Why Is the Word Sheol Translated as Both "Hell" and "Grave" in the KJV?

When you open the Old Testament in the King James Version, you'll find the word "Hell" appearing 31 times. Every single one of those instances is a translation of the Hebrew word שְׁאוֹל (Sheol). But here's where it gets interesting: the KJV translators weren't entirely consistent. They also translated that exact same Hebrew word, Sheol, as "grave" 31 times and as "pit" 3 times. Right away, that should tell you something. If the same original word can mean "Hell," "grave," or "pit" depending on the verse, maybe "Hell" doesn't automatically mean a place of fiery torment. Maybe it's closer in meaning to the grave or a pit, simply the state or place of the dead.

Let's look at how Sheol is actually described in the Old Testament. Where is it? Consistently, it's depicted as being beneath the earth, a place one goes down into. Korah and his rebellious companions "went down alive into the pit [Sheol]" when the earth opened up (Numbers 16:30, 33). Jacob, mourning his son Joseph, expected to "go down into the grave [Sheol] unto my son mourning" (Genesis 37:35). Job speaks of going down to the "bars of the pit [Sheol]" and resting "together in the dust" (Job 17:16). This language points strongly towards Sheol being associated with the grave, the place where physical bodies return to the dust.

What about the state of those in Sheol? Are they conscious? Are they suffering? The overwhelming testimony of the Old Testament is a clear "no." The dead in Sheol are described as being in a state of silence, inactivity, and unconsciousness.

• Psalm 6:5: "For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave [Sheol] who shall give thee thanks?"

• Psalm 115:17: "The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence."

• Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, 10: "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun... Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave [Sheol], whither thou goest."

These passages paint a picture of Sheol not as a place of fiery anguish, but as the complete cessation of conscious existence. There's no thought, no work, no memory, no praise of God, just silence and inactivity in the dust of the earth.

Crucially, Sheol is presented as the common destination for all humanity upon death, not just the wicked. As mentioned, the righteous patriarch Jacob expected to go there (Genesis 37:35). King David prayed not to be delivered from Sheol entirely, but that God would not leave his soul in Sheol, implying he expected to go there temporarily before his resurrection (Psalm 16:10). The psalmist states plainly, "What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave [Sheol]?" (Psalm 89:48). Everyone, righteous or wicked, faced the same end: returning to the dust in the silence of Sheol. There's no distinction made in the Old Testament regarding different compartments or experiences within Sheol based on one's earthly deeds.

Now, some might point to passages like Isaiah 14:9-11 or Ezekiel 32:21-32, which seem to depict activity or speech among the dead in Sheol, as proof of consciousness after death. Let's look at Isaiah 14:

"Hell [Sheol] from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave [Sheol], and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee." (Isaiah 14:9-11)

This passage is part of a taunt against the king of Babylon (verse 4). It uses vivid personification, Sheol itself is "moved," the dead (Rephaim, shades or ghosts, but here likely just meaning prominent dead people) are "stirred up," kings are raised from "thrones" (in the grave?), and they "speak." Is this meant to be a literal description of the afterlife? It's highly unlikely. Personification is a common literary device in prophetic and poetic texts. The point isn't to describe the state of the dead, but to emphasize the utter humiliation of the proud king of Babylon, even in death, reduced to the same weak state as all the other powerful rulers he perhaps once scorned, covered by worms in the grave. The mention of worms and the grave in verse 11 reinforces the connection to physical death and decay, not conscious existence. Similarly, the passages in Ezekiel 32 describe various nations and their warriors lying slain in the "pit" (another term associated with Sheol/the grave), their swords under their heads, again, imagery tied to burial and physical death, not a conscious underworld. These are poetic depictions of the finality and dishonor of death for God's enemies, not literal accounts of afterlife activity.

It's evident that Sheol isn't a place of torment; it's the grave, the state of death, the unconscious silence that awaits all mortals apart from resurrection. It's the destination from which God ultimately promises deliverance (Psalm 49:15; Hosea 13:14). Understanding Sheol correctly is the first step in dismantling the unbiblical concept of Hell.

When we move to the New Testament, the Greek word most often translated as "Hell" in the KJV is ᾅδης (Hades). What did this word mean to the New Testament writers and their audience? Primarily, they would have understood it through the lens of its Hebrew equivalent, Sheol, because Hades is the word consistently used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament commonly used in the first century) to translate Sheol. Therefore, the foundational understanding of Hades for early Christians was the same as Sheol: the grave, the state of death, a place of unconsciousness.

Let's examine how Hades is used in the New Testament itself.

Jesus uses Hades metaphorically when speaking of Capernaum: "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell [Hades]" (Matthew 11:23; see also Luke 10:15). Capernaum wasn't literally going to an afterlife realm; it was going to be utterly destroyed and brought low, which indeed happened, it ceased to exist as a significant city. Hades here represents utter ruin and non-existence.

In Peter's Pentecost sermon, he quotes Psalm 16:10, applying it to Jesus: "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [Hades], neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption" (Acts 2:27). He then explains, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell [Hades], neither his flesh did see corruption" (Acts 2:31). Here, Hades is directly paralleled with the grave where flesh sees corruption. Jesus' soul (meaning His person, His conscious self which ceased, becoming unconscious at death) not being left in Hades means He wasn't left in the state of death; He was resurrected before His body could decay. This confirms Hades, like Sheol, refers to the state of death or the grave.

Jesus tells Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell [Hades] shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). "Gates" often symbolized power or dominion in ancient thought. The "gates of Hades" represent the power of death itself, which cannot ultimately overcome Christ's assembly because of the resurrection. Hades is personified as a power, much like Death often is. This is seen again in Revelation: "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell [Hades] and of death" (Revelation 1:18). Jesus holds authority over the state of death. "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell [Hades] followed with him" (Revelation 6:8). Here, Hades is personified as an entity accompanying Death. Finally, and most significantly: "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell [Hades] delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell [Hades] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Revelation 20:13-14). Death (the state of being dead) and Hades (the state/power holding the dead) are ultimately destroyed, cast into the Lake of Fire, which is defined as the second death. This shows Hades is not an eternal realm, but a temporary state associated with the first death, destined for destruction.

Now we come to the one passage that seems to contradict this understanding: the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. This is the cornerstone of the traditional doctrine of conscious torment immediately after death.

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell [Hades] he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:19-31)

Taking this story literally leads to absurdities that even most infernalists (people who believe in eternal hell) reject:

• Do angels physically carry souls?

• Is "Abraham's bosom" a literal place inside Abraham's chest?

• Is one's afterlife destination determined solely by earthly wealth or poverty, with no mention of faith or repentance? (Lazarus isn't described as righteous, nor the rich man as particularly wicked beyond his indifference).

• Can souls in Hades feel physical torment like heat and thirst, needing physical water? Can they see and talk across a vast chasm?

• Are the saved able to witness the torment of the damned?

The story is filled with physical descriptions applied to supposedly disembodied souls. It draws heavily on common Jewish folklore and Hellenistic ideas about the afterlife which were prevalent at the time but not necessarily scriptural doctrine (ideas like Abraham's bosom were part of popular belief, not explicit biblical teaching).

Most importantly, interpreting this story literally contradicts the vast testimony of both the Old and New Testaments regarding the state of the dead as unconsciousness (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; Psalm 115:17; John 11:11-14; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14) and the nature of Sheol/Hades as the grave. It also contradicts the fact that judgment happens after the resurrection (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:12-13), not immediately upon death.

So, what is Jesus doing here? He's using a well-known folk tale or parable structure, familiar to His audience (particularly the Pharisees He was addressing, Luke 16:14), to make a theological point. The story isn't intended to give a literal map of the afterlife. Its purpose is found in the climax: the rich man's concern for his brothers and Abraham's response, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31). The point is about the sufficiency of Scripture (Moses and the prophets) for repentance and belief, and the hardness of heart that refuses to listen even to the testimony of resurrection (foreshadowing the Pharisees' rejection of Jesus' own resurrection). Jesus uses the familiar imagery of the story, including the torment in Hades element from popular belief, not to endorse it as literal fact, but as a narrative vehicle to deliver His actual message about belief and repentance based on God's revealed Word. To build a doctrine of eternal conscious torment on this one parabolic passage, while ignoring the consistent testimony of the rest of Scripture about the state of the dead, is extremely poor exegesis.

Hades, then, like Sheol, is simply the state of death, the grave, where the dead await resurrection. It's not a place of ongoing conscious experience, let alone torment.

The third word translated "Hell" in the KJV New Testament (12 times, all in the Gospels and once in James) is γέεννα (Gehenna). Unlike Sheol/Hades, Gehenna wasn't primarily about the state of death, but about a specific place and a specific type of judgment.

Gehenna is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Ge Hinnom (or Ge Ben-Hinnom), meaning the Valley of (the Son of) Hinnom. This is a real, physical valley located just south/southwest of Jerusalem (Joshua 15:8, 18:16; Nehemiah 11:30). In Old Testament times, it gained a notorious reputation because some wicked kings of Judah, like Ahaz and Manasseh, practiced horrific pagan rituals there, including child sacrifice to the god Molech (2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31, 32:35). Because of these abominations, King Josiah later defiled the place (2 Kings 23:10), and the prophet Jeremiah prophesied that it would become a place of judgment and slaughter, a cursed place where the corpses of the wicked would be cast out unburied:

"Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof... And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place. And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away." (Jeremiah 19:6-7; 7:31-33)

When Jesus warned His audience about the "Gehenna of fire" (Matthew 5:22), being "cast into Gehenna" (Matthew 5:29-30, 18:9; Mark 9:43-47), or the "judgment of Gehenna" (Matthew 23:33), His listeners would have immediately understood the reference to this specific, infamous valley outside their city walls and the prophecies associated with it. He wasn't introducing a new concept of an ethereal, otherworldly "Hell" of torment; He was invoking the powerful imagery of the ultimate earthly disgrace and destruction known to them.

What did Jesus say happens in Gehenna? His most detailed description is in Mark 9:

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell [Gehenna], into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell [Gehenna], into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell [Gehenna] fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:43-48)

Jesus explicitly connects Gehenna with the prophecy in Isaiah 66:24: "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

Notice something? Isaiah explicitly says the objects of this judgment are "carcases", dead bodies. Jesus' reference assumes this context. Gehenna is about the fate of the physical body after death, not the experience of a disembodied soul. The "worm" refers to maggots consuming decaying flesh. The "fire" consumes what the maggots don't. This is imagery of complete physical destruction and decomposition, not conscious torment. The worm not dying and the fire not being quenched doesn't mean they are literally eternal, but that the process of destruction will be complete and unstoppable until the fuel (the corpses) is consumed. In Scripture, an "unquenchable fire" can refer to fires that burn themselves out completely without human intervention (Jeremiah 17:27; Ezekiel 20:47-48).

Isaiah says the worshippers ("all flesh") coming to Jerusalem will "go forth, and look upon" these corpses. This confirms Gehenna is a physical, earthly location associated with Jerusalem, visible during the time people are worshipping God there (which Isaiah 66:23 places during the Messianic kingdom on the New Earth, though Jesus applies it to the kingdom age before that).

Jesus contrasts being cast into Gehenna with entering "life" or the "kingdom of God." which is the restored Davidic kingdom on earth. Therefore, being cast into Gehenna means being excluded from that earthly kingdom and its blessings ("age-during life").

What about Matthew 10:28? "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell [Gehenna]." Doesn't this imply the soul survives death and can be tormented in Gehenna? Not at all. The word "soul" (Greek ψυχὴν) most often refers to the person themselves, their life, or their consciousness which arises from the combination of body and spirit (Genesis 2:7). God destroying "soul and body" in Gehenna means the complete destruction of the person's life and physical being in that place of judgment. It signifies utter annihilation related to that specific judgment, the opposite of conscious survival. The contrast is between humans, who can only cause the first death (killing the body), and God, who can also cause the second death (complete destruction in Gehenna, preventing entry into the kingdom life).

So, Gehenna is not the common Christian concept of Hell. It refers to the literal Valley of Hinnom becoming a place for the disposal and utter destruction of the corpses of the wicked during the future Messianic kingdom age, signifying their exclusion from the blessings of that age and ultimate shame. It's a judgment involving physical destruction, not eternal conscious torment.

You can learn more here.[https://forbiddenbibletruth.com/]

Finally, we come to the fourth word translated "Hell" in the KJV, which appears only once: ταρταρώσας, in 2 Peter 2:4.

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [ταρταρώσας], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"

Here, Peter uses a verb derived from Τάρταρος (Tartarus). In Greek mythology, Tartarus was the deepest region of the underworld, lower than Hades, a dark pit used as a prison for the rebellious Titans and the most wicked souls. Peter borrows this term, familiar to his Hellenistic audience, to describe the place where God confined certain sinful angels.

Jude 6 provides a parallel account: "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Both passages make it clear that Tartarus, this specific "hell," is a place of confinement for angels who committed particular grievous sins (likely referring to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 who interbred with humans), holding them in darkness until their final judgment. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fate of wicked humans. Humans go to Sheol/Hades (the grave/state of death) upon their first death, and the unrighteous among them face potential destruction in Gehenna (during the kingdom age) or the Lake of Fire (the second death, after the final judgment). Tartarus is exclusively for a specific group of fallen angels.

None of the terms we covered were understood by the biblical writers to mean a place of eternal conscious torment for wicked human souls. The traditional Christian doctrine of Hell is a conflation of these distinct concepts, heavily influenced by later theological developments, pagan mythology (especially Greek ideas about Hades and Tartarus), and mistranslations or biased interpretations of Scripture.

The translators of the KJV, while learned, were working within the theological framework of their time, which already included a belief in eternal torment. This likely influenced their decision to use the single, loaded English word "Hell" for these different original terms, obscuring the nuances and leading to centuries of misunderstanding. More modern, literal translations often do a better job by transliterating the original words (Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus) or by using more neutral terms like "the grave" or "the unseen" for Sheol/Hades, helping the reader see the distinctions that exist in the original texts.

The Bible simply does not teach the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in a place called Hell. This concept is built upon mistranslations, the conflation of distinct terms, the literal interpretation of figurative language (like in Luke 16), and the imposition of later theological ideas and pagan mythology onto the biblical text.

If you want to read Drew’s thoughts (whose book I endorse) on other infernalist or annihilationist proof-texts such as Revelation 20:10-15 or Matthew 25:31-46, you can find them in his free eBook here. [https://forbiddenbibletruth.com/]

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive... The last enemy to be destroyed is death... so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:22, 26, 28)

In Favor of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, Against Peter in the Body of Christ

Jesus chose twelve apostles specifically for Israel, linked to the twelve tribes, promising they would sit on twelve thrones judging those tribes in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne (Matthew 19:28). Their initial mission field was explicitly limited to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6). Even after the resurrection, their focus remained largely on proclaiming Jesus as Israel's Messiah and calling Israel to repentance for the promised kingdom (Acts 2:14-39; 3:12-26; 5:29-32).

Paul explicitly confirms this distinction in Galatians 2:7-9. After explaining his unique gospel received by revelation, he states the Jerusalem apostles (James, Peter/Cephas, and John) recognized the grace given to him and saw that he had been entrusted with the gospel to the Uncircumcision (Gentiles), just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel of the Circumcision (Jews). They gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that Paul should go to the Gentiles, while they (Peter, James, John) would go to the Circumcision. This is a clear, divinely recognized division of labor and primary spheres of ministry based on two distinct gospel emphases tailored for different audiences under different programs (Israel's kingdom program vs. the body of Christ's grace program). Peter's primary calling and sphere, acknowledged by Paul and Peter himself, was to Israel.

Peter was limited in his understanding of the specific "mystery" program God revealed later through Paul. Remember, Paul calls his message a "mystery hidden for ages... which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Ephesians 3:5, 9; Colossians 1:26). This implies that even the original twelve didn't fully grasp this new program until it was revealed, primarily through Paul as the designated apostle for it.

Peter himself seems to acknowledge this gap in understanding. In his second epistle, written near the end of his life, he speaks highly of Paul but adds a significant caveat: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter recognizes Paul's God-given wisdom and affirms his writings as scripture, but he openly admits some of Paul's teachings ("these matters," likely referring to topics like the Lord's patience, salvation, and perhaps the end times context he was just discussing) are "hard to understand" (dysnoētos, difficult to comprehend). This isn't necessarily calling Paul wrong, but it is an admission from Peter himself that he didn't find all of Paul's specific revelation easy to grasp. If Peter, a chief apostle who walked with Jesus, found parts of Paul's letters difficult, it strongly suggests Paul was teaching things that went beyond or differed significantly from the message Peter was primarily commissioned to preach to Israel.

Peter affirming Paul's letters as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16) shows respect and recognition of Paul's authority, but his simultaneous admission that they contain things "hard to understand" still points to a difference in the specific content or implications of their respective revelations. Unity in core truths about Christ doesn't negate distinct commissions and administrations.

Peter's situation is best understood as Peter operating faithfully within the scope of the revelation given to him for his specific ministry to the Circumcision. God didn't reveal the full details of the "mystery" program of the body of Christ to Peter in the same way He did to Paul, because Peter's primary mission was different. His "blindness," if we use that term, wasn't a moral failing but a result of God's sovereign choice in revealing different aspects of His plan through different messengers at different times. Peter had the truth necessary for Israel and their kingdom hope. Paul had the truth necessary for the Body of Christ and its heavenly hope under grace. They weren't contradictory truths, but distinct truths for distinct groups and dispensations.

Is Peter in the body of Christ? Based on this understanding, no. The body of Christ is formed by believing Paul's specific gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and being spiritually baptized into that one body (1 Corinthians 12:13), operating under grace apart from the Law (Romans 6:14) with a heavenly calling (Philippians 3:20). Peter's ministry remained focused on Israel, the Law (even if recognizing Gentiles could be saved apart from it after Acts 10 & 15), and the earthly kingdom hope. He operated within the framework of the "gospel of the Circumcision." While undoubtedly saved and a foundational apostle for Israel's program, his position and understanding appear distinct from those who form the body of Christ through Paul's unique gospel.

But if the body began at Pentecost (Acts 2), we face significant problems. The believers there were all Jewish (Acts 2:5), received the Holy Spirit in connection with water baptism and repentance for entrance into the kingdom offered to Israel (Acts 2:38), continued operating under Temple practices and aspects of the Law (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 21:20-26), and preached a message centered on Jesus as Israel's Messiah whose return would bring the "times of refreshing" and "restoration" promised to Israel (Acts 3:19-21). This doesn't align with Paul's later description of the body of Christ as a new creation where Jew/Gentile distinctions are abolished (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:15), operating apart from the Law (Rom 6:14), with a heavenly calling (Phil 3:20), formed by believing a gospel centered on Christ's death for sins and resurrection (1 Cor 15:1-4). Peter's Pentecost sermon doesn't mention Christ dying for sins as the basis of forgiveness, but rather calls for repentance because they crucified Him. The phenomena and message of Acts 2 fit perfectly within the framework of God pouring out His Spirit on Israel as prophesied by Joel (Acts 2:16-21) in connection with the offered kingdom, not the start of the distinct body of Christ mystery program.

What about Paul's early converts (Acts 13-14)? This is where the mid-Acts view places the start of the body. Acts 13:1-2 marks a clear shift where the Holy Spirit explicitly separates Barnabas and Saul (Paul) for a new work. Immediately after this, Paul begins proclaiming justification by faith apart from the Law in a way not seen before in Acts (Acts 13:38-39), and explicitly turns to the Gentiles when the Jews reject the message (Acts 13:46). This seems to be the historical inception point of the distinct grace message and the formation of assemblies based on it, marking the beginning of the body of Christ. Therefore, Paul's converts from this point forward would be part of the body, while those saved under Peter's earlier ministry (like Cornelius) were saved under the terms of the kingdom gospel extended exceptionally to God-fearing Gentiles connected to Israel's hope.

Peter acknowledging Gentile inclusion (Acts 10-11, 15) shows God expanding His work, but Peter frames it as God visiting Gentiles "to take out of them a people for his name" to provoke Israel and fulfill prophecies about Israel's restoration (Acts 15:14-17, quoting Amos 9), still viewing it through the lens of Israel's program, not necessarily the distinct "one new man" Paul later detailed. His statement "we believe we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will" (Acts 15:11) affirms grace as the source, but doesn't equate the terms or program under which Jews (still zealous for the Law) and Gentiles (freed from the Law) were operating.

The continuation of Law observance by tens of thousands of Jewish believers in Jerusalem, acknowledged and even accommodated by James and the elders (Acts 21:20-26), seems difficult to dismiss as merely "cultural" if they were truly part of the same body Paul described as being completely "dead to the Law" (Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19). This points strongly towards two distinct groups operating concurrently under different divine programs during the Acts period.

While we're at it, let's also cover Ephesians 2:11-22. This passage is crucial. Paul does speak of Christ breaking down the dividing wall (the Law) and creating "one new man" from the two (Jew and Gentile), reconciling both in one body to God. This absolutely describes the body of Christ. However, it doesn't automatically mean every Jewish believer (like Peter or the Jerusalem elders zealous for the Law, Acts 21:20) became part of this specific "one new man" formed under grace apart from the Law. Paul is describing the nature and potential of the body of Christ, it is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles reconciled on the basis of grace. But membership requires believing the specific gospel of grace that makes this reconciliation possible apart from Law. Those Jewish believers who continued to operate under the Law and the kingdom gospel framework, while saved according to that program, wouldn't necessarily be part of this specific "one body" defined by freedom from the Law. The passage describes the constitution of the body, not necessarily that all believers from both groups automatically entered it regardless of the gospel they believed or the program they operated under.

While Ephesians 2 does speak of "one new man" and "one body," it describes the result of Christ breaking down the Law, something that wasn't fully understood or implemented universally at Pentecost. If the body began in Acts 2, why the subsequent major controversy in Acts 15 about whether Gentiles needed the Law? Why did Peter need a special vision in Acts 10 just to associate with Gentiles, years after Pentecost? Why did Paul need a distinct revelation of this "mystery" if it was already established (Ephesians 3:3-6)?

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 12:13 ("For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body") describes the mechanism of entering the body, but doesn't definitively state when that mechanism began operating for both Jew and Gentile equally apart from Israel's kingdom program. The events of Acts 2 fit the profile of the Spirit being poured out on Israel for their kingdom promises (Joel 2; Acts 2:16-21, 38-39), distinct from the later formation of the joint Jew-Gentile body under grace.

On top of that, I want to discuss the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Does it show unity on one gospel of grace? Not exactly. It shows the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James) acknowledging that God was saving Gentiles through faith apart from requiring circumcision and Law-keeping, based on Peter's experience with Cornelius (Acts 15:7-11) and the reports from Paul and Barnabas (v. 12). They agreed not to burden the Gentiles with the Law (v. 10, 19, 28-29). However, this council did not conclude that the Law was abolished for Jewish believers. James's conclusion focuses on accommodating Gentiles based on minimal requirements drawn from the Law concerning idolatry and immorality (vv. 20-21, 29), and later events show the Jerusalem church remained "zealous for the Law" (Acts 21:20). The council established that Gentiles could be saved apart from the Law (a key aspect of Paul's gospel), but it didn't merge the two distinct programs or abolish the Law for Jewish believers operating under the kingdom gospel. It recognized God was working differently with Gentiles through Paul, agreeing not to impose Israel's requirements on them, thus acknowledging the validity of Paul's distinct ministry and message for Gentiles, while maintaining their own distinct ministry to the Circumcision under the Law.

"But Paul went to synagogues too!" Absolutely. Acts records Paul consistently beginning his ministry in a new city by going to the local synagogue and reasoning with the Jews there from their own scriptures. If he had a completely separate message just for Gentiles, why this consistent pattern? Doesn't it imply one message for all, starting with the Jews?

Several factors explain this. First, there was a divine order: "to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16). This wasn't just Paul's preference; it reflected God's historical priority in dealing with His covenant people. The promises and the Messiah came through Israel, so it was fitting the message concerning Him be presented to them first, even the message of grace that formed the distinct body of Christ. Second, the synagogues were the natural starting point. They contained not only Jews but also God-fearing Gentiles already familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, providing a ready audience acquainted with messianic prophecy and monotheism. Third, and perhaps most crucially in light of God's unfolding plan, Paul's ministry to the Jews served a specific purpose outlined in Romans 9-11: to provoke Israel to jealousy (Romans 11:11, 14). By demonstrating God's grace extending powerfully to Gentiles apart from the Law, Paul hoped some of his kinsmen according to the flesh might be stirred to reconsider their rejection of the Messiah revealed in Paul's gospel. His synagogue ministry wasn't primarily about bringing Jews into the body of Christ (though some certainly did believe his message), but about fulfilling his obligation to present the message "to the Jew first" and using the Gentile response to provoke Israel according to God's plan during their period of temporary hardening. The content of his message, justification by grace through faith in Christ's death and resurrection apart from Law, remained distinct, even when presented initially within a Jewish context using their scriptures as proof. His turning away from the synagogues to the Gentiles after Jewish rejection became a recurring pattern (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:25-28), clearly showing the distinct nature of his primary commission.

Then there's Romans 11 and the olive tree analogy. Doesn't Paul explicitly say Gentiles (the wild olive branches) are "grafted in among" the natural branches (Israel) into the same cultivated olive tree (vv. 17-24)? Doesn't this prove one continuous people of God, with Gentiles simply joining Israel's existing structure? This requires looking closely at what the tree represents. The tree isn't ethnic Israel itself, but rather the place of covenant blessing and privilege stemming from the root, Abraham, and the promises God made to him. The natural branches represent ethnic Israelites who partake of that blessing through faith within their covenant program. Unbelieving Israelites are "broken off" (v. 20) from enjoying those covenant blessings temporarily. Gentiles, who were previously "wild" and outside this place of special privilege, are now, through faith in the gospel of grace, grafted into this place of blessing, partaking of the "richness" (v. 17) that flows from the Abrahamic root.

Crucially, Paul says they are grafted in "among them" (v. 17), meaning alongside the remaining natural branches (the believing Jewish remnant, the Israel of God). He doesn't say Gentiles become natural branches or that the wild branches replace the broken-off natural branches entirely. Furthermore, he warns the grafted-in Gentiles not to become arrogant, because God is able to graft the natural branches back into their own olive tree (vv. 23-24), which Paul states will happen in the future when "all Israel will be saved" (vv. 25-26). This analogy beautifully illustrates how Gentiles now share in divine blessing rooted in God's promises to Abraham, but it does so by highlighting their distinct origin (wild branches) and their temporary inclusion alongside believing Israel during Israel's partial hardening. It doesn't merge the body of Christ (represented by the grafted-in wild branches and perhaps some believing natural branches operating under grace) and the Israel of God (the remaining faithful natural branches operating under the kingdom program) into one single entity with identical callings or programs. It shows shared access to blessing from the same root, but maintains distinct identities and future trajectories, especially anticipating Israel's future national restoration.

What about Cornelius in Acts 10? Wasn't he a Gentile saved by grace through faith, hearing the gospel from Peter before Paul's main ministry even got underway? Doesn't this prove the body of Christ started earlier, or that Peter preached the same grace gospel? Again, context is vital. Cornelius wasn't a typical pagan Gentile; he was a "devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people [Jewish people], and prayed continually to God" (Acts 10:2). He was already oriented towards the God of Israel. Peter's message to him centered on Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, His life, death, resurrection, and role as Judge, culminating in the promise that "everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10:36-43). While faith and forgiveness are central, the specific Pauline emphasis on Christ dying for our sins as a substitutionary ransom, justification apart from Law, and the formation of the body of Christ are absent. The Holy Spirit fell on them while Peter was still speaking, confirming God's acceptance before water baptism (vv. 44-48), which was astonishing to Peter and the Jewish believers precisely because it showed God granting repentance unto life to Gentiles within the framework they understood (Acts 11:18). James later interprets this event not as the start of the body of Christ, but as God first visiting the Gentiles "to take out of them a people for his name" in order to fulfill Old Testament prophecies about Israel's restoration and subsequent Gentile blessing through them (Acts 15:14-17, quoting Amos 9). Cornelius's conversion was a pivotal event showing God opening the door to Gentiles, but it seems best understood as an exceptional case of God-fearing Gentiles being brought into the blessings associated with Israel's kingdom hope, rather than the beginning of the distinct mystery program Paul would later reveal.

And Stephen in Acts 7? His powerful sermon recounts Israel's history of rejecting God's messengers, culminating in their rejection and murder of the Righteous One, Jesus. His final accusation, "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you" (Acts 7:51), represents the climax of Israel's national rejection of the Spirit-filled witness concerning their Messiah under the terms of the kingdom gospel presented by the apostles in Jerusalem. His martyrdom and the subsequent scattering of believers (Acts 8:1) mark a significant turning point. While Stephen himself operated fully within Israel's hope and program, his rejection and death effectively closed the door on that initial phase of the kingdom offer centered in Jerusalem, paving the way for God to do something new, commissioning Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor, to become Paul, the apostle of the previously hidden mystery of grace to the Gentiles (Acts 9). Stephen's ministry and death are best seen as the culmination and tragic end of the initial testimony to Israel regarding the kingdom, not as part of the body of Christ program which hadn't yet been revealed.

So, when did the transition happen? When did the body of Christ begin? It wasn't likely a single day like Pentecost, but a process marked by key events revealing God's shifting purpose due to Israel's rejection. Stephen's martyrdom (Acts 7) signaled a crisis point. Paul's conversion and commission (Acts 9) introduced the agent God would use for the new program. Peter's experience with Cornelius (Acts 10) prepared the Jerusalem apostles to accept God working among Gentiles. The explicit separation of Barnabas and Saul by the Holy Spirit for the work God had called them to (Acts 13:1-2), immediately followed by Paul proclaiming justification by faith apart from Law and turning to the Gentiles (Acts 13:38-46), seems the most probable starting point for the formation of distinct assemblies based on Paul's grace gospel, the historical beginning of the body of Christ. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) confirmed the legitimacy of Paul's Law-free gospel for Gentiles, acknowledging a distinct work but not merging the two programs entirely. Paul's final declaration in Rome (Acts 28:25-28), citing Israel's prophetic blindness and stating salvation had now been sent to the Gentiles, marks the definitive historical confirmation of Israel's temporary setting aside and the full operation of the grace administration revealed through him. The transition unfolded through the events recorded in Acts, but the distinct body of Christ program appears to have commenced with Paul's specific commission and ministry starting around Acts 13.

Therefore, Peter's primary commission remained to the Circumcision (Galatians 2:7-8), operating within the kingdom gospel framework which included Law observance (Matthew 5:19). While he acknowledged God saving Gentiles by faith apart from Law, his own understanding and ministry didn't fully align with the "mystery" of the one new body revealed through Paul, where the Law itself is abolished for all members (Jew and Gentile alike). His place seems firmly within the "Israel of God," awaiting their earthly kingdom, distinct from the heavenly calling of the body of Christ formed under Paul's unique gospel of grace.

You can find more details in Drew’s article on dispensationalism linked here. 
[https://www.concordantgospel.com/comparisons/]