Part 3 (Conclusion) Disagreements with the Traditional Mid Acts Position

      In Part 1, I stated my disagreement with the Traditional Mid Acts Position when it comes to the issue of when God withdrew the offer of the Kingdom to Israel.  

     In Part 2, I stated my disagreement with the Traditional Mid Acts Position when it comes to their attitude towards E.W. Bullinger and the Acts 28 Position.  Although I am not a proponent of the Acts 28 position, I think most of the Traditional Mid Acts proponents fail address the "problems" that seem to have driven Bullinger and others to the Acts 28 Position.  As I stated in Part 2, I think the answer to most of the issues between the Traditional Mid Acts Position and the Acts 28 Position is to consider the idea that God allowed an "overlap" of the Kingdom Program and the Grace Program all the way to the end of the book of Acts.  You might say these two programs ran concurrently all the way to Acts 28:31.  

     For Part 3, since most Traditional Mid Acts Dispensationalists do not allow for an "overlap," I will state my arguments  in defense of the "overlap" of the Kingdom Program and Grace Program all the way to the end of the book of Acts.

 

Why I Believe there is an Overlap of the Kingdom Program and the Mystery Program Until Acts 28:31

            In Dispensational Theology there are three major divisions when it comes to the question of when the Body of Christ starts and Israel’s kingdom program ends.  The most popular view is the Acts 2 position which holds the position that the Body of Christ begins in Acts 2 and Israel’s kingdom offer ends either at the cross or at Acts 2.  The second view in seeing inconsistencies with the Acts 2 position teaches that the Body of Christ begins around the time of Paul’s conversion or possibly when Paul goes on his first missionary journey in Acts 13.  This view is often called the Mid Acts position.  Most of the proponents of the Mid Acts position teach, just as the Acts 2 position, that around the time the Body of Christ starts, then Israel’s Kingdom offer ends.  Most of the Mid Acts dispensationalists will take the position that the rejection of Stephen’s message in Acts 7 ends Israel’s kingdom offer.  The third major division is called the Acts 28 position.  This position is often referred to as the “Ultra” or “Hyper” position by the Acts 2 and Mid Acts dispensationalists.  The Acts 28 position not only sees inconsistencies with the Acts 2 position but also with the Mid Acts position when it comes to reconciling events and teaching in the book of Acts with the Pauline Epistles (especially with Paul’s prison epistles). 

            From a Bible believing dispensational view, points of agreement can be found in all three major divisions (Acts 2, Mid Acts, and Acts 28).  Of these positions the Acts 2 position is the most inconsistent when it comes to mixing Israel’s Kingdom teaching with doctrine exclusively for the Body of Christ.  Although the Bible does not give a chapter and verse as to the start of the Body of Christ, the Mid Acts position is the most logical since it is Paul that reveals the mystery of the Body of Christ.  Paul writes about the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12:13, well before Acts 28.  “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”  The major problem with the Mid Acts position is failure to adequately explain the continuation of Israel’s Kingdom practice and doctrine in Acts after the Body of Christ begins (either at Acts 9 or 13).  I would agree that the Body of Christ starts in “Mid Acts” (although it may possibly be a little later than Acts 9 or 13 but definitely by Acts 20:24) while the offer of Israel’s Kingdom goes all the way through “Acts 28."

I would like to make the following observations and arguments in support of this “overlap:”

 

1.       According to Acts 3:19-20 Israel as a nation can still repent and expect Jesus Christ to return during the first century.   “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:”   

2.      In Acts 7 Stephen preaches to Israel.  The message is rejected and Stephen is stoned.  At this point the standard “Mid Acts” view is that Israel’s rejection of Stephen is Israel’s blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which could not be forgiven (Matthew 12:31-32).  It is true that the message is rejected and Stephen is stoned, however; Stephen prays, “…lay not this sin to their charge” in Acts 7:60. The question now becomes, does Stephen get his prayer answered?  The standard “Mid Acts” proponent answers the question in the negative. When it comes to being consistent the standard “Mid Acts” proponents have a problem.  Most of the “Mid Acts” proponents answer the question of “getting whatever you ask in prayer” in the following manner.  They say that this promise was was given to kingdom saints that would always know to pray in the will of God, because they would be filled with the Holy Ghost.  In light of this, consider the fact that right before Stephen prays, the Bible says he was “full of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 7:55).  At this point the standard “Mid Acts” proponents contradict their own position on kingdom prayer promises in saying God did not answer the prayer of a kingdom saint (Stephen) filled with the Holy Ghost.  Since Stephen had the prayer promise of “ask and receive,” then I will take the position God answered Stephen’s prayer.  As a result of this prayer God delays laying this sin to Israel until after the book of Acts is over, so Israel’s opportunity to repent in accordance with Acts 3:19-20 continues. 

3.      Most “Mid Acts Dispensationalists” teach Israel’s offer of the kingdom is over with Israel’s rejection of Stephen, yet they say the kingdom gospel is preached by Philip in Acts 8, Peter in Acts 10, and by Peter, James, and John after Acts 15 (called the gospel of the circumcision in Galatians 2:9).  I would argue that the gospel of the kingdom cannot be preached if the hope of it being set up has been withdrawn.  Where is the good news in a gospel that says, “Repent for the kingdom is no longer at hand?”  The Acts 28 position sees this inconsistency, and thus starts the Body of Christ after Acts 28.  In seeing this issue, I would continue to reject the Acts 28 position, but argue instead that there is an “overlap” of the Kingdom offer and the Body of Christ until at least Acts 28:31. 

4.      It is true that Romans 11:11 and 11:15 speaks of Israel’s fall and casting away.  I would argue that the “ing” ending on the word “cast” denotes an ongoing process rather than a completed action at the time of Paul’s writing.  The action of the casting away and diminishing of Israel is not complete until after Acts 28.  Remember the saying, “Rome did not fall in a day.”  The same is true of Israel, in that Israel did not fall in a day.  If the meteorologist says the rain is diminishing, nobody takes that to mean the rain has completely ended.  Israel’s program starts diminishing after Acts 7, but it does not end until at least Acts 28. 

5.      With the beginning or process of Israel’s fall, salvation comes to the Gentiles (Romans 11:11) via the preaching of Paul.  Just because salvation comes to the Gentiles it does not equate with the offer of salvation ending for national Israel.  There is a difference between salvation coming to the Gentiles before Acts 28 and salvation being sent to the Gentiles after Acts 28.  Acts 28:28 states, “Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.”  It is here where Israel is no longer offered salvation as a nation if words have meaning.  Note the present tense of the verb, “is sent,” i.e. something new is happening at the present in Acts 28 and not in the past of Romans 11:11.  Romans 11 discusses the beginning of God’s new program of salvation and becoming members of the Body of Christ alongside Israel’s program of national salvation.  At Acts 28 Israel rejects Paul’s preaching about Jesus, (note that this preaching of Paul was not according to the revelation of the mystery, but according to the law of Moses and the prophets).  Acts 28:23 states, “And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.”   

6.      Rather than presenting opinions (i.e. Acts 2, Mid, or Acts 28) as to when Israel is cast away, let’s ask does the Bible give an answer to this question?

a.      Psalm 74:1 states, “O God, why hast thou cast us off for ever? why doth thine anger smoke against the sheep of thy pasture?”  This Bible verse certainly raises the question, but is there an answer in the context?

b.      The answer is given in the same Psalm at verse 9.  Israel is cast off when the “signs” cease and there are no prophets.  “We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.”  Did the signs and prophets cease at Acts 7?  Not according to the Bible record.  Most Mid Acts dispensationalists would agree that the signs and prophets did not cease until after Acts 28, yet they argue Israel is cast off in Acts 7?  With this in mind do we take the Bible answer of Psalm 74:1-9 that Israel is cast off when the signs cease (i.e. Acts 28) or do we take opinion of most Mid Acts dispensationalists that Israel is cast off, but the signs continue for some time?

c.       It is interesting that Israel’s early history began with signs.  Moses is given two signs in Exodus 4:1-8 to take to Israel so that they will believe his message.  These two signs are serpent handling and healing.  Guess when the last time these two signs appear in the Bible?  It is not Acts 7, but Acts 28:3 and Acts 28:8.  These signs show up near the beginning of Israel’s history and near the ending of Israel’s history.  When the signs cease, according to Psalm 74:1-9 Israel is cast off.  The signs cease at Acts 28! After Acts 28 Paul no longer heals, but tells Timothy to drink a little wine for the stomach’s sake (1 Timothy 5:23).

7.      Romans 11 also teaches about the Gentiles have been grafted in to Israel’s spiritual blessing (the olive tree) and those unbelieving Israelites have been broken off and have fallen.  Paul makes it clear in Romans 11:22-23 that those in Israel that were broken off and had fallen could be grafted back in if they remained not in unbelief.  If Paul thought the “unpardonable sin” had been charged to Israel in Acts 7, then how could Paul say Israel could be “graft in again” if they started believing.  Since Paul believed God answered Stephen’s prayer in Acts 7, “lay not this sin to their charge,” Paul prays for the national salvation of Israel in Romans 10:1. “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.”  If Paul thought the hope of national salvation was cast off, then why is he praying for national Israel?  Prayer for the national salvation of Israel is a kingdom prayer and desire found in the Old Testament (Psalm 14:7, Psalm 53:6, Jeremiah 3:23, and Habakkuk 3:13), and Paul is still praying that prayer in Acts because that salvation is still a possibility. 

8.      Some passages in Paul’s Acts epistles imply that Paul expected Israel to repent and get saved during his lifetime, and thus as a result the “church age” would end and Israel’s kingdom program would resume and be fulfilled in the first century.  For example:

a.      1 Corinthians 7:29 states, “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none.”  I take the time short to mean that Paul anticipates Israel repenting and the rapture occurring soon.  Paul appears to have received further revelation after Acts 28 of a delay, because in a post Acts epistle Paul does commend marriage.  1 Timothy 5:14 states, “I will therefore that the younger women marry…”  The time being “short” for the Corinthian church would also throw light on Paul’s writing about showing the Lord’s death till he come in eating the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26).  There is a “split” among Mid Acts Dispensationalists on the question of observing the “Lord’s Supper.”  Some continue the practice because they take Paul’s statement “till he come” out of context.  When Paul wrote “till he come” he had in mind a short church age because he anticipated Israel repenting.  After Acts 28 Paul receives revelation of a longer church age and the instruction about the “Lord’s Supper” now is “Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink…” (Colossians 2:16).  There are no required ceremonial feasts, ordinances, etc. with the kingdom postponed.

b.      In 1 Thessalonians 5:23 Paul implies that these believers would be alive at the rapture.  “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  In a post Acts epistle Paul speaks of a future time to come called the “last days” (2 Timothy 3:1).  It implies Paul has received new revelation that the rapture is not quite as imminent as once thought.

c.       Before Acts 28 Paul expected Israel to repent and all be prophecy fulfilled, or else how could he in good conscience say to the Romans that God would bruise Satan shortly (Romans 16:20)?  “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.”  If words have meaning, then shortly must mean shortly.

d.       Paul is praying that first century believers would be preserved in spirit, soul, and body unto the coming of the Lord (1 Thessalonians 5:23).  This would mean Christ would have had to return in the first century or given these believers longevity of physical life for 2,000 years plus?

9.      Peter also hints in his first epistle (1 Peter 4:7) that he expected all to be fulfilled in the first century, but by the time of his second epistle he has learned from Paul (after Acts 28) that there has been a delay because of God’s longsuffering (2 Peter 3:15). 

10.  As late as Acts 28 Paul recognizes Israel still has “hope.”  Acts 28:20 states, “For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”

a.      If words have meaning, then this has to mean Israel still has hope as late as Acts 28.  A change does take place sometime after Acts 28 because Paul later explains he is a prisoner for the Gentiles and not Israel (Ephesians 3:1).

b.      Paul not only believes Israel still has “hope” late in Acts he actually states that the 12 tribes are still serving God and looking for the hope in the present tense.  Acts 26:6-7 states, “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:  Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.” 

c.       At this point the Acts 28ers make a strong argument that the Body of Christ has not started because Paul refers to Israel’s hope still in view and says he is a prisoner for Israel and not the Gentiles at this point.  In order to get around this most Mid Acts dispensationalists will say the hope of Israel and the hope of the Body of Christ are the same in order to refute the Acts 28 position that the Body of Christ does not start until after Acts 28.  This is very inconsistent of the Mid Acts dispensationalists, since most argue in all other cases that Israel means Israel and Body of Christ means Body of Christ.  They even go so far as to sarcastically say, “they (i.e. Israel and Body of Christ) are spelled differently.”  The answer to this is not to change to the Acts 28 position as Bullinger did, but acknowledge that there is an “overlap” in the two programs until at least Acts 28.  In doing so one can remain a consistent Mid Acts dispensationalist.

11.  The reason Paul does the “Jewish” stuff in Acts can be explained more clearly and consistently once the “overlap” of the two programs is understood.  If God is finished with Israel’s program in Acts 7, then why does Paul try so hard not to offend Israel in observing ordinances and ceremonies from Acts 9-Acts 28?  Paul makes it a point to tell the leaders of Israel in Acts 28:17 that he committed nothing against the customs.   “And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.”

a.      Some argue that Paul did “Jewish” stuff in ignorance during the Acts period such as water baptism, circumcision, taking vows, etc.

b.      The problem with the above argument is that Paul did understand the things he was doing.  Paul knew during the Acts period that things such as physical circumcision was nothing.  1 Corinthians 7:19 states, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.”  Paul also knew during Acts that water baptism was not required for the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:17).  Paul says in the past tense he was initially not sent to baptize.  Some try to change the tense of the verb to come up with a past sending in which Paul was to baptize and then a future sending in which Paul was not to baptize.

c.       The reason Paul did such Jewish things was to provoke Israel (National Israel) to jealousy and emulation (Romans 11:11-14).  These Jewish things were required of Israel’s kingdom program which was still in vogue during Acts 7-28 and they needed to emulate the actions (i.e. get circumcised, water baptized, and keep the ceremonial feasts, ordinances, etc.).  If God was finished with Israel’s program in Acts 7, then it would make no sense for Israel to emulate such things.  Paul could have immediately written Colossians 2 concerning spiritual circumcision, baptism, etc.  There are many Mid Acts dispensationalists who teach Paul water baptized and observed the “Lord’s Supper” in order to provoke Israel to emulation while at the same time saying God withdrew the kingdom offer before Paul even got saved?    If there is no hope of Israel’s national salvation after Acts 7, then provoking them would be meaningless.   In seeing this inconsistency some (like Bullinger) have gone all the way to the Acts 28 position to get around the problem rather than considering the possibility of an “overlap.”

12.  The “overlap” also explains why some of the teaching and preaching by Paul in Acts    does not always sound like the pure “grace message.”  For example Paul’s message in Acts 13:38-39 sounds like pure grace until you get to verse 40 and 41.  In verse 40 and 41 Paul warns the Jews of a judgement written in the prophets that would come on them if they did not believe the work of God that he was doing in “your days”.  If “your days” refer to the time of Acts 13, then there is either an overlap in the programs at Acts 13 since “your days” can only refer to Israel days written in prophecy, or the Acts 28 position is correct and the Body does not begin until after Acts 28 when Israel’s “days” are past.