Disagreements with the Traditional Mid Acts Position (Part One)
I plan to do a few blog posts
on some of the issues I see with what I call the "Traditional Mid Acts
Position." One of the well know proponents of the Mid Acts Position is
C.R. Stam. He authored an excellent commentary on "Acts Dispensationally
Considered." It can be ordered from the Berean Bible Society
(https://store.bereanbiblesociety.org/).
The problem for many that read Stam is a refusal to go beyond Stam in understanding Dispensational Truth. The same can be said of the readers of many other authors. As Dr. Randy White says, they will not "question the assumptions." For another couple of examples many will not go beyond the dispensational position presented in the Scofield Study Bible, and many readers of Dr. Peter Ruckman will not even consider a position on dispensationalism that does not line up with the teaching and preaching of Ruckman.
In this blog post I want to state why I disagree with most Traditional Mid Acts dispensationalists as to their position that God ended Israel's offer of the kingdom in Acts 7 with the stoning of Stephen. Most Traditional Mid Acts dispensationalists will say in Acts 7 Israel blasphemed the Holy Ghost, a sin which could not be forgiven as stated in Matthew 12:31-32, so the offer of the kingdom ceased and will not be offered again until sometime after the rapture of the Body of Christ. They will go on to point out that Paul gets saved in Acts 9 and after his salvation God uses him to reveal the mystery of the one Body of Christ.
By way of agreement, yes, I believe Israel blasphemed the Holy Ghost in Acts 7. I also believe sometime after Paul got saved God revealed the mystery of the one Body of Christ and the age of grace to him. This revelation may have been later than Acts 9 or 13, but I believe it was before Acts 28. See my blog post on "Why the name Acts 20 Grace Believer" for more information about my position on when the Body of Christ began.
It is true that Israel rejects the preaching of Stephen and actually stones Stephen, 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. This is where I disagree. Stephen had the kingdom prayer promise of "ask and receive" (Matthew 7:7). Most all Mid Acts Dispensationalists say the prayer promise in Matthew 7:7 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. Was Stephen praying according to the flesh or in the will of God in Acts 7? He had to be praying according to the will of God because Act 7:55 says he was “full of the Holy Ghost.” In light of this I believe Stephen gets his prayer answered and buys Israel more time to accept the offer of the Kingdom just as Christ did when he prayed on the cross "Father, forgive them..." (Luke 23:34). How much time does Stephen buy for Israel? It looks like they had until Acts 28:28, because at that verse Paul tells the "chief of the Jews" that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles.
Please note in the above paragraph I did not say the Body of Christ starts at the end of Acts 28, but I did say the Kingdom offer for Israel appears to end at Acts 28. This means that during the book of Acts there was a time when two programs were operating (the Kingdom Program as well as the Body of Christ). Understanding this overlap of the two programs in Acts will help one understand Paul's ministry in Acts. At times Paul seems to be doing and preaching Kingdom doctrine. At other times he is obviously preaching and practicing grace doctrine. Some Mid Acts Dispensationalists brush this off by saying Paul was "confused." Paul was not confused when he preached to Israel in Acts, because he knew that if Israel did not remain in unbelief during the Acts Period that they could be grafted back in rather than have the sin of blashphemy charged to them. If Paul thought the “unpardonable sin” had been charged to Israel in Acts 7, then how could Paul say during the Acts period Israel could be “graft in again” (Rom 11:22-23) 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 until Acts 28:28.
Part 2-Disagreements with the Traditional Mid Acts Position
In the last post I stated my major disagreement with many of the Traditional Mid Acts Position. The majority of those I have read of the Mid Acts Position believe that at some point, usually Acts 9 or for some Acts 13, God stops the offer of the kingdom and starts the “grace” program. Most will not consider that God allows both programs to run concurrently through the entire book of Acts. I am not aware of a Biblical reason that these two programs could not overlap from Acts 9-28. God has definitely allowed two programs to operate concurrently in the past. Consider the fact that the Jews were under the Law in the Old Testament while the Gentiles remained under the dispensation of conscience (Rom 2:12-15). When meticulously studying Acts, it seems that the evidence points to the conclusion that God allowed the kingdom program and grace program to overlap until the end of Acts.
Many of the Traditional Mid Acts Position criticize Dr. E W Bullinger for going to the Acts 28 Position, and they thus point out all the errors of the Acts 28 Position. I agree with the Mid Acts Position in that Bullinger went a little “too far.” However, I do not accept the “answer” given by the Traditional Mid Acts people that Bullinger should have remained “Traditional Mid Acts.” From going through all Bullinger’s articles in the Things to Come Theological Journal (Published 1894-1915), it is obvious to me that Bullinger never was a modern “Traditional Mid Acts” dispensationalist. You may view on my blog that at one time Bullinger took sort of an Acts 13 position and later on he took an Acts 19 position before going all the way to the Acts 28 position.
My disagreement with the Traditional Mid Acts Position when it comes to E W Bullinger is that I would have asked Dr. Bullinger to consider the possibility that God did not immediately stop the kingdom program at Mid Acts (take whichever Mid Acts chapter you like i.e. Acts 9, 13, or 19). I would have tried to persuade Bullinger that the kingdom program and grace program “overlapped” or ran “concurrently” from "Mid Acts" until the end of the book of Acts. From my study the “overlap” position solves more of the “problems” in Acts than either the Traditional Mid Acts Position or the Acts 28 position.
I know most Mid Acts people will disagree with me, but in my opinion the Acts 28 position Bullinger took is the most consistent position to take if the “overlap” is not included in one’s Mid Acts theology. The Mid Acts position without accepting the overlap still has many of the same “problems” of the Acts 2 position such as: the observance of Pentecost by Paul (Acts 20:16), Paul speaking in Tongues (1 Cor 14:18), and all the other “gifts” listed in 1 Corinthians. It appears to me that moving from Acts 2 to Acts 9 or 13, without the “overlap” principle, only gets rid of the problem of “baptism for remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).
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:”
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?
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:
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.”
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.”
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment