The Status of the Body of Christ Prior to Acts 28:28

According to the position being promoted in recent issues of Bible Student's Notebook,[1] the status of the body of Christ radically changed after Acts 28:28. According to this view, Gentile believers in Paul's gospel were, prior to Paul's imprisonment in Rome, subservient to the nation of Israel. Not only did they not have a distinct eonian allotment of their own among the celestials during this time, but they were to have a subordinate place in the earthly kingdom of Israel (as had been prophesied concerning the nations in the Hebrew scriptures; see, for example, Isaiah 60:10-12; 61:5-6; Zechariah 8:20-23). In contrast to this position, I believe that Scripture affirms that the body of Christ has always been an entity completely distinct from Israel, with an eonian allotment in the heavens that is completely distinct from the terrestrial allotment of Israel.

In his article "The Readjustment Administration," Adlai Loudy references Ephesians 2:12 in support of the position that, during the time period prior to Acts 28:28, the nations were subservient to the nation of Israel. In this verse, Paul tells us that the nations to whom he wrote were "in that era, apart from Christ, being alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and guests of the promise covenants, having no expectation, and without God in the world." But what "era" is Paul talking about here? Is it the time period from Acts 13:2 to Acts 28:28 (which Loudy refers to as the "readjustment administration")? I don't think so.

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?" Would this not be a contradiction? It seems far more likely that the "era" Paul has in view in this verse is simply the time period which he describes at the beginning of chapter 2 - i.e., the time during which those to whom he wrote were walking in their offenses and sins, "in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air" (Eph. 2:1-2). The "era" Paul has in view can therefore be understood as the time period prior to when the evangel of peace came to them (Eph. 2:17) and they heard and believed the word of truth, the evangel of [their] salvation (Eph 1:13). If this is the case, then this verse has nothing to do with an inferior, pre-Acts 28:28 administration. Paul is simply referring to their life before they believed his gospel and became members of the body of Christ.

But what is the "citizenship of Israel," from which the nations were "alienated" during the era that Paul has in view in Eph 2:1-3? The word "citizenship" (politeia) is only meaningful if a particular political entity - i.e., a nation or city - is in view. But what political entity? When this article was first posted on my blog, I argued that the political entity to which this "citizenship" referred is the new Jerusalem. However, I now believe I was guilty of overthinking this a bit, and reading too much into what Paul was saying here. Paul was not, I don't think, referring to a political entity to which Israel belonged (or rather, will belong in the future). Rather, Israel itself - i.e., the nation comprised of Israelites - was the political entity he had in mind. Paul was simply saying that those among the nations as such (i.e., those "termed 'Uncircumcision'") were not - and could not be - citizens of Israel while uncircumcised. And being thus "alienated from the citizenship of Israel," the "promise covenants" that God made with Israel which pertain to the promised blessings that Israel will enjoy during the eons to come (such as the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant and the new covenant) were not made with them, and did not directly pertain to them. Any blessing that Gentiles will enjoy in the eons to come because of these covenants made with Israel will come only through Israel. 

It was because of their status as uncircumcised people of the nations (rather than Israelites) that Paul could thus refer to them as "guests" of these promise covenants. The Greek word translated “guest” here is xenos, and literally means “stranger” or “foreigner”; only by implication does it mean “guest” (in certain contexts). That the word could mean “stranger” as well as “guest” is clear from the fact that Knoch translated this word as “stranger” more often than “guest” (see, for example, Matt. 25:35, 38, 43, 44; 27:7; Acts 17:18; Heb. 11:13; 13:9; 3 John 1:5). However, whether translated “stranger” or “guest” in Eph. 2:12, the imagery Paul was using can simply be understood as conveying the idea that, because the nations were not "citizens of Israel" (those with whom the covenants had been made), they had no inherent privileges with regards to enjoying covenant-based blessings. Any blessings a Gentile will enjoy due to God's fulfilling his covenant promises to Israel will be received indirectly, through the mediation of those with whom the covenants had been made.  

This was the status of those among the nations before the start of Paul's administration, and before they heard and believed the "evangel of the uncircumcision." However, Paul's argument is not that the believing Gentiles to whom he wrote were now no longer "alienated from the citizenship of Israel" or had ceased to be "guests of the promise covenants" which God had made with Israel. Were that the case, it would mean that those among the nations to whom Paul wrote had become Israelites. And yet, they were no longer "apart from Christ," "without expectation" or "without God in the world." They had - like those believing Israelites who will enjoy the blessings of the "promise covenants" in the eons to come - become "fellow-citizens of the saints" and belonged "to God's family." But how could this be?

The answer to this question gets at the heart of the "secret" of this present administration. The nations to whom Paul wrote (along with some Jews, like Paul himself) had become members of "the ecclesia which is [Christ's] body" (Eph. 1:22-23), which is a new corporate entity distinct from Israel and her expectation. They had "in one spirit," all "been baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free," and all were made to "imbibe one spirit" (1 Cor. 12:12-13). Having become members of the body of Christ (v. 27), they had become part of a "new humanity" where there is "no Greek or Jew, Circumcision and Uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman" (Col. 3:11; see also Gal. 3:28). When those to whom Paul wrote believed his distinct "evangel of the uncircumcision" they (we!) received a new eonian expectation and allotment. This eonian allotment is "in the heavens" (2 Cor. 5:1-2) and "among the celestials" (Eph 2:6). It is not associated with the "citizenship of Israel," but is entirely distinct from it.

In addition to Ephesians 2:12, Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 8-9 and Romans 15:25-32 are viewed by proponents of the Acts 28:28 dispensational theory as being in conflict with the position that the Gentiles who believed Paul's gospel before his imprisonment had, during this time, an eonian allotment distinct from Israel's. In these passages, Paul speaks of making financial contributions to, and taking up a collection for, the poor saints in Jerusalem. Can we account for this without appealing to the view that the Gentiles in the body of Christ were, before Paul's imprisonment, dependent on Israel for their eonian allotment, and were to have an inferior and subordinate place in the millennial kingdom? I think so.

In Galatians 2, Paul recounts the private meeting he had with Peter, James and John in Jerusalem, concerning his commission. In verses 9-10, Paul writes, "...knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they for the Circumcision-" only that we may be remembering the poor, which same thing I endeavor also to do." Concerning this agreement between the apostles, A.E. Knoch writes, "There was a mutual understanding arrived at among them that they [Peter, James and John] would confine themselves to the Circumcision, while Paul and Barnabas went to the nations. This agreement should have kept the judaizing disturbers of the Galatian believers from interfering with them. Paul kept his part of the compact, especially that which concerned the collection for the poor saints in Judea."

This agreement with Peter, James and John, then, is the original and primary reason why the body of Christ made financial contributions to the poor saints in Jerusalem. The fact that Paul honored the special request of Peter, James and John and "kept his part of the compact" in no way means that the Gentiles in the body of Christ were, at this time, "second class citizens" in relation to believing Israelites. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that my understanding of the status of the body of Christ prior to Acts 28:28 is correct, and that those who believed Paul's "evangel of the uncircumcision" had their own distinct eonian allotment even before Paul's imprisonment. Are we to imagine that Paul, in this case, would've flat-out refused to honor the request of Peter, James and John that they remember the poor saints in Jerusalem? Is it really reasonable to believe that Paul, in this case, would have said to these men of God, "Sorry, guys. The only poor saints with whom the body of Christ is concerned are those who are IN the body of Christ. You guys are on your own." That Paul would respond to their special request in this way seems highly unlikely (and out of character), to say the least. Not only was Paul's doing what he could to honor their special request the most loving and gracious thing to do, but it would've served to reduce the tension and growing hostility on the side of the circumcision saints, and helped to promote peace between the two groups of believers.

"Spiritual Things"

But what about what Paul's words in Romans 15:25-33? What are the "spiritual things" of the poor saints in Jerusalem in which the nations participated? And in what sense could the nations be considered "debtors" to these Jewish saints? I see no good reason to understand these "spiritual things" as referring to, or including, the eonian destiny of the body of Christ. Although Paul doesn't elaborate on what he means here by "spiritual things," I believe it can be reasonably inferred that Paul is referring to the "spiritual endowments" (or spiritual gifts) described in 1 Cor. 12:1-11. We know that Paul (as well as certain others in the body of Christ) once possessed various spiritual endowments. But how did they receive these spiritual gifts, and what purpose did they serve at this time? I believe these supernatural gifts served the following purpose with regards to the body of Christ:

1. First, the miracles that were performed through Paul (including any spiritual gifts that were given to others through him) were the signs of his special apostleship and authority from the Lord (2 Cor. 12:12; Gal 2:7). These signs and gifts authenticated Paul's unique apostleship and apostolic authority (and thus legitimized his distinct ministry) in the sight of the nations to whom he was sent, as well as those among the Jewish remnant (i.e., the twelve apostles and those who believed their gospel of the circumcision). It was through these "signs, miracles and powerful deeds" that both the nations as well as Peter and the saints in Jerusalem were assured that Christ had in fact commissioned Paul to bring salvation to the nations (Acts 9:15; 15:12; 22:21). In connection with this, it was the assurance of Paul's apostleship that enabled his writings to be viewed and accepted as inspired Scripture - not just by the nations to whom Paul was commissioned, but by the apostles of the circumcision as well (see 2 Pet. 3:15-16). As the end of Paul's apostolic ministry drew nearer, the need for such authenticating signs began to diminish, and miraculous healings consequently became less frequent. Although Paul raised Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:9-12), he didn't heal Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25-27), Timothy (1 Tim 5:23) or Trophimus (2 Tim. 4:20). Because the purpose of this supernatural gift was to authenticate his apostleship during the establishment of the ecclesias to which he would be writing (see the second point), a time inevitably came when further miracles became unnecessary.

2. Secondly, it is important to keep in mind that the written revelation to the body of Christ was, prior to Paul's imprisonment in Rome, incomplete. Paul understood his ministry as involving the completion of the word of God (Col. 1:25), and this took place after he was imprisoned. Therefore, the gifts of prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, etc. were necessary in order for the believers to know what God would have them believe and do in Paul's absence. These gifts enabled believers to communicate new truth and revelation from God. Now that God’s revelation to the body of Christ is complete, these revelatory gifts are no longer needed. Concerning the gift of prophecy, A.E. Knoch writes, "Paul's high regard for the gift of prophecy is founded on the fact that it was the chief means used to bring the saints to that maturity which he earnestly desired they should attain. The gift of teaching, the exposition of the Scriptures, now takes the place of prophecy, for God has fully revealed His will in His word."

As already noted, the closer we get to the end of Paul's apostolic ministry and to the completion of God's written revelation to the body of Christ, the less miraculous activity we find taking place (2 Tim 4:20). In view of the purpose the spiritual endowment served among the body of Christ, this decrease in miraculous activity makes perfect sense. There is no need to appeal to a supposed "administrational change" (let alone a change in the eonian destiny of the body of Christ) in order to account for it. Paul knew that the miraculous gifts would not be permanent among the body of Christ and, as early as his first epistle to the Corinthians, began preparing believers for the time when they would cease (1 Cor. 13:8). But even as late as Paul's first letter to Timothy, we read of the "laying on of hands" (1 Tim 5:22), which was the means through which people received their spiritual endowments (I'll have more to say about this later).

But what about the spiritual endowment of "tongues" or "languages" (i.e., the supernatural ability to speak in a foreign language)? It would seem that this particular spiritual gift was of a very limited use in the body of Christ, and was considered by Paul to be the least of all the spiritual gifts. Although those who possessed this gift may have enjoyed a "spiritual high" whenever they exercised their supernatural ability (who wouldn't?), the gift did not edify, console or comfort other members of the ecclesia, as did the exercise of the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1-5). Unless one was able to interpret that which was uttered in a foreign language, the exercise of this gift was just a vain display of supernatural ability and nothing more. As Knoch notes, "It may be imposing and spectacular but it fails utterly in edifying the saints." So for what purpose was this gift present within the ecclesia in Corinth?

In 1 Cor. 14:22, Paul writes that the exercise of this gift was "a sign, not to the believers, but to the unbelievers" (1 Cor. 14:22). In light of what Paul says here, it may be that the exercise of this gift was intended to be a sign to unbelieving Israelites (i.e., those who had believed neither Paul's gospel nor Peter's) that judgment was coming upon their nation. Support for this view is Paul's quotation of Isaiah 28:11-12. Right before Paul tells the Corinthians that "languages are a sign, not to the believers, but to the unbelievers," he says, "In the law it is written that, In different languages and by different lips shall I speak to this people, and neither thus will they be hearkening to Me, the Lord is saying" (1 Cor. 14:21). Knoch notes in his commentary that this sign was "not for believers, or even to reach unbelievers." Since the verses from Isaiah indicate that the foreign language of the Assyrians was a sign to unbelieving Israel that judgment was coming on them, Knoch is probably correct here.

We know that the majority of Israelites were in unbelief in Paul's day; except for a chosen remnant, Israel had been calloused by God and given a "spirit of stupor," with "eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day" (Rom. 11:7-8). Paul goes on to speak of Israel as having been "cast away" a few verses later (v. 15). We also know that there was, in fact, a severe judgment coming upon the Jewish nation because of their rejection of Christ. Right after his triumphal entry, Christ himself prophesied of the judgment that was coming upon Israel as a result of her apostasy (see Luke 19:41-44; Matt. 23:36-39; 24:2). It is reasonable to conclude, then, that the gift of tongues was intended to be a sign to the unbelieving Jews in Corinth (and wherever else this spiritual gift was present and being exercised) that God was soon going to be bringing judgment upon the Jewish nation.[2]

While it is common for proponents of the Acts 28:28 position to point out that the miraculous gift of tongues/languages is not mentioned in Paul's prison epistles (which is said to imply that this gift had, by this time, ceased, and that Acts 28:28 must've been the "dispensational dividing line" that resulted in its ceasing), the proponents of this position seem to overlook the fact that, when Paul describes the various spiritual gifts in the body of Christ in Romans 12:3-8, this gift is not mentioned, either. Thus, if the lack of mention of the gift of tongues in Ephesians should be understood to mean that the gift had ceased before Paul wrote this letter, then consistency demands that a similar lack of mention of this gift in his letter to the Romans (in the context of spiritual gifts) would mean that the gift ceased even before Paul's imprisonment. It is likely that, by this time, this particular gift had served its limited purpose and had either been removed by God, or was simply no longer being exercised by members of the body of Christ.

Debtors to the Saints in Jerusalem?

None of the reasons given above for why the body of Christ participated in certain "spiritual things" at this time in any way supports the position that believing Gentiles were, prior to Acts 28:28, dependent on Israel for their eonian allotment, or had a subordinate place in the earthly kingdom of Israel. The purpose that these gifts served at this time implies that the body of Christ was, even before Paul's imprisonment, an entity completely distinct from Israel. Unlike the Jews and Gentile proselytes who believed Peter's "evangel of the circumcision," members of the body of Christ (for whom racial and national distinctions were entirely irrelevant) had their own distinct apostle (Paul) and their own distinct scriptures (Paul's letters). And in these scriptures, Paul was making known secrets concerning them - secrets which were untraceable in the Hebrew scriptures, and which had nothing to do with Israel's eonian allotment on earth. Moreover, members of the body of Christ (many of whom were former idol-worshipping pagans) did not participate in these "spiritual things" because they had blessed the nation of Israel. Nor did their spiritual gifts exalt or glorify Israel (and with regards to the gift of languages, it can be argued that the exact opposite was the case). But in what sense, then, can it be said that the body of Christ participated in the spiritual things of the saints in Jerusalem, and were thus "debtors" to them?

To answer this question, let's ask: To whom were these spiritual endowments first given? They most certainly weren't originally given to members of the body of Christ (for when these spiritual gifts first appeared, there was no body of Christ). No, they were given to Jewish saints in Jerusalem, on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). It was the Jewish saints who were present at this time who were first "filled with holy spirit," and who were thus the original recipients of the "spiritual things" in which those in the body of Christ would later be participating. It is for this reason that Paul refers to the "spiritual things" in which the nations participated as "their [the Jerusalem saints'] spiritual things." It was to the Jewish saints in Jerusalem that the spiritual things were first given.

Now, by what means was this supernatural power/spiritual endowment transferred after its original bestowment on Jewish believers at Pentecost? As noted earlier, this supernatural power was transferred from person to person through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17-19; 19:4-6; 2 Tim. 1:6-7). Not even Paul was an exception to this rule, for in Acts 9:17 we read, "Now Ananias [a Jewish saint in Damascus] came away and entered the house, and placing his hands on him, he said, 'Saul! Brother! The Lord has commissioned me (Jesus, Who was seen by you on the road by which you came), so that you should be receiving sight and be filled with holy spirit.'" Thus, it was by means of Ananias that Paul was "filled with holy spirit" and thereby given his supernatural power. And significantly, the first manifestation of the supernatural power that Paul received is recorded in Acts 13:8-12. There, we're told that Paul (Saul), "being filled with holy spirit," pronounced a curse on the Jewish false prophet, Bar-Jesus, which resulted in his immediately becoming blind.

But from whom did Ananias receive the supernatural power which he passed on to Paul? Because the holy spirit was transferred through the laying on of hands, it can be inferred that Ananias ultimately received it (either directly or indirectly) from one of the saints who was present in Jerusalem on Pentecost. So we see that it was because of the saints in Jerusalem that Paul - the first member of the body of Christ - was filled with holy spirit and received his spiritual endowment. And the same could be said for every other member of the body of Christ who possessed a spiritual endowment at this time (and who, whether directly or indirectly, likely received their spiritual endowments through Paul).

This, then, is why Paul could speak of the nations to whom he wrote as being "debtors" to the saints in Jerusalem. For, relatively speaking, the body of Christ would not have enjoyed the benefit of the spiritual endowments had it not been for the saints in Jerusalem (who were the original recipients of the holy spirit and supernatural power that was eventually given to Paul through Ananias). It would seem, then, that Paul saw their participation in the spiritual gifts as an additional, or secondary, reason for financially helping the poor saints in Jerusalem (as he had, years ago, agreed to do during the meeting with Peter, James and John). But their "debt" to the saints in Jerusalem had nothing to do with the eonian allotment of the body of Christ, or with their being "subservient to Israel" during this time. 

For the reasons given above, the "spiritual things" (spiritual endowments/gifts) in which the nations participated were for the blessing and edification of the body of Christ (not Israel) - and that, only for a temporary period of time. The "spiritual things" in which the body of Christ participated were simply a means to an end, and that end had nothing to do with the preeminence of Israel over the body of Christ (either at that time, or in the future), or with Israel's eonian allotment. Rather, they had to do with the formation of the body of Christ through the sign-accompanied apostolic ministry of Paul, and with the progressive completion of God's written revelation to the body of Christ, through Paul.

---

[1] See, for example, Adlai Loudy's article, "The Readjustment Administration," as featured in BSN #492 (http://www.biblestudentsnotebook.com/bsn492.pdf).

[2] Another possibility is that the gift of languages was meant to be a sign to those Jews who, although having been converted through the ministry of the twelve apostles, did not believe (or would not have believed) that God was working through Paul to form a new body of believers consisting primarily of Gentiles, and that God was among them. Understood in this way, this gift would've served a similar purpose as the other gifts which served to legitimize Paul's apostleship, ministry and message.

Paul’s Gospel and the Death-Denying Doctrines that Contradict It

Truth matters to God. In fact, truth is so important to God that he has made a belief in certain truths the criteria by which people are justified, become members of the body of Christ and inherit eonian life.[1] But what are the truths which must be believed in order to qualify as a believer? The answer is provided by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. There, Paul summarizes his gospel (or "evangel") with the following truths concerning Christ:

(1) Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures;

(2) Christ was entombed;

(3) Christ was raised from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures.

None of these facts of Paul’s gospel are difficult to understand and believe – unless, that is, one is holding to other beliefs that complicate or contradict them. Unfortunately, this is exactly the case for most people who identify themselves as Christian. Most professing Christians – sincere as they may be - unknowingly hold to beliefs they’ve been taught which complicate, distort and outright contradict these fundamental facts of Paul’s evangel. Although long-established in Christian tradition and deeply entrenched in the hearts and minds of many who hold to them, such beliefs ultimately prevent people from being able to truly understand and intelligently embrace the simple truths of Paul’s evangel. 

The Immortality of the Soul

The fact that Christ died (as affirmed in Paul’s evangel) can be grasped by anyone who has even a basic understanding of what it means for something to be alive. According to both Scripture and common sense, death is simply the absence of life. Thus, in order to understand and define what death is, one must have some basic understanding of “life.” Then, with this understanding in place, one can easily deduce the meaning of death by negation (e.g., “Death is the opposite of life, and since this is what it means to be alive, the opposite is what it means to be dead.”).

Fortunately, it doesn't take any special insight or unusual degree of intelligence to understand what it means to be alive, for this knowledge is immediately and intuitively available to every living, self-aware being. Every human being who knows himself or herself to be alive intuitively understands that consciousness and life always occur together. No one has ever experienced a single moment in which this has not proven to be the case. Thus, when we understand death to be the absence of life, it requires no special insight to arrive at the conclusion that those who are dead are not conscious or involved in any kind of conscious activity.

The Concordant Literal New Testament Keyword Concordance defines “life” (zoe) as "the activity of spirit, especially as manifested in the organic creation." I think this is a pretty good definition of life. To be alive is to be that in which spirit is active and manifesting itself (hence we're told by James that “the body apart from spirit is dead”). Moreover, God is frequently referred to as the “living God.” Since God “is spirit” (John 4:24) and the only necessarily existent being, God is essentially alive (hence we're told by Christ that "the Father has life in Himself," John 5:26). When we consider God as the absolute standard by which we can know what it means to be alive and living, we can conclude that consciousness - something which God necessarily has - is inseparable from being alive, and that anything with consciousness has it by virtue of having spirit and thus being alive. Thus, to die necessarily involves a loss of consciousness (among other things).

For beings whose existence is at least partly “organic,” having spirit means it can move, grow and self-regulate internal conditions. For human beings, having spirit means we have a capacity for self-awareness, rational thought, and volitional activity. In contrast, something that is dead – i.e., something that is without spirit - has completely ceased to be functionally active. It has lost the capacity for all functional activity, including consciousness.

We know that syncope (a temporary loss of consciousness) is due to a shortage of oxygen to the brain because of a temporary reduction of blood flow. But what happens when there is a permanent reduction of blood flow to the brain and all neurological activity ceases? Is there any observable indication that a person whose brain has stopped functioning completely is more functionally active or more conscious than a person who has simply experienced a temporary reduction of blood flow to their brain? Do not our own God-given senses indicate otherwise? Since, for beings such as ourselves, being alive entails having a capacity for consciousness and other functional activities, death necessarily entails a loss of this capacity. And Scripture confirms this view of what appears, from our perspective, to take place when death occurs: those who are dead are said to be unable to engage in the sort of conscious activities that the living are able to do - activities such as thinking, remembering and worshiping God (Eccl. 9:5-6, 10; Psalm 6:5; 30:9; 88:10-12; 115:17).  

In contrast to this common-sense and Scriptural understanding of what it means to be dead, the popular Christian doctrine of the "immortality of the soul" denies that human beings are the sort of things that actually die and lose their capacity for conscious activity. According to this belief, man is actually an immortal (i.e., undying) being that survives the death of his body and continues to consciously exist somewhere in a "disembodied state." Since it denies that any human being truly dies (only the body dies, according to this view), it consequently denies the reality of Christ's death. And yet, Paul wrote that it was Christ himself - not merely some part of Christ - who "died for our sins." While undergoing the torture of Roman crucifixion, it was the man, Jesus Christ - not merely his body - who breathed his last and died.

Like all mortal human beings (beginning with Adam), Christ's existence as a living being with a capacity for sentience/consciousness (i.e., his being a "living soul") was dependent on the union of (1) a body consisting of earthly elements (i.e., "dust" or "soil") and (2) a "spirit" given by God (this life-sustaining spirit from God is given to both humans and animals, and is first spoken of in Genesis 2:7 as the "breath of life"). When Christ died, the union of body and spirit that made Christ a "living soul" was broken, and our Lord was introduced into a lifeless state - i.e., a state of complete functional inactivity and (thus) utter oblivion. As is the case for all human beings who die, Christ lost the capacity to sense, think, speak, breathe or do anything at all. 

Included in Paul's summary of his evangel are the words, "He was entombed." Just as the post-resurrection appearances of Christ mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:5-8 are included as proof that Christ was roused by God, so Paul mentions Christ's entombment as evidence that Christ actually died. This part of Paul’s evangel summary is consistent with the fact that, throughout scripture, those who have died are consistently spoken of as being wherever their body is, or wherever the remains of their body may be (see, for example, Gen. 3:19; 23:19; 25:10; 1 Kings 2:10; 2 Chron. 9:31; Job 14:10-12; Ps. 146:3-4; Dan. 12:2; Isaiah 26:19; John 5:28; 11:17, 43; Acts 2:29; 8:2). Our bodies are where we are last present when we die and cease to be "living souls," and they are where we will be present again when we are restored to a living, conscious existence. Being essentially bodily beings - i.e., beings who are dependent on a living body to be alive - we cannot be said to be somewhere that our body is not. Scripturally speaking, it cannot be said that a human being whose body is lying dead in a grave is, at the same time, experiencing the joys of heaven (see Acts 2:29, 34). The very idea is completely contrary to what scripture teaches about the nature of man and of death. 

But what about the spirit of man, which we're told departs from him at death? Does this support the traditional Christian position that human beings survive their death as "immortal souls?" Let's consider the request of the faithful Jewish believer, Stephen, shortly before he was martyred: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). Did the Lord receive Stephen when he died, or did he receive Stephen's spirit? We're told by Luke that it was Stephen – the human being - who was "put to repose" (i.e., fell asleep) as he was being stoned to death. If "Stephen" = Stephen's spirit, then it would mean that it was Stephen's spirit that cried out in a loud voice while kneeling, and then fell asleep as it was being stoned to death. But that, of course, is absurd. It was not Stephen's spirit that did these things, but Stephen himself - the human being. And it was not Stephen whom Christ received when Stephen died, but rather something which belonged to Stephen, and which will have to be restored to him in order for him to enjoy any kind of "life after death." But Stephen, by faith, knew his spirit would one day be returned to him; it was for this reason that he entrusted his spirit to Christ (for Stephen knew that it was Christ to whom God had given the authority to raise the dead on the "last day," when all believing, faithful Israelites will be resurrected).

In Luke 23:46, we read, "And shouting with a loud voice, Jesus said, "Father, into Thy hands am I committing My spirit." Now, saying this, He expires." The spirit that Christ committed into the hands of his God and Father is that which, we are told in Ecclesiastes 12:7, "returns to God who gave it." But was this spirit which Christ committed into God's hands Christ himself? Or was it something that rather belonged to Christ? Obviously, the spirit that Christ committed into his Father's hands was something that belonged to Christ - hence, Christ's words, "..am I committing MY spirit." Consequently, this spirit cannot, by itself, be identified with Christ himself. But if that's the case, then this spirit - as essential to Christ's personal identity and conscious existence as I believe it was (and is) - cannot be, in itself, the conscious person we know as the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the Man, Jesus Christ, who was (and is) the conscious being to whom this spirit belongs, and who entrusted it to his Father for safe keeping just before he died. Notice that Christ entrusted to his God and Father what Stephen entrusted to Christ. Why the difference? Answer: Because Christ knew he was about to enter into a state in which he would be utterly helpless to restore himself to a living, conscious existence. When Christ died, his God and Father was the only One who had the power and authority to save him from death (Heb 5:7). And, thank God, save him he did.

The doctrine of the immortality of the soul denies that Christ was in any need of being saved by God from death, since it denies that human beings really die; according to this view, it is only a person's body (rather than the person himself) which actually dies. As such, this doctrine - as popular as it is - contradicts Paul's evangel.

The Trinity/Deity of Christ  

Like the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, there is another doctrine that also undermines the idea that Christ actually died, and thus contradicts an essential element of Paul's evangel. Ironically, this doctrine is considered an essential doctrine of orthodox, mainstream Christianity. In its most popular (and so-called "orthodox") form, the doctrine of Christ's deity affirms that Christ is one of three members of a "tri-personal" (or "triune") "Godhead." But one doesn't have to hold to the doctrine of the Trinity in order to affirm the doctrine of the deity of Christ; for example, this view of Christ is shared by those who hold to both a "modalist" and a "binitarian" view of God. What all of these positions have in common is their shared commitment to the idea that Christ possesses the same divine status and nature as the Father, and is thus "God" in the same sense that the Father is God, without any qualification.

Its overwhelming acceptance among the majority of Christians notwithstanding, the doctrine of Christ’s deity results in a perplexing (and, I believe, insurmountable) problem for those who affirm it. For if Christ died – and if Christ is also God - then it would mean that God died. But anyone who has even the slightest understanding of who and what God is knows that this can’t be right. God - the uncreated Creator whose years have no end (Psalm 102:27) - cannot, by virtue of his divine nature, die. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the "Living God." He is (and always has been) immortal and incorruptible. Paul explicitly affirms the immortal and incorruptible nature of God elsewhere (Rom. 1:22-23; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:13, 16). 

Since God has always been (and always will be) inherently and necessarily immortal, this can mean only one of two things: either (1) Christ did not really die, or (2) Christ is not the same divine being as the Father. Since (according to Paul) Christ did die, the second option is clearly the correct one. Christ is not God – at least, not in the same sense that the Father is God. Rather, Scripture teaches that Christ is a created being who was uniquely and miraculously begotten by God himself. Being made fully human, Christ lived a perfect, sinless life, died for the sins of the world, was raised from the dead by God, and now sits exalted at God's right hand as Lord over all. Christ is the "image of the invisible God," and perfectly revealed to the world the heart and character of God through his life and death. He is also the first human to have ever been vivified (made immortal), and was given power and authority from God that no other created being - whether terrestrial or celestial - has ever possessed.   

Since Scripture is clear that Jesus was (at one point) a mortal human being like you and I, and that he did, in fact, die (and remained dead for three days), the only possible conclusion is that Jesus Christ is not God. Many Christian apologists think they have a way out of this dilemma, however. Consider the following excerpt from the website of Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, in which he tackles the question of how Christ could die while at the same time being God (emphasis mine):

"It is helpful to speak of what Christ does or how he is relative to one of his two natures. For example, Christ is omnipotent relative to his divine nature but he is limited in power relative to his human nature. He is omniscient with respect to his divine nature but ignorant of various facts with respect to his human nature. He is immortal with regard to his divine nature, but mortal with regard to his human nature…Christ could not die with respect to his divine nature but he could die with respect to his human nature."[2] 

In Craig’s response, he relies on the orthodox Christian view that Christ has two distinct “natures” – one that is fully human, and another that is fully divine. This philosophical position is thought by Craig to solve the dilemma of how it can be said that Jesus, while being “fully God,” was yet able to die. But this response is entirely inadequate. To see why, all we need to do is understand what, exactly, a “nature” is, and what it means to say that Christ has two of them. Once we clarify this issue, Craig’s argument crumbles. 

So, what exactly does Craig mean he says that Christ has “two natures?” What is a “nature?” Well, a “nature” is simply the essential properties, attributes or qualities that belong to something, and without which it would be something other than what it is. Christian apologist Matt Slick (of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) explains the meaning of the term as follows:

"In philosophy, [nature] can refer to the essence of something. Likewise, theologically, the nature of something is that which makes something what it is. It is the most basic essence of something. We would say that the nature of God is good, holy, just, immutable, etc. If we were to take any one of these properties away from God in describing his nature, he would cease to be what he is. The nature of something deals with the essential properties that make something what it is."[3]

So according to Slick, the “nature” of something refers to its “essence” - i.e., the essential properties (or “qualities”) that it has, and which make it what it is.[4] According to this understanding of what a “nature” is, what makes a dog a dog (rather than, say, a cat) are the distinctively canine properties, attributes or qualities that it has. A dog’s distinctively canine properties, attributes or qualities make up its canine “nature” or “essence.” So if a dog’s distinctively canine properties were changed to those of a cat, it would cease to be a dog. It would be a cat. Regardless of what one may want to call it, an animal that possesses all the essential properties of a cat simply cannot be a dog. It would be impossible for any animal to possess all of the essential properties of both a cat and a dog, and if there existed an animal that shared an equal percent of some (but not all) of the properties or qualities of both a cat and a dog, the animal would be neither a cat nor a dog, but a different animal entirely. 

Now, to say (as Craig does) that Christ “is immortal with regard to his divine nature” is simply to say that Christ is immortal with regard to his divine properties, attributes or qualities. In other words, it is to say that Christ has the divine property, attribute or quality of immortality (meaning that Christ is immortal rather than mortal). And to say that Christ is “mortal with regard to his human nature” is simply to say that Christ is mortal with regard to his human properties, attributes or qualities. In other words, it is to say that Christ has the human property, attribute or quality of mortality (meaning that Christ is mortal rather than immortal). Thus, after clarifying what is meant by the term “nature,” we discover that what Christian philosophers such as Craig are actually saying (that is, once their words are stripped of all ambiguity) is that Christ was both mortal and immortal - that he both died and didn’t die. But this is nothing more than contradictory nonsense. 

Thus, it turns out that the entire argument is a subterfuge. It’s a contradiction cloaked in the robe of mystery and ambiguous language. While some Christians may believe there to be something “paradoxical” or “mysterious” about the position that Christ was both immortal and mortal at the same time, that he was both omniscient and “ignorant of various facts,” and that he both died and didn’t die, the fact is that these are just contradictions. Claiming that Christ was, before his death, “immortal with regard to his divine nature and mortal with regard to his human nature” is no different than asserting that a single shape can be both a circle and a triangle. In neither case is one really making a meaningful claim. 

Moreover, not only is this contradictory position regarding Christ mistaken, but holding to it makes it difficult – if not impossible - to affirm the essential truths of Paul’s evangel. For if Christ is God - and thus has the divine property or attribute of immortality - then Christ didn't really die. He just appeared to die. In the same way, if Christ is God, then he was not really raised from the dead, since God (being immortal) has never had any need of being restored to life. But if (as Paul heralded) Christ actually died for our sins, was entombed, and was raised from the dead by God, then it follows that Christ wasn’t - and isn’t - God.

Conclusion

Most Christians profess to believe - and may sincerely think they believe - that Christ died on the cross and was raised from the dead three days later. But if you ask them whether they think Jesus Christ was, during the time of his death, just as lifeless as the dead body which lay in the tomb for three days, it will quickly become clear that, contrary to what they think they believe or profess to believe, they do not, in fact, actually believe that Christ truly died. Instead, they believe that it was only Christ's body that died and laid in a tomb for three days, while Christ himself - the sentient, thinking and volitionally active person - was actually introduced into a different form of life. Contrary to the truth of Scripture, most Christians believe (and would likely brand as heretics those who deny) that Christ survived the death of his body, and continued to consciously exist somewhere other than where his body was. But if this is the case, then Christ didn't really die. Only his mortal body died. And what happened three days after the death of his body wasn't the resurrection of the man himself. No, it was merely the restoration of an immortal being to an embodied existence.

Note: The following are some articles on my blog concerning the subject of the “immortality of the soul”:

Life After Death (Part 3): http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/06/life-after-death-part-3.html

The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-parable-of-lazarus-and-rich-man.html

You shall be with me in paradise: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2014/08/you-shall-be-with-me-in-paradise.html

And here is a study refuting the Christian doctrine of the trinity: 

One God and Father of All: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity 

Part One: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how.html

Part Two: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_1.html

Part Three: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_8.html

Part Four: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_82.html

Part Five: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_70.html

The God Who is Love: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-god-who-is-love.html

---

[1] "Eonian life" is a more accurate translation of the expression rendered "eternal life" in the most popular translations of the Bible. This expression refers to the gift of life that certain people will enjoy during the coming ages (or "eons") of Christ's future reign. While an amazing blessing to be sure (many people will be dead during this time), it does not refer to anyone's final, eternal destiny. Those who do not receive this "eonian salvation" will not be lost for all eternity. For more on this subject, see my seven-part blog series: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/01/eternal-or-eonian-part-one_17.html. 

[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-death-of-god-and-the-death-of-christ#ixzz2tTtiZjYS

[3] http://carm.org/dictionary-nature

[4] Consider the following definitions from Merriam-Webster:

“Nature: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE.”

“Character: a set of qualities that make a place or thing different from other places or things.”

“Essence: the basic nature of a thing : the quality or qualities that make a thing what it is.”

Wrongly Dividing Paul: A Response to "Right Division Includes Paul," by Stephen Hill

In 2 Timothy 2:15, Paul instructs Timothy to rightly divide (or correctly cut) the word of truth. However, if it's possible to rightly divide Scripture, it's also possible to wrongly divide it. Unfortunately, I believe that in his article, "Right Division Includes Paul" (http://thewordontheword.blogspot.com/2015/02/rightly-division-includes-paul.html), Stephen Hill has done the latter. The position I will be defending in this paper is that the letters Paul wrote before his Roman imprisonment are just as much for and to the body of Christ today as the letters he wrote during his Roman imprisonment. Contrary to the position defended by Stephen in his article, I believe that any supposed "dispensational discontinuity" between Paul's "Acts" letters and his "post-Acts" letters is nothing more than an illusion based on certain unwarranted assumptions that have been brought to the text. 

Quotations from Stephen's article will be in bold.

In the fifth paragraph of his article, Stephen writes: "When we directly compare Paul's statements between different epistles, we notice some stark differences - especially between the pre-prison and prison epistles. Before I go over several of these differences, I will let Paul speak for himself in regards to his progression and changing message: 

... I shall also be coming to apparitions and revelations of the Lord. I am acquainted with a man in Christ, fourteen years before this, (whether in a body I am not aware, or outside of the body, I am not aware - God is aware) such a one was snatched away to the third heaven... into paradise and hears ineffable declarations, which it is not allowed a man to speak. -2 Corinthians 12:1-4 (CLNT) 

Here, Paul describes himself years after an amazing experience receiving revelation. He begins by explaining that he shall be coming to revelations of the Lord and that the revelations he had already received were not yet permissible for him to teach. Paul wrote these words in 2 Corinthians, one of his earlier letters, well before the words he penned in his later letters. Thus, Paul himself made it clear to the Corinthians that 1) he would receive more revelation in the future, and 2) he was not allowed at the time of his writing to the Corinthians to teach all he had been shown by Christ to that point. Both of these facts are vital to understanding Paul's later writings. Acts 26:16 confirms Paul's progressive revelation by stating that he was made a minister and witness both of the things he had already seen and the things that would be shown to him." 

When Paul says, "I shall also be coming to apparitions and revelations of the Lord," he's simply referring to what he is about to make known in the next verses (i.e., that fourteen years ago he was snatched away to the third heaven, etc.). He is not saying that he is going to be making known in future letters the ineffable declarations he heard while in the third heaven. Although Stephen speaks of what Paul heard as being "not yet permissible for him to teach," there is no indication that Paul believed he would ever be allowed to make known the things that he heard. He doesn't say he would be allowed to make known these declarations at some future time, and there is no indication that he ever did make them known. As far as what is said in Acts 26:16, there is no question that Paul received revelation from Christ progressively. However, this fact is perfectly consistent with the position being defended in this article, and in no way supports Stephen's position.

In Acts 28:16, Paul is recounting to King Agrippa what Christ said to him when he first appeared to him. By this time, nearly thirty years had transpired since this event. This is more than enough time for Christ to have made known everything he promised to make known to Paul when he first appeared to him and commissioned him as the Apostle to the nations. And even if Christ continued to reveal new things to Paul after he was imprisoned, there's no good reason to understand any subsequent revelation as involving an administration distinct from that which was given to Paul before his imprisonment.  

According to the Acts 28:28 dispensational theory, the administration given to Paul after he was imprisoned in Rome is distinct from the administration given to Paul before his imprisonment. This theory claims that, before his imprisonment, Paul's ministry pertained to Israel's earthly kingdom and those who will enjoy an allotment in it. After his imprisonment, however, Paul's ministry involved the disclosing of secret truths pertaining to the body of Christ and their unique calling among the celestials (some Acts 28:28 proponents believe the body of Christ referred to in Paul's prison epistles did not exist before this time, while others believe it did exist but was essentially an extension of redeemed Israel, with a terrestrial allotment). Most Acts 28:28 proponents point to the "secret" mentioned by Paul in Ephesians 3:6 in support of their position that Paul's imprisonment marks a new administration. Later in his article, Stephen writes: 

"Though Paul never said this, it is highly likely that the revelation he had received and was initially not allowed to share was the mystery God had kept hidden of the salvation of the Gentile nations and their superior allotment. The fullness of this amazing truth is not revealed by Paul until his prison epistles, although due to the transitional nature of God's program, hints of it can be seen in Paul's later pre-prison epistles - particularly Romans (see chapter 15)." 

Stephen likely has Ephesians 3:6 in mind when he speaks of the "superior allotment" of the nations. However, what I believe we have in Ephesians 3:6 is simply a concise statement of certain truths that Paul had already been making known to the nations prior to his imprisonment in Rome. Every truth that constitutes the "secret" of Ephesians 3:6 can be found in letters written PRIOR TO Paul's imprisonment. Consider the following: 

1. The truth that those among the nations who believed Paul's evangel are a "joint body" with the Jews who believed Paul's evangel (which included, of course, Paul himself) is explicitly taught in 1 Cor. 12:12-13 (cf. Rom. 12:4-5) and implied in places like Gal. 3:27-28. Whether circumcised or not, all were baptized in one spirit into the same body of Christ.  

2. The truth that the nations are "joint heirs of an allotment" is explicitly taught by Paul in Rom. 8:17 and implied elsewhere. Notice that there is nothing said anywhere in his pre-imprisonment letters which suggests that the nations who were members of the one body of Christ at this time were, with regards to their allotment, in any way less spiritually blessed, or had any sort of disadvantage, in comparison to the Jews (such as Paul) who were in the one body of Christ at this time. Nowhere are we told (nor is it ever implied) in these earlier letters of Paul that the allotment of the Gentiles who believed Paul's evangel of the uncircumcision was in any way distinct from, or inferior to, that of the Jews (including Paul himself) who believed his evangel of the uncircumcision. Instead, we find that, even before Paul's imprisonment, the nations were "joint heirs of an allotment" with their believing Jewish brethren (such as Paul) in the one body of Christ. Within the body of Christ, the circumcised had no advantage over the uncircumcised; there was no distinction. Having believed Paul's evangel of the uncircumcision, they were members of the SAME body and were heirs of the SAME allotment with Paul and any other Jewish believer who believed Paul's evangel.  

3. The third truth Paul mentions is that the nations are "joint partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus." Assuming (as is likely) that the promise in view is "life eonian" (see Titus 1:2-3), this truth that the nations are joint partakers of this promise with the Jews who believed Paul's gospel (which, again, includes Paul himself) is implied in all of the above verses, and elsewhere. Consider especially 2 Cor. 5, where Paul speaks of the future eonian life "in the heavens" that is in store for all who believe his gospel, whether Jew or Gentile. Although the exact expression "eonian life" is not used in this passage, it's clear that this is what Paul is talking about here. These all were given "the earnest of the spirit" (cf. Eph 1:14) and an eonian expectation in the heavens. And they together awaited "the glory that is going to be revealed for us," when we (the sons of God) are unveiled, our bodies are delivered, and we are conformed to the image of Christ (Rom 8:18-30).

"His earliest letters were written primarily to his fellow Jews and Gentile proselytes who attended the synagogues (see 1 Cor. 10:1-4 as an example), his mid-ministry letters were written to Jewish and Gentile believers, and his later letters were written to non-Jews who were previously "apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world" (Eph. 2:12). Study Paul's letters chronologically, and you will discover that the pre-prison epistles are loaded with Old Testament references, while the prison epistles contain hardly any." 

In light of Stephen's comments above, it is ironic that there are actually more OT references and quotations in the letter of Ephesians than there are in 1 and 2 Thessalonians combined - and yet, these two letters were probably the first letters that Paul wrote (as Stephen himself acknowledges later). The simple fact is that, whether uncircumcised OR circumcised, the people being addressed in all thirteen of Paul's letters had believed (or professed to believe) Paul's distinct "evangel of the uncircumcision," which he was heralding among the nations (Gal. 2:2, 7). In other words, the gospel that had been believed by every one of the members of the ecclesias to whom Paul wrote was a gospel that was distinctly for uncircumcised people, and the ecclesias that were being formed through the heralding of this gospel were not "Jewish" or "Hebrew" in character.  

The new body that was being formed through the ministry of Paul was not merely an extension or subcategory of the believing Jewish remnant that was being called out of apostate Israel through the ministry of Peter and the other eleven apostles. Rather, this was (and is) a body of people who were (and are) being blessed by God apart from the mediation of national Israel and apart from the ministry of Christ's twelve disciples. Unlike the unnamed Roman Centurion in Luke 7:2-9, and unlike Cornelius in Acts 10, the nations Paul addressed in his epistles were not enjoying God's blessing because they were blessing Israel in some way, or because they feared and worshipped the God of Israel prior to believing Paul's evangel. No, as early as his first letter to the Thessalonians (which, again, was probably the first letter Paul wrote), it's evident that many, if not all, of the Gentiles who believed Paul's evangel of the uncircumcision were formerly idol-worshipping pagans (see, for example, 1 Thess. 1:9).  

In his letter to the Galatians (another early epistle), it would seem that many, if not most, of the members of this ecclesia were not only uncircumcised Gentiles, but converts from paganism (see, for example, Gal. 4:8). And what Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:1 presupposes that many of the members in this ecclesia were not even familiar with the basics of Israelite history. It would be absurd to think that any Jew (or even any Gentile proselyte who attended the synagogues) could possibly be "ignorant" of the things of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor. 10:1-4, and yet Paul declares, "I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren..." He's primarily addressing Gentiles who were former idol-worshippers who were largely ignorant of Jewish history and who may have been tempted to return to their former pagan practices (see the rest of the chapter, especially v. 14). But what about when Paul says "our fathers" in verse 1? The answer is simply that Paul's "our" does not include those whom he's specifically addressing here (i.e., those whom he did not want to be ignorant). "Our fathers" simply means, "the fathers of us who are Jews/Israelites," without any implication that those whom he addressed here were in this category. 

"As this great transitional shift was occurring and Paul's audience changing, it was vitally important that Paul only reveal what God permitted him to reveal at certain times. This is precisely why Paul's later letters are different in many ways from his early letters. In addition, God's entire program was changing." 

Stephen's assertion regarding a "great transitional shift" and a "change" occurring in Paul's audience is not just an oversimplification of the facts, but is, I believe, actually contrary to the facts. From the very beginning of Paul's calling, the Gentiles to whom Paul was commissioned by Christ to herald his distinct gospel were those whose eyes needed to be opened, who needed to be turned from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God (Acts 26:16-18) - in other words, idol-worshipping pagans (as opposed to God-fearers whose righteous living had made them acceptable to God - see Acts 10:34-35).

Although we read in Acts of Paul heralding the truth concerning Christ to unbelieving Israelites on several occasions, bringing the gospel to Israelites and to the God-fearing Gentile proselytes who blessed Israel and attended the synagogues was simply not the primary reason for which Paul was made an apostle. Nonetheless, Paul had a deep love in his heart for his "relatives according to the flesh" (see Romans 9:1-5; 10:1; 11:13-15), and it was undoubtedly this love that made it necessary for Paul, the apostle of the nations, to attempt to persuade some of his Jewish brethren of the "trans-administrational" truth concerning Jesus Christ. 

It's true that, in at least some of the ecclesias to whom Paul wrote, there seems to have been a minority of believers who were Israelites according to the flesh and Jewish in their background. Given this fact (along with the fact of Paul's own Jewish background), it's no surprise that Paul would quote or allude to the Hebrew Scriptures in his writings. Not only would we expect to find more "Old Testament" references in letters written to larger and/or more racially diverse ecclesias (as the ecclesias in Rome and Corinth likely were), but we would also expect there to be more OT references found in longer letters (such as 1 Corinthians and Romans) than in shorter letters - which, of course, is exactly what we find. But it needs to be emphasized that the ecclesias to whom Paul wrote - including the ecclesia in Rome - consisted primarily of uncircumcised Gentiles. And any circumcised members of these ecclesias became - and would've remained - members precisely because they had believed - and continued to believe - the same evangel of the uncircumcision that was being heralded among the nations.  

As was the case with Paul, the primary status and identity of the circumcised members of the ecclesias to whom Paul wrote was no longer that of "Jew" or "Israelite." At the time Paul wrote, there was "one body" into which those who believed Paul's evangel were being spiritually baptized. And it was (and is) a body in which circumcision and all fleshly distinctions were (and are) completely irrelevant (1 Cor. 12:12-13; 2 Cor. 5:16-17; Gal. 3:27-28). The same cannot be said, however, for the recipients of the letter to the Hebrews, or for the believers to whom Peter and James wrote (1 Pet. 1:1; James 1:1). 

"During the beginning of Paul's ministry when Israel was the focus, signs, gifts, healings and miracles were prevalent as God was dealing with the Jews who required a sign (1 Cor. 1:22). As Paul's ministry increasingly moved toward a focus on the nations who sought wisdom (also v. 22), the signs and gifts continually dwindled until they were non-existent." 

Israel was most assuredly not the focus at the beginning of Paul's apostolic ministry (at least, not after the events of Acts 13). The sad state of first-century Israel is described by Paul in 1 Thess. 2:14-16: "For you [Thessalonian believers] became imitators, brothers and sisters, of God's churches in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, because you too suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they in fact did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us severely. They are displeasing to God and are opposed to all people, because they hinder us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they constantly fill up their measure of sins, but wrath has come upon them completely." 

Based on what Paul says above, it certainly doesn't sound like Israel was "the focus" when he wrote what was probably his earliest letter. Instead, God's indignation was already upon the nation of Israel. It is evident that the callousness that Paul refers to in Romans 11 had already come on Israel (with the exception of a believing remnant), and that the only thing that awaited the nation in Paul's day was the doom of national judgment, which Christ himself had pronounced upon her during his ministry. Christ spoke of the terrible judgment that was coming upon Israel as a result of her apostasy right after his "triumphal entry" (see Luke 19:41-44). In Matthew's account, Christ tells the religious leaders of his day, "Truly, I say to you, all these things [i.e., the judgment he had just spoken of in the previous verses of this chapter] will come upon this generation" (Matt 23:36). He goes on to lament over Jerusalem in vv. 37-39: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house [i.e., the temple] is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" And then the very next words Christ speaks (Matt 24:2) are a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which took place in 70 AD. 

Even the growth of the Jewish ecclesia (consisting of the believing Jewish remnant who were being called out of the apostate nation through the ministry of the twelve apostles) came to a near-standstill after the stoning of Stephen outside of Jerusalem. And this was before Paul had even set food on the road to Damascus. Every indicator at this time pointed to the fact that God was about to do something new, and that this new program would involve neither Israel as a nation nor the remnant of believing Israelites who had been called out through the ministry of the twelve apostles.  

Miraculous Signs and Gifts

But if Israel wasn't the focus at the beginning of Paul's ministry but had already been calloused by God (with the exception of a called-out remnant), how then do we explain the miraculous spiritual gifts given to Paul? I believe there is a better explanation for the giving of these gifts than that which Stephen provides. The spiritual gifts given to Paul and those who believed his evangel of the uncircumcision were signs to the circumcision (i.e., those among the Jewish remnant who were converted through the ministry of the twelve apostles) that God was doing a new work through Paul to build a new thing: the body of Christ. Tongues are said to be a sign for unbelievers; in this case, they can be understood as being a sign for those among the circumcision saints who did not believe (or would not have believed) that God was working through Paul and the Gentiles who believed his distinct gospel (1 Cor. 14:22). In addition to this, the miracles that Paul performed (including the supernatural gifts that were given to others through him) were the signs of his special apostleship from the Lord (2 Cor. 12:12; Gal 2:7). These signs and gifts authenticated Paul's unique apostleship in the sight of both the nations to whom he was sent as well as the Jewish remnant. Without such supernatural signs, neither Peter, the saints in Jerusalem, nor any other Israelite would have been assured that Christ had commissioned Paul to bring salvation to the nations (Acts 9:15; 15:12; 22:21). 

In connection with this point, it was the spiritual gifts possessed by the apostles that enabled the Scriptures to be both written and identified by believers at this time (1 Cor. 14:37). The closer we get to Paul's completion of the inspired canon of Scripture (which took place during his imprisonment), the less miraculous activity we find taking place (2 Tim 4:20). But even in 1 Timothy we still read of the "laying on of hands" (1 Tim 5:22; cf. Acts 19:4-6; 2 Tim 1:6-7). Once all Scripture was complete and the canon was established, there was no more need for further supernatural manifestations of the spirit. Paul knew that the miraculous gifts would not last among the body of Christ and, as early as his epistle to the Corinthians, began immediately preparing the body of Christ for the time when they would vanish (1 Cor. 13:8). Only faith, hope and love were going to remain. Remain among whom? The body of Christ, of course. Contrary to the claims of some Acts 28:28 dispensationalists, the body of Christ referred to in this epistle did not vanish when the supernatural gifts did. It simply attained to a greater level of maturity. Certain gifts disappeared, but the body of Christ itself continued. 

"Reading the pre-prison passage of 1 Corinthians 11, one would assume that we need to partake in the Lord's Supper. Paul clearly instructs the Corinthian believers to and even says that he received the practice from the Lord before passing it along to them. Yet, in Colossians 2, we read Paul's instruction to let no one judge us for what we eat or drink or for whether we observe religious festivals." 

Paul says he accepted certain facts from the Lord pertaining to what took place on the night he was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23). Now, based on what Jesus himself declared on this night (and which Paul quotes him as saying), all that the twelve disciples would've understood concerning Jesus' death was that it ratified the new covenant. That was the extent of the meaning that Jesus' words and actions on that night would've had for them. But Paul knew something about Christ's death that the twelve disciples didn't understand at the time, and which gave the observance of the Lord's dinner by the body of Christ a whole new meaning and significance.  

For Paul, the ultimate purpose and meaning of Christ's death displayed the wisdom of God which is "not of this eon," and which was "concealed" by God and designated "before the eons, for our glory..." (1 Cor. 2:6-10). It was part of a "secret" that had been "hushed in times eonian." According to Paul's gospel, Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). Paul explains what this means elsewhere: the fact that Christ died for our sins means that the world will be conciliated to God (2 Cor. 5:18), that all humanity will be justified and given life (Rom 5:12-19; cf. Rom 3:22), and that all humanity has been ransomed (1 Tim. 2:3-6). Christ's death secured the exaltation of - and ultimate subjection of all to - Christ (Phil 2:8-11; cf. 1 Cor. 15:24-28), and is the means by which all will be reconciled to God (Col. 1:19-20). It is evident, then, that the death of Christ had a greater significance for Paul and those who believed his gospel than was made known by Christ when he celebrated Passover with the twelve disciples. 

Thus, whenever the body of Christ took part in the Lord's Dinner, they were announcing the Lord's death until his coming - not merely his death as the ratification of the new covenant (which was known among the "circumcision believers," and was not a secret), but his death as the means by which the world will be reconciled to God and God will become "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28), and by which those who believe Paul's distinct gospel are justified and receive eonian life. And the "coming" (presence) of the Lord that Paul had in mind is not Christ's return to the earth to establish his kingdom (when he descends upon the Mount of Olives), but rather his manifestation to the body of Christ in the air, at the "snatching away" (as referred to in 1 Thess. 4:13-18, Phil. 3:21 and Col. 3:4).  

Now, it's significant that Paul nowhere commands believers to partake in the Lord's Dinner, or states that the body of Christ has to partake in it. Participation in this dinner on an individual or corporate basis was, it would seem, completely voluntary. If an ecclesia wanted to partake in this dinner to "announce the Lord's death until He should be coming" (v. 26), they were free to do so, as long as they did so in an appropriate way. But there is no indication that they were under any obligation to do so. Thus, there is no contradiction between what Paul says in 1 Corinthians concerning the Lord's dinner, and what he says in Colossians. 

But what about the judgments that fell upon those who were eating and drinking "unworthily?" At this time in Paul's ministry, the "signs and wonders" that Paul mentions in Rom. 15:18-19 (as being part of his apostolic ministry "for the obedience of the nations") were still being manifested. This was never meant to have a permanent place in the secret administration that began with Paul's calling, but (as noted earlier) was merely meant to authenticate his apostleship and apostolic authority. As has been previously argued, such signs and wonders (including miraculous healings, the infliction of judgments and the power to speak in foreign languages) do not indicate a different administration, for they were never meant to be a permanent part of the administration which began with Paul's calling. 

"Water baptism is another major stumbling block when Paul's letters aren't rightly divided. Reading 1 Corinthians 1, one would be inclined to uphold the practice of water baptism in keeping with John the Baptist and the other Jewish apostles. Paul, himself, was water baptized, and states that he water baptized two individuals and one household (1 Cor. 1:14-16). Yet, in the following verse (17) he states that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the evangel. Later, in Ephesians 4, Paul lists the elements of oneness that compose the unity of spirit and lists "one baptism" (that is, spirit baptism) rather than water. Through right division, we discover that water baptism was predominantly a Jewish work, performed at the beginning of Paul's ministry while Israel was still in focus. As God set Israel aside and drew the nations in, spirit baptism reigned supreme and water baptism was irrelevant for believers of the nations. Nearly all believers today uphold water baptism as a necessary act of faith or even a saving act in itself. If they rightly divided Paul's epistles, they would understand that their baptism in spirit renders water baptism meaningless and unnecessary." 

While it's true that Paul baptized a few people early on in his ministry, it's significant that he thanks God that it was only a few! It is clear from 1 Corinthians 1:17 that Paul was eventually instructed by Christ through further revelation to cease practicing water baptism: "For Christ does not commission me to be baptizing, but to be bringing the evangel, not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ may be made void." Now, I agree with Stephen that water baptism was clearly an essential part of the Israelite kingdom program/administration (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38). But this being the case, Stephen's position becomes problematic. For if Paul's ministry at this point was "Israel-focused" and just an extension of what the twelve apostles were doing (as Acts 28:28 dispensationalists claim), then the fact that he was not commissioned by Christ to baptize would be inexplicable. The only way to account for this otherwise puzzling admission on Paul's part is simply that Paul's commission was in accord with a different administration (i.e., the "administration of the grace of God"), rather than the administration under which Peter and the other apostles were ministers. 

The Snatching Away: For the Body of Christ, or Not?

"Perhaps the most confusing issue in Paul's letters - even for many who rightly divide them - is the so-called "rapture," or "snatching away." Paul describes this event briefly at the end of 1 Thessalonians 4. A careful reading of the passage shows that Paul believed this event was imminent at the time of his writing, for he states that he and the other living believers would not precede those who had "fallen asleep," or passed away, in being snatched away. As we know, this event still has not occurred, long after Paul wrote these words. Was he wrong, or lying, or was something else at work?" 

If what Paul said in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 should be understood to mean that Paul expected the snatching away to necessarily take place within his lifetime, then I submit that these words would ALSO have to mean that Paul expected himself and everyone to whom he wrote to be alive and surviving at the time, since he says, "..we, the living, who are surviving to the presence of the Lord, should by no means outstrip those who are put to repose..." and "...we, the living who are surviving..." But does Stephen really think that Paul was convinced that he would, without a doubt, be among "the living who are surviving to the presence of the Lord?" I doubt it. But according to this reasoning, this conclusion would seem to follow. 

I think a more reasonable interpretation is simply that, because Paul and those to whom he wrote were obviously alive at the time he was writing, he includes himself and other living believers as being in, and representative of, that particular category of believers that he has in view (i.e., those believers who will be alive and surviving when the snatching away takes place). I don't think Paul expected to necessarily be in that category of believers who are "alive and surviving" when Christ comes to remove the body of Christ from the earth before the coming "day of the Lord." As far as Paul knew at this time, it could've been the Lord's will that he (as well as those to whom he wrote) be martyred prior to this event, and would thus be among the "dead in Christ" at the time. 

Two Distinct Resurrections

It should be noted that what Paul says in 1 Thess. 4:15 concerning the living not preceding (or "outstripping") the dead in Christ at the time of the snatching away is in direct contrast to the situation involving the living and dead saints of Israel at Christ's return to earth. Nowhere are we told in either the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures that the dead saints of Israel will be resurrected before Christ returns to earth to set up his kingdom, or that their resurrection will coincide with the vivifying of people who will still be alive at the time. Long before Paul wrote to members of the body of Christ in Thessalonica, it was prophesied in Daniel 12:11-13 that the resurrection of Israel's saints will be 75 days after Daniel's 70th week concludes: "And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days. But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days."  

The "1,290 days" refers to the last half of Israel's 70th week plus an additional 30 days (i.e., 1,260 days + 30 days = 1,290 days). And the "1,335 days" refers to the last half of Israel's 70th week plus an additional 75 days (1,260 days + 75 days). We know that Daniel's 70th week will conclude with the return of Christ to earth in glory and power, since (among other reasons) it is this event which will bring the 42 month (1,260 day)-long reign of the Antichrist to an end (see Rev. 13:5; 19:19-20). Thus, the resurrection of Israel's saints will take place 75 days after Christ's return to earth - i.e., the last day of the 1,335 days spoken of by the messenger (the "end of the days"). Christ referred to this time several times in John's Gospel, calling it (appropriately) the "last day" (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; cf. Martha's words in 11:24). That the dead saints of Israel will not be resurrected until the last day of the 1,335 days referred to in Daniel (and thus after Christ has returned to earth and defeated the man of lawlessness) is further confirmed by the chronology of the events prophesied in the Unveiling. The chronology of events provided in this book (beginning at chapter 19) is as follows:  

1. Christ returns in glory and power, accompanied by "the armies of heaven" (Rev. 19:11-18).

2. The Antichrist and the kings of the earth and their armies assemble to do battle with Christ (19:19).

3. The Antichrist and his armies are defeated (19:20-21).

4. Satan is cast into the "submerged chaos," where he must remain bound for a thousand years (20:1-3).

5. The "former resurrection" takes place, and the thousand year reign of Christ and his saints begins (20:4-6).

6. The thousand-year imprisonment of Satan ends, and he is "loosed a little time."  

This inspired chronology fits perfectly with what we're told in Daniel 12 concerning when Daniel (and, by implication, the rest of Israel's saints) will be resurrected. However, neither the prophecies of Daniel nor the prophecies of the Unveiling correspond with the event involving the body of Christ that is prophesied by Paul in 1 Thess. 4:15-18 and 1 Cor. 15:50-53. The resurrection of Israel's saints and the resurrection of those to whom Paul wrote (both before and after his imprisonment) are completely different events taking place at completely different times. Any theory which ignores this important distinction rests on a failure to correctly divide the word of truth. 

"1 Thessalonians 4 describes Christ coming down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and the trumpet call of God, resurrecting the dead in Christ first, followed by living believers, being snatched away into the clouds of the air to meet Christ. As we know, though, 1 Thessalonians is a pre-prison epistle, written early on in Paul's ministry. In fact, many scholars believe 1 Thessalonians is Paul's first letter. Our next step, then, is to search Paul's later epistles to see what, if anything, he has to say about this event. 

"When we do just that, we discover a surprising passage. In Colossians 3:4, Paul makes the new declaration that members of the Body of Christ will appear with Christ at the moment of His appearing in glory."  

Stephen's argument rests on what I believe to be a false dichotomy. Although different wording is used by Paul, there is nothing said in Col. 3:4 that is inconsistent with what is said in 1 Thess. 4. Consequently, there is nothing said in Col 3:4 that necessitates understanding this event as something distinct from the event described in 1 Thess. 4. In 1 Thess. 4:16-17, Paul writes, "...for the Lord Himself will be descending from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the Chief Messenger, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ shall be rising first. Thereupon we, the living who are surviving, shall at the same time be snatched away together with them in clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." 

In these verses, Paul is describing an event in which Christ will be appearing in the atmosphere above the earth. Although we have no idea how much time it will take Christ to reach his atmospheric destination after beginning his descent from heaven, we know that the snatching away takes place while Christ is appearing, or being manifested, in this particular atmospheric location. Will Christ be appearing in glory when this event takes place? Of course he will. And will those snatched away to meet him in the air and among the clouds be appearing together with him in glory at this time? Without a doubt.  

In 1 Cor. 15:43, 49 Paul writes that the dead will be roused in incorruption and glory, and will be "wearing the image also of the Celestial." We're also told in Romans 8:18 that "glory" will be revealed for us when we're "unveiled" as the sons of God and our bodies are delivered. Paul speaks of our glorification again in Rom. 8:30. So based on what Paul says in his pre-prison epistles, we can reasonably conclude the following: There is a future event coming in which 1) Christ is going to be present in the atmosphere above the earth, 2) he will be appearing in glory at this time, and 3) certain people will appear with Him in glory at this time.  

This is essentially what Paul writes in Col. 3:4. There is no good reason to understand this verse as anything other than a reference to the same event which Paul describes in greater detail in 1 Thess. 4. Although Paul doesn't include all of the details (why would we expect him to?), what he does say in Col. 3:4 is perfectly consistent with what is said in 1 Thess. 4, and can, without any difficulty, be understood as a reference to the same event.   

"While the 1 Thessalonians 4 event would take place with Christ coming down and a series of specific elements (command, trumpet, etc.), the Colossians 3 event is described as Christ remaining in His place of glory and occurring in an instant. Rather than the Body being snatched away and meeting Christ among the clouds, it will immediately appear with Him in His glory."  

Stephen is reading certain assumptions into the text here. Contrary to Stephen's assertion, Paul does not say that Christ is "remaining in His place of glory" when the event takes place in which he will be "appearing" or "manifested." In fact, it would make little sense to say that Christ will be "appearing" or will be "manifested" where he is right now, for Christ is already appearing in glory in this location right now (we certainly have no reason to believe that Christ and his glory is somehow hidden or veiled to the celestial beings present in heaven right now). Thus, what Paul says in Col. 3:4 actually implies that Christ will be changing locations, and thus will be appearing in glory somewhere that he is not presently visible and being manifested. And where will this be? Fortunately, we don't have to speculate. According to what Paul says in 1 Thess. 4, Christ will be appearing to the body of Christ in the atmosphere above the earth (i.e., "in the air" and "in clouds").  

So contrary to Steven's assertion, Paul is not describing "two events" that are "quite different." He's referring to the same event. He simply provided more details in his earlier writing - details which answer the question of where Christ's appearing/manifestation will take place: "Whenever Christ, our Life, should be manifested (Manifested where? See 1 Thess. 4:16-17), then you also shall be manifested together with Him in glory (Manifested together where? See 1 Thess. 4:16-17)."

"By rightly dividing the passages, we realize that Paul described the seemingly imminent event of 1 Thessalonians 4 as he did because at that point it was in line with God's program for Israel and the revelation God had given Paul to teach. At that point in time, Israel was still the dominant focus in God's program and the "snatching away" was the event that would soon precede Christ's second coming to a finally repentant Israel."  

Here we find what I believe to be more unwarranted assumptions being made by Stephen. Nowhere does Paul speak of the "snatching away" as being an event that "would soon precede Christ's second coming to finally repentant Israel," or as involving Israel at all. Nor is there any indication that "Israel was still the dominant focus in God's program" when Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians.  

"As this was not God's actual, long-term plan, Israel as a whole remained hardened, the event never took place, and Paul later informed the Colossians of a previously unrevealed, future event - our appearing. 1 Thessalonians 4 remains the future expectation of believers of Israel, but the appearing Paul later revealed in Colossians 3 is now the future expectation of the Body of Christ. Thus, members of the Body of Christ who still look to the rapture look toward an event that is promised to Israel, not us. Rather, we should be living in expectation of our future appearing with Christ when He is made manifest." 

The event referred to in 1 Thess. 4 is just as "previously unrevealed" as the event referred to in Col. 3:4., since they are, in fact, the same event. Paul received his knowledge of the event described in 1 Thess. 4 from the risen and ascended Christ, not from the Law and the Prophets. Unlike the resurrection of Israel's saints (which will take place 75 days after Christ's return to earth), the vivifying of both the dead and the living members of the body of Christ together was a previously unrevealed "secret" (1 Cor. 15:50-53). As such, it was untraceable in the Hebrew Scriptures.