For part one,
click here: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2025/02/was-israel-set-aside-by-god-at-end-of.html
Did Paul have a “prophetic ministry under the auspices of Israel”?
Among those who believe that Israel wasn’t “set aside” until after Paul arrived in Rome, some argue that, during the “Acts period,” Paul’s ministry was inseparably connected with Israel’s “prophetic program.” Consider, for example, the following statements by Clyde Pilkington:
“During Paul’s early ministry, covered by the book of Acts, he was a prophetic light “to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:47). Being such was a prophetic ministry under the auspices of Israel (Isaiah 49:6). Salvation during the Acts period was bound up in Israel’s restoration and the “sure mercies of David,” with Paul “acting as a priest” (Romans 15:15-16, CV). Therefore, during the Acts period, by Paul’s own admission, his ministry was limited to what “the prophets and Moses did say should come” (Acts 26:22).”
Rather than being “under the auspices [i.e., kindly patronage and guidance] of Israel,” Paul’s ministry tended to elicit a negative reaction from the majority of Israelites as soon as they became aware of what he was doing among the nations. Throughout the “Acts period,” the majority of Israelites were completely hostile toward Paul’s apostolic ministry to the nations.
We also know that it was the twelve apostles – and not Paul – who were the apostles of Israel (and who – in accord with Christ’s promise in Matt. 19:28 – will, in the eon to come, be sitting “on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel”). It was these apostles whose ministry was a continuation of Christ’s earthly commission “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:6; 15:24; cf. Rom. 15:8). But Paul’s apostolic ministry was not “under the auspices” of these men, either. For they weren’t even aware of what Paul was heralding among the nations until approximately 5-7 years after Paul and Barnabas had been heralding the evangel of the Uncircumcision among the nations.[i] It’s thus impossible for Paul’s apostolic ministry among the nations to have been under the kindly patronage and guidance of Israel when the very leaders of the believing Jewish remnant weren’t even knowledgeable of the evangel that Paul and Barnabas were heralding among the nations prior to their being informed of it by Paul himself at the meeting referred to in Gal. 2:1-2.
We also know that the salvation of the nations during this time wasn’t “bound up in Israel’s restoration.” Rather, the salvation that Paul said had been sent to the nations (and, by implication, Paul’s dispensation as “the apostle of the nations”) was a result of what Paul referred to as Israel’s “offense” and “discomfiture” (Rom. 11:11-12). It was the “casting away” of the majority of Israelites who comprised the nation of Israel in Paul’s day – and not “Israel’s restoration” – that had resulted in the state of affairs that Paul referred to as “the conciliation of the world” (Rom. 11:15). And since it was Israel’s “casting away” that made it possible for the nations to be conciliated to God, the “casting away” of Israel necessarily took place before Paul’s ministry among the nations began.
Moreover, Paul knew that the state of affairs involving Israel that’s described in Rom. 11:11-15 wouldn’t end until after the “complement of the nations” had “entered in”; only then will the “callousness” that is upon the nation be removed (or begin to be removed). Paul also knew that there were some among God’s covenant people who, as a result of his ministry among the nations (a ministry which, by its very nature, resulted in unbelieving Jews being provoked to jealousy), could be saved (Rom. 11:14). This would result in them becoming part of the chosen remnant of believing Israelites that existed in Paul’s day (Rom. 11:5-6), and which comprised “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). This chosen remnant among God’s covenant people existed before, during and after the two years referred to in Acts 28:30.
With regard to Acts 13:46-47, these verses do not support the view that the ministry of Paul and Barnabas was the fulfillment of prophesy. In these verses we read the following:
Being bold, both Paul and Barnabas say, “To you first was it necessary that the word of God be spoken. Yet, since, in fact, you are thrusting it away, and are judging yourselves not worthy of eonian life, lo! we are turning to the nations. For thus the Lord has directed us: I have appointed Thee for ‘a light of the nations; for Thee to be for salvation as far as the limits of the earth.’”
As is evident from what’s said in the verse that Paul and Barnabas were quoting (i.e., Isaiah 49:6), it’s not the ministry of these two men that’s being prophesied here. The twice-used pronoun “Thee” (or “You”) is singular, and refers to Christ alone (rather than to Paul and Barnabas, whom Paul referred to previously as “we” and “us”). In accord with this fact, the prophecy concerns Christ alone (see Luke 2:32; cf. Acts 26:23), and the words of the prophecy are being addressed to Christ alone. Moreover, it’s clear from the context that this prophecy has to do with what Christ will be doing in the future (i.e., during the eon to come, after the kingdom has been restored to Israel and Israel has been re-gathered to the land), and not during the time when Paul and Barnabas were heralding the evangel of the grace of God among the nations.
The reason Paul appealed to Isaiah 49:6 on this occasion is because it provided scriptural justification for his and Barnabas’ decision to be “turning to the nations” (v. 46). Had Paul wanted to, he could’ve simply appealed to the words of Christ himself (as recorded in Acts 26:16-18, for example); instead, however, he appealed to what he knew those to whom he spoke would see as authoritative (i.e., the inspired words of the prophet Isaiah). But how does a prophetic statement concerning Christ justify the decision of Paul and Barnabas to turn to the nations? Answer: Paul and Barnabas were Christ’s authorized ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20); thus, by appealing to a verse in which it’s clear that Christ had been appointed by God to bring light and salvation to the nations, Paul and Barnabas justified their own ministry among the nations (which was in accord with what Christ himself will be doing in the future).
With regard to Romans 15:15-16, here’s how these verses read in the CLNT:
Yet more daringly do I write to you, in part, as prompting you, because of the grace being given to me from God, for me to be the minister of Christ Jesus for the nations, acting as a priest of the evangel of God, that the approach present of the nations may be becoming well received, having been hallowed by holy spirit.
Notice, first, what Paul didn’t say in Romans 15:16. He didn’t say he was “a priest of God” for the nations (or even “acting as a priest of God”). Instead, Paul said that he was “acting as a priest of the evangel of God” (and not merely “acting as a priest,” as Clyde incompletely quotes him as having said).
There is a big difference between what Paul wrote here and what we read in, for example, 1 Peter 2:5 and 9 (where the Jewish believers to whom Peter wrote are collectively referred to as “a holy priesthood” and “a chosen race, a ‘royal priesthood,’ a ‘holy nation,’ a procured people”), or in Rev. 20:6 (where we read of Jewish believers being “priests of God and of Christ”). What Paul wrote in these verses has nothing to do with the nations being blessed through, or on account of, the nation of Israel. As noted earlier, the salvation of those among the nations who believed the evangel heralded by Paul was a result of the “casting away” of Israel (and not “Israel’s restoration”). The ministry to which Paul was referring in these verses involved heralding the evangel of the grace of God among the nations so that they would, through faith in this evangel, become “hallowed” (consecrated or set apart) by the holy spirit, and thus made acceptable to God. This continued to take place during (and after) the two years referred to in Acts 28:30.
The assumption by Acts 28 theorists is that, in these verses, Paul was referring to a temporary state of affairs that ended at some point after Paul arrived in Rome. However, it’s clear that Paul wasn’t claiming to be a literal priest. Paul was speaking metaphorically here, and using imagery that was drawn from his religious background as an Israelite. Paul’s work in heralding the evangel among the nations (so that they would, by faith in the truth, become acceptable to God) was like a priest’s work in offering up sacrifices to God. By referring to himself as “acting as a priest of the evangel,” Paul was simply expressing the idea that his role as the “apostle of the nations” involved heralding the evangel by which the nations (i.e., those among the nations who believed) became “hallowed” (consecrated or set apart) by the holy spirit (hence, Paul referred to himself as “acting as a priest of the evangel of God”). This is in accord with his original commission from Christ (Acts 26:14-18).
Paul’s reference to those among the nations who’d believed his evangel as an “approach present” (i.e., something consecrated and offered to God) who’d been “hallowed by holy spirit” and thus “well received” by God is simply an extension of the metaphorical, priestly imagery previously used by him. It also echoes the language Paul had used previously in Romans 12:1-2. In these verses we read the following:
“I am entreating you, then, brethren, by the pities of God, to present your bodies a sacrifice, living, holy, well pleasing to God, your logical divine service, and not to be configured to this eon, but to be transformed by the renewing of your mind, for you to be testing what is the will of God, good and well pleasing and perfect.”
Through Paul’s apostolic ministry, the evangel through which the nations could be saved was being heralded, and those among the nations who believed were being “hallowed [set apart] by holy spirit.” And having been thus “set apart” by God, they were able to engage in the “divine service” of which Paul wrote in this verse, and thereby do that which was “well pleasing to God” (2 Cor. 5:9). But their status and expectation was, at the time that Paul wrote, just as distinct from Israel’s as it was during and after the time of Paul’s house arrest in Rome.
Paul’s use of this figurative, priestly imagery in no way means or implies that he was laboring under a different “dispensation” or administration at this time. If such figurative imagery is to be understood as entailing that Paul’s ministry was in accord with Israel’s prophesied program (and that he was laboring “under the auspices of Israel”), then we would have just as much reason to think that Paul was laboring under the same “Jewish economy” when he wrote to the saints in Philippi! For in Philippians 3:3 Paul wrote concerning those in the body of Christ, “For we are the circumcision who are offering divine service in the spirit of God.”
One would be hard-pressed to find more “Jewish” imagery in Paul’s letters than we find here. And in the very next chapter, Paul referred to the financial contribution of the saints in Philippi as “an odor fragrant, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God” (4:18). This is an allusion to the fragrant incense that was burnt in the temple (Ex. 30:7; Luke 1:9) and to the sacrifices offered there by the priests (thus making Paul’s imagery in this verse just as “priestly” and “Levitical” in nature as that used in Romans 15:16). According to the reasoning of Acts 28 proponents, the obviously “Jewish” nature of this imagery should lead the reader to conclude that Paul must’ve been laboring under the same “prophetic, Jewish economy” when he wrote his letter to the Philippians as he supposedly was when he wrote to the saints in Rome!
Surely the Acts 28 theorist would agree that, during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, he continued to be “the minister of Christ Jesus for the nations” (which involved heralding the “evangel of the uncircumcision” to the nations), and that salvation continued to be “dispatched” to the nations during this time (Acts 28:30-31). If this is the case (and it is), then one cannot consistently affirm that Paul’s “acting as a priest of the evangel of God” – and the resulting “hallowing” (setting apart) of those among the nations who believed Paul’s evangel – was something that was limited to Paul’s ministry prior to his imprisonment in Rome.
With regard to Clyde’s appeal to Acts 26:22, the view that Paul didn’t say anything during the entirety of the “Acts period” that can’t be found in the Law and the Prophets is contradicted by Paul himself. Here are some examples of truths revealed by Paul in his “earlier epistles” that were not revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures:
1. Salvation has come to the nations through the “tripping,” “offense” and “casting away” of Israel (Rom. 11:11-15, 19), and this state of affairs is to continue “until the complement of the nations may be entering” (vv. 25-26).
2. All who believe Paul’s evangel – whether “Jew or Greek” – are spiritually baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:12-13), which is the body of Christ (v. 27), and have become a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).
3. The last generation of those in the body of Christ will “not be put to repose” (die), but will “put on immortality” at the same time that the deceased saints in the body of Christ will be “roused in incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:50-53).
4. The Lord is going to descend to an atmospheric location in the clouds above the earth, and then both categories of saints in the body of Christ (the still-living and the recently resurrected) will be “snatched away together” by the “Lord himself” to meet Christ in the air (1 Thess. 4:13-18).
5. All who are in the body of Christ will, at this time, become “celestials” and will “wear the image of Christ, the “Celestial One” (1 Cor. 15:47-49).
6. Related to the last point, the location of the kingdom of God in which we will be enjoying our eonian life after we’ve “put on incorruption” is one in which “flesh and blood is not able to enjoy an allotment” (1 Cor. 15:50) – that is, it is not on the earth but rather “in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1-2), and our future “home” is where the Lord is, presently (vv. 6-9).
7. Every human being is going to be vivified in Christ (1 Cor. 15:20-22), and thus all mankind will be justified and saved (Rom. 5:18-19; 1 Tim. 2:4-7; 4:10).
8. After death has been abolished and every being in the universe has been subjected to Christ, Christ will be “giving up the kingdom to His God and Father” and “shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all” (1 Cor. 15:24-28).
Having noted some truths revealed by Paul concerning which “the prophets and Moses” were completely silent, let’s now consider what Paul meant in Acts 26:22. Oftentimes when this verse is quoted by Acts 28 theorists, they leave out the very next verse. However, it is in the next verse that we find Paul specifying what “things” he had in mind when he declared that he was “saying none other things that those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.”
Here is how Acts 26:22-23 reads in the CLNT:
Happening, then, on assistance from God, until this day I stand attesting both to small and to great, saying nothing outside of what both the prophets and Moses speak of impending occurrences -- if it be the suffering Christ -- if He, the first out of a resurrection of the dead, is about to be announcing light both to the people and to the nations.
Other Bible versions communicate the same idea in their translation of Acts 26:22-23 (see, for example, the New English Translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the English Standard Version). The fact is that Paul’s words in verse 23 put a significant restriction on the “things” that Paul had in view in verse 22. Paul was simply saying that, whenever he spoke concerning “the suffering Christ” and Christ’s resurrection (and his subsequent announcement of “light both to the people and to the nations”), he wasn’t saying anything that was outside of what “both the prophets and Moses speak of impending occurrences.”
“To the Jew first”
In Romans 1:16 Paul declared, “For not ashamed am I of the evangel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who is believing–to the Jew first, and to the Greek as well.”
Some appeal to this statement (along with what Paul wrote in Rom. 2:9-10) in support of the view that, when Paul wrote his letter to the saints in Rome (which was prior to his arrival to Rome), Israel had not yet been “set aside.” However, we know that, when Paul wrote this letter, the “casting away” of the majority of Israelites who comprised the nation of Israel in Paul’s day had already occurred. So whatever Paul had in mind here must be consistent with this fact.
When Paul wrote “to the Jew first,” he was not referring to what has ever been true for Jews and Greeks within the body of Christ. It is outside of the body of Christ that God’s covenant people have certain privileges that those of the nations don’t have. And among these privileges was, during the time of Paul’s apostolic ministry, evangelistic priority. It is this that Paul had in mind when he wrote “to the Jew first, and to the Greek as well.”
Paul was, of course, an Israelite (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil.3:4-6). And being the first to receive and believe the evangel to which he was referring in Romans 1:16, he was the first to encounter “God’s power for salvation to everyone who is believing.” Barnabas – another Jew – was evidently the second individual to believe the evangel that was entrusted to Paul. Only after Paul and Barnabas had received salvation through faith in this evangel was this same divine “power for salvation” later encountered by a gentile (i.e., Sergius Paul).
Moreover, throughout Paul’s ministry as recorded in Acts, it was Paul’s manner to speak the word of God to Israelites first. In fact, in Acts 13:46, Paul said that it was “necessary” that he bring the word of God to the Jews first before he turned to the gentiles. In doing this, however, Paul wasn’t showing favoritism to believing Jews within the body of Christ, or indicating that Jews within the body of Christ had any advantage over their gentile brethren (for, of course, the synagogue-attending Jews to whom Paul brought the word of God weren’t in the body of Christ). Similarly, those among the nations to whom Paul subsequently turned (after his message was largely rejected by the Jews) weren’t in the body of Christ, either – at least, not until after they actually believed the evangel that was heralded to them.
So in light of what Paul actually meant when he wrote concerning the Jew being “first” in Rom. 1:16, we have reason to believe that his letter to the saints in Rome is just as much “for the body of Christ today” as his later letters. It is only for those outside of the body of Christ that any sort of “Jewish priority” exists, or can exist (which accounts for Paul’s decision to prioritize his Jewish brethren when evangelizing, until he was unable to do so). Within the body of Christ – i.e., among those already evangelized and called by God – Jews and Greeks enjoy the same privileged status.
The benefit of circumcision
A similar mistake is made by those who claim that, because Paul believed there was some value in circumcision (Rom. 2:25; 3:1-2), it means that Israelites within the body of Christ had preeminence over their gentile brethren. However, this understanding – as with the view of those who appeal to what Paul said concerning the Jew being “first” – reflects confusion concerning what was true of Jews and gentiles outside of the body of Christ with what’s true concerning Jews and gentiles within the body of Christ.
Writing to the saints in Galatia (many of whom were gentiles with a pagan, idol-worshipping background), Paul declared the following:
“For whoever are baptized into Christ, put on Christ, in Whom there is no Jew nor yet Greek, there is no slave nor yet free, there is no male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28; cf. Col. 3:11).
The words “in Whom” (i.e., in Christ) and “in Christ Jesus” indicate that Paul was not referring to what was true of all Jews or all Greeks at the time he wrote. Rather, the words “in Christ” refer to the spiritual union with Christ that the believers to whom he wrote received when they first heard and believed the evangel of the grace of God. That is, Paul was referring exclusively to what is true of all who are in the body of Christ. Within the body of Christ, all “fleshly” distinctions (whether ethnic, sexual or socio-economic) are – and always have been – irrelevant (2 Cor. 5:16).
In accord with the fact that Jews and gentiles (Greeks) within the body of Christ have an equal standing, Paul made it clear that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision was of any consequence for those to whom he wrote. In Galatians 5:1-6 and 6:12-15 we read the following:
For freedom Christ frees us! Stand firm, then, and be not again enthralled with the yoke of slavery. Lo! I, Paul, am saying to you that if you should be circumcising, Christ will benefit you nothing. Now I am attesting again to every man who is circumcising, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Exempted from Christ were you who are being justified in law. You fall out of grace. For we, in spirit, are awaiting the expectation of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision is availing anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith, operating through love.
Whoever are wanting to put on a fair face in the flesh, these are compelling you to circumcise only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ Jesus. For not even they who are circumcising are maintaining law, but they want you to be circumcised that they should be boasting in that flesh of yours. Now may it not be mine to be boasting, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation.
This means that, within the body of Christ during the “Acts era” of Paul’s ministry, circumcision was of no advantage whatsoever, and those who were circumcised had no advantage over those who were uncircumcised. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has ever counted for anything within the body of Christ. Those within the body of Christ who were circumcised had no preeminence over those who were uncircumcised. Whether Jew or gentile, all who have believed the evangel that was entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations have been reconciled to God through the cross, and have always had equal access to the Father, in one spirit.
The spiritual benefit of being “of Abraham’s seed”
Just as those holding to the Acts 28 view are mistaken about what Paul had in mind when he wrote of the Jew being “first” (and of the value/benefit of circumcision), so they’re mistaken about why Paul referred to those in the body of Christ as being “of Abraham’s seed” in Galatians 3:29. They see this as evidence that the spiritual blessings being received by believing gentiles in the body of Christ was, during the “Acts era,” dependent on Israel (or based on the new covenant that will be concluded between God and Israel). However, this is not the case at all.
In Paul’s day, there were two distinct companies of saints who, for different (but ultimately related) reasons, could both be referred to as “the seed of Abraham” (and who, together, comprised “the entire seed” to whom “the promise” referred to in Rom. 4:13 is being confirmed):
1. The descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who constitute the promised offspring of Abraham referred to by God in Genesis 13:14-17, 17:7-10 and elsewhere (and to whom God has promised the land of Canaan as an eonian allotment).
2. Those whom Paul referred to collectively as “the nations” (Rom. 1:13; 11:13, 25; 15:16, 18) and who constituted ”all the ecclesias of the nations” (Rom. 16:4) – i.e., the body of Christ.
It is the first company of saints – i.e., the promised seed of Abraham who are “of the law” (Rom. 4:13) – who comprised the chosen remnant within Israel (Romans 9:6-8; 11:5-7), and whom Paul referred to as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Among this company of saints were the “many tens of thousands” of believing Jews who were “all inherently zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20).
With regard to the second company of saints referred to above, we read the following in Galatian 3:27-29:
“For whoever are baptized into Christ, put on Christ, in Whom there is no Jew nor yet Greek, there is no slave nor yet free, there is no male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus. Now if you are Christ’s, consequently you are of Abraham’s seed, enjoyers of the allotment according to the promise.”
When Paul referred to being “baptized into Christ,” he had in mind the same spiritual “baptism” referred to elsewhere in his letters that is undergone by everyone who, through faith in the evangel of the Uncircumcision, becomes a member of the body of Christ. In 1 Cor. 12:12-13 and v. 27 we read the following:
“For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, thus also is the Christ. For in one spirit also we all are baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit…”
“Now you are the body of Christ, and members of a part…”
The reason Paul could refer to a predominantly Gentile company of saints as “Abraham’s seed” in Gal. 3:29 is because, in Genesis 22:17b-18, Christ alone – and not a plurality of Jewish offspring (as referred to in Gen. 13:14-17 or 17:7-10) – was prophetically referred to as the “seed” or offspring of Abraham. And since every member of the body of Christ is “in Christ” (having been spiritually baptized into Christ, and thus sharing a spiritual union with him), we share his status as “the seed of Abraham.”
Thus, in contrast with those who are among the promised offspring of Abraham referred to by God in Genesis 13:14-17 and elsewhere (and to whom God has promised the land of Canaan as an eonian allotment), our status as “Abraham’s seed” – and the related blessing of being “enjoyers of the allotment according to the promise” (i.e., the blessing referred to in Gen. 22:18, and which Paul identifies as justification by faith) – has nothing to do with our ethnicity/lineage or covenantal standing. Rather, as those who have been “baptized into Christ” (and who are thus members of his body and “one in Christ Jesus”), our status as “Abraham’s seed” comes to us directly through our inseparable, spiritual union with Christ, the singular Seed of Abraham referred to by Paul in Gal. 3:16 and prophesied in Gen. 22:17-18.
“In that era”
In his remarks on when “believing Gentiles” began to enjoy the blessings referred to by Paul in Eph. 2:19, Adlai Loudy wrote the following:
Now, believing Gentiles are “no longer guests and sojourners” as they were in the Pentecostal and Readjustment Administrations, but are “fellow-citizens of the saints and members of God’s family” (Ephesians 2:19).
Now, Gentile believers are no longer “without hope and God in the world” as they were “in that era,” but are “blessed with every spiritual blessing among the celestials, in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3), and have a “hope laid up for them in heaven” (Colossians 1:5), “the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27).
When Loudy used the word “now,” he had in mind a period of time that began shortly after Paul arrived in Rome. For elsewhere Loudy wrote that “the Ephesian and Colossian epistles were not written until after the last public witness of the Kingdom of God had been made to representatives of Israel in Rome, in the spring of A. D. 61, followed by the quotation of Isaiah 6, as recorded in Acts 28:17-28.”
We find a similar view expressed by A.E. Knoch. Commenting on Christ’s words in Matthew 15:21, Knoch wrote the following concerning the verses from Ephesians quoted above:
“The latter half of the second chapter of Ephesians (2:11-22) is an elaborate statement showing that, in the present administration of God's grace, the nations are no longer in the inferior position accorded them in Paul's earlier ministry.”
Knoch went on to say that “it was not until Paul's imprisonment that we were brought nigh and enter the family of God (Eph.2:18-19). Until then we were still guests at Israel's table, if not puppies under it.”
When Knoch referred to “Paul’s imprisonment,” he had in mind Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (as we find referred to in Acts 28:30). However, we have good reason to believe that what Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:12-13 has nothing to do with the status of believing gentiles in the body of Christ before and after the events of Acts 28. Nowhere in this passage (or in the surrounding context) does Paul say anything that suggests that the beginning of his imprisonment in Rome marked the beginning of the state of the affairs that’s described in verses 13-22, or that the “era” to which Paul referred in verse 12 refers to the time period that transpired between the start of his evangelistic ministry among the nations (as described in Acts 13) and the events about which we read in Acts 28:25-31. And not only this, but it’s actually impossible for this to be the case.
According to Paul, the believing gentiles to whom he wrote were “apart from Christ,” had “no expectation,” and were “without God in the world” during the “era” that Paul had in mind in Eph. 2:12. It’s also implied in v. 19 that, during this past era, the gentiles in the body of Christ weren’t “fellow-citizens of the saints” and didn’t “belong to God's family.” But not one of these conditions could possibly apply to or describe those gentiles who became members of the body of Christ during the time period that transpired between the events of Acts 13 and Acts 28. The idea that, prior to Acts 28, the gentiles in the body of Christ were in any sense “apart from Christ,” had “no expectation,” were “without God in the world” and didn’t “belong to God's family” is completely contradicted by what we read in Paul’s earlier letters.
For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:13, Paul contrasted the believing gentiles to whom he wrote (and who, as is evident from 1 Thess. 1:9, were former idol-worshipping pagan) with those who “[had] no expectation.” Obviously, Paul believed that the believing gentiles to whom he wrote had an expectation (and, of course, Paul went on to provide them with encouraging information concerning their expectation in 1 Thess. 4:14-17). Paul referred to the expectation of the believing gentiles in the body of Christ again in his second letter to the Thessalonian ecclesia. In 2 Thess. 2:13-14, 16-16 we read the following:
“Now we ought to be thanking God always concerning you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, seeing that God prefers you from the beginning for salvation, in holiness of the spirit and faith in the truth, into which He also calls us through our evangel, for the procuring of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ…Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God, our Father, Who loves us, and is giving us an eonian consolation and a good expectation in grace be consoling your hearts and establish you in every good work and word.”
It’s impossible to understand the expressions “apart from Christ,” “no expectation,” and “without God in the world” as in any way describing, or referring to, the believing gentiles to whom Paul wrote the words quoted in the above passage. There is simply no possible way to reconcile the words “apart from Christ,” “no expectation,” and “without God in the world” with anything that Paul said was true of the members of the body of Christ (whether circumcised or uncircumcised) in any of his “early letters.” The believing gentiles to whom Paul wrote the above words were just as much “in Christ” as Paul was, had the same expectation that Paul had, and were just as truly members of God’s family as Paul was.
So what “era” did Paul have in mind in Eph. 2:12? Notice that Paul wrote as if the “era” had been previously referred to. Here, again, are verses 11-12:
“Wherefore, remember that once you, the nations in flesh – who are termed “Uncircumcision” by those termed “Circumcision,” in flesh, made by hands – that you were, in that era, apart from Christ…”
When we look back just a few verses, we find that Paul did, in fact, refer to a period of time involving those to whom he wrote that could appropriately be described as an “era” in which they were “apart from Christ, being alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and guests [or “strangers”] of the promise covenants, having no expectation, and without God in the world.” In verses 1-3, Paul spoke of those to whom he wrote as “once” walking in their “offenses and sins,” and “in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness…” During this era they were “doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in [their] nature, children of indignation.” Although this particular era had, indeed, ended for those to whom Paul wrote, it wasn’t Paul’s imprisonment in Rome that ended this era. Rather, this “era” ended when those to whom Paul wrote first heard and believed the “word of truth, the evangel of [their] salvation,” and were saved (Eph. 2:8-9).
It is not, therefore, the status of the nations before and after the start of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome began that is in view in Ephesians 2:11-22. Rather, Paul was referring to the status of the nations before and after they heard and believed the evangel that was heralded among them. It was during this era that those to whom Paul wrote were “apart from Christ” and “without God in the world.” Thus, the “now” of v. 13 refers to the time since those to whom he wrote had become members of the body of Christ.
On the other hand, it would make no sense for Paul to have told believing gentiles who were already members of the body of Christ before his imprisonment in Rome began that they were “apart from Christ” and “without God in the world” during this time. How could anyone who is “in Christ,” “a new creation” and “conciliated to God” (2 Cor. 5:17-18) be, at the same time, “without Christ” and “without God in the world?” Or how could those in whom God’s spirit is making its home (and who are thus the temple of the living God) – and who thus have Christ’s spirit in them (making it true to say that Christ is in them) – be “without Christ” and “without God in the world”? Answer: They couldn’t.
A.E. Knoch has attempted to get around the clear contradiction that is created when we try to apply the words of Eph. 2:11-13 to gentile members of the body of Christ during the time between Acts 13 and Acts 28. In an article from Unsearchable Riches, for example, Knoch wrote that believing gentiles during the time prior to Paul’s imprisonment in Rome “had no fleshly standing” and “lacked all fleshly claims” (/Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+114++2023). But for Knoch’s interpretation of Ephesians 2:11-13 to be valid, it would have to be the case that, after Paul’s imprisonment in Rome began, the gentiles in the body of Christ came to have a “fleshly standing” and “fleshly claims.” But that which was true of believing gentiles before Paul’s imprisonment in Rome began (with regard to their “fleshly standing”) was just as true after his imprisonment began! The gentiles in the body of Christ still “had no fleshly standing,” and continued to lack “all fleshly claims”!
Ever since the evangel of the grace of God began to be heralded among the nations, the blessings we’ve received in Christ (and WILL receive in Christ in the future) have never been based on our standing in flesh. How, then, can the fact that the nations have “no fleshly standing” have anything at all to do with what was true of the nations in a past era, but which is no longer true now? Answer: It can’t, and doesn’t. Knoch was simply mistaken on this subject (although, to his credit, Knoch at least affirmed the fact that the expectation referred to in Paul’s “earlier letters” is just as applicable to believers today as it was when Paul wrote).
In the same article, Knoch went on to write that, prior to the time of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, the believing gentiles in the body of Christ “were by no means equal to the Jews who shared the same salvation.” However, this is 100% false. For as long as the body of Christ has existed on the earth as a company of saints comprised of both Jews and gentiles, the gentile members of the body of Christ have been equal to the Jewish members of the body of Christ.
“The middle wall of division”?
In an article by Clyde Pilkington (“The Body of Christ: Its Beginning and Maturity”), we find the following assertion made:
“Acts 13 marks the beginning of the Body of Christ, and Acts 28 marks its maturity and breaking from Israel.”
In a footnote for the above statement, Clyde went on to write the following:
When the Body of Christ began may not be the important question. The more accurate and poignant question may be, “What letters are for the Body of Christ today?” To assist us in answering this, we need to ask ourselves one simple question: “Is the middle wall of division up?” (cf. Ephesians 2:14).
I agree with Clyde that the answer to the second question is “no.” However, what Clyde and I disagree on is when this “middle wall of division” ceased to be “up.” Clyde believes that the “wall” was “razed” after Paul arrived in Rome (i.e., sometime during the period of time that’s referred to in Acts 28:30). In contrast, I believe that this took place at the beginning of Paul’s ministry to and among the nations (i.e., when the first gentile heard and believed the evangel that was entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations).
When Paul wrote of the “central wall of the barrier” (or the “middle wall of division”) in v. 14, he was most likely alluding to the stone wall of partition at the Herodian temple that prohibited gentiles from entering into the temple courts (called the soreg). We know from historical and archeological evidence that the Jewish leaders in Paul’s day had decreed that gentiles couldn’t enter into the sanctuary. As a visible expression and reminder of this law, a low wall made of stone surrounding the temple in Jerusalem had been erected. We also know that this stone barrier featured various signs/inscriptions that warned unauthorized people – i.e., gentiles – against entering the area of the temple (which the Jews thought would pollute the temple; see Acts 21:28). Concerning this wall, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote the following:
“When you go through these [first] cloisters, unto the second [court of the] temple, there was a partition made of stone all round, whose height was three cubits: its construction was very elegant; upon it stood pillars, at equal distances from one another, declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and some in Roman letters, that "no foreigner should go within that sanctuary" for that second [court of the] temple was called "the Sanctuary," and was ascended to by fourteen steps from the first court (The Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Verse 2).
In his commentary, A.E. Knoch affirmed this interpretation of the “central wall of the barrier,” and even provided his readers with one of the decrees inscribed on an unearthed part of the wall:
“No alien is to enter within the balustrade and embankment about the sacred place. Whoever is caught will be responsible for his death, which will ensue.”
Knoch went on to assert that the “law of precepts in decrees” referred to in v. 15 are “the decrees issued from Jerusalem by the apostles (Ac.15:20; 16:4).” It was Knoch’s view that the decision of “the apostles and the elders and the brethren” referred to in Acts 15:28-29 was an attempt to put the believers among the nations “under a human law,” and to make their salvation at least partly dependent upon their compliance with the four “essentials” that are contained in the epistle. For example, Knoch remarked in his commentary is that it was “James’ plan” to keep “the Jews under the divine law and puts the nations under a human law.” However, nowhere in the epistle that went out from Jerusalem is there any mention made of salvation. Nor do we read of any penalties/consequences for violating the “essentials” referred to in the epistle; the epistle simply ends by saying that, by abstaining from the things referred to, the believers among the nations would “be well engaged.”
But why were these particular “essentials” chosen (as opposed to others)? If, as some believe, these four decrees were selected as requirements for salvation and law-keeping for believing gentiles, then it would be inexplicable why these four were selected while others were excluded. If these essentials are to be understood as a selection from the 613 laws given by God to Israel through Moses that the believers among the nations were to keep in order to be saved, then the selection would be completely arbitrary (making the purpose of the decrees pointless and absurd).
And not only this, but the decrees (and the decision reached) would've been completely contrary to everything Paul wrote concerning the nations being justified by faith apart from the works of the law (as revealed most clearly in Galatians and Romans). Had Paul understood this to be the purpose and nature of the decrees, there is no way he would’ve agreed to it. Instead, he would’ve protested and likely rebuked James to his face. Paul wouldn’t have tolerated, even for a second, any supposed “plan” by James to “bind” believers from among the nations and place them “under a human law” (to use the words of Knoch in his commentary). But Paul clearly had no problem with anything James said. James’ four decrees had Paul’s apostolic approval and consent! This fact completely undermines Knoch’s view of what James’ “plan” involved (and the idea that there was any nefarious intent behind it).
But if the four “essentials” aren’t a random selection from the Mosaic Law (and weren’t intended by James or the other Jewish leaders to be “laws” that the nations had to keep in order to be saved) how, then, should we understand them? I think the best explanation is that all four essentials had to do with customs associated with pagan cults. That is, the decrees did not comprise a random list of things that the nations were to avoid, but were all connected with certain activities/rituals that were performed in (and were seen as inseparable from) the worship of false gods. This understanding of the decrees would best explain why Paul had no problem with them; as Paul made clear in 1 Cor. 10:14-22 and elsewhere, it was not appropriate for the saints to be participating in activities that were connected with the worship of demons (which Paul understood as being behind all idolatrous practices).
Thus, while the content of the Acts 15 epistle could certainly be understood as an exhortation to avoid certain things, there is no indication that James (or anyone else) understood the avoidance of the four essentials as being “requirements for salvation,” or as an example of law-keeping/Torah observance. Insofar as the epistle had Paul's apostolic approval, the four essentials of the epistle simply make known certain standards that reveal how believers among the nations should be “walking” in order to “walk worthily of the calling with which [we] were called” (Eph. 4:1; cf. 4:17-19; 5:15-16). They weren’t (and aren’t) a matter of eonian salvation, but simply of living in a way that honors God and Christ and promotes peace and harmony between the believers among God’s covenant people (i.e., the Jewish remnant) and the believers among the nations (those in the body of Christ). These decrees are no more Mosaic commandments than are Paul’s exhortations that believers not steal (Eph. 4:28), that they avoid prostitution and uncleanness (5:3), and that they abstain from getting drunk with wine (v. 18).
A more likely (and more consistent) interpretation is that the “law of precepts in decrees” in v. 15 simply refers to the decrees inscribed on the wall of partition. It’s important to emphasize that this wall (along with its decrees) was not a divinely-sanctioned part of the temple. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures do we read of such a structure intended to keep gentiles from entering the temple precinct. As such, the wall was a man-made barrier, with corresponding man-made decrees. By using the imagery of the razing of this wall and the nullifying of the decrees by Christ, Paul was simply communicating the fact that the sort of separation that the religious leaders of Israel had imposed on others was completely done away with for those who had believed his evangel. Notice that Paul closely associated the razing of the wall and the nullifying of the law of precepts in decrees with the “one new humanity” and the “one body” referred to verses 15-16.
Thus, rather than having anything to do with the events referred to in Acts 28 (or with the events of Acts 15), the “razing” of the “middle wall of division” referred to in Eph. 2:14 has to do with the creation of the one body of Christ at the start of Paul’s apostolic ministry among the nations. For as long as the body of Christ has existed as a company of saints comprised of both Jews and gentiles, the “central wall of the barrier” referred to in Eph. 2:14 has been “razed” (and the man-made “decrees” associated with it have been “nullified”) by Christ. They were done away with by Christ when the “evangel of peace” referred to in Eph. 2:17 began to be heralded among the nations, and the body of Christ (the “one body” of v. 16) began to include people from among the nations.
There is absolutely no evidence from any of Paul’s letters – whether written before or after Paul’s imprisonment began – that those in the body of Christ have ever been divided by the “central wall of the barrier” or the “law of precepts in decrees” referred to in Ephesians 2:14-15. No such division has ever characterized members of the body of Christ. Those in the body of Christ are, and always have been, a “new creation” that is entirely distinct from Israel.
Within the one body of Christ, Jew and gentile are “one in Christ.” All who have believed the evangel of the grace of God have “in one spirit” been “baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit” (1 Cor. 12:12-13). Writing to the saints in Galatia (many of whom were gentiles with a pagan, idol-worshipping background), Paul declared the following:
“For whoever are baptized into Christ, put on Christ, in Whom there is no Jew nor yet Greek, there is no slave nor yet free, there is no male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28; cf. Col. 3:11).
The key words in these verses are “in Whom” (i.e., in Christ) and “in Christ Jesus,” and indicate that Paul was not referring to what was true of all Jews or all Greeks at the time he wrote. Rather, the words “in Christ” refer to the spiritual union with Christ that the believers to whom he wrote received when they first heard and believed the evangel of the grace of God. That is, Paul was referring exclusively to what is true of all who are in the body of Christ.
[i] Consider the following sequence of events:
1. Paul travelled to Jerusalem to become personally acquainted with Peter and the other apostles (as well as James), and stayed with Peter for fifteen days (Acts 9:26-29; Gal. 1:18-19). By this time, the twelve apostles and James were well aware of Paul’s conversion and of the fact that, in Damascus, he’d been heralding the evangel which they’d been heralding since the events of Pentecost in 30 AD.
2. Paul then left Jerusalem and travelled to Syria and Cilicia, during which time it became well-known among “the ecclesias in Judea” that Paul was “evangelizing the faith which once he ravaged” (Gal. 1:23-24).
3. Approximately ten to twelve years later, Paul – “in accord with a revelation” – went up to Jerusalem (with Barnabas and Titus) to submit to the apostles and elders there (“those of repute,” e.g., Peter, John and James) the evangel which he had been heralding among the nations since the time of the events referred to in Acts 13:47-49 (Gal. 2:1-2). Evidently, this was done privately, prior to the Jerusalem Conference.
Based on these facts, we can conclude that the evangel Paul and
Barnabas had been heralding among the nations – and which they privately
submitted to “those of repute” in Jerusalem – was distinct from the
evangel that Paul had been heralding among the Jews prior to the events of Acts
13:47-49 (for it was already well-known to Peter, James and John – as well as
among “the ecclesias in Judea” – that Paul believed that Jesus is “the Son
of God” and “the Christ,” and had been heralding this truth among the Jews).
The reason Paul had to submit the evangel that had been entrusted to him (the
evangel of the Uncircumcision) to Peter, James and John is because it was
different than (and went beyond) the evangel that God had
revealed to Peter (Matt. 16:15-17), and which Paul himself had been
heralding exclusively prior to his being “severed” for his
ministry to the nations.
