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/]
No comments:
Post a Comment