Saturday, March 26, 2016
Acts 28 Dispensationalism Revisited: A Response to “Proof of Paul’s Progression” (Part Three)
The Nations for Whom Paul Labored during the “Acts Era”
Stephen makes clear his view of when Paul’s ministry began to involve non-proselytized Gentiles (rather than just Greek proselytes). According to Stephen, “The order of progression for Paul’s audience throughout his ministry, then, is as follows: The Jews first, then Greek proselytes, and, lastly, the nations who were previously alienated from Israel’s covenant promises.” Concerning the identity of the “nations” to whom Paul ministered prior to his imprisonment in Rome, Stephen writes, “By preaching to the Jews and Greek proselytes in the synagogues, then, Paul was indeed heralding Christ to the "nations" (as Greeks are non-Israelites by progeny), although those Greeks were clearly aligning themselves with Israel and were considered, for all intents and purposes, ‘Jewish.’” And concerning Paul’s being the “apostle to the nations” prior to his imprisonment, Stephen writes, “Paul retained his title all along, but he could not enact all that his title entailed until God permitted him to, after the full setting aside of Israel.” Thus, according to Stephen’s position, the nations to whom Paul heralded his “evangel of the uncircumcision” prior to his imprisonment in Rome were merely Greek proselytes, and the reason Paul’s imprisonment in Rome was such a pivotal moment in his ministry is because it was at this time that he was able to “enact all that his title entailed” by heralding his evangel to non-proselytized Gentiles – i.e., Gentiles who weren’t “for all intents and purposes, ‘Jewish.’”
In response to Stephen’s position concerning the “nations” to whom Paul heralded Christ before his imprisonment in Rome, I will first be looking at the internal evidence of those letters that Stephen would agree were written before his Roman imprisonment. However, as I argued earlier, proponents of the Acts 28 position could very well be mistaken about which (if any) of Paul’s “prison letters” were actually written while Paul was under house arrest in Rome. If (as I believe to be most likely) Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon - and perhaps others - were written while Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea, then no further argumentation from me on this subject would even be necessary. But I’ll assume, for the sake of argument, that the dating of Paul’s “prison letters” which is presupposed (and required) by the Acts 28 position is correct. After a consideration of the internal evidence found in some of Paul’s “pre-imprisonment” letters, I will then turn to scriptural territory that Stephen would probably consider more favorable to his position: the book of Acts. As we’ll see, however, Luke’s historical account of Paul’s ministry prior to his imprisonment in Rome is even less helpful to the Acts 28 position than are Paul’s letters.
The Nations in the Body of Christ before Paul’s Roman Imprisonment
A careful look at some of the things Paul says in the letters that Stephen would agree were written before his imprisonment in Rome indicates that the ecclesias to which Paul wrote consisted, at least partially, of Gentiles who had come from a pagan, idol-worshipping background (rather than consisting exclusively of Jews and Greek proselytes, as Stephen’s position requires). Before we look at this evidence, let’s first consider some things Paul wrote in his letter to the saints in Rome. In Romans 1:5-6, Paul wrote that he had obtained his apostleship “for faith-obedience among all the nations, for His name’s sake, among whom are you also…” It is evident from this verse that many of the saints in Rome to whom Paul wrote this letter – perhaps even the majority in the ecclesia – were not Jewish, but rather had a Gentile (uncircumcised) background. Paul went on to express his purpose to visit Rome, that he “should be having some fruit among [them] also, according as among the rest of the nations,” and then referred to himself as a debtor to “both Greeks and barbarians, to both wise and foolish” (vv. 13-14).
Now, did Paul have in view only proselytized Gentiles when he referred to “all the nations” and “the rest of the nations” in these verses? Are we to believe that Paul considered himself a debtor only to Greeks and barbarians who were proselytes of Israel – those who were (as Stephen says concerning proselytes) “for all intents and purposes, Jewish?” Or did Paul have in mind those among the nations, in general (whether proselytized or not)? I believe it is the latter, and that there are indicators in his other pre-prison letters which support this.
In Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians (which Stephen would likely say was one of Paul’s earliest letters), we find that those to whom he wrote were Gentiles who had, after hearing and believing Paul’s evangel, turned from worshipping idols to the worship of the “living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). Similarly, in his letter to the Galatians, it would seem that many, if not most, of the members of this ecclesia were not only uncircumcised Gentiles, but converts from paganism (Gal. 4:8). With regards to Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, we know that, although there was a small community in Corinth composed of Jews who had been exiled from Rome, the predominant religious culture in Corinth was Greek/pagan, and consisted of the worship of various gods and goddesses. Paul alluded to this pagan cultural aspect of Corinth in 1 Corinthians 8, which concerns idol sacrifices (v. 1). Why would Paul have to address this issue if the ecclesia was composed exclusively of those from a Jewish and proselyte background? In verse 7, Paul wrote: “Now some, used hitherto to the idol, are eating of it as an idol sacrifice, and their conscience, being weak, is being polluted.” The word translated “used” (or “accustomed”) here literally means “together-custom,” and indicates that eating idol sacrifices had been, for some in the ecclesia to which Paul wrote, a habitual cultural practice – something that would only makes sense if some or all of the Gentile members of this ecclesia were (like those in Thessalonica and likely Galatia) former idol-worshippers.
Moreover, what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 10:1 presupposes that some of the members in this ecclesia were not even familiar with the basics of Israelite history. It would be absurd to think that any Jew (or even Gentile proselyte) could possibly be “ignorant” of the things of which Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 10:1-4, and yet Paul declared, “I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren...” As with his words in chapter 8 concerning idol sacrifices, this would only make sense if Paul was addressing Gentiles within the ecclesia who, prior to believing his evangel and becoming members of the ecclesia in Corinth, were idol-worshipping pagans. Similarly, Paul’s words in the rest of this chapter (see especially verses 14-22) seem to presuppose that some in the ecclesia may have been tempted or pressured to return to their former idolatrous practices (which would involve “partaking of the table of demons”). Interestingly, the next time Paul used the words “I do not want you to be ignorant,” he immediately added, “You are aware that when you were of the nations, you were led away to the voiceless idols, as ever you were led” (1 Cor. 12:2; Young’s translates this verse as follows: “…ye have known that ye were nations, unto dumb idols—as ye were led—being carried away”).
As quoted earlier, Stephen has claimed that Paul “could not enact all that his title entailed until God permitted him to, after the full setting aside of Israel.” In other words, although Paul was commissioned to be the apostle to the nations, his ministry did not involve heralding Christ to non-proselytized Gentiles until after he was imprisoned in Rome; until this time, his ministry was focused on Jews and Greek proselytes (Gentiles who were, as Stephen says, “for all intents and purposes, Jewish”). However, the above evidence from Paul’s “early letters” is simply not consistent with Stephen’s claim. Instead, we see that Paul was, in fact, “enacting all that his title entailed” long before his imprisonment in Rome. Although it is undoubtedly true that there were some in the ecclesias that Paul helped establish prior to his Roman imprisonment who had a Jewish and/or proselyte background, it is equally true that there were others who did not have such a background before believing Paul’s evangel - and depending on the size and location of the ecclesia, those who were previously worshipping idols could’ve very well been in the majority. But regardless of the ratio of Jew/Greek proselyte to non-proselytized Gentiles in any given ecclesia, the inclusion of any non-proselytized Gentiles in these ecclesias undermines Stephen’s theory.
The Nations to Whom Paul Heralded the Evangel during the “Acts Era”
But what about what we read in the book of Acts concerning Paul’s ministry? According to Stephen, Paul did not enact “all that his title entailed” (his title being “apostle of the nations”) until after he was imprisoned in Rome – meaning that he did not herald Christ to non-proselytized Gentiles (i.e., pagans) until the end of the “Acts era.” But does Luke’s historical account support Stephen’s view that Paul’s ministry prior to his imprisonment in Rome did not involve evangelizing non-proselytized Gentiles? I submit that, when we examine the record without any “Acts 28” dispensational bias, it reveals that Stephen is quite mistaken on this point.
Before we look at the evidence, let’s consider Luke’s words in Acts 14:27. There, Luke tells us that, after having arrived in Antioch and gathered the ecclesia there, Paul and Barnabas “informed them of whatever God does with them, and that He opens to the nations a door of faith.” This gathering in Antioch took place approximately 14 years prior to Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Thus, if Stephen’s position is correct, then the “nations” that Paul and Barnabas had in view here – those to whom God had opened the “door of faith” - were proselytized Greeks. Stephen’s view that Paul’s ministry was “progressive” with regards to the kinds of people to whom he heralded his evangel demands this; if the nations to whom God had opened the “door of faith” by means of Paul’s apostolic ministry consisted of not just proselytized Greeks but non-proselytized, idol-worshipping pagans, then Stephen’s position that Paul’s “focus transitioned from Israel to the nations” (and that Paul did not “enact all that his title entailed” until his imprisonment in Rome) is undermined. It would mean that whatever “progression” Stephen thinks occurred during the course of Paul’s ministry (from Acts 13 to Acts 28:28) is, in reality, something he is projecting onto the text rather than deriving from the text.
We’ve already noted that Paul is first said to “turn to the nations” in the 13th chapter of Acts (see verses 46-48). Stephen would likely respond that the “nations” in view in Acts 13:48 were simply synagogue-attending proselytes (i.e., those referred to as “fearing God” and as “reverent proselytes” in verses 26 and 43); his position, after all, pretty much demands that this be the case. However, this view ignores the fact that there are two categories of Gentiles in view in this passage. The first group consisted of the “reverent proselytes” from the synagogue who heard Paul’s message when proclaimed in the synagogue on the first Sabbath referred to in this chapter, and who (along with certain Jews) began following Paul and Barnabas (see verses 42-43). The second group consisted of those to whom Paul said he and Barnabas were “turning” in response to the antagonistic response of “the Jews” on the following Sabbath (who, we’re told, were “jealous” of the “throngs” who were gathered to hear the word of the Lord). That these “nations” were not just synagogue-attending proselytes is evident from the fact that we’re told by Luke that “almost the entire city was gathered to hear the word of the Lord” on the day when Paul and Barnabas declared that they were “turning to the nations” (as Paul states Christ had directed them to do). Unless the majority of the Gentiles in “almost the entire city” of Antioch of Pisidia were “reverent proselytes” (which is, quite frankly, an absurd position to take), then it is most reasonable to believe that, among the “nations” who are said to have heard the word of the Lord spoken by Paul and Barnabas at this time (and who are said to have believed it), many - perhaps most - were from a non-proselyte (i.e., idol-worshipping) background.
When we continue on to chapter 14, we read of Paul and Barnabas being forced to flee for refuge into the cities of Lycaonia (verses 4-6). We’re then told that “they were bringing the evangel” there (v. 7). But to whom were they bringing the evangel? Well, immediately after Paul miraculously healed a man in Lystra who had been “lame from his mother’s womb” (who we’re told had been listening to Paul speak) we read that “the throngs” who were present while Paul was speaking began worshipping and attempting to make sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas as if they were Greek gods! In view of the response of those whom Paul and Barnabas had been evangelizing (and before whom Paul had performed the aforementioned miracle), is it at all reasonable to believe that the “throngs” which were present consisted of Jews and proselytes? Of course not; these “throngs” consisted of full-blown, idol-worshipping pagans (i.e., non-proselytized Greeks). It was these to whom Paul and Barnabas had been speaking to, and to whom they continued bringing the evangel (see verses 15-18). We’re later told that, after coming to Pamphylia, Paul and Barnabas spoke “the word of the Lord in Perga.” As with Lystra, there is no mention of Paul visiting a synagogue in this city, or of one even being present in this particular location. However, we know for a fact that this city was saturated with idolatry, and (like the city of Ephesus) was renowned for the worship of the Greek goddess, Artemis. We can therefore conclude with a reasonable degree of certainty that those to whom Paul and Barnabas were heralding the evangel in this city were, once again, non-proselytized, idol-worshipping Greeks.
This, then, brings us to the verse that we quoted at the beginning of this section. Recall that, in Acts 14:27, Luke informs us of how Paul and Barnabas declared to the ecclesia in Antioch all that God had done with them, and how he had opened “to the nations a door of faith.” Given the evidence above, it is clear that “the nations” to whom God had opened a “door of faith” consisted of not only synagogue-attending proselytes, but idol-worshipping pagans. It is clear that, as early as Acts chapters 13 and 14, Paul viewed non-proselytized, pagan Gentiles as being included in the category of people of whom he had been made an apostle, and to whom he had been commissioned to herald the evangel.
That the “nations” in view included pagan Gentiles is further confirmed by what we read in Acts 15:12, where Paul and Barnabas are said to have unfolded before the “multitude” present at the meeting in Jerusalem “whatever signs and miracles God does among the nations through them.” We’ve already noted one of these miracles: the healing of the crippled man at Lystra (Acts 14:8-10). And we also saw what the response of the crowds was to this miracle (vv. 11-18), which tells us a great deal about the sort of people among whom this miracle had been performed: they were most definitely not Jews or “reverent proselytes.” In part four of this article, I’ll be sharing some thoughts on the four “essentials” that were decided upon during the Jerusalem council (which concern certain things from which it was expected that believers from among the nations would “abstain” and “guard themselves”). But what is most relevant to this section is the fact that, in Acts 15:19-20, James cannot be referring to synagogue-attending, proselytized Gentiles. Proselytized Gentiles had already changed their behavior to be acceptable to Jews; they had no need for any such decree as that which was formulated during this meeting. As Stephen himself says, those among the nations who were proselytes were “for all intents and purposes, Jewish.” No Jew or proselytized Gentile had to be told via a letter containing specific decrees that they would “do well” (or “be well engaged”) to abstain from ceremonial pollution with idols/idol sacrifices, prostitution, what is strangled, and blood (v. 20, 29)! Instead, these decrees presupposed that, rather than having a background in Judaism and weekly synagogue attendance, the nations that James had in view came from a pagan, idol-worshipping background. They came from a background, in other words, that involved the practice of certain activities that were considered highly offensive to those who attended synagogue, and who heard Moses read to them on every Sabbath.
Moving on to chapter 16, we find an interesting incident that involves the salvation of a Roman jailer and his household, after Paul and Silas persuade the jailer from committing suicide, and then speak the word of the Lord to him (Acts 16:25-34). Nothing is said about the jailer having already been a worshipper of God, a “reverent proselyte” or a “God-fearer” (something of which Luke tends to inform the reader); thus, the odds are that this man and his family were pagan. But of this we cannot be absolutely certain, so let’s move on to the next chapter. It is in Acts 17 that we’re told it was Paul’s “custom” to enter the synagogues on the Sabbath wherever he went, in an attempt to convince the Jews and proselytes present that Jesus is the Christ and, in accord with the scriptures, had to die and was roused from among the dead (Acts 17:1-4) – truths which are, of course, basic, regardless of which evangel one is heralding (2 Tim. 2:8-9). But the reader must keep in mind that these Sabbath-day synagogue visits took place only one day out of the entire week. What did Paul’s ministry involve during the rest of the week?
Fortunately, Luke provides us with a tantalizing glimpse into what sort of activity Paul was involved in the rest of the week. While Paul was in Athens, we’re told that, in addition to arguing in the synagogue “with the Jews and with the reverent” (i.e., proselytized Gentiles), Paul also argued “in the market on every day with those happening along” (Acts 17:17). We're even told, in the previous verse, what Paul's motivation was in doing this: his spirit was incited in him at beholding the city being idol-ridden (v. 16)! Thus, once again we find Paul engaged in evangelical work that was completely non-discriminatory in nature, and which had, as its focus, whoever “happened along” on any given day (which would’ve undoubtedly included non-proselytized, idol-worshiping Gentiles). That those to whom Paul spoke in the market included pagan Gentiles is especially evident from what we read in the remainder of this chapter. At some point during Paul’s daily “market ministry,” we’re told that some non-proselytized Greeks (Epicurean and Stoic philosophers) were “parleying” with him (v. 18). They then “got hold” of Paul and proceeded to lead him to the Areopagus so that he could share his views there – something which Paul does without any hesitation (Acts 17:18-33).
The next stop in our survey of Paul’s ministry to the nations as recorded in Acts will be Paul’s first trip to Ephesus (Acts 19). There, we read that Paul travelled to Ephesus and lived there for a little more than 3 years. We read that, for three months, Paul spoke boldly in the synagogue (which, again, would’ve been on the Sabbath). After this period of time we read that Paul withdrew from them because of the stubbornness and unbelief of some (vv. 8-9). We then read that Paul took with him some disciples whom he’d found after arriving in Ephesus, and began “arguing day by day in the school (or “hall”) of Tyrannus.” Here we have yet another example of Paul using what was most likely a public forum to herald the truth to whoever was present and curious to hear what he had to say. And notice that we’re not told that Paul did this merely “on the Sabbath” (or on any particular day of the week); no, as with his ministry in the market in Athens, Paul argued in the school of Tyrannus in Ephesus “day by day.” And this, we’re told, “occurred for two years, so that all those dwelling in the province of Asia hear the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (vv. 10-11).
We’re also told of powerful deeds that God did through the hands of Paul during this two year period of time, including the casting out of wicked spirits from people. After an incident involving a failed exorcism by seven sons of a Jewish chief priest (in which the demon admits to knowing both Jesus and Paul, but not the seven sons of Sceva who attempted to exorcise him), we read that “this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who are dwelling in Ephesus. And fear falls on them all, and magnified was the name of the Lord Jesus.” We then read about an idol-making silversmith by the name of Demetrius who decided that something had to be done about the apostle Paul. The income of Demetrius and others in his line of work had, apparently, dropped drastically due to Paul’s evangelistic work in that city among the nations. The silversmith therefore organized a meeting of tradesmen concerning the issue of lost idol business. This episode tells us a great deal about the sort of people Paul had been reaching with the evangel during his time in Ephesus. Paul had evidently been turning so many pagan Gentiles away from the worship of false gods and goddesses (of which the most popular in Ephesus was Artemis) that the idol-making business in the city of Ephesus was starting to suffer.
We thus see from Acts chapters 13 through 19 that, far from focusing on Jews and reverent proselytes exclusively, Paul’s ministry prior to his imprisonment in Rome was much more diverse than Stephen argues in his paper. With regards to those to whom Paul heralded the evangel (and contrary to Stephen’s claims), we find no “progression” in Paul’s ministry from Acts 13 to Acts 28. As long as he was able to do so (i.e., while not limited by imprisonment), Paul’s primary focus on Sabbath days was heralding the truth about Christ in the synagogues (which, as we’ve seen, was an attempt to seek out those among the chosen Jewish remnant, who were scattered among the calloused and “cast away” nation of Israel). But from what we’ve seen in the above survey of Acts 13-19, the majority of Paul’s time during his missionary journeys was spent not in the synagogues but rather in public areas, where he would herald the truth to (and perform miracles among) people irrespective of their ethnic or religious background.
It’s All Greek Proselytes to Stephen
Stephen makes much of the fact that the word hellen (“Greek”) appears primarily in Paul’s pre-prison letters and only “in one case” (Stephen’s words) in his prison letters. To this fact Stephen adds that, “in [Paul’s] later letters, he uses only the tern ethnos.” Stephen sees this as supporting his theory that Paul’s focus prior to Acts 28 was on “Jews and Greek proselytes in the synagogues” – i.e., Jews and those who were (as he says) “for all intents and purposes, ‘Jewish.’” According to Stephen’s theory, it was only after his imprisonment that Paul - the apostle of the nations (Rom. 11:13) in whom Christ was unveiled so that he may be evangelizing [Christ] among the nations (Gal. 1:16) - shifted his focus to those among the nations who were not proselytes (i.e., those who were not “for all intents and purposes, ‘Jewish’”). How should we respond to these assertions by Stephen?
First, if the term “Greek” appears even once in Paul’s “later letters” (as Stephen admits it does in Col. 3:11), then it’s not true that Paul “only” used the term “ethnos” in his “later letters.” Surely Stephen knows what the term “only” means, so one can only assume that, in his zeal to make the point he was trying to make, Stephen was just being careless here. But here are the facts: The word hellen (“Greek”) appears in Romans 6 times, in 1 Corinthians 5 times, in Galatians twice, and in Colossians once. It is completely absent from the rest of his letters (both “pre-prison” and “later”). Thus, the word “Greek” appears a total of 14 times in Paul’s letters. That the word would appear as many times as it does in Romans and 1 Corinthians is no surprise at all, given that these are Paul’s two longest letters; in the CLNT, the combined pages of these two letters alone is between 59-60 pages (compare this with the combined pages of ALL of his “prison letters,” which is between 41-42 pages).
What about the word ethnos (“nations”)? It appears in Romans 24 times, in 1 and 2 Corinthians 4 times, in Galatians 10 times, in Ephesians 5 times, in Colossians 1 time (the same number of times as the word “Greek!”), in 1 Thessalonians 2 times, and in 1 and 2 Timothy 4 times. That’s a total of 40 times in Paul’s “pre-prison letters” and a total of 10 times in his “prison letters.” And what does this mean? Does it have any “dispensational significance?” I doubt Stephen could answer this question in the affirmative – and I would be inclined to respond in kind. As far as I can tell, the number of times ethnos appears in any given epistle or grouping of epistles – or whether it even appears at all - is entirely irrelevant. This sort of data is simply not something on which I would try to base (or strengthen) any of my doctrinal positions, as Stephen seems to be trying to do. How many times a word appears in Paul’s “pre-prison letters” vs. his “prison letters” (or whether a word appears at all) is dubious ground on which to draw the sort of conclusion for which Stephen is trying to argue in his article.
Now, according to Stephen, the word translated “Greek” referred to “the natives of Greece, or ones who had adopted the Greek language and culture.” I agree with this completely. Prior to the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great created a Greek empire that stretched across the known world at that time, and Greek became the language of trade between the various nations. And in the days of the Roman Empire, Koine Greek was the common lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East. Roman culture (including religious beliefs and practices) was also heavily influenced by the culture of the Greek empire that preceded it. Had Stephen stuck with this sound understanding of the word “Greek,” I would have little to say here. But this definition doesn’t suit or strengthen Stephen’s position. It’s too broad to help him. Thus, Stephen has to narrow the definition of “Greek” down quite a bit. Rather than referring to “the natives of Greece, or ones who had adopted the Greek language and culture” (which, as I believe Stephen himself would likely admit, would describe most of the uncircumcised, non-Jewish people living in cities such as Rome or Corinth in Paul’s day), Stephen’s position requires that, in Paul’s letters, the word “Greek” referred exclusively to “God-fearing proselytes who sought God’s wisdom and blessing through the seed of Abraham.” Unfortunately for Stephen’s position, this position is simply without merit.
Whether used in the book of Acts or in Paul’s letters, the word “Greek” was by no means limited to Greek proselytes; the majority of those living in Paul’s day who could be appropriately referred to as “Greek” (in contrast with “Jew”) were from a non-proselytized (i.e., pagan) background. Thus, when contrasted with “Jew,” the term “Greek” referred to the majority of people living in cities such as Corinth and Rome who weren’t Jewish. Did this describe every non-Jew in the world at that time? No, of course not; hence, in Romans 1:14, Paul referred to “barbarians” as well (thereby “covering all the bases,” so to speak). But the fact remains that most of the non-Jewish people living in the metropolises of Paul’s day spoke Greek and came from a cultural/religious background that could appropriately be described as “Greek.” In cities such as Rome and Corinth, “Jew” and “Greek” were simply the two main groups into which people could be categorized at that time. Again, Acts 19:9-10 makes this especially evident: after referring to Paul’s daily reasoning in the hall of Tyrannus for two years while he was in Ephesus, Luke tells us that “all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.”
Obviously “all the residents of Asia” did not consist of Jews and proselytized Gentiles. In comparison with the largely pagan population of Asia at that time, the Jews were a minority (meaning that proselytized Gentiles would’ve been a minority within a minority). As noted previously, most people within the Roman Empire (and beyond) who could’ve been categorized as “Greek” rather than “Jew” came from a pagan background. Luke simply had in view the two primary cultural/religious groups into which people could, broadly speaking, be categorized at that time. That Paul had this meaning in mind when he contrasted “Jew” and “Greek” is also evident from Romans 2:9-16, where Paul clearly had in view those who sin under the law (the Jew) and those who sin without the law (the Greek). Because most non-Jews in Rome could be categorized as “Greek,” this label was appropriately used to represent those among humanity who were uncircumcised and “without law.” Further confirmation of this understanding of Paul’s use of “Greek” can be found in Romans 3:9-10, where Paul wrote that he had previously charged “both Jews and Greeks to be all under sin, according as it is written, that ‘Not one is just’ – not even one.” It is in Romans 2 that Jews are “charged” to be “all under sin.” But when did Paul “previously charge” Greeks in this way? Answer: in Romans 1:18-32, where idol-worshipping Gentiles are clearly in view.
In view of these facts, it’s simply not the case that, when referring to the people categorized as “Greek” in Romans and 1 Corinthians, Paul had in view Greek proselytes to Judaism. Is it possible that at least some in this category within the Roman ecclesia came from a proselytized background? Absolutely! But it’s equally possible that this was the case for only a few, or even none at all (again, proselytized Gentiles were a minority within a minority). We just don’t know for sure. But it remains the case that these uncircumcised “Greeks” and “nations” (and recall that Paul used the word “nations” much more frequently in his pre-prison letters than the word “Greek”) were just as possibly non-Jews with a pagan, idolatrous background as those spoken of in Acts 17 or Acts 20. Moreover, the fact that the focus in Paul’s “Ephesians” letter is on the saints who were from a non-Jewish background – and that Paul is primarily addressing Gentiles in this letter - does not mean that there were no believers from a Jewish background in the ecclesia(s) among which Paul expected his “Ephesians” letter to be circulated. At most, it can be reasonably concluded that the majority of believers within the ecclesias at that time were from a non-Jewish background. But as we’ve seen, the same could be said for many, if not most, of the ecclesias before Paul’s Roman imprisonment as well. This would especially be the case if the majority of the ecclesias to which Paul wrote, and among which his letters were originally circulated, were established before Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (which is likely).
 But what about when Paul says “our fathers” in verse 1? The answer is simply that Paul’s “our” does not include those whom he’s specifically addressing here (i.e., those whom he did not want to be ignorant). “Our fathers” simply means, “the fathers of we who are Jews/Israelites.” Paul was not implying that those whom he was addressing in v. 1 were in this category.