A different Gospel? or not?

I think I know where you're going here RJ.

Do you think that all (or even most) of Christ's teachings were directed at the Jews, speaking of the millenium? Do you assert that the Sermon on the Mount does not concern non-Jews?

This is a most grievous error!!

Did 2 Christs come? Did Christ come twice, once for the Jews and once for the Gentiles?

The Gospel is the SAME.

 

YES

 

Paul said:
Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

Jesus said:
Matt 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Paul taught nothing but what was foretold by Moses and the Prophets. Jesus came to fulfill that which was taught by the Law and Prophets.

Same Gospel. Unless the Prophets taught two gospels.

 

So did the Prophets speak of 2 separate Kingdoms? Which is spoken of in Daniel 2?

 

Romans 1:16
¶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The sermon on the mount is for believers.

Matthew 5
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
13 ¶ Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Where did Jesus ever say that the Jews were the light of the world, salt of the earth? When do unbelieving Jews ever get persecuted for Jesus' sake? He is teaching His disciples. The 'them' in verse 2 does not refer to 'the people' three chapters later.

 

Joh 8:31
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

If you are not keeping Jesus words, you are not a disciple. Doesn't matter what your name tag says. You must be a disciple to reign in the kingdom, but you must be a believer to be a disciple.

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

RJ,

Several things. First, a LITERAL HERMENEUTIC is not the same as a literal/grammatical/historical hermeneutic. A literal hermeneutic is one that simply takes erything literally, regardless of context.

Did the twelve understand the cross? Not until Pentecost! But are we to believe that Jesus entire earthly ministry was directed at the Jews, regarding a millenium in the future? That borders on cultish. Should Jesus have just been silent until He died since no one yet understood the cross?

Did not Paul win converts, Jewish and Greek (Acts 14:1)? Did he give 2 different speaches, one for the Jews and another for the Greeks? Was it not the same Gospel?

And if it was the same Gospel (which it WAS) then why would Jesus have given a different one to the Jews?

 

RJ

Sorry if I misrepresented your position.

But I still have some serious issues with your assertions.

The first is regarding the "literal hermeneutic". I have often heard the adage, "If the literal sense makes sense then that IS the sense." That does not conform to a CLGH hermeneutic! There are many biblical examples of nonliteral meanings - and these are not just symbols or figures of speech. In proper context (literary, grammatical, historical, contextual) Jesus comments about a kingdom do not refer to a literal kingom - Jesus told Pilate as much. If Jesus had said, "after I return there shall be a period of a thousand years during which you will reign with me in a renewed earth - following this wel will go to heaven to be with the Father forever..." then none of us would argue at all - that statement would be plainly obvious. But let's take Matthew 19:28. Jesus says that the 12 will sit with Him upon 12 thrones. A literal millenium? Let's look at the context. Look at Mk 10:45, Mt 19:30, Mt 5:10-12. The first shall be last. A literal reading of Mt 19:28 forces us to create a "kingdom" in which the apostles can reign with Christ. A review of the proper context reveals that Jesus was saying to them that while lowly on earth they would be great in heaven - that's the CLGH hermeneutic!

The biggest problem I have with your position (I assume you're a classical dispensationalist) is that it makes much of Christ's ministry little more than a series of speeches to the Jews that we got to overhear! The son of God came to earth to speak to US!! We have comparatively little of His recorded words - we should cleave to ALL of them! They are for US! They are for Jew and Gentile alike!

How would the 12 have known about the cross before it happened? How could the gospel have been preached to the Gentiles if it had not been fulfilled yet? And didn't Jesus Himself seek out the Samaritans (Jn 4)?

Paul's writings are nicely doctrinal - indeed he wrote the individual letters to the various churches to teach them and give them the particulars.

Whether we like it or not, Jesus did preach a moral ethic! He was not simply a moralist - but that WAS part of it.

I think you're wrong about the millenium - but then I could be wrong too.

But to say that Jesus' preaching was "not specifically for us" is a very dangerous proposition. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

 

There are four "forms" of the gospel.

The gospel of the kingdom (Matt.3,4,10,24)
The gospel of God (1 Peter 4, Mark 16, Acts 2)
The gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20, Rom.1, Gal.1, Eph.3,6)
The everlasting gospel (Rev.14)

The gospel of the kingdom DID NOT include the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as Paul's gospel of the grace of God did. The gospel of God did though. (Rom.1)

The 12 preached a gospel which didn't INCLUDE those items for they didn't KNOW them or UNDERSTAND them (Luke 18), and didn't LEARN THEM until their eyes were OPENED by the Lord AFTER HIS RESURRECTION. (Luke 24) Therefore, they preached TWO DIFFERENT FORMS of the gospel at two different times. (One before and the other after the crucifixion.)

It's very simple IF you believe what the Holy Scriptures state.

THEY DID NOT PREACH PAUL'S GOSPEL DURING THE EARTHLY MINISTRY OF THE LORD, "nor" did the Lord. IT WAS NOT REVEALED UNTIL PAUL. That's "why" it is called MY GOSPEL by Paul. To believe such is outrageous heretical thought DENYING the verses.

The gospel of the grace of God was given to Paul by DIRECT REVELATION from Jesus Christ. (Gal.1)

 

There is but one "Gospel".

Now I'm not sure what some of you guys mean by saying that Paul and Jesus preached different things. They obviously did say some different things and were often addressing different problems.

But how can one, believing there is but one way to heaven (namely Jesus), say that there were 2 different Gospels. Is that not explicitly contradictory?

 

No, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, there is "more" than one, which is DOCUMENTED by the verses given preceding your post. They were ignored to state your thought WITHOUT BIBLICAL VERIFICATION of "one" only.

AGAIN. The 12 did not preach Paul's gospel OR the gospel of God BEFORE THE CRUCIFIXION for they did not KNOW or UNDERSTAND the elements of it (Luke 18:31-34) NOR were they to DECLARE to "anyone" that JESUS OF NAZARETH was the Christ! (Luke 9:18-22)

The gospels concerns different testimonies of subject, are preached to different persons at different times, and have varied details of it's message. They are ALL different.

Your "misunderstanding" comes from your SUPPOSITION OF FALSEHOOD which contradicts scripture. The problem is not with the Bible but YOUR belief of one which is wrong.

Believe the Bible, and it will correct your understanding.

 

The notion of 2 different gospels is heretical!

It is only by approaching the Bible with presupposed notions (hyperdispensationalism) that one can come up with such a thing! Verses used out of context do not prove anything.

This is a gross example of forcing once's own interpretation on the Bible.

I mean think about it - 2 gospels?

TWO GOSPELS???

 

So, if there are four forms, how many ways of salvtion are there?