Biblical Studies & Theology

The paper challenges the traditional Christian interpretation of Peter’s vision in Acts 10:9–16. The text, in its biblical context, and together with related developments in early church history, point conclusively to a single interpretation: that the Gentiles have been cleansed by God. The vision does not nullify Jewish dietary laws or the Mosaic Law in general, since there is no support for the interpretation that the vision also pertains to the cleansing of unclean food. This conclusion contradicts the traditional Christian interpretation that the vision has a two-fold meaning, though it is not unique in the literature. The main implication is that Christians need to reassess their reading of the New Testament, and especially Paul, on the Law, in the light of recent literature which challenges traditional interpretations and posits various solutions to age-old disputes.

A textual analysis of the word diakrinō in Acts 11:12 was undertaken to establish whether the verse contradicts the theory that Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus remain distinct in a theologically significant manner, as some English translations imply. The study finds no clear evidence in the text to sustain the translation that there is ‘no distinction’ between the two. Diakrinō in Acts 11:12 is very unlikely to denote distinction in the sense of differentiation, and even less likely to indicate wavering or doubting on account of the distinction which observant Jews like Peter made between fellow Jews and Gentiles. Instead, diakrinō in this text is most likely intended to denote contestation or dispute: Peter was told to obey without dispute, not without making distinction between Gentiles and Jews.

Two contradictory views of the ‘one new man’ metaphor in Ephesians 2:15 are presented, one arguing that it denies any distinction between Jewish and Gentile Jesus-believers, and the other insisting that it confirms the theory of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction. This paper explores the meaning of the ‘one new man’ with special attention to the question of making distinction between Jews and Gentiles within the ekklēsia. The study focuses in turn on each of the three keywords in the metaphor, reviewing their meaning and use in the canon and providing some theological commentary alongside. Supply of the phrase, ‘in place of,’ in some translations is evaluated. Internal evidence in the form of personal pronouns is examined to determine whether it sustains or contradicts distinction theory.

The study concludes unequivocally that the ‘one new man’ in Ephesians 2:15 is a composite unity of Jews and Gentiles who retain their ethnic identities even after spiritual regeneration in Christ. The classification of individuals as believers or unbelievers in Jesus does not erase the biblical distinction between Israel and the nations, even within the ekklēsia. The mixed usage of personal pronouns in Ephesians confirms this finding. To assert that the ‘one new man’ is created ‘in place of’ Jews and Gentiles is therefore misleading. Major theological implications include the validation of Jewish tradition and practice among Jewish Jesus-believers, and their recognition as the living connection between the nations and Israel. The peace Christ made by creating Jew and Gentile in himself into ‘one new man’ is currently most evident in Messianic Jewish synagogues where members of each party worship together and have table fellowship in unity, whilst retaining their own distinctive faith traditions.

Elements of the Jewish faith tradition, including Torah observance and other Jewish practice, appear to be increasingly common among believers in Jesus. This development is troubling many Christians who, for doctrinal and practical reasons, believe it is heretical and brings division within the body of Christ (ecclesia). The objective of this research is to critically examine the biblical case against making a distinction between Jews and Gentiles within the ecclesia, considering the narrative of Acts 10:1–11:18, 15:1–28:31, and a key metaphor in Ephesians 2:14–16. Does the text validate or refute the notion that the ecclesia should make a distinction between its Jewish and its Gentile members? Three specific problems were addressed in five research papers for this compilation thesis, each employing methods of biblical exegesis and logical argumentation.

The three research problems addressed were: i) the interpretation of Peter’s vision; ii) the evaluation of three key texts which appear to refute the theory of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction; and iii) the example of the very early ecclesia with regard to making distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Peter’s vision, in Acts 10:9–16, was shown to have a single meaning: Gentiles have been purified by God. Its message had nothing to do with unclean foods, so the popular Christian interpretation that the vision signalled the termination of Jewish dietary laws (and the Mosaic Law in general) is not substantiated. In Acts 11:12, the Spirit told Peter to accompany Cornelius’ messengers without dispute. There is no sound basis for interpreting the Spirit’s command to mean that Peter should go, ‘making no distinction’ between the Gentiles of Cornelius’ household and Peter’s Jewish kinsmen. Acts 11:12, therefore, does not eradicate the prevailing distinction between Jews and Gentiles nor the theological significance thereof.

Similarly, Peter’s comment that God made ‘no distinction’ between Gentile and Jewish Jesus believers when he purified their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9) cannot be generalised to mean that the ecclesia is an undifferentiated mix of Jews and Gentiles. The context, including direct speech of Peter and James, constrains the interpretation to a restricted, soteriological sense: there is ‘no distinction’ between them in terms of how they are saved. These findings are further validated throughout the remainder of Acts, where the leaders of the ecclesia, especially Paul, teach and practise making distinction between Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus by their varied obligations to Torah. Finally, Paul’s metaphor for the ecclesia in Ephesians 2:15, ‘one new man,’ is examined to determine which of two contradictory interpretations he intended: homogenous uniformity or compound unity. The certain outcome is the latter: the ecclesia comprises Jesus believing Jews and Gentiles without compromising Jewish particularity or heritage. Such ‘unity with distinction’ of former enemies is achieved by Christ without erasing those distinctions, and Messianic Jews form a bridge between Israel and the nations.

The studies conclude that the text and teaching of Acts 10:1–11:18, 15:1–28:31, and Ephesians 2:14–16 continue the biblical norm for making distinction between Jews and Gentiles within the ecclesia. Thus, the biblical case against making a distinction between Jews and Gentiles within the ecclesia is flawed. Major implications of the conclusion include doctrines concerning the identity and election of Israel, the Christian church’s relation to Israel, the structure of the church (as a twofold unity composed of Jews and Gentiles), and the varied applicability of Torah (and Jewish practice) for Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus. Making distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the ecclesia results in: i) a clear and hermeneutically consistent eschatology; ii) reconciliation of seemingly self-contradicting actions and writings of Paul; iii) protection of Gentile believers in Jesus from unnecessarily seeking to become Jewish; and iv) a unity of Jewish and Gentile believers as complementary (yet distinct) parts of the whole body of Christ, each a blessing to the other in fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham.

This study examines Peter’s comment in Acts 15:9, that God made ‘no distinction’ between Gentile and Jewish Jesus-believers in purifying their hearts by faith, to determine whether the text teaches that the ecclesia is composed of an undifferentiated mix of people from the two groups. Textual analysis shows that the comment could be interpreted at a lexical level as a denial of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction, but the context of Acts 15:1–29 demands a narrower interpretation: there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in terms of how they are saved, but they remain distinct in other respects. Both Peter’s speech and James’ verdict provide strong evidence that the leaders of the nascent ecclesia made distinction between its Jewish and Gentile members, upholding Jews’ obligation to Jewish Law and faith tradition, whilst imposing only a few moral prohibitions on Gentile believers.

Acts 15:30–28:31 is examined for evidence that either supports or invalidates the theory of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction. Particular attention is given to Acts 21:17–26 which reflects the stance of Paul, James, and all the elders in Jerusalem. Without any exception, the evidence confirms distinction theory by demonstrating that the leaders of the ecclesia observed the Law and taught other Jews in the Jesus movement to do likewise, whilst teaching Gentile believers not to convert to Judaism but at least to abstain from four moral offences. These findings concur with those of my previous studies on the same topic, which falls in an emerging field called ‘Paul within Judaism’. Some questions are posed on implications of Jews and Gentiles jointly comprising the ecclesia.

In The Way of Life, Toby Janicki has authored a unique commentary on the Didache. Like the Didache itself, The Way of Life is written primarily for Messianic Gentiles and focuses on the practical application of Torah in their everyday lives. The Way of Life expounds the Didache's instructions on how to demonstrate one's love for Yeshua by keeping his commandments. The book is packed with precious gems selected from the recent surge in Didache studies as well as ancient Jewish sources and early Christian history, yet Janicki excels at making this academic material accessible for all practitioners of the faith. Moreover, the bulk of the book is commentary, much like a comprehensive study Bible. And Janicki looks beyond the Greek text of the Didache, relating key terms to the Hebrew words and concepts from which they were probably derived.