The Strife Part VIII
How Christianity, from the first century, deviated from the Holy Scriptures by S.V.M. originally written in Dutch in 1931, translated from Dutch by Aristarkos.
VIII. Back to Paul
1. Maranatha
Many historical records show that since the Reformation there have been many who have been dissatisfied with the common conception of prophecy, Israel, and the Church. So says Rev. Bultema in his work « Maranatha » about those who believed in the 1000 year kingdom.
In the 17th century in England one finds J. Mede, Dr. W. Twisse, J. Ussher etc. In the Netherlands P. Jurieu P. Poiret, Jean de Labadie, R. Fleming etc. Later J.A. Bengel and his numerous pupils, R.M. Mc: Cheyne, R.C. Trench, H. Alford, S.L. Tregelles. C.J. Ellicot, J. Cumming, J.C. Ryle, T. Chalmers and many others. From America he mentions e.g. Dr. J.A. Seiss and many others. In the Netherlands during the last century: W. Bilderdyk, I. Da Costa, A. Capadose, W. de Clercq, J.H. Koenen, J.F. Schimscheimer, G. G. Van Prinsterer, J. De Liefde, Ten Kate, Dr. D. Chantepie De La Saussaye Sr., N. Beets and many others.
We know how since about 100 years the study of prophecy has been taken up again and how people began to believe more and more literally what the prophets said. People gradually went back to the literal meaning, which does not mean that the figures of speech were not taken into account. However, the tradition of so many centuries is powerful and believing everything was not easy. How many of those whom we here refer to as the Maranatha group literally believe Jeremiah when he says that the New Covenant will be established with Israel?
There was also a noticeable change with respect to Paul. The more one uses the O.T. literally believed, the more people also came to believe Paul. People also started to see something about the dispensations and so one thing helped the other. The tradition was taken down piece by piece. Yet it still remained very strong in places, the main fortress still held, although it was undermined. For example, it was not yet recognized that the N.T. largely deals with a time when Israel is still in the foreground and the other nations are only grafted into the tame olive tree. The Church began for them at Pentecost, and the customs of that time were applied to the Church. Thus, the Acts period and the revelations Paul spoke of in his last letters were not yet understood. People were so accustomed to seeing the Church here already, they thought so little of Israel that they did not notice the special character of that dispensation. And yet every page of Acts tells us of Israel, THE city, THE land, the temple, the law, the fulfillment of prophecy, the nearness of the kingdom. Then there were already all kinds of portents of the kingdom, such as: miracles, powers, signs, intervention of angels, communion of goods, blessing of the nations through Israel, testimony to the world that they may believe, etc. The 12 Apostles, who will sit on their 12 thrones throughout the kingdom have already begun to fulfill their missions. Everywhere the kingdom was announced and it was pointed out that only one more thing was needed for it to begin: the conversion of Israel as a nation.
As far as these things are concerned, some things are already recognized by some. Especially the English magazine Things to Come shows how gradually a more correct view of the time of the Acts was obtained. The most prominent pioneer here was Dr. E.W. Bullinger. As far as we know there are only 4 magazines today (30’s last century) that clearly distinguish the position of the Church.
Naturally, the further one penetrated into the truth, the stronger the opposition became. The Maranatha group in particular resisted. It was apparently satisfied with the results obtained and turned against new considerations, which nullified part of its views. It chose to stick to what its fathers had taught.
While there is a return to what Paul taught during his first period (Acts), and even partly to what he taught later, this was only the case with a few.
The majority still turn away from Paul. One does not even shrink from accusing him of all kinds of mistakes. Yes, the other Apostles also have a hard time sometimes. And those people are obliged to do so if they want to maintain their position. It does not even seem to be thought that the doctrine may need to be revised in some respects, but it is taken for granted, if there is a difficulty, that the fault lies with the Apostles. We would like to take a closer look at this matter.
2. Paul Sacrificed
In Chapter III we saw that the Christian Israelites during the time of the Acts had yet to follow the ceremonies of the law. In Chapter V we have examined how this was still partly, but wrongly, done in the first centuries in imitation of the 12 Apostles of Israel. We can still find remnants of these ceremonies today, even among those who believe in Israel's future and judge others for impure doctrine.
For those who let the Church begin with Pentecost, it is of course not possible to assume that the Jewish believers then still had to follow the law. If then from Acts 21 e.g. it is clear that Paul keeps the law, that is an insurmountable obstacle for them. Will they now reconsider their view? Usually, therefore, little is said about Acts 21:26. If, however, one is forced to do so, there are two ways: 1. One acknowledges the difficulty, implicitly assuming that there is something wrong with the conception; or 2. it cannot be assumed that so many should be mistaken, and that they themselves do not see rightly, and then rather accuse Paul of having acted wrongly. They express it as softly as possible and try to excuse him as best as possible. One then does not fight with the sword of the Spirit, but with one's own philosophical reflections, and Satan, of course, has the upper hand.
Before examining this further, we would like to consider a few other cases where the Apostles are also accused of not acting according to God's will. Almost all of Christendom: considers that the 11 are mistaken in Acts. 1:6. How could they then ask, « Lord! Will You restore the kingdom to Israel at this time? » Surely it was wrong to still think of the kingdom to Israel now? Those who speak thus had surely expected that the Lord would rebuke the Apostles and that they should look more for something heavenly and speak of the Church. But He does not, He only says that it is not for them to know when the kingdom will be established. The Lord thus tacitly confirms their expectation. It should be remembered that Luke. 24:45 reads: « Then He opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures. » And further, that they had just received 40 days of teaching about the Kingdom from the Lord Jesus Himself (Acts 1:3). How dare people whose minds are not opened to the scriptures, and who received no such teaching, now accuse the apostles of wrong? One sees how strong the impulse of tradition must be in order to act in this way.
Many accuse the 11 of error when they include Matthias as number 12. For them, Paul is actually the twelfth Apostle. That those 11 have already received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) seems of little importance to them. They claim to know better. Actually, they also accuse the Holy Spirit of being mistaken, for He nevertheless confirms through Luke that Matthias belonged to the 12, because He speaks of the 12 in Acts. 2:14; 6:2, long before Paul's conversion. It is also forgotten that Paul could not qualify because he had not associated with them « beginning from the baptism of John » (Acts 1:22). Also refer to « The Purpose of the Ages » and « Does the Church Begin at Pentecost? ».
In connection with Acts 15, the Apostles are also often rebuked. They should have acted more radically here. It is not seen that they actually affirm that the Christian Israelites still had to be circumcised. If they had seen that, they would of course be completely condemned.
Now we come to Acts 21. In fact, it is already considered that the « spiritual » intention to travel to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21) was wrong. That was Paul's spirit, a human decision, against God's will? This should be apparent from Acts 21:4. These said to Paul by the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem. That is to say, according to many people, that here the Holy Spirit gave an absolute prohibition against going to Jerusalem. That is why Paul got into all kinds of trouble, they say. He was no longer a chosen vessel here, no longer aware of his calling, he acted according to his own thoughts, etc.? Therefore, no blessing comes from it, but trouble (21:27 ff.). Why else did he have to stress so much that he was a Jewish man? (Acts 22:3): Why evade the scourging, by pointing out that he is Roman (22:25)? Why pretend to be a Pharisee and divide that council (Acts 23:6)? That was all weakness and human walk? Then there is this case of the High Priest (23:3). The result of all this is that Paul ends up in captivity? Thus speak those who sacrifice Paul. For them, a visible blessing must follow our actions. This was not the case with Paul, so he acted wrongly, they believe.
We want to show how much that interpretation is influenced by the doctrine. First, one must see the facts as they are presented, and not try to soften Paul's mistakes, if any. It is clearly stated that in Acts. 21:26 Paul offered sacrifices to prove publicly that he himself walked in keeping the law (v. 24). So if he doesn't actually walk like that, and yet claims to do so, then Paul is a deceiver. Nothing should be taken away from that, especially since he will return to it later (Acts 24:17; 25:8; 28:17), he did it with full awareness and not the slightest remorse.
Now let us examine this matter carefully, as if we had never heard of it before.
Acts 19:21 says only that Paul had a serious intention to go to Jerusalem. Acts 20:22 confirms that. It remains undecided here whether Paul is acting according to God's will or not. In the next verse, however, we read that the Holy Spirit told him that bonds and tribulation await him there. In verse 24 he speaks of the consummation (i.e., perfecting or finishing) of his course and the ministry which he has received from the Lord Jesus to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. Could he do this if he acts against God's will? Nor is it sufficiently understood that the gospel of the grace of God is a very special « good tiding », about which we hope to say more later. It concerns here precisely the « consummation » of God's Word (Col. 1:25) the making known of the Great Mystery in his captivity letters Eph. Phil. Col. It is therefore remarkable that people are already starting to turn away from Paul here. Is not that the operation of Satan, who opposes all that pertains to that Mystery?
But says Acts 21:4 then not « that he should not go up to Jerusalem »? The translation says so, but let us examine the words, inspired by the Holy Spirit. First, the word translated « going up » is rendered in verse 2 as « we entered into it ». It's literally « get up ». In connection with, the story, here it is boarding the ship. But above all we must examine the meaning of the word « not ». Is that absolute, i.e. was Paul not allowed to go to Jerusalem under any circumstances and never again? Or is it relative, and does this prohibition then only concern certain circumstances or a certain time? Let us not now adapt that text to a preconceived opinion, but learn to understand it through God's Word itself. In the Greek language one can express something very precisely. As it has been used here by the Holy Spirit, we may safely trust that the slightest shades are quite rightly expressed. The Greek has 4 expressions, all translated by « not »: ou, ouchi, me and oume. The first word is used for an absolute negation (e.g. Matt. 4:4, 5:21). The second is somewhat stronger (e.g. Luke 4:26) and the last is the strongest form, which is often rendered by no at all or never (e.g. John 11:26). On the other hand, me is conditional, temporary. To be assured of this, one need not be « learned ». One simply checks with a Concordance where the Holy Spirit continues to use that same word. This is how one finds it e.g. in Matt. 10:5 « go not in the way of the nations. » That was for a while. While that dispensation lasted, Israel had to repent before good tidings could be brought to the Gentiles. Then we have John. 20:17 « Do not touch me ». That was only for a short while, a little later the Lord Himself asked Thomas to touch Him (v. 27). Then we have in Acts 1:4 the following words: « He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem. » That was also for a short time. Now is also in Acts 21:4 uses the little word « me », and we may safely conclude therefrom, unaffected by our own opinion, that this command too was but for a time. We are even accurately told how long they had to stay there: « seven days » (v. 4). Verse 5 then adds, « When it came to pass that we had finished those days, we departed and journeyed on » (Translation Voorhoeve, this is a Dutch Bible translation). Isn't it clear that the Holy Spirit told them to wait there for 7 days before they could board the ship? Do people see the great importance of keeping the « sound » words (2 Tim. 1:13)?
But now we read on and find in Acts 21:11, that the Holy Spirit himself says again that Paul will be bound in Jerusalem. The people begged Paul not to go up (v. 12), but he himself was willing to be bound and die for the name of the Lord Jesus. That again could not be said if Paul acted against God's will. Verse 14 is also very clear: « The will of the Lord be done. » They now abandoned their feeling and self-will and no longer prevented Paul from doing God's will by going to Jerusalem. We don't want to add much more here. The general attitude of Paul as a Jew, Pharisee, and Roman was quite right in that dispensation and circumstances. We do not see that he should not cause division in that council. In Acts 23:1 he says, « I have walked before God in all good conscience to this day. » We repeat: either his conduct was blameless indeed, or he is an unscrupulous deceiver. If Paul is committing misstep upon misstep here, could the Lord Himself say to him, « Be of good cheer, Paul? for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou also testify in Rome »? Let one learn from all this not to judge anything or anyone according to the visible « blessing » which seems to be attached to it.
People sometimes want to invalidate Acts 24:17 by claiming that these are not real sacrifices. One refers e.g. to 2:17 and 4:18. However, in these verses the word « thusion » is used, while in Acts. 24:17 « prosphora » is used. From Heb. 10:8-10 it should prove that Paul couldn't possibly have offered sacrifices anymore. Now this text is a quotation from Ps. 40. So if those words mean that there are no real sacrifices anymore, then was that also the case in the O.T.? And conversely, if there were sacrifices before, they might as well have been in the time of Hebrews. The difference between those dispensations is not in the sacrifices themselves, but in the manner of offering: formerly it was as « under » the law (see p. 22), in Acts it must be in remembrance (Heb. 10:3).
Now that we have seen how one accuse Paul without any Scriptural reason, but only for the sake of maintaining their own opinion, let us see further how one turn away from him, by not fully believing what he wrote in his last letters about the Church of the Mystery. They want nothing more in it than some explanations concerning the position of those who were already gathered into a church at Pentecost. It cannot be assumed that a new organism was created first after Acts. It is therefore led to believe that there is now or should have been a « visible » church. We want to examine briefly something about the unity in Acts and about the visible church.
3. On Unity and Communion in Acts
We can distinguish three units. First of all, that of Israel, as God's people. It will become a full reality under the Kingdom only when the Lord shall be in the midst of His people as Jehovah-Shammah (the Lord is there). See Ezek. 43:7, 48:35, Zeph. 3:15-17. That visible unity will bless all the nations.
However, the Abrahamic promises contain more. There would be a group compared to the stars of heaven (Gen. 15:5). These believers are not blessed in Abraham, as the Gentiles in general are, but with Abraham. They are Abraham's spiritual seed (Gal. 3:9), belong to Jerusalem above (Gal. 4:26), meet the Lord in the air (1 Thes. 4:13-17), become heirs of the world, not only of the earth (1 Cor. 1:2; Rom. 4:13). They are the Brothers of the Lord (Rom. 8:29).
So here we have a Celestial group, which was already known in the Hebrew Scriptures, though everything about it had not yet been revealed. That group forms a unity "in Christ" (Gal. 3:28), and its communion with Christ includes:
- Rom. 6:4 Buried with Him.
- Rom. 6:5 With him a plant in the likeness of his death.
- Rom. 6:6 Crucified with Him.
- Rom. 6:8 Died with Him.
In the time of the Acts, when Israel was still God's people and the kingdom was « at hand », they had special gifts, as mentioned in 1 Cor.. If those gifts existed in a church (1 Cor. 1:8), they could be said to have been « baptized in one spirit into one body » (1 Cor. 12:13). Paul then represented that church by a human body, the head of which was formed by the Apostles (not the 12 Apostles of Israel, but Paul, Barnabas, etc.). That body is Christ's (1 Cor. 12:27), belongs to Him (Gal. 3:27-29). The Greek does not say that they are « the » body of Christ, but only that they are a body of Christ. So also the woman could be said to be body of the man, because she belongs to him, but it cannot be said to be the body of the man, That church was « anointed » (2 Cor. 1:21) and could thus be called « Christ » i.e. « anointed one » (1 Cor. 12:12). It is here a generic name for the church of Corinth, not a proper name for the Son of God.
Besides the earthly and heavenly groups, there is also the over-heavenly group, which dates from before the foundation of the world, but is in no way revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures. This unity was Hidden in God (Eph. 3:9) and has nothing to do with Abraham. Nothing of this unity is visible to the physical eye in our aion. That church is only seen when she appears with Christ in glory (Col. 3:4). Here Scripture does not speak of a nation, of priests, of statutes, of distinctions between the members. It is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:23; 5:30). Christ is the Head. The community therefore goes much further than that of Rom. 6, as seen from Eph. 2:5, 6 and Col. 2:12, 13:
- Fellow-raised.
- Fellow-made alive.
- Fellow-put in the over-heavenly in Christ.
Here is a perfect unity formed by God Himself. There is one fellow-body (Eph. 3:6), one new man (Eph. 2:15), one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God (Eph. 2:4, 5). Its position is in the over-heavenly (Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12), above all creatures (Eph. 1:21).
So while in the time of the Acts one could speak of a visible church with divine ordinances, that is not the case now. Since the end of Acts, Israel is temporarily no longer God's people and all visible things have also disappeared. The Scriptures do not give sufficient indications of anything now to permit a visible church in all its customs, forms, institutions, to act according to God's will. Rome therefore goes back to the tradition and forms of Israel. Protestantism does the same, but only in part and inconsistently. All misunderstand the true unity of our dispensation, the church of the mystery. All attempts to form a different unity can only lead in the direction of something anti-Christian.
That the Lord, meanwhile, still allows all things to work together for good, notwithstanding what is unscriptural and anti-scriptural in it, should not be regarded as an approval, but as a proof of His long suffering and mercy.
4. Is the church « visible » or « invisible »?
That it is possible and necessary for the « church » to also show a visible unity, is justified from Jn. 17:21 (see e.g. « Unity and Community » by J.N. Voorhoeve, p. 36). It is not seen that John does not address the church of the mystery. As always, misclassification of God's Word leads to trouble and then (possibly for others) to Scripture criticism. It is a fact that today that unity does not visibly exist. What comes closest to it is the Roman Church. Later also the unity formed by the Antichrist. Is that perhaps the answer to Christ's prayers? There is no denying that, were those words to be spoken by the Church, there would be complete failure here, and the prayer of the Lord would not have been heard. It is seen how through a zeal for God, but without understanding, one assaults His honor and can destroy His Word.
One can only show that visible unity at the « beginning » of the « church » in Acts. 2. But that is precisely our argument: then not the Church of the Mystery formed, but the earthly unity (Israel) as a witness. The Pentecostal church did not contain any uncircumcised Gentiles. (Acts 2:5, 10, 14, 22, 36). The visible is just one of the things that show what difference there is between the Pentecostal dispensation and ours. Concerning our time it must be acknowledged:
The revelation of the one body was thereby lost, and became a mockery to the world.
(Unity and Community page 39).
And further:
"It has become evident in the course of the centuries that what was found in the early days of the church has never been returned."
(page 41).
Is this the answer to prayers?
Supposing no new dispensation began after Acts, isn't it even more necessary now to show that unity than at the beginning?
In this same writing, the « Christian Church » is called the « Church » (p. 47). The believers and unbelievers are together in the « kingdom of heaven » i.e. « Christianity » (p. 113). Then it is also said that
« all believers, from all nations, form one circle, which is called « the Church ».
(page 67).
Those before the cross and those of the kingdom then also belong there, and then one has believers through all times, but no Church of the mystery, no group that distinguishes itself from other believers by its special position in the celestial. The « kingdom of the heavens » is also something completely different from « Christianity ».
It is not always easy to understand correctly what is actually called « church ». Thus, in « Lectures on the Church of God » by W. Kelly we find the following expressions:
P.79 « The second chapter of Acts, which shows the presence of the Holy Spirit, gives us the church as an existing fact on earth for the first time. »
(There is a note on Acts 2:47 about the reading:
« And the Lord added to the church daily those that should be saved. »
He concludes from this that the « church » is now something new, while the « being saved » already existed before. The fact is, however, that the words « the church » are not found in any of the three major manuscripts. With this the distinction he wants to make between the believers of the Old Testament, e.g. and the « church » of that time).
Page 82 « The invisible » church...actually existed before the « church », and in fact it was this invisible state of affairs that the Lord brought to an end when He formed the church. »
He then speaks of the believers in the Old Testament.
« From henceforth the disciples in Israel were not destined only for salvation, but they were gathered together on the earth. That is the congregation ».
Invoking Acts 2:47, he says:
Page 83 « Now the Lord takes and gathers daily, forming a body gathered together. It goes without saying, then, that « church » is one thing, and being saved is another ».
In « The Purpose of the Ages » the following translation is suggested: « The Lord daily joined together the saved." The Greek is literally: « The - now - master (Lord) - added - the - those who were saved - daily - on - the - itself ». Now the question is: what does « on its self » mean? These Greek words are used in Acts 2:1 and 2:44 and are best translated « together » So there was the Lord Himself (Matt. 18:20). We also read in Acts. 5:14: « And more and more believers were added to the Lord », and from Acts. 11:24: « And a great multitude was added unto the Lord. » We conclude from this that if one follows the three principal manuscripts and adds nothing to the text, but translates it in accordance with other passages, the whole argument of Kelly falls to pieces, for it is not said that it belonged to « the Church. » be joined, but to the Lord. That when they gathered, as in Acts. 5:11, formed an « assembly » or « church », does not mean that one should now regard that « church » as something very special, which still exists when they leave that « assembly ».
Page 83. « The Lord does not leave those « who were to be saved » in their old relations, but gradually builds them together into the church. »
The Lord no longer does that now, since it is recognized that most of those who belong to the « church » are still in Protestant, Roman or Greek churches. Why should the Lord have acted otherwise in the beginning?
Page 35. « Both the saved » of Israel and of the Nations are first brought together into one existing body on earth at Pentecost. That body is and is called the « church » or assembly of God.
Page 114. « To form the assembly on earth. »
Page 227. « The church, now broken and ruined. »
From all this we get the impression that this writer particularly regards being-gathered on earth as the « church ». It cannot be a unity which, above all, is spiritual, otherwise he could not exclude the Old Testament believers. He expressly says (p. 82) that the believers can only be gathered together on earth. The church can therefore be « broken » and « ruined ». There is not a word of a spiritual unity that is untouchable. Every time he says « on earth ». You can see how John 17:21 then will not be fulfilled at all:
« That they may all be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee, that they also may us being one; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. »
As said above, there is already a unity immediately after the cross, but primarily an earthly unity of Israel and a spiritual unity in Christ. It is certain that Israel (and the believers of the nations) also had to testify to the world. This is not at all fulfilled now and will only be fully fulfilled in the Kingdom. So if one fits John 17:21 into our dispensation, then that prayer has not been answered.
As for the Church of the Mystery, in it we do not see an « assembly » on earth, but a perfect spiritual community, with a spiritual witness to spiritual beings in the first place. The world does not see us as a church. That mystery is still completely hidden from them now, due to unbelief in the revelation. The world simply sees us as Adams children. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God (1. Cor. 2:14). As people we are witnesses to people. So here our walk is also of the utmost importance. Other believers, who do not see the mystery, also only know us as believers in Christ, not as a « Church ». This is completely invisible to the physical eye. That community is above all material existence. Here no « evil » can enter, there can be no apostasy, nor dismemberment, nor destruction, nor disintegration. It is a perfect spiritual body, with a perfect Head.
The verse division of Eph. 3:5, 6 is not very good. One can read: « Apostles and prophets - that in the spirit the nations are fellow heirs. » So not visible, not in the external way of existence, but in the spirit. Eph. 2:15 says: « That He might create the two in Himself into one new man. » That is not visible creation and unity. Only later will they be revealed with Him (Col. 3:4). Then the world will also be able to see us as a unity and we will be able to bear witness to the exceeding riches of His grace through the aions to come (Eph. 2:7). Our unity is a « unity of the Spirit » (Eph. 4:3). If the world were to see us as a church, as a Body, it would see a body without a head.
Surely no one will say that Christ is now visible to the world? How then can the visible, forming a group on earth, be the characteristic of the Church? Everything shows how those brothers know a church, but not THE Church. They do not rightly divide the Word of truth.
A visible church also presents insurmountable difficulties regarding the signs. It is said that these no longer exist, because the « unity » has been broken, and God cannot approve of that separation. That seems very logical, but weren't there schisms in Corinth too? If the church is now only represented among those who gather as the « assembly of the Lord », there would be all the more reason to continue those signs in that place. That would show the others that they should be there too. Is that less necessary now than at Pentecost?
The necessity of an « assembly of the Lord » is proven, among other things, from Heb. 10:25: « Let us not forsake our gathering together. » Now « assembly together » is the translation (as the transl. Voorhoeve notes) of the same word, which means « gathering together to him » and has been translated like this in 2 Thes. 2:1. It clearly points here to the « rapture » of believers into the heavenly sphere, not to the members of the hidden church. Also in Heb. 10:25 speaks of the day that is approaching and in v. 37 of the coming of Christ. Why do people want to turn this into a regular meeting?
We absolutely reject the idea that through visible unity the world should now believe. This world will not believe. That will happen in the Kingdom, when all Israel will be one and all nations will come to Jerusalem for their salvation. The Church is an organism invisible to the physical eye, not a visible organization.
Now let us consider some of the difficulties faced by those who do not believe ALL that the prophets (both in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures) have said, who do not keep the example of the sound words of Paul and do not rightly divide the word of truth. It will sometimes be necessary to repeat some of what we have already written down.
5. Difficulties
1. We return once more to the subject of the ceremonies of the law. These were given to Israel through Moses. It was never the intention that it should remain with the exterior. Those forms were the expression, the image, the shadow of the true. The main point then was also: « You shall love your neighbor as yourself. » Lev. 19:18. Time and again the prophets warn that these forms in themselves are nothing and have no power, and even more, that they are an abomination to God if it remains that way. We give some parts as examples:
« I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. » (1 Chron. 29:17)
« For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. » (2 Chron. 16;9)
« To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. » Isa. 1:11 — 18
« For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. » Hos. 6:6
« I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. » Amos 5:21 — 24
« Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? » Micah 6:6 — 8
What shall we now conclude from such statements? Shall we say with Barnabas and other Church Fathers that this shows that the Lord never actually asked for any real sacrifices, no ceremonies? Shall we then only retain the spiritual meaning, even for those times? No, we must accept both the literal ceremonies and the spiritual background.
And when we come to the Greek Scriptures of the time of the Acts, and it has not yet been expressly stated that these forms have now been abolished, may we say that the Jews were no longer to observe them as soon as they believed in Christ? The Lord Himself had said that not one jot nor one tittle would pass from the law until heaven and earth passed. If we now also assumed that it was God's will that the Christian Israelites should not keep the law during the Acts period, then we would be in greater trouble for future events. Because with regard to the kingdom on earth, the prophets again speak of all kinds of ceremonies. People know how accurate Ez. 40 — 44 describes the temple and the ordinances of that time. And that is for converted Jews, for people who believe in God and are born again. If these still have to offer sacrifices, why not those of Acts? For those who do not wish to spiritualize Scripture, this presents an insurmountable difficulty.
There is only one solution: to realize that Paul, after Acts. 28 speaks of a new dispensation, where the law of commandments, consisting of ordinances, has been « abolished » (Eph. 2:15). Now one should not say that this already begins to be counted from the cross because it says « in His flesh », for it is clear that all that was accomplished on the cross does not begin immediately after the cross.
2. A second difficulty is to explain in a simple but sufficient manner why there were many things during the period of the Acts that are no longer there as a general phenomenon. We mean miracles, powers, tongues, angelic intercession, community of goods, immediate judgment, etc.
One of the best-known reasons to explain the absence of some of these things is that the fragmentation of Christianity into various churches and sects prevents the Lord from working now as he did in the beginning. He can't approve of those schisms, can he? Those who give this interpretation think they are acting according to God's will. Their interpretation seems to make sense, but one thing is forgotten: this working of the Holy Spirit should then be the case with those who have remained faithful. Since Christianity has deviated so far in their view, there would now be all the more reason to give the gifts to the group that has remained faithful or to the part of the church that has returned to faithfulness. This way, every believer would know where he had to go to maintain unity.
We learn from 1 Cor. 12:11 that division and unworthiness are not obstacles it says « as He wills. » The word « will » in Greek is the verb boulomai, to decide; in Acts. 5:38, 39 and Heb. 6:17 we find the corresponding noun, council, i.e. firm decision. So it does not depend on the people, but only on God. In this respect too, Pentecost aligns itself with the Kingdom and not with the Church. Furthermore, 1 Cor. 13:8 — 10 teaches that when that which was perfect came, that which was in part would cease. That congregation at that time was « partial ». The same word of 1 Cor. 13:10 is found in 1 Cor. 12:27: « members in part », i.e. dependent on each other, working only in connection with the whole « body ». This falls away in Ephesus. Then comes the perfect, the perfect man. So it is far that the gifts were ceasing because they were no longer worthy of them, they ceased because God (despite the unworthiness) gave something even higher.
All is clear and simply explained when it is seen that the dispensation from Pentecost to the closing of Acts is entirely different from the present one, and should have been more a transition to the Kingdom than to the church.
3. If one applies to our dispensation what is related to another dispensation, then one also arrives at the conclusion that there must now be a visible church, which must form a visible unity according to God's will. One even dares to quote Joh. 17:21 to exhort believers to maintain or create unity, so that the world may believe. However, one is obliged to recognize that this visible unity does not exist. And what is the necessary conclusion? That the prayers of our Lord Jesus are not answered!
If there is a visible congregation, then there may be only one meeting in each location. Every sincere Christian must go there. There alone one has the truth. Since unbelievers, those who have a false doctrine and those who act unworthily are not allowed to participate in worship, one must be able to know these people completely, one must know exactly what the truth is in everything. Do those brothers claim to have all the truth? Do they have those special gifts to fully understand their fellow believers, such as, for example, Peter with Ananias and Sapphira?
With a visible church and a visible unity for the present dispensation, one encounters insurmountable difficulties because the appropriate circumstances do not currently exist. That visible church does fits the kingdom. It is only after the resurrection, when the gates of Hades will be overwhelmed by the resurrection, that the Lord will build the Church, which, as a Church, has an earthly role to play.
4. Another difficult case is that concerning the New Covenant. Those who spiritualize the O.T. can be consistent here. Jer. 31:31 says that this N.C. will be made with Israel. Now if the « Church » has taken the place of Israel, then the N.C. is automatically made with the « Church ». But those who want to leave to Israel what has been given or promised to that nation are stuck here or have to acknowledge that the N.C. is not concluded with the Church. However, since Israel does now not exist as such, that covenant is now not in force.
Here again the only solution is: take it as God gives it in His Word. The blood of the New Covenant with Israel was shed (Matt. 26:28) but this Covenant must still be established (Heb. 8:8) in the future when Israel, as a nation, will have repented. The Church, only announced by Paul after Acts, as such has nothing to do with this covenant. Her communion with Christ, i.e. from the Body to the Head, is so intimate that there can be no question of a covenant. One then « loses » a covenant and what belongs to it, but gains a closer fellowship with Him Who is placed above all.
5. If one wants to follow the 12 Apostles of Israel, one must do so consistently. We know from Scripture and from the testimony of the first centuries that they observed all kinds of ceremonies. One is therefore obliged to seek help with tradition. Because just using Scripture is no longer possible. It is clear that all kinds of things, especially with regard to external things, are not fully described in God's Word. This is how one comes to Anglicanism or even to Rome.
Once again there is only one solution, and it is the same as for all other difficulties: To believe that the Church of our dispensation is completely independent of the 12 Apostles of Israel. For that Church there are no more forms, and then the Scriptures alone can be sufficient, then all tradition can be rejected. Then one considers the things that are above, and one no longer needs a shadow or anything that is on earth.
6. With the 12 Apostles of Israel one must also adopt a church organization, as they established it and was seen in the first century. Here too, Scripture is not sufficient to indicate everything. If one also accepts their organization with the 12, then one must go back to tradition. In Acts everyone knew exactly what needed to be done. Also in the Kingdom people will know and follow God's will in everything. But how could we have a church organization that is not the work of man, if we do not find the necessary indications for this?
7. If the Church had started at Pentecost, one would have found here the characteristic of that church and not what was previously expected by Israel. How is it then that there were only Israelites at that time and Peter again asks for their conversion so that the kingdom may begin? Why is it that then the prophecies concerning Israel were partially fulfilled? How is it that no one knew anything about the actual Church at that time, and Paul first made those things known, but much later? Why are the believers from the Gentiles still presented as "unclean animals" and why does Peter want nothing to do with the "godly" Cornelius? It is said that Peter then used the "keys of the kingdom". Do they also fit into the lock of the Church? Or is the Church opened by Paul, who only had the stewardship of it after Acts. 28?
8. In Acts nothing happens except what the prophets spoke of. Both the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the beginning of the blessing of the nations had been predicted by them many times. Repentance, forgiveness of sins, baptism, the new heart, etc., all that was promised to Israel. What then does Paul speak of a mystery that has been hidden in God from all ages? If the prophecies have a beginning of fulfillment here and the riches of this period were therefore known to the prophets, how does Paul speak of unsearchable riches?
9. If one puts the church in the place of Israel and one does not realize that, for example, the letter to the Romans does not deal with the special position of the Church of which Christ is the Head, one must therefore assume that the nations, including the Church, are only an grafted branch in the Israelite olive tree. Instead of there being no longer any difference between Jew and Gentile, there is actually Jew and Gentile, but the latter in a completely dependent position. He must then receive his blessings through Israel (as during the kingdom). How is it that people do not realize how much they lose when they turn away from Paul? And if one takes the olive tree as a representation of the spiritual blessings arising from the Abrahamic covenant, one is still mistaken if one thinks that the church depends on Abraham. This shows that people do not yet have a clear view of the position of the Church as the Body of which Christ is the Head.
10. The conditions of Acts will come to full fruition under the kingdom. As far as the earth is concerned, Israel is then the priest-nation through which full blessings come to the Nations who dwell on a redeemed earth. We don't know that as of yet. Already in the O.T. there was also a heavenly position in sight, which is also realized after the resurrection. Many are then blessed with Abraham. If one starts the Church at Pentecost, one will not progress beyond those earthly and heavenly callings. Where does that leave us with the over-heavenly position of which Paul speaks? This is not known and everything associated with it is lost.
11. It can be understood in a certain sense that some people object to accepting a special group of believers as the Church that is the Body of Christ. They have never taught anything other than that there has been a church from the foundation of the world. But those who believe in a rapture of the Church, which they then call "the Bride", and therefore distinguish it from the other believers, must continue with this logically. First of all, there should be no overriding objection to not starting that group at Pentecost, but only after Acts. Furthermore, special things must be said about that group that do not concern other believers. What are they, if one applies the entire N.T. to the Church? If everything is addressed to them, what is there for the other believers, e.g. just before and during the kingdom? Now if that Church is taken from the earth, then only the O.T. remains. applicable to the believers who remain? We would therefore like to conclude that if one distinguishes a special group of believers, one must also assume that part of the Greek Scriptures is addressed only to them. In our case we have no difficulty distinguishing those parts: they are the last writings of Paul, when he first made known the great mystery.
Aristarkos