By Jerry Shugart

In The Bible Knowledge Commentary written by the Dallas Seminary faculty we read Donald K. Campbell say that "there was one gospel though it was preached by different apostles to two distinct groups of people" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, p. 594). However, on his commentary on Galatians 2:2 he turns around and says:

"Paul seized this oppurtunity to consult with the other apostles 'privately' connerning the message he was preaching to the Gentiles. This does not mean that Paul sought their approval of its truth and accuracy, for he had received the gospel from God by revelation. Rather, he wanted them to consider its relationship to the gospel they were proclaiming" [emphasis added] (Ibid., p.593).

If the gospel which Paul "preached among the Gentiles" was the same one that the other Apostles were preaching then why would Paul want those Apostles "to consider its relationship to the gospel they were proclaiming"? That would make no sense.

At Galatians 1 Paul speaks of the gospel which he preached to those in the churches which he founded and he says that he received that gospel from the Lord Jesus for the express purpose to preach it among the Gentiles:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles" (Gal.1:11-12; 15-16).

We can understand that the gospel of which Paul is speaking is strictly for the Gentiles by his remarks later in the same epistle:

"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" (Gal.2:2).

If there were only "one" gospel then there would be absolutely no reason to specify that the gospel that he is speaking of is the one "which I preach among the Gentiles."

If the gospel he preached among the Gentiles was the same gospel which he preached among the Jews then why would he need to go to Jerusalem in order to consider its relationship to the gospel which he had preached earlier in the company of some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29)? Of course there would be no reason for him to do that if the gospel which he earlier preached with other apostles was the same one that he was preaching to the Gentiles.

Lewis Sperry Chafer attempts to explain why the "gospel of grace" was not preached on the Day of Pentecost:

"Even after His resurrection and forty days of instruction concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3) they questioned Him as to the realization of the nation's hope: 'Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?' (Acts 1:6)...He does not tell them their kingdom is abandoned, or merged into a spiritual conquest of all nations: He plainly infers that every promise of God is still intact; but assigns to them the immediate ministry of the new gospel age. Even this they failed to comprehend" [emphasis added] (Chafer, The Church Which is His Body).

Imagine that! The Lord assigned to the Twelve the "immediate ministry of the new gospel age" but they were unable to understand the responsibilities assigned to them in regard to the "new gospel age." Therefore that explains why that "new gospel" was not preached on the day of Pentecost. We are supposed to believe Chafer's explanation despite the fact that the Lord had assured them that He would send the Holy Spirit unto them to guide them unto all truth:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you...when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth" (Jn.16:7,13).

Chafer's idea is not credible but even if we could somehow delude our minds into believing what he says that still would not support the idea that the "dispensation of grace" began at Acts 2. That is because a new dispensation does not begin until the responsibilities according to that new dispensation are exercised. In other words, under the new stewardship of grace the "gospel of grace" was to be proclaimed. Since that gospel was not preached on the day of Pentecost it is obvious that the "dispensation of grace" did not begin then.

If we are to believe Chafer's ideas then the Twelve were wandering around in the dark for many years and it was not until Peter was sent to the Gentiles and the first Church Council that they finally understood the minstry that the Lord Jesus had previously given them. Chafer says that "it was not until Peter by divine compulsion had first preached the Gospel to Gentiles in Cornelius' house, and Paul and Barnabas had returned to Jerusalem reporting the same out flowing salvation to Gentiles as had been given to Jews that they were able to grasp the meaning of the new age. This new light came in connection with the deliberations of the first church council, called by the mother church at Jerusalem, and recorded in Acts 15:13-18" [emphasis added] (Ibid.).

Next