The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace
- Thread starter Bob Hill
- Start date
lightninboy
Member
Bob Hill said:
Thanks for the answer, Bob.
I gave you all too easy a question there.
I was thinking "Here was a guy who was circumcised and kept the Law, and yet he was unsaved."
But nobody who has studied the Bible disputes that Saul was unsaved.
I was expecting you all to answer like "Saul kept the Law, but he had never believed in Christ as his Savior."
To which I could throw a fit and say "See? It's believing in Christ as your Savior that brings you everlasting life, not keeping the Law!"
But, you, Bob Hill, said that it was because God was waiting for Israel to rebel. And there might be some truth in that.
Bob, what God revealed to Paul about salvation that is by grace through faith and available to the Gentiles was already the case.
The revelation was just to people who didn't believe better.
lightninboy
Member
lightninboy
Member
The Dispensation of Law still had eternal salvation by grace through faith plus nothing.
http://www.learnthebible.org/reject_works_salvation.htm
http://www.biblelife.org/dispensations.htm
http://www.learnthebible.org/reject_works_salvation.htm
http://www.biblelife.org/dispensations.htm
lightninboy
Member
lightninboy said:
Death, resurrection and ascension of Christ: AD 30
Conversion of Paul: AD 35
Paul's First Missionary Journey: AD 46-48?
Paul's Second Missionary Journey: AD 51-53
Wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians: AD 52-53
Paul's Third Missionary Journey: AD 54-58
Wrote the epistles to the Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans: AD 55-58
First Roman imprisonment: AD 61-63
Wrote epistles to the Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, Philippians: AD 62-63
Release from first Roman imprisonment: AD 63-64
Wrote 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy: AD 64-67
Death of Paul: AD 67-68
I wonder if Israel had rebelled by the time Saul got converted.
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/reject.html
http://www.centerce.org/Romans106/TeachingOutline9.htm
http://www.bible-truth.org/myst-2.htm
http://www.velocity.net/~edju/Abraham7.htm
http://christianactionforisrael.org/judeochr/biblical.html
http://www.harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/yj.htm
http://www.oxfordbiblechurch.co.uk/mill2b.html
http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/7yeartrib.htm
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/beaumont-doug_p_01.html
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/judaism.htm
http://www.independencebaptist.org/Sermon Outlines/2002/oct 09.htm
http://www.biblicalanswers.com/book_12dispensations.htm
http://www.biblicalanswers.com/chart_12dispensations.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews_033.htm
http://www.levitt.com/essays/israel-church.html
http://www.levitt.com/essays/progdisp.html
http://www.levitt.com/essays/olivetree.html
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/israelch.htm
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/myth.htm
http://doig.net/NTC25.htm
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/early-christianity1.html
Last edited:
lightninboy
Member
http://www.bible-history.com/JewishLiterature/JEWISH_LITERATUREThe_Purpose_and_Heart_of_the_Law.htm
THE PURPOSE & HEART OF THE LAW
One of the primary purposes of the Law was to declare what is right and what is wrong.
Rom 3:19-20 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight,
If anyone tries to obey the law with their entire heart and be honest before God, they would inevitably fail miserably, have their pride broken and feel their guilt before God. To break the human spirit of its pride and create a broken heart before God was the deepest purpose of the Law.
Ps 51:16, 17 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; you do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart-- these, O God, You will not despise.
David learned this lesson painfully, as we all must, and recorded it in Psalm 51. How could David say that God did not desire sacrifice? It is amazing after all we have learned about the demands of God in the sacrificial system. Yet God desires an honest and humble heart willing to worship Him in spirit and truth.
John 1:11-12 "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name"
When Jesus came to Israel there were two kinds of people. There were:
1. Those who had been broken by the Law and were humbled by it. They knew they were condemned under it and found Him to be a source of redemption and a savior which they longed for.
2. Those that thought they were living by it yet were hardened by it. They were proud of their standing before God and felt entitled and had a position. Believing that they were first in the Kingdom of God and deserved to be honored by God.
The Jewish religious leaders which Jesus referred to as "the Jews," were constantly trying to condemn Jesus because He would not submit to their oral traditions and the writings of the Rabbis. The leaders attempted to maintain a sort of ritualistic and devoted lifestyle that would guarantee them entitlement and a position in heaven. They had missed the entire point of the Law. When they saw Jesus violating their traditions and associating with certain people that were considered by them as "unclean" they were appalled:
Matt 9:11-13 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" When Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. "But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
Jesus came to them and said to them: 'Go and learn what this means, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." They didn't get it. They didn't get what the Law was ultimately supposed to teach. That they were sinners and that they needed a Savior. Notice that when they said "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" they were implying that they were sinless. Jesus, in essence, told them to go away and learn their own Torah and then come back when they learned the meaning of the Law and what its ultimate purpose was - that they were not well but needed a Physician. That they were not righteous but were desperately wicked. The Sermon on the Mount was given ultimately to humble all men before the perfect standard of what God calls "good."
So there are two roads that run through this earth. One is pride and one is humility. God gives grace to the humble but He resists the prideful. Those who had been broken by the Law flocked to Him because He offered them hope. They knew they were sick and that they needed the great Physician. They had gotten the lesson of the Law, which was that all fall short of the glory of God, and all are sinners and only those that walk by faith in God will be justified in His sight. Those that accept the free gift.
So there are two ways to receive salvation according to Scripture:
1. Live a perfect life which only the Son of God did.
2. Admit that you're fallen and that you need a Savior
So the Law was designed to bring us to brokenness. Not that we are to give up trying to pursue the Law. The Law is inherently good. It teaches us the image of God. It shows us His holiness. He wants us to try to obey it with all our hearts but only those who try to obey with all their hearts find that their best effort is going to fall far from the mark. Not just a little short but far from the mark. And that humble heart that becomes broken under the weight of God's standard of perfection becomes intensely hungry for the blood of Jesus Christ that brings perfect acceptance and salvation.
THE PURPOSE & HEART OF THE LAW
One of the primary purposes of the Law was to declare what is right and what is wrong.
Rom 3:19-20 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight,
If anyone tries to obey the law with their entire heart and be honest before God, they would inevitably fail miserably, have their pride broken and feel their guilt before God. To break the human spirit of its pride and create a broken heart before God was the deepest purpose of the Law.
Ps 51:16, 17 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; you do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart-- these, O God, You will not despise.
David learned this lesson painfully, as we all must, and recorded it in Psalm 51. How could David say that God did not desire sacrifice? It is amazing after all we have learned about the demands of God in the sacrificial system. Yet God desires an honest and humble heart willing to worship Him in spirit and truth.
John 1:11-12 "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name"
When Jesus came to Israel there were two kinds of people. There were:
1. Those who had been broken by the Law and were humbled by it. They knew they were condemned under it and found Him to be a source of redemption and a savior which they longed for.
2. Those that thought they were living by it yet were hardened by it. They were proud of their standing before God and felt entitled and had a position. Believing that they were first in the Kingdom of God and deserved to be honored by God.
The Jewish religious leaders which Jesus referred to as "the Jews," were constantly trying to condemn Jesus because He would not submit to their oral traditions and the writings of the Rabbis. The leaders attempted to maintain a sort of ritualistic and devoted lifestyle that would guarantee them entitlement and a position in heaven. They had missed the entire point of the Law. When they saw Jesus violating their traditions and associating with certain people that were considered by them as "unclean" they were appalled:
Matt 9:11-13 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" When Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. "But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
Jesus came to them and said to them: 'Go and learn what this means, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." They didn't get it. They didn't get what the Law was ultimately supposed to teach. That they were sinners and that they needed a Savior. Notice that when they said "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" they were implying that they were sinless. Jesus, in essence, told them to go away and learn their own Torah and then come back when they learned the meaning of the Law and what its ultimate purpose was - that they were not well but needed a Physician. That they were not righteous but were desperately wicked. The Sermon on the Mount was given ultimately to humble all men before the perfect standard of what God calls "good."
So there are two roads that run through this earth. One is pride and one is humility. God gives grace to the humble but He resists the prideful. Those who had been broken by the Law flocked to Him because He offered them hope. They knew they were sick and that they needed the great Physician. They had gotten the lesson of the Law, which was that all fall short of the glory of God, and all are sinners and only those that walk by faith in God will be justified in His sight. Those that accept the free gift.
So there are two ways to receive salvation according to Scripture:
1. Live a perfect life which only the Son of God did.
2. Admit that you're fallen and that you need a Savior
So the Law was designed to bring us to brokenness. Not that we are to give up trying to pursue the Law. The Law is inherently good. It teaches us the image of God. It shows us His holiness. He wants us to try to obey it with all our hearts but only those who try to obey with all their hearts find that their best effort is going to fall far from the mark. Not just a little short but far from the mark. And that humble heart that becomes broken under the weight of God's standard of perfection becomes intensely hungry for the blood of Jesus Christ that brings perfect acceptance and salvation.
lightninboy
Member
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...cumcision+salvation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14
Second, since baptism is shown to be the New Testament counterpart to circumcision in the Old Testament, we know that those relations of circumcision to salvation in the Old Testament apply to the relation of baptism to salvation in the New Testament. Circumcision was not necessary for salvation in the Old Testament, for Abraham was saved before he was circumcised (Genesis 15:6). Furthermore, Romans 2:28-29 shows clearly that it is not physical circumcision (that "made with hands") but spiritual circumcision which makes one truly a Jew and one of Abraham's children.
Circumcision is a sign and seal of the covenant relation of the Old Testament believer to God: the relation of justification, of forgiveness of sins, of regeneration, in short, salvation (Romans 4:8-12). Simply physical circumcision did not cause that relation to God (Romans 2:28-29). The one who entered that relation was commanded to be circumcised as a sign of it (Romans 4:11).
Second, since baptism is shown to be the New Testament counterpart to circumcision in the Old Testament, we know that those relations of circumcision to salvation in the Old Testament apply to the relation of baptism to salvation in the New Testament. Circumcision was not necessary for salvation in the Old Testament, for Abraham was saved before he was circumcised (Genesis 15:6). Furthermore, Romans 2:28-29 shows clearly that it is not physical circumcision (that "made with hands") but spiritual circumcision which makes one truly a Jew and one of Abraham's children.
Circumcision is a sign and seal of the covenant relation of the Old Testament believer to God: the relation of justification, of forgiveness of sins, of regeneration, in short, salvation (Romans 4:8-12). Simply physical circumcision did not cause that relation to God (Romans 2:28-29). The one who entered that relation was commanded to be circumcised as a sign of it (Romans 4:11).
Last edited:
lightninboy
Member
http://www.berith.org/essays/bap/bap04.html
There are at least four important points to be noted. First, the sign of the covenant, which is so important that it can be identified with the covenant itself (17:10), is related to the birth of the seed. In essence, Abraham is commanded to cut off the flesh that inhibits the coming of the Seed. Just as the shame of sin was concentrated in the sexual organs at the time of the fall (Gen. 3:7), the sinfulness of man that inhibits the blessing of God is symbolically removed by cutting off the foreskin in circumcision.
Second, this means that circumcision is a bloody sacrifice of sorts, as many other ceremonies in the old covenant. Cutting off the flesh symbolized the removal of the "old Adam" so that the covenant people could bear fruit. Having removed the flesh which hindered God's blessing, Abraham is able to become the father of the promised seed.
Third, circumcision, as the sign of the covenant, distinguishes who is and who is not a member of Abraham's household (17:12, 14) and thus must be given to sons at the age of eight days (17:12).
Fourth, daughters are not mentioned in this passage. Though they are not circumcised, they are still members of the household, who can even inherit land under certain circumstances (cf. Num. 36). Apparently they are regarded as being representatively circumcised through their brothers or perhaps their fathers.
Circumcision as the sign of the covenant initiates the recipient into the Abrahamic covenant. Until one receives the sign of the covenant, he is not an officially recognized member of the covenant community. Needless to say, this does not entail the idea that old covenant sons who died before the eighth day were not saved because they had not been officially included in the covenant. Salvation in the old covenant was not limited to the circumcised. Apart from Jewish women who were saved without circumcision, there is also the example of gentile adults who could become true believers with no obligation to receive circumcision at all. Melchizedek was certainly a Christian, but not circumcised. The "God-fearers" that the book of Acts speaks of were gentiles who believed in the God of Israel, but who did not receive the sign of the covenant. Circumcision, like the Abrahamic covenant itself, did not equal salvation; it was a ceremonial introduction into the Abrahamic priestly race, the covenant people who were to be the channel of salvation to all the world.
When the new covenant comes, however, the meaning of circumcision changes. On the one hand, since it is an old covenant rite, it no longer signifies membership in the priestly covenant nation (cf. Gal. 5:2-6). True circumcision, according to Paul, is heart circumcision (Rom. 2:25-29), which is also no doubt what the Abrahamic covenant sought (cf. Rom. 4:10ff). Paul can even use circumcision to describe the transition from wrath to grace: "In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses" (Col. 2:11, 13).
In the covenant with Abraham, gentiles could be saved, but they could not come near to God, unless they had been granted a special priesthood like that of Melchizedek. In ancient Israel the Levites had special privilege, but not so great as the family of Aaron. Israelites, Levites, and the family of Aaron are all priests in some sense. But Gentiles are not. They may be saved, but they cannot approach God's throne.
But all--Jews, Greeks, men, women, slaves and free--are heirs of Abraham, kings and priests in God's kingdom (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). Baptism, then, is offered to all. It is their official induction into the priesthood.
There are at least four important points to be noted. First, the sign of the covenant, which is so important that it can be identified with the covenant itself (17:10), is related to the birth of the seed. In essence, Abraham is commanded to cut off the flesh that inhibits the coming of the Seed. Just as the shame of sin was concentrated in the sexual organs at the time of the fall (Gen. 3:7), the sinfulness of man that inhibits the blessing of God is symbolically removed by cutting off the foreskin in circumcision.
Second, this means that circumcision is a bloody sacrifice of sorts, as many other ceremonies in the old covenant. Cutting off the flesh symbolized the removal of the "old Adam" so that the covenant people could bear fruit. Having removed the flesh which hindered God's blessing, Abraham is able to become the father of the promised seed.
Third, circumcision, as the sign of the covenant, distinguishes who is and who is not a member of Abraham's household (17:12, 14) and thus must be given to sons at the age of eight days (17:12).
Fourth, daughters are not mentioned in this passage. Though they are not circumcised, they are still members of the household, who can even inherit land under certain circumstances (cf. Num. 36). Apparently they are regarded as being representatively circumcised through their brothers or perhaps their fathers.
Circumcision as the sign of the covenant initiates the recipient into the Abrahamic covenant. Until one receives the sign of the covenant, he is not an officially recognized member of the covenant community. Needless to say, this does not entail the idea that old covenant sons who died before the eighth day were not saved because they had not been officially included in the covenant. Salvation in the old covenant was not limited to the circumcised. Apart from Jewish women who were saved without circumcision, there is also the example of gentile adults who could become true believers with no obligation to receive circumcision at all. Melchizedek was certainly a Christian, but not circumcised. The "God-fearers" that the book of Acts speaks of were gentiles who believed in the God of Israel, but who did not receive the sign of the covenant. Circumcision, like the Abrahamic covenant itself, did not equal salvation; it was a ceremonial introduction into the Abrahamic priestly race, the covenant people who were to be the channel of salvation to all the world.
When the new covenant comes, however, the meaning of circumcision changes. On the one hand, since it is an old covenant rite, it no longer signifies membership in the priestly covenant nation (cf. Gal. 5:2-6). True circumcision, according to Paul, is heart circumcision (Rom. 2:25-29), which is also no doubt what the Abrahamic covenant sought (cf. Rom. 4:10ff). Paul can even use circumcision to describe the transition from wrath to grace: "In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses" (Col. 2:11, 13).
In the covenant with Abraham, gentiles could be saved, but they could not come near to God, unless they had been granted a special priesthood like that of Melchizedek. In ancient Israel the Levites had special privilege, but not so great as the family of Aaron. Israelites, Levites, and the family of Aaron are all priests in some sense. But Gentiles are not. They may be saved, but they cannot approach God's throne.
But all--Jews, Greeks, men, women, slaves and free--are heirs of Abraham, kings and priests in God's kingdom (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). Baptism, then, is offered to all. It is their official induction into the priesthood.
lightninboy
Member
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...cumcision+salvation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=36
But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to those who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews). It was an outward sign of the covenant promise. To reject it was to reject the covenant. But, accepting it did not guarantee salvation.
http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/circumcision.html
This initial act of circumcision was the seal of Abraham's faith in God's promise of possessing the land. It was the indication that Abraham believed God's word. Abraham separated himself unto the Lord and to the Lord's promise.
Circumcision is, therefore, a sign of regeneration for the Jews. It was to the born again Jew what water baptism is to the born-again believer in the Church Age, a sign.
Circumcision is also used by God as a teaching mechanism, a visual aid to provide a picture of regeneration by faith. The circumcision of male children on the 8th day was an act of dedication by the parents. By this means they declared that they would teach salvation by faith to their children. They anticipated that their children would become believers.
Circumcision is also a picture of positional truth, especially the identification with Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.
There can be no victory in the Christian way of life without victory over the old life, over the sin nature. This is the application of positional truth to experience.
The Lord also used circumcision as a picture of Israel's restoration to fellowship and service.
Romans 4:9-13 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Circumcision is a sign of imputed righteousness; it is the sign that one has believed and is cleansed by the blood of Christ and has God's Righteousness credited to his account. Gen. 15:6; 2 Cor. 5:21.
The true significance of circumcision was not in the physical act being perpetuated but in the reasons the ritual was begun in the first place. Circumcision was a sign that something had already taken place, namely, Abraham's salvation.
Circumcision was also a seal. A seal indicates the validity of the thing to which it is attached. It has no significance apart from that which it covers. Circumcision was a seal attached to something valuable, salvation.
During the Church Age, water baptism is the outward sign of an inward faith. Circumcision was the outward sign for the Jews before the Church Age.
Religious Jews tried to make the seal valuable in itself. They attached spiritual value to the act of circumcision, ignoring the substance. They contended that circumcision was needed for salvation, which led to the formation of a ritualistic religion.
Abraham was saved by faith, long before he was circumcised. He is, therefore, the "father of all who believe" because he is the pattern of those who were saved in status quo uncircumcision, whether Jew or Gentile.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...cumcision+salvation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=51
"How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision." (verse 10). Barnhouse states, "Paul has turned the Jew's boast upside down. It is not the Gentile that must come to the Jew's circumcision for salvation; it is the Jew who must come to a Gentile faith, such faith as Abraham had long before he was circumcised...When Isaac was saved he was not saved by his circumcision any more than was his father before him. God never promised salvation except by faith. He never promised a perpetual nationality except to circumcised men who believe" (Vol II, p. 260). Circumcision, whatever benefit it may bestow upon the Jew, has nothing to do with salvation. That which comes after the fact cannot cause the fact. Both circumcision and the giving of the law came later - in the case of the law 430 years later. Most of us cannot claim royal ancestry from the physical standpoint, but we belong to royalty if we have placed our faith in the same God and the same Lord Jesus Christ as did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Circumcision was a mark (a seal) in the sense of ownership which warns intruders not to intrude. It was a mark of permanent ownership. Paul used this same word 'seal' in I Corinthians 9:2, "...For the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." The Corinthians were Paul's mark of God's ownership; they had placed their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as had Paul, and they were the evidence of God's grace bestowed upon them. In others words, the Corinthians were a living evidence that Paul was an apostle. The word is used over and over again in Revelation 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The seal is an evidence of God's ownership; it is a certification that something is true, like a notarized sworn statement.
Paul answers that he might be the father of all believers, who, like Abraham, their spiritual father, were saved when they too were uncircumcised.
Abraham is an example of a circumcised Jew who was a Christian first and who later became a Jew. Thus he is a spiritual father of Gentiles who believe as Abraham did, for he was a Gentile when he first believed (Galatians 3:6,7). So Paul is making the point here that to become a 'son' of Abraham one must believe as he did. A circumcised Jew can be saved, but only if he believes on Christ and His sacrificial death on Calvary alone, which would rule out any confidence that he might otherwise have in the fact that he is a Jew. Abraham had a perfect salvation before he was circumcised; circumcision could not add anything to his salvation. So it is with the Christian, he has perfect salvation before he is baptized. Nothing can add to that salvation - water baptism, church attendance, partaking of the Lord's supper, tithing, confirmation, nor moral reformation.
The covenant of grace supersedes the covenant of the law and thus abolishes the law as a supposed way of salvation. The legalists of our day say that salvation is obtainable through human merit - circumcision, water baptism, sabbath observance, or the practice of high ethical standards; if this were true then the death of our Savior on the cross was unnecessary (Galatians 2:20,21).
The law can never give salvation; in fact, the law does not make a man an heir, it makes him a criminal who deserves the wrath of God.
Paul's observation herein is that where there is no law there is no transgression is the ground of the view that all who die in infancy are safe (Romans 5:13,14).
But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to those who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews). It was an outward sign of the covenant promise. To reject it was to reject the covenant. But, accepting it did not guarantee salvation.
http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/circumcision.html
This initial act of circumcision was the seal of Abraham's faith in God's promise of possessing the land. It was the indication that Abraham believed God's word. Abraham separated himself unto the Lord and to the Lord's promise.
Circumcision is, therefore, a sign of regeneration for the Jews. It was to the born again Jew what water baptism is to the born-again believer in the Church Age, a sign.
Circumcision is also used by God as a teaching mechanism, a visual aid to provide a picture of regeneration by faith. The circumcision of male children on the 8th day was an act of dedication by the parents. By this means they declared that they would teach salvation by faith to their children. They anticipated that their children would become believers.
Circumcision is also a picture of positional truth, especially the identification with Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.
There can be no victory in the Christian way of life without victory over the old life, over the sin nature. This is the application of positional truth to experience.
The Lord also used circumcision as a picture of Israel's restoration to fellowship and service.
Romans 4:9-13 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Circumcision is a sign of imputed righteousness; it is the sign that one has believed and is cleansed by the blood of Christ and has God's Righteousness credited to his account. Gen. 15:6; 2 Cor. 5:21.
The true significance of circumcision was not in the physical act being perpetuated but in the reasons the ritual was begun in the first place. Circumcision was a sign that something had already taken place, namely, Abraham's salvation.
Circumcision was also a seal. A seal indicates the validity of the thing to which it is attached. It has no significance apart from that which it covers. Circumcision was a seal attached to something valuable, salvation.
During the Church Age, water baptism is the outward sign of an inward faith. Circumcision was the outward sign for the Jews before the Church Age.
Religious Jews tried to make the seal valuable in itself. They attached spiritual value to the act of circumcision, ignoring the substance. They contended that circumcision was needed for salvation, which led to the formation of a ritualistic religion.
Abraham was saved by faith, long before he was circumcised. He is, therefore, the "father of all who believe" because he is the pattern of those who were saved in status quo uncircumcision, whether Jew or Gentile.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...cumcision+salvation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=51
"How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision." (verse 10). Barnhouse states, "Paul has turned the Jew's boast upside down. It is not the Gentile that must come to the Jew's circumcision for salvation; it is the Jew who must come to a Gentile faith, such faith as Abraham had long before he was circumcised...When Isaac was saved he was not saved by his circumcision any more than was his father before him. God never promised salvation except by faith. He never promised a perpetual nationality except to circumcised men who believe" (Vol II, p. 260). Circumcision, whatever benefit it may bestow upon the Jew, has nothing to do with salvation. That which comes after the fact cannot cause the fact. Both circumcision and the giving of the law came later - in the case of the law 430 years later. Most of us cannot claim royal ancestry from the physical standpoint, but we belong to royalty if we have placed our faith in the same God and the same Lord Jesus Christ as did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Circumcision was a mark (a seal) in the sense of ownership which warns intruders not to intrude. It was a mark of permanent ownership. Paul used this same word 'seal' in I Corinthians 9:2, "...For the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." The Corinthians were Paul's mark of God's ownership; they had placed their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as had Paul, and they were the evidence of God's grace bestowed upon them. In others words, the Corinthians were a living evidence that Paul was an apostle. The word is used over and over again in Revelation 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The seal is an evidence of God's ownership; it is a certification that something is true, like a notarized sworn statement.
Paul answers that he might be the father of all believers, who, like Abraham, their spiritual father, were saved when they too were uncircumcised.
Abraham is an example of a circumcised Jew who was a Christian first and who later became a Jew. Thus he is a spiritual father of Gentiles who believe as Abraham did, for he was a Gentile when he first believed (Galatians 3:6,7). So Paul is making the point here that to become a 'son' of Abraham one must believe as he did. A circumcised Jew can be saved, but only if he believes on Christ and His sacrificial death on Calvary alone, which would rule out any confidence that he might otherwise have in the fact that he is a Jew. Abraham had a perfect salvation before he was circumcised; circumcision could not add anything to his salvation. So it is with the Christian, he has perfect salvation before he is baptized. Nothing can add to that salvation - water baptism, church attendance, partaking of the Lord's supper, tithing, confirmation, nor moral reformation.
The covenant of grace supersedes the covenant of the law and thus abolishes the law as a supposed way of salvation. The legalists of our day say that salvation is obtainable through human merit - circumcision, water baptism, sabbath observance, or the practice of high ethical standards; if this were true then the death of our Savior on the cross was unnecessary (Galatians 2:20,21).
The law can never give salvation; in fact, the law does not make a man an heir, it makes him a criminal who deserves the wrath of God.
Paul's observation herein is that where there is no law there is no transgression is the ground of the view that all who die in infancy are safe (Romans 5:13,14).
lightninboy
Member
The mystery revealed to Paul.
http://www.acu.edu/sponsore...chives/1950s/vol_2_no_1_contents/VanDyke.html
http://www.pfrs.org/pd/08.html
http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/morgan/902.html
http://www.kaleochurch.com/article/The-Mystery-Revealed-In-The-New-Testament
http://www.preachingtodaysermons.com/wycoyanmyre.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1750468/posts
http://www.velocity.net/~edju/Abraham8.htm
http://www.bible-truth.org/myst-4.htm
http://www.bible-truth.org/myst-5.htm
http://www.gracepoints.com/articles/gphebrewspurp.php
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1994i/Newell.html
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/TheUniquenessofTheChurch.html
http://www.acu.edu/sponsore...chives/1950s/vol_2_no_1_contents/VanDyke.html
http://www.pfrs.org/pd/08.html
http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/morgan/902.html
http://www.kaleochurch.com/article/The-Mystery-Revealed-In-The-New-Testament
http://www.preachingtodaysermons.com/wycoyanmyre.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1750468/posts
http://www.velocity.net/~edju/Abraham8.htm
http://www.bible-truth.org/myst-4.htm
http://www.bible-truth.org/myst-5.htm
http://www.gracepoints.com/articles/gphebrewspurp.php
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1994i/Newell.html
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/TheUniquenessofTheChurch.html
lightninboy
Member
http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1950s/vol_2_no_1_contents/VanDyke.html
Vol. 2 No. 1 (1958): 3-10
A Critical Analysis of the Mystery
Revealed to Paul
Frank Van Dyke
Paul calls the gospel (or a special part of it) the mystery that was made known to him.1 1 Ephesians 3:1-7 A certain Dispensational theory says that this was a new gospel revealed to Paul; that Paul’s gospel was different from that preached by the twelve apostles; that a new dispensation (called the mystery dispensation) began with Paul. There are two forms of Dispensationalism. The more popular form (the Darby-Scofield type) is commonly known as Premillennialism. The more extreme form (Bullingerism), in addition to holding the premillennial view, claims that an entirely new gospel was revealed to Paul, and that water baptism is no part of it for any purpose. The regular form (Premillennialism) has been given considerable attention; but this more extreme form of Dispensationalism needs more thorough investigation than it has heretofore received.
I. Nature and History of Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism defined. The word dispensation is translated from the Greek word oikonomia, which means “the management, oversight, administration, of others’ property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship.”2 The idea of a period of time does not inhere in this word; however, E. W. Bullinger, a staunch Dispensationalist, correctly states:
The Greek word rendered Dispensation is oiknomia, and refers to the act of administering. By the figure Metonymy, the act of administering is transferred to the time during which that administering is carried on.3
C. I. Scofield, the man who popularized Dispensationalism in America, gave this definition: “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”4
Strictly speaking, anybody who understands the distinction between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ may be called a dispensationalist. But the word Dispensationalism, as it is used today to designate a certain system of teaching, means much more than this. It includes the special idea that the Church Age is not only distinct from the Jewish Age, but that it is a dispensation that was never foretold in prophecy
Ultra Dispensationalism. E. W. Bullinger, in England (1837-1913), went beyond Darbyism and taught that the present Church Age did not start until after the close of Acts, and that water baptism is no part of the gospel for this age. His teaching is denounced by many other Dispensationalists as “Ultra Dispensationalism.”
Some present day Dispensationalists, such as J. C. O’Hair, of Chicago, and C. R. Starn and Charles F. Baker, of Milwaukee, disagree with both Darbyism and Bullingerism on the beginning of the Church. They claim that the Church started after Pentecost but before the close of Acts; but they do not agree on an exact time for its beginning. John B. Graber,’ a Dispensationalist of the Darby Scofield kind, classes the teaching of these men as Ultra Dispensationalism, but he calls it the “moderate type” and Bullinger’s views, the “extreme type.”6
Both the “moderate type” and the “extreme type” of Ultra Dispensationalists insist that the present dispensation of grace began with Paul, not Pentecost, and that water baptism is not to be practiced today.
II. The Mystery Revealed to Paul
What is the mystery? The word mystery (musterion) means, according to Thayer, “hidden purpose or counsel; secretwill.”7 It is something once hidden and then revealed. Paul defines it as the great truth that “Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”8
Dispensational claims about its beginning. Dispensationalists insist strongly that the prophetic message of the Old Testament had no reference to the present Church age. Cornelius R. Starn states that the prophetic message “deals directly with Israel and the nations, not with the body of Christ.”9
Furthermore, it is claimed that the Twelve never did preach the mystery gospel, the gospel of the grace of God. Starn says that “it was through Paul, and no one before Paul, that Christ was set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD (Rom. 3: 25).”10
Ephesians 3:1-12. This is one of the main passages of Scripture used in support of this Dispensational teaching. The main points used are listed below.
1. A dispensation or stewardship (oiknomia) was given to Paul. (v. 2). It is claimed that this was a special stewardship that was committed to Paul exclusively, or at least was revealed to him first. It is a mere assumption, however, to say that this had never been revealed before. Paul says in verse 5 that this same thing had been revealed to the other apostles and prophets.
2. The mystery was made known to Paul. (v. 3). Again it is assumed that this mystery remained hidden until it was revealed to Paul; however, this the passage does not so state. To say that God revealed a thing to Paul is not to say that he revealed it first or exclusively to Paul. Dispensationalists make a serious error in logic, and consequently in their exegesis, at this point.
3. The mystery “in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets.” (v. 5). This is taken to mean that no reference to the mystery was made in prophecy; because, it is said, if the Old Testament prophets foretold the great mystery, then it was made known in the sense that Paul says it had not been made known. Peter plainly states, however, that the prophets “prophesied of the grace that should come unto you” and that they “testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ.”11 Obviously, this is grace on the basis of Christ’s sufferings (or the shedding of his blood). The prophets, according to Peter, foretold it! And Peter and others (before Paul) preached this redemption on the basis of “the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot.”12 Still, Stam declares that “in prophecy salvation by grace through faith alone is not contemplated,”13 and that “never were the merits of Christ’s death proclaimed as the ground of Salvation until Paul.”14
Peter’s implication, in the passages cited above, plainly is that what the prophets had prophesied about was now being more fully made known. It had been referred to by the prophets, but it had not been made known as it was now being made known. This also is the meaning of Ephesians 3:5.
4. Paul says that “unto me . . . is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” (v. 8). Here again it is assumed that this grace was given to Paul exclusively; but the verse does not state this. What had been committed to the Twelve was now given to Paul that he might go especially to the Gentiles with it.
5. The word unsearchable (anexichniastros) is said to mean that the gospel had never been mentioned in prophecy. O’Hair affirms: “The word unsearchable’ means ‘untraceable’; this is, ‘unprophesied’.”15
Thayer defines anexichniastros this way: “that cannot be traced out, that cannot be comprehended, . . .”16 he riches of Christ, even after God has told man about them in the gospel, are still to an extent unsearchable; man is not fully capable of tracing them out, or understanding them. And certainly he did not trace them out in the sense of discovering them for himself. The reference is to man’s comprehension, not to what the prophets had said, or had not said, about these matters.
6. Paul speaks of the “mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God.” (v. 9). Dispensationalists take this to mean that it was completely hidden until it was revealed to Paul. This, however, is a strained and unnecessary construction of Paul’s language. Before the mystery was revealed to the holy apostles and prophets (as stated in verse 5), not before it was made known to Paul, it was hidden in the mind of God.
Miscellaneous arguments. There are at least three positions held by Dispensationalists on the commission of Matthew 28: (1) Bullinger taught that this commission is for a future age,17 (2) Stam and others hold that it was the commission for the Twelve in the early Acts period, hut not for the present dispensation of grace.18 (3) Scofield claimed that this commission is for the present age, since this age began at Pentecost.19
Stam’s claim makes the message of this commission a promise of an earthly kingdom, not the offer of grace on the basis of Christ’s death. He says of it: “This new commission was in fact no departure from the prophetic program; it was a further development of it.”20 Again he says: “To assume that our Lord now sends these apostles to proclaim ‘the gospel of the grace of God’ is wholly unwarranted.”21
According to Luke 24:46,47 it was necessary for “Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day” so that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” This is the gospel of remission of sins on the basis of Christ’s death; and Stam agrees that this commission, along with the records in Matthew 28:19,20 and Mark 16:15, 16, is the one proclaimed by the Twelve.22 So when the Twelve, in the early part of Acts, were working under the commission recorded in the gospels, they were proclaiming salvation on the merits of Christ’s death.
It is argued, too, that Peter, in Acts 3: 19, 20, promised the Jews that God would send Christ back to earth immediately and set up the earthly kingdom, on the condition of their national repentance. There is some contingent relationship expressed in Acts 3 :19,20 between repentance and conversion on the one hand and the coming of Christ on the other. Whatever this relationship may be, there are two things that the passage does not state. It does not say that Christ would have returned immediately if they had repented, nor does it state that he would have come to establish an earthly kingdom. These two ideas are read into the passage.
In Galatians 2:7 Paul says that “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter.” It is assumed that two different gospels are mentioned here, but such an idea is not demanded by the language. One gospel may be under consideration, with two spheres of labor in view for proclaiming the one gospel. The facts demand this idea; for obviously the leaders in Jerusalem gave Paul the right hand of fellowship because they recognized that there was no basic difference between his gospel and theirs.
Ultra Dispensationalists insist that if the Twelve preached the gospel for this age, then the miraculous signs of Mark 16: 16-20 must be a part of that gospel now. The mistake here is in assuming that the signs must continue as long as the belief and baptism. Mark 16:16-20 does not itself teach that the signs would be temporary, but it allows for such if it is taught elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul taught in I Corinthians 13:8-10 that miraculous signs would end.
III. Water Baptism and Paul’s Gospel
Ultra Dispensationalists teach that water baptism was a part of the “kingdom gospel” of the early Acts period, but it ended when the present dispensation of grace began with Paul’s ministry. O’Hair puts it this way: “Members of Christ’s body today are united to the Head in the heavenlies, baptized with His baptism and are complete in Him, and have nothing to do with water baptism.”23
Dispensational interpretations. Dispensationalists deny that water baptism is mentioned in Galatians 3 :27; Romans 6 :3,4; Ephesians 4: 5; and Colossians 2: 12. A distinction is made between “real baptism” (Spirit baptism) and “ritual baptism” (water baptism). Spirit baptism, it is said, is the baptism in these passages; for to allow reference to water baptism is to make water baptism essential, and that just cannot be true!
The idea of Spirit baptism, as the Dispensationalists speak of it, is unusual. Chafer says that baptidzo has a “secondary meaning” of being ,”joined closely: to that which exercises a determining influence.”24‘ Baker states that “the word BAPTISM has a basic meaning to become identified with.”25 Chafer speaks again of the “Spirit’s ministry of uniting the believer to Christ,” and says that this is the baptism into Christ.26 To be baptized by the Spirit, according to this, is to be brought by the Spirit into close union with Christ.
There are serious objections to these interpretations. The term “ritual baptism” is prejudicial. Water baptism is not “ritual” in the sense of the meritorious factor. Furthermore, it is begging the question to eliminate water baptism from these passages merely because to allow it is to make water baptism necessary.
The results are confused with the element in their idea of Spirit Baptism. They make the Spirit the agent, and Christ the element in which the believer is baptized. Even if Spirit baptism did put one into Christ, the Spirit would be the element, and being put into Christ would be the result. John said: “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance.”27 Water was the element in which they were baptized; the result, a life of repentance. Likewise, in being baptized into Christ, one is baptized in water (the element), and being in Christ is the end reached. Being in Christ is not the baptism. It would be interesting to have Chafer’s and Baker’s authority for their definitions of baptidzo. Thayer, Abbott-Smith, and Liddell and Scott do not give such a definition.
Much is made of the fact that Paul does not command baptism in the epistles. This is taken to mean that water baptism had ended. The epistles were written to Christians, so the natural thing would be for Paul to speak of what baptism had done for them, instead of commanding it.
The one baptism of Ephesians 4:5. This is water baptism. The baptism of Matthew 28: 19, 20 is to be administered by man, and it is therefore water baptism. Man does not administer Spirit baptism.This commission was given in Galilee. The gospel that began in Galilee was preached by Peter to Cornelius, according to Acts 10:37. And this was the gospel by which a people are called from among the Gentiles, according to Acts 15:14, which is admittedly the work of Paul’s gospel in this age. So the gospel that Peter preached to Cornelius is the gospel of Matthew 28:19,20, and it is the gospel for this age. That gospel requires water baptism, so water baptism must be the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5.
IV. Objections to Dispensational Views of the Mystery
Prophecies applied to the church. The prophecies of the Old Testament do not leap over the present age of grace. A detailed exegesis cannot be given here, but prophecies are applied to the present age in Acts 13:32-37; 15:15,16; 26:22,23; Hebrews 8:8-12; and many other passages.
The Twelve preached the gospel of grace. It has already been shown that the commission of Matthew 28 :19,20, under which the apostles labored, is the gospel of grace for this age. In I Peter 1: 18, 19 Peter says that he preached that men are now redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ.” The gospel in Hebrews, according to Hebrews 2:3, was “confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (by the Twelve). This gospel offers redemption on the basis of Christ’s blood.
Paul preached the same gospel that the Twelve preached. In Galatians 1 :23 Paul says that after his conversion he preached “the faith which once he destroyed,” but he had previously destroyed the gospel preached by the Twelve. Again, Paul continued to preach this same gospel until he was before Agrippa in Acts 26 :22. For this preaching he was imprisoned but in Ephesians 6 :20 he says that for the Mystery gospel he was “an ambassador in bonds.” Paul had always taught the same gospel set forth in Ephesians, and this was the gospel that he once opposed (the gospel of the Twelve).
The Joint-Body Church which Paul preached began at Pentecost. According to Ephesians 1:20, 23, Christ was made head of the church, the body, when God “set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.” This Church, begun when God set Christ at his right hand, is the same as the Joint-Body of Ephesians 2:15,16 (the so-called Mystery Church).
In Acts 28:30,31, after Paul went to Rome, he was “preaching the Kingdom of God.” It is agreed that he was not offering an earthly kingdom. If Paul preached the kingdom, but not an earthly kingdom, why conclude that the Twelve were preaching an earthly kingdom when they preached the kingdom of God.
Misunderstanding of Holy Spirit baptism. It has already been seen that Dispensationalists do not think of Holy Spirit baptism as an overwhelming in the Spirit as the element. What they call Holy Spirit baptism is not Holy Spirit baptism at all. Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament was an experience of being overwhelmed by (or in) the Spirit, and being influenced thereby in a miraculous way. (See Acts 2 and Acts 10.) If Holy Spirit baptism is the one baptism for this age, then the Holiness cults are right in their claims of being able to perform miraculous signs. The Dispensationalists, however, think these people are wrong about such miracles.
V. Conclusions
Our conclusions are: (1) the Church was not unknown to the prophetic message; (2) applying prophecy to the Church was the method of interpretation used by the apostles; (3) the Twelve preached the gospel of grace before Paul did; (4) Paul preached the same gospel that the Twelve preached, and water baptism is a part of it; (5) the present dispensation of grace began at Pentecost, not with Paul.
Vol. 2 No. 1 (1958): 3-10
A Critical Analysis of the Mystery
Revealed to Paul
Frank Van Dyke
Paul calls the gospel (or a special part of it) the mystery that was made known to him.1 1 Ephesians 3:1-7 A certain Dispensational theory says that this was a new gospel revealed to Paul; that Paul’s gospel was different from that preached by the twelve apostles; that a new dispensation (called the mystery dispensation) began with Paul. There are two forms of Dispensationalism. The more popular form (the Darby-Scofield type) is commonly known as Premillennialism. The more extreme form (Bullingerism), in addition to holding the premillennial view, claims that an entirely new gospel was revealed to Paul, and that water baptism is no part of it for any purpose. The regular form (Premillennialism) has been given considerable attention; but this more extreme form of Dispensationalism needs more thorough investigation than it has heretofore received.
I. Nature and History of Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism defined. The word dispensation is translated from the Greek word oikonomia, which means “the management, oversight, administration, of others’ property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship.”2 The idea of a period of time does not inhere in this word; however, E. W. Bullinger, a staunch Dispensationalist, correctly states:
The Greek word rendered Dispensation is oiknomia, and refers to the act of administering. By the figure Metonymy, the act of administering is transferred to the time during which that administering is carried on.3
C. I. Scofield, the man who popularized Dispensationalism in America, gave this definition: “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”4
Strictly speaking, anybody who understands the distinction between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ may be called a dispensationalist. But the word Dispensationalism, as it is used today to designate a certain system of teaching, means much more than this. It includes the special idea that the Church Age is not only distinct from the Jewish Age, but that it is a dispensation that was never foretold in prophecy
Ultra Dispensationalism. E. W. Bullinger, in England (1837-1913), went beyond Darbyism and taught that the present Church Age did not start until after the close of Acts, and that water baptism is no part of the gospel for this age. His teaching is denounced by many other Dispensationalists as “Ultra Dispensationalism.”
Some present day Dispensationalists, such as J. C. O’Hair, of Chicago, and C. R. Starn and Charles F. Baker, of Milwaukee, disagree with both Darbyism and Bullingerism on the beginning of the Church. They claim that the Church started after Pentecost but before the close of Acts; but they do not agree on an exact time for its beginning. John B. Graber,’ a Dispensationalist of the Darby Scofield kind, classes the teaching of these men as Ultra Dispensationalism, but he calls it the “moderate type” and Bullinger’s views, the “extreme type.”6
Both the “moderate type” and the “extreme type” of Ultra Dispensationalists insist that the present dispensation of grace began with Paul, not Pentecost, and that water baptism is not to be practiced today.
II. The Mystery Revealed to Paul
What is the mystery? The word mystery (musterion) means, according to Thayer, “hidden purpose or counsel; secretwill.”7 It is something once hidden and then revealed. Paul defines it as the great truth that “Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”8
Dispensational claims about its beginning. Dispensationalists insist strongly that the prophetic message of the Old Testament had no reference to the present Church age. Cornelius R. Starn states that the prophetic message “deals directly with Israel and the nations, not with the body of Christ.”9
Furthermore, it is claimed that the Twelve never did preach the mystery gospel, the gospel of the grace of God. Starn says that “it was through Paul, and no one before Paul, that Christ was set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD (Rom. 3: 25).”10
Ephesians 3:1-12. This is one of the main passages of Scripture used in support of this Dispensational teaching. The main points used are listed below.
1. A dispensation or stewardship (oiknomia) was given to Paul. (v. 2). It is claimed that this was a special stewardship that was committed to Paul exclusively, or at least was revealed to him first. It is a mere assumption, however, to say that this had never been revealed before. Paul says in verse 5 that this same thing had been revealed to the other apostles and prophets.
2. The mystery was made known to Paul. (v. 3). Again it is assumed that this mystery remained hidden until it was revealed to Paul; however, this the passage does not so state. To say that God revealed a thing to Paul is not to say that he revealed it first or exclusively to Paul. Dispensationalists make a serious error in logic, and consequently in their exegesis, at this point.
3. The mystery “in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets.” (v. 5). This is taken to mean that no reference to the mystery was made in prophecy; because, it is said, if the Old Testament prophets foretold the great mystery, then it was made known in the sense that Paul says it had not been made known. Peter plainly states, however, that the prophets “prophesied of the grace that should come unto you” and that they “testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ.”11 Obviously, this is grace on the basis of Christ’s sufferings (or the shedding of his blood). The prophets, according to Peter, foretold it! And Peter and others (before Paul) preached this redemption on the basis of “the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot.”12 Still, Stam declares that “in prophecy salvation by grace through faith alone is not contemplated,”13 and that “never were the merits of Christ’s death proclaimed as the ground of Salvation until Paul.”14
Peter’s implication, in the passages cited above, plainly is that what the prophets had prophesied about was now being more fully made known. It had been referred to by the prophets, but it had not been made known as it was now being made known. This also is the meaning of Ephesians 3:5.
4. Paul says that “unto me . . . is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” (v. 8). Here again it is assumed that this grace was given to Paul exclusively; but the verse does not state this. What had been committed to the Twelve was now given to Paul that he might go especially to the Gentiles with it.
5. The word unsearchable (anexichniastros) is said to mean that the gospel had never been mentioned in prophecy. O’Hair affirms: “The word unsearchable’ means ‘untraceable’; this is, ‘unprophesied’.”15
Thayer defines anexichniastros this way: “that cannot be traced out, that cannot be comprehended, . . .”16 he riches of Christ, even after God has told man about them in the gospel, are still to an extent unsearchable; man is not fully capable of tracing them out, or understanding them. And certainly he did not trace them out in the sense of discovering them for himself. The reference is to man’s comprehension, not to what the prophets had said, or had not said, about these matters.
6. Paul speaks of the “mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God.” (v. 9). Dispensationalists take this to mean that it was completely hidden until it was revealed to Paul. This, however, is a strained and unnecessary construction of Paul’s language. Before the mystery was revealed to the holy apostles and prophets (as stated in verse 5), not before it was made known to Paul, it was hidden in the mind of God.
Miscellaneous arguments. There are at least three positions held by Dispensationalists on the commission of Matthew 28: (1) Bullinger taught that this commission is for a future age,17 (2) Stam and others hold that it was the commission for the Twelve in the early Acts period, hut not for the present dispensation of grace.18 (3) Scofield claimed that this commission is for the present age, since this age began at Pentecost.19
Stam’s claim makes the message of this commission a promise of an earthly kingdom, not the offer of grace on the basis of Christ’s death. He says of it: “This new commission was in fact no departure from the prophetic program; it was a further development of it.”20 Again he says: “To assume that our Lord now sends these apostles to proclaim ‘the gospel of the grace of God’ is wholly unwarranted.”21
According to Luke 24:46,47 it was necessary for “Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day” so that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” This is the gospel of remission of sins on the basis of Christ’s death; and Stam agrees that this commission, along with the records in Matthew 28:19,20 and Mark 16:15, 16, is the one proclaimed by the Twelve.22 So when the Twelve, in the early part of Acts, were working under the commission recorded in the gospels, they were proclaiming salvation on the merits of Christ’s death.
It is argued, too, that Peter, in Acts 3: 19, 20, promised the Jews that God would send Christ back to earth immediately and set up the earthly kingdom, on the condition of their national repentance. There is some contingent relationship expressed in Acts 3 :19,20 between repentance and conversion on the one hand and the coming of Christ on the other. Whatever this relationship may be, there are two things that the passage does not state. It does not say that Christ would have returned immediately if they had repented, nor does it state that he would have come to establish an earthly kingdom. These two ideas are read into the passage.
In Galatians 2:7 Paul says that “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter.” It is assumed that two different gospels are mentioned here, but such an idea is not demanded by the language. One gospel may be under consideration, with two spheres of labor in view for proclaiming the one gospel. The facts demand this idea; for obviously the leaders in Jerusalem gave Paul the right hand of fellowship because they recognized that there was no basic difference between his gospel and theirs.
Ultra Dispensationalists insist that if the Twelve preached the gospel for this age, then the miraculous signs of Mark 16: 16-20 must be a part of that gospel now. The mistake here is in assuming that the signs must continue as long as the belief and baptism. Mark 16:16-20 does not itself teach that the signs would be temporary, but it allows for such if it is taught elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul taught in I Corinthians 13:8-10 that miraculous signs would end.
III. Water Baptism and Paul’s Gospel
Ultra Dispensationalists teach that water baptism was a part of the “kingdom gospel” of the early Acts period, but it ended when the present dispensation of grace began with Paul’s ministry. O’Hair puts it this way: “Members of Christ’s body today are united to the Head in the heavenlies, baptized with His baptism and are complete in Him, and have nothing to do with water baptism.”23
Dispensational interpretations. Dispensationalists deny that water baptism is mentioned in Galatians 3 :27; Romans 6 :3,4; Ephesians 4: 5; and Colossians 2: 12. A distinction is made between “real baptism” (Spirit baptism) and “ritual baptism” (water baptism). Spirit baptism, it is said, is the baptism in these passages; for to allow reference to water baptism is to make water baptism essential, and that just cannot be true!
The idea of Spirit baptism, as the Dispensationalists speak of it, is unusual. Chafer says that baptidzo has a “secondary meaning” of being ,”joined closely: to that which exercises a determining influence.”24‘ Baker states that “the word BAPTISM has a basic meaning to become identified with.”25 Chafer speaks again of the “Spirit’s ministry of uniting the believer to Christ,” and says that this is the baptism into Christ.26 To be baptized by the Spirit, according to this, is to be brought by the Spirit into close union with Christ.
There are serious objections to these interpretations. The term “ritual baptism” is prejudicial. Water baptism is not “ritual” in the sense of the meritorious factor. Furthermore, it is begging the question to eliminate water baptism from these passages merely because to allow it is to make water baptism necessary.
The results are confused with the element in their idea of Spirit Baptism. They make the Spirit the agent, and Christ the element in which the believer is baptized. Even if Spirit baptism did put one into Christ, the Spirit would be the element, and being put into Christ would be the result. John said: “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance.”27 Water was the element in which they were baptized; the result, a life of repentance. Likewise, in being baptized into Christ, one is baptized in water (the element), and being in Christ is the end reached. Being in Christ is not the baptism. It would be interesting to have Chafer’s and Baker’s authority for their definitions of baptidzo. Thayer, Abbott-Smith, and Liddell and Scott do not give such a definition.
Much is made of the fact that Paul does not command baptism in the epistles. This is taken to mean that water baptism had ended. The epistles were written to Christians, so the natural thing would be for Paul to speak of what baptism had done for them, instead of commanding it.
The one baptism of Ephesians 4:5. This is water baptism. The baptism of Matthew 28: 19, 20 is to be administered by man, and it is therefore water baptism. Man does not administer Spirit baptism.This commission was given in Galilee. The gospel that began in Galilee was preached by Peter to Cornelius, according to Acts 10:37. And this was the gospel by which a people are called from among the Gentiles, according to Acts 15:14, which is admittedly the work of Paul’s gospel in this age. So the gospel that Peter preached to Cornelius is the gospel of Matthew 28:19,20, and it is the gospel for this age. That gospel requires water baptism, so water baptism must be the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5.
IV. Objections to Dispensational Views of the Mystery
Prophecies applied to the church. The prophecies of the Old Testament do not leap over the present age of grace. A detailed exegesis cannot be given here, but prophecies are applied to the present age in Acts 13:32-37; 15:15,16; 26:22,23; Hebrews 8:8-12; and many other passages.
The Twelve preached the gospel of grace. It has already been shown that the commission of Matthew 28 :19,20, under which the apostles labored, is the gospel of grace for this age. In I Peter 1: 18, 19 Peter says that he preached that men are now redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ.” The gospel in Hebrews, according to Hebrews 2:3, was “confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (by the Twelve). This gospel offers redemption on the basis of Christ’s blood.
Paul preached the same gospel that the Twelve preached. In Galatians 1 :23 Paul says that after his conversion he preached “the faith which once he destroyed,” but he had previously destroyed the gospel preached by the Twelve. Again, Paul continued to preach this same gospel until he was before Agrippa in Acts 26 :22. For this preaching he was imprisoned but in Ephesians 6 :20 he says that for the Mystery gospel he was “an ambassador in bonds.” Paul had always taught the same gospel set forth in Ephesians, and this was the gospel that he once opposed (the gospel of the Twelve).
The Joint-Body Church which Paul preached began at Pentecost. According to Ephesians 1:20, 23, Christ was made head of the church, the body, when God “set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.” This Church, begun when God set Christ at his right hand, is the same as the Joint-Body of Ephesians 2:15,16 (the so-called Mystery Church).
In Acts 28:30,31, after Paul went to Rome, he was “preaching the Kingdom of God.” It is agreed that he was not offering an earthly kingdom. If Paul preached the kingdom, but not an earthly kingdom, why conclude that the Twelve were preaching an earthly kingdom when they preached the kingdom of God.
Misunderstanding of Holy Spirit baptism. It has already been seen that Dispensationalists do not think of Holy Spirit baptism as an overwhelming in the Spirit as the element. What they call Holy Spirit baptism is not Holy Spirit baptism at all. Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament was an experience of being overwhelmed by (or in) the Spirit, and being influenced thereby in a miraculous way. (See Acts 2 and Acts 10.) If Holy Spirit baptism is the one baptism for this age, then the Holiness cults are right in their claims of being able to perform miraculous signs. The Dispensationalists, however, think these people are wrong about such miracles.
V. Conclusions
Our conclusions are: (1) the Church was not unknown to the prophetic message; (2) applying prophecy to the Church was the method of interpretation used by the apostles; (3) the Twelve preached the gospel of grace before Paul did; (4) Paul preached the same gospel that the Twelve preached, and water baptism is a part of it; (5) the present dispensation of grace began at Pentecost, not with Paul.
lightninboy
Member
http://www.pfrs.org/pd/08.html
This begs the question, why would God hide the mystery within the OT writings? Why make something so obscure? Paul tells us why.
1 Cor 2:7-8
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
(KJV)
That the mystery was hidden in this manner was absolutely necessary for the Jews to reject Jesus, and for the crucifixion to occur. Even Satan didn't get it. The crucifixion of Jesus was inspired by Satan Himself, when he entered into Judas. By God's hiding the 'mystery' in the Scriptures, He was able to turn the tables on Satan. God actually used Satan as a tool to carry out the crucifixion.
Throughout the Gospels you can see that Jesus intentionally kept the Jews in the dark about what was really going on, while giving some light to His disciples.
Mark 4:10-12
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
(KJV)
God drew only a remnant of the Jews during Jesus' ministry, the rest were hardened. They could not see the Messianic prophecies using the normal interpretive methods. Jesus spoke to them in parables, so they could not understand. Paul explained the reasons for this in his parable of the Olive Tree in Romans 11.
In hindsight, through the revelation of Jesus, we can perceive Messianic prophecies interwoven all throughout the Old Testament. Some are fairly plain, like Isaiah 53 (but not altogether, since Philip had to explain to the Ethiopian Eunuch what Isaiah was writing about). Others are quite obscure, like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 7:14. Some are seen in types, such as the sacrifices all being allegories of Christ. Others appear to combine Christ's first and second comings into one. Yet, to those willing to believe, the big picture comes clearly into focus through revelation, as we stand amazed at the flood of prophecy of Christ in the Old Testament. To the carnal minds, with a veil over their eyes, the Torah's and the Prophets' testimony to Christ remain hidden out of sight. That Jesus is the Messiah cannot be proven from the normal grammatical/historical approach to Old Testament prophecy. But, to those who have ears to hear, the evidence is overwhelming.
This is the 'mystery' that Paul speaks of so often in his epistles. Some claim that it was unique to Paul. Nothing in the Scriptures hints at such a thing. In fact, Paul plainly said that the Mystery was revealed to the 'Apostles' (plural), (Eph. 3:5).
John the Baptist was the first to shed some light on the Mystery, when he exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world," making the connection between Jesus and Isaiah 53. Jesus gave further revelation to His disciples, through personal instruction, and explaining the parables. But, not until after the resurrection did He open their understanding so they could understand the Scriptures, and expound every single prophecy in the Old Testament concerning His coming. From this point on, the Apostles were able to connect the Old Testament prophecies with Jesus' first coming. Peter's sermons in Acts 2 and Acts 3 are filled with these kinds of interpretations of Old Testament prophecy.
It was this hidden wisdom of God, hidden from the bulk of Israel but revealed to the Church, that caused Paul to erupt in thanksgiving!
Rom 11:33-36
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
(KJV)
This begs the question, why would God hide the mystery within the OT writings? Why make something so obscure? Paul tells us why.
1 Cor 2:7-8
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
(KJV)
That the mystery was hidden in this manner was absolutely necessary for the Jews to reject Jesus, and for the crucifixion to occur. Even Satan didn't get it. The crucifixion of Jesus was inspired by Satan Himself, when he entered into Judas. By God's hiding the 'mystery' in the Scriptures, He was able to turn the tables on Satan. God actually used Satan as a tool to carry out the crucifixion.
Throughout the Gospels you can see that Jesus intentionally kept the Jews in the dark about what was really going on, while giving some light to His disciples.
Mark 4:10-12
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
(KJV)
God drew only a remnant of the Jews during Jesus' ministry, the rest were hardened. They could not see the Messianic prophecies using the normal interpretive methods. Jesus spoke to them in parables, so they could not understand. Paul explained the reasons for this in his parable of the Olive Tree in Romans 11.
In hindsight, through the revelation of Jesus, we can perceive Messianic prophecies interwoven all throughout the Old Testament. Some are fairly plain, like Isaiah 53 (but not altogether, since Philip had to explain to the Ethiopian Eunuch what Isaiah was writing about). Others are quite obscure, like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 7:14. Some are seen in types, such as the sacrifices all being allegories of Christ. Others appear to combine Christ's first and second comings into one. Yet, to those willing to believe, the big picture comes clearly into focus through revelation, as we stand amazed at the flood of prophecy of Christ in the Old Testament. To the carnal minds, with a veil over their eyes, the Torah's and the Prophets' testimony to Christ remain hidden out of sight. That Jesus is the Messiah cannot be proven from the normal grammatical/historical approach to Old Testament prophecy. But, to those who have ears to hear, the evidence is overwhelming.
This is the 'mystery' that Paul speaks of so often in his epistles. Some claim that it was unique to Paul. Nothing in the Scriptures hints at such a thing. In fact, Paul plainly said that the Mystery was revealed to the 'Apostles' (plural), (Eph. 3:5).
John the Baptist was the first to shed some light on the Mystery, when he exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world," making the connection between Jesus and Isaiah 53. Jesus gave further revelation to His disciples, through personal instruction, and explaining the parables. But, not until after the resurrection did He open their understanding so they could understand the Scriptures, and expound every single prophecy in the Old Testament concerning His coming. From this point on, the Apostles were able to connect the Old Testament prophecies with Jesus' first coming. Peter's sermons in Acts 2 and Acts 3 are filled with these kinds of interpretations of Old Testament prophecy.
It was this hidden wisdom of God, hidden from the bulk of Israel but revealed to the Church, that caused Paul to erupt in thanksgiving!
Rom 11:33-36
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
(KJV)
lightninboy
Member
http://www.kaleochurch.com/article/The-Mystery-Revealed-In-The-New-Testament
GOD’S MYSTERY
Before the Acts 2 day of Pentecost, no one understood God's purposes--His purposes were a mystery.
Israel did not understand.
The prophets did not understand.
The apostles did not understand.
No one understood at Jesus' crucifixion.
No one understood at Jesus' resurrection.
No one understood the first 49 days after the resurrection.
It was not fully understood before Acts 10 when people who were not Jews or converts to Judaism were converted to Jesus Christ.
Many to this day do not understand.
- What would you say is “the mystery” that was revealed?
It refers to God's secrets, His counsels and purposes, which are not known to man apart from His special revelation in Scripture or by his prophets (Dan. 2:18-23; 27-30).
In most cases in the New Testament it refers to church truth, which was not known in Old Testament times, but has become revealed in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 3:1-9). The Old Testament revealed the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the salvation of the Gentiles, etc., but there was no mention of the church and certain aspects of the church age. These things were mysteries (Rom. 16: 25-26).
It is also used of spiritual-truth revealed in Scripture, Old or New Testament truth, but which remains a secret, veiled truth to the unbeliever because he cannot fathom or spiritually understand it. It refers to truth which man cannot comprehend by experience, trial and error, testing, or by his own reason or human philosophy (1 Cor. 2:6 -14; Mark 4:11). Through the Word of God, the new nature and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the believer becomes the initiate of God's mysteries (cf. Phil. 4:12 where Paul uses the Greek word mueo).
- THE MYSTERY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD (ALSO KINGDOM OF HEAVEN)
OT – The phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ does not occur in the OT. But this notion is pervasive throughout the books.
Isaiah, Zechariah, and the other prophets wrote about a coming king and his eternal kingdom, which God promised would come through the line of David.
He will rule the nations with a rod of iron, yet he is also called the prince of peace. His enemies' tongues will dissolve and he will destroy his peoples' enemies, yet he comes meek and lowly, riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. The Jews of Jesus' day were confused over the way Christ had come to them. They thought he was supposed to devour their enemies, but he seemed angrier with "his people," the Jews, than with those who ruled over them, the Romans.
The Jews had such a worldly view of God's kingdom that they actually shut out those who sought God's kingdom
Matthew 23
13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
THE MYSTERY OF ATONING FOR SINS
OT - God established an atonement that is a complicated system of sacrifices.
Atonement for sin requires blood.
NT - The bible makes it clear that it was the purpose of Christ to come into the world was to die for sins. John introduces Jesus into his public ministry as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
- THE MYSTERY OF THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The reason this view—that only certain individuals were indwelt with the Holy Spirit - is held is based upon an understanding of a statement made by Jesus:
John 14
17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
This verse is interpreted to mean that the Holy Spirit was only with believers during Old Testament times but now dwells within each believer in the New Testament age.
Not only was the Spirit limited to certain individuals; the extent of the indwelling was limited. He could leave an individual after He had indwelt them. The life of Saul serves as an example:
NT
In the NT the spirit is pneuma, a word with similar associations to rûah, and is poured out by Christ at Pentecost (Jn. 1:33; Acts 2:33) and is identified with the OT spirit of God:
But He takes over Jesus role as counselor, helper, strengthener, and acts as God’s power and intercessor on Earth.
The Holy Spirit now also unites believers to Christ in a regenerative, life-giving fashion so that we may share in His kingdom.
The Holy Spirit is our promised seal guaranteeing our inheritance of redemption.
Ephesians 1
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory.
- The mystery of the church as the body of Christ where Jew and Gentile become one new man in Christ (Eph. 3:1-11; 2:11f) and the church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-32).
- THE MYSTERY OF ALL BELIEVERS BEING A ROYAL PRIEST
God led the children of Abraham out of Egypt for the purpose of making Abraham's descendants into a kingdom of priests. They were to be God's holy nation; a nation devoted to fully obeying God as they kept his commandments. The first mention of God's plan for his holy nation, Israel, is found in the following verses, which record God's message to Israel about three months after their exodus from Egypt.
Exodus 19
3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."
The priesthood of all believers began in the Old Testament. Isaiah foretold that God would extend the promise of a kingly priesthood to all those who believed in Christ.
Isaiah 61
6 And you will be called priests of the LORD ,
you will be named ministers of our God.
You will feed on the wealth of nations,
and in their riches you will boast.
We are called to train ourselves so that we are able to be effective priests to this world.
Our response to this should be one of humility and gratitude. This work is not done inside the Church, but as part of the world. Sundays are a time for renewing the body in our service as priests.
CONCLUSION
What are we to do with the Mystery?
Evangelize
1 Cor 4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Romans 16
- 25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him—
GOD’S MYSTERY
Before the Acts 2 day of Pentecost, no one understood God's purposes--His purposes were a mystery.
Israel did not understand.
The prophets did not understand.
The apostles did not understand.
No one understood at Jesus' crucifixion.
No one understood at Jesus' resurrection.
No one understood the first 49 days after the resurrection.
It was not fully understood before Acts 10 when people who were not Jews or converts to Judaism were converted to Jesus Christ.
Many to this day do not understand.
- What would you say is “the mystery” that was revealed?
It refers to God's secrets, His counsels and purposes, which are not known to man apart from His special revelation in Scripture or by his prophets (Dan. 2:18-23; 27-30).
In most cases in the New Testament it refers to church truth, which was not known in Old Testament times, but has become revealed in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 3:1-9). The Old Testament revealed the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the salvation of the Gentiles, etc., but there was no mention of the church and certain aspects of the church age. These things were mysteries (Rom. 16: 25-26).
It is also used of spiritual-truth revealed in Scripture, Old or New Testament truth, but which remains a secret, veiled truth to the unbeliever because he cannot fathom or spiritually understand it. It refers to truth which man cannot comprehend by experience, trial and error, testing, or by his own reason or human philosophy (1 Cor. 2:6 -14; Mark 4:11). Through the Word of God, the new nature and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the believer becomes the initiate of God's mysteries (cf. Phil. 4:12 where Paul uses the Greek word mueo).
- THE MYSTERY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD (ALSO KINGDOM OF HEAVEN)
OT – The phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ does not occur in the OT. But this notion is pervasive throughout the books.
Isaiah, Zechariah, and the other prophets wrote about a coming king and his eternal kingdom, which God promised would come through the line of David.
He will rule the nations with a rod of iron, yet he is also called the prince of peace. His enemies' tongues will dissolve and he will destroy his peoples' enemies, yet he comes meek and lowly, riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. The Jews of Jesus' day were confused over the way Christ had come to them. They thought he was supposed to devour their enemies, but he seemed angrier with "his people," the Jews, than with those who ruled over them, the Romans.
The Jews had such a worldly view of God's kingdom that they actually shut out those who sought God's kingdom
Matthew 23
13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
THE MYSTERY OF ATONING FOR SINS
OT - God established an atonement that is a complicated system of sacrifices.
Atonement for sin requires blood.
NT - The bible makes it clear that it was the purpose of Christ to come into the world was to die for sins. John introduces Jesus into his public ministry as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
- THE MYSTERY OF THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The reason this view—that only certain individuals were indwelt with the Holy Spirit - is held is based upon an understanding of a statement made by Jesus:
John 14
17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
This verse is interpreted to mean that the Holy Spirit was only with believers during Old Testament times but now dwells within each believer in the New Testament age.
Not only was the Spirit limited to certain individuals; the extent of the indwelling was limited. He could leave an individual after He had indwelt them. The life of Saul serves as an example:
NT
In the NT the spirit is pneuma, a word with similar associations to rûah, and is poured out by Christ at Pentecost (Jn. 1:33; Acts 2:33) and is identified with the OT spirit of God:
But He takes over Jesus role as counselor, helper, strengthener, and acts as God’s power and intercessor on Earth.
The Holy Spirit now also unites believers to Christ in a regenerative, life-giving fashion so that we may share in His kingdom.
The Holy Spirit is our promised seal guaranteeing our inheritance of redemption.
Ephesians 1
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory.
- The mystery of the church as the body of Christ where Jew and Gentile become one new man in Christ (Eph. 3:1-11; 2:11f) and the church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-32).
- THE MYSTERY OF ALL BELIEVERS BEING A ROYAL PRIEST
God led the children of Abraham out of Egypt for the purpose of making Abraham's descendants into a kingdom of priests. They were to be God's holy nation; a nation devoted to fully obeying God as they kept his commandments. The first mention of God's plan for his holy nation, Israel, is found in the following verses, which record God's message to Israel about three months after their exodus from Egypt.
Exodus 19
3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."
The priesthood of all believers began in the Old Testament. Isaiah foretold that God would extend the promise of a kingly priesthood to all those who believed in Christ.
Isaiah 61
6 And you will be called priests of the LORD ,
you will be named ministers of our God.
You will feed on the wealth of nations,
and in their riches you will boast.
We are called to train ourselves so that we are able to be effective priests to this world.
Our response to this should be one of humility and gratitude. This work is not done inside the Church, but as part of the world. Sundays are a time for renewing the body in our service as priests.
CONCLUSION
What are we to do with the Mystery?
Evangelize
1 Cor 4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Romans 16
- 25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him—
lightninboy
Member
http://www.preachingtodaysermons.com/wycoyanmyre.html
• The mystery is that through Jesus Christ, both Jews and gentiles have been brought together in one body, one church.
-Ephesians 3:5, 6; Galatians 3:28
• Paul writes to the Ephesians to explain the mystery that Jesus revealed to him.
-Ephesians 1:9-10; 2:14-22; 2 Peter 1:20-21
• Paul was entrusted to lead Gentiles to faith in Christ.
• Each of us is entrusted with a "dispensation" too (1 Peter 4:10).
•
• Gentiles are "of the same body" as the Jews—not inferior or superior, just Christians.
The church reveals the mystery of God, not only educating the world, but angelic beings as well.
-Ephesians 3:9,10; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Luke 15:10; 1 Corinthians 11:10; 1 Corinthians 4:9
The mystery is significant to us believers today
• The mystery teaches us that the Church (the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians), which form God's body, is not God's Plan B.
• The Church is part of God's eternal purpose, something that was in his mind from the beginning (Ephesians 3:11–13).
• You are not Plan B either; God made you for his eternal purpose.
• The mystery is that through Jesus Christ, both Jews and gentiles have been brought together in one body, one church.
-Ephesians 3:5, 6; Galatians 3:28
• Paul writes to the Ephesians to explain the mystery that Jesus revealed to him.
-Ephesians 1:9-10; 2:14-22; 2 Peter 1:20-21
• Paul was entrusted to lead Gentiles to faith in Christ.
• Each of us is entrusted with a "dispensation" too (1 Peter 4:10).
•
• Gentiles are "of the same body" as the Jews—not inferior or superior, just Christians.
The church reveals the mystery of God, not only educating the world, but angelic beings as well.
-Ephesians 3:9,10; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Luke 15:10; 1 Corinthians 11:10; 1 Corinthians 4:9
The mystery is significant to us believers today
• The mystery teaches us that the Church (the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians), which form God's body, is not God's Plan B.
• The Church is part of God's eternal purpose, something that was in his mind from the beginning (Ephesians 3:11–13).
• You are not Plan B either; God made you for his eternal purpose.
lightninboy
Member
A useful piece refuting Mid-Acts Dispensationalism by some nut promoting faith plus works:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1750468/posts
I have been in a discussion with a woman believing that there were two Gospels (Peter’s and Paul’s). She holds that these two Gospels present two separate laws after the death of Christ. The fact that only Paul had the mystery revealed unto him. Peter’s Gospel is to the Jews and is based on works. Paul’s is to the Gentiles and is based on faith alone. We are going to study the faith that after Calvary there was and still is only one Gospel – Justification that Paul and Peter did not present two different messages – We are not saved by faith alone – Paul was not the only to have all things revealed.
The Gospel of Christ (singular) to all people KJV Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
One Faith – How do we acquire faith – Romans 10:17 – Therefore two Gospels meant two faiths!
KJV Ephesians 4:4-6
4. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
II. Peter and Paul preached to the same people; the same Gospel Peter Fulfilled the Command to preach and baptize (Mark 16:15-16 & Matthew 28:19) –stating that the call was to Jews and Gentiles
Acts 2:37-39
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39.For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Where were the Gentiles mentioned in verse 39? Those that were afar off!
KJV Ephesians 2:11-20
Paul said that if anyone preached any other Gospel they would be accursed
KJV Galatians 1:8-9
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. {Notice the WE (Paul being an Apostle Galatians 1:1), plural meaning Apostles}
Peter Preached to the Gentiles and said that God was not a respecter of persons
Also in Acts 15 he preached to the Gentiles
KJV Acts 10:34-48
Paul Preached to Jews
KJV Acts 14:1-9
IV. Paul was not the only one to have the mystery revealed Verses used to show he was – note –the mystery was revealed to him – but he never mentions the word ONLY
KJV Ephesians 3:2-7
. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3. How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4. Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5. Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6. That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7. Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
By the very existence of the Church the wisdom of God is shown – the Jews were in the Church (Acts 2:14-47)
KJV Ephesians 3:10-11
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11. According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: Paul stated what he was teaching –was this not what Peter taught in Acts 2?
KJV Acts 26:22-23
22. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23. That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1750468/posts
I have been in a discussion with a woman believing that there were two Gospels (Peter’s and Paul’s). She holds that these two Gospels present two separate laws after the death of Christ. The fact that only Paul had the mystery revealed unto him. Peter’s Gospel is to the Jews and is based on works. Paul’s is to the Gentiles and is based on faith alone. We are going to study the faith that after Calvary there was and still is only one Gospel – Justification that Paul and Peter did not present two different messages – We are not saved by faith alone – Paul was not the only to have all things revealed.
The Gospel of Christ (singular) to all people KJV Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
One Faith – How do we acquire faith – Romans 10:17 – Therefore two Gospels meant two faiths!
KJV Ephesians 4:4-6
4. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
II. Peter and Paul preached to the same people; the same Gospel Peter Fulfilled the Command to preach and baptize (Mark 16:15-16 & Matthew 28:19) –stating that the call was to Jews and Gentiles
Acts 2:37-39
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39.For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Where were the Gentiles mentioned in verse 39? Those that were afar off!
KJV Ephesians 2:11-20
Paul said that if anyone preached any other Gospel they would be accursed
KJV Galatians 1:8-9
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. {Notice the WE (Paul being an Apostle Galatians 1:1), plural meaning Apostles}
Peter Preached to the Gentiles and said that God was not a respecter of persons
Also in Acts 15 he preached to the Gentiles
KJV Acts 10:34-48
Paul Preached to Jews
KJV Acts 14:1-9
IV. Paul was not the only one to have the mystery revealed Verses used to show he was – note –the mystery was revealed to him – but he never mentions the word ONLY
KJV Ephesians 3:2-7
. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3. How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4. Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5. Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6. That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7. Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
By the very existence of the Church the wisdom of God is shown – the Jews were in the Church (Acts 2:14-47)
KJV Ephesians 3:10-11
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11. According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: Paul stated what he was teaching –was this not what Peter taught in Acts 2?
KJV Acts 26:22-23
22. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23. That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
lightninboy
Member
http://www.brethrenonline.org/books/ultrad.htm
Wrongly Dividing
the Word of Truth
ULTRA-DISPENSATIONALISM EXAMINED
IN THE LIGHT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
H.A. IRONSIDE, Litt.D.
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.
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:
First, inasmuch as our Lord Jesus was "a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers," it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church, the Body of Christ. All might not put it quite as boldly as this, but certainly their disciples go to the limit in repudiating the authority of the Gospels.
Secondly, it is maintained that the book of Acts covers a transition period between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of the mystery; that is, that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word "ekklesia" (church, or assembly), as used in that book, refers to a different Church altogether to that of Paul's prison epistles. This earlier Church is simply an aspect of the kingdom and is not the same as the Body of Christ!
Third, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his prison epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to members of the Body. All of the other epistles of Paul, save those written during his imprisonment and the general epistles, are relegated to the earlier dispensation of the book of Acts, and have no permanent value for us, but were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish church of that time.
Fourth, the entire book of Revelation has to do with the coming age and has no reference to the Church today. Even the letters to the seven churches in Asia, which are distinctly said to be "the things which are," are, according to this system, to be considered as "the things which are not," and will not be until the Church, the Body of Christ, is removed from this world. Then, it is contended, these seven churches will appear on the earth as Jewish churches in the Great Tribulation.
Fifth, the Body of Christ is altogether a different company, according to these teachers, from the Bride of the Lamb, the latter being supposed to be Jewish.
Sixth, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul is supposed to have received his revelation of the mystery in prison, have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore, are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.*
*As to this, these ultra-dispensationalists differ. Most of them reject water baptism entirely for this age. All of them are not prepared to go so far in connection with the Lord's Supper, but many of them repudiate it too.
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.
CHAPTER FOUR
When Was the Revelation of the Mystery of the One Body Given?
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:
"Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen."
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:
"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another."
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.
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.
CHAPTER SIX
Is the Church the Bride of the Lamb?
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?"
CHAPTER SEVEN
Do Baptism and the Lord's Supper Have Any Place in
the Present Dispensation of the Grace of God?
Concluding Remarks
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."
Wrongly Dividing
the Word of Truth
ULTRA-DISPENSATIONALISM EXAMINED
IN THE LIGHT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
H.A. IRONSIDE, Litt.D.
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.
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:
First, inasmuch as our Lord Jesus was "a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers," it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church, the Body of Christ. All might not put it quite as boldly as this, but certainly their disciples go to the limit in repudiating the authority of the Gospels.
Secondly, it is maintained that the book of Acts covers a transition period between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of the mystery; that is, that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word "ekklesia" (church, or assembly), as used in that book, refers to a different Church altogether to that of Paul's prison epistles. This earlier Church is simply an aspect of the kingdom and is not the same as the Body of Christ!
Third, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his prison epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to members of the Body. All of the other epistles of Paul, save those written during his imprisonment and the general epistles, are relegated to the earlier dispensation of the book of Acts, and have no permanent value for us, but were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish church of that time.
Fourth, the entire book of Revelation has to do with the coming age and has no reference to the Church today. Even the letters to the seven churches in Asia, which are distinctly said to be "the things which are," are, according to this system, to be considered as "the things which are not," and will not be until the Church, the Body of Christ, is removed from this world. Then, it is contended, these seven churches will appear on the earth as Jewish churches in the Great Tribulation.
Fifth, the Body of Christ is altogether a different company, according to these teachers, from the Bride of the Lamb, the latter being supposed to be Jewish.
Sixth, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul is supposed to have received his revelation of the mystery in prison, have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore, are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.*
*As to this, these ultra-dispensationalists differ. Most of them reject water baptism entirely for this age. All of them are not prepared to go so far in connection with the Lord's Supper, but many of them repudiate it too.
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.
CHAPTER FOUR
When Was the Revelation of the Mystery of the One Body Given?
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:
"Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen."
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:
"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another."
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.
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.
CHAPTER SIX
Is the Church the Bride of the Lamb?
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?"
CHAPTER SEVEN
Do Baptism and the Lord's Supper Have Any Place in
the Present Dispensation of the Grace of God?
Concluding Remarks
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."
lightninboy
Member
The Gospel According To John.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm
http://www.materdei.ie/logos/The Gospel of John article.html
http://ots.utoronto.ca/users/smlewis/john2004.htm
http://www.livingwater.org/InfoMin.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Gospel-of-John.html
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ospel+of+John+unique&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/believe.htm
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/johnmenu.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savj2.htm
http://www.giamusic.com/scstore/P-622.cfm
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/mevangel/johnevan.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm
http://www.materdei.ie/logos/The Gospel of John article.html
http://ots.utoronto.ca/users/smlewis/john2004.htm
http://www.livingwater.org/InfoMin.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Gospel-of-John.html
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ospel+of+John+unique&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/believe.htm
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/johnmenu.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savj2.htm
http://www.giamusic.com/scstore/P-622.cfm
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/mevangel/johnevan.htm
lightninboy
Member
Pastor Hill Proven Wrong.
Pastor Hill Proven Wrong.
http://www.biblicalanswers.com/chart_12dispensations.htm
Pastor Hill said that circumcision was necessary for salvation in the Dispensation of Law.
I have shown that circumcision was not necessary for salvation in the Dispensation of Law.
Pastor Hill has been proven wrong.
http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=davidandgoliath03ix8.jpg
Pastor Hill Proven Wrong.
http://www.biblicalanswers.com/chart_12dispensations.htm
Pastor Hill said that circumcision was necessary for salvation in the Dispensation of Law.
I have shown that circumcision was not necessary for salvation in the Dispensation of Law.
Pastor Hill has been proven wrong.
http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=davidandgoliath03ix8.jpg