The Word Abused ....

“IF WE OR AN ANGEL PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL”

It may be daring of us to assert that the very passage that warns against tampering with the gospel is itself abused by some of the very ones who profess to be defenders of the gospel, but this is the judgment that we are forced to make. Perhaps we wax far too bold to suggest that many gospel preachers do not seem to know what the gospel is, but when one takes a dose look at the way certain scriptures are handled (or mishandled), it is a reasonable conclusion.

The passage in question is Gal. 1:8-9: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed.” The threat to the Galatian churches is clear enough. There was “another gospel” that was undermining all that the apostle had done in their midst, calling them “into the grace of Christ.” It was a gospel that destroyed that grace through the introduction of Jewish rites and ceremonies as essential to salvation. The apostle calls if “another gospel” only because its proclaimers, pretending to be true preachers, made that claim for it. But he assured the Galatians that it was not really another gospel, but only a perverted one (verse 7).

There is the gospel of Christ and only that to Paul. So there is no such thing as “another gospel.” What the Judaizers proclaimed was perverted in that it made salvation a matter of law and works rather than faith and grace. And so the apostle says to them: “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?” (3:1-2) Any message that bases justification on anything but the merits of the Lord Jesus is a perversion, and that was the problem in Galatia. Paul concedes that “if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.” This could never be, so Jesus Christ was given as the sin-bearer to those that believe.

This passage is abused in our day in such a manner that the effect is as much a perversion as it was with the Judaizers in Galatia. One ‘is preaching “another gospel,” we are told, if he holds some doctrinal error, or what is presumed to be an error, such as maintaining a TV program like Herald of Truth or using an instrument in congregational singing. One is not a true gospel preacher if he believes in Sunday Schools or if he uses a plurality of cups at the Supper. Indeed, he comes under the same curse of heaven as would an angel that proclaims a different gospel if he is other than a faithful Church of Christ minister after the Gospel Advocate or Abilene Christian College. If that doesn’t out-Judaize the Judaizers of Galatia, it runs them a close second.

This means that our “brothers in error” have the same kind of problem that those in Galatia had, those who were being bewitched by the Judaizers. It is not enough to believe in Jesus as Lord, be baptized into him, and be filled with his Spirit according to the promise of Acts 2:38. That may make you a brother all right, but you are immediately “in error” if you are not of us when it comes to classes or cups or music or organization or prophecy and all the rest. One, must believe, repent, be immersed, receive the Spirit and be a cappella when it comes to music. Now really, is that any different than it was in Galatia: they too began with faith and the Spirit, but they were told they had to be circumcised.

The gospel is thus made to embrace all our deductions, inferences and interpretations that extend throughout the New Covenant scriptures. A brother who visits from the Christian Church is not called on for anything, nor is he even recognized as a preacher of the gospel, all because he is “wrong” on music. And so we judge him to be bringing “another gospel,” which makes the music question part of the gospel. So with all these other things. A lot of our people now draw the line on all those who support Herald of Truth or orphanages from their budgets, for this, they tell us, is bringing another gospel. We could laugh at such nonsense as all this and pass it by if it were not for the harm it does to the Body of Christ.

One is left to conclude that such folk do not know what the gospel is. If the gospel includes all these doctrinal deductions, then it follows that no one truly preaches a complete gospel except those in one particular little sect. Not only would true gospel preachers be confined to the Church of Christ, but to only one faction within the group. This is, of course, what the Judaizers were doing in Galatia. Paul was not a true gospel preacher, for he proclaimed only Jesus Christ and him crucified. He said nothing about the requirements of the Jewish law, with its circumcision, sabbaths, holy days and ceremonials. They had begun with faith and baptism, grace and the Holy Spirit. But to satisfy the Judaizers’ sectarian demands they had to do more — the way they saw it of course. On this Paul could not compromise. Justification is only by Jesus’ merit, not by the works of any law.

We can be no less adamant. All these things, whether societies or music or classes or cups, are no part of the gospel. The gospel is what Paul preached in Galatia and everywhere else he went. To those Galatians he said: “before your eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified” (3: 1). That is the gospel, holding up the Christ as the saviour of the world. He also said to them: “In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (3:26-27). That was how Paul preached to them and that is how they became Christians. The works of the Jewish law, or any other law, has no more merit than whether one has an organ or not, or whether he interprets prophecy as we do or not. ..There is no merit, no Brownie points to be won from heaven, in being “right” about this or that doctrinal interpretation.

This does not mean that doctrine is not important, for it too, when properly interpreted, is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. It is, as Thomas Campbell has well said, important for “the after edification of the church.” If a brother is in error on doctrine in any significant way, such as not-yet appreciating the place of personal prayer or assembling with the saints, then of course we are to be concerned and teach him accordingly. But even if he is deficient in such things, he has still believed and obeyed the gospel. Even if a brother is wrong on music or the millennium, he has still obeyed the gospel — all the teaching on prayer of the assembly or the Christian virtues are not part of the gospel. They are just that, teaching, the didache, which any Greek lexicographer distinguishes from the gospel, the kerugma.

But one does not have to leave the scriptures themselves to see this. To the Corinthians Paul wrote: “Though you have countless tutors in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (l Cor. 4:15). The word for tutor, or instructor as in the King James, is the word from which we get pedagogue, the same word that is used in Gal. 3:25 where the law is described as a pedagogue or schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. This refers of course to teaching. The law taught us many things, bringing us to the Christian age. So Paul is telling the Corinthians that they have countless teachers, but that they have but one father in the gospel. He proclaimed the gospel to them and they obeyed it. That made them his children in the faith. and he their father. He beget them through the gospel. Once made children by the gospel, they went on to have any number of teachers in the doctrine that followed.

The apostle would never have said such as that if gospel and doctrine overlapped or meant the same thing. It was the gospel that made them children; it was doctrine in which they had many instructors. In the light of this it would be folly to say that a “preacher” is begetting or fathering when he is giving a lesson on the beatitudes. He is rather teaching, drawing upon the didache. In proclaiming Jesus as the risen Christ and as man’s sin-bearer he is preaching the gospel, which, if obeyed, makes people his children in the faith.

This has to mean that if all the New Testament is the gospel, which always means our interpretation of what it doesn’t say as well as what it does say, then Paul is haywire in drawing any distinction between being a father and a pedagogue. If you hire a tutor to help your child along in school, then he becomes his father as much as yourself! It also has to mean that there is no difference between planting and watering. “I planted,” Paul says in 1 Cor. 3:6, “Apollos watered.” What is the difference? The same difference that there is in inducting one into the army, thus making him a soldier, and then training him from the manual. Our brethren who see everything in the New Testament as the gospel should not complain if the teachers at school are still enrolling his children after the term is half over. The gospel enrolls, the didache instructs them once they’re disciples. It is just that simple.

A lot of effort has been expended to show that what the apostles taught the churches was gospel, but this can be done only by twisting the scriptures. 1 Pet. 1:25 is often referred to, always in the King James of course: “This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” All the improved versions correct this error in translation to read: “This is the gospel which was preached to you.” Nowhere does any apostle ever preach to a church. The language is rather like this: “as I teach everywhere in every church” and “Teach and urge these duties. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up.”

One preaches the gospel, which is the good news; but he never preaches duties. One preaches to the lost but not to the saved. The scriptures are rigidly consistent in making this distinction. Otherwise it would not use language like: “Every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ” (Acts 5:42). Why would the Spirit use both terms if there is no important difference? It shows that they not only proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, but they also instructed the people in reference to its implication.

Acts 20:7 is another passage that is bruised and battered in an effort to find a preacher preaching to the church. The King James is again the culprit, having Paul preach to the saints gathered there at Troas on the first day of the week. The improved versions all read something like: “Paul talked with them.” This is the word for sharing or dialoging, but not for preach. Rom. 1:15 is also brought into play, for “I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome,” could, if viewed superficially, be understood to mean that Paul wanted to go to Rome so that he could preach the gospel to the saints there. But he doesn’t say anything like that. The preceding verses show that he wanted to “reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles,” and this he always did by proclaiming the gospel to the lost. He was quite clearly talking about the saints when he says in verse 11: “I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.” Since the letter was also intended for the unbelieving Jews in Rome, it is evident that his plans to preach the gospel in Rome would be an effort to win them to the faith.

The nature of the gospel is self-evident if one just stops to think about it. It means good news or glad tidings. It is both good and news. Once you hear the news it is no longer news, though always good. If one has been evangelized, there is no way for him to keep on being evangelized. True, he may be referred to that news again, or reminded of it, so as to propel him to act in view of its implications. The scriptures refer to the gospel in just such a way: “Now I remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast — unless you believed in vain” (1 Cor. 15:1-2). He is reminding them of what he had preached to them, and he goes on to detail this as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, which is the heart of the glad tidings. He says in Rom. 15:19: “I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.” When he wrote that only a small part of the New Testament had been written. If our “all the New Testament is the gospel” brothers had been in Paul’s place, they would have said: We have preached all the gospel that has been revealed so far. But Paul said he preached a full gospel. There was more of God’s word to be revealed, but no more gospel to be revealed. The gospel was given as a reality in the Person of Jesus Christ before anything was written. The apostles went out and told that glad story, that he is the risen Christ, and that is the gospel. Out of that story came the church and the teaching (didache) of the apostles, which is to be distinguished from the gospel itself.

We can all surely agree that Peter preached a complete gospel on Pentecost, long before there were any New Covenant scriptures. This is what made believers. They responded to the gospel in faith and obedience. This enrolled them in Christ’s school, as it were, or made disciples of them. Once enrolled, they proceeded to be instructed in the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42). He that contends that what they continued in is the same thing that they began in ignores a distinction that the Spirit itself makes.

The implications of all this to unity and fellowship are weighty. It means that the gospel itself, not our doctrinal interpretations, is the basis of our being one in Christ and in fellowship with each other. That is, when one believes in Jesus and obeys him in baptism, he is our brother and in the fellowship. The Bible says as much: “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (l Cor. 1:9).2 Thess. 2:14 says, “He called you through our gospel.” When God calls a man through the gospel, he is in the fellowship and he is our brother. This is oneness and this is unity. That fellowship is strengthened and made joyful by doctrine, but it is the gospel and not doctrine that determines the fellowship. True, one can become so grossly immoral, such as through thievery or adultery, that he separates himself from the fellowship to which God has called him, which is of course in violation of the apostles’ doctrine. But this is something entirely different from honest differences in interpreting the doctrine. No man has the right to make his own deductions a test of fellowship. There can be but one condition of fellowship: is the man in Christ through faith and baptism, and is he making a sincere effort to live an exemplary life to the glory of Christ.

It is therefore the gospel of Christ that makes man brothers. It is apostolic teaching that strengthens the bonds of brotherhood, educates and edifies, and builds a community of love and compassion. In the gospel itself there is no place for or reason for diversity, for we are dealing with facts to be believed and an act to be obeyed. In doctrinal matters there can be and will be diversity of opinion and interpretation. It was so with the apostles themselves. But this is good, for we stretch each other’s minds and help each other to grow in knowledge in our mutual search for truth.

But it is imperative that we keep straight the distinctions that the Holy Spirit has made. The gospel makes us one; the doctrine sweetens that oneness. Just as sure as we allow our opinions in reference to doctrine become the test for unity, we are just that sure to create a sect and separate brothers.

“A PECULIAR PEOPLE”

“He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:14).

The misapplication of this verse, along with 1 Pet. 2:9 which is similar to it, belongs to that category of less serious sins against the word, That is, it is not particularly damaging in consequence when people are misled as to its true meaning. But th is series on abusing the scriptures assumes that we are always to be true to the Book and to seek out its real meaning, even if an interpretation may not be an instance of dire consequence — as we believe some cases that we are considering to be. This “peculiar people” thing is more mischievous than felonious, but it is just as well that we set the matter straight, according to our understanding, that is.

The “peculiar people” passages have been made into the Mother Hubbard dress that covers lots of things. If our manners are eccentric or if we are pessimistic when others are optimistic, or vice versa … If our attitude toward life is unusual or if our habits are odd … If our worship is different or if our doctrine is rare … If we are not “there” when others are or if we are quite apart from the ongoing of humanity … If we are unusual or different in any way at all, then it all figures, for after all we are not only a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation, but also a peculiar people, just like 1 Pet. 2:9 says. It has long been our prooftext for being oddballs! Really, though, we are not all that oddball, whether for good or bad.

One sister was describing her predicament down at work. In sharing with her peers she always seemed to be alone, always out of step with the others, she complained. A brother comforted her with, “After all, Janie, we are a peculiar people,” citing one of these passages. Some of the kids in high school were telling of their experiences with their classmates, which made them appear to be distinctly different. If they didn’t pet or go to the night clubs or take a try at dope, they were dubbed as squares. Their Sunday School teacher assured them that they were not exactly square, but only peculiar, as the Bible says they are to be. One of our ministers was not getting along too well in attending a “denominational” seminary (ours are undenominational, you realize), but he found the proof text he needed in Tit. 2:14. “After all, the Lord called me to be peculiar,” he could say to himself as he continued his confrontations with his fellow seminarians. It never occurred to him that God may also have called them to His service, making them just as peculiar as himself.

The issue here is not whether God’s people (not only Church of Christ folk surely) are to be distinctive in a pagan and secular world. In calling us to be holy, He called us to be different. Many passages show the uniqueness of the Christian profession, such as “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Ro. 12:2), and “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:15). The issue is whether these passages describing us as “a peculiar people” has reference to that. There is a question as to whether we are to teach high school kids not to indulge in the smoke, petting or dope of their peers because God has called them to be “peculiar” in the sense of being odd.

We are not the only ones who have used these passages this way. The “plain people” among Quakers, Mennonites and Amish, who are so different that they will not ride in an auto or have plumbing in their homes, find consolation in these verses. After all, if God calls us to be peculiar, then let us get with it and really be peculiar. So the Amish wear only homemade clothes, all in muslin and fastened only by hook and eye. It is just as well that we in Churches of Christ forget about being peculiar, for we just aren’t all that good at it!

The right interpretation of these passages is mostly a matter of reading them in a version other than the King James. The Revised Standard renders Titus 2:14 like this: “Christ gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.” For peculiar people it has “a people of his own.” The New English has “a pure people marked out for his own,” while Schonfield, the Jewish scholar renders it “a special people.” The meaning is that God has called us to be his own people, His purchased people. The English word peculiar has changed meaning since the King James was made, for the idea then was something like “peculiarly one’s own.” Your house would be peculiar in that it belonged only to you, or your wife was peculiar, not because she was an oddball, but because she was only your wife.

So, by implication, these passages do teach the distinctiveness of being a saint, purified by God. We are’ to be different because we are His. But that is not the emphasis usually given to the passages. Paul is using the idea of “a purchased people” to show that we are therefore to be a people “zealous for good deeds,” not that we are to be different by being odd or “peculiar” as understood in modern parlance.

These New Testament references to “peculiar people” are drawn from the Old Testament, such as Psa. 135:4: “The Lord has chosen Jacob for himself, Israel for his own possession.” The King James has “The Lord hath chosen Israel for his peculiar treasure.” The idea goes all the way back to Ex. 1 9:5: “You shall be my own possession among all peoples.” The King James has “you shall be a peculiar treasure.”

The idea is simply precious, and it runs all through scripture. We are the Lord’s special treasure, His very own possession, His extra-ordinary people (which is the force of periousios in Tit. 2:14). Since we are His in a very special way (the Old Testament verses suggest that He has gathered us within His own enclosure, as if fencing us off for Himself), we are to serve Him and glorify Him and be full of good works. When we mean this by being “a peculiar people,” then we are really with it, whether oddballs or not. —the Editor