The Dispensationalist
"movement" had John Nelson Darby as its founder back in
the 1830s. Following two generations later was CI Scofield who
was the first to take Darby's rather novel ideas and
systematize them by way of a special Study Bible with all of the
verses that are pertinent to Dispensationalism cross-referenced.
Modern day Dispensationalists have become very popular in the
American eye, starting with author Hal Lindsey (The Late Great
Planet Earth) and continuing on with Tim LaHaye, the author of
the vastly popular Left Behind series. Dispensationalists are
positively obsessed with End Times topics in general, and with
the Rapture theory in particular.
"The rapture," of
course, is the belief that Christ will come again and take up
into heaven those who make up "the Church" – that
is to say "born again" believing Christians –
prior to seven years of tribulation for those who are left
behind.
Thus, those who are raptured into
heaven not only escape death but also escape the tribulations
that God rains down on earth. After the seven year so-called
"Great Tribulation" Christ will come again and
establish a 1000 year reign on earth (called "The Millennial
Reign") – thus ushering in the fulfillment of the Old
Testament prophesies about the Kingdom of Israel – a literal
and physical kingdom centered in Jerusalem at the rebuilt and
restored Temple.
It should be noted that Dispensationalists often dispute among
themselves as to where the Word should be "rightly
divided" as well as disputing between themselves if the
rapture will occur before, during, or after the Great
Tribulation. The majority of Dispensationalists are known as
"Pre-tribulation Millennialists" since they hold that
the rapture will occur before the Tribulation after which Christ
will reign in the earthly Kingdom of Israel for 1000 years.
Dispensationalists do not view the era of Grace, that is to say
the Church Age, to be a continuation and fulfillment of the Old
Covenant. Rather, they believe that Salvation History is broken
up and divided into several different periods of time –
called "dispensations." The idea is that God has
specific "programs" in mind that are addressed
specifically to the people within any given era…with little
or no connection from one dispensation to the next.
Catholics, as well as many mainstream Protestants, believe that
the Church founded by Christ on the Apostles is the Kingdom of
God on earth since the Church is nothing less than the
continuation of the Incarnational ministry of Christ.
Dispensationalists dispute that notion and insist that there is a
sharp separation between the "Church" and the
"Kingdom" (by which they mean the literal earthly reign
of Christ in Israel).
Thus, they believe that Jesus and the 12 Apostles, since they
were Jews who directed their evangelization efforts to the nation
of Israel, are in "Israel's program" whereas the
Apostle Paul, since he was known as the "Apostle to the
Gentiles," is in the "Church program." Therefore
Dispensationalists believe that all four Gospel books in the
Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) plus the first 8 chapters
of Acts (since chapter 9 marks the conversion of Paul – the
Apostle to the Gentiles), all pertain to Jews only, whereas the
balance of the New Testament (especially the Epistles written by
Paul) pertain specifically to the Gentiles and the "Church
Age."
Therefore they, as Gentiles, paint themselves into a rather odd
corner in that they are Christians who view the words of Paul to
have more direct influence on them than they view the Gospels or
the words of Christ Himself.
The bottom line is that they perceive that the ministry of Christ
and the 12 Apostles was to be directed solely toward converting
the nation of Israel. When that proved to be a lost cause, due to
the rejection of Christ by the Jews in the first century, God put
the "Israel Program" on the shelf, so to speak, and
instead raised Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles and thus
entered the "Church Age" which is viewed as sort of a
"parenthesis" in Salvation History. So, for the last
2000 years we have been in the Church Age and will remain there
until God decides to rapture up the Church and once again send
down Jesus (The Second Coming) to reign in earthly Israel.
Thus, the "Church Age" will have been raptured into
heaven and the "Israel Program" will be taken off the
shelf and re-opened. At the end of the literal 1000 year reign of
Christ in Israel, a great battle between Satan and his minions
will ensue against Christ and His Angelic forces. This will
result in the end of time and God emerging triumphant and Satan
finally and eternally defeated and vanquished. Again, please note
that this is only a general summary since many Dispensationalists
dispute exactly where to "rightly divide the Word" and
hence they argue among themselves as to the actual order that
these prophesied events will unfold.
Dispensationalists therefore have a very hyper-Pauline theology
in which anything that Paul says (as Dispensationalists interpret
his words, of course) will "trump" anything else that
even Jesus might say. They are able to dismiss the words of Jesus
by remarking that Jesus was talking to Jews and since they are
Gentile they do not have to pay as much attention to them as the
words of Paul. This, of course, is a very stilted and unnatural
way of reading Scripture. It is, frankly, dangerous.
So…with this background in mind, please read the following
dialog between myself and a Dispensationalist. The actual dialog
is much longer than this excerpt, but it will serve the purpose
of exposing some of the fallacies that Dispensationalists bring
to the table – especially when it comes to their
over-emphasis on the role of Paul. Remember that they have a
vested interest in separating and clearly dividing Paul and his
Gospel (to the Gentiles) from the Gospel preached by Peter and
the other Apostles.
I am
not mocking Peter and I don't believe that Paul is my
"pope" but if there was such a thing as a
"pope" Paul would be most likely choice because he was
given the "revelation of the mystery of Christ" which
Peter had to learn from him.
Peter did NOT "learn from" Paul. Read Acts 10 (the
account of the conversion of the Gentile man named Cornelius by
way of Peter's divinely mandated visit to his home) in which
– clearly – Peter received a Divine Revelation
completely independently of Paul – unless you want to claim
that the being who came to Peter in his vision was really was
really Paul and not an angel. ;-)
Your claim that Paul taught Peter about the inclusion of Gentiles
into the Covenant is totally baseless and a gross distortion of
the Bible.
When Paul came
on the scene in the book of Acts Peter disappears off the scene.
You are reading as a modern day American (which can be a
dangerous thing since the Bible is anything but a modern American
document). The Bible in general (and Acts in particular) is not
written as if it is a linear history textbook trying to tell the
whole story from A to Z…so why are you acting as if it is?
The other thing is that Luke, clearly, intended to write another
book picking up where Acts abruptly left off. For whatever
reason, known only to God, the "sequel" was either
never written or it was lost. Obviously God did not want it
written or in the canon. But the point here is that, objectively
speaking, Peter went on in his ministry and DID things even if we
do not have written accounts of it. What I am saying is that just
because Peter "disappears" from the Bible does NOT mean
than he "disappeared off the scene" as you so boldly
claim.
The only
recorded Gentiles Peter ever preached to was Cornelius and his
family, and he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do that.
Peter did not go "kicking and screaming." Rather, Peter
was naturally caught off guard, so to speak, because the
Revelation he received was something that was new (and
unexpected) to him. According to Acts 10:19 Peter was
"pondering" the Revelation – he wasn't
fighting against it (kicking and screaming) as per your
assertion.
Also – you are obviously trying to minimize the importance
of this passage since it is so lethal to your hyper-Pauline
heterodoxy. Even if you are correct (and I can prove that you are
not correct) that Peter preached to "only"
Cornelius…well…it still must be admitted by you that
that one event was HUGE.
Firstly, it wasn't as if Peter stumbled upon some poor
hapless Gentile and decided (on his own) to preach to him on the
spur of the moment as a whim. Rather, Peter was commanded by
divine mandate to seek out Cornelius and to preach to him. It was
God Himself who commanded this and so you would be wise to
recognize the significance of this event instead of minimizing
its import.
Secondly, the record DOES prove that Peter was not taught by
Paul, but rather Peter received his understanding regarding the
Gentiles directly through Divine Revelation – PRECISELY the
same way that Paul received his own understanding regarding the
Gentiles. Why you should put so much emphasis on Paul's
conversion on the road to Damascus and so little emphasis on
Peter's vision with regard to Cornelius only belies your own
hyper-Pauline bias that keeps you and all Dispensationalists
blinded to Truth.
Thirdly it can be Biblically demonstrated that Peter preached to
more Gentiles than "only" Cornelius. I realize that you
qualified your assertion by saying that the Cornelius event was
the only "recorded" instance of Peter preaching to
Gentiles, but that is simply not true…and a careful reading
of Acts and Galatians proves my point.
Here is why…
Remember the incident mentioned in Galatians 2 of Paul
"rebuking" Peter because Peter turned away from the
Gentiles and instead sat at table with the Judaizers? Think for a
moment about what that is REALLY saying. Is it saying that Peter
was rebuked for never preaching to the Gentiles, or was he
rebuked for TURNING AWAY from the Gentiles THAT HE WAS HERETOFOR
EVANGELIZING so that he would not scandalize the Judaizers???
Obviously Peter had to have been preaching to more Gentiles than
"only" Cornelius – and this is
"recorded" in Scripture…if one were to carefully
read the text without hyper-Pauline bias. Galatians 2:12 proves
my point:
"For before
certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but
when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing
the circumcision party."
There is another reason. Follow me here:
Step 1: We see Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10. We learn that Peter
received his new understanding of God's Will for the
Gentiles directly by Divine Revelation (not from Paul).
Step 2: We see in chapter 11 starting in verse 1 that the other
"Apostles and the brethren in Judea" learned from Peter
that the Gentiles "ALSO" had received the word of God.
So the entire hierarchy within the Apostolic church in Judea
learned of God's Will for the Gentiles FROM PETER (not
Paul!).
Step 3: We see (verse 18) that Peter's instruction to them as
to the Divine nature of the Revelation he received from an angel
effectively "silenced" those in the hierarchy who were
previously objecting to Peter's actions with Cornelius. Even
they acknowledged that "Then to the Gentiles also God has
granted repentance unto life." So the very center of the
Church knew of God's Will for the Gentiles at that very
moment. And the center of the Church learned this from Peter
– not Paul.
Step 4: We see (verse 20) that men from Cyprus and Cyrene arrived
in Antioch (just a short journey from Jerusalem – and we
know from Scripture that there was much communication between
Jerusalem and Antioch) where they too preached to Gentiles (just
like Peter had preached to Cornelius). As of this point in time
– Paul is living in Tarsus and has not arrived on the
"Gentile scene," so to speak, in Antioch. But these
other men (from Cyprus and Cyrene) THEY did preach to Gentiles.
And they preached to the Gentiles with much success. Verse 21
tells us that these men (not Paul) were able to
"greatly" increase the number of Gentile believers in
Antioch.
Step 5: We see (verse 22) that news of this great increase of
Gentile converts came to the ears of the hierarchy in Jerusalem
(as I said – it is a short distance and there was much
communicated between the two cities). So, what did they do? They
"sent Barnabas" (not Paul) to oversee the whole
situation at Antioch. When Barnabas arrived (verse 23) he was
greatly pleased by what he found and, in verse 24, the efforts of
Barnabas resulted in the Gentile population continuing to grow
the Church in Antioch to such a degree that he needed some help.
Step 6: We see (verses 25-26) the FIRST TIME IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE
that here – finally – Paul is specifically referenced
to be in the company of Gentiles (although it is highly possible
that Paul had preached to Gentiles while living in Tarsus –
but Scripture does not spell that out for us). Barnabas went to
Tarsus (where Paul had been living at the time) and
"recruited" him (for lack of a better word) to help out
in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas "worked" at Antioch for a
whole year – again with great success.
So, my point here is that your claim that the Cornelius event is
supposedly the only recorded time that Peter preached to Gentiles
is a baseless argument (as per Galatians 2). Not only that, but
you are also ignoring the Biblical evidence that says that (1)
Peter informed the Church hierarchy of his Revelation, and (2)
the events that followed in Antioch (when the men from Cyprus and
Cyrene preached to Gentiles) were an indirect result of
Peter's instruction to the universal Church. According to
Scripture, the Church in Antioch had "greatly
increased" its number of Gentile converts long before Paul
went to Antioch.
Let's look at the record of Paul's initial activities
as a Christian:
Step 1 is Paul's conversion in Acts 9. Paul receives a
Divine Revelation from Jesus Himself. He is sent on to Damascus
where he eventually meets with Ananias (a Jewish Christian).
Ananias also received a Revelation and he is told that Saul is
"a chosen instrument" to carry God's name to
Gentiles. That is the first time we learn of God's plans for
Saul/Paul with regard to the Gentiles…and it is interesting
that we learn of it through the Revelation given to Ananias (and
not through the Revelation given to Paul).
So…what does Saul/Paul do next?
Step 2, in verses 19-22 we learn that after several days with the
(Jewish) disciples in Damascus Saul did his first preaching as a
Christian. Where did he preach? In a Synagogue to Jews (not
Gentiles)!
Verses 22 reads:
"But Saul
increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews
who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the
Christ."
There is no mention
yet of Saul preaching to Gentiles.
Step 3 tells us, in verses 23-25, that the JEWS (not the
Gentiles) tried to kill him and so he escaped (to Jerusalem).
Step 4, in verses 26-27, he eventually meets the Apostles.
Barnabas vouched for his conversion and therefore the hierarchy
of the Church accepted Saul as a brother in Christ.
Step 5, in verses 28-29, we see a soon-to-be familiar pattern
emerge. Saul preached to the "Hellenists" in Jerusalem.
The "Hellenists" were not Gentile Greeks, but rather
they are Greek speaking Jews! Therefore Saul had still not
preached to Gentiles. And these Hellenists, being non-Christian
Jews, tried to kill him, just as the Jews in Damascus had tried
to kill him previously.
Step 6, verse 30, explains that the Church in Jerusalem,
presumably fearing for Saul's life, sent him off
(eventually) to Tarsus. Tarsus, of course, is where he was from
originally. It is a safe assumption that Saul returned back to
his family or old neighborhood (since Jews are very clannish this
should be a safe assumption – but it is admittedly only
speculation) where he lived until the day that Barnabas arrived
to recruit him for the Church's work in Antioch (preaching
to Gentiles).
Still, up until Paul's arrival in Antioch there is not one
explicit Biblical word about Saul/Paul preaching anything to a
Gentile. It can be fairly speculated that Paul may have preached
to Gentiles while in Tarsus since we know that there was a
Gentile Christian population in Tarsus by the time of the
Jerusalem Council in that the Council sent a letter to the
gentile believers in "Cilicia" – the province
where Tarsus is – even though we don't know with
certainty who evangelized these believers (see Acts 15:23). I
personally believe that Paul had most likely preached to the
Gentiles there prior to his departure to Antioch…but that is
speculation on my part.
And all of this tells us that not only was Paul NOT involved in
teaching the universal Church as to God's Will for the
Gentiles (According to Acts 11 it was Peter who taught the Church
this – not Paul), but it also tells us that the act of
preaching to Gentiles was already in practice long before
Paul's arrival in Antioch – even by those in the Church
who were not even Apostles and had not received any Revelation
themselves (such as Barnabas and the men from Cyprus and Cyrene).
Therefore the Revelation about Gentiles that Paul received was
NOT "unique" to Paul alone (as you Dispensationalists
continually assert again and again)…hence the Gospel that
Paul preached was not contrary to, or separated from, what the
wider Church in general, and the other Apostles in particular,
were already preaching and practicing independently of Paul.
And for proof that what the Apostles (and especially Peter)
preached was IN ACCORD with Paul's gospel message – and
therefore Paul's gospel was NOT unique or separate –
can be found in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem.
Before we delve into Acts 15, though, let's set the stage:
Step 1 is Acts 12 whereby we learn that King Herod began a great
persecution of the Church. He killed the Apostle James (brother
of John) and had Peter arrested. With divine assistance (from an
angel sent by God) Peter escaped the prison and sent a message to
the other "James" (the one who was now the head of the
local Church in Jerusalem) and then went into hiding. Basically
the Apostles "got out of Dodge" and the local Church
that remained was forced to go underground, under James who was a
very Jewish (i.e., not at all Gentile-like) leader.
Step 2, in Acts 13, we switch the story over to Antioch where
Paul and Barnabas where working hard at building the Church
– and where there was great success at evangelizing
Gentiles.
But here we suddenly find yet another Divine Revelation.
According to verses 2-4 the Holy Spirit came to – not Paul
alone – but rather to the local Church leadership. And here
the Spirit commanded that they – the Church – "set
aside" Paul AND Barnabas so that they could go on a special
mission. So…the Church then laid hands on them (their formal
Episcopal ordination) and they went on their way on Paul's
historic "First Missionary Journey". It is interesting
that the vision was not given to Paul directly and exclusively,
but rather the mandate was given to the Church itself to set Paul
and Barnabas aside for God's Divine purposes. In that
respect Paul worked under the Church – not independently
from it.
In step 3 (Chapters 14 and 15:1) we can see that, with the
Apostles in hiding and scattered (there is a tradition that Peter
went to Rome for the first time during this period – but
that is mere speculation) due to Herod's persecution of the
now underground Church, the Judaizing faction in Jerusalem gained
in influence – or at least they were more vocal and active.
The Judaizers, being aware of the influx of Gentiles in Antioch,
went to Antioch (remember that Paul and Barnabas had already been
sent on their journey) whereby they began to teach the Gentiles
that they must first become Jews (in the Mosaic Law way of
understanding what makes one a child of the Covenant) before they
can become Christians. Hence, they began to preach that Gentiles
had to be circumcised before they could join the New Covenant
family. There was nobody in Antioch (or Jerusalem) to dissuade
the Judaizers from adding this Mosaic burden to the Gentile
converts. At least there was nobody until Paul and Barnabas
returned back to Antioch after their first missionary journey was
ended. And that is when the fertilizer hit the proverbial
ventilator, so to speak.
In step 4 things take a very interesting turn. Acts 15:2 reads:
And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate
with them [the Judaizers], Paul and Barnabas and some of the
others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and
the elders about this question [about circumcision being a
requirement for salvation].
Okay – what is going on here? There was great dissention and
debate about "this question." "This question"
must have been something new to the Church (for if it wasn't
new then it would already have been dealt with, right?) and both
sides agreed that ONLY way to definitively settle the dispute
would be an appeal to the Apostles themselves and the
"elders" of the Church hierarchy (which, by the way,
also demonstrates that the Church was not merely a bunch of
independent local congregations with no central authoritative
structure).
So, if you take a moment and reflect on what this is saying to
us, there were two mutually exclusive sides to this disputed new
question, but only one of the sides could be *in accord* with the
Apostles and their views.
And so, the parties from Antioch (both sides) headed to Jerusalem
where the Church hierarchy was gathered together to settle the
matter. In verses 6-7 we read that the gathered elders/Apostles
and both parties from Antioch began "much debate" UNTIL
Peter rose and spoke. Verse 7 says that AFTER there had been much
debate, Peter rose and spoke (thus implying that Peter silenced
the debate when he rose to speak).
And here, in step 5, we read what Peter said (verse 7):
"Brethren,
you know that in the early days God made choice among you,
that BY MY MOUTH [not Paul's mouth] the Gentiles should
hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows
the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit
just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us
and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith."
Well, I must say that
that is a very powerful statement – and one that many
hyper-Pauline Protestants gloss over as if it isn't even
there.
But – it gets even better:
10 Now therefore
WHY DO YOU make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck
of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been
able to bear? 11 But WE believe that we shall be saved
through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
Whoa. Let's not
go too fast here. Notice that Peter is making a CONTRAST between
those who are putting a yoke on the Gentiles (the Judaizers) and
those who are not. Not only that, but Peter squarely contrasts
(and therefore excludes) himself with the Judaizers. Notice that
Peter did NOT ask "Why do WE put a yoke…" but
rather – in speaking directly to the Judaizers – he
asked "Why do YOU…."
Peter is saying that
this practice of Judaizing is NOT something that is in accord
with anything that he or the other Apostles have taught or
practiced. For if, for example, Peter had demanded circumcision
for Cornelius then Peter would have asked "Why do WE"
instead of asking "Why do YOU."
And this notion is
reinforced even further when James, the head of the Church in
Jerusalem (the hotbed, if you will, of the Judaizing faction who
had come from Jerusalem and into Antioch) rose up later (in
verses 19-21) and stated this:
19 Therefore my
judgment is THAT WE SHOULD NOT TROUBLE those of the Gentiles
who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from
the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is
strangled and from blood. 21 For from early generations Moses
has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read
every sabbath in the synagogues."
So again we have another reference point of compare and contrast. James, the head
of the Church in Jerusalem, in speaking directly to those in his
flock who had been Judaizing said, "…WE should not
trouble…" as contrasted with Peter's words of
"Why do YOU."
The bottom line in all of this is that what Paul was preaching in terms of "his
gospel" as it pertains to the Gentiles was NOT UNIQUE (as
you have claimed over and over again in our various emails), but
rather what Paul preached to them was in accord with what the
Apostles were ALREADY DOING long before Paul ever interacted with
the rest of the Church on the Gentile mission field. For evidence
of that, all you need to do is consider all the time in Antioch
when Barnabas was there BEFORE Paul arrived…were they
circumcising Gentiles then? Of course not. Therefore the Church
was not in accord with the Judaizers at any time prior to when
the new "question" question arose and became hotly
debated. And thus Paul's "gospel" was not unique
and divided and separated from that of the gospel preached by the
Apostles to the Jews.
For if "Paul's Gospel" was so unique and
"different" than that which the 12 Apostles (and their
disciples such as Barnabas) had been preaching prior to
Paul's arrival in Antioch, Paul would have –
necessarily – "straightened out" what the Gentiles
had been taught previously. We have no words in Scripture whereby
Paul said to the Gentiles in Antioch, "I know that the man
the Apostles sent to you taught you ABC, but I am here to tell
you that I am the Apostle to the Gentiles and therefore I now am
about to teach you XYZ – a completely unique and different
Gospel than you had been previously taught." We never see
those words. Why not? Because when Paul arrived at Antioch he
found Gentile believers who were perfectly orthodox in their
beliefs. Paul's Gospel was not "unique" and
"separated" from the Apostolic teaching with regard to
the Gentiles.
Dispensationalists are grasping at straws.
