Introduction
What
is unique about the Church in the written ministry of the NT comes
from the pen of the Apostle Paul. He alone reveals the mystery, the
Church as one body on earth, consisting of Gentile and Jew on equal
terms, and whose Head is the glorified Christ in heaven (see Eph. 2:
11–16; 3: 1–7; 4: 15, 16). Again, he alone writes of the new man
“wherein there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision
… but Christ [is] everything, and in all” (Col. 3: 11). Yet of all
that is recorded in Acts concerning Paul, there is not a word about
any of this. Throughout the book the Jew remains a Jew and the
Gentile a Gentile. This surely raises the question:
Why?
Again, how strange it is to find one who wrote “For
I,
through law, have died to law, that I may live to God” (Gal. 2: 19),
yet, circumcising Timothy, making a vow, desiring not to miss a
Jewish feast and subjecting himself to the law of the Nazarite (see
Acts 16: 3; 18: 18, 21; 21: 26)! Again, the question is forced upon
the reader: Why?
Biblical
Interpretation
and the Book of
Acts
Any
interpretation of the Bible must take account of time, and a major
mistake made by many is to read the present into the past. A
relevant example of this is found in the meaning imposed upon the
Lord’s words when He spoke to His disciples of “my assembly” (Matt.
16: 18). We now know that the Assembly (the Church) is
Gentile and Jew in one body, but to read this present truth into the
past by assuming that that is what the Lord was conveying to His
disciples when He uttered those words is wrong. We must interpret
His words as those who heard them would understand them.
At
that time no Jewish disciple would conceive of Gentiles on
an equal par with Israel. They would understand the words to mean a
called–out company from Israel and nothing more. We
need to appreciate the perfection of the inspired Word which, when
spoken did not involve the idea of the one body, yet equally,
did not exclude the thought in the future.
While the Scriptures
are one whole, God has seen fit to divide them into books. We must
therefore observe these divisions and note the unique place that
each book occupies in the sacred canon. Acts is marked by
transition and forms the bridge by which we pass from the
Gospels to the Epistles. It is an historical book—in
fact, the last
historical book in the Bible. Now the common assumption is that the
only purpose of Acts is to present the early history of the Church,
and how it began. It does this, but its real object is
to show
the close of Israel’s history for the present. The answers
to the questions that I have posed really find their answer in a
single word—Israel. However, let us have confirmation
from Paul himself that the mystery—Jew and Gentile together and
equal in one body—did not form part of his ministry in the Acts.
Paul’s
Testimony
When
Paul’s public oral ministry, as recorded in Acts, has ended, and he
stands a prisoner before Agrippa, he sums up his service as:
“witnessing both to small and great, saying nothing else than
those things which both the prophets and Moses have said should
happen, [namely,] whether Christ should suffer; whether he
first, through resurrection of [the] dead, should announce light
both to the people and to the nations” (Acts 26: 22, 23, my
emphasis). As the mystery was not revealed in the OT
(see Rom. 16: 25–27; Eph. 3: 1–7; Col. 1: 24–27), this is a clear,
unequivocal confirmation that his ministry in Acts did not involve
the truth of the one body. However, while proving the point, it does
not provide an answer to the question of why this should be so. To
do this we must see the position of Israel in the Acts, for, as
already mentioned, Israel is the key.
Israel
God
said of Israel “And ye shall be holy unto me; for I Jehovah am holy,
and have separated you from the peoples to be mine” (Lev. 20: 26).
Circumcision was the sign of this separation from the nations, so
much so that they were called “the circumcision” (see Acts 10: 45
etc.). Hence while Israel was still regarded as a nation,
there could be no thought of the present truth of Jew and Gentile,
equal in one body. Throughout the period of the Acts, Israel
still existed as a nation, and consistent with this fact, Paul’s
oral ministry did not teach the truth of the one body, and preserved
the distinctions between Jew and Gentile.
Gentile
Blessing
Of
course it may be argued that as Paul was distinctly called to go to
the nations (see Acts 26: 17) and as Paul alone gives us the truth
of the one body, then Gentile blessing surely implies the truth of
the one body. Gentile blessing was certainly prophesied in the OT
(see Ps. 72: 11; Is. 11: 10; Mic. 4: 1, 2 etc.). In the last words
of Moses we have “Shout for joy, ye nations, with his people” (Deut.
32: 43), and Paul’s own summing up of his ministry in Acts 26: 22,
23 contains an illusion to Is. 49: 6: “for a light of the nations”.
However, this blessing of the Gentiles was to be in
association with Israel (see Is. 60: 3; Zech. 14: 16), not
Israel and the Gentiles equally blessed together as “joint heirs”
(Eph. 3: 6). Israel was to be prominent, the nations subservient
(see Zech. 8: 23). Despite this prophetic testimony, the Jew tended
to ignore Gentile blessing and when Paul addressed the Jewish
multitude, they heard him until he told them God’s
word to him “Go, for I will send thee to the nations afar
off” (Acts 22: 21). Had they never read that their own prophet
Jeremiah was appointed “a prophet unto the nations” (Jer. 1: 5)?
The matter of Gentile
blessing came up at the council of Jerusalem when some would have
the Gentile converts circumcised to make them Jewish proselytes. The
concluding word of James in Acts 15: 15–21, based on Amos 9: 11,
confirmed that Gentiles were to be blessed in association with
Israel. However, association is not identity!
Throughout Acts, the
Jews and the
Gentiles retained their national identities. On the one hand, there
were many myriads of Jews who believed and were “zealous of the
law”, while on the other, there were Gentile believers who were to
“observe no such thing” (see Acts 21: 20, 25). Paul’s call from God
to go to the Gentiles did not exclude Israel: “Go … bear my name
before both nations and kings and [the] sons of Israel”
(see Acts 9: 15, my emphasis). Nor did his commission, in itself,
imply the “casting away” of Israel (Rom. 11: 15) and Gentile and Jew
in one body. However, what it did do was to lay the basis for the
time when Israel would be set aside in judgement.
Gentile
blessing is thus independent of the thought of the Church as the
body of Christ. Hence, as Israel persisted as a nation
throughout the book of Acts, the truth of Gentile and Jew in one
body is not ministered there.
Paul
and
the Law
In
the context of the Gospel and to gain the most souls possible, Paul
says “And I became to the Jews as a Jew, in order that I might gain
the Jews: to those under law, as under law, not being myself under
law, in order that I might gain those under law: to those without
law, as without law, (not as without law to God, but as legitimately
subject to Christ,) in order that I might gain [those] without law”
(1 Cor. 9: 20, 21). At a great distance in time today we may apply
this as a general principle to ourselves, but we must not forget
that the literal interpretation is to Paul alone. During the time
recorded in the Acts, Paul carried out this way of acting to the
letter. He further tells us that while he was not sent to baptise
(see 1 Cor. 1: 14—17), he did in fact baptise. Baptism belongs to
the kingdom, and although the kingdom was not part of his
distinctive ministry, he did preach it throughout the period of the
Acts (see Acts 19: 8; 20: 25; 28: 23, 31). What Paul did was for the
sake of the Gospel. We know from his epistles that personally he was
no longer under law for himself, but while Israel was still a
nation, Paul became a Jew to the Jews. By contrast, in Galatia and
elsewhere, he was a Gentile to the Gentiles, without negating the
claim he made in Acts 26: 22, 23.
Hence in Acts 16: 3
when Paul takes Timothy as a companion he has him circumcised “on
account of the Jews who were in those places”. While the old
covenant was still in force, circumcision was obligatory for a Jew.
Only later did Paul clearly spell out the truth that the old
covenant had been superseded, and was “near disappearing” (Heb. 8:
13), and as such, was no longer binding. The vow that Paul had taken
in Cenchrea was that of the temporary Nazarite as detailed in Num.
6: 1–21. This explains the Apostle’s desire “I must by all means
keep the coming feast at Jerusalem” (Acts 18: 21) for the hair
of the one who had consecrated himself in that way had to be
burnt in the temple of God (see Num. 6: 18). As to why Paul thought
it needful to take this vow, Scripture is silent. It is the same vow
as that in Acts 21. There, the language of James in vs 23, 24
implies a conviction, based on past experience, that Paul would
willingly connect himself with those who had made such a vow. In all
this we must remember that Israel had not been publicly set aside,
the offerings were still being made, and that the priesthood was
still functioning. Hence Paul was acting publicly under the old
covenant as a Jew. He went into the temple to prove to the Jews that
the report concerning him was false. In Acts 23 when he was before
the council he spoke hastily to the high priest not knowing who he
was. On being enlightened, Paul confessed his fault and quoted the
law that he had transgressed (see v5). This conduct was in accord
with the fact that, as yet, there was no public evidence that the
Aaronic priesthood had been superseded according to the truth of
Heb. 7.
Throughout the period
covered by the Acts, Israel was still a nation. She occupied the
land. Jerusalem stood with its walls intact. The temple was still
there. The priesthood functioned, the sacrifices were still offered
and the feasts observed. The law was still enforced.
Outwardly,
the situation was the same as that before the Lord was crucified. In
keeping with this Paul acted, throughout the time of the Acts, as a
Jew to the Jews, and as under law.
Conclusions
Throughout the period covered by the book of Acts judgement had not
fallen on Israel and Peter’s offer of the return of the Christ (see
Acts 3: 19–21) had not been withdrawn. Paul was accordingly
restricted in his public ministry, both as regards the mystery and
as regards the believer’s relationship to the law. There were no
inconsistencies in that ministry as many have thought. While Jew and
Gentile were blessed with the same Gospel (see Acts 11: 17) they
were nonetheless two separate companies in association with one
another. Thus in the feast of weeks (which answers to Pentecost and
the book of Acts), there were not one, but “two wave-loaves” (Lev.
23: 17) answering to Jew and Gentile. Once it was clear that there
would be no national repentance with Israel and the dark clouds of
God’s judgment on that nation were forming, the way was opened up
for the public revelation of the mystery. The believing remnant of
Israel was prepared for this in the epistle to the Hebrews in which
the exhortation was to “go forth to him without the camp” (Heb. 13:
13)—to abandon Judaism forever. Paul could now “complete the word of
God” (Col. 1: 25) with the truth of the mystery—Gentile and Jew in
one body with Christ as the glorified Head in heaven—national
distinctions no longer having any place. With the intermediate state
of the Acts having passed, this is the position of all believers
now.
