Peter, Cornelius and the Jerusalem Conference: A Study on Acts 15:1-17 (Part Two)

For part one of this study, click here: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/gods-covenant-people-response-to.html

When were the sins of Cornelius and his house pardoned?

The message Peter heralded to Cornelius and his house is referred to in Acts 11:14 as “declarations to you [Cornelius] by which you shall be saved, you and your entire house.” The salvation referred to here is the obtaining of the pardon of sins (which is what qualified those called through the evangel of the Circumcision for eonian life in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel). In Acts 11:15-18, we read that Peter went on to declare the following to the group of Jewish believers to whom he was relating his experience involving Cornelius: “Now as I begin to speak, the holy spirit falls on them, even as on us also in the beginning. Now I am reminded of the declaration of the Lord, as He said that ‘John, indeed, baptizes in water, yet you shall be baptized in holy spirit.’ If, then, God gives them the equal gratuity as to us also, when believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I –able to forbid God?”

The coming of the holy spirit upon Cornelius and his house was clearly an exceptional event, akin to what took place on Pentecost in Acts 2:1-4. It must be kept in mind that what took place on Pentecost was not the salvation of the twelve apostles, but rather their supernatural empowerment. The pardoning of their sins did not occur when the holy spirit fell on them; these were two separate events. And although the specific supernatural manifestation that took place on this occasion (i.e., their speaking in different languages) was intended to be a sign to all of the other Jews who were present at this time, there is no evidence that this manifestation was intended to be understood as evidence that their sins had been pardoned. That was simply not the point of this supernatural event.

So why did the holy spirit fall on Cornelius and his house when it did (which was, we’re told, as Peter began to speak)? And why did it bring about this particular supernatural manifestation? What did this occurrence signify to Peter and his Jewish companions? To answer this question, let’s consider what Peter made sure to do immediately after Cornelius and his house had heard and believed the declarations by which they could be saved. In Acts 10:47-48 we read that Peter had Cornelius and his house baptized in the name of Jesus Christ: “Then Peter answered, ‘There cannot be anyone to forbid water, so that these are not to be baptized, who obtained the holy spirit even as we.’ Now he bids them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they ask him to stay some days.” Peter’s “bidding” Cornelius and his house to be water baptized was no mere superfluous action on Peter’s part. Water baptism was in accordance with his apostolic commission and administration (i.e., Israel’s “salvation program”), and was understood by Peter as being essential to obtaining the pardon of sins. In Acts 2:37-41 we read:

Now, hearing this, their heart was pricked with compunction. Besides, they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we be doing, men, brethren?” Now Peter is averring to them, “Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardon of your sins, and you shall be obtaining the gratuity of the holy spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all those afar, whosoever the Lord our God should be calling to Him.” Besides, with more and different words, he conjures and entreated them, saying, “Be saved from this crooked generation!” Those indeed, then, who welcome his word, are baptized, and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. 

See also Mark 16:16 and Acts 8:35-38. In accord with what Peter declared in Acts 2:38, Peter referred to water baptism in his first letter as something that was “saving” those to whom he wrote (1 Pet. 3:20-21), since it was the act by which they had inquired “of a good conscience to God.” Peter’s identifying water baptism with the act by which “a good conscience to God” is requested means that it was understood as an act of faith-based obedience by which those to whom Peter wrote had first obtained the pardon of sins (see also Hebrews 10:22, where the cleansing of the heart by faith is said to be “from a wicked conscience”). For Peter, water baptism was clearly a faith-based act of obedience to Christ that resulted in the cleansing of one’s heart, and was not optional for those called through the gospel of the Circumcision he heralded.[1]

Thus, Peter and his companions would not have understood the supernatural manifestation that they witnessed as Peter began to speak as being evidence that Cornelius and his house had already obtained the pardon of sins. Rather, they would’ve understood it as God’s way of testifying to the fact that Cornelius and his house were acceptable to him, and thus eligible to be saved. This supernatural manifestation was immediate (and powerful) confirmation for Peter and his Jewish companions that the kingdom of God had been “unlocked” to these God-fearing, righteous-acting Gentiles, and that there was nothing preventing them from being water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardon of their sins.

“In nothing discriminates between us and them”

Peter went on to declare the following in Acts 15:9: ”And God, the Knower of hearts, testifies to them, giving the holy spirit according as to us also, and in nothing discriminates between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.” With this single statement, Peter’s refutation of the view of the believing Pharisees who were present at the Jerusalem conference was complete. His eyewitness testimony (which was based solely on the events involving Cornelius and his house described in Acts 10 and 11) was sufficient to completely undermine their position that Gentiles had to become members of God’s covenant people in order to be saved. As Gentiles who were already “fearing God and acting righteously,” Cornelius and his house were already “acceptable to God,” and the only thing that was lacking was their faith in the evangel of the Circumcision (and, as a required expression of their faith, getting water baptized). Thus, when Cornelius and his house did hear and believe what Peter declared to them, there was nothing about their uncircumcised, Gentile status that prevented them from receiving the pardon of sins through water baptism, just as Peter and his believing Jewish companions had received (which, as we’ve seen, is what Peter had in mind when referring to the cleansing of the heart by faith). Hence, Peter immediately had Cornelius and his house baptized after it had been made so evident by God that the kingdom had been unlocked to these God-fearing, righteous-acting Gentiles.

The words “and in nothing discriminates between us and them” are sometimes appealed to by those who believe that the salvation of both Peter and his Jewish companions and Cornelius and his house was “by faith apart from works.” But that’s not what Peter had in mind here, and those who see this as being implied in Peter’s statement are reading their own position into what Peter said rather than understanding these words in light of the events of Acts 10 (which, again, are the events on which Peter’s statement is based). From these events we learn that, by the words “us” and “them,” Peter had in mind the following two categories of people who had believed the evangel of the Circumcision: (1) members of God’s covenant people, Israel (who, as such, had a covenant-based obligation to keep the law of Moses), and (2) a small group of Gentiles whom Peter understood to be “fearing God and acting righteously” and who (by virtue of this fact) were “acceptable to God” (Acts. 10:35). It was between these two groups of people that Peter understood God to have “in nothing discriminated.” But in what sense did Peter believe that God had in nothing discriminated between these two groups of believers? Peter tells us in the same verse: God had cleansed the hearts of both groups by faith (i.e., God pardoned their sins). God did not show partiality to Peter and his companions or give them any advantage over Cornelius and his house; rather, when the individuals comprising both groups believed the evangel of the Circumcision, God treated them both equally by doing the exact same thing for both groups (i.e., cleansing their hearts/pardoning their sins).

This fact is fully consistent with the view that Peter’s covenantal status as an Israelite (which involved his being circumcised and keeping the law) was inseparable from his eonian expectation, while Cornelius’ eonian expectation was based on the conditional promise of the Abrahamic covenant concerning gentiles who blessed Israel. Many erroneously conclude that, because God pardoned the sins of both Peter and his Jewish companions and Cornelius and his house when they believed the evangel of the Circumcision, it follows that Peter and his Jewish companions were no longer under any covenant-based obligations, and that keeping the precepts of the law was no longer necessary to their salvation as Israelites. However, this reasoning is fallacious. Consider the following argument:

1. God in nothing discriminated between Peter (an Israelite) and Cornelius (a God-fearing, righteous-acting Gentile), in that he cleansed the hearts of both men by their faith in the evangel of the Circumcision.
2. Cornelius - being a Gentile - had no covenant-based obligations before (or after) his heart was cleansed. 
3. Therefore, Peter had no covenant-based obligations before or after his heart was cleansed by faith, and could completely disregard the law of Moses without jeopardizing his eonian salvation.

The two premises are both true. However, the conclusion (3) does not logically follow from these premises, and the argument is thus a non sequitur. The fact that God did the same thing for both Peter and Cornelius (i.e., cleansing their hearts through faith) doesn’t mean that Peter no longer had to keep the law of Moses as an expression of his faith in order to receive eonian life (nor does it mean that Cornelius’ salvation was by faith alone, and disconnected from the fact that he was “fearing God and acting righteously”). A valid conclusion to the two premises could, instead, be expressed as follows:

3. Therefore, Cornelius didn’t have to become circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to be saved.

Another valid conclusion to the two premises could be expressed as follows:

4. Therefore, it’s not necessary for Gentiles to become circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to be saved.

The “unbearable yoke”

After having provided a succinct refutation of the position of the believing Pharisees, Peter concluded his short speech by (1) rebuking these Pharisees and (2) putting an emphasis on what believing Jews and believing Gentiles had in common. The rebuke is found in v. 10: 

”Why, then, are you now trying God, by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we are strong enough to bear?”

Peter clearly believed that the salvation of Cornelius and his house did not require that they become circumcised or keep the law of Moses. But was it the law of Moses that Peter had in mind when he referred to a “yoke” that neither the believing Jews present nor their “fathers” were “strong enough to bear?” Although I’m open to the possibility that this was what Peter had in mind, I’m not convinced that he did.

It must be noted that this sort of negative view of the law of Moses (as this would surely be) simply runs contrary to what we read elsewhere in scripture concerning the relationship of faithful, believing Israelites to the law given to Israel. In part three of my study, “God’s covenant people,” I noted how both David and James expressed very positive views of the law (see, for example, Psalm 19:7-11 and much of Ps. 119). Such references to the law as this make it very difficult to believe that David (and, by implication, Peter) viewed it as an “unbearable yoke.” And if they did view it as an unbearable yoke, it was a yoke that they were, nonetheless, happy (and zealous) to at least try and bear! And there are, of course, verses in scripture which indicate that at least some believing Jews were able to keep the law to a degree that they could be considered “just” and “blameless” in their law-keeping conduct (see, for example, Luke 1:5-6). So, if the law of Moses is what Peter had in mind when he referred to an unbearable yoke in Acts 15:10, then we have to conclude that the law’s “unbearable nature” certainly didn’t keep some Israelites from (1) being happy to keep it and (2) doing a relatively good job at doing so. But again, I’m not convinced that Peter had in mind the law of Moses here.

Earlier, I noted that it was significant that the believing Jews who were trying to get the Gentile believers to proselytize were from the sect of the Pharisees. Peter was well aware of this, and I think his rebuke in v. 10 is based on this fact. The Pharisees to whom Peter spoke would’ve understood a “yoke” to refer to the teaching of a rabbi (or to the teaching promoted by a particular rabbinical “school”). In Matthew 11:28-30 we read the following words from Christ: “Hither to Me, all who are toiling and laden, and I will be giving you rest. Lift My yoke upon you and be learning from Me, for meek and I and humble in heart, and you shall be finding rest in your souls, for My yoke is kindly and My load is light.” As is evident from the words “lift my yoke upon you and be learning from me,” Christ’s “yoke” was his teaching, or doctrinal instruction. Christ was inviting people to become his disciples and learn how to serve God and walk in his ways by memorizing his teachings/doctrinal instruction, and by copying his example in obedience to God’s law. 

When Christ said that those who came to him would find rest for their souls, he was likely referencing Jeremiah 6:16-19:

Thus says Yahweh: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’  I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Pay attention to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not pay attention.’ Therefore hear, O nations, and know, O congregation, what will happen to them. Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing disaster upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not paid attention to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it.

Here the “words” and law of God are described as the good way where God’s people would find rest for their souls. This is in contrast with how Jesus described the Pharisees as placing a heavy burden on the people that they wouldn't lift a finger to move (Matthew 23:2-4; Luke 11:45-46). Jesus was not criticizing the Pharisees for teaching the people to obey what God had commanded them to (Matt. 23:1-3), but rather he was referring to all of the many traditions and additions to the law that constituted their rabbinical “yoke” (Matt. 15:1-9, Mark 7:6-9). Peter knew full well what the “law of Moses” meant to the believing Pharisees who were present at the Jerusalem conference.[2] He knew that “the law of Moses” they wanted their proselytes to keep was not even the original, pure law of Moses that we find in scripture, and which was kept by Christ himself. Rather, it was their own burdensome and legalistic interpretation of (and numerous additions to) the law. Their “yoke” resulted in their proselytes becoming “more than double a son of Gehenna than” their teachers (see Matt. 23:15), and Peter undoubtedly took this fact into account when he said what he did in Acts 15:10.

Thus, understanding the “yoke” that Peter had in mind in Acts 15:10 as the distinct Pharisaical teaching concerning the law of Moses, we have no reason to believe that Peter saw the law of Moses itself (that which is found solely in scripture) as an unbearable yoke. However, even if he did view the law in this way, we have no reason to doubt that Peter believed that his faith in God and Christ would’ve been “dead” apart from his doing what he could to keep the law of Moses (and seeking forgiveness whenever he failed to keep it perfectly, in accord with 1 John 1:9). Peter understood that, by virtue of Israel’s covenant relationship with God, he and his fellow Jews were not exempt from trying to keep the law as a necessary expression of their faith in God (and of their faithfulness to their covenant with God). However, since Cornelius and his house had already been shown to be “acceptable” to God (and to have done what Peter understood as being essential for the pardoning of their sins), it was clear to Peter that these God-fearing Gentiles did not need to become proselytes in order to enter the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel.

“Saved in a manner even as they”

Peter went on to conclude his speech with the following statement: “But through the grace of the Lord Jesus we are believing, to be saved in a manner even as they.” Does this mean that there’s no difference at all between how Peter, Cornelius and those who became believers through the apostleship of Paul are saved? Not at all. It needs to be kept in mind that, by “we,” Peter, of course, meant “we who are Jews/Israelites,” and by “they” he meant “those who are of the nations.” He’s referring to two different categories of people, the former being comprised of those who are in covenant with God (and thus under the law), and the latter being comprised of those who aren’t. Peter was not saying that there was no difference whatsoever between Jews like himself and Gentiles like Cornelius. Rather, he was simply affirming that the salvation of those under the law and the salvation of those not under the law both involved, and required, believing “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” That is, Peter’s simply emphasizing what he and his fellow believing Jews had in common with believing Gentiles.

The word translated “manner” in verse 15 (tropos) does not mean absolute sameness, with no differences at all; rather, it simply means there is some important similarly in view (which, as we’ve seen, is simply that the salvation of those in both groups necessarily involved believing “through the grace of the Lord Jesus”). The same word appears in Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34, where Christ declared that he often wanted “to assemble [Jerusalem’s] children in the manner (tropos) a hen is assembling her brood under her wings.” But of course, Christ certainly did not mean that there were no differences between his assembling of the children of Jerusalem and a hen assembling her brood under her wings! By appropriately emphasizing what believers among God's covenant people and believers among the nations had in common, Peter more forcefully drove home his point to the believing Pharisees that Gentiles did not have to become members of God’s covenant people in order for them to qualify for eonian life in the kingdom of God.

Although Peter appropriately puts the emphasis on the faith that is required for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles in Acts 15:11, it must be kept in mind that, for those called by God to share in Israel's covenant-based expectation, Peter would've understood faith in the evangel he heralded (the evangel of the Circumcision) to have been inseparable from “fearing God and acting righteously.” For Israelites, this meant “keeping the precepts,” and for Gentiles (such as Cornelius and his house), it meant blessing Israel. It also meant getting water baptized (which Peter himself had declared was "for the pardon of sins"), as an expression of faith in the evangel of the Circumcision (which is why Peter did not hesitate to make sure Cornelius and his house were baptized after it was made evident that they'd believed his message concerning Christ). However, as far as the issue being discussed at the Jerusalem conference was concerned, the only thing Peter needed to emphasize in his defense of Paul’s ministry among the nations was (1) that faith was essential to both groups of believers, and (2) that Gentiles didn’t need to become Jews in order to be saved. And this is exactly what Peter does.

Cornelius’ eonian expectation

Given the fact that Cornelius and his house were called by God through the evangel entrusted to Peter (the evangel of the Circumcision), we can reasonably conclude that the salvation of Cornelius and his house was (and is) inseparably connected with God’s covenant people (this also follows from the fact that their “acting righteously” was inseparably tied to their relationship with God’s covenant people). That the calling and eonian expectation of Cornelius and his house were understood by Peter and James as being tied to Israel’s covenant-based expectation is further evident from what James went on to say in Acts 15:13-17:

“Men! Brethren! Hear me! Simeon unfolds how God first visits the nations, to obtain out of them a people for His name. And with this agree the words of the prophets, according as it is written, After these things I will turn back, ‘And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen... And its overturned structure will I rebuild, And I will re-erect it... So that those left of mankind should be seeking out the Lord, And all the nations, on them over whom My name is invoked, Is saying the Lord, Who is doing these things.’”

In these verses, was James referring to events that will be taking place “in the heavens” and “among the celestials” in the eon to come? Was he referring to that celestial kingdom in which flesh and blood is unable to enjoy an allotment (as was referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:50)? No. James was undoubtedly referring to the future kingdom of God on the earth – i.e., the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel, following Christ’s return to earth. And James clearly understood Cornelius and his house as being representative of that class of righteous Gentiles who - like the “sheep” of Matthew 25:31-46 - will be enjoying an allotment in the kingdom of God after it’s been established on the earth.

Based on this fact alone, it can be concluded that Cornelius and his house (and, by implication, Peter as well) were not in the body of Christ, and had not been “justified through the faith of Christ.” Consider the following logical argument:

1. Everyone called through the evangel of the Uncircumcision is justified through the faith of Christ when they believe this evangel, and everyone who has been justified through the faith of Christ is in the body of Christ.

2. Every member of the body of Christ has an expectation that is distinct from Israel’s covenant-based expectation.

3. The expectation of Cornelius and his house is in accord with Israel’s covenant-based expectation.

Conclusion: Cornelius and his house are not in the body of Christ and were not justified through the faith of Christ.

---

[1] In contrast with what Peter declared and wrote, Paul learned early on in his ministry as “the apostle of the nations” that water baptism was in no way necessary for the salvation of those called to be in the body of Christ, and that Christ had therefore not commissioned him “to be baptizing but to be bringing the evangel” (1 Cor. 1:17). With regards to Paul’s ministry and administration, the only baptism that mattered for those to whom he wrote was the baptism “in one spirit,” by which they had become members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-13; cf. Gal. 3:27-28; Rom. 6:3-6ff.; Eph. 4:1-5; Col. 2:12). However, it’s clear from the immediate context that the baptism “in one spirit” through which one becomes a member of the body of Christ was not the baptism to which Peter was referring.

[2] Significantly, the law means the same thing to many observant Jews today. Consider the following on the JewFAQ website, under the Rambam’s Thirteen Principles of Faith:  “The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses.”  To the Pharisees, the Written and Oral Torah were inseparable, and one could not keep one without keeping the other. It’s for this reason that we find them accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing (even though healing was not specifically prohibited on the Sabbath), accusing Jesus’ disciples of breaking the Sabbath for gleaning a snack from a field (even though this too is not specifically prohibited by the law), and accusing Jesus’ disciples - and later Jesus himself - of breaking a commandment by not ritually washing their hands before a meal.

Peter, Cornelius and the Jerusalem Conference: A Study on Acts 15:1-17 (Part One)

Introduction

One of the conclusions at which I arrived in my four-part study, "God's covenant people" (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/09/gods-covenant-people-why-most-believing.html) is that the apostle Peter was called by God through the gospel (or "evangel") entrusted to him - i.e., the “evangel of the Circumcision” - to an expectation that is entirely distinct from the expectation that belongs to those who have been called by God through the evangel entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations (i.e., the “evangel of the Uncircumcision”). I further argued that, as a member of God’s covenant people, Israel, Peter had (and continued to have) a covenant-based obligation to keep the law given by God to Israel, and that this covenant-based obligation was inseparable from his covenant-based expectation. 

Concerning Peter’s covenant-based obligation, I quoted (and then provided some explanatory remarks on) Matthew 5:17-20 in part three of the aforementioned study. Here, again, is the passage; notice especially Christ’s words in the last two verses (which I’ve placed in bold):

“You should not infer that I came to demolish the law or the prophets. I came not to demolish, but to fulfill. For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring. Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. For I am saying to you that, if ever your righteousness should not be super-abounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, by no means may you be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.”

In the context, the righteousness that Christ had in mind in v. 20 is undoubtedly connected with doing the precepts of the law. But what was so deficient about the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees in regard to “doing the precepts?” Christ made it pretty clear what their deficiency consisted in on several occasions during his earthly ministry, but perhaps the most obvious example can be found in Matthew 23:1-3, where we read the following:

Then Jesus speaks to the throngs and to His disciples, saying, “On Moses’ seat are seated the scribes and the Pharisees. All, then, whatever they should be saying to you, do and keep it. Yet according to their acts do not be doing, for they are saying and not doing.”

I don’t think Christ could’ve made it any more obvious to his disciples what was expected of them if they were to “be entering into the kingdom of the heavens” (which, as I’ve argued in "God's covenant people," is the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel at Christ’s return to earth). In order to enter this kingdom, the righteousness of Peter (and every other believing member of God’s covenant people) had to “super-abound” more than that of the scribes and Pharisees. And this meant actually keeping the law of Moses.

That the scribes and Pharisees in Christ's day had failed so miserably at keeping the law of Moses is surprising to some. However, it shouldn’t be. The fact is that they excelled at keeping their own traditions and additions to the law of Moses, but it was these very traditions and additions (neither of which were divinely sanctioned) which prevented them from keeping the actual law, as found in the inspired scriptures. Christ’s words in Mark 7 are a perfect example of this. In this eye-opening rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees, we find that they were “teaching for teachings the directions of men,” that they left “the precept of God” and were “holding the tradition of men,” that they were “repudiating the precept of God, that [they] should be keeping [their] tradition,“ and that they were “invalidating the word of God by [their] tradition” (and in addition to the specific examples Christ provided, Christ added, “And many such like things” were they doing)!

In contrast with the hypocritical and lawless scribes and Pharisees, Zechariah and Elizabeth were a good example of faithful Israelites who, by God's grace, were actually doing (or at least, were doing a much better job of) what God had commanded Israel: “Now they were both just in front of God, going in all the precepts and just statutes of the Lord, blameless” (Luke 1:6). I think it’s safe to say that the righteousness of Zechariah and Elizabeth super-abounded more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, and that these two faithful members of God's covenant people will, in fact, be included in “the resurrection of the just” referred to by Christ in Luke 14:14.

The upshot of everything said above is simply this: Peter was, and remained, a part of that company of believing Israelites whose righteousness had to super-abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees in order for him to “be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.” Of course, Christ clearly had no doubt that Peter and his apostolic companions would, in fact, endure in their faith and righteous conduct even to the end of their lives (Matt. 19:27-28; cf. John 21:18-19), but they nevertheless had to endure to the end in order to be saved. And this, of course, means that - unlike the salvation of those in the body of Christ - Peter’s salvation was not based on an inseparable union he had with Christ. His righteous standing before God was not based on “the faith of Christ” (as is the case for those in the body of Christ), but rather was based on a combination of his own faith and works (hence, James declared that the justification - i.e., declared righteous standing - of the believing Israelites to whom he wrote was NOT “by faith only”). Peter’s salvation, in other words, involved not just believing in Christ (as important and essential as this was) but also on “fearing God and acting righteously.” For a more in-depth look at the doctrine of justification taught by Paul - and how it differs from that which we find affirmed in James’ letter and elsewhere - click this link.

In contrast with everything said above, many Christians understand Peter’s words in Acts 15:7-11 as evidence that Peter believed that he and the Gentiles to whom he delivered the message recorded in Acts 10:34-43 had been justified by faith apart from works (or “justified through the faith of Christ Jesus,” as Paul wrote in Galatians 2:16 and elsewhere). What I’m going to be arguing in this study is that this view is mistaken, and that one must already be presupposing this position (and then reading it “in between the lines”) in order to find it affirmed in Acts 15:7-11. Contrary to the more popular position, I don’t think we have any good reason to understand Peter’s words at the Jerusalem conference as an affirmation of the doctrine of justification that we find revealed in Paul’s letters.

I believe that it was by means of the events described in Acts 10 (which include the vision that God gave Peter involving the sheet filled with various clean and unclean animals, as well as Peter’s experiences involving Cornelius and his house) that God wisely prepared Peter for what he would later say at the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15. And the truth that I believe Peter came to understand (and which could be considered advanced truth for believers among God’s covenant people at that time) was simply this: those among the nations who feared God and acted righteously could qualify for an allotment in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel without having to become circumcised and keep the law of Moses. Since this fact meant that Gentiles could be saved apart from circumcision and law-keeping, Peter was able to come to the defense of Paul’s ministry to the nations, so that it could be recognized as valid by the ecclesia at Jerusalem.

The reason for the Jerusalem conference

In Acts 15:1-5, we read the following:

And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren that, “If you should not be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Now as Paul and Barnabas come to have no slight commotion and questioning with them, they prescribe that Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them are to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning this question. They indeed, then, being sent forward by the ecclesia, passed through Phoenicia as well as Samaria, detailing the turning about of the nations. And they caused great joy to all the brethren. Now coming along into Jerusalem, they were received by the ecclesia and the apostles and the elders. Besides, they inform them of whatever God does with them. Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses.

In these verses we find that “some” had come down from Judea and were teaching the new believers from among the nations that their salvation depended on being “circumcised after the custom of Moses.” It’s also evident that they thought keeping the law of Moses was a requirement as well (which is unsurprising, given that becoming circumcised implied that they would “keep the law of Moses”). Now, what evangel had these Jewish believers believed? By virtue of what was Luke able to refer to them as having “believed?” Evidently, they had believed the same evangel that “the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem” had believed – i.e., the “evangel of the Circumcision,” which Paul said had been entrusted to Peter (Gal. 2:7). In other words, these Jewish believers - like the “tens of thousands” of Jews referred to by James in Acts 21 - believed the truth concerning Jesus’ being “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Significantly, we read in v. 5 that these believers from Judea were “from the sect of the Pharisees” (which is a detail that I believe is worth keeping in mind, as it will serve to help us better understand something Peter says later on in this chapter).

Now, it’s important to consider what wasn’t being questioned, debated or discussed at this gathering in Jerusalem. The meeting was not held to determine whether or not believers among God’s covenant people, Israel, had any covenant-based obligations. It was not held to determine whether or not the words of Malachi 4:4 (“Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel”) were still necessary for members of the believing remnant of Israel to heed. It was not held to determine whether or not those whose calling and expectation was in accord with everything prophesied concerning Israel during the reign of Messiah could simply stop keeping the law of Moses while still expecting to receive eonian life in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel. The question that the conference was intended to resolve was not, “Is fearing God and acting righteously by keeping the precepts of the law essential to the salvation of believing Israelites?” No; the conference in Jerusalem was concerned with whether or not those among the nations who were coming to faith in Christ through the ministry of Paul and Barnabas had to become circumcised and keep the law of Moses (i.e., become proselytes) in order to be saved. It was this question that the conference was intended to resolve.

Peter: apostle of the nations?

Continuing with Acts 15:6-7, we read the following:

Now the apostles and the elders were gathered to see about this matter. Now, there coming to be much questioning, rising, Peter said to them, “Men! Brethren! You are versed in the fact that from the days at the beginning God chooses among you, that through my mouth the nations are to hear the word of the evangel and believe.”

How does this declaration by Peter square with the fact that it was Paul– and not Peter - who was made “the apostle of the nations” (Rom. 11:13)? We know that Peter was not talking about being chosen for an apostolic ministry to “the nations,” in general, for that would’ve meant being chosen to herald his evangel to idol-worshiping pagans (and there is absolutely no indication from Scripture that Peter ever did this). Rather, what Peter had in mind was a single incident that involved a man named Cornelius, and his house (who comprised the “nations” that Peter had in view in v. 7). It was these Gentiles to whom Peter had been chosen by God to herald the evangel with which he’d been entrusted, in accord with his “apostleship of the Circumcision.” And it was this important experience in Peter’s life that taught him something that would later enable him to say what he did at the Jerusalem conference in defense of the unique apostolic ministry of Paul.

It is important to note that Peter was the man to whom Christ had given the “keys of the kingdom of the heavens” (Matt. 16:19-20). As argued in “God’s covenant people,” the kingdom of the heavens of which Peter had been given the “keys” is the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel, and which is to be established on the earth after Christ’s return to the earth. In light of what we know concerning the authority given to Peter (symbolized by “keys”), it’s no surprise that it was through his apostolic agency that the kingdom of God was “unlocked” to these God-fearing Gentiles. It also needs to be noted that, although Cornelius was uncircumcised (and thus not a proselyte of Israel), he was by no means representative of most Gentiles living during the time of the Roman Empire. Cornelius was “devout and fearing God with his entire house, doing many alms to the people [Israel] and beseeching God continually…a man just and God-fearing, besides being attested by the whole nation of the Jews”(Acts 10: 2, 22). Cornelius and his house evidently recognized their place in subordination to the nation of Israel, and desired to worship the God of Israel via the mediation of Israel. Another example of a God-fearing Gentile like Cornelius would be the Roman centurion referred to in Luke 7:1-5.

The gospel heralded by Peter to the nations

What is (conveniently) overlooked by those who believe that only one evangel was being heralded during the apostolic era is the fact that, in the message heralded by Peter to Cornelius and his house (as recorded in Acts 10:34-43), there is no mention whatsoever of one of the essential elements of Paul’s “evangel of the Uncircumcision” (i.e., the fact that “Christ died for our sins”). Just as with the messages Peter had previously heralded to Israelites (as recorded in Acts 2 and 3), this truth is completely absent from what Peter declared to Cornelius and his house:

“Of the word He dispatches to the sons of Israel, bringing the evangel of peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all), you are aware, the declaration coming to be down the whole of Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John heralds: Jesus from Nazareth, as God anoints Him with holy spirit and power, Who passed through as a benefactor and healer of all those who are tyrannized over by the Adversary, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all that He does, both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem; Whom they assassinate also, hanging Him on a pole. This One God rouses the third day, and gives Him to become disclosed, not to the entire people, but to witnesses who have been selected before by God, to us who ate and drank together with Him after His rising from among the dead. And he [God] charges us to herald to the people and to certify that this One is he who is specified by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To this One are all the prophets testifying: Everyone who is believing in Him is to obtain the pardon of sins through His name” (Acts 10:36-43).[1]

Peter’s declaring that Jesus of Nazareth had been anointed by God “with holy spirit and power” is simply another way of identifying Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (see Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34). Everything Peter said – including the facts concerning Jesus’ "assassination" and subsequent resurrection – served to support and further validate this central truth. To say that Jesus is “…he who is specified by God to be judge of the living and the dead” (which, again, was the truth that Peter said he and his co-laborers had been charged by God to herald) was simply another way of saying that Jesus is the Christ, for no other man had been, or would be, given this great authority from God (cf. John 5:21-29).

Peter’s omission of the fact that Christ died for the sins of those to whom he spoke means that it’s impossible that “the word of the evangel” he heralded to Cornelius and his house (as referred to in Acts 15:7) was the same evangel that was entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations. Logically, the evangel that Peter heralded to Cornelius and his house and the evangel which Paul heralded among the nations must be different. And if that’s the case, then we can reasonably conclude that the evangel heard and believed by Cornelius and his house (who, again, were the “nations” referred to by Peter in Acts 15:7) was the evangel of the Circumcision.

Consider the following argument:

1. The gospel that Paul heralded among the nations is the only gospel through which people are called to become members of the body of Christ, and this gospel essentially involves the truth that Christ died for our sins.

2. Since the truth of Christ’s death for our sins is absent from the gospel that Peter heralded to Cornelius and his house, it cannot be the same gospel that Paul heralded among the nations.

3. Cornelius and his house believed a different gospel than that which was entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations, and did not become members of the body of Christ when they believed this gospel.

Why Cornelius qualified to receive blessing through Peter

I purposefully skipped the introduction to Peter’s message to Cornelius and his house in my above quotation of what Peter declared to them in Acts 10. What I want to do now is focus on it, because I see Peter’s introductory words as the key to understanding why Cornelius and his house were able to have Peter’s evangel heralded to them so that they could be saved.

Keeping in mind that this is how Peter introduced the evangel he subsequently heralded to Cornelius and his house, we read the following Acts 10:34-35: “Now Peter, opening his mouth, said, “Of a truth I am grasping that God is not partial, but in every nation he who is fearing Him and acting righteously is acceptable to Him.” This is the lesson that God taught Peter by means of the vision involving the “sheet” full of various clean and unclean animals (Acts 10:9-16). The word translated as “acceptable” (dekton,’ literally “RECEIVable”) means just that – i.e., able to be accepted or received. In this verse, then, we find Peter providing Cornelius and his house with the reason why this small company of Gentiles had been deemed acceptable to God, and why they therefore qualified to have the evangel of the Circumcision heralded to them by Peter: Cornelius and his house were “fearing [God] and acting righteously.”

Why was the fact that Cornelius and his house feared God and acted righteously such a big deal to Peter (so much so that he would introduce his message by pointing out that anyone of any nation who's fearing God and acting righteously is acceptable to God)? We know that, in stark contrast to this, Paul couldn't have cared less about whether or not the Gentiles to whom he heralded his evangel feared God and acted righteously before he evangelized them; their ethical and religious status and behavior prior to hearing his evangel was a complete non-issue for Paul. But for Peter, it mattered greatly. Why? Answer: Because Peter's understanding was that "fearing God and acting righteously" was essential to his own salvation, as a member of God's covenant people.

The reader must keep in mind what it is that Peter believed concerning how people were saved prior to the events described in Acts 10. Peter did not believe that those among God’s covenant people, Israel, could be justified by faith apart from works. Although Peter understood faith as being essential to salvation, “faith alone” would’ve been viewed as completely insufficient; Christ himself had made this clear to Peter (and to the other disciples) on several occasions during his earthly ministry (see the above introduction as well as part three of “God’s covenant people”). Peter believed that, in order to qualify for entry into the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel, a believing Jew had to fear God and act righteously. And for Peter, it would’ve been unthinkable that a member of God’s covenant people could be fearing God and acting righteously while, at the same time, disregarding the law of Moses (or deciding that the law was merely optional to keep). Nor would Peter have thought that a believing Jew could be fearing God and acting righteously by picking and choosing which precepts of the law they were going to follow (if any at all). And we have no reason to believe that Peter and the rest of the twelve ever ceased to be (or came to see themselves as no longer being) members of God’s covenant people. Prior to the events of Acts 10, Peter believed that the salvation of Jews who believed the evangel he heralded in Acts 2 and 3 involved doing the will of God by “keeping the precepts.” And if a Gentile wanted to share in Israel's covenant-based expectation, Peter would've believed (again, prior to the events of Acts 10) that he or she had to proselytize and become a member of God’s covenant people. Only then would he or she qualify for eonian life in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel.

Thus, to think that Peter, in Acts 10, believed that he – as a member of God’s covenant people – could be said to be “fearing God and acting righteously” without trying to fulfill his covenant-based obligation as an Israelite is simply nonsense. Prior to his experiences involving Cornelius, we have every reason to believe that Peter’s understanding of how Israelites were saved was based on what he learned from Christ himself during his earthly ministry. And we have no reason to believe that, with the events of Acts 10, Peter acquired any new beliefs or understanding concerning how he and his fellow Israelites would qualify for eonian life in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel. 

On the other hand, Peter learned a great deal about what was possible for those of the nations in regard to qualifying for eonian life in this kingdom. By the time Peter arrived at Cornelius’ house, he’d come to realize that any Gentile who was “fearing God and acting righteously” (i.e., by conducting themselves as Cornelius and his house did) could qualify for eonian life in the kingdom by obtaining the pardon of sins. Thus, Peter learned that Gentiles did not have to become members of God’s covenant people (by getting circumcised and keeping the law of Moses) in order to be saved; if they feared God and acted righteously, they were acceptable to God, and could be saved through faith in the evangel of the Circumcision, right along with believing Jews. 

But by virtue of what could it be said that Cornelius was “fearing God and acting righteously?” What kind of conduct did Peter have in mind when he used these words in reference to Gentiles? Well, according to Acts 10:2, 22, Cornelius was “devout and fearing God with his entire house, doing many alms to the people [Israel] and beseeching God continually…a man just and God-fearing, besides being attested by the whole nation of the Jews” (Acts 10: 2, 22). We also read that a celestial messenger told Cornelius the following in Acts 10:31: “Cornelius, your prayer is hearkened to, and your alms are brought to remembrance in God’s sight.” To whom was Cornelius giving the alms which were “brought to remembrance in God’s sight?” Answer: he was giving alms to the poor among Israel (which is undoubtedly one of the main reasons why he was “attested by the whole nation of the Jews”). This God-fearing Gentile was, in other words, acceptable to God (and thus worthy to have the evangel of the Circumcision heralded to him) because he feared (i.e., took seriously) the God of Israel, and was blessing God’s covenant people, Israel. 

This would make Cornelius a prime example (and “firstfruit” representative) of those who belonged to that category of Gentiles referred to as “the sheep” in Matthew 25:31-46 – a category of people who, because of their righteous treatment of God’s covenant people, will be judged worthy by Christ to receive eonian life in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel (for a more in-depth look at the identity of the “sheep” referred to in Matt. 25:31-46, see my seven-part study on this passage: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-judgment-of-sheep-and-goats-study_14.html). In light of the conditions specified in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:3), it can be reasonably inferred that Cornelius and his house were eligible for receiving blessing (i.e., eonian life in the kingdom of God) because they took the God of Israel seriously and were blessing his covenant people. Despite their uncircumcised status, Cornelius and his family would still be able to enjoy an allotment in the millennial kingdom of Israel.

Thus, Peter recognized Cornelius as one who, lack of circumcision notwithstanding, “feared God and acted righteously.” He qualified for entrance into the millennial kingdom in accord with the Abrahamic covenant. Cornelius’ fasting, prayers to God and generous giving of alms “to the people” (i.e., God’s covenant people) seems to have been the very reason that he - and not just any Gentile living at that time - was used by God to reveal to Peter the important truth that he learned at this time, and which would enable Peter to come to the defense of Paul’s ministry to the nations, so that it could be recognized as valid by the ecclesia at Jerusalem.

For part two of this study, click here: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/peter-cornelius-and-jerusalem.html

---

[1] The word “everyone” is always to be understood relative to whatever category of people and situation is in view, and we must always look to the immediate context of scripture in order to determine who is (or isn’t) being included in the word (see, for example, the use of “everyone” in Matthew 5:22, Mark 5:20 and Luke 16:16). The word “everyone” in Acts 10:43 refers back to “the people” of v. 42, and “the people” of v. 42 refers back to “the entire people” of v. 41. It refers, in other words, to everyone among the people of Israel, and corresponds to those referred to by Peter in Acts 3:23 as “every soul among the people” (see also Acts 4:10; 5:20-21; 10:2; 13:24, 31; 26:23).

Based on the immediate context, then, we can conclude that the people referred to in v. 43 are everyone to whom God had charged Peter and his Jewish companions to herald the evangel of the Circumcision (which was, of course, those among “the Circumcision”; see Gal. 2:7-9 for further proof of this). Cornelius and his household - who were not of “the Circumcision” - had become the exception to the rule (being, as it were, outside of the category of those referred to by Peter as “the people”). Thus, those to whom Peter later related his experience involving Cornelius and his house are understandably surprised that people from among the nations had also been given “repentance unto life” (Acts 10:18). The idea that non-Israelites could, by believing the evangel of the Circumcision, obtain the pardon of sins, was completely unexpected to these believing Jews.

A Refutation of “The Unity of the Spirit – 2 Evangels?” Part Six

Note: For part one of this six-part rebuttal, click here: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-refutation-of-unity-of-spirit-2.html

THE GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM

Again, this two gospel teaching claims it is important not to join the good news of the kingdom that Jesus proclaimed, with Paul's evangel of the grace of God. Paul makes no indication of a difference. He preached the evangel of the grace of God and also heralded the kingdom.

As Anonymous goes on to acknowledge (see below), he or she is unsure concerning what, exactly, Christ had in view when he used the expression “kingdom of the heavens.” This frank acknowledgment by Anonymous should, I believe, raise a red flag for any reader of Anonymous’ article. This is especially the case given the fact that there is nothing complicated or mysterious about the kingdom that Christ heralded during his earthly ministry. Simply put, it’s the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel, and which is to be established on the earth at Christ’s return (for a more in-depth defense of this view, see part two of my study, "God's covenant people":http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/09/gods-covenant-people-why-most-believing_27.html).

To say that the kingdom of the heavens is different from the other kingdoms mentioned I don't know at this point for sure. I just know that Paul mentions many things like the kingdom and never indicates that it is any different in his later epistles.

On the contrary, we have good reason to believe that, when the expression “kingdom of God” appears in scripture, it can be referring to God’s reign in one of two different locations. It is the context by which we can determine which location may or may not be in view in any given verse or passage.

Jesus made some profound statements concerning His kingdom:

“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm. John 18:36

“Now, being inquired of by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God is coming, He answered them and said, 'The kingdom of God is not coming with scrutiny (or observation). Neither shall they be declaring 'Lo! here!' or 'Lo! there!' for lo! the kingdom of God is inside of you'” Lk.17:20,21

How do these verses fit into the future kingdom on earth teaching? Regardless of what that future kingdom will be like? What benefit is it for our faith or spiritual growth to be making divisions for the word “kingdom”?

Both passages quoted above fit right in with what Anonymous referred to as “the future kingdom on earth teaching.” Here’s John 18:36 from the CLNT: Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My deputies, also, would have contended, lest I should be given up to the Jews. Yet now is My kingdom not hence.”

I’ve placed in bold the words that bring out the meaning of what Christ was declaring to Pilate. He was essentially saying that, as long as “this world” continued, the kingdom over which he will be ruling as king will not be present (hence the words, “Yet NOW is My kingdom not hence”). Why is Christ’s future kingdom not of “this world?” Because it belongs to the next world – i.e., the world that corresponds to the next eon! What Christ referred to as “this world” is the world that corresponds to what Paul referred to as “the present wicked eon” (Gal. 1:4), whose god is Satan (2 Cor. 4:4). In Eph. 2:2 we read the following: “…your offenses and sins, in which once you walked, in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air…” So it’s no surprise that Christ would say his kingdom is not “of this world.” But it would be fallacious to infer (as Anonymous seems to be doing) that the kingdom to which Christ was referring in John 18:36 is neither future nor a kingdom that will be on the earth. For when Christ returns and brings the present wicked eon to an end, the “kingdom of this world” will become “our Lord’s and His Christ’s, and He shall be reigning for the eons of the eons! Amen” (Rev. 11:15)!

As far as Luke 17:20-21, the future kingdom on earth is just as much in view here as it is in John 18:36. The context in which these verses are found is clearly that of Christ’s return to earth to set up the kingdom (Luke 17:22-37; cf. Matt. 24:26-31; 25:1, etc.). The words, “The kingdom of God is not coming with scrutiny” mean that the coming of the kingdom will be obvious to all, and that “scrutiny” will not be required to detect its coming or presence (see Luke 17:24; cf. 21:28, 31). The words, “the kingdom of God is inside of you” emphasize the fact that the human heart is to be the domain in which God rules as king, and when the future kingdom does come, it will be present in the renewed hearts of God’s covenant people (for God has promised to give Israel “a new heart and a new spirit” in order to keep his statutes and ordinances; see Ezekiel 36:24-31).

It seems that preoccupation with what may be coming on earth for Israel has overshadowed what ought to preoccupy us now. How is this inspiring us to be standing firm in one spirit, one soul, competing together in the faith of the evangel ?

Notice the author’s words, “…what may be coming on earth for Israel…” I’m not sure what exactly to make of the word “may” here. Surely Anonymous isn’t in doubt as to whether or not God will actually bring to pass what he promised concerning Israel and her eonian destiny. Perhaps Anonymous was just trying to convey the idea that he or she doesn’t actually know what is “coming on earth for Israel.” If that’s the case, then Anonymous’ lack of knowledge on the subject cannot be attributed to a lack of information provided in scripture, for there is an abundance of information on this subject found throughout scripture (and lest one be inclined to think that we who are in the body of Christ need not concern ourselves with those parts of scripture that have to do with Israel’s expectation, Paul himself told Timothy, “All scripture is inspired by God, and is beneficial for teaching, for exposure, for correction, for discipline in righteousness, that the man of God may be equipped, fitted out for every good act”).

Since Israel rejected the Messiah, the kingdom is put on hold for them, but does it mean that the kingdom is on hold for those chosen in grace? “Callousness on Israel has come in part... for there is in the current era a remnant according to the choice of grace...What Israel is seeking for, this she did not encounter, yet the chosen encountered it.” Rom.11:5,7,25

As I’ve argued elsewhere, the “remnant according to the choice of grace” was not constituted by members of the body of Christ. Rather, the remnant was constituted by believing Jews in Paul’s day (such as the “tens of thousands” of believing, law-keeping Jews in Jerusalem referred to by James in Acts 21:20) who shared in Israel’s covenant-based obligation and expectation.

Therefore, to be placing so much emphasis on what God will be doing to and for Israel in the future, which certainly will be marvelous fulfillment of scripture, but not acknowledge what Paul said concerning Israel now in this administration is not ideal, to say the least:

“For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants (seed), but: 'THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS (SEED) WILL BE NAMED.' That is, it is not the children of the flesh, who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants (seed). Rom.9:6-8

Anonymous misunderstands Paul here. Paul was not, in Romans 9:6-8, broadening the term “Israel” to include believing Gentiles (such as the ones to whom Paul was writing); rather, Paul was narrowing the term to include only those members of God’s covenant people who – like the twelve apostles – had come to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and who will be part of the “all Israel” that is to be saved when the new covenant goes into effect (Romans 11:25-28). In other words, Paul was here referring to the chosen “remnant” within Israel “according to the flesh.”

SEPARATED OR JOINED?

It's rather troubling to read a well known and respected scholar when writing about The Gospel of the Kingdom, state that, “we must not confuse or join together things which God has separated”. Where is that written? What has God separated? What?! What was once separated because of fleshly distinctions God has now joined together in Christ. However, what is confusing, is to say we must not join together what God has separated, when He actually says that He has joined them!

Anonymous’ article ends in the same question-begging way that it begins (and with which it continues). Anonymous takes what is true for those in the body of Christ (i.e., the truth that Jews and Gentiles/circumcised and uncircumcised have been unified in one body, as revealed in Paul’s letters alone) and then simply assumes that every believing Jew during the Acts era was a member of this company of saints (which, it should be emphasized, came into existence after the company of saints to which most believing Jews belonged during the early “Acts era”). Rather than proving that most believing Israelites were members of the body of Christ, Anonymous simply assumes that they were, and then argues from this assumption-based premise.

Anonymous’ complaint is that some are “separating what God has joined together.” However, if – as I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere - the body of Christ is (and always has been) distinct from Israel, and most Jewish believers during the Acts era belonged to the un-calloused remnant among God’s covenant people, then it’s Anonymous who is guilty of promoting confusion among the saints by attempting to blur the lines between that which God himself has made a distinction between, and wills to keep distinct until the consummation of the eons.