 |  |
What did God intend by these ordinances, and what did He mean by this middle wall
of partition? The reference to the latter is an allusion to the temple that was standing at
Jerusalem in the days of Christ and His apostles. This temple consisted of an outer
square some six hundred feet wide, and a second, inner, area. Josephus describes it as
follows:
"On advancing to the second temple a stone balustrade was thrown around it four feet
and a half high, and withal beautifully wrought, and in it stood pillars at equal distances
proclaiming the law of purity, some in Greek and some in Roman letters, that no alien
might pass within the sanctuary.
Such was the first enclosure, and not far from it, in the middle, was the second
ascended by a few steps and encompassed by a stone balustrade for a partition, which
prohibited by inscription any alien from entering, under penalty of death."
(Antiquities xv: xi:5).
In our own time one of the very stones spoken of by Josephus has been discovered by
the side of the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem. A cast of the stone is now in the British
Museum. The translation of the inscription is as follows:
"No one, being a foreigner, may enter into the enclosure around the holy place.
Whosoever is apprehended will himself be to blame for his death which will certainly
follow."
This was an outward and visible sign of an inward and real enmity. While this
obtained, absolute unity and equality among believers was impossible. While both Peter
and Cornelius were sinners saved by the same precious blood, the one had an access
which the other was denied. Now, had this difference merely related to the Jerusalem
temple it might not have mattered very much, but the middle wall of the temple
represented a very real middle wall in fact. This difference, dispensationally, that existed
between Jew and Gentile is seen quite clearly in the Saviour's words to the Syrophenician
woman. (We say dispensationally, advisedly, for in the realm of doctrine and salvation
Rom. 3: and 10: declare that there is "no difference" whereas Rom. 3: and 9: are just as
emphatic upon the privilege that pertains to the Jew only.) To this woman of Canaan the
Lord said:
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15: 24).
Peter's attitude when he visited Cornelius shows the existence of the middle wall very
clearly:
"Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company,
or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any
man common or unclean . . . . . I ask therefore for what intent you have sent for me?"
(Acts 10: 28, 29).
Peter, by his own admission, is still a Jew, still keeping the law that regulated
ceremonials, still calling Gentiles, however devout and God-fearing, "common" and
"unclean", and so far removed from the missionary ideal as actually to ask for what intent
Cornelius had sent for him!