Gentiles Without Hope and Israel’s Failure in Their Calling

The wording you are drawing from is Ephesians 2:12, where Paul describes the former condition of Gentiles:

"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."

Your question rightly senses a connection between the state of the Gentiles and the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of Israel. There is something important here, though the timing and details must be handled carefully.

Paul’s Description of the Gentiles

In the flow of Ephesians 2, Paul distinguishes:

• "Ye" — Gentile believers addressed directly.
• "We" — Israel, the circumcision, who were God’s workmanship under the covenants.

Verses 8–10 speak of salvation by grace through faith for "ye." Verse 10 then says:

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

"We" here is best understood as Israel, God’s workmanship as a covenant nation, created for certain ordained works—including, I would argue, their role as a kingdom of priests.

Immediately afterward, Paul says to the Gentiles:

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh... that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." (Ephesians 2:11–12)

Their hopelessness and godlessness are defined in terms of:

• Being outside the commonwealth of Israel.
• Being strangers to the covenants of promise.

Was This Entirely Because of Israel’s Rejection of Her King?

Your question proposes: were Gentiles without hope and without God because Israel rejected her king? There is likely some truth in that formulation, but it must be carefully qualified.

Ephesians 2:12 speaks of a time when Gentiles were "without Christ" and "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." That alienation existed even before the climactic rejection of the Messiah in His earthly ministry. Gentiles were not parties to the covenants made with Israel. In that sense, their being "without hope" was already a structural fact of the covenant arrangement: hope was located in Israel’s commonwealth and in Israel’s covenants.

At the same time, Israel’s calling included being "his workmanship... unto good works" and being a kingdom of priests. When Israel failed in that calling—whether by idolatry, covenant unfaithfulness, or later by rejecting her King—the Gentiles were left without an effective priestly nation mediating God’s light and blessing to them.

So there is a double aspect:

1. Covenantal position. Gentiles, by definition, were outside the covenants. They were never in the same place of access and privilege as Israel.
2. Israel’s failure. Israel’s refusal to walk in the ordained works, culminating in the rejection of the Messiah, meant that the nation did not function as the priestly instrument through which Gentiles might be blessed.

In that sense, Israel’s rejection of her King left the Gentiles without the functioning priesthood that could have brought them nearer.

Gentiles in the Old Testament: Was There Any Hope?

We must also ask whether Gentiles in the Old Testament had any hope at all, or whether they were simply abandoned. The biblical record indicates that Gentiles could find mercy and blessing through Israel’s God and often through Israel’s representatives.

Examples include:

• Ruth, a Moabitess, who came under the wings of the God of Israel and into Israel’s people through Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer.
• Rahab in Jericho, who was spared through the sign of the scarlet cord and her connection with Israel’s emissaries.
• Naaman the Syrian, who received healing and knowledge of the true God through the prophet in Israel.

In each case, there is a kind of priestly mediation: a Jewish intermediary, a connection with Israel’s covenant community, and a turning from idols to the God of Israel. This suggests that:

• Hope for Gentiles was present, but mediated and indirect.
• It depended on some form of contact with Israel and with Israel’s God through Israel’s appointed representatives.

Thus, even before the rejection of the King, Gentiles as such were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" and "strangers from the covenants of promise," but individuals could be brought near through Israel’s priestly and prophetic ministry.

Israel’s Rejection and the Gentile Condition

When Israel rejected her King, she also rejected the fullness of her priestly calling. The kingdom that would have placed Israel as head of the nations and as the functioning priestly nation was postponed. The Gentiles were left, in that sense, without a priestly nation to whom they could say, "We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you."

From that perspective, your insight is sound: Israel’s rejection of her King contributed to the Gentiles’ being without hope and without God in the world, in that it left them without the intended national mediator.

However, Paul in Ephesians 2 is not merely describing the historical fallout of Israel’s rejection but the structural reality of Gentile alienation under the covenants. The deeper issue is that:

• The covenants and the commonwealth belonged to Israel.
• Gentiles, by birth and status, were outside those arrangements and so, viewed on that plane, "had no hope" and were "without God in the world."

The Present Dispensation of Grace

In the present dispensation, God has done something new. The middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile has been broken down. Through the cross, He has created "one new man" out of the two and is reconciling both unto God in one body.

Gentiles are no longer dependent on a functioning Jewish priesthood for access to God. They are no longer aliens from the commonwealth of Israel in the same covenantal sense, because the body of Christ stands outside that covenant structure altogether, as a distinct work of God’s grace.

So, to answer your question:

• Gentiles were without hope and without God in the sense that they were outside Israel’s covenants and commonwealth.
• Israel’s failure, including her rejection of the King, exacerbated this by preventing Israel from functioning as the priestly nation through whom light and blessing would have gone to the Gentiles.

Your suggestion that Israel’s rejection of her King left the Gentiles without a priestly mediator is a perceptive way of highlighting how Israel’s unfaithfulness affected the nations and helps illuminate Ephesians 2:12 in connection with Israel’s priestly calling.

questiontransition