Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth
Ultra-Dispensationalism Examined In The Light Of Holy Scripture
Contents
PAUL'S exhortation to the younger preacher, Timothy, has come home to many with great power in recent years. As a result, there has been a return to more ancient methods of Bible study, which had been largely neglected during the centuries of the Church's drift from apostolic testimony. Augustine's words have had a re-affirmation: "Distinguish the ages, and the Scriptures are plain." And so there has been great emphasis put in many quarters, and rightly so, upon the study of what is commonly known as "dispensational" truth. This line of teaching, if kept within Scriptural bounds, cannot but prove a great blessing to the humble student of the Word of God who desires to know His will or plan in His dealings with men from creation to the coming glory. A careful examination of the volume of Revelation shows that God's ways with men have differed in various ages. This must be taken into account if one would properly apprehend His truth.
The word "dispensation" is found several times in the pages of our
English
Bible and is a translation of the Greek word "oikonomia." This word,
strictly
speaking, means "house order." It might be translated "administration,"
"order,"
or "stewardship." In each successive age, God gives to men of faith a
certain
stewardship, or makes known to them a certain order or administration,
in
accordance with which they are responsible to behave. A
dispensation
then is a period of time in which God is dealing with men in some way
in
which He has not dealt with them before. Only when a new
revelation
from God is given, does a dispensation change. Moreover, there
may
be degrees of revelation in one dispensation; all, however, having to
do
with a fuller unfolding of the will of God for that particular
age.
This was very definitely true in the dispensation of law, from Moses to
Christ. We have the various revelations: of Sinai, both the first
and
second giving of the law; then added instructions during the wilderness
years;
the covenant with David; and the revelations given to the
prophets.
The circumstances in which God's people were found changed frequently
during
this age of law, but the dispensation itself continued from Sinai until
Jesus
cried, "It is finished." It is important to have this in mind,
otherwise
the vast scope of an ever unfolding dispensation may be lost sight of,
and
one might get the idea that every additional revelation of truth in a
given
age changed the dispensation, whereas it only enlarges it.
One may illustrate a dispensation in a very simple way, remembering
that
the word really means "house order," and I might add, the Greek word
has
been Anglicized, and we know it as "economy." Let us suppose a young
woman
whom we will call Mary, is going out into service. She obtains a
position
in a humble home belonging to a good family of the working class.
There
are certain rules governing that home which she must learn to
observe.
All perhaps is not plain to her at once, but as time goes on, she
learns
more and more fully the desires of her mistress. We will say she
is
to rise at five every morning and begin to prepare the breakfast and
put
up the lunches for those who go out to work. At six she is to
ring
the rising bell; at half-past six the family are supposed to be at the
breakfast-table; and at seven they leave for work. Dinner of
course
is at a certain hour at night, and in the meantime she has her
different
duties to perform in keeping the house in order. She learns quite
thoroughly the domestic economy of this particular home and becomes a
well-qualified household servant. Now let us suppose that later
on
she finds that a cook and housekeeper is needed for the large mansion
on
the hill. She applies for the position and is accepted.
Moving
in, her mistress undertakes to instruct her in the economy of the new
home,
but Mary says, "You need not give me any instructions, Ma'am, I know
exactly
how a house should be run. just leave it to me and everything will be
attended
to properly. I have had some years of experience in housekeeping
and
I would not have asked for the position if I did not know what was
required."
Her mistress is dubious, but, for the time being, acquiesces.
The next morning, the waking-gong sounds at six o'clock. The
family,
who are accustomed to banker's hours during the day and are given to
very
late hours at night, are astonished and chagrined at being aroused so
early. The mistress calls down to the housekeeper, "What does
this
mean?" and learns that breakfast will be on the table in half-an-hour.
"Why, Mary," she exclaims; "we never breakfast here until half-past
eight."
"But the breakfast is hot and the lunches are all ready, Ma'am."
"No one carries lunches in this home. You see, Mary, you do not
understand
the arrangement here. I shall have to instruct you carefully
today."
And poor bewildered Mary learns the importance of dispensational truth!
The illustration, I know, is crude, but I think any one will see the
point. God had one order for the house of Israel. There is
another
order for the house of God, the Church of the living God today.
There
will be a different order in the millennial age, and there have been
varying
orders in the past.
All this comes out clearly in the pages of Holy Scripture, and is
certainly
involved in the expression in our English Bibles, "rightly dividing the
Word
of Truth." Of course, this expression is not by any means to be limited
to
dispensational teaching. It also implies putting each great
doctrine
of the Word in its right place. It has been translated, "cutting
in
a straight line the Word of Truth," that is, not confounding or
confusing
things that differ. It even suggests the thought of honestly
facing
the Word of Truth.
It is right here then that we need to be careful, and not read into the
Word
of God ideas out of our own minds which are not really there.
Through
doing this, some have ignored dispensational truth altogether.
Others
have swung to an ultra-dispensationalism which is most pernicious in
its
effect upon one's own soul and upon testimony for God generally.
Of
these ultra-dispensational systems, one in particular has come into
prominence
of late years, which, for want of a better name, is generally called
"Bullingerism," owing to the fact that it was first advocated some
years
ago by Dr. E. W. Bullinger, a clergyman of the Church of England.
These
views have been widely spread through the notes of "The Companion
Bible,"
a work partly edited by Dr. Bullinger, though he died before it was
completed. This Bible has many valuable features and has been a
help
in certain respects to God's servants who have used it conservatively,
but
it contains interpretations which are utterly subversive of the
truth.
Some of Dr. Bullinger's positions are glaringly opposed to what is
generally
accepted as orthodox teaching, as, for instance, the sleep of the soul
between
death and resurrection; and it is a most significant fact that while he
did
not apparently fully commit himself to any eschatological position as
to
the final state of the impenitent, most of his followers in Great
Britain
have gone off into annihilation, and there is quite a sect in America
who
began with his teaching who now are restorationists of the broadest
type,
teaching what they are pleased to call universal reconciliation, which
to
their minds involves the final salvation not only of all men, but of
Satan
and all the fallen angels. These two views, diverse as they are,
are
nevertheless the legitimate offspring of the ultra-dispensational
system
to which we refer.
The present writer has been urged by many for years to take up these
questions,
but has always heretofore shrunk from doing so; first, because of the
time
and labor involved, which seemed out of all proportion to the possible
value
of such an examination; and secondly, because of a natural shrinking
from
controversy, remembering the word, "The servant of the Lord must not
strive;
but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness
instructing
those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them
repentance
to the acknowledging of the truth." But the rapid spread of these
pernicious
views and their evident detrimental effect upon so many who hold them,
has
led to the conclusion that it would be unfaithfulness to God and to His
people
if one refused to seek to give any help he could in regard to these
teachings.
Briefly, then, what are the outstanding tenets of Bullingerism and its
kindred
systems? For one needs to remember that a number are teaching
these
ultra-dispensational things who declare that they are not familiar with
the
writings of Dr. Bullinger, and repudiate with indignation the name of
"Bullingerism." There are perhaps six outstanding positions taken by
these
teachers:
Besides these six points, there are many other unscriptural things
which
are advocated by various disciples who began with these views and have
been
rapidly throwing overboard other Scriptural teachings. Many
Bullingerites
boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection,
the
annihilation of the wicked, or, as we have seen, universal salvation of
all
men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus
Christ,
and, gravest of all, the personality of the Holy Spirit. All of
these
evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism. Once men take
up
with this system there is no telling how far they will go, and what
their
final position will be in regard to the great fundamental truths of
Christianity. It is because of this that one needs to be on his
guard,
for it is as true of systems as it is of teachers, "By their fruits ye
shall
know them."
Having had most intimate acquaintance with Bullingerism as taught by
many
for the last forty years, I have no hesitancy in saying that its fruits
are
evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout
the
length and breadth of this and other lands, it has divided Christians
and
wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its
votaries
in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that
they
look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their
peculiar
views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has
absolutely
throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields
abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no
hesitancy
in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth.
Instead
of rightly dividing the Word, I shall seek to show that these teachers
wrongly
divide the Word, and that their propaganda is anything but conducive to
spirituality and enlightenment in divine things.
HOWEVER they may differ in regard to minor details of their various
systems,
practically all ultra-dispensationalists are a unit in declaring that
the
four Gospels must be entirely relegated to a past dispensation (in
fact,
according to most of them, they are pushed two dispensations back),
and,
therefore, are not to be considered as in any sense applying to this
present
age. It is affirmed with the utmost assurance that the Gospels
are
wholly Jewish. Inasmuch as we are told in the Epistle to the
Romans
(15: 8), that "Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the
truth
of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers," the position is
taken
that the records of the Evangelists deal solely with this phase of
things,
and that there is nothing even in the utterances of our Lord Himself in
those
books that has any special place for the present dispensation.
Yet a careful consideration of the very passage in which these words
are
found would seem to negative this entire theory and prove that it is
absolutely
groundless, for when the apostle is stressing true Christian behavior,
he
refers the saints back to the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus when
here
on earth. Notice the opening verses of Romans 15. We are told
that
the "strong should bear the infirmities of the weak, and not seek to
please
themselves, but that each one should have in mine the edification of
his
neighbor," having Christ as our great example, "who pleased not
Himself,
but of whom it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached Thee
fell
on Me."
We are then definitely informed that not only what we have in the four
Gospels,
but what we have in all the Old Testament is for us, "for whatsoever
things
were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through
patience
and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Here there is no
setting
aside of an earlier revelation as though it had no message for the
people
of God in a later day simply because dispensations have changed.
Spiritual
principles never change; moral responsibility never changes, and the
believer
who would glorify God in the present age must manifest the grace that
was
seen in Christ when He walked here on earth during the age that is
gong.
It is perfectly true that He came in exact accord with Old Testament
prophecy
and came under the law, in order that He might deliver those who were
under
the law from that bondage. He was in reality a minister of the
circumcision
for the truth of God, not-observe-to fulfil at His first coming the
promises
made unto the fathers, but to confirm them. This He did by His
teaching
and His example. He assures Israel even in setting them to one
side,
that the promises made beforehand shall yet have their fulfilment.
But, observe, it is upon this very fact that the apostle bases present
grace
going out to the Gentiles, for he adds in verse 9:
Here, while not for a moment ignoring that revelation of the mystery of
which
he speaks in the closing chapter, Paul shows that the present work of
God
in reaching out in grace to the Gentiles, is in full harmony with Old
Testament
Scripture, while going far beyond anything that the Old Testament
prophets
ever dreamed of, and then he adds:
While there is a change of dispensation, there is no rude severing
of
Old
Testament or Gospel revelation from that of the present age. The
one
flows naturally out of the other, and the ways of God are shown to be
perfectly
harmonious. This being so in connection with the Old Testament,
how
much more does the same principle apply in connection with the four
Gospels. While fully recognizing their dispensational place, and
realizing
that our Lord is presented in the three Synoptics as offering Himself
as
King and the kingdom of Heaven as such to Israel, only to meet with
ever-increasing rejection, yet it should be plain to any spiritual mind
that
the principles of the kingdom which He sets forth are the same
principles
that should hold authority over the hearts of all who acknowledge the
Lordship
of Christ. In john's Gospel the case is somewhat different, for
there
Christ is seen as the rejected One from the very beginning. It is
in
chapter one that we read, "He came unto His own and His own received
Him
not." Then based upon that, we have the new and fuller revelation which
runs
throughout that Gospel of grace, flowing out to all men who have no
merit
whatever in themselves.
But in Matthew, which is preeminently the dispensational Gospel, the
Lord
is presented as the Son of David first of all. Then when it is
evident
that Israel will refuse His claims, He is presented in the larger
aspect
of Son of Abraham in whom all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed.
The break with the leaders of the nation comes in chapter twelve, where
they
definitely ascribe the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil. In
doing
this, they become guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, the
crowning
sin of that dispensation, which our Lord declares could not be forgiven
either
in that age or in the one to follow. In chapter thirteen, we have
an
altogether new ministry beginning. The Lord for the first time
opens
up the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, revealing things that had
been
kept secret from the foundation of the world, namely the strange and
unlooked-for
form that the kingdom would take here on earth after Israel had
rejected
the King and He had returned to Heaven. This is set forth in the
seven
parables of that chapter, and gives us the course of Christendom during
all
the present age.
As a rule, the ultra-dispensationalists would ignore all this and push
these
seven parables forward into the tribulation era after the Church, the
Body
of Christ, has been taken out of this scene. But this is to do
violence
to the entire Gospel and to ignore utterly the history of the past 1900
years.
just as in Revelation two and three we have an outline of the history
of
the professing Church presented under the similitude of the seven
letters,
so in Matthew 13 we have the course of Christendom in perfect harmony
with
the Church letters, portrayed in such a way as to make clear the
distinction
between the Church that man builds and that which is truly of
God.
In chapter sixteen of Matthew's Gospel, the Lord declares for the first
time
that He is going to build a Church or assembly. This assembly is
to
be built upon the Rock, the confession of the apostle Peter that Christ
is
the Son of the living God. How utterly vain it is to try to
separate
this declaration from the statement in the Ephesian Epistle where we
read,
Here in the preeminent prison epistle of which so much is made by the
Bullingerites, you find that the Church then in existence is the Church
our
Lord spoke of building when He was here in the days of His flesh.
The
discipline of that Church is given in Matthew 18: 15-20:
In Matthew sixteen you have the assembly as a whole, comprising all
believers
during the present dispensation. Here in chapter eighteen, you
have
the local assembly in the position of responsibility on earth, and its
authority
to deal with evil-doers in corrective discipline.
The complete setting aside of Israel for the present age is given us in
chapter
23: 37-39,
In the light of the words, "Your house is left unto you desolate," how
amazing
the presumption that would lead any to declare, as practically all
these
extreme dispensationalists do declare, that Israel is being given a
second
trial throughout all the book of Acts, and that their real setting
aside
does not take place until Paul's meeting with the elders of the Jews
after
his imprisonment in Rome, as recorded in the last chapter of
Acts.
The fact of the matter is that the book of Acts opens with the setting
aside
of Israel until the day when they shall say, "Blessed is He that cometh
in
the name of the Lord." That is His second glorious coming. In the
interval,
God is saving out of Israel as well as of the Gentiles, all who turn to
Him
in repentance.
In Matthew twenty-four, we are carried on to the days immediately
preceding
that time when the Son of Man shall appear in glory, and we find the
people
of Israel in great distress, but a remnant called His "elect" shall be
saved
in that day.
I pass purposely over chapter twenty-five as having no particular
bearing
on the outline, because a careful consideration of it would take more
time
and space than is here available. The closing chapters give us
the
death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and then the
commission
of His apostles. People who have never investigated Bullingerism
and
its kindred systems will hardly believe me when I say that even the
great
commission upon which the Church has acted for 1900 years, and which is
still
our authority for world-wide missions, is, according to these teachers,
a
commission with which we have nothing whatever to do, that has no
reference
to the Church at all, and that the work there predicted will not begin
until
taken up by the remnant of Israel in the days of the Great
Tribulation.
Yet such is actually the teaching. In view of this, let us
carefully
read the closing verses of the Gospel:
According to the Bullingeristic interpretation of this passage, we
should
have to paraphrase it somewhat as follows: "Then the eleven disciples
went
away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed
them.
And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him: but some doubted. And
Jesus
came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven
and
earth, and after two entire dispensations have rolled by, I command
that
the remnant of Israel who shall be living two thousand or more years
later,
shall go out and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them in that day to
observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you, but from which I absolve
all
believers between the present hour and that coming age, and lo, I will
be
with that remnant until the close of Daniel's seventieth week." Can
anything
be more absurd, more grotesque-and I might add, more wicked-than thus
to
twist and misuse the words of our Lord Jesus Christ?
In view of all this, may I direct my reader's careful attention to the
solemn
statement of the apostle Paul, which is found in I Timothy, chapter 6.
After
having given a great many practical exhortations to Timothy as to the
instruction
he was to give to the churches for their guidance during all the
present
age, the apostle says,
One would almost think that this was a direct command to Timothy to
beware
of Bullingerism! Notice, Timothy is to withdraw himself from,
that
is, to have no fellowship with, those who refuse the present authority
of
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Where do you get those actual
words? Certainly in the four Gospels. There are very few
actual
words of the Lord Jesus Christ scattered throughout the rest of the New
Testament. Of course there is a sense in which all the New
Testament
is from Him, but the apostle is clearly referring here to the actual
spoken
words of our Saviour, which have been recorded for the benefit of the
saints,
and which set forth the teaching that is in accordance with godliness
or
practical piety. If a man refuses these words, whether on the
plea
that they do not apply to our dispensation, or for any other reason,
the
Spirit of God declares it is an evidence of intellectual or spiritual
pride. Such men ordinarily think they know much more than others,
and
they look down from their fancied heights of superior Scriptural
understanding
with a certain contempt, often not untinged with scornful amusement,
upon
godly men and women who are simply seeking to take the words of the
Lord
Jesus as the guide for their lives.
But here we are told that such "know nothing," but are really in their
spiritual
dotage, "doting about questions and strifes of words." The dotard is
generally
characterized by frequent repetition of similar expressions. We
know
how marked this symptom is in those who have entered upon a state of
physical
and intellectual senility. Spiritual dotage may be discerned in
the
same way. A constant dwelling upon certain expressions as though
these
were all important, to the ignoring of the great body of truth, is an
outstanding
symptom. The margin, it will be observed, substitutes the word
"sick"
for "doting;" "word-sickness" is an apt expression. The word-sick
man
over-estimates altogether the importance of terms. He babbles
continually
about expressions which many of his brethren scarcely understand.
He
is given to misplaced emphasis, making far more of fine doctrinal
distinctions
than of practical godly living. As a result, his influence is
generally
baneful instead of helpful, leading to strife and disputation instead
of
binding the hearts of the people of God together in the unity of the
Spirit.
The well-known passage in the closing chapter of Mark's Gospel, which
gives
us another aspect of the great commission, having to do particularly
with
the apostles, is a. favorite battleground with the
ultra-dispensationalists. Ignoring again the entire connection,
they
insist that the commission given in verses fifteen and eighteen could
only
apply during the days of the book of Acts, inasmuch as certain signs
were
to follow them that believe. As the commission in Matthew has
been
relegated by them to the Great Tribulation after the Christian age has
closed,
this one is supposed to have had its fulfilment before the present
mystery
dispensation began, and so has no real force now. They point out,
what
to them seems conclusive, that in this commission, as of course that in
Matthew,
water baptism is evidently linked with a profession of faith in
Christ.
They are perfectly hydrophobic as to this. The very thought of
water
sets them foaming with indignation. There must on no account be
any
recognition of water baptism during the present age. It must be
gotten
rid of at all costs. So here where we read that our Lord said,
"Go
ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature; he that
believeth
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned"
(Mark 16: 15,16), which would seem to indicate world-wide evangelism,
looking
out to the proclamation of the glad glorious Gospel of God to lost men
everywhere, this commission must nevertheless be gotten rid of
somehow.
The way they do it is this: The Lord declares that certain signs shall
follow
when this Gospel is proclaimed. These signs evidently followed in
the
days of the Acts. They declare they have never followed
since.
Therefore, it is evident that water baptism is only to go on so long as
the
signs follow. If the signs have ceased, then water baptism
ceases.
The signs are not here now, therefore no water baptism. How
amazingly
clear (!!), though, as we shall see in a moment, absolutely
illogical.
The signs accompanied preaching the Gospel. Why continue to
preach
if such signs are not now manifest?
The Matthew commission makes it plain that baptism in the name of the
Trinity
is to go on to the end of the age, and that age has not come to an end
yet,
whatever changes of dispensation may have come in. Now what of
this
commission in Mark? Observe first of all that our Lord is not
declaring
that the signs shall follow believers in the Gospel which is to be
proclaimed
by the Lord's messengers. The signs were to follow those of the
apostles
who believed, and they did. There were some of them who did not
believe. See verse eleven: "And they, when they had heard that He
was
alive and had been seen of her, believed not." Then again, notice verse
thirteen:
"They went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them."
And
in the verse that follows, we read: "Afterward He appeared unto the
eleven
as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and
hardness
of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He
was
risen." Now our Lord commissions the eleven, sends them forth to go to
the
ends of the earth preaching the Gospel to every creature. There
is
nothing limited here. It is not a Jewish commission. It has
nothing
to do with the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. It is a
world-wide
commission to go to all the Gentiles, and to go forth preaching the
Word.
Responsibility rests upon those who hear. They are to believe and
be
baptized. Those who do are recognized among the saved. On
the
other hand, He does not say, "He that is not baptized shall be damned,"
because
baptism was simply an outward confession of their faith, but He does
say,
"He that believeth not shall be damned."
Then in verses seventeen and eighteen, we have what Paul later called
"the
signs of an apostle."
During all the period of the book of Acts, these signs did follow the
apostles. More than that, if we can place the least reliance upon
early
Church history, the same signs frequently followed other servants of
Christ,
as they went forth in obedience to this commission, and this long after
the
imprisonment of the apostle Paul. We should expect this from the
closing
verses of Mark:
"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with signs following" (Mark 16:19,20).
In this last verse, Mark covers the evangelization of the world (not merely a message going out to the Jews), during all the years that followed until the last of the apostles, John himself, had disappeared from the scene. I do not mean to intimate that Mark knew this, but I do mean that the Spirit of God caused him so to write this closing verse as to cover complete apostolic testimony right on to its consummation. They preached everywhere, not simply in connection with Israel. Yet in the face of this, the statement has been made over and over again by these ultradispensationalists, that the twelve never went to the Gentiles, excepting in the case of the apostle Peter and a few similar instances. The statement has also been made that all miracles ceased with Paul's imprisonment, that there were no miracles afterwards. What superb ignorance of Church history is here indicated, and what an absurd position a man puts himself in who commits himself to negatives like these! An eminent logician has well said, "Never commit yourself to a negative, for that supposes that you are in possession of all the facts." If a man says there were no miracles wrought in the Church after the imprisonment of the apostle Peter, it means, if that statement is true, that he has thorough knowledge of all that has taken place in every land on earth where the Gospel has been preached, in all the centuries since the days of Paul's imprisonment, and knows all the work that every servant of Christ has ever done. Otherwise he could not logically and rationally make such a statement.
What then is the conclusion? It is wrongly dividing the Word of Truth to seek to rob Christians of the precious instruction given by our Lord Jesus in the four Gospels, though fully recognizing their dispensational place. It is an offense against Christian missions everywhere to try to set aside the great commission for the entire present age. It is not true that a definite limit is placed in Scripture upon the manifestation of sign gifts, and that such gifts have never appeared since the days of the apostles.
HERE is perhaps nothing about which the ultradispensationalists are
more
certain, according to their own expressions, than that the book of the
Acts
covers a transitional period, coming in between the age of the law and
the
present age in which the dispensation of the mystery has been
revealed.
They do not always agree as to the name of this intervening
period.
Some call it the Kingdom Church; others the Jewish Church; and there
are
those who prefer the term Pentecostal Dispensation. The general
teaching
is about as follows: It is affirmed that the coming of the Holy Spirit
on
the day of Pentecost and His baptizing the one hundred and twenty and
those
who afterwards believed, did not have anything to do with the formation
of
the Church, the Body of Christ. On the contrary, they insist that
the
Church throughout all of the book of Acts up to Paul's imprisonment was
of
an altogether lower order than that of the Epistle to the
Ephesians.
Assemblies in Judea, Samaria, and the various Gentile countries, were
simply
groups of believers who were waiting for the manifestation of the
kingdom,
and had not yet come into the full liberty of grace. The
ordinances
of the Lord's Supper and of baptism were linked with these companies
and
were to continue only until Israel had definitely and finally refused
the
Gospel message, after which the full revelation of the mystery is
supposed
to have been given to the apostle Paul when he was imprisoned at
Rome.
From that time on a new dispensation began. Surely this is
wrongly
confounding the Word of Truth. How any rational and
spiritually-minded
person could ever come to such a conclusion after a careful reading of
the
book of Acts, and with it the various epistles addressed to the
churches
and peoples mentioned in that book, is more than some of us can
comprehend. Let us see what the facts actually are.
In the first place, it is perfectly plain that the Church, the Body of
Christ,
was formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Very definitely
this
term is used of that great event which took place at Pentecost and was
repeated
in measure in Cornelius' household. In each instance the same
exact
expression is used. Referring to Pentecost, our Lord says, "Ye
shall
be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts 1: 5).
Referring
to the event that took place in Cornelius' household, Peter says:
In 1 Corinthians 12: 12, 13, we read:
Here we are distinctly informed as to the way in which the Body has
been
brought into existence, and this is exactly what took place at
Pentecost.
Individual believers were that day baptized into one Body, and from
then
on the Lord added to the Church daily such as were saved. It is a
significant fact that if you omit this definite passage in I
Corinthians,
there is no other verse in any epistle that tells us in plain words
just
how the Body is formed; although we might deduce this from Ephesians 4:
4,
where we read: "There is one Body and one Spirit." Undoubtedly this
refers
to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, by which the Body is formed, in
contradistinction to water baptism in the next verse. But this is
simply
interpretation, and all might not agree as to it. But there can
surely
be no question as to the application of the passage in 1 Corinthians
12:
13. Yet, singularly enough, the very people who insist that the
Body
is formed by the Spirit's baptism, declare that these Corinthians were
not
members of the Body, nor did that Body come into existence until at
least
four or five years afterwards.
A careful reading of the book of Acts shows us the gradual manner in
which
the truth of the new dispensation was introduced, and this is what has
led
some to speak of this book as covering a transitional period.
Personally,
I have no objection to the term "transitional period," if it be
understood
that the transition was in the minds of men and not in the mind of
God.
According to God, the new dispensation, that in which we now live, the
dispensation of the grace of God, otherwise called the dispensation of
the
mystery, began the moment the Spirit descended at Pentecost. That
moment
the one Body came into existence, though at the beginning it was
composed
entirely of believers taken out from the Jewish people. But in
the
minds even of the disciples, there was a long period before they all
fully
entered into the special work that God had begun to do. Many of
them,
in fact, probably never did apprehend the true character of this
dispensation,
as we shall see further on.
The position is often taken that the twelve apostles were very ignorant
of
what the Lord was really doing, and that their entire ministry was
toward
Israel. Have not such teachers forgotten that during the forty
days
that the Lord appeared to His disciples before ascending to Heaven, He
taught
them exactly what His program was, and the part they were to have in
it?
In Acts 1: 3, 4, we read:
And it was then that He distinctly told them of the coming baptism
of
the
Holy Spirit. According to the divine plan, the Gospel message was
first
to be proclaimed in Jerusalem,, then Judea, then Samaria, and then unto
the
uttermost parts of the earth. This is exactly what we find in the
book
of Acts. The earlier chapters give us the proclamation in
Jerusalem
and Judea. Then we have Philip going down to Samaria, followed by
John
and Peter. Later Peter goes to the house of Cornelius, and he and
his
household, believing the Gospel, are baptized by the same Spirit into
the
same Body. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus prepares the way for
a
world-wide ministry, he being specifically chosen of God for that
testimony.
But before Saul's conversion, there were churches of God in many
cities,
and these churches of God together formed the Church of God; churches
signifying
local companies, but the Church of God taking in all believers.
Years
afterwards, Paul writes, "I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it"
(Gal.
1: 13). And again, "For I am the least of the apostles, that am
not
meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God"
(I
Cor. 15: 9). The Church of God was to him one whole. It was
exactly
the same Church of God as that of which he speaks in 1 Timothy 3: 15,
when,
writing to the younger preacher, he says: "That thou mightest know how
thou
oughtest to behave thyself 'in the house of God, which is the Church of
the
living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." In the meantime he had
been
cast into prison and had written all the rest of the so-called prison
epistles,
with the exception, of course, of Titus, which was written while he was
at
liberty, between his imprisonments, and 2 Timothy, which was written
during
his second imprisonment. ( I make this statement on the
supposition that the note at the end of
I
Timothy is correct, namely that the epistle was written from Laodicea,
a
place not visited by Paul before his first imprisonment. If written
earlier
the argument does not apply, except to show that Paul ever recognized
the
Church of God as one and undivided.)
There is no hint of any difference having come in to distinguish the
Church
of God which he says he persecuted, from the Church of God in which
Timothy
was recognized as a minister of the Word. It is one and the same
Church
throughout.
Going back to Acts then, we notice that after his conversion, Paul is
definitely
set apart as the apostle to the Gentiles, and yet everywhere he goes,
he
first seeks out his Jewish brethren after the flesh, because it was
God's
purpose that the Gospel should be made known to the Jew first, and then
to
the Gentile. In practically every city, the same results
follow.
A few of the Jews receive the message; the bulk of them reject
it.
Then Paul turns from the Jews to the Gentiles, and thus the message
goes
out to the whole world. Throughout all of this period, covered by
the
ministries of Peter and Paul particularly, both baptism in water and
the
breaking of bread have their place. The signs of an apostle
follow
the ministry, God authenticating His Word as His servants go forth in
His
Name. However, it is perfectly plain that the nearer we get to
the
close of the Acts, the less we have in the way of signs and
wonders.
This is to be expected. In the meantime various books of the New
Testament
had been written, particularly Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, the
Corinthians, and the Romans. In all likelihood, the Epistle of
James
had also been produced, though we cannot definitely locate the time of
its
writing. The Epistles of Peter and of John come afterward.
They
were not part of the earlier written ministry.
Everywhere that Paul goes, he preaches the kingdom as the Lord Himself
has
commanded, and finally he reached Rome a prisoner. There,
following
his usual custom, though not having the same liberty as in other
places,
he gets in touch first with the leaders of the Jewish people, gives
them
his message, and then tells them that even though they reject it, yet
the
purpose of God must be carried out, and the salvation of God sent to
the
Gentiles. This is supposed by many to be a dispensational break,
but
we have exactly the same thing in the thirteenth chapter of Acts.
There
we read from verse 44 on, how the Jews in Antioch of Pisidia withstood
the
Word spoken by Paul, and Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said:
I ask any thoughtful reader: What difference is there between this
account
of Paul's dealing with the Jews, the proclamation of grace going out to
the
Gentiles, and that found in chapter 28 of this same book? In the
light
of these two passages, may we not say that if Paul was given liberty,
as
we know he was, to preach for several years after his first
imprisonment,
he undoubtedly still followed exactly the same method of proclaiming
the
Gospel to the Jew first, and then to the Gentiles? It is passing
strange
that these ultra-dispensationalists can overlook a passage like Acts
13,
and then read so much into the similar portion in chapter 28. According
to
them, as we have pointed out, the dispensational break occurred at this
latter
time, after which Paul's ministry, they tell us, took an entirely
different
form. It was then that the dispensation of the mystery was
revealed
to him, they say, which he embodied in his prison epistles. He
was
no longer a preacher of the kingdom, but now a minister of the
Body.
The theory sounds very plausible until one examines the text of
Scripture
itself.
Let us look at the last two verses of Acts 28:
Now observe in chapter one, verse three, our Lord is said to have
spoken
to His disciples during the forty days of "the things pertaining to the
kingdom
of God." In the very last verse of the book, after Paul's supposed
later
revelation, he is still "preaching the kingdom of God;" certainly the
next
phrase, "teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ,"
implies
continuance in exactly the same type of ministry in which he had been
engaged
before. There is no hint here of something new.
Now let us go back a little. In chapter 20 of the book of Acts,
we
find the apostle Paul at Miletus on his way to Jerusalem. From
there
he sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. We have a very
touching
account of his last interview with them. Among other things, he
says
to them:
And then he commends these elders in view of the coming apostasy, not
to
some new revelation yet to be given, but "to God and the word of His
grace,
which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all
them
that are sanctified." Note particularly the breadth of the statement
found
in verse 27. "All the counsel of God" had already been made known
through
Paul to the Ephesian elders before he went up to Jerusalem for the last
time. There is not a hint of a partial revelation, not a hint of
a
transitional period, but they already had everything they needed to
keep
them until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I venture to say that the better one is acquainted with the book of
Acts,
the clearer all this will become. It is truly absurd to attempt
to
make two Churches out of the redeemed company between Pentecost and the
Lord's
return. The Church is one and indivisible. It is the Church
that
Christ built upon the rock, namely the truth that He is the Son of the
living
God. It is the Church of God which He purchased with the blood of
His
own Son. That Church of God, Saul in his ignorance,
persecuted.
Of that same Church of God, he afterwards became a member through the
Spirit's
baptism. In that Church of God, Timothy was a recognized
minister,
not only before, but after Paul's imprisonment.
In regard to the statement so frequently made that God was giving
Israel
a second chance throughout the book of Acts, it is evident that there
is
no foundation whatever for such a statement. Our Lord definitely
declared
the setting aside of Israel for this entire age when He said, "Your
house
is left unto you desolate. Ye shall not see Me again until ye
say,
Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!" It was after that
house
was left desolate that the glorious proclamation at Pentecost was given
through
the power of the Holy Spirit, offering salvation by grace to any in
Israel
who repented, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call, which, of
course,
includes the whole Gentile world. Not once in any of the sermons
recorded
of Peter and of Paul do we have a hint that the nation of Israel is
still
on trial, and that God is waiting for that nation to repent in this
age.
On the contrary, the very fact that believers are called upon to "save
themselves
from that untoward generation" is evidence of the complete setting
aside
of Israel nationally, and the calling out of a select company of those
who
acknowledge the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ. By their
baptism,
they outwardly severed the link that bound them to the unbelieving
nation,
and thus came over onto Christian ground. To this company,
Gentile
believers were later added, and these two together constitute the Body
of
Christ. It is perfectly true that the Body as such is not
mentioned
in the book of Acts, and that for a very good reason. In this
book,
we have the record of the beginning of the evangelization of the world,
which
involves, of course, not the revelation of the truth of the Body, but
the
proclamation of the kingdom of God, which none can enter apart from the
new
birth.
A careful study of the epistles, taking particular note of the times at
which,
and the persons to whom, they were written. will only serve to make
these
things clearer.
IT IS contended by Bullingerites, and others of like ilk, that Paul
did
not
receive the revelation of the mystery of the one Body until he was
imprisoned
in Rome, 63 A. D. Generally, too, the ground is taken that this
revelation
was given to him alone, and that the twelve knew nothing of it.
Let
us see if these assertions will stand the test of Holy Scripture.
We shall turn, first of all, directly to the writings of the apostle
Paul,
and examine the passages in which he refers to this subject. The
first
one is found in the Epistle to the Romans which was written, according
to
the best authorities, in the year A. D. 60, at least three years before
Paul's
imprisonment, and certainly some time before he reached Rome, as in
that
letter he tells the Romans that he is contemplating the visit to them,
and
asks them to pray that it might be a prosperous one. It might
seem
as though his prayer was not answered inasmuch as he reached Rome in
chains,
a prisoner for the Gospel's sake. But God's ways are not ours,
and
we can be sure that in the light of eternity, we shall see that this
was
indeed one of the most prosperous voyages that anyone ever made.
Now
in closing this epistle to the Romans, the apostle says in chapter 16,
verses
25 to 2 7:
Here we have the plain statement that Paul's preaching throughout the
years
had been in accordance with the revelation of the mystery previously
kept
secret, but at that time made manifest. Moreover, he intimates
that
it had been already published abroad in writing, for he says, "It is
made
manifest (not exactly by the Scriptures of the prophets, as though he
referred
to Old Testament prophets, but) by prophetic writings," that is, his
own
and others. And this proclamation of the mystery had been made
known
to all nations for the obedience of faith.
Does anyone ask, How can any ultra-dispensationalist dare to say in the
face
of such a Scripture as this, that the mystery had not been made known
and
had not been previously preached before Paul was imprisoned at
Rome?
If a simple believing Christian, he will probably be amazed at the
answer.
Dr. Bullinger and others who follow him suggest that in all likelihood
the
last three verses of the Epistle to the Romans were not written by Paul
when
he sent the letter from some distant Gentile city, but that they were
appended
to the letter after he reached Rome and received the new
revelation.
Is this unbelievable? Nevertheless, it is exactly what these men
teach. It is higher criticism of the worst type and impugns the
perfection
of the Word of God. For, even supposing their contentions were
true,
how absurd it would be for Paul to add these words after he reached
Rome,
to an epistle purporting to be written before he got there! And
how
senseless it would be for him to speak while he was in prison, of a
Gospel
and a revelation which he was supposed to have preached in all the
world,
if he had never yet begun that proclamation. Needless to say, the
contention of Dr. Bullinger is an absolute fabrication. It is the
special
pleading of a hard-driven controversialist, bound to maintain his
unscriptural
system at all costs, even to destroying the unity of the Word of God.
Error is never consistent, and even the astute Bullinger has overlooked
the
fact that earlier in this very epistle, Paul declares the truth of the
one
Body just as clearly and definitely as he does in Ephesians or any
later
letter. Notice particularly Romans 12: 4, 5:
Could we have a clearer declaration than this of the truth of the
mystery?
What ultra-dispensationalist will dare to say that this passage is an
interpolation added in after years in order to make Romans fit with
Ephesians? God's Word is perfect and always exact. These
unspiritual
theorists invariably overtook something that completely destroys their
unscriptural hypotheses.
When then did Paul get this revelation of the truth of the one
Body?
He tells us he had been preaching it throughout the world among all
nations. The answer clearly is, he received it at the time of his
conversion, when he cried in amazement, "Who art Thou, Lord?" and the
glorified
Saviour answered, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." This was the
revelation
of the mystery. In that announcement our Lord declared that every
Christian
on earth is so indissolubly linked up with Him as the glorified Head in
Heaven,
that everything done against one of them is felt by the Head.
This
is, the mystery-members of His Body, of His flesh, and of His bones.
And moreover, this is in exact accord with certain statements elsewhere
made
in the book of Acts. For instance, in chapter 5, verse 14, we
read:
This was before Paul's conversion. Observe it does not simply say
that
they were added to the company of believers, nor even added to the
assembly
alone, but they were added to the Lord. This is only by the
baptism
of the Holy Spirit. Quite in keeping with this, when we turn to
chapter
11: 22-24, we read concerning the character and ministry of Barnabas
that,
Now no one was ever added to the Lord in any other way than by the
baptism
of the Holy Spirit. So that clearly we have the Body of Christ
here
in the Acts, although the term itself is not used.
When we turn to 1 Corinthians, the only epistle which gives us divine
order
for the regulation of the affairs of the churches of God here on earth,
we
have the plain statement of this mystery as we have already seen, in
chapter
12: 12-14.
It is absurd to say, as these ecclesiastical hobby-riders do, that the
Body
referred to here is not the same thing as the Body of Ephesians and
Colossians. It is a Body made up of those who formerly were Jews
or
Gentiles, bond or free, but are now all one in Christ. And this
Body
has been formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In no other
way
was the Body of Christ brought into existence. Objection has been
raised
that when the apostle goes on to apply practically the truth of our
responsibility as members of the Body in our relation to each other, he
uses
the illustration of the eye and ear as members of the head, which, they
tell
us, he could not use if he thought of Christ as the Head of the Body,
and
was thinking of believers as one Body with Him. But he tells us
distinctly
in the previous chapter that the Head of every man is Christ.
This
could only be said of those who were linked with Him in this hallowed
fellowship
and members of this divine organism. The great difference, of
course,
between the Body as presented in Corinthians and as in Ephesians is
this:
the Body in Ephesians embraces all saints living or dead as to the
flesh,
from Pentecost to the Rapture, whereas the Body in Corinthians embraces
all
saints upon the earth at any given time. Seen thus in the place
of
responsibility, it is quite in keeping that the apostle should use the
illustration that he does. It is in vain for these
ultra-dispensationalists
to fight against responsibility.
Recently I overheard a leader among them make this statement: "Whenever
you
get commandments of any kind, you are on Jewish ground, and you have
given
up grace." Yet in every epistle of the New Testament, we have
commandments
and exhortations insisting upon the believer's responsibility to
recognize
the government of God in this way. Grace and government are not
opposing
principles, but are intimately linked together. He who refuses
the
truth of responsibility does not thereby magnify grace, but rather is
in
danger of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and becomes
practically
an antinomian, throwing off all restraint, professing to be saved by
grace,
but refusing to recognize the claims of Christ.
Coming back then to consider the passage in I Corinthians, we have the
truth
of the Body clearly set forth, and are shown how it was brought into
existence
in a letter written at least four years before Paul's imprisonment; and
he
writes that letter to a group of believers who had been brought to a
knowledge
of Christ through his preaching some years before. To them he
says
in verses 2 6, 2 7:
Verse 26 only emphasizes what we have referred to above, that here we
have
the Body in the place of responsibility on earth. Members in
Heaven
do not suffer. All members on earth do. But it is objected again
that
in the Greek there is no definite article before the word "body," and
therefore
the passage should simply read, "Now ye are a Body of Christ," and so
we
are told this refers only to a local church. This does not touch
the
question. Every local church in apostolic days was the Body of
Christ
representatively in that place. It would be so today if it were
not
for the fact that so many unsaved people have been received into the
membership
of the local churches. According to the Word of God, there was
only
the one Body, and in any city where the Gospel had been preached and
believed,
that Body could be found as a local company.
When we pass on to 2 Corinthians, we find the same precious truth
ministered
by the apostle long before he was imprisoned at Rome. He tells
us,
in chapter 5: 16,17:
Could words more plainly set forth the truth of the mystery than
these?
Old relationships ended and every believer brought into a new place
altogether
before God, and a new condition, so that Christ is now his Head, and he
a
member of the new creation. And this was part of the preaching
that
the apostle had been declaring wherever he went during all the years of
his
ministry.
We turn next to Galatians, a letter written, according to the best
authority
we have, a year earlier than Corinthians, and the
ultra-dispensationalists
are very sure that when Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ in
this
letter, there can be no reference to water baptism, but that he refers
solely
to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I am not in agreement with
them
on this; but allowing for the moment that they are correct, then notice
where
it puts their theory. Note carefully chapter 3: 26-29:
Here again we are distinctly told that all the children of faith,
Abraham's
seed spiritually, are sons of God, and that all such as have been
baptized
into Christ have put on Christ, and that in Christ there is neither Jew
nor
Greek, nor any of the other distinctions according to nature, but all
are
one in Him. Is there anything in the revelation of the mystery as
given
in Ephesians or Colossians that goes beyond this? It is a clear
definite
statement of the absolute unity in Christ of those who before their
conversion
occupied different positions here on earth, some being Jews, some
Gentiles,
some free men, some slaves, some men, some women, but every distinction
now
obliterated in the new creation.
If any are foolish enough to object, as some have, that Abraham's seed
is
altogether different from the Body of Christ, then we turn to Ephesians
itself,
the epistle which they claim, above all others supports their
unscriptural
theory, and find their entire position is there completely
disallowed.
In the first chapter of this glorious epistle, the apostle reminds the
Ephesians
of things that they have learned through his ministry in days gone
by.
There is no hint that he is opening up to them something new, but he
simply
puts down in writing for permanent use, precious things already dear to
them. He reminds them that they have been blessed with all
spiritual
blessings in the heavenlies in Christ; that they have been chosen in
Him
before the foundation of the world in order that they might be holy and
without
blame before Him; that in love, He has predestinated them unto the
place
of sons by Christ Jesus, having taken them into favor in the
Beloved.
Theirs is redemption through His blood, sins all forgiven according to
the
riches of I-Iis grace, and to them He has abounded in all wisdom and
prudence,
having made known the mystery of His will according to His good
pleasure,
which He hath purposed in Himself (see vers. 3-9). He points them
on
to the full consummation of this mystery when in the administration of
the
completed seasons, that is, the last dispensation, He will head up in
one
all things in Christ, both heavenly and earthly, and He reminds them
that
we have already obtained an inheritance in Him, being predestinated
according
to the purpose of Him who worketh all things according to the counsel
of
His own will. We need to notice the pronouns used in verses 12
and
13. He first speaks of converts from Israel, when he says, "That
we
should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ."
Then
he refers to the Gentiles, such as these Ephesians had been, when in
the
next verse he says:
Now observe carefully, he is far from intimating that he is at this
time
unveiling something of which they bad never heard before. He
carries
them back in memory to the hour of their conversion, and declares that
these
things were true of them then. And, because of this, he prays
that
they may have deeper understanding, not of new truth about to be
revealed,
but of blessed and wonderful things already made known. In the
second
chapter, he deals specifically with the new creation, reminding them in
verse
12 that they in time past were Gentiles who were called uncircumcision,
and
were in themselves without Christ and aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel,
strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and literally
atheists
in the world. But now they have been made nigh by the blood of
Christ. The result is that they became members of that same Body
into
which their converted Jewish brethren had already been
assimilated.
Notice carefully verses 14-18:
The distinction between Jew and Gentile was abolished in ,the cross,
not
after Paul's imprisonment in Rome. From that time on all who
believed
were brought into the Body of Christ through the one Spirit of verse
18.
What were the means used to effect this? The preaching recorded
in
the book of Acts, for it is only that to which he can possibly refer,
when
he says (vers. 16,17):
It was necessary that the message should first go to them that were
nigh,
as it did in the early chapters of Acts, and then to those that were
afar
off; but the result of that preaching was that all who believed were
reconciled
to God in one Body.
In the last four verses of the chapter he shows the unity of the Church
from
the beginning. The Church is the household of God. It is
also
a great building, and he declares:
How blind must he be who can see in such a passage as this,
disassociation
of the Ephesian saints from the work which God began at Pentecost! They
are
builded into the same temple and rest upon the same foundation.
This is made even clearer in the next chapter, where Paul gives us
probably
the fullest information concerning the one Body that we have anywhere
in
the New Testament, and, therefore, we must devote considerable time and
space
to it. First, he tells us that he was a prisoner of Jesus Christ
because
of the Gentiles, and he explains that in the next few verses. It
was
his devotion to the revelation of the mystery which is part of the
dispensation
of the grace of God, that resulted in his imprisonment. He did
not
get this dispensation after he was in prison. Then he insists
that
this revelation was not made in previous ages unto the sons of men,
that
is, it was not made known in Old Testament times. But he tells us
it
is "now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."
Now
if I believed in over-emphasis as some do, I should like to print these
words
in very bold type, but to do so would be an insult to the intelligence
of
my readers. I simply desire to ask their most careful attention
to
these words. The Bullingerites tell us that the mystery was only
made
known to the apostle Paul, not to other apostles. The apostle
himself
tells us here that "it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and
prophets."
Note not only the plural, but that others besides apostles had this
revelation. How utterly absurd would words like these be if he
were
referring to something that had just been secretly made known to
him!
But is it true that other apostles and prophets had already known if
the
mystery? It is. This he declares in these words. What
is
that mystery? Verse six is the answer.
Thus they too become Abraham's seed, because they are children of
faith.
The mystery then is not simply centered in the term "Body," but
whatever
expression may be used, the mystery is that during the present age all
distinction between believing Jews and believing Gentiles is done away
in
Christ. Was this mystery made known by other servants besides the
apostle
Paul? It was. The apostle John makes it known in his
account
of our Lord's ministry as given in the tenth chapter of his
Gospel.
There we read that the Lord Jesus, as the Good Shepherd, entered into
the
sheepfold of Judaism to lead His own out into glorious liberty.
And
cryptically He adds,
This is perhaps the earliest intimation of the mystery that we
have.
It was not committed to writing, of course, until some years after the
epistle
to the Ephesians was written. But it shows us that John, as an
apostle
of the Lord Jesus Christ, had received the revelation of the mystery
even
before the apostle Paul did.
Then what of the apostle Peter? We dare to say this same mystery
was
made known to him on the housetop of Simon's residence in Joppa, when
he
had the vision of the descending sheet from Heaven and saw in it all
manner
of beasts and creeping things, and heard the word from Heaven,
This was to him an intimation that in Christ the distinction between
Jew
and Gentile was henceforth to be done away, and he makes it perfectly
clear
that this was his conviction when he stood up to preach in the
household
of Cornelius (Acts 10: 34 to end). Moreover, his epistles
emphasize
the same fact, though not in the full way that those of the apostle
Paul
do. John and Peter are apostles. Are there any prophets who
give
evidence of having in measure at least understood this truth? The
greatest
of all the New Testament prophets is Luke himself, and in his book of
the
Acts, the mystery is plainly made known, though not taught
doctrinally.
We see God working in grace to unite Jew and Gentile into one Body.
Turning back to Ephesians three, we find in verse seven that the
apostle
tells us that he was made a minister according to the gift of the grace
of
God for the very purpose of making known this mystery. He says in
verses
eight and nine,
This had been his great responsibility throughout the years.
Because
of this, he had suffered bitter persecution, on account of which he was
even
then in prison, but he is the more concerned that after his death there
should
be left on record such a full statement of this truth that no one could
lose
sight of it.
PASSING over for the present the Apostle Paul's presentation of the
sevenfold
unity of Christianity in Ephesians 4, and his identification of the
Body
and the Bride in chapter 5, which we shall discuss later, we turn now
to
others of the prison epistles to see if we can find the slightest
intimation
of a new revelation given after Paul reached Rome.
Unquestionably,
Philippians was written during the Roman imprisonment. But we
search
its four precious chapters in vain for the least suggestion that he has
received
anything new to unfold. In chapter 1, where he presents Christ as
the
believer's life, he shows how thoroughly the evangelistic spirit had
taken
possession of him, so that even in his prison-cell he was rejoicing
that
Christ was being preached whether in pretence or in truth, and his own
desire
is that this same Christ may ever be magnified in his body, whether in
life
or in ,death. He urges the saints to stand fast in one spirit
contending
for the very faith which he had already made known to them. There
is
not a hint that he has now something new to reveal; that is, that the
old
dispensation to which they had hitherto belonged had come to a close,
and
that a new one had begun. In chapter 2 he dwells on Christ as our
Example,
and shows how he himself and Timothy and Epaphroditus during the years
had
sought to follow in Christ's steps, and this is still before his
soul.
In the third chapter he recounts his past experiences and
self-confidence
in the old days before be was saved, and then shows how the change was
brought
about by a sight of the risen Christ. From that moment on, he
counted
all things as loss for the One who had won his heart, and he was
pressing
on toward the mark for the prize of the calling of God on high in
Christ
Jesus. He calls upon them whom he designates as "perfect" to be
thus
minded. "Perfect" here means "mature," or we might even say
well-rounded,
or well-balanced. Nothing is needed to give them this perfection
in
addition to what they already had. Surely, if anywhere, this was
the
place to show them that hitherto they were but babes, and had only
received
an initial revelation, but that now he had something for them of an
altogether
new character which would perfect them in Christ. But there is no
word
of any such added truth. Nor yet in the last chapter where he
exhorts
to unity and peace among themselves. May we not say that Paul is
singularly
remiss in not sharing with his old converts at Philippi the new
revelation
he had received, if such a thing were really true?
But it was not true:-all the reasoning of the ultra-dispensationalists
to
the contrary notwithstanding;-for when we turn over to Colossians we
find
him once more reiterating the same truths he had proclaimed for a
generation. He shows that two ministries had been committed to
him
from the first. He had been made a minister of the Gospel.
That
Gospel has been preached in all the creation which is under
heaven.
He had also been made a minister of "the mystery which hath been hidden
from
ages and generations, but now," he says, "is made manifest to His
saints:
to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this
mystery
among the Gentiles; which is Christ in (or, among) you, the hope of
glory:
whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all
wisdom;
that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: whereunto I also
labor,
striving according to His working, which worketh in me mightily" (Col.
1:
26-29).
Let it be carefully observed that he is here covering his entire
ministry.
He had no such opportunity to preach to multitudes while he was in his
Roman,
or as some think, his Caesarean prison at the time he wrote this
epistle.
But he tells us what had characterized his ministry throughout the
years.
Other saints there were whom he had not met personally, as well as
those
at Colosse. He thinks of the Laodicean believers, and he longs
that
they all may be brought into the knowledge of this mystery. But
it
is not something new. It is that which has ever characterized his
teaching.
The Epistle of Titus is not of course a prison epistle at all, but it
was
written later than any of those that are so designated, excepting
Second
Timothy. In this letter Paul instructs the younger preacher,
Titus,
as to the divine order for local churches, the work of a true pastor,
and
the testimony committed to the servants of God. Surely here, if
anywhere,
we should expect him to put before Titus the fact that the
"transitional
period" has now come to an end and Titus must ring the changes as the
ultra-dispensationalists do to-day, on "body truth," "closed doors,"
"Jewish
Gospels," "Kingdom Age," etc., etc., ad nauseam. But, no; none of
these
terms so frequently used and played upon until one is wearied, are
suggested
to Titus. He is simply to go on preaching and teaching the very
same
things that have been taught during his earlier association with the
Apostle
Paul.
The brief letter to Philemon we may pass over, as we would hardly
expect
to find anything doctrinal in it; and yet even here if Paul's heart
were
throbbing with the joy of some absolutely new opening up of truth, we
would
almost wonder how be could help saying a word about it, at least to his
friend
Philemon.
Hebrews was undoubtedly written very shortly before the apostle's
martyrdom,
granting that it is from the pen of Paul. That this is so, I have
tried
to make clear in my book on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and I shall not
attempt
to go into it now. But in any case, it was undoubtedly written
very
shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, and here if anywhere, one
might
expect these Hebrew believers to be told that the "kingdom age" is now
over,
"the transition period" has now been finished, and it is for them to
accept
the new revelation of "body truth." But we search in vain for anything
of
the kind. It is simply a normal presentation of the precious
things
of Christ, showing how completely Old Testament types have had their
fulfilment
in Him and His finished work, and that all who believe now come under
the
blessings of the new covenant.
Probably later than Hebrews is the second letter to Timothy. It
was
penned during Paul's second imprisonment, very shortly before his
death.
As this occurred in A. D. 66 or 67, we may see how far along we have
come
and still no mention of any new revelation. So far as the truth
that
is dealt with is concerned, Second Timothy might have been written any
time
before the first imprisonment. It is in perfect harmony with all
the
apostle's previous ministry.
But now there are other Epistles to be considered. We have
already
seen that Paul makes no claim to being the sole depository of the
revelation
of the mystery. He says it was made known to Christ's holy
apostles
and prophets by the Spirit, and so we turn to consider the writings of
other
apostles and prophets asking, "Have we in them any intimation of a new
revelation
after Paul went to Rome?"
We may dismiss the Epistle of James as not touching on this
question.
It is addressed definitely to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, and
is
God's last word, as it were, to those of Israel who were still more or
less
linked in spirit to the synagogue. Bullingerites generally tell
us
that James was the first epistle to be written but this is absurd on
the
face of it. It is quite evident that James is a corrective
epistle.
It must have been written after the doctrine of justification by faith,
as
proclaimed by Paul, had been widely preached, for James writes to check
those
who were abusing that doctrine and using it as an occasion for the
flesh.
No one can read chapter 2 thoughtfully without seeing that it is based
upon,
and has in view throughout, Paul's teaching in Romans 4. James does not
contradict Paul in the slightest degree, but he does show that there is
another
justification than that of which Paul speaks. The great apostle
to
the Gentiles deals particularly with justification by faith before
God.
James, the apostle to the twelve tribes, emphasizes justification by
works
before men.
First Peter was probably written before Paul's second
imprisonment.
Second Peter was certainly written afterwards, and all of Paul's
letters
were already in circulation when this epistle was penned. Note
Peter's
own words: "And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is
salvation;
even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given
unto
him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in
them
of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which
they
that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other
Scriptures,
unto their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3: 15, 16). It is impossible
to
understand these verses excepting in the light of the fact that all the
Epistles
of Paul were already in circulation. Does Peter then tell us that
a
new dispensation had come in, and that the middle wall between Jew and
Gentile
having now for the first time been broken down and the one Body formed,
the
believers to whom he writes, who were of Jewish extraction, are to
recognize
this new revelation? Not at all. Peter has never heard of
any
such thing. He puts Paul's writings on the same plane as the
other
Scriptures, but warns against the danger of misunderstanding, and so
wresting
them.
Long years after all the other apostles had gone home to heaven, we
find
the aged John still preserved in life and caring for the churches of
God.
According to apparently reliable Church History, he made his home in
Ephesus,
and moved about in old age among the other churches mentioned in the
first
three chapters of the Book of the Revelation, those churches which the
Bullingerites declare never existed in the past but are still to arise
as
Jewish Assemblies in the Great Tribulation! Could anything be
much
more grotesque?
John's Epistles were written, according to the very best authority we
have,
some time in the last decade of the first century of the Christian
era.
Weigh this well. Paul had been in heaven for nearly thirty
years.
John was an inspired apostle, and surely would know, if any one did, of
the
new revelation and its importance. But we search his letters in
vain
for the least reference to anything of the kind. In fact, we find
the
very opposite. False teaching had come in, and he writes to
garrison
the hearts of the saints against it. In order to do this, he
refers
them back to that which was from the beginning, namely, to the teaching
of
our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and His apostles, as a careful reading of
his
first Epistle makes abundantly clear. There is not the slightest
basis
for the thought that a fuller unfolding of truth had been vouchsafed to
Paul
and others about thirty years after Christ's ascension. It is the
message
that they had heard from the beginning which he again commends to them.
Let us imagine the late Dr. Bullinger, or some of his lesser
satellites,
living, not in the twentieth century, but in the closing days of the
first
century of the Christian era. Filled with their ideas of a new
revelation
given to Paul in prison, can you by any stretch of the imagination
think
of them writing epistles or treatises in which no reference whatever is
made
to the supposedly new doctrines? The fact of the matter is that
these
men today can scarcely open their mouths without speaking of these
things.
No matter what text they begin to expound, they almost invariably wind
up
with something about their system of rightly dividing the Word of
Truth,
and the importance of making the fine distinctions which they imagine
they
see in the Word. Yet inspired men like Peter and John, and
without
particularly going into it, we may add Jude, can expound and apply the
Truth
of God in the fullest possible way without any reference to anything of
the
kind. What is the only legitimate conclusion? It is that
this
whole ultra-dispensational system is an idle dream unsupported by the
testimony
of the inspired writings.
Error is never consistent. It always over-emphasizes some point
generally
unimportant and fails to recognize other things of great
importance.
Heresy is simply a school of opinion in which something is particularly
pressed
out of proportion to its logical place. Who would dare to say
that
this system we have been attempting to refute is not therefore
heretical?
Mark, I do not mean to class it with what Peter calls "damnable
heresies,"
but it is certainly schismatic, and its votaries constitute a special
school
of opinion within the professed Church of God, a school that attaches
great
importance to something which after all is not evident to the vast
majority
of devoted and godly believers. That the effect of this can only
be
division and harmful, is not only self-evident, but has been abundantly
manifest
in many places. The Holy Spirit says, "A man that is an heretick
after
the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is
subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself" (Titus 3: 10,
11).
This is as certainly the Word of God as anything else revealed in the
Scripture
of Truth.
ONE of the first positions generally taken by the
ultra-dispensationalists
is that it is unthinkable that the Church should be the Body of Christ,
and
yet at the same time be identified with the Bride of the Lamb.
They
insist that there is a mixing of figures here which is utterly
untenable.
How, they ask with scorn, could the Church be both the Bride and a part
of
the Body of the Bridegroom? Some even go farther and suggest that
Christians who all down through the centuries have had no difficulty as
to
the two figures (recognizing the fact that they are figures, and
therefore
that there need be no confusion in thought when it comes to harmonizing
both),
are actually guilty of charging Deity with spiritual polygamy! I
would
not put such an abominable thought in writing, but it is their own
expression
which I have heard again and again. They point out, what all
Bible
students readily admit, that in the Old Testament, Israel is called the
bride
and the wife of Jehovah. "Then," they exclaim, "how can the Lord
have
two wives without being guilty of the very thing that He Himself
condemns
in His creatures here on earth?"
In view of such absurd deductions, it will be necessary to examine with
some
care just how these figures are used. In the first place, we find
God
using a number of different figurative expressions in speaking of
Israel.
He declares Himself to be their Father, that is, the Father of the
nation,
and Israel is called His son. "Out of Egypt have I called My son"
(Hosea
11: 1), and, "Let My son go, that be may serve Ale" (Exod. 4:
23).
In other places similar expressions are used, and yet the prophets
again
and again speak of Israel as the wife of Jehovah, and the later
prophets
depict her as a divorced wife because of her unfaithfulness, some day
to
be received back again, when she has been purged from her sins.
But
it is important to see that a divorced wife can never again be a bride,
even
though she may be forgiven and restored to her wifely estate.
What
incongruity do we have here if we are to interpret Scripture on the
principle
of the Bullingerites. Here is a son who is also a wife.
What
utter absurdity!
Then again we have Israel depicted as a vine. "God brought a vine
out
of Egypt" (Ps. 80: 8), and, "Israel is an empty vine; he bringeth forth
fruit
for himself" (Hosea 10: 1). In many other places, the same figure is
used.
Elsewhere we have this favored nation spoken of as the priests of the
Lord,
occupying a special position throughout all the millennium, as though
they
were intermediaries between the Gentiles and Jehovah Himself.
Other
similitudes are used, but these are enough to show that there is no
attempt
made in Scripture to harmonize every figure. Each one is used as
suits
God's purpose for the moment. So the nation which at one time is
viewed
as a son is seen on another occasion as a vine, and elsewhere as a
wife,
and again as a nation of priests.
This being so in connection with Israel, why need we be surprised if a
similar
diversity of terms is used in connection with the Church? When
our
Lord first introduces the subject of the new order, He speaks of the
Church
as a building: "Upon this rock I will build My Church" (Matt. 16:18).
The
apostle Paul views the Church in the same way in 1 Corinthians 3: 9,
10),
"I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. Ye are
God's
building." Again in Ephesians 2: 19-22: "Now therefore ye are no more
strangers
and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the
household
of God: and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus
Christ Himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building
fitly
framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye
also
are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." In
regard
to this passage, please take note that if the Bullingerites are
correct,
we have here a building suspended in the air with a great gap between
the
foundation and the superstructure; for this building is said to rest
upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, but according to the views
of
those we are discussing, we must separate in a very definite way the
New
Testament apostles and prophets of the book of Acts from the Ephesian
church,
which is supposed to be a different company altogether. The
absurdity
of this becomes the more apparent as we see how we would have to do
damage
to the picture of the building as used here by the apostle Paul.
The
fact is the Church of Acts and that of the prison epistles is one and
indivisible. In I Timothy 3: 15, he speaks of "the house of God,
which
is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
The
apostle Peter looks at the Church in exactly the same way, as a company
of
living stones built upon the Living Stone, our Lord Jesus Christ (1
Pet.
2: 5).
We have already seen that the figure of the Body is used in a number of
Paul's
writings, not only in the prison Epistles, but in Romans and 1
Corinthians,
to set forth the intimate relationship subsisting between Christ in
glory
and His people on earth, whereas the house expresses stability, and
tells
us that the Church is a dwelling place for God in this world, as the
temple
was of old. The Body speaks of union with Christ, by the
indwelling
Spirit. But Paul sees no incongruity whatever in changing the
figure
from that of the Body to the Bride. In the fifth chapter of
Ephesians
he glides readily from one to the other, and no violence whatever is
done
to either view. He shows us that a man's wife is to be regarded
as
his own body. And in the latter part of that chapter, where he
goes
back to the marriage relationship as originally established by God, he
says:
Surely nothing could be plainer than that we are to understand the
relationship
of Adam and Eve at the very beginning was intended by God to set forth
the
great mystery of Christ and the Church. Writing to the
Corinthians
at an earlier date, he said, "I have espoused you as a chaste virgin
unto
Christ," and Christian behavior is shown to spring from the
responsibility
connected with that espousal. The Church is viewed as an
affianced
bride, not yet married-, but called upon to be faithful to her absent
Lord
until the day when she will be openly acknowledged by Him as His
Bride.
It is this glorious occasion that John brings before us in the
nineteenth
chapter of the book of Revelation. It is of no earthly bride he
is
speaking, but of the heavenly. After the destruction of the false
harlot,
Babylon the Great, the marriage supper of the Lamb is celebrated in the
Father's
house, and all saints are called upon to rejoice because the marriage
of
the Lamb has come and His wife hath made herself ready. At the
judgment-seat of Christ, she receives from His hand the linen garments
in
which she is to be arrayed at the marriage feast. Notice that on
this
occasion we have not only the Bride and the Bridegroom, but we read,
"Blessed
are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb." These
invited
guests are distinguished from the Bride herself. They of course
are
another group of redeemed sinners, namely, Old Testament saints, and
possibly
some Tribulation saints who have been martyred for Christ's sake.
These
are the friends of the Bridegroom who rejoice in His happiness when He
takes
His Bride to Himself.
All down through the Christian centuries believers have revelled in the
sweetness
of the thought of the bridal relationship, setting forth, as no other
figure
does, the intensity of Christ's love for His own. How truly we
may
sing:
How much we would lose if we lost this! And yet one is pained
sometimes
to realize how insensible Christians who ought to know better, can be
as
to its preciousness. I remember on one occasion hearing an
advocate
of the system we are reviewing exclaim, "I am not part of the Bride; I
am
part of the Bridegroom Himself. I belong to Christ's Body, and
His
Body is far more precious to Him than His Bride." I replied, "You mean
then
that you think far more of your own body than you do of your
wife!
" He was rather taken back, as he might well be.
But after all, if Israel is a divorced wife to be restored some day,
and
the Church is also a bride, is there not ground for what some have
called
"spiritual polygamy?" Certainly not. Similar figures may be used
in
each dispensation to illustrate spiritual realities; and then it is
important
to see that Israel is distinctively called the wife of Jehovah, whereas
the
Church is the Bride of the Lamb. Israel's nuptial relationship is
with
God Himself apart altogether from any question of incarnation.
The
Church is the Bride of the Incarnate One who became the Lamb of God for
our
redemption. Who would want to lose the blessedness of this?
In the last chapter of the book of the Revelation, we have added
confirmation
as to the correctness of the position taken in this paper. In
verse
16, our Lord Jesus declares Himself as the Coming One, saying, "I am
the
Root and Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." In the very
next
verse we are told, "And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come." Here we
have
the Church's response to our Lord's declaration that He is the Morning
Star. The morning star shines out before the rising of the
sun.
It is as the Morning Star Christ comes for His Church. Unto
Israel,
He will arise as the Sun of Righteousness with healing in His
wings.
And so here the moment the announcement is made which indicates His
near
return, the Spirit who dwells in the Church, and the Bride actuated by
the
Spirit, cry with eager longing, "Come," for the word is addressed to
Him.
How truly absurd it would be to try to bring Israel in here as though
the
earthly people were those responding to the Saviour's voice during this
present
age!
But so determined are these ultra-dispensationalists to take from the
Church
everything that is found in the book of Revelation, that they even
insist
that the letters addressed to the churches in chapters 2 and 3 are all
for
Israel too. Ignoring the fact that the apostle John had labored
for
years in the Roman proconsular Province of Asia, that he was thoroughly
familiar
with all these seven churches, they nevertheless even go so far as to
deny
that some of these churches had any existence in the first century of
the
Christian era, when John wrote the Apocalypse, although Sir William
Ramsay's
researches have proven the contrary. On the other hand ' they
declare
that all of these churches are to rise up in the future after the Body
has
been removed to Heaven, and that then the seven letters will have their
application, but have no present bearing upon the consciences of the
saints. I cannot conceive of anything more Satanic than
this.
Here are churches actually raised up of God through the preaching of
the
Gospel. Ephesus we know well. Laodicea is mentioned in the
letter
to the Colossians. The other churches we may be sure existed at the
time
and in exactly the state that John depicts, and the risen Christ
addresses
these churches in the most solemn way, and seven times over calls upon
all
exercised souls to give heed to what he says to each one, crying, "He
that
hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." In
these
letters, we have depicted every possible condition in which the
churches
of God can be found from Apostolic days to the end of the Christian
era.
More than that: we have in a mystic way the moral and spiritual
principles
of the entire course of Church History portrayed. All this should
have
immense weight with us as believers, and should speak loudly to our
consciences;
but along comes the Bullingerite and, with a wave of his interpretative
wand,
dismisses them entirely for the present age, airily declaring that they
have
no message for us whatever, that they are all Jewish, and will only
have
their place in the Great Tribulation after the Church is gone!
And
thus the people of God who accept this unscriptural system are robbed
of
not only the precious things in which these letters abound, but their
consciences
become indifferent to the solemn admonitions found therein.
Surely
this is a masterpiece of Satanic strategy, whereby under the plea of
rightly
dividing the Word of Truth, the Scriptures are so wrongly divided that
they
cease to have any message for God's people today, and the Word of the
Lord
is made of no effect by this unscriptural tradition. And yet the
Lord
in instructing John, says, "Write the things which are." It is the
present
continuous tense. It might be rendered, "The things which are now
going
on." "Not at all," exclaims the Bullingerite. "These are the
things
which are not going on, neither will they have any place so long as the
Church
of God is on earth." Others may accept this as deep teaching and
advanced
truth. Personally, I reject it as a Satanic perversion calculated
to
destroy the power of the Word of God over the souls of His
people.
CHAPTER SEVEN: Do Baptism and the Lord's Supper Have Any Place in the Present Dispensation of the Grace of God?
IT is most distressing to one who has revelled in the grace of God
for
years,
but has recognized on the other hand that grace produces loving
obedience
in the heart of the believer, to read the puerile and childish
diatribes
of the ultra-dispensationalists, as they inveigh against the Christian
ordinances
as though observance of these in some way contravened the liberty of
Grace. Insisting that Paul had a new ministry revealed to him
after
Acts 28, and that this ministry is given only in the so-called prison
epistles,
they make a great deal of the fact that in these epistles we do not
have
any distinct instruction as to the baptizing of believers, or the
observance
of the Lord's Supper.
We have already seen, I trust clearly, that Paul himself disavows any
new
revelation having been given him after his imprisonment, but insists
that
the mystery was that very message which he had already made known to
all
nations for the obedience of faith. It was but part of that whole
counsel
of God which he had declared to the Ephesians long before his
arrest.
These brethren, by a process of sophistical reasoning, try to prove
that
baptism belonged only to an earlier dispensation and was in some sense
meritorious, as though it had in itself saving virtue, but that since
the
dispensation of grace has been fully revealed, there is no place for
baptism,
because of changed conditions for salvation. To state this
argument
is but to expose its fallacy.
Let one point be absolutely clear: No one was ever saved in any
dispensation
on any other ground than the finished work of Christ. In all the
ages
before the cross, God justified men by faith; in all the years since,
men
have been justified in exactly the same way. Adam believed God
and
was clothed with coats of skin, a picture of one becoming the
righteousness
of God in Christ. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him
for
righteousness. Nevertheless, afterwards he was circumcised; but
that
circumcision, the apostle tells us, was simply a seal of the
righteousness
he had by faith. And throughout all the Old Testament
dispensation,
however legalistic Jews may have observed the ordinance of circumcision
and
thought of it as having in itself some saving virtue, it still remained
in
God's sight, as in the beginning, only a seal, where there was genuine
faith,
of that righteousness which He imputed. The difficulty with many
who
reason as these Bullingerites do, is that they cannot seem to
understand
the difference between the loving loyal obedience of a devoted heart,
and
a legal obedience which is offered to God as though it were in itself
meritorious. No one was ever saved through the sacrifices offered
under
law, for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should
take
away sin. Nevertheless, wherever there was real faith in Israel,
the
sacrifices were offered because of the instruction given in the Word of
God,
and in these sacrifices the work of Christ was pictured continually.
When John the Baptist came in the way of righteousness, he called on
men
to confess their sinfulness and their just desert of death by baptism,
and
so we read that the publicans and sinners "justified God, being
baptized
with the baptism of John." There was no merit in the baptism. It
was
the divinely appointed way of acknowledging their sinfulness and need
of
a Saviour. Therefore it is called a baptism "unto repentance for
the
remission of sins." They were like men in debt, giving their notes to
the
divine creditor. A note does not pay a debt but it is an
acknowledgment
of indebtedness. Christ's baptism was simply Ms endorsement of
all
of these notes. When He said to John, who would have hindered Him
from
being baptized, "Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to
fulfil
all righteousness," it was as though He said, "In this way I pledge
Myself
to meet every righteous demand of the throne of God on behalf of these
confessed
sinners." And this is surely what He had in mind when, three years
later,
He exclaimed, "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I
straitened
till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12: 50). On the cross He met the
claims
of righteousness and thus fulfilled the meaning of His baptism.
Christian baptism has its beginning in resurrection. It was the
risen
Christ about to be glorified who commissioned His apostles to go out,
not
simply to Jews, observe, nor yet to proclaim a second offer of the
kingdom,
as some say, but to carry the Gospel to men of all nations, baptizing
those
who professed to believe, in (or, unto) the name of the Father and of
the
Son and of the Holy Spirit. This we see them literally doing
throughout
the early days of the Church, as recorded in the Book of Acts.
Wherever
the Gospel is preached, baptism is linked with it, not as part of the
Gospel,
for Paul distinctly says, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach
the
Gospel," but as an outward expression of faith in the Gospel. It
is
evident in the Book of Acts that there is a somewhat different
presentation
of this, according as to whether the message is addressed to Jews in
outward
covenant relation with God or to Gentiles who are strangers to the
covenants
of promise. Paul calls these two aspects of the one Gospel, the
Gospel
of the circumcision and the Gospel of the uncircumcision. The Jew
being
already a member of a nation which, up to the cross, had been
recognized
as in covenant relationship with God, was called upon to be baptized to
save
himself from that untoward generation. That is, to step out, as it
were,
from the nation, no longer claiming national privilege, nor yet being
exposed
to national judgment. With the Gentile, it was otherwise.
He
was simply called upon to believe the Gospel, and believing it, to
confess
his faith in baptism. And this abides to the end of the age as
our
Lord Himself clearly declared in the closing verses of Matthew 2 8.
There
has never been any change in the order.
It has been said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit superseded water
baptism,
but Scripture teaches the very contrary. Cornelius and his
household
were baptized with the Holy Spirit when they believed the Word spoken
by
Peter. But the apostle, turning to his Jewish brethren,
immediately
asks: "Who can forbid water that these should not be baptized which
have
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" And they were at once baptized
by
authority of the Lord Jesus, which is what the expression "in the name
of"
involves. This was not a meritorious act. It was a blessed
and
precious privilege granted to this Gentile household upon the evidence
of
their faith in Christ.
It has been objected that the apostle Paul himself makes light of
baptism
and was really glad that he had not baptized many at Corinth. It
is
surely a most shifty kind of exegesis that would lead any one to make
such
a statement. In the record in Acts, where we read of Paul's
ministry
in Corinth, we are told that many of the Corinthians hearing, believed
and
were baptized. Paul did not himself do the baptizing, save in a
few
instances, but he certainly saw that it was done, and the Holy Spirit
evidently
quotes the record with approval. Why then did Paul thank God in
First
Corinthians 1, that he had baptized so few? The answer is
perfectly
plain. Because the Corinthians were making much of human leaders
and
he saw the tendency to glory in man. He knew that if there were
many
there who had been baptized by him, they would be likely, under the
prevailing
conditions, to pride themselves upon the fact that he, the apostle to
the
Gentiles, had been the one who baptized them. But far from making
light
of baptism, when he chides them for their sectarian spirit, he shows
them
that the only name worthy of exaltation is the name of the One by whose
authority
they had been baptized.
As to the various disputed scriptures in Romans 6: 3, 4; Colossians 2:
12;
Ephesians 4: 5; and Galatians 3: 27, where baptism is mentioned without
any
definite indication as to whether it is water or Spirit, one thing at
least
is perfectly clear. Water baptism is necessarily implied, because
Spirit
baptism is but a figurative expression, and water baptism was the act
upon
which the figure was based. This comes out in the first mention
of
Spirit baptism. "I indeed," says John, "baptize you with water"
(this
then was the actual literal baptism), "but He shall baptize you with
the
Holy Spirit and with fire." It is not literal baptism in the Holy
Spirit.
It is not literal fire, but figurative. If this be but kept in
mind,
there would be no confusion. Baptism in water pictures both
burial
and resurrection. On this Paul bases his instruction in Romans 6
and
Colossians 2:12. Thus water baptism marks people out as belonging to
Christ
by profession, and therefore is the basic thought in Galatians 3: 27,
even
though it is by the Spirit's baptism that people are actually united to
Christ.
There has been much disputation regarding the passage in Ephesians 4,
but
without laying special stress on the importance of water baptism, it is
very
evident that the passage would have no meaning if water baptism, as
well
as that of the Spirit, were not in view. Let me try to make this
plain. In the opening verses, the apostle calls upon the Ephesian
believers, and of course all Christians, to walk worthy of the vocation
wherewith
they have been called, and he lays stress on the importance of
endeavoring
to keep the Spirit's unity in the bond of peace. Then he explains
this
unity as being sevenfold. In verse 4 he emphasizes three special
things,
one Body, one Spirit, and one hope. Now there can be no question
that
the Spirit is brought in here as forming the Body, and the Spirit forms
the
Body by what is called elsewhere the baptism of the Spirit. Then
in
verse 5 we have another trio, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Here
it seems to me clearly enough we have, not a duplication of what we
have
already had in verse 4, but something that is more outward. One
Lord
in whom we believe; one faith that we confess; and one baptism by which
we
express our allegiance to that Lord and that faith. In verse 6 we
have
God Himself as the Father of all, the Founder of this blessed unity.
Now without going into any disputation as to whether the term "one
baptism,"
is to be confined to the baptism of the Spirit, or the baptism of
water,
it is certainly evident that it at least implies water. No man
confesses
his faith in Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit alone, for
millions
have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, and yet the world knows nothing
of
it. On the other hand, of course, many have faith in Christ who
have
never been baptized in water, but that does not alter the fact that,
according
to the Lord's own instructions, water baptism should follow confession
of
Christ. The Lord has never rescinded this order, and for men to
attempt
to do so is but to substitute human authority for divine.
The statement has been made that inasmuch as all carnal ordinances were
abolished
in the cross, this includes baptism and the Lord's Supper.
However,
to merely state this is to refute it, inasmuch as Christian baptism was
not
given until just before the Lord's ascension, and the Lord's Supper was
given
from heaven to the apostle Paul by special revelation, long after
Christ's
ascension (1 Cor. 11: 23, 24). To read into such a passage as
Hebrews
6: 1, 2 any reference to Christian baptism, is ignorance so colossal
that
it does not even deserve an answer. The apostle there is
definitely
referring to Judaism in contrast with Christianity. The "doctrine
of
baptisms" is the teaching of washings under law.
To the lover of the Lord Jesus Christ there can be nothing legal about
baptism. It is simply the glad expression of a grateful heart
recognizing
its identity with Christ in death, burial, and resurrection. Many
of
us look back to the moment when we were thus baptized as one of the
most
precious experiences we have ever known.
All ultra-dispensationalists do not reject the Lord's Supper, but those
who
are rigidly tied up to the prison epistles and have practically no
other
Bible, set this blessed ordinance aside in the same curt way that they
dismiss
water baptism. We are told that in a spiritual dispensation there
is
no place for outward observances. And yet, singularly enough,
these
brethren meet together for worship and prayer, and that very frequently
upon
the first day of the week, though they are almost a unit in denying
that
this is the Lord's Day. They insist, though the Holy Ghost has
Himself
changed the term; that the Lord's Day is identical with the Day of the
Lord;
and so the observance of the first day of the week is with them simply
gross
legality. Think of parting with all the holy privileges of the
Lord's
Day on the plea that it is a mark of higher spirituality to make this a
common
day like any other. I know that some quote as authority for this,
Paul's
words in Romans 14: 5: "One man esteemeth one day above another:
another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in
his
own mind." But an examination of the entire passage in which this verse
is
found, will make it clear that the apostle is here referring to Jewish
distinctions between clean and unclean meats, and holy and common days,
and
he would have Gentile believers respect even the legal feeling of their
Jewish
brethren in these matters. The enlightened Christian of course in
a
very real sense esteems every day alike, that is, every day is devoted
to
the glory of God, but this does not mean that he fails to differentiate
between
days on which he participates in the ordinary activities of the world,
and
the first day of the week, which is largely set aside for spiritual
exercises. We have known men to glory in their liberty, as they
called
it, who could take part in Christian service on Lord's Day morning and
spend
the afternoon golfing, or in some other more worldly way, and this on
pretence
of a higher spirituality than that of those who are supposed to be
legal,
because they use the hours of the entire day either for their own
spiritual
upbuilding or for the blessing of others.
It is strange that many, who insist that there are no ordinances or
commandments
connected with the dispensation of pure grace, should take up
collections
in their services and urge people to give as unto the Lord to support
their
ministry. logically, they should tell people that giving is legal and
belongs
to the old dispensation, but has no place in the present age, when we
simply
receive but give nothing in return! The passage already referred
to
in 1 Corinthians 11 makes it clear that though the apostle Paul did not
receive
his instruction concerning the observance of the Lord's Supper from the
twelve,
it was given to him by special revelation from heaven, thus indicating
what
an important place it has in this age. Surely one is guilty of
gross
perversion of Scripture who dares to teach that since Paul's
imprisonment,
the Lord's Supper should no longer be observed, when the Holy Ghost has
said,
"As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the
Lord's
death till He come."
The most sacred hours that many of us have ever known have been those
spent
with fellow-believers seated at the table of the Lord, recognizing in
the
broken bread and poured-out wine, the memorials of our Saviour's death,
and
thus in a new way entering into and appropriating the reality of which
the
symbols speak. We may be thought legal, because we refuse to
surrender
such precious privileges at the behest of some of our self-styled
expositors
of pure grace, but we remember "that the grace of God salvation
bringing
for all men, hath appeared, teaching us that denying ungodliness and
worldly
lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present
world,
looking for that blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our
great
God and Saviour Jesus Christ," and until He come, by His grace, to
remember
Him in the way of His own appointment.
IN closing this review of the system of teaching which we have had
before
us, I do not think it necessary to go into the questions at any length
of
Soul-sleeping and Annihilation (conditional immortality), or the
opposite
view of the final restoration of Universalism. As already
mentioned,
the followers of the late Dr. E. W. Bullinger have largely taken up
with
the first type of teaching in Great Britain; whereas in America many of
them
have supported Universalist views. But these heretical teachings
have
been so ably answered on many different occasions by other writers,
that
it would seem like a work of supererogation to go into them now.
I
only mention them, in fact, as a warning to those who are dabbling with
this
system, for that which looks so innocent in the beginning often ends up
in
complete departure from "the faith once delivered to the saints."
One who was a leading advocate of Bullingerism on the west coast for
many
years, has put out literature recently which denies the Eternal Sonship
of
the Lord Jesus Christ, the true personality of the Holy Spirit, and
many
other important truths. In order to support his restoration
system,
he has put out a private translation of the New Testament which, by his
disciples, is generally accepted as absolute authority. Making no
pretence
to scholarship myself, but simply seeking to be a reverent student of
the
English Bible with whatever help I have been enabled to glean
throughout
more than forty years of studying the Word, I hesitated to pronounce
upon
many of the peculiar translations in this new New Testament, but
several
years ago it was my privilege to spend some time in company with the
late
Dr. A. T. Robertson, undoubtedly the foremost Greek scholar in America,
and
possibly without a peer elsewhere. I asked him if he had ever
examined
the Version in question. With a look of disgust, he said, "I
certainly
did. The editor had the impertinence to send me a copy, and asked
me
to commend his ignorance to others."
I said, "Doctor, would you give me in a few words your real estimate of
this
work, and give me the privilege of quoting you as occasion may arise?"
He replied, "I can give it to you in two words, Piffle and Puffle, and
you
may tell any one that that is my estimate of this vaunted translation."
In giving publicity to this conversation, my desire is to warn those
who
are carried away by great pretence to learning, who may not themselves
be
familiar with the original languages in which the Bible was written,
and
are therefore easily impressed by a parade of assumed scholarship.
Generally speaking, I have sought to avoid personalities in this
discussion. Many otherwise excellent men have taken up these new
views. I have no quarrel with men. I do not desire to
reflect
upon or belittle any of them. It is the Truth of God that is in
question,
and my appeal is therefore to the Word itself.
Singularly enough, since these papers began running serially, I have
received
abusive letters from a number of different teachers accusing me of
attacking
them. One such writes that he is neither a Bullingerite nor an
ultra-dispensationalist, and resents being so designated. Each
one
must draw his own conclusions as to whether he holds the views I have
endeavored
to refute. "I speak as unto wise men. judge ye what I say."
In bringing these papers to a close, I would urge interested readers to
remember
the exhortation of the apostle, "Prove all things; hold fast that which
is
good."