Listener Question:
"Why, in his first 6 Acts epistles, does Paul refer to the scriptures of Moses and the prophets saying, "as it is written" and "according to the scriptures", but NOT one time does he make that reference in his last 7 "so-called" prison epistles?"
TTR Answer:
Before addressing this question (for those who are new to our blog and the Mid-Acts/Acts 9 position), the following should be made clear- there is an argument made by those who hold to an Acts 28 theological position, which goes something like this:
"The reason Paul wrote 'as it is written' and 'according to the scriptures' in certain of his epistles is because these particular epistles (the ones written during the Acts period) only deal with the hope of Israel - and not the Gentiles." (i.e. Paul preached multiple gospels -with the first being the gospel of the kingdom.)
This assertion is based on various writings from Charles Welch (among others) concerning his doctrine. It revolves around one phrase taken out of context: when Paul speaks of "the hope of Israel" in Acts 28:20.
The claim that Israel "finally fell completely" and was "finally fully cast aside" at Acts 28:28 is also an Acts 28 teaching. It is upon this tenet they base their teachings of "more than one body of Christ" as well as the idea that Paul preached multiple gospels during multiple dispensations, among other implications concerning Paul's writings.
Those who hold to this theology make divisions where there aren't any, such as claiming that the "gospel of God" is a different gospel all to itself. -It is not, and we have already proven as much with scripture. That claim crumbles when one decides to finally, once and for all, agree with the word of God. We've already thoroughly addressed this with scripture in context during part one of our Romans verse-by-verse series.
Those paying attention might have noticed that this whole question is based on multiple fallacies of presumption. This is an obvious example of an illegitimately complex question, which is a logical fallacy. There are assumptions within the question that the questioner has not proven, and it is impossible to directly answer it "as is" without accepting compliance with the unproven assumptions within the question. That's why the question is classified as "complex."
So, we must reframe the question to answer it without accepting the unproven assumptions. At the same time, we will also disprove these erroneous presumptions and show them to be based on false premises.
Let's address the first part of the question: "Why, in his first 6 Acts epistles, does Paul refer to the scriptures of Moses and the prophets, saying 'as it is written' and 'according to the scriptures',..."
Answer: The premise that Paul uses the phrases "as it is written" and "according to the scriptures" in all of his first 6 Acts epistles is false.
Paul's "first 6 Acts epistles" includes 1 & 2 Thessalonians. The question this listener asks assumes that either the phrases (or references to the phrases) "as it is written" and "according to the scriptures" are found in the books of 1 & 2 Thessalonians. However, we have neither found those phrases nor references to those phrases within the letters written to Thessalonica from Paul.
So, we need to repair the first part of the question, making it reflect fact instead of assumption. Here is how it should read:
"Why, in ONLY 4 of his first 6 Acts epistles, does Paul refer to the scriptures of Moses and the prophets, saying 'as it is written' and 'according to the scriptures'..."
Much better. (This also removes a key assumption that Acts 28ism is built upon by deflating the blown up idea that Paul's inter-Acts epistles were written only for the hope of Israel, and not intended for the Gentiles of his later epistles.)
To the correctly framed question, we can very simply and directly answer:
Paul referred to the scriptures of Moses and the prophets as needed, to convince the Jews who were not part of the Little Flock. This is something else we expounded on in the first 2 Romans episodes.
Now, let's look at the second part of the listener's question:
"Not one time making that reference ['as it is written', 'according to the scriptures'] in his last 7 so called 'prison epistles?'"
Just as we saw in the first part of the question, the assumptions made within the 2nd part of the same question are simply inaccurate.
While we do not see exact quotations of these phrases in Paul's post-Acts epistles, the claim that Paul does not make references in his last 7 epistles that are "according to the scriptures" or "as it is written" -is false.
We do not need exact word-for-word quotations of those phrases if we accept the very literal evidence within the epistles.
Paul does continue to quote and/or reference the Law and Prophets of the Old Testament in his last 7 (post-Acts) epistles. So, by whose authority does one place the stipulation of the usage of the exact phrases "according to the scriptures" and "as it is written" to be present in the immediate text, for those references to be considered valid?
So, to answer the second part of the question, let's prove with Paul's own words, that the claim of Paul "not one time making that reference" ["as it is written" or "according to the scriptures"] in his last 7 epistles" -is an incorrect assumption.
*Before we go through each of Paul's post-Acts letters, we need to make something clear: The word-for-word phrases which are presented by the questioner are simply references to what is written in the Law and Prophets, located in the Old Testament portion of our King James Bible. Additionally, there is a very logical reason why one may not see quite as much of the rudimentary language Paul initially used while building upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets in his earlier letters.
With that in mind, let's test the ideology that fueled the listener's question: that Paul's post-Acts epistles were written to and for a different audience than his intra-Acts epistles.
1 & 2 Timothy: Post-Acts Epistles
In 2 Timothy 3:15, Paul referred to the scriptures that Timothy knew from a child, which made him wise unto salvation. The only scriptures that Timothy could have known from a child were from Moses (Law) and the prophets.
So, if Timothy knew these scriptures from a child, and they made him wise unto salvation, then the same scriptures should make anyone else who already knew them (i.e., the Jews/Israel/Paul's kinsmen in the flesh) wise unto salvation as well.
This is why Paul uses so many references from Moses and the prophets in the book of Romans. These scriptures made the Jews at Rome wise unto salvation because they knew them from a child, just like Timothy.
The context of the oft-quoted 2nd Timothy 3:16 (the very next verse) is, in fact, concerning the same scriptures that Timothy knew "from a child," which made him "wise unto salvation."
Paul regularly referred to these Time Past passages because he was talking to people who either knew the Old Covenant or knew of it. But the fact that Paul is referring to the scriptures of Moses and the prophets all the way over in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 presents a real problem for those of the Acts 28/Mid-Acts "hybrid" positions, and here's why:
Firstly, 2 Timothy is well past the end of the Acts period.
In addition to that, we have this written in 1 Timothy 5:18:
"For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."
1 Timothy 5:18 is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 25:4, and this isn't the only time Paul references this particular law of Moses.
In 1 Corinthians 9:9 (An epistle written during the Acts period, by the way), we read this:
"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope."
Notice, Paul says "it is written in the law of Moses" in vs 9, and "this is written" in vs 10, concerning the exact same time past passage he refers to in 1 Timothy 5:18.
The phrases "For the scripture saith", "it is written", "this is written", and "according to the scriptures" all reference the same thing. And when Paul talks about how Timothy has known the scriptures from a child that have made him wise unto salvation, we are talking about "as it is written" and "according to the scriptures" there too. It's all a reference to what is written in Moses and the prophets.
In 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Paul writes:
"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine..."
What law could Paul possibly be speaking of, far past the Acts period, and clear over here in 1 Timothy?
Answer: The law that's not made for a "righteous man." -The law that was added because of transgressions (Gal 3:13). This is about the law of Moses.
Also, in 2 Timothy 3:8, notice Paul refers directly to Moses by name:
"Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith."
And let's not forget, the elements of Paul's gospel which God "promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures" in the intra-Acts book of Romans 1:3-4, namely:
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:"
...is the same information that Paul calls "my gospel" in what is, by all accounts, the last letter he ever wrote:
(Post-Acts - 2 Timothy 2:8) "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:"
Philippians: A Post-Acts Epistle
In Philippians chapter 3, we see where Paul lists his credentials in the Jews religion. It would make no sense for him to list these things in detail, if the ones he wrote to didn't know what it meant to be:
"Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." -Philippians 3:5-6
-What law?
-A Pharisee?
A "heathen" or "gentile like us" - someone with no hope and without God in the world, a complete stranger from the covenants of promise -wouldn't have a clue what Paul was talking about here in Philippians.
Yet, Paul wrote these Jewish things to people about 1400 miles away from Jerusalem, where all the Pharisees lived. So, we must ask, "Why is Paul mentioning things that only those people of the Jewish religion living in/around (or are from) Jerusalem -would know anything about?"
The simple answer is: because there were Jews dwelling in Philippi, Paul's kinsmen, whom he wanted to be saved according to his gospel.
In this same letter to the Philippians, Paul mentions his fellowlabourors whose names were in the Book of life. As previously demonstrated in one of our podcasts, the Book of Life is all about Israel. (And not about anyone in the Body of Christ.) Just what would a congregation made up of only non-Jews, know about that?
When these things are considered, the dots start to connect, and the Post-Acts position falls apart.
Paul's first trip to Macedonia was in Acts 16. Philippi was a colony and the chief city of Macedonia. Paul's custom was to go into the synagogues when he first entered a town. However, there was no synagogue to be spoken of in Philippi (according to the scriptures and lack of archeological and architectural evidence). So, instead, Paul went to the river, where the God-fearing Jews of Philippi gathered, since they had no synagogue to speak of.
Luke writes in Acts 16:13-14 "And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."
According to this passage, before he penned Philippians, Paul had already taught the Jews residing in Philippi "according to the scriptures" and "as it is written" while he was there in person on the sabbath, in Acts 16. So, he would not need to be redundant about it in a letter. Especially since he had already been there thrice when his epistle to them was written.
Colossians: A Post-Acts Epistle
To the Colossians, Paul writes that they already are: "Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving."
So there would be no need for Paul to go back and reteach what they had already been taught.
In addition to that, apparently, Epaphras (Colossians 1:7) did an outstanding job in his ministry to them on that front.
Colossians 2:11-16 references multiple teachings from the Jewish faith: baptism, circumcision, ordinances, holy days, new moons, and sabbaths.
What would a heathen "gentile ONLY" audience know of these things? -Not a thing.
Philemon: A Post-Acts Epistle
Philemon was written to an individual for a specific purpose and is very short. Philemon also looks to be from Colossae as well, and he also learned under Epaphras. So, for the wisdom concerning what was taught to Philemon by Paul, we would do well to just read it with Colossians in mind.
Titus: A Post-Acts Epistle
Titus was in the large and populous Greek island of Crete when Paul wrote to him. There were definitely already Jews dwelling there before Paul or Titus, according to Acts 2:11.
From Paul's references Jewish fables (Titus 1:14) and striving about the Law (Titus 3:9) - it is evident that Titus was up against reprobate Judaizers there in Crete. Titus was tasked with setting things in order and ordaining elders in each city, not necessarily teaching unbelieving Jews. Besides, Titus wasn't even circumcised, and therefore, unbelieving Jews would not have listened to him.
Because Paul was in Crete in Acts 27 during his voyage to Rome, he was already experientially informed of those unbelieving Jews, concerning whom he was instructing Titus.
Ephesians: A Post-Acts Epistle
The Ephesians were the church Timothy was in charge of when Paul wrote 1 & 2 Timothy. However, Ephesus had a substantial Jewish community long before Paul ever showed up (as we established in our 2nd Romans podcast).
Although Paul went to Ephesus in Acts 18 for the first time, by the time he wrote this letter to them years later, the Ephesians had been fully established "as it is written" and "according to the scriptures."
Paul stayed there and taught for what is estimated to be over 3 years (2 of them at the school of Tyrannus.) It is obvious that he had plenty of time to address, in person, those things that he took so much time to write unto the Romans (where he had not yet been.)
-Remember, Rome, like Ephesus, also contained a large Jewish community. This is why the Roman epistle references Old Testament scriptures more than any of Paul's other writings.
The Jewish community at Ephesus was, by all historical accounts, even larger than the one at Rome. It is ludicrous to assert that Paul would not have taken the time to establish the Jewish community at Ephesus during his time there. Yet Acts 28ers would instead have us believe Paul would establish only the Jewish community at Rome according to the apostles and prophets on his initial contact with them, instead of those at Ephesus - although his initial contact with Rome happens to have taken place after all his time spent at Ephesus. Acts 28ism has Paul's timeline regressing instead of progressing, and they don't even appear to know it.
But instead of going along with man's false narratives, we can rest assured that Paul established those at Ephesus the first time he made contact with them, in person. And even though Paul had no need to re-establish them in a letter by using the foundation of the law and prophets, there are references to Old Testament teachings in Ephesians, nonetheless.
Just because Paul doesn't use the words "as it is written" or "according to the scriptures" before saying something, doesn't mean what he says isn't written in the scriptures.
For example:
Ephesians 4:8 is written in Psalm 68:18.
Ephesians 4:9-10 is written in Proverbs 30:4.
Ephesians 6:2 is literally commandment #5 of the 10 (Exodus 20:12)
The "whole armour" is a reference directly from the Prophet Isaiah. Two of the items included in the armour in Ephesians 6 are found in Isaiah 59:17.
We at TTR reject the claim that the phrases "it is written" and "according to the scriptures" do not apply to the post-Acts or "prison" epistles.
Obviously, there is no problem to solve with Paul not announcing every reference to things written in the Old Testament in each letter he wrote (although Acts 28ers would have you believe otherwise). Neither would it be a problem if he hadn't made any past scriptural references (if that were the case) when he wrote to those he had already ministered to in person. There's no need for redundancy, unless it is for correction.
When it comes to the primary "gotcha" claim of Acts 28ers, there simply is no there there.
To those of Paul's audiences who needed more evidence or correction, he used the writings of Moses and the prophets to validate his credibility by showing his understanding of the scriptures. But there had to be Jews who knew the law and prophets present in those assemblies for that to even work.
A prime example of this is the Jews of Berea (Acts 17:10-11), who were more noble than those of Thessalonica in that they actually took time to search the scriptures to see if what Paul taught them (while there in person) was so. The ONLY scriptures they could be searching at that point are the scriptures of what we now refer to as the Old Testament, or what is written in the scriptures of the Law and the Prophets.
Since Paul spent approximately 3 years teaching daily at Ephesus, 2 of those years in the school of Tyrannus, this would mean that Paul had students. Why would he need to reiterate what he had already taught them "according to the scriptures" in a letter, unless there was a problem to be dealt with which could be answered "according to the scriptures?"
Epaphras was from Colossae and had learned under Paul and/or his followers at Ephesus - the distance between those two cities was only around 125 miles. Philemon was also from Colossae or one of the nearby towns within the Lycus River Valley region. These men were students of Paul, and therefore they should have ALREADY known what they needed to know "according to the scriptures" and "as it is written" - by the time Paul wrote letters to them, so many years later.
The bottom line is this: Paul didn't do things inefficiently. He wouldn't re-teach things in his epistles unless it was absolutely necessary, like it was in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 to correct false teachings about the resurrection. The same man who wrote to us about "redeeming the times, because the days are evil" is not going contradict himself by becoming a pattern for wasting time, as Acts 28 doctrine would have you to assume.
It is not a conundrum that Paul didn't rely as heavily on the OT-Moses-Prophets in some letters as much as other letters, because he had already taught those things to those audiences, whether directly or indirectly (like with Colossians). There is no need for him to RE-establish what is already E-stablished.
It makes sense that Paul's later writings (written to people he had known for many years) would not include the more basic instructions, in much the same way it makes sense for an Algebra teacher not to begin every lesson with Basic Math. These believers were already E-stablished (initially built), and they just needed to be stablished (stablized.) As proof of Paul's custom of establishing Saints, we see a clear pattern of Paul's readers being established at the beginning of Romans vs being stablished by the end of the letter. Establishment only happens ONCE.
While this questioner has assured us they do not subscribe to the Acts 28 position, the idea that this question is based on is indeed taken from Acts 28 theology, nonetheless.
The Acts 28 position assumes that Paul preached a different gospel during the intra-Acts period than during the post-Acts period. Acts 28 Dispensationalists teach that Paul preached the gospel of the Kingdom (or at least a hybrid Kingdom/Grace gospel) throughout the Acts period until Acts 28:28.
They must set up the false dichotomy of Paul preaching a different gospel to a different audience with a different hope, for their doctrine to work. The result of this teaching is the idea that Paul is the steward of 2 (or more) different dispensations, and that there are two different "bodies" or "churches" that were formed under Paul's administration.
To accommodate this theory, Acts 28ers teach that any Gentiles who were saved during the Acts period are placed into a "body" or "church" - and that any Gentiles saved after the Acts period are put into a different "body" or "church." This leaves them to explain the one new man of Ephesians 2:16 as a joining of Gentiles saved during the Acts period under the Kingdom Gospel with Gentiles saved after Acts 28:28.
This would also imply that the "middle wall of partition" in Ephesians 2:14 was between two "different kinds of Gentiles" rather than between Jew and Gentile. This false assumption is often asserted, even though Paul clearly says the middle wall was between "us" (including himself in the equation.) This ideology is contradictory to the fact that Paul has never been considered to be any "type of Gentile" by any Acts dispensational positional teaching.
To get around the fact that Ephesians 2 clearly says Jew and Gentile make up the one new man, and not Gentile and Gentile, as your logic will clearly verify - they say the Gentiles saved under the Kingdom Gospel were "called Jews" - and is why they claim Paul is talking about these supposed "gentiles" instead of Paul's true Jewish kinsmen in the flesh (who would technically be Hebrews, as no Gentile was ever called a Hebrew after Abram was renamed Abraham, and circumcision was instituted.) Even still, their explanation doesn't consider the "us" factor in Ephesians 2:14.
This is why Acts 28ism will always leave an honest Bible student scratching their head at the inconsistencies and contradictions.
A problem we have seen over the years we have been in ministry is this: Some who call themselves “mid-acts” have adapted Acts 28 ideologies into mid-acts teachings. As a result, many students of mid-Acts theology (mostly unknowingly) adapted some Acts 28 theology into their own personal belief systems. -Those are the ones you may have heard us refer to as "Hybrids."
Some of these adapted ideas may sound something like any of the following:
-Paul preached a different gospel for salvation in his early ministry than in his late ministry.
-An additional dispensation called "The dispensation of the mystery" which began at Acts 28:28.
-Paul only preached for the hope of Israel during the Acts period. After that, he only went to heathen Gentiles.
-The "Gospel of God" (defined as preaching that Jesus was the Son of God/Israel's Messiah/Seed of David) is the only gospel that that Paul preached during the Acts period.
-Any Gentile who blessed Israel is called a Greek, and the Greeks are the ones that are joined with heathen Gentiles in the one new man (not Jews in the flesh).
-Romans 11 is about Gentiles who were grafted into Israel's Kingdom program through proselytization.
-Romans (all or partially) was written to the Israel/Kingdom Saints/Little Flock
-The "far hence" gentiles of Ephesians are "gentiles like us" today, while the "them that were nigh" is referring to "Greeks" (Gentile Israel blessers.)
-The catching away of 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 & 2 Thessalonians are not the same thing as the "glorious appearing" of Titus, or our "appearing with him" in Colossians. (They say that 1 Cor 15 and 1 & 2 Thess "catching away" is for Israel.)
-Paul didn't write to "Gentiles like us" until after Acts 28:28.
-Paul stopped preaching the "gospel of the grace of God" after Acts 28:28.
-Israel fell (became loammi) in Acts 28:28.
-Paul's epistles must be rightly divided, as his inter-Acts epistles do not contain specific doctrine for today, and only the post-Acts epistles are for "gentiles like us."
-You can't find our doctrine, our gospel, the mystery, or the unsearchable riches of Christ in the book of Acts.
-The church of God that Paul refers to is a just a name for the "Little Flock."
-"Both theirs and ours" in 1 Corinthians 1:2 is in reference to the Little Flock and the Body of Christ, or the Little Flock and grafted in Gentile Israel Blessers. (statement varies among different groups)
-Dispensation of the Gospel and/or Dispensation of the Grace of God, and Dispensation of the Mystery are different dispensations given to Paul, wherein Paul preached differing gospels to different groups with different hopes. (statement varies among different groups)
If you hear anyone who calls themselves "mid-acts/acts 9" or a "right divider" assert variations of any of the above statements in their teachings, answers, posts or comments, it should be a red flag.
If you consider yourself "mid-acts/acts 9" and you believe any of the statements above, our prayer is that you will test these things, not only according to common sense, but also an unbiased reading of Paul's epistles.
Don't be like the questioner in this blog. Do not rely on untested false presumptions as a basis for your scriptural understanding.
Acts 28ism is nothing more than a never-ending rabbit hole that conjures even more questions than the ones it purports to answer. And because all questions (even unnecessary ones) demand answers, assumption often begins to be seen as fact, becoming the presumptive basis for all future conversation. In the end, it isn't only the edification of the believer that suffers, it's ultimately the preaching of the gospel that is compromised.
We hope anyone who has adopted this belief concerning Paul preaching multiple gospels with different hopes for different people, will repent (change their thinking) before further confusing any more people than they already have.
Grace and Peace, Saints.
*This blog entry contains 0% AI generated content.
Add comment
Comments