IV Illustrations
An Illustration of the Word "Salt" in Colossians 4:6
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt,..."
Colossians 4:6
It is commonly thought that the Bible uses the word salt to
emphasize preserving, purifying or flavoring. Interpreters will
usually say "seasoned with salt" means that our speech should
include things which are a blessing for our hearers, words that
are flavorful, dynamic, and that say good things about the person
to whom we are talking. If we use our common experience to decide
what salt means as used in the Bible, that would be a fair
conclusion. But that conclusion is not the result of good Bible
study. We must ask, "What does the Bible tell us about the word
salt?"
The Data and Its Organization - Old Testament
First we must find all the places where the word salt is used.
We shall use the Young's Concordance, which lists all the
English words found in the King James Bible in alphabetical order.
(Strong's Concordance is organized differently.) The concordance
is sort of a dictionary. Each English entry is followed by the
Greek or Hebrew word from which is was translated. There is also
included a form of these words which an English speaker may
pronounce; and it is this form which we use to look up more
information. In the back of the concordance it lists all the
Hebrew words, followed by all the Greek words, in which the Bible
was actually written. These words are listed in alphabetical
order according to pronunciation. For each word is a list of all
the different ways it has been translated into English, together
with the frequency of each way.
First we look up the word salt in the main list of English
words; and with the Young's Concordance we happen to be using, we
find the word salt on Page 832. Almost always the words salt is a
translation of the Hebrew word "melach." Another Hebrew word,
"melechah", is also listed. There is also a listing for the word
salted, and it is a translation of the Hebrew word "malach."
Now we turn to the back of the concordance, to the list of
Hebrew words which comes right after the main list of English
words and look for the Hebrew words "melach" and "melechah." With
the concordance we are using these words are found on Page 26.
Here we discover "melach" is used 18 times as a noun and 9 times
as an adjective, but is always translated as salt in the King
James Bible. A note suggests that we find the word "mikreh."
This word is on Page 27 and is rendered once, as "salt pits", when
used with "melach." Therefore "mikreh" does not contribute
anything new. We will keep it is mind but we will not include it
in our list. "Melach" is also listed twice in italic capitals to
signify that in those cases it is Aramaic and not Hebrew. The
word "melechah" is translated once as "barren land" and another
time as "barrenness", and of course one time in Jeremiah 17:6 as
"salt land", as we found under the English listing of the word
salt on Page 832.
Consulting the Hebrew list at the back of the concordance has
provided us with the following information. We are essentially
interested in two Hebrew words: melach and melechah. Plus we
have learned that to get all the data, to find all the verses in
which these Hebrew words are used, we must look up more than the
word salt in the main part of the concordance. All the uses of
"melach" can be found in the listing of the word salt. But for
all the uses of "melechah" we must look under "barrenness" and
"barren land." We are now in a position to gather all the Old
Testament data related to the word salt.
Now we can return to the main list of English words, find our
word salt, and know that we have all the references to "melach",
the Hebrew word for salt. Furthermore, when we turn to the words
"barren land" and "barrenness" on Page 71 of the main English word
list, we find the other 2 references to "melechah", one in Job
39:6 and the other in Psalm 107:24. A partial list of the Old
Testament occurences of the word salt would be:
Melechah
Psalm 107:34: barrenness
Job 39:6: salt land
Jeremiah 17:6: salt land
Melach
Genesis 14:3: salt sea
Genesis 19:26: Speaking of Lot's wife it says, "And she
became a pillar of salt."
Leviticus 2:13: Salt occurs 3 times in this verse. For
example, "With all thine offerings thou
shalt offer salt."
Numbers 18:19: covenant of salt This is the covenant
of the firstfruits. This passage talks
about those beasts which are redeemed.
Also this is an everlasting covenant.
Numbers 34:3,12: salt sea
Deuteronomy 3:17: salt sea
Deuteronomy 29:23: This is a curse. "The whole land thereof
is brimstone and salt."
Joshua 3:16, 12:3.
15:2,5, 18:19 salt sea
Judges 9:45: Abimelech..."beat down the city" (of
Shechem) "and sowed it with salt." This
was a curse from God, as we see in
Judges 9:57.
-
-
(other scriptures)
-
-
Ezekiel 43:24: "And the priests shall cast salt upon
them, and they shall offer them up for
a burnt offering unto the Lord."
Ezekiel 47:11: "The marishes thereof shall not be held;
they shall be given to salt."
Zephaniah 2:9: "Moab shall be as Sodom and the children
of Ammon as Gomorrah, even the breeding
of nettles and salt pits and a perpetual
desolation."
These scriptures can be divided into different categories.
One is the obvious reference to the curse and judgment of God.
This set would include Genesis 19:26, Deuteronomy 29:23, Judges
9:45, Ezekiel 47:11, and especially Zephaniah 2:9.
Another set of verses includes the reference to the salt sea.
While salt sea can be viewed as a neutral term, in the Bible we
are reminded by this reference of the judgment of Sodom and
Gomorrah. And so this second set is also to a certain extent
associated with the curse and judgment of God.
A third set of verses contains references to the Old Testament
sacrifices. Notice that in Leviticus 2:13 the instructions are
that all offerings must include salt. Numbers 18:19 and Ezekiel
43:24 also show this. These sacrifices are a figure of the Lord
Jesus Christ and they represent His sacrifice upon the cross for
us as He endured the wrath of God. This was Judgment Day for
Jesus, as He paid for the sins ofll those who would believe on
Him. This can be supported by such scriptures as Galatians 3:13,
Hebrews 10:4-14, and I Peter 2:24. Therefore there is good
agreement between this set of verses and the first set, namely,
that salt is associated with the curse and judgment of God.
Conclusion - Old Testament
One conclusion we can draw from these verses is that salt is a
word that is associated not with blessing but with God's curse and
judgment.
Data and Organization - New Testament
Now let's look at the New Testament. When we look up salt in
the concordance we see that the word salt is expressed in Greek as
"halas", "hals", "halukos", and "halizomai." At this point it is
important to note which Greek word is the counterpart to the word
salt in the verse Colossians 4:6. It is the word "halas." That
is the Greek word that is important to us because it is the one
which is translated "salt" in the verse we are studying. But in
this case all 4 Greek words that are translated as salt are
similar and can be admitted as evidence. If there was a clear
difference between different Greek words that are translated as
salt in the King James English Bible, then only the word that
occurred in our verse would be important for analysis.
Looking at the list of Greek words in the back of the
concordance (Page 72 in the one we are using), we see that "halas"
is translated only as salt, and it occurs 8 times in the Bible.
"Hals" occurs one time in the Bible, as does "halukos."
"Halizomai" occurs 3 times, always as salt. If "halas" was
rendered as a different English word soemwhere else in the Bible,
we would have to go back to the main English part of the
concordance and find that reference. The important thing is to
trace that particular Greek word throughout the Bible, no matter
how it is translated into English. Incidentally, an Englishman's
Greek Concordance saves time by listing all the different ways one
Greek word is translated into English under the same Greek word,
together with the verses where each is found.
One further insight may be gleaned by reviewing the list of
Greek words at the back of the concordance (Page 72) and seeing if
there is a Greek word that looks similar to the one in which we
are interested. We might learn something if we look those up,
too. In our case there doesn't seem to be anything significant
which looks similar to "halas." Therefore a complete list of the
New Testament occurences of the word salt would be:
Halas
Matthew 5:13: "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt..."
Mark 9:50: "Salt is good; but if the salt have lost...Have
salt in YOURSELVES."
Luke 14:34: "Salt is good: but if the salt has lost..."
Colossians 4:6: "Let your speech be...seasoned with salt..."
Hals
Mark 9:49: "Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt."
Halukos
James 3:12: "So can no fountain yield salt water and fresh."
Halizomai
Matthew 5:13: "...have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be
salted?"
Mark 9:49: "For every one shall be salted with fire, and
every sacrifice shall be salted with salt."
Most of these occurrences are pretty neutral as far as
explaining the quality of salt. In other words, Matthew 5:13
states, "Ye are the salt of the earth." We cannot say exactly
what that means by itself, even though "Ye" refers to Christians.
The word salt is found 13 times in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark
and Luke. It occurs 6 times in Mark alone. Outside of that is
occurs only in Colossians 4:6 and James 3:12.
Mark 9:49, 50 would be a good place to seek for an insight.
And we find a clue in Mark 9:49: "Every sacrifice shall be salted
with salt." This is a quote from one of the Old Testament
references we just studied. The reference is found in Leviticus
2:13 and emphasizes the fact that the salt must accompany every
sacrifice. These sacrifices were figures of God's wrath. In this
case, as we saw previously, it anticipates the reality of God's
wrath upon the Lord Jesus Christ. This concept of judgment agrees
with another phrase in Mark, "Salted with fire" (Mark 9:49), since
fire also is associated with God's wrath (Hebrews 12:29).
It just so happens that we have an illustration here of a
direct tie of a New Testament passage to our Old Testament
references through the common verse of Leviticus 2:13. These
links between Old and New Testament passages are very important
and often make a big difference in understanding a passage. The
value of these connections is based upon the relationship between
the Old and New Testament, which is cometimes expressed in this
way: The New Testament is contained in the Old Testament and the
Old Testament is explained in the New Testament.
However, Mark 9:50 states that "salt is good." So how can
salt be associated with the wrath of God? Luke 14:34 and Matthew
5:13 are parallels to the verse in Mark. They all refer to the
same thing but state it a little differently in each case. Mark
and Luke both open with "salt is good" and continue with a
reverence to salt losing its savor. Matthew, however, opens with
"ye are the salt of the earth" and then continues in a similar way
to the other 2 verses. By comparing these verses we can
tentatively conclude that the good that is in salt is related to
the fact that it is in a Christian. This conclusion is reinforced
by a statement found in Mark 9:50, "have salt in yourselves." It
is because the Christian does something with salt that makes it
good. Whatever salt means, it is referring to something
important, because if it does not have its salty character it is
counted as worthless.
Incidentally, it is important to be sure we are thinking
accurately about the Bible's use of the terms salt and saltiness.
They are such common words in our everyday experience that we
might be overly influenced by what we think they obviously must
mean. Although God chooses words that are very familiar, a little
reflection on the way He uses the words salt and saltiness reveals
that He has something quite different in mind than the physical
substance we use every day to flavor our food. He states, "when
salt has lost its savor..." But in the physical world salt cannot
lose its savor. It is either salty or it is not salt. It might
be disguised by other substances, but if it is salt it still has
the same chemical composition and savor. We are looking then for
a spiritual concept in which the spiritual counterpart to salt
appears to be one thing but in reality it is not. In other words,
there is no physical counterpart to salt losing its savor. We
either have salt or we do not. Losing our savor must mean losing
our salt. God uses words from the physical world but uses them in
a way that forces us to seek a spiritual understanding and there
is a spiritual analogy, as we shall see.
Colossians 4:6 now can help us. According to that verse, it
is our speech that must be salted. And salt is associated with
the spiritual danger of the wrath and judgment of God. Now we are
ready for our conclusion.
Conclusion - Old and New Testament
Tying all these threads together, we can write our conclusion
in this simple sentence: Colossians 4:6 means that our speech
must include the wrath and judgment of God.
Testing Our Conclusion
First of all, our conclusion fits the immediate context of our
verse. Colossians 4:3-6 is talking about witnessing. Paul
expresses his desire for an open door to speak the Gospel. He
prays that he might have the wisdom to talk to unbelievers and
that he might know how to answer every man.
What was the content of Paul's witness? His own assessment is
found in Acts 20:27. He insisted on declaring the whole counsel
of God. Paul was careful to include in his speech not only the
grace of God but also the necessary prerequisite to salvation,
which is the realization that we are under the wrath of God, for
which grace is the solution. Furthermore, notice the effort Paul
makes in Romans 1-3 to emphasize the salt of the judgment of God
in his witness.
The warnings that we saw in the three Gospels which state that
salt must not lose its saltiness can be viewed as a warning to be
sure when we witness we do not neglect the truth that judgment is
coming. The larger context of the whole Bible agrees with that,
not only in the remarks we constantly find in the Bible (II
Thessalonians 1:7-9), but also as an explicit command that we do
not neglect talking about the wrath of God in our own witness
(Ezekiel 3:17,18).
It is good to recall the fact that salt cannot really lose its
saltiness but only seems to be salt and in reality is not salt at
all if it does not have its savor. The spiritual analogy here is
that a witness who does not bring the whole counsel of God is not
a true witness and in God's eyes is worthless and to be cast out.
In addition, the fact that the Bible states, "salt is good" is
a reflection of the fact that unless we tell people the truth
about their sin and the consequent wrath upon it, we won't really
be helping them. People must face the truth before it's too late.
And a witness that is faithful to the whole Bible is a witness
that can really be used of God to save people. Our salty witness
is good in the highest degree when it arrests people in their
headlong race toward hell and turns them so that they flee to God
for mercy. It is a good for nothing thing to bring a gospel of
peace when there is none (Ezekiel 13:10 & ll). It is a good thing
to warn people while they can still be saved (Jonah 3:4,5,10.)
Another test of our conclusion is in the form of a challenge.
Does John 3:17 say that a word of condemnation is not proper in
our speech? Actually, that verse does not say that Jesus did not
condemn the world, but rather that He was not sent for the purpose
of condemning it; He came as the only Savior the world would ever
know. The next few verses (18 & 19) tell us that men are
condemned already on the basis of their own wickedness. It may be
that men add to their wickedness by their unbelief. But men are
condemned first because they are sinners. Jesus did not need to
do that when He came. Nevertheless we know very well from Matthew
22 & 23 that Jesus had very condemning words to say to those who
were enemies of the Gospel. His speech was also salted with hell
and wrath. Therefore our conclusion still stands.
Application
We can go back to the verse in Acts 20:27 to see how we should
act in light of our conclusion. We have a responsibility, like
Paul, to tell the whole truth as the Bible presents it. It is up
to God to let it do its work. After all, according to Hebrews
4:12, the Bible is a two-edged sword which we must expect to cut
both ways. When we bring the news of wrath, as well as grace,
some will be saved and some will turn away (II Corinthians
2:14,15).
We can also apply this conclusion to our attitude. We must
trust God at His Word, that He will accomplish His purposes
through it (Isaiah 55:8,11). Also, we know that according to I
Corinthians 2:14 the Gospel is not particularly popular and we do
not focus upon results. We must not be only concerned about how
many people are saved when we witness, but rather we must desire
to be faithful stewards of God's Word (I Corinthians 4:2). It is
our job just to make sure our speech is both always with grace and
seasoned with salt.
An Illustration of the Value of Context
Through a Study of the Passage Acts 1:4-8
What did the apostles have in mind when they asked the
question recorded in Acts 1:6? It is usually assumed that their
question was ill timed and inappropriate because of the answer
Jesus gave them in verse 7. The normal conclusion is that they
were anticipating a restoration of the political, physical nation
of Israel, in contrast to the immediate concern of Jesus, which
was the evangelization of the world (Acts 1:8). Was their
question really based on their lack of understanding? Was it an
ignorant question? Perhaps. But any conclusion must be based
upon comparing verse 6 with the surrounding verses as well as the
rest of the Bible. We must not rest our case on what seems to be
evident from a straightforward reading of verse 6 alone.
First of all, the apostles' question follows vss. 4 and 5. We
shall appeal to the relevance of context by trying to first
understand something about these two verses, and then see if they
help us understand the apostles' motivation and interest behind
their question.
The word "He" of verse 3 is the subject of the verb command in
verse 4. So we know that the apostles remained in Jerusalem with
orders from Jesus Himself to wait for the "promise of the Father,
which saith He, ye have heard of Me." The words "of Me" mean that
Jesus is referring to the fact that He had Himself told them about
that promise previously. What could the apostles expect from the
Father? Did they know what Jesus meant when He spoke in Acts 1:4?
Consulting a listing of the word "Father" in a concordance, and
reflecting upon those references in which Jesus Himself is talking
to the apostles about the Father, we discover that the answer is,
yes. The apostles did know what Jesus meant in Acts 1:4. A few
weeks before, Jesus had said, "And I will pray the Father and He
shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you
forever" (John 14:16). That is what the Father would send to the
disciples. And more than that, we learn that the gift was
purposeful. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,...He
shall teach you all things and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26).
Furthermore, the gift of the Father was more than just for the
personal edification of the apostles. They were expected to do
something with what the Father's Comforter would teach them.
According to John 15:26 & 27, of the things which the Spirit of
truth would teach them concerning Jesus, they must "bear witness."
This whole idea is repeated and emphasized in John 16:13-14. The
promise of the Father was that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit,
would come and enable the apostles to preach the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. "When the Spirit of truth will come He will guide you
into all truth" (John 16:13). "He shall glorify Me" (John 16:14).
"He shall take of Mine, and shall show it unto you" (John 16:15).
Therefore, one thing the apostles knew very well was the
nature and the purpose of the promise of the Father which they
heard of previously from Jesus. God promised to enable them to
testify about Jesus to the world.
Acts 1:5 begins with the word, "For." This alerts us that it
is a continuation of what Jesus is saying in verse 4. We should
expect that, since the two verses are part of one remark by Jesus.
The phrase, "John truly baptized with water," is a reference to
Matthew 3:11. Whatever John the Baptist did, it was in contrast
to (but in verse 5) the preparation the apostles would have for
their task of bearing witness to Jesus. In verse 5 and in Matthew
11:3 the promise of the Father is expressed by being baptized by
the Holy Ghost. We know that the baptism by the Holy Ghost is
related to the promised Comforter because verse 4 is part of the
context of verse 5 and ought to be talking about the same thing.
Matthew 3:11 tells us in John's own words that his baptism served
only toward repentance. He brought people to the law of God to
show them how sinful they were. He was an Old Testament prophet,
preaching before the cross. He brought the law and could only
point ahead to the Savior which was to come (Matthew 3:3), who
would deliver men from the curse of the law. John emphasizes in
that same verse (verse 11) that a time will come when Jesus Christ
would baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire. By tracing the words
baptize and Holy Ghost through the New Testament we arrive at such
verses as Acts 22:16 and Titus 3:5, which teach us that baptism in
the Holy Ghost means to be saved. Again we arrive at the
conclusion that the apostles, who knew all that past history,
realized that Jesus was talking about salvation from sin. The
apostles, obedient to Christ, were to wait for the Comforter, who
would enable them to preach this word of salvation in Jesus
Christ.
It is stated in Acts 1:5 that they personally would be
baptized, but verse 5 states this not because they had yet to be
saved (for we know from the scriptures that they were), but
because God would now identify being baptized with the Holy Ghost
(a phrase used for salvation) with enablement to preach the Gospel
(the promise of verse 4). From now on everyone who is saved would
be specifically qualified and mandated to bring the Gospel of
salvation.
Now we can directly tie all we have researched to the
apostles' question in verse 6. Notice for one thing the word
"therefore." This word signifies a cause and effect relationship
and removes all doubt about the relevance of verses 4 and 5 to
verse 6. The apostles knew what Jesus was saying in verses 4 and
5; therefore they asked the question in verse 6. Jesus had just
reminded them of a few things that they ought to know, namely, the
spiritual task of witnessing that is ahead of them. With this in
their minds, they "therefore" came together and asked, "Wilt Thou
at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel?" Whatever we
think this question might mean, by applying the context, we know
that the question must be related to the bringing of the Gospel.
and in fact, alittle research into the extended context will show
that this is so.
Looking at the word restore in the concordance, we arrive at
these two significant passages. Isaiah 49:6 states that God will
some day "restore the preserved of Israel." And in the same breath
He continues on with the rest of the verse, which we know is a
reference to bringing the Gospel to the world because this verse
is quoted and explained in Acts 13:47. Certainly the context of
one-half of a verse applies to the other half of the same verse.
Therefore the restoration "of" Israel is the sending forth of the
Gospel to restore Israel to the Gospel. Secondly, a reinforcement
to this idea that "restoration" means salvation is found in Psalm
85:1 and 2. Here bringing back the captivity of Jacob is equated
with the forgiveness of iniquity, and the covering for sin. The
context (verse 2) tells us the meaning of verse 1. Bringing back
means that Jacob will be saved and Jacob refers to all God's
people, the elect, because they are the only people who are saved
from sin.
The word Kingdom must, according to the context, be related to
salvation. And so it must be taken in the sense that Jesus meant
it, as, for example, in John 18:36. It is not a political kingdom
like all the others of the world. And yet it is a real literal
kingdom; and He is a King (John 18:37), King of all those who are
redeemed. The Kingdom will be restored "to" Israel. In other
words, God's people, those redeemed from sin, will inherit the
Kingdom of God. Similarly, the word Israel, already modified from
its naturalistic and political sense to a spiritual sense by the
Isaiah 49:6 - Acts 13:47 couplet, can be related to the concept of
salvation from sin by remembering such verses as Romans 9:6. "For
they are not all Israel which are of Israel." Who then are
"Israel?" The same passage in Romans 9 tells us that the
"children of the promise" are counted for the "seed" of Abraham;
they are the true Israel. Who are these "children of promise?
They are Christians, according to Galatians 4:28. They are all
who have faith as we read in Romans 4:16.
Again we are left with the conclusion that the apostles knew
what they were asking. The question in verse 6 was not an
ignorant question. The apostles knew quite well what they were
asking and were eager to see the salvation of God brought to the
whole world. They wanted the Gospel to go to all the world so
that all God's children would come to faith. Therefore the answer
Jesus gave in verse 7 and 8 does not ignore or set aside their
question but answers it. The restoration of Israel would come;
but the complete restoration, in its fullest, would not be at
"this time". Jesus says they do not need to know when the job of
evangelization would be complete, and so they would not "know the
times or seasons" when the job of restoration would be complete.
The answer to the question in verse 6 is found in verse 8. Jesus
is saying that He is resotring the Kingdom when they are bringing
the Gospel. Jesus goes back to the promise of verse 4 and reminds
them that the Holy Ghost would come upon them. And so they will
be able to witness, as was promised in John 15:26 (the words
witness and testify come from the same Greek word). The tie
between John 15:26 and Acts 1:8 is direct and sure. Therefore we
know that Jesus is reminding them of something they already were
aware of when He directed them to be witnesses throughout the
world.
In short, Jesus begins the conversation by telling them about
the promise the Father would give. They quite naturally ask when
that would be completely fulfilled. Jesus then tells them that
it's not for them to know when the full evnagelistic season would
be complete, but nevertheless they are to go out and inaugurate
it.
We might be surprised at the way that the apostles asked the
question. Why did they not, for example, just use the words and
phrases in the New Testament which are clearly identified with
bringing the Gospel? They could have used words and phrases that
come out of the passages in John 14 through 16, to which Jesus
Himself refers. However, it is not so strange that they used the
phrase "restore again the Kingdom to Israel," when we reflect on a
few facts. The Old Testament was the only portion of scripture
that they had to go on and it is the scripture that Jesus Himself
used to explain His full salvation story, as we read in Luke
24:19-27. Since Luke 24:27 says Jesus expounded all scriptures
concerning Himself, it would include passage that use "restore,
such as Isaiah 49. The men who heard Jesus expound told the
disciples what had happened (Luke 24:35). Another important fact
is that while it is true that the apostles spoke the question, it
is really God who spoke in Acts 1:6. Once this verse was set in
scripture, it became the Word of God. Of all the tings that the
apostles could have said, God guided them to say what they did
because it is what God wants to tell us about this incident.
Therefore it is natural to expect God to tie together the Old
Testament promises with the New Testament fulfillment. God,
through the apostles' question, unifies the Old and New Testament
promises. In fact, we learn that the context of any verse is
"all" the rest of the Bible. That is the context which really
matters and must be faced. As we assumed before we studied the
Bible, we must gather "all" the data; and we must expect to use
the immediate and relevant extended data before we can make a
Perhaps the emphasis that the apostles were eagerly looking
for the opportunity to testify of Jesus to the world seems to
conflict with the story in Acts 10 in which God had to take
special steps to convince Peter to evangelize the Gentiles too.
But that is not a real conflict. For one thing the question in
Acts 1:6 is a general question. When will the evangelistic
program be completed? Whether some apostles actively worked to
include the Gentiles in the Kingdom or not does not change the
fact that they asked a spiritual question, about evangelism.
Peter, for example, still well understood the nature and goal
of the Gospel. The proof of that is that before the incident in
Acts 10 Peter was still an ardent evangelist. He preaced widely,
seeking to restore many from the bondage to their sin (Acts
3:12-26). Peter just had to be further instructed about the scope
of the Gospel he so eagerly proclaimed. In fact, other apostles
quite willingly preached to Gentiles. Acts 8 tells us that
Phillip was quick to preach to an Ethiopian. He had no
reservations about preaching Jesus to a Gentile. And so our
conclusion stands. No future physical restoration of the nation
of Israel was anticipated by the apostles. The whole context of
Acts Chapter One is the inauguration of God's program of
evangelism. It was Jesus' main desire and to this all the
apostles agreed and looked forward to its completion.