Peter to the circumcision/ Paul to the uncircumcised

[octoberose]

I was visiting my daughters family for two weeks and didn't join in on the discussion of Adam and Eve. I'll hold that for a while and if it's ok I'd like to comment on that later.
For now I was listening to someone who believes in the salvation of all as we do, but advocates the 'two gospels" theory.  Of course he uses this  "they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, and the gospel of the circumcision unto Peter" (Gal. 2:7).
I'm pretty sure that Ray speaks about this is the secret rapture paper. Is there somewhere else?  I don't see how anyone can read Ephesians and come away with two gospels.  I know Ray did not think so. But my question is, what do you believe that Galatians 2 is talking about ?

[ML]

Gal 1:8  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 accursedG331. 
Gal 1:9  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 accursedG331. 

I guess Jesus Christ is accursed because He taught a different Gospel, huh?

G331
ἀνάθεμα
anathema
an-ath'-em-ah
From G394; a (religious) ban or (concretely) excommunicated (thing or person): - accursed, anathema, curse, X great.
Total KJV occurrences: 6

It looks like it is in this one too, I have heard:

https://bible-truths.com/forums/index.php/topic,9742.msg82513.html#msg82513

[Dave in Tenn]

Yes, the clearest stuff from Ray on the subject is in the "rapture" paper. 

Here's some related passages. 

Gal_1:16; Act_13:46-48, Act_18:6, Act_28:28; Rom_1:5, Rom_11:13; 1Th_2:4; 1Ti_2:7; 2Ti_1:11

If nothing else can be gotten from these, they should at least make it clear that "of the" is not in the text.  That translation was made with the intent to create an English sentence.  There is no "of" in that verse.  In other words, no Gospel OF circumcision and no gospel OF uncircumcision.

All of these speak about the two "audiences", not two "messages".  And that's what Galatians 2:7 is doing as well, else why the information that the Jews (in large measure) rejected the message while the nations (in a relative sense) embraced it.

Gal 2:7  ButG235 contrariwise,G5121 when they sawG1492 thatG3754 theG3588 gospelG2098 of theG3588 uncircumcisionG203 was committedG4100 unto me, asG2531 the gospel of theG3588 circumcisionG4061 was unto Peter;G4074
Gal 2:8  (ForG1063 he that wrought effectuallyG1754 in PeterG4074 toG1519 the apostleshipG651 of theG3588 circumcision,G4061 the same was mightyG1754 in(G2532) meG1698 towardG1519 theG3588 Gentiles:)G1484
Gal 2:9  AndG2532 when James,G2385(G2532) Cephas,G2786 andG2532 John,G2491 who seemedG1380 to beG1511 pillars,G4769 perceivedG1097 theG3588 graceG5485 that was givenG1325 unto me,G3427 they gaveG1325 to meG1698 andG2532 BarnabasG921 the right handsG1188 of fellowship;G2842 thatG2443 weG2249 should go untoG1519 theG3588 heathen,G1484 andG1161 theyG846 untoG1519 theG3588 circumcision.G4061

You won't convince this person, however.  It seems apparent that he has built an entire doctrinal structure around a word inserted for clarity.  These things don't fall easy, especially when your reputation is tied up in them.  If a word must be inserted for English clarity, the word "to" works far better and matches the clear message of those related verses (and more).

Beyond that, there is a new Circumcised/Uncircumcised in the New Covenant and it matters nothing whether or not he or she has a foreskin.  For many are called, few chosen.




 

[Dave in Tenn]

Also, it's OK to respond to the "first man" thread in a new thread.

[indianabob]

Hi folks,

I'm going to stick my neck out here just a little. Please be kind.

Is it correct or not that the Jews, both priests and regular people were under the so called Old covenant and that Jesus, toward the end of his ministry told a few that he had come to bring a New and better covenant AND that they didn't believe him?

Didn't the Jews continue the whole Temple worship thing from the time Jesus ascended until 40 years later when God arranged for the Temple to be destroyed and eliminated the Jewish priesthood and scattered the Jews?

And then didn't Paul and his helpers teach a new covenant of Grace to replace the covenant of works?

Maybe I'm not seeing clearly, so would someone help me with a few scriptures.

Indiana Bob

[John from Kentucky]

Hi folks,

I'm going to stick my neck out here just a little. Please be kind.

Is it correct or not that the Jews, both priests and regular people were under the so called Old covenant and that Jesus, toward the end of his ministry told a few that he had come to bring a New and better covenant AND that they didn't believe him?

Didn't the Jews continue the whole Temple worship thing from the time Jesus ascended until 40 years later when God arranged for the Temple to be destroyed and eliminated the Jewish priesthood and scattered the Jews?

And then didn't Paul and his helpers teach a new covenant of Grace to replace the covenant of works?

Maybe I'm not seeing clearly, so would someone help me with a few scriptures.

Indiana Bob

No, I-Bob, you have it wrong.  Paul and his helpers did not start teaching a new covenant of grace.

It was Jesus Who taught salvation through grace.
"...grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John 1:17

Paul and the other Apostles taught what Jesus taught.  They were not free agents able to teach what they wanted.  They obeyed their King and Savior, Jesus the Anointed One.

The Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.  Both Paul and Peter were dead years before then.  They did not wait until  the Temple was gone to teach Jesus's gospel of grace, not works.  Peter and Paul did not contradict one another.

[octoberose]

Thanks so much for the replies.
Dave you said"  If nothing else can be gotten from these, they should at least make it clear that "of the" is not in the text.  That translation was made with the intent to create an English sentence.  There is no "of" in that verse.  In other words, no Gospel OF circumcision and no gospel OF uncircumcision." 
   That would end the whole discussion if I could show (those like this person, and me too) that the word OF should not be there.   If I looked up a Greek new testament it's not going to have the word OF there?   I should know how to do this, but I don't really.  I have a CLV but I'd rather see the Greek.  And of course you know the whole theology of God setting up  Old Testament Law in the next age is dependent on this.  This is the crux for this theology.  But it really is going backwards isn't it? Jesus showed that  their system would not work and His sacrifice was what was needed, not bulls and sheep.
But ( there's often a but ) they would also say God made this promise and that promise to the people of Israel and that it has yet to be fulfilled.  Promises about land and Jesus on the throne in Jeruselum, etc. I don't know what to make out of promises that it doesn't look will ever be fulfilled to them- but will be fulfilled to us, believers in Christ. 
 
  That's a good question there Bob.  It's odd JFK how many people think that Peter taught a gospel of faith and works and Paul a gospel of grace.  I don't see it that way anymore than you do.    Ray touches on that in the secret rapture I believe.  Peter was reaffirming Pauls writings- isn't that right?  It is a very very long paper and I just remember reading that.

[Dennis Vogel]

Hi folks,

I'm going to stick my neck out here just a little. Please be kind.

Is it correct or not that the Jews, both priests and regular people were under the so called Old covenant and that Jesus, toward the end of his ministry told a few that he had come to bring a New and better covenant AND that they didn't believe him?

Didn't the Jews continue the whole Temple worship thing from the time Jesus ascended until 40 years later when God arranged for the Temple to be destroyed and eliminated the Jewish priesthood and scattered the Jews?

And then didn't Paul and his helpers teach a new covenant of Grace to replace the covenant of works?

Maybe I'm not seeing clearly, so would someone help me with a few scriptures.

Indiana Bob

I don't like the term "Covenant of Grace" - It's a church teaching that denies the true meaning of grace which is a gift. But grace teaches and punishes.

You Are Who You Are Because of "Grace" https://youtu.be/o5YCfZQ7XfU

Getting Saved - Hardest Thing You Will Ever Do! https://youtu.be/nyw60TBhQJo

"Covenant of Works" is also church teaching and a lie.

[indianabob]

Hi Dennis,

I erred in calling grace a covenant or agreement. I meant to say a gospel or news about grace.
Thanks for catching that.
If I may I will quote the scripture that brought this to my attention.

Thanks, Indiana bob


Eph 3:1  For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 
Eph 3:2  If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 
Eph 3:3  How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 
Eph 3:4  Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 
Eph 3:5  Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 
Eph 3:6  That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 
Eph 3:7  Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 

Following up with:

Col 1:25  Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 
Col 1:26  Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 
Col 1:27  To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: 
Col 1:28  Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: 

Then in Romans it seems that Paul is sharing something that was not previously known or taught by any of the other apostles. What am I missing here?

Rom 15:15  Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 
Rom 15:16  That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 
Rom 15:17  I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. 
Rom 15:18  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, 
Rom 15:19  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. 
Rom 15:20  Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: 
Rom 15:21  But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. 

And it seemed that even apostle Peter found Paul's gospel hard to explain to his Jewish brethren.

2Pe 3:14  Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 
2Pe 3:15  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 
2Pe 3:16  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 

[Dave in Tenn]

...That would end the whole discussion if I could show (those like this person, and me too) that the word OF should not be there.   If I looked up a Greek new testament it's not going to have the word OF there?

That is correct.  But I don't necessarily blame the translators.  There are many times when a word-for-word translation doesn't produce a grammatical English sentence. 

Here it is in my most word-for-word translation:

Gal 2:7  but on the other hand, having seen that I have been trusted with the good news of the uncircumcised as Peter of the circumcision, Gal 2:8  (for the one operating in Peter for commission of the circumcision, operated also to me among the nations)...

To leave out "of" or some other joining word (like "to" or "for") makes the translation wonky.  To put it there in an attempt to express the thought in English makes theologians salivate.  It's presence or absence is not really the point.  It's true that it is not in the Greek.  So there should be no rush to assume that a full expression of the phrase implies that there are two Gospels based on the audience.  This is overwhelmingly especially true when you continue reading, and also read those related verses without theological goggles on. 

I should know how to do this, but I don't really.  I have a CLV but I'd rather see the Greek.

A good tool for this is simply the KJV with strong's numbers and a dictionary or two keyed to them.  Esword comes with the KJV with Strong's numbers and Strong's and Thayer's Greek dictionaries are keyed to that system and others may be.  The numbers relate to the words in Greek. 

And of course you know the whole theology of God setting up  Old Testament Law in the next age is dependent on this.  This is the crux for this theology.  But it really is going backwards isn't it?...

I certainly think so.  But I'm not a theologian...not even a humorously self-described one.  There will be no jew or greek.  One Spirit, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.  No profit in circumcision.  No profit in uncircumcision.