Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Authored By  :
Published On :
Last Updated :



As I concluded in part four, the Apostle Paul preached Christ crucified and resurrected, exactly as we see in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. It was a three-point Gospel which also included the fact that Jesus died for our sins. As we likewise learned in part four, on three different occasions Paul referred to his Gospel as "my gospel". I questioned why Paul would use that phrase. I responded that I do not believe that it was to show that the central message he preached was different from what Jesus and the Apostles preached, because the core message of all of their Gospels was exactly the same. I am not Paul, so I obviously cannot say with absolute certainty what was going on in his head. However, I do have a working theory which I would like to share with you for your consideration.

My suspicion -- and this is only my personal speculation -- is that given the strong evidence we see in the Book of Acts, as well as in Paul's Epistles, Paul was very concerned with the Jewish legalism which was overtaking the home Church in Jerusalem. This is also clearly in evidence in something he wrote to the Galatian brethren in the following verses. Don't forget that Paul strongly rebuked those brethren because they had in fact fallen back under the bondage of the Mosaic Law, just like the brethren in Jerusalem:

"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain."


"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children."


So using the historical example of Abraham, Sarah and Isaac, and Hagar and Ishmael, what Paul is describing here are two covenants or two testaments. As you will recall, we briefly discussed covenants and testaments earlier in this series. So Hagar and Ishmael obviously represent the old covenant which was based upon the Laws of Moses -- which equates to bondage -- because Hagar was a bondmaid, or slave. Meanwhile, on the other hand, Abraham, Sarah and Isaac obviously represent the new covenant which is based on God's Grace and faith -- and equates to freedom from the Law -- because Sarah was a free woman, and Isaac was born of faith, as Paul writes. In fact, perhaps you may recall that in the Gospel of John, we find two verses which mention this very thing. Consider this:

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth . . . For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."


Thus we see the very first mention of Law versus Grace in the four Gospels. As Paul writes above, "Jerusalem . . . is in bondage with her children." So consider how Paul must be thinking as he goes about preaching the Gospel. He has seen what has been happening in Jerusalem, and now the Galatian brethren have succumbed to the very same problem: bondage to the Mosaic Law. They have backslidden from the freedom they had in Christ. It is not difficult to imagine that Paul was very concerned with this spiritual disease afflicting other Churches he is in the process of establishing.

You may recall that in part four of this series, I mentioned how the legalistic Jews in Jerusalem even wanted the Gentile converts to be circumcised. They had the audacity to go up to Antioch -- where Paul and Barnabas were located at that particular time -- where they then insisted that the Gentile brethren be circumcised. That is in fact why Paul traveled to Jerusalem in the first place. That is, to resolve their problem. In fact, two chapters earlier in his same Epistle to the Galatian brethren, Paul relates another incident that occurred while he was attending the meeting in Jerusalem. As it turns out, those same legalists wanted Titus -- who was Paul's Greek companion -- to be circumcised. However, Paul absolutely refused to allow it. Consider this set of verses:

"Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: TO WHOM WE GAVE PLACE BY SUBJECTION, NO, NOT FOR AN HOUR; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."


"And certain men which came down from Judaea [to Antioch] taught the brethren, and said, EXCEPT YE BE CIRCUMCISED AFTER THE MANNER OF MOSES, YE CANNOT BE SAVED. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had NO SMALL DISSENSION AND DISPUTATION WITH THEM, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. BUT THERE ROSE UP CERTAIN OF THE SECT OF THE PHARISEES WHICH BELIEVED, SAYING, THAT IT WAS NEEDFUL TO CIRCUMCISE THEM, AND TO COMMAND THEM TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES."


Please notice that very similar to the Christian legalists we still have to deal with in our modern day, while they were Pharisees, nevertheless, these troublemakers in Acts 15 were likewise Believers in the doctrine of Christ. So the problem with legalism within the Church has endured for two thousand years. It divided the Church back then, and it still divides Christians today as well.

It was right after this that Peter, James and John handed down their decision, and wrote their letters to the Gentile brethren in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, as we discussed in part four. Sadly, despite the aforementioned decisions being made with regards to the Gentile converts, and despite the fact that Peter himself stood up in defense of the Gentile brethren at that meeting, later on he had a terrible falling out with the Apostle Paul, when he traveled to Antioch to visit the Gentile brethren there.

You may recall that I mentioned in part three how the time eventually arrived when the audience to whom the Gospel message was being directed was divided into two. That is to say, between the Jews and the Gentiles, or the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision. Paul likewise mentioned this fact in his Epistle to the Galatians, along with the falling out he had with the Apostle Peter. Sadly, the disagreement they had was so severe, that even Barnabas -- who had previously been Paul's travel companion -- was affected, and he eventually separated himself from Paul due to a disagreement regarding John Mark. Consider the following group of verses which confirm these various points:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision . . . But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"


If you are a little confused by what you just read, let me clarify it a bit for you. You may recall how in part three, we discussed how in Acts chapter eleven, the legalists in Jerusalem were quite offended when they learned that Peter had gone from Joppa to Caesarea in order to be a witness to Cornelius, who was a centurion with the Italian band. Not only did Peter eat and fellowship with them, but as a result of that journey, and Peter's powerful witness, Cornelius' entire family accepted the Lord and were baptized. You can read all about this in Acts chapter ten. However, despite that wonderful development, as I said, the legalists who were in Jerusalem became very offended. Let me share those two verses from Acts chapter eleven with you again:

"And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them."


It is sometime after that, that the legalists then travel to Antioch where Paul and Barnabas are located, and attempt to pressure the Gentile brethren into being circumcised, which Paul simply would not allow. As we learned earlier, it was then that Paul, Barnabas and Titus traveled to Jerusalem in order to have their Gospel confirmed and validated by the Church Elders. While they were there, the legalists tried to force Titus to be circumcised. So the aforementioned meeting occurred in Acts chapter fifteen where Peter stood up and defended the right of the Gentile converts to neither be circumcised, or be required to follow the Laws of Moses.

Are you following me so far? So it is sometime after that meeting in Jerusalem that Peter travels to Antioch in order to fellowship with the Gentile brethren. Peter seems to be having a good time, and even sits down and eats with them. But then, as Paul describes above in Galatians chapter two, trouble brews when certain brethren from Jerusalem, who had been sent by the Apostle James, arrive in Antioch. All of a sudden, Peter, who previously seemed to be having no problem whatsoever with fellowshipping with the Gentiles, "withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision", according to the Apostle Paul.

Wow! Do you see that? Supposedly "bold" Peter was afraid of the Jewish legalists who arrived from Jerusalem. He did not want them to see him eating and fellowshipping with those "nasty" Gentile brethren, so he separated himself from those Gentile converts. As I have shared before, fear of the Jews -- particularly the legalistic Jews -- was a very powerful force in those days. This becomes evident by verses such as the following:

"Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. Howbeit no man spake openly of him FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS."


"And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus."


"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you . . . And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you."


So clearly, those Jews were a very nasty bunch. So that is what caused the strong disagreement between Peter and Paul. Paul writes that he rebuked Peter in front of all of the brethren and basically accused him of being a hypocrite. In the previous verses, Paul writes that he "withstood [Peter] to the face, because he was to be blamed." The truth is that Paul was absolutely right. Peter was in fact so afraid of what the brethren from Jerusalem thought of him eating with the Gentiles, that he compromised his personal convictions, yielded to political correctness, became a menpleaser, and acted like a hypocrite.

This brings us back to my personal speculation regarding why Paul may have used the phrase "my gospel" three times. Well, think about it. Jerusalem has already been poisoned with a spirit of legalism. The Galatian brethren have backslidden and likewise fallen under the bondage of the Laws of Moses again. The legalistic brethren from Jerusalem have tried to pressure the Gentiles in Antioch to be circumcised. Then the legalists also try to pressure Titus into being circumcised when he, Barnabas and Paul go to Jerusalem for the meeting. And, lastly, Peter and Paul have a major disagreement which also affects Barnabas. So Paul is having a pretty rough time with all of these things going on.

So as I said earlier, consider how Paul must be thinking as he goes about preaching the Gospel. The last thing he wants to see is for more of the Churches he is establishing, fall under that very same sickness of legalism. Thus, perhaps by using the phrase "my gospel", Paul is trying to project the message that while he is preaching the very same Gospel as Jesus and the Apostles, it is NOT loaded down with all the legalistic baggage which has plagued Jerusalem, and some of the other Churches as well. That is my theory for what it is worth. Paul is basically telling the Gentiles something like the following:

"Hey, look. I really want you to accept Jesus Christ just as we have. However, I am not going to weigh you down with a bunch of regulations and do's and don'ts as is occurring with the Jewish brethren in Jerusalem. We really preach the same Gospel, but my Gospel doesn't come with all of that heavy, legalistic baggage attached to it."

Earlier, I mentioned that the Pauline extremists refer to the Gospel that Paul preached as the Gospel of Grace. But in contrast, they say that Jesus and the Apostles preached the Gospel of the Kingdom or the Kingdom Gospel. So exactly what is meant by the Gospel of the Kingdom? Well, if we take an honest look at some of the things which Jesus said in the four Gospels, it appears that it is basically the same thing as what we read in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Consider this group of verses, all of which were either spoken by Jesus, or else which describe what He did:

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people."


"And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people."


"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."


"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."


"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."


"And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."


So exactly what does the word "Gospel" mean. Derived from the Koine Greek word "euaggelion", the word "Gospel" simply means "glad tidings". "The glad tidings of what exactly?" you may ask. Well, in reality, it is actually a few different things. It is the glad tidings -- or good news -- that the Kingdom of God would soon be set up as per Jesus' own words. It is also the glad tidings that because Jesus shed His precious Blood on a Roman cross, we can receive forgiveness for our sins by the Grace of God through faith in Jesus' Sacrifice. Lastly, it is the glad tidings that because Jesus died, was buried, and then rose from the dead, we too can be resurrected to new life through faith in His name. So the Gospel is all of these things. That is what the previous verses tell me. It is also what 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 tells me as well.

While the Apostle Paul three times referred to the Gospel as "my gospel" in two of his Epistles, in the Book of Acts, we learn that he also referred to it as "the gospel of the grace of God". What we also see is that the Apostle Paul constantly preached the Kingdom of God. Consider the following verses:

"And when they [Paul and Barnabas] had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into THE KINGDOM OF GOD."


"And he [Paul] went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning THE KINGDOM OF GOD."


"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD. And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone PREACHING THE KINGDOM OF GOD, shall see my face no more."


"And when they had appointed him [Paul] a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified THE KINGDOM OF GOD, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening . . . And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, PREACHING THE KINGDOM OF GOD, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."


As you can plainly see, while on one occasion the Apostle Paul referred to the message he preached as "the gospel of the grace of God", it is also quite evident from the above verses that he also preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. How can this be? Don't those Apostle Paul extremists claim that Paul preached the Gospel of Grace and NOT the Gospel of the Kingdom? Yes, they do. However, that is NOT what the previous verses say. Paul clearly tells us that he went around preaching the Kingdom of God. Therefore, those folks are obviously wrong.

In fact, I find it rather interesting that these Pauline extremists claim that our Gospel -- that is to say, the Gospel of the Gentiles -- is only from the Epistle to the Romans to the Epistle to Philemon. As I mentioned near the beginning of this series, the Pauline extremists make this claim repeatedly. According to them, anything outside of those Books is NOT our Gospel. Let me ask you something. Considering that we clearly see the Apostle Paul engaged in a lot of action in the Book of Acts, traveling to different places, preaching the Gospel everywhere, getting into a few arguments, getting into trouble with the legalistic Jews and other local authorities, winning converts and establishing Churches, etc., don't you find it strange that the Pauline extremists don't include the Book of Acts as a part of the Gospel to the Gentiles? I mean, beginning with Acts chapter eight, Paul is literally everywhere!

So why do the Pauline extremists refuse to accept the Book of Acts as a part of the Gospel to the Gentiles? I believe I have already given you the answer. As I have said all along, they are purposely trying to separate the Gospel of Grace -- which they claim only Paul preached -- from the Gospel of the Kingdom -- which they claim only Jesus and the Apostles preached in the Gospels. However, as I already stated, in the Book of Acts, we clearly see Paul preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and THAT is what these extremists apparently do not want people to know, because it messes up their neat, little, false doctrine.

My dear friends, it should be obvious to you by now that in reality, the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Grace are synonymous terms, because the Gospel of the Kingdom IS the Gospel of Grace, and the Gospel of Grace IS the Gospel of the Kingdom. When Jesus went preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, He was also preaching the Gospel of Grace, because He already knew what He had to do in order for His listeners to enter into that coming Kingdom. As we saw earlier in this series, the Lord spoke to His followers of His coming Death and Resurrection multiple times. Likewise, He explained to them the necessity of His blood atonement, so that sins can be forgiven, and the way can be opened for us to enter the Kingdom of God.

In short, these two terms are NOT really mutually exclusive. To reiterate, it is in fact because of the Gospel of Grace that we can enter the Kingdom of God. If Jesus had not died on the Cross -- the Gospel of Grace -- then we could not enter the Kingdom of God -- the Gospel of the Kingdom. So in my view, preaching one, is the same as preaching the other.

Now, if that is not enough for you already, consider the fact that in his Epistles, the Apostle Paul likewise refers to the Gospel he preached as the "gospel of Christ", as we can easily determine by the following group of verses. By the way, these verses cover many different subjects, and they are not complete thoughts, because I did not include the surrounding verses. Don't let that bother you. The main thing I want you to see is how many times the Apostle Paul actually used the phrase "gospel of Christ":

"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."


"For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ . . . And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ."


"If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ . . . What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel."


"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."


"Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;"


"For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ:"


"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."


"Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;"


"Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone; And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:"


Please go to part six for the conclusion of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.