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 more correctly defined as "the Gospel of Jesus Christ"

The core elements of each dispensation are the same: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; however, they were not intended to be two parallel gospels for two ethnic groups at the same time. Paul’s gospel emerged in response to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah; therefore, was it the same gospel passed on from the Jews to the Gentiles? Yes, if confined to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Did God's authority and power shift from the Apostles to Paul, yes. Can we add to, or remove from, the core elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and still call it "The Gospel"? No.

These questions must be considered when defining “The Gospel”. If it's the sum of its core elements, then both are indeed the same. However, in practice, the Apostles incorporated their laws and traditions into these foundational elements, and effectively subjugated the gift offered by the cross to their Laws and traditions.

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 is whether the definition of the word "Gospel" is rightly confined to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, or should it also include the Old Testament sacraments of "repentance and baptism" as part of the definition? Both gospels agree on the person and authority of Jesus Christ, but seriously disagree on the issue of repentance and baptism as the means of salvation. This point of separation is where modern doctrinal confusion originates, and where common agreement on the term "Gospel" is lost. The argument for one Gospel evaporates in the wake of man's proclivity for shaping everything according to his own image.

The Apostles did not separate grace from their laws and traditions. Although Christ came to fulfil the Law, they continued to live within a Jewish framework, retaining much of their traditions and practices, and requiring obedience for salvation to be recognised. By contrast, Paul states that righteousness is obtained through grace apart from the Law—by faith, thereby superseding the Law as the means of justification. He also maintains that he received his Gospel by divine revelation (Galatians 1:11–12), thus not derived from the Twelve Apostles. In the period following the resurrection, tensions emerged, particularly regarding the Apostles' definition and how they practised "grace". Elements of Jewish tradition came into conflict with Paul's teaching.

The conflict between Paul and the Apostles receives little attention today—we tend to overlook the "Judaizers" and their impact on the Church. Some will immediately disregard the possibility of two Gospels; however, any opinion on this matter will depend on where we begin—Christ's achievement on the cross, or what is "practised". As we move forward, we should keep in mind 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 very concerned with the practice of the Apostle's Kingdom-focused Gospel—the Judaizers were using their laws and traditions to turn believers away from Paul's teaching on salvation by faith. They taught a Jewish extraction—a version of salvation that relied on obedience. Over the next 20 years, the Mosaic Laws and traditions of the Jews continued to merge with the Gospel of grace, and the Apostles' Gospel was corrupted 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? This depends on the definition. And which Gospel do we follow today?

Paul's Gospel was significantly different concerning salvation; 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 primary inflection point that caused Paul to push back against the Apostles—Paul hammers the issue of faith, and believing in the Gospel as the only means for receiving the Holy Spirit. Paul goes further and states that when we are filled by the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins is imputed; it becomes a past-tense action, retrospectively gifted, through the debt paid at the cross. Thus, salvation is not a matter of repenting of sin; it's a matter of believing and receiving what has already been done.

Gentile believers are children of Abraham—children of the promise. Gentiles are saved in the same manner as Abraham—by faith through believing—there was no Law for Abraham, that came later with Moses. Jesus Christ was the seed of Abraham—thus, believers in Christ are fellow heirs through this seed.

If Christ died for all sins, and the way to be saved was settled at the cross, all that remains for Gentiles is to believe and receive the Holy Spirit. There is no sin to repent of that Christ hasn't already paid for. Remember, I'm talking about salvation itself (justification); do not confuse this with sanctification. This theme of "believing and receiving" is the primary focus in Paul's dispensation of grace. Therefore, where did repenting of sin, baptism in water, works, tithing, circumcision, dietary laws, sabbaths, memberships, 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 corrupted Gospel taught by the Apostles—an Old Testament Jewish extraction that God had interrupted because of unbelief. To understand the significance, we need to know why God interrupted the Apostle's Gospel. Why were the Gentiles grafted into a story they were never meant to be part of? The Church becomes the focus of God's interruption—but one that grafts Gentiles into a Jewish vine—a vine that remains intact—but paused until the full number of Gentiles are saved. 

The systemic reasons behind the disagreement in these two dispensations are an example of leaven working through everything, reducing everything it touches into a perversion made in the image of Man. We might consider reading Revelation chapters 2-3 and ask what causes the Church to descend into this state, if not unbelief and imbibing a corrupted Gospel.

Both Gospels have their origins in the grace of God and the redemption of Man. But in practice, they are not the same—there are clearly two versions in practice. Why did God move away from the Jews to the salvation of the Gentiles? Because of unbelief. His redemptive purpose was intended for Israel. God never intended to divide his sovereign purpose between the Jews and the Gentiles—He interrupted his sovereign plan for the Jews, setting aside their salvation, because they rejected Him.

Who are these Judaizers? Paul wrote to the Galatian Church about these Jewish believers who preached a corrupted Gospel, taught by the Apostles in the Jerusalem Church. Paul communicated that their teaching was not in line with the revelation he had received.

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; therefore, if we consider what the Apostles had reduced their dispensation to, it's incorrect to presume both Gospels were the same. On top of this, Paul pronounces a curse on those teaching this other Gospel. Paul's theology on salvation is echoed throughout his teaching, and it remained consistent throughout the years of his ministry—that the Gentiles are saved through "believing in the Gospel 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 ideas about how we are saved. Ironically, the mystery of the Gentiles receiving salvation (Col 1:25-27) was hidden from the Old Testament—the Apostles didn’t know about it before Paul. The interruption 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 Jews 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 Christ crucified and risen along with their Jewish traditions. 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.