Early “Christianity” Rightly Divided
Alan R. Naas February 2021
This is another chapter in our ongoing study of the development of early Christianity at the close of the New Testament period. The purpose of this study is to understand why the doctrine of the Body of Christ was not found in the writings of the early Church theologians known as the “Apostolic Fathers”. It is also curious why traditional Christianity does not acknowledge and teach the post-Acts doctrine of the Body of Christ as revealed to the Apostle Paul.
To come to the full knowledge of the truth, we find that it is profitable to question everything that we have been taught by searching the Scriptures. That can only be valid if we make sure that the English translation of the Scriptures that we use is on sure footing. In so doing we have discovered that our English New Testament translations have been infected with the understanding of doctrine at that time, as evidenced by certain words used in the translation from Greek to English.
We have also become aware that the books of the Bible are not in chronological order, which also makes them out of dispensational order. As a result many Christian creeds of many Christian religions have evolved out of confusion. The English translation of the name Babel is confusion. All of the religions of Babylonia are based on confusion, or half-truth, or misplaced truth, instead of all truth. Perhaps that is why there are so many divisions in Christianity wherein everyone does what seems right in his own eyes.
We have been looking at the beginnings of early Christianity and how it was said to be founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Twelve Apostles. We have looked into the post New Testament writings such as the Didache, the Apostolic Fathers of the first and second century and the ante-Nicaean Fathers such as Irenaeus and Eusebius.
We might ask what is Christianity? What does it mean to be a Christian?
What is your response when someone asks you if you are a Christian?
At one time I would respond with pride: “Oh yes, most certainly!”
As time went on my response became: “That depends on your definition of “Christian”?
Presently my response is: “I am a member of the Body of Christ, who is my Head”?
Many Protestants believe that Christianity began in Acts Chapter 2 and find it hard to agree that there were no Gentiles at Pentecost in Acts 2? (Acts 2:10 only Jews and proselytes) But something was definitely blossoming there at that time.
Let’s leap ahead to Acts 11:26. How many Gentiles were among the first ones to be called “Christians” in Antioch? Do you find it amazing that the term name “Christian” is found only three times in the Bible! Since the Apostolic Fathers brought this name forward, let’s take a look at all three occurrences.
#1 Acts 11:19-26
19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. 20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. 22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. 3 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. 25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: 26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called (5537) Christians (5546) first in Antioch.
Were they not all believing Jews and no believing Gentiles (except proselytes)? The first to be called “Christians” at Antioch in Acts 11:26 were believing Jews. Was this a term of mockery? Notice that this took place in Antioch, Syria. There is no indication that Gentiles were there. Gentiles were not turned to until Acts 13:46 after Barnabas and Saul were separated by the Holy Ghost and when Paul and Barnabas later went to Antioch, Pisidia. Paul stood up and spoke from 13:16-41
13:14 But when they departed from Perga They came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down. 15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. 16 Then Paul stood up and beckoning with his hand, “Men of Israel, and ye the fear God, give audience…….26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent…
Paul was speaking to the Jews in the synagogue; not to the church as in Acts 11.
I am going to use Bullinger’s notes on the original text wording of 13:42:
13:42 And when the Jews were having gone out of the synagogue, they Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you (Jews): but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Although this was a local turning, it was the first mentioned in the Scriptures. After this event is when the dispute arose between Paul and the apostles as to what to require of the Gentiles; which dispute came up in Acts 15 and Galatians 2. Therefore, would you agree that there were no Gentiles in Antioch, Syria that were called “Christian”?
#2 Acts 26:27-28
27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. 28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
Agrippa II was a king of the Jews. Was this said in a derogatory or mocking sense? The name “Christian” seemed to be used in a sense of mockery.
#3 1 Peter 4:16
16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf (name).
Peter is writing to the elect of the dispersion (Jews) and referring to them as Christians. The use of the word “ashamed” seems to imply the derogatory use of “this name” in those days.
By these three examples we are permitted to conclude that the name or title “Christian” was a derogatory label adopted by nonbelievers for Jews who believed That Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah. That label or name is found nowhere else in the Bible. It is only found in Act period writings. Does that make it a dispensational name?
Earlier Acts 15 was mentioned. Let’s turn to Acts 15: 13-20.
3 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men (Jews) might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
This name is applied to the Jews first and, by association, secondly to the grafted in Gentiles.
James 2:5-7 5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? (Or could be “that worthy name by the which ye call upon.)
James is addressing the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad. These are Jews.
Deut 28:9-10 9 The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and walk in his ways. 10 And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee.
This is speaking of Israel.
Jer 14:8-9 8 O the hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night?9 Why shouldest thou be as a man astonied, as a mighty man that cannot save? yet thou, O Lord, art in the midst of us, and we are called by thy name; leave us not.
These four examples, which possibly allude to the name “Christian”, all pertain to Israel.
Think about this. The term Christian seems to me to be the “name” referred to in the above passages; all of which refer to Israel or the Jews or even the Gentiles grafted in. Could the name “Christian” be divinely dispensational?
Let’s go back to Acts 11:26 and take a closer look at the word before “Christians“ which is the word “called” and compare the use of that word in other Scriptures. “Called” here is the English translation of 5537 chrematizo.
5537 chrematizo = to utter an oracle, divinely intimate, to constitute a firm for business, bear as a title, be called, be admonished, warned of God, speak
CB Note : on 5537 chrematizo generally of a Divine communication. Though the name may have given at first in mockery, the usage of the word by the Holy Spirit indicates that its real origin is Divine. See also Acts 10:22, Luke 2:26, Matt 2:12, 22, Rom 7:3, He 8:5, 11:17, 12:25 See Romans 11:4 for the noun chrematismos 5538 =the answer of God.
5536 chrema something useful or needed, wealth, price, money, riches
5537 chrematizo to utter an oracle, divinely intimate, to bear as a title; be called, be admonished, be warned of God, reveal, speak
5538 chrematismo a divine response or revelation
Matt 2:12 12 And being warned of God in a dream that they (wise men)should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
Matt 2:22 22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he (Joseph) turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
Luke 2:26 26 And it was revealed unto him (Simeon) by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
Acts 10:22 22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
Rom 7:3 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead,….
He 8:5 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
He 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
He 12:25 25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
Acts 11:26 …And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
divinely named Christians ?
named for a divine purpose = dispensational ?
The name of the ekklesia during the Acts dispensation ?
Judeo-Christians ?
5546 Christianos = a Christian, follower of the Christ, the Messiah
from 5547 Christos = anointed, the Messiah, the Christ
Even though Saul (Paul) was among those Jews to be first called “Christians” at Antioch (Acts 11:25-26). Paul never used that name or that term in any of his writings. That fact must have some significance. “Christian” was an Acts period term and was never applied to the post-Acts Body of Christ. It was applied to Jews who believed Jesus was the Christ as preached by his apostles. It was never used in the context of a Gentile believer. It is not found in the Gospels It is never used in the book of Revelation (which could have been written before Acts 11:26 happened).
As Bullinger points out, the name “Christian” may have some Divine origin, but it appears that Satan used it to mock the believers in Jesus the Christ. Then, after the end of Acts, the use of that name was used to perpetuate, in deceit, the hope of the kingdom gospel after it had been suspended by God. It was used to perpetuate the concept of a “universal body, a universal church, or universal Christianity”. Its divine origin could also indicate that it is a dispensational name divinely limited to the kingdom dispensation.
The definition of a Christian today is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Twelve Apostles. If the doctrine of a “Christian” was that of the kingdom hope as presented by Jesus and His Twelve Apostles, then how can the name “Christian” go beyond the end of Acts? Was not that doctrine suspended at the end of Acts?
However, that name “Christian” as it is used today identifies believers who follow the teachings of Jesus and the Apostolic Fathers and who perpetuate a kingdom hope and who lack the knowledge of the mystery of the Body of Christ.
I would think most Christians today would be surprised that the first Christians from the time of the Gospels and through the Acts were, for the most part, Jewish believers even until the second century and beyond. We believe that some Gentiles were “grafted in” during Paul’s Acts period ministry to provoke Israel to jealousy. Paul went to the Jew first even though he was designated as the Apostle to the “uncircumcision”.
According to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Chapter 5 page 384 all Christians in Jerusalem were Jews under fifteen succeeding bishops until their total annihilation in the second Jewish Revolt in A.D. 136. You might be surprised that the first one listed is James the Lord’s brother and not Peter. Jerusalem was renamed Aelius and colonized by Romans. The Christians afterward were Gentiles in Jerusalem under one called Marcus.
Early believing Jews lived among the unbelieving Jews. Jews and Gentiles did not mix. Only Gentile proselytes were allowed to live among the Jews. Peter told Cornelius in Acts 10:28 that “it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation”. Even the diaspora lived in their own distinct communities within the Gentile cities wherever they were scattered.
Peter wrote his epistles from Babylon. Josephus writes that there were many Jews in Babylon. (Ant. 15, ii, 2)
Let’s consider what may have happened during Paul’s time. After the Acts period there were no longer any Jews in the eyes of God; all are now Gentiles according to Acts 28:28 or “one new man” according to Ephesians 2:15. Imagine how a Jew would react if he was told (under Paul’s doctrine) that he is no longer a Jew but is now a Gentile or at least equal with a Gentile. Remember whenever Jesus or Paul uttered the G-word, the Jew went berserk. Just this idea alone could cause any believing Jew to be turned away from the teachings of Paul.
Next time we will study the differences between Paul’s doctrine and the Apostle’s doctrine.
Perhaps since Paul was addressing Gentiles in his prison epistles, the Jews did not see how that pertained to them.
The Apostles and the Elders in Jerusalem had a very difficult time with Paul teaching the believing Jews to forsake Moses and the Law. (See James’ response to Paul in Acts 21:21)
Acts21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore?
“Paul, we agreed that you were to go to the uncircumcision and we were to go to the circumcision. Why were you teaching the Jews?”
Imagine how these Jews would feel, even the Apostles and elders, if they were told that the kingdom gospel and the kingdom hope and all their covenants were suspended so that God could bless the Gentiles. This would likely make the believing Jews furious. The truth is, the post-Acts Body of Christ was not the dispensational calling of the Twelve Apostles.
Actually, most post-Acts “Christians” were believing Jews who followed the Jewish traditions of the Twelve Apostles because Paul no longer recognized the Jew or the kingdom of heaven nor the law of Moses and the prophets in his last seven post-acts Epistles.
That is why there was a significant separation in doctrine at Acts 28:28. There was a significant change that took place in God’s plan. The Holy Spirit’s “Acts” of the Apostles was finished. In the “times or seasons” of Acts 1:7, the kingdom message was suspended in time. And Satan immediately recognized that he had to go to work to keep the believers; especially Jewish believers, from understanding the mystery revealed to Paul. And this was probably an easy task for Satan.
Gentiles had little or no understanding of the Old Testament. That is why Paul started with the Jews first. Jews were easier to convert to a belief in a promised Messiah or Saviour. Gentiles were strangers to such a promise (Eph 2:12) except those proselytes who hung around the Jews.
During the Acts period the believing Jews understood that Christ would return in their lifetime. There is evidence that they carried this belief into the post-Acts period. The Jewish revolts of A. D. 66-74, 115-117, and 132-136 were considered apocalyptic in purpose and nature because the Emperor wanted to place a statue of himself in the Jew’s Temple. During the first revolt, Jews were willing to revolt and even die to protect their city and Temple against Gentile Romans. Then the Roman Emperor ordered Jerusalem and the Temple to be destroyed in A.D.70.
Dan9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And as Matthew 22:7 prophesied, Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in A. D. 70 by the Romans.
Most early believers were Jews. That is why the Romans found it difficult to tell the difference between Jews and Christians. So, therefore, both Jews and Christians were persecuted and martyred because they would not bow to or worship Caesar or his pagan gods.
The only post-Act writers who are considered in the sacred canon of scripture are John and Paul. This fact confirms their doctrine. All other post-Acts writings are considered apocrypha, which is evidence that their doctrine is not inspired by God and not in line with God’s doctrine.
Can you imagine the confusion that would have been created if these post-Acts writings other that Paul’s were deemed canonical?
Clement of Rome is said to be the first of the Apostolic Fathers. Tradition says he was a bishop consecrated by Peter. His writings are replete with Jewish OT references. He was likely a Jewish believer.
Polycarp of Smyrna was most likely a Jew. He was a disciple of John who was a Jew. Polycarp was said to be converted by the Apostles. We know that he adhered to the Jewish observance of Passover on the 14th of Nisan. His writings are also evidence of traditional Jewish understanding. Why didn’t he learn anything about dispensational truth from John?
Ignatius of Antioch was likely a Jew evidenced by his writings. Tradition holds that he, along with Polycarp, was also a disciple of John. Why didn’t he learn anything about dispensational truth from John?
Maybe John didn’t know the dispensational truth revealed to Paul. John was not called to be a member of the Body of Christ. His name is on one of the foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem. John’s message is one of salvation to all without distinction without regard to the mystery of the Body of Christ.
You can tell by the content and context of the writings of these three men that they were addressing believers who were familiar with the Old Testament and the Acts period scriptures.
Think about the likelihood that the “Christian” Apostolic Fathers were Jewish believers and how they would handle the post-Acts doctrine given to Paul; where Israel as a nation is considered being divorced from God and “no people of Mine” (Lo-am-mi of Hosea 1:9). They would have certainly called it heresy.
Eusebius was the bishop of Caesarea Maritima A.D.314 was a scholar of biblical canon and one of the most learned Christians of his time and a close friend of Constantine. He was a student of Pamphilus and Origen and wrote Ecclesiastical History.
Eusebius writes on page 395 the following speaking of early “Christianity”:
13. For the machinations of its enemies were refuted by its power and speedily vanished.
One new heresy arose after another, and the former ones always passed away, and now at
one time, now at another, now in one way, now in other ways, were lost in ideas of various
kinds and various forms. But the splendor of the catholic and only true Church, which is
always the same, grew in magnitude and power, and reflected its piety and simplicity and
freedom, and the modesty and purity of its inspired life and philosophy to every nation both
of Greeks and of Barbarians. (notice the Jew is not mentioned)
14. At the same time the slanderous accusations which had been brought against the
whole Church also vanished, and there remained our teaching alone, which has prevailed over all, and which is acknowledged to be superior to all in dignity and temperance, and in
divine and philosophical doctrines. So that none of them now ventures to affix a base calumny
upon our faith, or any such slander as our ancient enemies formerly delighted to utter.
15. Nevertheless, in those times the truth again called forth many champions who fought
in its defense against the godless heresies, refuting them not only with oral, but also with
written arguments.
Page 418
Polycarp also was in Rome in the time of Anicetus and caused many to turn away from the abovementioned heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received from the apostles this one and only system of truth which has been transmitted by the Church.
But Polycarp, in his above-mentioned epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant,
has made use of certain testimonies drawn from the First Epistle of Peter.
Page 530
5. These men, preserving the true tradition of the blessed doctrine, directly from the
holy apostles, Peter and James and John and Paul, the son receiving it from the father (but
few were like the fathers), have come by God’s will even to us to deposit those ancestral and
apostolic seeds.”
I can imagine that this kind of thinking in its early stages is what Paul was dealing with during his second ministry which he was given after the Acts concluded. Perhaps that is why he emphasized “sound doctrine” in 1 Timothy and Titus and gave many “bewares”.
These early “Apostolic Jewish Christian Fathers” seemed to be either blinded to or among those opposed to the acknowledging of the truth of Paul’s teaching concerning the mystery of the Body of Christ. You can see evidence that they had knowledge of Paul’s Prison Epistles because they referred to them or even quoted verses from them. They appear to “opposed themselves” as Paul puts it in 2 Tim 2:25.
The Greek 475 antidiatithemai means to set oneself opposite, that oppose themselves (2 Tim 2:25)
Job 30:21 uses 7852 satam "with thy strong hand thou opposest thyself against me"
Peter Redmon suggested that I look up Strong's Hebrew 7853 and 7854 to find something very interesting. 7853 satan, to resist is the verb form of 7854 Satan. I didn't realize that there is a verb form of that name.
To “resist Satan” in Hebrew would be “satan Satan”
I wonder if "those who oppose themselves" in the NT realized what that phrase means! The Greek 498 antitassomai means oppose, oppose themselves, resist (Acts 18:6)
6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
The Greek 480 antikeimai means adversary, be contrary, oppose (2 Thes 2:4 the son of perdition who opposes and exalteth himself.)
This sounds like Eusebius’ quote I just read about the “Christian” doctrine: opposing and exalting.
In Ephesians 6:13 the Greek for “withstand” is 436 anthistemi: to resist, oppose, withstand.
When those following the teaching of the Twelve Apostles oppose the teachings of Paul, they actually oppose themselves whether innocently or knowingly. In 2 Timothy 2:26 Paul calls this “the snare of the Devil”.
I don’t believe the Twelve Apostles were ever going to acknowledge the doctrine of the Body of Christ. That was not their calling or the calling of the elect of Israel. The Body of Christ was a special calling for the time it was revealed and afterward offered to the one new man during the present dispensation. The calling of the Twelve Apostles was only for the Acts dispensation. They were assisting the Holy Spirit by sowing the seed among thorns in Matthew 13:7. They were the “other servants” of Matthew 22:4-7 who performed the second bidding of Israel to the wedding. The work and teaching of Jesus trough His Twelve Apostles was finished at the end of The Acts. Those “acts” were not to be carried forward after the end of The Acts. The teaching of the Twelve Apostles did not convince Israel as a nation to acknowledge Christ.
Take ourselves back to the time when Paul wrote his Prison Epistles. He was no longer addressing the Jew as a Jew. Paul was addressing Gentiles only which included any Jew that could accept that designation. In order to accept and acknowledge the mystery of the Body of Christ, a Jew would actually not only have to change from a Jew to the one new man in Ephesians 2:15, but he would also have to put on the new man of Ephesians 4:24 and forsake all Jewish behavior, traditions, and customs.
And also the Barbarian Greek Gentile was to do the same things. According to Colossians 3:11 “there is neither Greek nor Jew, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all”. This means Greeks were to forsake their pervious and historic pagan behaviors, traditions, and customs when acknowledging their place in the Body of Christ. They would have to acknowledge the “one new man” and put on the “new man”.
Both parties were admonished to first recognize the creation of the “one new man” at the cross of Jesus Christ. Then they were to put off the old man with his deed (practices, traditions, customs, ordinances, etc.) and put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him That created him.
Is that not the same process we have gone through? When we acknowledge our membership in the Body of Christ, do we not put off or forsake the behavior of the “old man” meaning the traditions and practices of traditional Christianity? Some say those who go to church and observe the ordinances and observe the pagan holidays are under the power of darkness and are following the road that leads directly to the antichrist.
I believe that for a Jew to take this giant leap of faith was a stumbling block. For a Jew just to merely to believe in Christ was a major life-changing, life-threatening decision; even while adhering to the Law and Moses and the Jewish traditions. But to separate oneself even further by forsaking Moses and the Law, even forsaking all of Judaism, would mean complete ostracizing from the Jewish community.
This is why the Jews hated Paul so much. This is why the Twelve Apostles kept Paul at arm’s length. They were trying to convert the Jews and Paul would just made the Jews mad.
The assemblies in Ephesus and Colosse consisted of many Jewish believers as did many of the assemblies of Asia. Paul was given a two-step ministry: to convert Jews to belief in Christ and to offer them a membership in the Body of Christ. This would require them to first trade the bondage of Moses and the Law for grace and then to trade the earthly hope of Judaism for the heavenly hope of the Body of Christ.
I believe that is why the Apostolic Fathers carried on the doctrine of the Twelve Apostles to the Jews which was different than Paul’s Acts ministry to the Jews to forsake Moses and the Law , and in complete opposition to the post-Acts doctrine of the Body of Christ which is to forsake Judaism altogether. There is no doubt that Satan, whose name means “to resist or oppose” had his hand in this work of the Apostolic Fathers.
Gentiles had to forsake their idols for the Jews’ Christ as King and then had to identify with Christ, apart from all Jewish doctrine and all pagan customs, as head of the Body of the completely new man. Perhaps many of the converted Gentiles would find it easier to follow astray their fellow believing Jewish “sheep” who went the way of the Apostolic Fathers than to follow the way of Paul. Paul warned about this fact.
Acts 20:29 For I know this that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you not sparing the flock.
Eph 4:17-18 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
At this point in this dispensation, when Paul uses the term “Gentiles”, could that include Jews? Everyone after Acts 28:28 were considered the same, were they not?
Paul’s post-Acts epistles were written to both believing Jews and believing Gentiles who had to make some significant changes in their spiritual life. In those days such changes would be drastic and not go unnoticed. There was a significant personal price to pay that we can hardly identify with in today’s culture of freedom that we have enjoyed. That is why Paul said that his speech was “contemptable”. There was a lot of contempt for Paul among the Jews.
Therefore, as I see it, one who identifies with traditional “Christianity” (as I did for many years) is following in the footsteps of the teaching, practices and traditions of the Jewish Apostolic Fathers in opposition to Paul’s doctrine of the Body of Christ.
That is why we are admonished by Paul, even today, to acknowledge the creation of “the one new man” and to put off the former doctrine, practices, and traditions of the “old man” either as a Jew or as a “Joe Christian” and put on the “new man” which is renewed in knowledge of the mystery of the Body of Christ after the image of Him That created us.
What Paul was stating in Ephesians and Colossians is that God created one new man by bringing the Gentile together with the Jew (Israel) at the cross in order to make a full reconciliation for all. And then God set aside the Jew (Israel) in order to bless the Gentile with salvation in a separate way from Israel’s blessing. Just as some of Israel were elected to a heavenly calling to Jerusalem above to come down and redeem the earth, so have some Gentiles been elected to a heavenly calling far above all to redeem the heavens.
How can this apparent blindness of the Apostolic Fathers to the doctrine of the Body of Christ fit into God’s plan for the ages?
God knows how to use the works of Satan to serve His own Divine purposes.
Knowing mankind as we do, what could have happened if men had embraced the mystery of the Body of Christ at first? We can only imagine what man would have done to that doctrine over all these years? What would that possibly look like today? Would it even be recognizable? After all, look at what man has done to traditional Christianity and all other religions over the past two thousand years. Even presently the Roman Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Mystical Body of Christ.
Think about what could have happened if Constantine hadn’t embraced that Apostolic Christianity. If it weren’t for Constantine, perhaps Christianity would have become extinct.
As bad as it was, if it weren’t for Roman Catholicism forcing many Gentiles to become “Christians” under their “convert-or-die” practices of the Dark Ages, maybe there wouldn’t be many Christians at all today. Even so, Catholic Christians had to defend themselves with great armies from being wiped out by other barbaric empires and empires of other religions.
Maybe Catholics aren’t perfect. Maybe our English Bible is not perfect. But God is all-knowing. Perhaps God allowed these things to happen the way they did so that there would be believers everywhere today so that His elect Body could emerge out of that mess.
What was happening in Paul’s time can be said of what is happening presently. With the understanding of what was happening then gives a deeper understanding of what Paul said in Philippians 1:14-18
14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
After the Dark Ages the Reformation began to open the eyes of some to the truth of God’s word as the written word became available to common men. And then there would be those who would work even harder to find the deep things of God: such as E. W. Bullinger and Charles H. Welch and Oscar Baker and folks like you and me. And maybe now is the time for the mystery of the Body of Christ to be preached to “Joe Christian”.
If you think about it, any believer who understands the dispensation of the mystery of the Body of Christ and accepts the concept of the “one new man” has to denounce or put off the former practices and traditions of “Christianity” and put on the ‘new man’ as a member of the Body of Christ, with Christ as his Head. He is no longer misnamed as a “Christian”; but a member of the Body of Christ. Many who have heard the good message could not make that commitment.
These are the step I had to take in my own life. When my eyes were opened to salvation in Christ, I had to separate from Roman Catholicism and denounce some of their doctrine and practices. When my eyes were opened even further to the dispensation of the mystery of the Body of Christ, I had to separate from and denounce the doctrine and practices of traditional Christianity. In so doing I was acknowledging the “one new man” and putting off the behavior of the old man and putting on the “new man” in the Body of Christ.
The one common thread that holds all things together to the end is the truth of God’s word. God’s word has always been preserved until some day we will fully understand it. Peter Redmon recently said that someday, perhaps in glory, we will see things in the Bible and smack our forehead and say ‘how could I have missed that!”
I pray that this study will bring to light, as it did for me, a better understanding of the meaning of Paul’s writings and what he was dealing with in the last years of his life and ministry. May we better understand who and what we are dealing with in trying to convince “Joe Christian” to forsake his traditions and practices of the Apostolic Fathers and accept the post-Acts teaching of our dear brother and Apostle Paul.