispute an issue that was settled by Paul and explained by John the Baptist--in the text itself. There are clearly two versions disputing how Gentiles are saved—sufficient for Paul to confront the Apostles and the Judaizers about their Gospel. So who are these Judaizers? They were Jewish believers in Christ, disciples of John the Baptist, and followers of the Apostles. They may have experienced the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and like most Jews at the time, never moved beyond obedience to their Laws and traditions.

Gal 1:6-7  I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really no gospel at all. Evidently, some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal 2:16  know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

Gal 3:5  So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 

Paul goes on to say that his dispensation was given to Him, for the Gentiles, through the grace of God. It was NOT given to the Apostles, but to Paul; and he presumes a curse is on those who teach this other Gospel because of what they have reduced it to. Paul's theology of salvation is echoed throughout his epistles and remained consistent through all the years of his ministry: the Gentiles are saved by "believing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and being filled with the Holy Spirit".

It's difficult to imagine that two dispensations, rising from the same source, could have such vastly different opinions about how Gentiles are saved. Ironically, the mystery of the Gentiles receiving salvation (Col 1:25-27) was hidden from the Apostles—unrevealed in the Old Testament. The Apostles didn’t know the specifics for up to 20 years until Paul went up to Jerusalem. The interruption in God’s plan of salvation would never have come to pass if the Jews had accepted Jesus Christ as Messiah. The Jews should have become the Body of Christ—God intended that Israel would take the Gospel of grace to the Gentiles—sounds oddly familiar—but they rejected their Messiah—while the Holy Spirit saved some, including the Apostles, most were scattered when the persecution began after the crucifixion. The Apostles remained in Jerusalem and continued to teach a Kingdom Gospel, one about Christ as Messiah under their Jewish traditions. The “Great Commission” was never fully imbibed by the Apostles—they never went into the world, and certainly not to the Gentiles. God continued to empower the Apostles for a time, but this gradually faded as their Law and traditions corrupted the wine and blurred the lines between grace and the Law—the issue that Paul strongly contested throughout his ministry.