Romans – God’s Timeline XXII: The Purpose of the Eons – Paul’s Evangel in Relation to Acts (Part 6)

 

Paul Ceases Teaching in the Synagogues

From Acts 9:20-19:9, Saul/Paul continued teaching the kingdom of God in the synagogues (Acts 9:20, 13:5, 14-15, 14:1, 17:1-3, 16-17.) During his last experience, Luke writes (19:8-9)–

Now, entering into the synagogue, he spoke boldly for three months, arguing and persuading as to that which concerns the kingdom of God. Now, as some were hardened and stubborn, saying evil things of the way before the multitude, withdrawing them, he severs the disciples, arguing day by day in the school of Tyrannus.

On this occasion, Paul actually severs the disciples from the stubborn within the synagogues, and proceeds to withdraw from the Jewish community altogether, literally setting them aside. They had demonstrated readily that they were not spiritually ready for the evangel which Paul unfolded (which, as we will study later in Rom. 11, was necessary for God’s revelation of Paul’s evangel to the nations.)

As Acts 19 progressed, “the word of the Lord” grew, and was strong (19:20.) Luke then writes:

Now as these things were fulfilled, Paul pondered in spirit, passing through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying that, “After my coming to be there I must see Rome also.”

This could be aptly titled the “central crisis point” of Paul’s ministry. By the time Paul wrote Romans, Paul had declared that he had preached the evangel of Christ in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Corinth (Rom. 15:19.) After this point, he began teaching the conciliation of God, the “secret of the evangel” (Rom. 16:25) which is absent from the book of Acts. Since the book of Acts deals primarily with the proclamation of the kingdom (Acts 1:5-8,) the conciliation of God would, naturally, not discussed in the account.

The conciliation of God was the special secret of which Israel lacked awareness – yet it was the next portion of Paul’s evangel which was to be apprehended by those who received the evangel itself. This side of the “readjustment” administration – primarily covered in Rom. 5:1-8:30 and 2 Corinthians – did away with any distinction between the circumcision and uncircumcision. Instead of pointing at the flesh, it pointed at the spirit.

Together, the justification and conciliation comprise the content of the readjustment administration, and every letter written during Acts specifically stresses these points. At the end of Acts 28, the Pentecostal Administration is closed, and the ninth administration begins.

The “Acts 28:28 Theory”

Before we continue, I have to briefly turn my head at the Acts 28:28 theory.

If you’ve followed along in my Romans series, you’ll know that I’ve said that I hate this theory (notably, the ridiculous assertions made by the Bible Student’s Notebook.) I’m so abhorrent of this issue that I’ve hardly referred to it at all, beyond a brief interlude during Romans 1:16, when dealing with the claim from our brother Clyde Pilkington that Romans is a “Jewish” letter (I’m confused as to how one is even a believer in the evangel of God under such an impression, but for the time being, I’ll ignore this qualm.)

In short, the “Acts 28:28” theory proposes that there is a division brought about at this point in the text. Just what that division is remains unclear to many of its proponents and opponents. Some claim that anything written prior to Acts 28:28 is specially Jewish, and has no place for us today. Others claim that anything written prior to Acts 28:28 is all for us today, and the Jews were thrown away when they stone Stephen in Acts 7. And, because of this confusion, still others have come along and claimed that there is no administrational difference in Acts 28, and we’ve no reason to point at it at all.

From here, divergent schools of thought have eroded any semblance of understanding, and have created strawmans on all sides. I’m not a fan of either of the two former camps, but before I mercilessly beat the crap out of the doctrine, I’ll start with the latter camp who disbelieve that there is a division at all first.

I have much sympathy for this camp, but I say this in the sense that I have sympathy for Darwinists who sought any alternative to the demonic idea of “eternal torment.” It’s not that the Darwinists are right, but that it’s completely understandable to step back and go, “Okay, look, there’s probably something far more rational out here than that nightmare of confusion.” And similarly, this Anti-Acts 28:28 group makes a very compelling case, and one I nearly believed. The argument is that Jesus, back in Matthew 13, quotes the same passage from Isaiah that Paul does to wrap up Acts 28. Since this occurs, it must mean that Israel was set aside well before Acts 28, and this would be confirmed by Paul’s statement in Romans 11:15, that Israel’s “casting away is the conciliation of the world.” If the world is conciliated at the cross, as 2 Cor. 5:18-21 confirms for us, then Israel must have been blinded at some point prior to Acts 28, thus rendering the whole discussion pointless.

I accepted this in brief, particularly because of a compelling argument by the infamous Aaron Welch, who wrote in this interesting article, “Acts 28 theorists believe that Israel was not ‘set aside’ until after Paul arrived in Rome. However, according to Paul’s olive tree parable, the ‘natural boughs’ that represent non-remnant Israel (the majority of Israelites) had already been ‘broken out’ of the olive tree (and the “wild olive” bough representing the nations had already been “grafted in”) before Paul even stepped foot in Rome. Thus, with regard to this state of affairs involving the status of Israel, nothing changed after Paul arrived in Rome as a prisoner. “Callousness, in part” continued on Israel, and continues to this day. The only ‘part’ of Israel that wasn’t calloused (and hadn’t been cast away by God) at the time when Paul wrote Romans was the chosen remnant.”

While I enjoy Aaron Welch’s defenses of the faith, this was an article that I could not find myself standing behind, since the premise lumps all who believe a division occurs at Acts 28:28 into one category of people, and thus leaps over the proper distinctions made by A.E. Knoch, which I’ll point out in a bit. The aforementioned article does a wonderful job at exposing and rebuking the false claims made by Clyde Pilkington, but fails to disprove that there is a distinction made in Acts 28. There are three glaring problems with his argument, which I will share here.

First, the argument that Paul quoting Isaiah in Acts 28 is simply an “affirmation” of what is already true is inconclusive. It was not an affirmation when Jesus used it in regards to Isaiah, and would simply be redundant to even include Paul’s quotation at the end of Acts. The fact that Isaiah’s prophecy is cited thrice in scripture, and the first two times are under a separate context, should indicate to us that the third, as well, is a separate context. The first time was, of course, the Isaiah passage itself. The second time, by Jesus, was indeed an imposition of blindness upon the nation of Israel.

Keep in mind, however, that the doors of the kingdom were closed shortly after this, and opened again at the start of Acts by Peter with the power of the holy spirit.

As such, the third use of the prophecy by Paul, once again, is yet another imposition of blindness on Israel.

Second, I don’t know if this was an oversight on Aaron’s part, but he claims that “Paul didn’t say that anything new was taking place (or had taken place) involving Israel as a nation when he quoted from the prophet Isaiah.” This is directly contrary to the statement prior to Paul’s quote, in Acts 28:23-25–

…more came to [Paul] in the lodging, to whom he expounded, certifying to the kingdom of God, besides persuading them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning till dusk. And these, indeed, were persuaded by what is said, yet others disbelieved. Now there being disagreements one with another, they were dismissed, Paul making one declaration…

This is a direct statement that, irrespective of the belief or disbelief, the disagreements brought the dismissal of those to whom he expounded concerning the kingdom of God. It is in this light that Paul pronounces the Isaiah passage, and then reveals that the nations had already had another salvation – that of God – dispatched to them, for them to hear (Acts 28:28.) Acts 28:28, then, is a clear pause concerning the dispensation of the administration which began at Pentecost.

And, finally, I note that Paul had ceased speaking to the Jews prior to Acts 28:28, by no longer entering their synagogues, prior to writing Romans (Acts 19:9.) While he still declared the evangel of the kingdom to kings and specific groups when the time called for it, the stupor that Israel is in was undoubtedly apparent by this time. Though Jesus had imposed judicial blindness on Israel in Matthew 13, Peter had opened up the doors to the kingdom again, which pardoned them of said blindness. This callousness has come to Israel, but it must be noted, as it is in Romans, that this is in part – that is, it is a progressive callousness, of which any sound mind could ascertain the outcome, and was very much demonstrated prior to their dismissal in Acts 28.

The truth

As such, we cannot readily dismiss this distinction made at the end of Acts; however, we cannot, due to the concurrent nature of administrations, assume that anything written prior to it is inadmissible for the present, as this would lead to faulty conclusions and skewed judgment on a number of Paul’s letters. A.E. Knoch aptly summarizes this in U.R. Vol. 30, p. 206–

“I have been accused of being the originator of the ‘division’ which is made at Acts 28:28. I acknowledge that, latterly, I may have been the first to point out this great crisis. But I have never arbitrarily made it a Chinese wall to keep out everything from the time before, contrary to the terms of the secret itself (Eph, Phil., Col.)”

In other words, the position which has been taken by so many in Christ cannot be said of Knoch and the concordant crew, though many opponents have falsely charged Knoch with such a position. Knoch has always maintained that the doctrines of justification and conciliation, as well as the renewed conduct in light of these doctrines, is still very much for us today. In fact, the “secret” Knoch speaks of, in the “prison” letters, could not even be apprehended apart from the foundational doctrines!

Even as Christ locked the door of the kingdom against the nation when quoting Isaiah in Matt. 13, Paul too declares judicial blindness toward the representatives of the nation at the close of Acts. The nation is set aside, and, at this point, the secret administration I’ve hinted at is implemented. We will consider the present administration in the next article, but first, let us tie all of this together.

The Purpose of Eon 3

We have considered, in great detail, the death of the Son of God. Yet not only the action itself, but its purpose, which is to establish our justification (Rom. 4:25.) As we know now, our justification has led to a realization of the peace we may have toward God (Rom. 5.)

This is the agenda of the eighth administration. The Son of God is using this method to nullify, thus dissolve, the body of Sin (this will be the overarching topic of Romans six.) We know that He is justifying the believer, and establishing peace with him, but what change does this effect? This entire process – the justification, conciliation, and sanctification of a believer – is a blueprint. This same method will inevitably reach every member of the human race (Rom. 5:18-19, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Tim. 2:4, 4:10.) This realization will undoubtedly occur at different times for different people (1 Cor. 15:23-24, more on this later,) but it will occur.

In effecting this process through the cross, the points presented by the Slanderer back in the first eon – why should Christ lead? What is the purpose of his existence? – are given affirmative answer through the ecclesia which is Christ’s body (Eph. 1:21, 3:10.) Thus, as we realize the seventh and eighth administrations and their resolve, the purpose of this eon becomes clear – to undo what the Slanderer has done.

We see this stated plainly in 1 John 3:8–

For this was the Son of God manifested, that He should be annulling the acts of the Adversary.

There are a number of acts which the Adversary has enacted. Those playing along at home will note that, if Christ is the thematic representative of the grace, life, and wisdom which God has for us before the eons commence, then the Slanderer would, naturally, contain the opposite. Instead of grace, the Slanderer provides sin (1 John 3:8, John 8:44.) Instead of life, the Adversary detains in death (Rom. 6:23, Gen. 3:1-5.) Instead of wisdom, the Slanderer remains stubborn (2 Cor. 4:4.)

In His glorious accomplishment at the cross, Christ begins a monumental reversal of these actions, which we will convey as we consider more uses of the word “eon.”

First, as we have covered ad nauseam, this accomplishment has secured the eventual justification (thus the eventual belief) of every single person. Observe Rom. 5:18-19–

Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for life's justifying.

For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just.

Considering everything we meditated on in Romans 1-5, there is little doubt in the believer as to why the eon has continued on after Jesus’ resurrection. The eon must continue, for there are still members of the body of Christ who have not yet been called – and, moreover, there is still growth in each individual member of the body of Christ which God is effecting through His Son. This growth is the second stage of salvation. It does not cover the justification, but the holiness of the saint, their putting off the present world, to put on the following world (John 18:36, Rom. 5:17.)

- GerudoKing