September 21, 2025

Luke–Acts and Paul vs. the Old Paradigm: Unveiling the True Character and Mission of God

 

Introduction: Wrestling with Two Visions of God

Christians often struggle to reconcile the Old Testament portrayal of God with the New Testament revelation in Christ. The Old Testament frequently depicts God through the lens of ancient Israel’s culture – sometimes as a warrior deity sanctioning tribal wars or a lawgiver enforcing strict rituals. In contrast, the apostolic witness of the New Testament paints a strikingly different picture: a God of universal love and grace who reaches out to all humanity through Jesus Christ. This tension raises a provocative question: Must we accept Israel’s old paradigm of an ethnocentric, legalistic God as fully accurate, or has God’s true character been clarified and redefined by the core apostolic testimony found in Luke–Acts and Paul’s writings? In this article, we will argue the latter – that the Luke–Acts narrative and the letters of Paul provide the clearest window into God’s intentions, one that surpasses and even corrects the older portrayals. Scripture itself gives us warrant for this bold claim. As the Apostle Paul taught, God’s plan, long hidden in ages past, “has been sent to the Gentiles” – to all nations – and “they will listen!” (Acts 28:28). In other words, through Christ’s apostles God has thrown open the door of mercy to the whole world, shattering the confines of the old worldview.

The New Testament writers themselves did not shy away from vigorously challenging the status quo. Luke–Acts and Paul present a forceful critique of any theology that would limit God’s grace to a single ethnicity or bind believers under the yoke of the old Law. We seek to illuminate how the Gospel radically transforms our understanding of God. Luke–Acts and Paul together constitute the core apostolic witness of the Christian faith, and they unapologetically draw a contrast between the new reality in Christ and the old religious paradigm that preceded it. By exploring that contrast – Matthew’s traditionally Jewish-Christian perspective vs. Luke’s and Paul’s universal, grace-centered Gospel – we can appreciate why the apostolic testimony must guide our view of who God truly is.

The Old Paradigm: Ethnocentrism and Legalism in Scripture

To understand the breakthrough of the New Testament, we first must grasp the “old paradigm” that dominated much of the Old Testament and even echoes in parts of the New. This old paradigm is characterized by two key features: ethnocentrism (a focus on Israel’s special status above other nations) and legalism (a focus on strict adherence to the Mosaic Law as the path to righteousness). In the Old Testament, God’s identity was tightly intertwined with Israel’s national story. God is often portrayed as a tribal protector – fighting Israel’s battles, favoring Israel against her enemies, and commanding Israel to uphold a detailed law code to remain in His favor. For example, the Israelites believed God sanctioned and even participated in their wars; victory or defeat was seen as a direct sign of divine favor or displeasure (ivpress.comivpress.com). Many texts describe God as ordering the conquest of Canaan and the defeat of Israel’s foes. Such depictions, however, reflect ancient cultural assumptions about gods and war. Scholars note that when Israel claims “God wills, ordains, sanctions, or otherwise blesses war,” this likely represents a “culturally conditioned explanation” of events – the people’s attempt to interpret their history through the only framework they knew (ivpress.comivpress.com). In other words, the Old Testament writers sometimes attributed violence to God in ways that do not fully capture His ultimate character. Just as ancient Israelites assumed many things we no longer hold (a flat earth, the necessity of animal sacrifice, the acceptability of slavery), they also assumed “God is a warrior” on their behalf – an idea that we are not required to affirm uncritically as Christians (ivpress.com). The old covenant worldview was a partial shadow of the truth, awaiting a greater revelation.

Ethnocentrism in the old paradigm meant that Israel understood itself as God’s chosen people – which, in a sense, was true (God did elect Israel for a purpose) – but this often devolved into viewing Gentiles as outsiders to God’s love. The Law reinforced a separation: Israelites had dietary laws, purity codes, and rituals that set them apart from other nations. God’s holiness was seen as tied to Israel’s distinct identity and strict obedience. The result was that mercy and inclusion took a backseat to boundary-keeping. The legalism of the old paradigm is epitomized by the Torah’s detailed commandments. Righteousness was measured by law-keeping, and failure brought curses. While the Law of Moses had gracious purposes (to teach justice, humility, and the need for atonement), over time many in Israel came to believe that only by meticulous observance of commandments could one please God. This mindset carried into the New Testament era among groups like the Pharisees and other legalists whom Jesus and Paul would later confront.

Crucially, elements of this old paradigm are evident even in one of the Gospels – the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew’s Gospel is widely recognized as the most “Jewish” of the four Gospels. (sephizo.com). It was likely written for a community of Jewish Christians and emphasizes continuity with Jewish law and tradition. Matthew quotes the Old Testament frequently and portrays Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and the new Moses, giving a law from a mountain (the Sermon on the Mount). Notably,  Jesus’ saying according to Matthew reflects an initial ethnocentrism. For instance, when Jesus sends out the Twelve disciples during His earthly ministry, Matthew records Him strictly limiting their mission to Israel: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 10:5–6). And when a Canaanite (Gentile) woman begged Jesus for her daughter’s healing, Matthew relates that Jesus answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) (biblehub.combiblehub.com). Such statements align with the old covenant understanding that the Messiah’s work was first and foremost for Israel. Matthew’s Jesus eventually does show mercy to Gentiles (He healed the Canaanite woman’s daughter after testing her faith) and the Gospel ends with the Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). Yet the overall tenor of Matthew’s account is deeply rooted in a Jewish worldview, sometimes to the point of upholding the Law’s demands in a way that sounds “legalistic.”

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus insists that “until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law”, and “whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom” (Matthew 5:18–19). He even tells His followers that their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees to enter the kingdom (Matthew 5:20). This is a stark call to intensified Law observance. According to Matthew, Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled and deepened it – requiring not only outward compliance but inward purity of heart (see Matthew 5:21–48). Thus, a reader of Matthew could come away thinking that faithful Christians are still very much under the yoke of the Law, obliged to keep even “the least of the commandments” meticulously. Matthew’s view of the Law appears so strict that it flatly conflicts with Paul’s teaching on grace. “Matthew thinks that the followers of Jesus need to keep the law – and do so even better than the most religious Jews. Yet Paul thought that followers of Jesus who tried to keep the law were in danger of losing their salvation. In Matthew’s perspective, failing to keep the Law could cost one eternal life, whereas Paul warned that relying on keeping the Law could cut one off from Christ! The contrast is jarring: Matthew advocates an intensified form of Jewish law-keeping for believers, while Paul preaches freedom from the Law’s yoke in the name of Christ.

Why does Matthew reflect this old paradigm? It’s important to remember the context: Matthew’s community was likely wrestling with how to integrate Jesus’ teachings with their Jewish heritage. The Temple was still standing or only recently destroyed; Judaism and the young Christian movement were intertwined. Matthew presents Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who upholds the Torah. There is a certain ethnocentric loyalty to Israel and the Law in Matthew’s approach – a conviction that God’s promises to Israel remain central, and that Jesus’ followers, though believing in Him as Messiah, must still honor the ancient commandments fully. In many ways, Matthew’s Gospel “couples” the Old Testament worldview with the story of Jesus, as if bridging the two. It does not radically break from the old paradigm so much as extend it into the messianic age. This explains why Matthew’s emphases can feel conservative and traditional, even “legalistic,” compared to what we find in other New Testament writings.

As we turn now to Luke–Acts and the letters of Paul, we will see a new paradigm emerge – one that fulfills and far exceeds the old. This new paradigm, championed by the core apostolic witness, is universal rather than ethnocentric, and based on grace rather than law. It does not negate all that came before, but it overshadows it with clearer display of God’s character.

The New Paradigm in Luke–Acts and Paul: Grace and Universality

Where Matthew leans toward the old, Luke–Acts and the Apostle Paul unveil the true paradigm of God’s dealings with humanity. The Gospel of Luke (together with its sequel, Acts of the Apostles) and Paul’s epistles together form a cohesive testimony from the heart of the early church’s mission. These writings proclaim a God whose intent was always to save all peoples and who, in Jesus Christ, has inaugurated a new covenant that transcends the boundaries of ethnicity and Mosaic Law. The tone of Luke–Acts and Paul’s letters is triumphantly universal and rigorously anti-legalistic. This is not a minor shift in emphasis – it is a revolutionary development in biblical revelation, tantamount to God doing “a new thing” (cf. Isaiah 43:19) that was hinted at in prophecy but fully unveiled only after Christ’s resurrection.

Consider first the Gospel of Luke. Even on a literary level, Luke’s Gospel signals a broader outlook. As one biblical scholar notes, “People have often thought of Luke’s Gospel as a Gentile Gospel, in contrast to, say, Matthew’s much more Jewish Gospel.”(psephizo.com) Luke explicitly portrays Jesus as the Savior not only of Israel but of the entire world: early in Luke, the aged Simeon in the Temple rejoices that the child Jesus is “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to [God’s] people Israel” (Luke 2:32). This dual emphasis – salvation for Gentiles as well as Jews – runs throughout Luke’s narrative. 

Furthermore, Luke alone records certain teachings of Jesus that champion outsiders and rebuke exclusivity. In Luke 4:25–27, Jesus reminds His fellow Nazareth Jews that in Elijah’s time God bypassed all the Israelite widows to miraculously feed a Gentile widow in Sidon, and the prophet Elisha healed a Syrian (Gentile) leper but no Israelites. This enrages his hometown audience – a dramatic indication that God’s grace to the Gentiles was a scandal to ethnocentric mindsets. Likewise, only Luke gives us the beloved Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37), in which a Samaritan (a people despised by Jews) is the hero who fulfills the law of love, unlike the pious Jewish priest and Levite who passed by the wounded man. Through this story, Jesus subverts the racial and religious boundaries of His day, implying that compassion trumps ethnic identity in God’s eyes – a very non-legalistic, non-ethnocentric message! Luke highlights Jesus’ outreach to other marginalized people too: tax collectors, sinners, Samaritans, Roman centurions, women, the poor and sick. In Luke, Jesus is constantly crossing barriers to show God’s mercy.

The Book of Acts then continues this trajectory with unmistakable force. Acts, also written by Luke, chronicles how the Gospel exploded outward from Jerusalem into the Gentile world. Jesus’ final instruction in Acts is programmatic: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Thus from the outset, the risen Christ sets an agenda of geographical and ethnic expansion – far beyond the confines of Israel. The early chapters of Acts show the Gospel first taking root among Jews (Acts 2-7), but soon crossing into Samaritan territory (Acts 8) and then, in a watershed moment, to the Gentiles (Acts 10). In Acts 10, the apostle Peter receives a vision from God declaring all animals clean, symbolizing that the old purity distinctions are being removed. Peter then preaches to a Gentile, Cornelius, and his household, and the Holy Spirit falls upon these uncircumcised Gentiles just as He did on Jewish believers – a clear divine sign that they are accepted as-is, by faith. Peter’s astonished exclamation captures the new paradigm: “In truth, I understand that God is not a respecter of persons, 35 but in every nation, the one who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34–35, AICNT). Here is a direct repudiation of ethnocentrism: God has no favorites, no ethnic favorites, but welcomes anyone from any nation who turns to Him. This was a revolutionary realization for a Jew like Peter, who earlier would not even enter a Gentile’s home. God Himself had to correct Peter’s old paradigm thinking (Peter says, “God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean,” Acts 10:28).

After Peter’s encounter, Acts 15 records the Jerusalem Council, where the early church officially addressed whether Gentile converts must keep the Mosaic Law to be saved. Certain Jewish Christians (sometimes called Judaizers) were teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1,5). This was the ultimate clash between the old legalistic paradigm and the new grace paradigm. Luke’s account makes it abundantly clear where God stood: Paul and Peter testify how God worked among the Gentiles apart from the law, and Peter pointedly asks, “Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). He concludes that “We believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we [Jews] are saved, just as they [Gentiles] are” (15:11). The council agrees not to impose the law (aside from a few basic guidelines for fellowship) on Gentile believers. The Law, as a binding covenant, was not to be enforced in the new community – Christ’s grace was sufficient. This was a monumental shift: the early Christian leaders formally recognized that adherence to the Jewish Law was not a prerequisite for belonging to God’s people. God’s family was no longer defined by circumcision or kosher diets or ethnic lineage, but by faith in Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It is in the letters of Paul, however, that the theological underpinnings of this new paradigm are most fully articulated. Paul – formerly the zealous Pharisee Saul who had lived the old paradigm to its extreme – became the chosen instrument to explain the Gospel of grace to Jews and Gentiles alike. In Paul’s writings, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, we see a relentless emphasis on salvation as God’s free gift to all people through faith in Christ, and an equally relentless denial that obeying the Law of Moses can justify anyone. To Paul, the coming of Christ was the decisive turning point in history that renders the old religious distinctions obsolete. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” Paul declares (biblehub.com). All are one – what a sweeping statement! Ethnic, social, and gender divisions are superseded in Christ’s new family. The Jew/Gentile divide in particular, which had loomed so large for ages, is abolished in terms of spiritual status. “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and gives riches to all who call on Him” (Romans 10:12). God is no longer dealing primarily with one chosen ethnicity; He is dealing with humanity as a whole, offering salvation on equal terms. Paul even says that in Christ the ancient barrier of the Law itself has been removed: “For [Christ] Himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in His flesh the law with its commands and regulations (Ephesians 2:14–15). That “dividing wall” was the Law that separated Jews from Gentiles – and Paul asserts Christ abolished it on the cross, creating one new people of God.

In Paul’s view, the Law of Moses had a temporary role in God’s plan – it was a tutor or guardian to lead us to Christ, but now that Christ has come, we are no longer under that tutor (Galatians 3:24–25). Righteousness and membership in God’s covenant are no longer defined by the works of the Law, but by faith in Jesus. “A person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ,” Paul writes, “because by the works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16). He goes so far as to warn that if anyone, having come to Christ, then tries to be justified by the Law, they have “fallen from grace” (Galatians 5:4). These are fighting words – Paul’s polemic against legalism is intense. He accuses the legalists of preaching “another gospel” and wishes that those insisting on circumcision would mutilate themselves (Galatians 1:6 7, 5:12)! Clearly, Paul saw the old paradigm of Law observance as incompatible with the new era of grace and Spirit-filled living. In his mind, to go back to the Law after Christ’s coming was to regress from adult maturity to spiritual infancy, to go from freedom back to slavery (Galatians 4:9–10, 5:1). The contrast could not be sharper.

It is also important to note how Paul’s polemical tone and Luke’s narrative of Acts reinforce each other. The Book of Acts shows us Paul in action, fiercely debating those who wanted to impose circumcision (Acts 15, and implied elsewhere), and ultimately carrying the Gospel to Rome itself, the heart of the Gentile world. Acts concludes with Paul’s declaration to the resistant Jews in Rome: “I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent out to the Gentiles, and they will listen! This final pronouncement by Paul (Acts 28:28) serves as Luke’s climactic affirmation that the Gentile mission is God’s will – effectively, the Gospel has outgrown the old Israel-centric container. The reader of Acts is left with Christianity on the verge of a global explosion, no longer an offshoot of Judaism but a universal faith for all peoples. Meanwhile, Paul’s letters written during and after those events provide the doctrinal explanation: Israel’s role was special but temporary, to usher in the Messiah; now in Christ, the promises to Abraham (“all nations will be blessed through you,” Genesis 12:3) are being fulfilled as all nations come to the blessing. Paul does wrestle with the question of Israel’s place (Romans 9–11), affirming God’s continued love for the Jews, yet he insists that God’s mercy is now shown to both Jew and Gentile on the same basis – mercy that depends not on lineage or law but on God’s calling in Christ (Romans 9:24-26, 11:30-32).

In summary, Luke–Acts and Paul present a cohesive new paradigm: God’s true character and redemptive plan are revealed as radically inclusive and gracious. No nation or tribe has a monopoly on God anymore – if they ever did. The Holy Spirit is poured out on Gentiles and Jews alike with no distinction. The Law that separated people is fulfilled in Christ and thus no longer the governing covenant. And the core of how we relate to God is not by adhering to regulations, but by entering into a trusting relationship through Jesus, empowered by the Spirit. This is the apostolic Gospel. This is what the earliest Christians – those who knew Jesus or, like Paul, encountered Him in glory – unanimously preached: that in Christ, God has reconciled the world to Himself, not counting people’s sins against them (2 Corinthians 5:19), and that now there is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.(Gal 3:28).

Who Is God? The Character of God Clarified in Christ

What do these two contrasting paradigms tell us about the character and intentions of God? The Old Testament (and Matthew’s more Old Testament-flavored Gospel) often leave us with a picture of God that is partial and perplexing. In those writings, God can appear exclusivist (choosing one nation and seemingly spurning others), legalistic (demanding absolute adherence to rituals and exacting punishment for failure), and even wrathful to the point of violence (ordering wars, floods, and judgments). There are, to be sure, profound revelations of God’s mercy and love in the Old Testament as well (the compassion described in Psalms and prophets, for instance). Yet the overall impression for many readers is that the Old Testament God is “angry” or harsh, whereas the New Testament God (revealed by Jesus) is loving and gracious. This simplistic dichotomy troubled believers for centuries – one early church figure, Marcion, even went so far as to claim the God of the Old Testament was a different, inferior deity than the God revealed by Jesus Christ. The Church rightfully rejected that extreme view as heresy, affirming that there is only one God who authored both Testaments. However, we need not swing to the opposite extreme and assert that every Old Testament depiction of God is a full and final revelation of His heart. Instead, the key is to recognize the progressive unfolding of God’s self-revelation, culminating in Jesus and the apostolic witness. The New Testament itself gives us this hermeneutic: “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2). The implication is that God’s message and character have been communicated in a variety of partial ways before, but now, finally, we have the ultimate communication in the person of Jesus. Jesus, the Son of God, is the perfect revelation of who God is – far surpassing all previous revelations.

So, if something in the Old Testament seems inconsistent with what we see in Jesus, we have legitimate reason to give priority to Jesus’ revelation as conveyed by Luke, the most historically reliable Gospel, and by Paul, the apostle to the nations. Paul’s writings highlight God’s kindness, patience, and inclusive love. Paul proclaims that God “wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). He marvels that “God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Far from being a tribal deity concerned only with one nation, God “overlooked the times of ignorance” among the nations “but now commands all people everywhere to repent” – because He desires to save all (Acts 17:30). Paul even confronts the darker parts of Israel’s story and sees lessons in them rather than endorsements. In 1 Corinthians 10, he recalls how many Israelites fell in the wilderness due to sin, implying that being “God’s people” didn’t guarantee immunity – humility and faith were always what God wanted. In Romans 15:8-10, Paul cites the Old Testament itself to show that God’s plan always included the Gentiles: “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people” (quoting Deuteronomy and Psalms). The mystery kept hidden is now revealed: “This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs… members of the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6). In short, God’s intention all along – now made crystal clear – was to create one multi-ethnic family united by faith and love, not by law and lineage.

This new, clarified revelation of God’s character forces us to rethink the Old Testament narratives of violence and exclusivity. If God is most fully revealed in Jesus,  then perhaps the Israelites’ understanding of God’s commands to wage war was partial or context-bound. The Old Testament’s honest record shows people grappling with God’s will and sometimes misunderstanding God. Jesus Himself corrected Moses’ laws at times. This indicates that not everything in the Old Testament law was the perfect expression of God’s heart; some of it was an accommodation to human weakness until a better way came. Similarly, the eye-for-an-eye justice of the Torah (Exodus 21:24) was a step forward in its time (limiting vengeance), but Jesus reveals a higher ethic: “To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.” (Luke 6:29). Jesus isn’t contradicting God – He is revealing God more fully. 

By embracing the apostolic witness of Luke–Acts and Paul, Christians can confidently assert that God is not the tribal, vengeful deity some imagine from certain Old Testament stories. Rather, God is as Jesus showed Him to be: a loving Father who runs to welcome the prodigal, a Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep, a Savior who pours out grace on undeserving sinners – Jew and Gentile alike. The apostolic writings serve as our interpretive key. They teach us to read the whole Bible with Jesus at the center. We can honor the Old Testament as at least a partially inspired record of God’s redemptive work leading to Christ, without having to adopt all of its cultural trappings or incomplete understandings as normative for today. The Old Testament portrayal of God may not fully correspond to the actual God who transcends the text. 

Conclusion: Embracing the Core Witness of the New Covenant

The old paradigm guarded identity through works of the Law. The new covenant grants identity and power through the Spirit. Paul names this the unrivaled mystery. Gentiles and Jews become equal coheirs in one body. Luke–Acts shows how the Spirit validates this at real tables with real people. Matthew preserves a Torah-shaped catechesis that fits a closed Jewish flock. The apostolic center, however, is clear. Belonging is by faith. Transformation is by the Spirit. The ethic is love that fulfills the Law.

The “mystery” is God’s now-revealed plan that Jews and Gentiles stand as equal coheirs in one body through the Messiah, with full access to the Father in one Spirit, so that the ancient promise to bless all nations is finally realized.

Luke–Acts and Paul’s letters stand at the heart of the New Testament for a reason. They together chronicle and explain the definitive shift in God’s dealings with humanity brought about by Jesus Christ. This apostolic witness is our best frame of reference for understanding God’s character and intentions. It tells us emphatically that we do not need to project every Old Testament depiction of God. We are called instead to see the Father in the ministry of Jesus and his apostles. The old covenant had glory, but it was a fading glory – “what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory” of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:10). The light of God’s love, which dawned in Israel, has reached noonday brightness in Christ. And in that light, some distortions of the earlier revelation are dispelled.

To put it plainly: A Christian does not need to, for example, justify the herem warfare of Joshua or the polygamy of the patriarchs or the nationalistic fervor of Ezra as if those fully reveal God’s ideal. I. The Gospel of Jesus was proclaimed by his apostles. In that final chapter, God’s universal love and grace take center stage, relativizing those earlier provisions. Paul and the author of Hebrews describe the old covenant as obsolete, aging, and ready to vanish (Hebrews 8:13). The new covenant in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20) has superseded it. Therefore, we must be careful not to build our doctrine of God on an incomplete picture of God when the fuller has come into view in light of the Gospel. If we did, we might end up with an “Old Testament God” concept – one that fuels fear, exclusivity, or legalism – and miss the full beauty of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, “from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” (Ephesians 3:15). The church of Jesus must hold fast to the revelation of God’s character given by Christ and the Apostles. This revelation invites all into covenant and focuses on inner transformation by the Spirit rather than external rule-keeping. It portrays God as holy love – righteous, yes, but also self-sacrificing for our sake and eager to forgive.

In embracing Luke–Acts and Paul as guides, we are not “pitting Scripture against Scripture” in a destructive way; rather, we are affirming the superior revelation of the apostolic core testament of Luke-Acts + Paul over previous and more inferior witnesses. The law was given through Moses, but the truth in its fullness came through the Gospel of Christ Jesus. So we emphasize the apostolic witnesses over Moses, the prophets, and even Matthew. The proper lens to understand God's character and intentions is Luke and Paul. The character of God that shines from the pages of Luke–Acts and Paul is one of expansive love, impartial justice, and saving grace. This is the same God who patiently worked through Israel’s turbulent history, but now we see His heart without shadow. It’s a heart that aches for the lost, rejoices in the repentant, and calls former enemies to sit at one table. 

Therefore, we can confidently say: We trust the apostolic witness to show us who God truly is. We honor the Old Testament as the vital introduction to the story, but our ultimate doctrine of God comes from Jesus’ revelation as transmitted by His apostles. In that sense, Matthew’s more traditionalist approach must yield to the greater light of Luke’s and Paul’s testimony. Any theology that would keep us bound in fear, prejudice, or legalism – as if we were still under the old covenant – is to be boldly challenged, just as Paul challenged Peter when his behavior contradicted “the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2:14). The core truth of the Gospel is that God’s grace has appeared bringing salvation to all (Titus 2:11), and that through Christ, God’s true intentions for humanity are revealed.

 The old paradigm had its time and purpose, but the new has come. As the Apostle Paul triumphantly declared, “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: the old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). So it is with our understanding of God. The old portrait, with its shadows, has given way to the new portrait in Christ, full of grace and truth. That is the God we worship and proclaim: the God unveiled by the apostolic witness, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose character of love is fully revealed in the apostolic witness of the Gospel. 

Sources:

  • Bauckham, Richard. What is distinctive about Luke’s gospel? – Highlights Luke’s universal outlook versus Matthew’s Jewish orientation psephizo.com.

  • Seibert, Eric. The Old Testament as a Problem for Pacifists (IVP excerpt) – Observes that Israel’s portrayal of God as warrior was culturally conditioned and not the full picture of God ivpress.comivpress.com.

  • IssuesWithMatthew.com. Matthew is a later embellished gospel adopted for a Jewish community. 

  • LukePrimacy.com Evidence why Luke is the most reliable Gospel witness.

  • NTcanon.com. Identifying the foundational authority of the New Testament Canon.




















September 20, 2025

Marcion’s Premises and Their Limits

Marcon's excising of Scripture


About Marcion


Marcion of Sinope was a second-century Christian teacher active in Rome around 140–160 CE. A wealthy shipowner’s son, he promoted a strict Law–Gospel antithesis and taught that the God revealed in Jesus differs from the creator God of Israel. In 144 he was expelled from the Roman church. Marcion produced what is often called the first Christian canon: an edited Gospel “according to Luke,” beginning at 3:1, and a collection of ten Pauline letters, both revised to remove affirmations of creation, prophetic fulfillment, and bodily resurrection. He rejected the Old Testament as Christian Scripture and advocated an austere moral discipline. Whatever one makes of his theology, Marcion’s program forced early churches to clarify their own Scriptures and doctrines, which is why his corpus of Scripture remains central to discussions of canon and authority.

Marcion’s program drew sustained responses across more than two centuries: Irenaeus, Against Heresies (c. 180–189); Tertullian, Against Marcion in five books, composed in stages (c. 207–212); Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies (c. 230–235); and Epiphanius, Panarion (c. 374–377). Together, these works framed many canonical and doctrinal debates from the late second through the late fourth century. Marcion's influence proved durable: Syriac and Islamic sources suggest Marcionite communities lingered in the East for centuries, with Thomas of Marga noting a mission to “pagans, Marcionites and Manichaeans” in the late eighth century, and the tenth-century bibliographer Ibn al-Nadim reporting Marcionites “numerous in Khurasan,” practicing openly like Manichaeans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism).

Virtually everything known about Marcion comes from opponents who wrote to refute him, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius. His own works, including the Antitheses and his edited collections of Luke and Paul, do not survive except in hostile quotations and reconstructions. As with many controversies in antiquity, later ecclesial winners shaped the record that endures. 

The Core Marcionite Claim

Tertullian reports the Marcionite claim in this form: "although God was not manifest from the beginning through creation, He has nevertheless been revealed in Christ Jesus." (Against Marcion, Book 1) On this basis, Marcion made it his principal work to separate Law and Gospel and to abridge and alter Luke and Paul accordingly. This article grants Marcion’s strongest premises, namely the prominence of Luke and Paul, the real tension between judgment and mercy across the Testaments, the importance of canon, and the need for ethical seriousness. It rejects the inferences that do not follow, namely dualism, docetism, and textual mutilation. It argues that Marcion’s omission of Luke 1–2 and Acts is best explained by ideological motive, not by claims of later development, and proposes reading Luke–Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters in full as the most stable New Testament foundation.

According to Tertullian’s report, Marcionites held that God was not manifested from the beginning through creation but has now been revealed in Christ. From this premise, Marcion developed a sharp Law–Gospel antithesis and reshaped Scripture to fit it. Concretely, he produced an abridged Gospel according to Luke, excised Acts altogether, and redacted ten Pauline letters, cutting or altering passages that affirmed creation’s goodness, prophetic fulfillment, or bodily resurrection.

Marcion’s Strongest Recognitions

Prominence of Luke and Paul. Luke–Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters offer a concentrated articulation of repentance, grace, and the universal scope of salvation. Elevating their importance is defensible on textual grounds.

Perceived Law–Gospel Tension. Readers encounter interpretive pressure between some Old Testament judgments and the New Testament’s witness to enemy-love, table fellowship, and gratuitous mercy. Observing the tension is not itself a fault.

Canon Shapes Doctrine. The text of a community privileges or excludes decisively, directing its theology and practice. Marcion grasped this dynamic and pioneered the concept of a canon.

Moral Seriousness. A rigorous account of evil and a disciplined communal ethic are necessary. Marcion refused superficial treatments of either.

These recognitions do not entail dualism, docetism, or the alteration of Luke and Paul to rupture Jesus from the context of Israel, the Law, and the Prophets.

Limited Premises, Illicit Conclusions

Let the following be granted:

  • P1. Luke–Acts and Paul form an appropriate center of gravity for articulating the gospel’s core, that is, the redemptive purpose and character of God revealed in Christ.

  • P2. There are apparent inconsistencies between some depictions of God in the Law and the Prophets and the apostolic portrayal of God in light of Christ.

From P1 and P2 Marcion infers two gods, a merely apparent and non-bodily Christ, and a scriptural text trimmed to fit those conclusions. None of these follow. Perceived tension does not warrant multiplying deities, denying the flesh-and-blood humanity of Jesus, or reshaping the text to force harmonies with a prior philosophical system.

How Marcion’s Text Goes Too Far

Marcion moved beyond emphasizing Luke–Acts and Paul as a canonical core to altering and excising the text within that very core:

  • Abridged Gospel. A shortened Luke that begins at 3:1, omitting 1–2 and redacting passages in the larger narrative.

  • No Acts. The book of Acts was excluded entirely.

  • Redacted Paul. Ten letters were retained but modified where they supported the Law, the Prophets, creation’s goodness, or bodily resurrection.

Such steps exceed principled canonical selectivity and amount to doctrinally driven editing.

Why Luke’s Infancy Narratives Had to Go, on Marcion’s Terms

Luke 1–2 is structurally incompatible with Marcion’s dualism and docetism:

  • Prophetic Fulfillment. The infancy narratives present Jesus as the fulfillment of promises to Abraham and David, “as He spoke by the prophets,” which collapses the postulate of a newly revealed, non-Creator deity.

  • True Humanity. Conception, birth, growth, and temple presentation presuppose real embodiment as a physical human being.

  • Reference the God of the Torah. Circumcision, sacrifices, and devout Israelite worship frame Jesus within Israel’s scriptural life.

Conclusion: The omission of Luke 1–2 is best explained by ideological pressure to remove prophetic fulfillment, full humanity, and covenantal continuity, not by a hypothesis of later textual development.

Why Acts Had to Go, on Marcion’s Terms

Acts contradicts Marcion’s program at foundational points:

  • Scriptural Continuity. Apostolic preaching argues from Moses and the Prophets. Jesus is proclaimed as fulfillment, not negation, of Israel’s Scriptures.

  • Jerusalem to the Nations. The mission is rooted in Jerusalem and expands outward. Paul is shown inside Israel’s story rather than over against it.

  • Creation-Affirming Salvation. Pentecost, healings, and a repeated emphasis on bodily resurrection presuppose the goodness and redeemability of creation.

Conclusion: The exclusion of Acts functions to minimize prophetic fulfillment and to sever the Gospel from the Law and the prophets. This is an ideological move, not an indication of lateness.

A Positive Proposal if One Grants Marcion’s Strongest Premises

Foundational Authorities. Treat Luke–Acts plus the undisputed Pauline letters as the most reliable New Testament foundation, in their entirety. They do not dissolve every difficulty, but they constrain interpretation: one Creator God, true humanity of Christ, bodily resurrection, and an apostolic proclamation in continuity with Israel’s Scriptures.

Qualified Continuity, Not Rupture. The Old Testament remains a foundational witness, yet it often speaks from Israel’s limited vantage and evolving circumstances, with signs of later shaping. The New Testament receives that witness but subjects it to apostolic reassessment in light of Christ. Luke–Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters supply the decisive clarification of God’s character and purpose, centering one Creator God, the true humanity of Jesus, and bodily resurrection. Continuity is real, yet the controlling norm is the apostolic proclamation rather than every earlier portrayal.

Hermeneutical Discipline. Allow the core apostolic sources to unsettle fashionable philosophical systems. The refusal to cut Luke 1–2 and Acts is not capitulation to tradition, but a decision to let the strongest early witnesses speak in full.

Qualified Continuity of the Old Testament 

Qualified Continuity. The Old Testament should be received as a foundational witness, yet not as a uniformly accurate depiction of history or of God in every detail. Much of it can be read as Israel’s Godward commentary that reflects limited vantage points, changing circumstances, and later editorial shaping. The New Testament does not merely harmonize these tensions. It offers a corrective and clarifying reassessment centered on Christ.

Pauline Contrasts. Paul repeatedly frames the new covenant in contrast with the old. Representative axes include law versus Spirit, fleshly boundary markers versus faith working through love, and a ministry of condemnation contrasted with a ministry of righteousness and life. These contrasts authorize reading the earlier witness as preparatory and provisional rather than as the controlling norm.

From Separation to Inclusion. The earlier covenantal economy set Israel apart as a priestly people. In Christ, the dividing wall is removed, and the promise is extended to all nations. The narrative movement is from a particular election toward an invitation to all peoples.

Handling Old Testament Difficulties. Apparent inconsistencies and signs of revision in the Old Testament can be approached without forcing complete harmonization or complete rupture. They become part of a developing testimony that is judged and reoriented by the apostolic proclamation of the one Creator God revealed in Jesus, his true humanity, and his bodily resurrection.

Resulting Posture. Our hermeneutical disposition should be neither severance that results in multiple deities nor complete harmonization that dissolves all contrast. It is apostolic reassessment that grants the earlier witness real authority, while allowing Luke–Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters to supply the decisive clarification of God’s character and purpose in Christ.

Why “Later Development” Is the Wrong Inference in Reference to Luke 1-2 and Acts

The pattern of Marcion’s excisions, namely Luke 1–2, all of Acts, and numerous other passages, maps closely onto his philosophical presuppositions. The simplest explanation is an ideological motive. When a system survives by removing the texts that most clearly contradict it, the removal argues for doctrinal selectivity, not for textual lateness.

Summary

  • Marcion rightly sensed the weight of Luke and Paul and the pressure between judgment and mercy across the Testaments.

  • He erred in drawing dualistic and docetic conclusions and in enforcing them by altering Luke and Paul while omitting Acts.

  • The omissions of Luke 1–2 and Acts are ideological, not an indication that they are later texts.

  • Luke–Acts plus Paul, unabridged, provides the most coherent canonical foundation. They do not eliminate tension, but they bind it within a creation-affirming confession of the one God whose purposes reach their climax in Christ.

In conclusion, Marcion’s strongest premises are Luke/Paul’s prominence, the felt Law–Gospel tension, the canon’s doctrinal force, and ethical seriousness. However, most of his claims, including dualism, docetism, and excessive textual omission, should be rejected. The more responsible approach is to affirm Luke–Acts + Paul in full as the best available authorities.

Furthermore, what Marcion included proves nothing about what was original to the Lukan corpus because Marcion would have excluded Luke 1-2 and Acts on ideological grounds. Thus, no one can draw conclusions about the original status of Luke chapters 1-2 or Acts based on Marcion.

For more on why Luke-Acts + Paul should be considered at the core of the New Testament canon, see https://ntcanon.com

June 1, 2025

Top Five Hermeneutical Stumbling Blocks

The Top Five Hermeneutical Stumbling Blocks

Proper biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) is essential for accurately understanding and applying scriptural teachings. However, several common errors regularly impede clear interpretation and lead readers astray.

 




1.    Corrupted Canon

A corrupted canon introduces uncertainty into scriptural authority. Textual interpolations, deletions, and disputed writings obscure the authenticity of the biblical texts. As a result of the canonical corruption that occurred (See more at https://ntcanon.com),  readers base their interpretations on unreliable or distorted material, causing theological misunderstandings. John, Matthew, and Mark are later revisions, expansions, and embellishments of the primitive gospel narrative (as exemplified in Luke). Some of the harms causing a departure from Apostolic Christianity, including these derivative gospel accounts, are as follows:

John: Arianism, Trinitarianism, Modalism (Oneness teaching), conflating Jesus with God, undermining the humanity of Jesus, Judaizing, misguided belief about the Eucharist, Calvinism, Gnosticism, False testimony about the life and teachings of Christ

Matthew: Judaizing, Anti-charismatic, Over formalization of the faith (liturgical churches), Jewish exclusivity to Jesus ministry, Ascetism, Castration, Self-mutilation, Trinitarian (tri-partite) baptism, basis for Trinitarian speculation, Misguided eschatological beliefs, over-appropriation of OT passages as prophecy, false testimony about the life and teachings of Christ, The doctrine of “the church” (ekklesia) headed by Peter (as abused by the Catholic Church)

Mark: Prosperity teaching (name it and claim it), misguided eschatological beliefs, self-mutilation, redaction of Jesus' ethical teachings, false embellished testimony about the life and teachings of Christ, ambiguity and mystery in Mark resonate with Gnostics, Docetism, Snake handling, and poison drinking.

2.    Taking Verses Out of Context (Bible Conflations)

Proper interpretation demands adherence to context; failing to do so results in significant misinterpretation. Contextual awareness is crucial to avoid erroneous doctrinal conclusions.

Ignoring Immediate Context: The error of taking verses out of context is often attempting to interpret a particular book by using another book by another author.  It is best to put more weight on the immediate context (using John to interpret John) rather than a more remote context (for example, using Isaiah to interpret John).

Ignoring Literary Structure and Type: Misinterpretation often comes from ignoring literary structure and literary text-type. Overlooking the literary structures, rhetorical devices, and the author's intended purpose causes misinterpretation of narrative flow and emphasis. Each biblical text has a particular literary form—narrative, poetry, prophecy, epistle, apocalypse, or historical account—that requires specific interpretive strategies. For instance, interpreting poetry as literal history, or prophecy as straightforward predictions without considering symbolic or metaphorical language, frequently leads to erroneous conclusions. Recognizing and respecting the distinct literary types helps maintain interpretive accuracy and prevents misreading the text.

Literalism vs. Symbolism Confusion often arises due to neglecting context. This occurs when readers take metaphorical, symbolic, or allegorical language literally without appreciating the author’s intended use of figurative language. For example, interpreting poetic expressions of God's actions or character literally can distort the intended message. Parables, symbolic visions (such as those in prophetic and apocalyptic literature), and metaphorical language require careful recognition of their figurative nature to avoid doctrinal and interpretive errors. Failure to differentiate literal historical narrative from symbolic representation often results in misapplication of texts and theological confusion.

Proof-Texting is a hermeneutical error in biblical interpretation, wherein a verse or short passage is isolated and used to support a specific doctrine, belief, or argument without proper regard for its context. In practice, proof texting involves selectively quoting scripture to substantiate a predetermined viewpoint, often ignoring surrounding verses, the author's original intent, or the broader biblical narrative.

Dogmatic Presuppositions: Interpreting scripture through preconceived doctrinal beliefs or systematic theological assumptions, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself, also falls into this category. Those with dogmatic presuppositions read their own theology into a text (eisegesis).

Bible Conflations: are the merging of distinct scriptural passages to support the doctrine of Jesus' ontological divinity. This practice often involves combining Old Testament references to God with New Testament references to Jesus, forming syllogisms that suggest equivalence in identity or nature. Such conflations frequently overlook the context and the Jewish law of agency, which allows an agent to represent the principal fully without being identical in essence. See many examples of this at BibleConflations.com.

3.    Inability to Cross-Reference the Original Text In the Original Language

An accurate understanding of biblical texts requires examining the earliest manuscripts in the original languages. However, inadequate ability or access to cross-reference original language texts introduces significant interpretive problems.

Textual Variants: Early manuscripts exhibit thousands of textual variants, some of them theologically significant. The orthodox Corruption of the text of the New Testament itself is the cause of significant error in Bible interpretation, since many English translations don’t provide transparency regarding different readings of the earliest manuscripts.

Theological Bias: Popular English translations have a Trinitarian bias. Theologically significant variants with syntactical ambiguity are translated in a manner that supports a trinitarian interpretation (verses that conflate Jesus with God).

Archaic Translations: Many Bible misinterpretations stem from using specific translations, like KJV, which uses an outdated form of English and may cause doctrinal errors. Some cults have been particularly associated with the KJV, as they claim it substantiates their unique doctrines. (For example, Mormonism and 1 Cor 15:29, baptism for the dead)

Lack of Greek Study Tools: Fundamentalist Bible teachers often lack a thorough understanding of the underlying Greek text (vocabulary and grammar), which can lead to errors. 

For an unbiased English translation with transparency into the textual variants of the earliest manuscripts, see https://gpt.bible 

4.    Lack of Ancient Cultural Context

Ancient texts must be interpreted within their historical and cultural contexts. Failure to grasp the original cultural framework of biblical writings frequently results in flawed interpretations and doctrinal confusion.

Anachronistic Assumptions: Readers often project modern theological constructs (like the Trinity or the idea of Jesus as "God the Son") back onto texts written in a Jewish monotheistic context. Ancient Jews understood God to be a singular person—Yahweh, the Father—not a Trinity. Jesus and the apostles spoke within that framework. When modern interpreters assume a Greco-Roman philosophical backdrop (e.g., dual nature of Christ), they distort the original meaning.

Misreading Words and Idioms: Ancient Hebrew and Greek languages used idioms and expressions that don’t translate directly into modern English. For instance, calling someone “Son of God” did not mean they were God in essence—it indicated a special relationship or appointment by God. When modern readers apply their own cultural definitions, like interpreting "Son of God" as implying deity, they impose meanings foreign to the biblical authors.

Ignoring Ancient Jewish Expectations: The Jews in Jesus’ time were expecting a human Messiah—descended from David, anointed by God, ruling under God’s authority. When readers overlook this and interpret prophecies or Jesus’ titles through later creeds or theology, they misconstrue Jesus' identity. For example, misunderstanding “Son of Man” as a divine title ignores its biblical use as a human term rooted in Daniel and Ezekiel.

Failure to Grasp Biblical Agency: Ancient cultures heavily utilized the concept of agency, where an agent acted on behalf of another with their authority. Jesus, as God's agent, speaks and acts for God, but is not God Himself. Misunderstanding this framework causes people to interpret Jesus’ authority and miracles as evidence of ontological divinity, rather than divinely bestowed power and mission.

Literal interpretation of personification: The error of interpreting personification as literal persons is caused largely by lack of ancient cultural context. Ancient literary techniques frequently used vivid personifications as a rhetorical or poetic device. Modern readers unfamiliar with these literary conventions and cultural norms may fail to recognize the figurative nature of these personifications, mistakenly interpreting symbolic or abstract descriptions literally.

For example, Proverbs personifies wisdom as a woman—a common literary device in ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. Without awareness of this cultural-literary practice, readers might incorrectly assume wisdom to be an actual divine person or being.

5.    Lacking an Adequate Conceptual Framework 

Misunderstandings of biblical texts frequently arise from overly simplistic interpretive approaches that lack the necessary conceptual depth, nuance, and contextual discernment. An appropriate conceptual (philosophical) framework is essential when interpreting passages involving abstract spiritual and theological ideas. Without clearly defined contextual distinctions, readers inevitably misconstrue the intended meaning and implications of Scripture.

Confusing Nature and Role: Saying Jesus “must be God” because he has divine authority ignores the distinction between nature and function. A proper metaphysical framework sees that agency and role do not imply essence. Jesus being exalted by God (Phil. 2:9–11) shows role, not divine ontology.

Not Understanding the Difference Between Essential vs. Accidental Predication: The few instances of Jesus being called "God" (e.g. Heb. 1:8) can be explained as accidental predication—referring to God's presence or authority in him, not essential predication of Jesus' being.

Failure to Grasp Biblical Agency: In ancient Semitic thought, as well as in other ancient and modern systems, an agent acts fully on behalf of their sender and can bear their name and authority. Without this conceptual framework, readers conclude that Jesus being given the power and authority of God must mean he is God ontologically, rather than God’s authorized representative.

Lacking the Essence–Energy Distinction: We can partake in the Holy Spirit but not in God's essence. The essence-inergy distinction differentiates between God's essence (ousia), which remains transcendent and cannot be transferred to another being, and God's transferable energies (energeiai), by which God is actively present, known, and experienced in creation. Without this conceptual (metaphysical) framework, interpreters often conflate God's transcendent essence with his actions or manifestations, resulting in conceptual confusion (for example, equating the Holy Spirit (the energeia of God) with God’s essence (non-transferable attributes).

Lacking the Concept of Notional Preexistence: Notional (or ideal) preexistence is the concept that something can exist conceptually or purposefully in the mind or plan of God before its actual historical realization. When readers fail to recognize this distinction, they may erroneously interpret texts describing preexistence strictly in literal, personal terms, even when such texts refer symbolically or metaphorically to God's eternal plan or purpose.

Illegitimate Totality Transfer: Often called the "fallacy of lexical rigidity," it occurs when interpreters fail to appreciate that certain terms (like "Spirit," "soul," or "heaven") represent complex metaphysical concepts with nuanced and varied meanings, depending on the context. The lack of a proper conceptual framework (metaphysics) prevents readers from distinguishing subtle differences and variations in usage.

For example, the Greek word πνεμα (pneuma) ("spirit") in biblical texts can refer to:

  1.   The Holy Spirit (the energeia of God)
  2.   God who is spirit (the essence of God)
  3.  A person's inner being or consciousness
  4.  A supernatural being (angelic or demonic entities)
  5.  Wind or breath as natural phenomena
  6.  A person's emotional disposition or attitude

Without the ability to discern these conceptual subtleties, interpreters may mistakenly impose a singular meaning upon the term, leading to incorrect theology and doctrinal confusion. Similar interpretative confusion arises from words like God (theos), Soul (psyche), Lord (kyrios), and Word (logos), all of which exhibit a broad semantic range and can mean different things in different contexts. This kind of confusion clearly exemplifies a lack of adequate metaphysical and linguistic frameworks.

Lacking an Understanding of the Meaning of “is”: Answering the question of what is meant by the word "is" represents one of the most fundamental metaphysical inquiries precisely because "is" encompasses multiple, distinctly different meanings and usages. Clarifying these different senses is critical to developing a coherent metaphysical framework.

  •        Existence ("is" as existence): Indicates that something exists or has being.
  •          Identity ("is" as identity): Indicates equivalence or sameness between two things.
  •          Predication ("is" as attribution): Indicates that a subject possesses a particular attribute, property, or characteristic.
  •          Accidental Predication (“is” as possessing non-essential characteristics): Accidental predication involves attributing characteristics to a subject that are not essential to its very nature or existence.
  •          Definition ("is" as definition or essence): Indicates the essential nature or definition of something.
  •          Metaphorical or symbolic meaning ("is" as metaphor): Expresses figurative or symbolic equivalence.

Conclusion

These five hermeneutical stumbling blocks—corrupted canon, taking verses out of context, inability to consult original languages, lack of ancient cultural context, and absence of an adequate conceptual framework—represent the most common and consequential errors in biblical interpretation. Addressing these issues is essential to restoring the clarity, coherence, and original intent of apostolic teaching. Rather than relying on late interpolations, doctrinal overlays, and creedal traditions, faithful interpretation must be grounded in careful textual analysis, cultural literacy, and philosophical precision.

The path to understanding Scripture rightly is not through doctrinal conformity, but through critical engagement and the pursuit of truth guided by integrity. By recognizing how these stumbling blocks distort the biblical message, readers are equipped to recover a more authentic and apostolic understanding of the faith. This involves reevaluating the reliability of traditional canonical sources, resisting superficial or proof-texted theology, learning from the earliest linguistic and cultural contexts, and thinking clearly about what the text actually says about God, Christ, and humanity. In removing these interpretive obstacles, we open the way for Scripture to speak anew with the force and clarity it was meant to convey.

April 29, 2025

The Core Gospel message of 1 Timothy 2:3-7 and the Book of Acts


Core Gospel Message



The core Gospel message as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:3-7 (ESV)

3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Here we will expand on each statement:

1.      God is our Savior

o   God sees all that transpires.

o   God recognizes the need for our salvation.

o   There is no salvation apart from God.

2.      God desires all people to be saved.

o   Humanity is naturally under condemnation without divine intervention.

o   God loves us and is concerned for our well-being.

o   Salvation is not for the Jews alone (is extended to all nations).

3.      God desires all people to come to the knowledge of the truth.

o   Salvation corresponds to coming to the knowledge of the truth.

o   Salvation involves actively living according to revealed truth, not mere intellectually knowing the truth.

o   This truth is further elaborated as follows:

4.      There is one God.

o   There is only one who is God (strict monotheism).

o   Excludes all others from deity status in the strict sense.

5.      There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

o   Jesus is God’s mediator.

o   There is only one mediator.

o   The mediator is the man Jesus.

§  Jesus was fundamentally a man (a human being).

o   Jesus is the Messiah (anointed one) - God’s chosen agent, who was exalted and appointed by God at God’s right hand.

6.      Christ Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all.

o   Jesus was a servant of God, obedient unto death.

o   Jesus was a ransom for all.

§  Jesus played a sacrificial role.

§  This universal provision enables salvation for everyone who believes.

§  There is no other name given among men by which we might be saved.

7.      The ransom of Christ Jesus was the testimony at the proper time.

o   Jesus is God's provision for our Salvation.

o   The testimony of Christ Jesus is God's predetermined plan for salvation.

o   Jesus' sacrifice is the fulfillment of divine revelation at the proper time.

8.      For this, Paul was appointed a preacher and an apostle.

o   “For this” indicates that the above is the core Gospel message.

o   Paul received a divinely ordained mission.

o   Paul was appointed as both a preacher and an apostle.

9.      Paul was a teacher to the Gentiles in faith and truth.

o   The Gospel is extended to the Gentiles (not exclusive to Jews)

o    Paul was used to bring this core Gospel message to all nations.

o   The Gospel ministry is not mere teaching of doctrines (spreading knowledge) but the transmission of genuine faith and truth.

The Distinction between the one God and the one Mediator Jesus Christ is paralleled in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6

One God and one Lord


A parallel verse with the use of the word one in comparing our One God and Father, with the one Lord Jesus Christ, is 1 Corinthians 8:5-6:

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” - yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. 1 Cor. 8:5-6 (ESV) 

 

·         In a loose sense, there are many so-called “gods” and “lords”

  • For us believers, there is one whom we regard as God: The Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist.
  • For us believers, there is one Lord Jesus Christ. (God made Jesus both Lord and Christ – Acts 2:36)
  • Salvation is provided through the one who God made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36)

God made Jesus both Lord and Christ


Here is a short list of the essentials of the gospel message according to the Apostles' preaching in Acts:

  1. Christ (Messiah) is Jesus (Acts 5:30-32, Acts 5:42, Acts 9:20 Acts 10:36-46, Acts 13:30-35 Acts 17:3)
  2. God Made Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36,  Acts 4:10–12, Acts 5:30-31)
  3. Jesus was delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23, 3:18-26, Acts 13:28-29)
  4. The man Jesus is God's obedient servant (Acts 2:22-24, Acts 3:13, Acts 3:26, Acts 4:27-30, Acts 10:38, Acts 13:38, Acts 17:3
  5. The new covenant is established with his blood. (Luke 22:20, Acts 8:32-35, Acts 10:39-43, Acts 13:28-39, Acts 20:28, 1 Tim 2:5-6) Although the precise terms "sacrifice" or "ransom" are not used directly in Acts, the concept of Jesus dying in fulfillment of prophecy and as the means for forgiveness and salvation is emphasized throughout.
  6. Through Jesus, we are reconciled to God (Acts 4:10-12, Acts 5:30-32, Acts 10:43, Acts 13:36-41)
  7. Through Jesus, we receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:32-33, Acts 2:38, Acts 11:5-18, Acts 19:2-6)
  8. Through Jesus, we receive an inheritance in the Kingdom of God. (Acts 8:12, Acts 20:25, Acts 20:32)
  9. Justification is through repentance and faith. (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Acts 5:31, Acts 13:36-40, Acts 14:22, Acts 15:8-11, Acts 10:43, Acts 20:20-21, Acts 22:16)
  10. Salvation is extended to all nations (it is not necessary to be a Jew or follow the Law of Moses). (Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:1-18,  Acts 13:38-39, Acts 15:5-11, Acts 15:28-29, Acts 20:21) 
  11. Jesus is the one appointed by God to judge the living and the dead. (Acts 3:20-23, Acts 10:42, Acts 17:30-31)
  12. Through Christ Jesus, we proclaim the resurrection from the dead (Acts 2:22-36, Acts 3:15, Acts 4:2, Acts 17:18, Acts 23:6, Acts 24:15)
The Apostles' doctrine for conversion in Acts is that we are to repent, be baptized in Jesus' name, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38,  Acts 8:12-17,  Acts 19:4-6, Acts 22:16)

For more on the core gospel message in Acts, see https://GospelofActs.com

For more on the Apostles' doctrine, see https://ApostlesDoctrine.net


Acts 5:42