Kingdom Myth 2. The gospel of the kingdom was for the Jews; the gospel of grace is for the Gentiles.
Okay, I’ll just say it without blinking. This myth is one of the most destructive doctrines in history. It began in the 19th century with the Plymouth Brethren, who taught a hyper form of dispensationalism.
The doctrine was popularized by C.I. Scofield who published his famous Scofield Study Bible in 1909. Scofield’s Bible was used at Moody Bible institute and spread throughout evangelical schools all across America.
For this reason, this doctrine is still with us. And it has diluted and watered down the cutting edge of the gospel of Jesus Christ to where it’s been all but lost.
The net result: You can be a “Christian,” but not a disciple. You can “believe,” but not “follow.” Your devotion to Jesus Christ can be anemic at best, and that’s okay, because you’re under grace.
A careful reading of the New Testament will show — beyond dispute — that the gospel of the kingdom was preached to both the Jew and the Gentile. The same is true for the gospel of grace. “To the Jew first, then to the Gentile.”
Going a step further, the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace are two sides of the same gospel.
As I’ve previously pointed out in this series, few Christians have heard the explosive gospel of the kingdom in our time. And this is the reason why the Christian community has such little impact.
But that’s changing. The insurgence has begun …
We’ll look at another myth next week. Stay tuned.
Click here for all the articles in the Kingdom of God Series
Dispelling Kingdom Myths: Part 1
Brother Frank,
How do you reconcile Peter addressing Israel in Acts 2:38 for salvation and 1Cor:15:1-2 Paul’s statement to gentiles? Also, Paul’s gospel of grace came by revelation to him many years after Pentecost. Thanks
Bob, I don’t see how Acts 2:38 contradicts anything. Repent and believe is consistent with both Jesus and Paul. If you read his enter message in Acts 2, he talks about the kingdom via David’s kingship.
1 Corinthians 15:1-2 must be read in it’s entirety to the end of the passage, where Paul (again) talks about the kingdom.
Paul’s gospel was fully consistent with Peter’s. See Galatians 1 and 2. His gospel, however, was “higher” in my view because it unfolded the mystery.
This should resolve the issue of those texts. I don’t see how they overturn my arguments in the kingdom series.
The Kingdom Master Class goes into much more depth as does the upcoming book.
Frank,
I’m not sure Peter really ever understood the Gospel of Grace. 2 Pet. 3:16 Even to the end of his life he seems to not have come to grips with the mystery’s that the Lord showed Paul. I get the impression that Peter still had a mindset under the old covenant. He speaks of grace but not in terms of our lives hidden in Christ and Christ is us the hope of glory.
Bob, the gospel of grace is the same as the gospel of the kingdom. (Have you read all of my posts on the kingdom. My upcoming book on the kingdom will prove this beyond doubt.) Peter stood with Paul in Acts 15, showing that he understood grace. In addition, Paul said that his gospel was consistent with the gospel preached by Peter, James, and John.
While Paul had unique insight into the mystery, he and Peter didn’t preach different gospels. They both preached the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace. From Peter’s letters, it’s obvious he understood the Lord’s grace.
I also point you to my podcast message, “Remember Peter.” You’ll see from it that Peter had a front row seat into the grace of Jesus Christ.
Don’t you think that Peter only had a momentary lapse, when Paul had to rebuke him? He always knew the gospel of grace; he just caved to peer pressure.
It was peer pressure and the fear of man. Peter struggled with this (remember the three denials). But he got it right, and he’s a great example for us of surviving failure, which I wrote about previously on the blog.
Wow, brother Frank, you seem to have a vendetta of some kind against C.I. Scofield and against the Plymouth Brethren. While I definitely don’t agree with everything that Scofield taught or that the Brethren taught, I do believe that both Scofield AND the Brethren made some valuable contributions to our current understanding of biblical truth. In fact, the contributions of the Brethren (in particular) to the restoration of biblical truth was so great in quality and quantity that I would go so far as to say (as Watchman Nee—whom I know you highly respect—has also said) that the movement of the Brethren was far greater than the movement of the Reformation. This doesn’t mean, of course, that the Brethren were perfect because, like every other group of believers that has existed since the first century (including Watchman Nee and his “little flock”), they had their shortcomings. But why is it that the only time you ever mention them is for the purpose of criticizing them for their shortcomings (which could actually be a misperception and a misrepresentation of them on your part) rather than for the purpose of honoring them for their accomplishments in Christ?
Tom, you are reading an enormous amount into a super short blog post. I have no “vendetta” against anyone (be careful about judging the heart). Not sure how or why would say such a thing. Simply pointing out the origin of a doctrine. In addition, you’ve obviously not read my books because I said positive things about the contribution of the Brethren.
The subject of this post had nothing to do with honoring the contribution of certain people and movements. It was specifically to make one point. It’s purpose wasn’t to give a biography of Scofield and the Brethren. 🙂 And the question about “why is it that the only time you mention them is to criticize them” is like asking me “Why don’t you stop beating your dog?” The question is not truthful. That’s the answer to your question. 🙂
Piece of advice: It’s never a good to take blog posts out of their context and make universal assumptions about short statements.
Cheers!
P.S. Here’s the full book catalog: https://www.frankviola.org/books