Here is an interesting video by Erick Erickson on why Christmas is on December 25th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu0pqzrRz9c
Why Christmas is on December 25th?
Are Christmas Trees Satanic
As we approach the Christmas Holiday season it is time once again for all those that don't understand our liberty in Christ to start preaching on how bad Christmas Trees are along with other decorations etc. Unfortunately many in the right division camp also do not understand our liberty in Christ when it comes to such matters. I recently watched a video by a Mid Acts Dispensational preacher on the subject of Christmas Trees. This preacher has some good material on other subjects, but on this subject he really drops the theological "ball" along with many denominational preachers that I am familiar with.
This particular Mid Acts Dispensationalist uses Jeremiah 10:2, along with many denominational preachers that I know, to argue that since the "heathen" cut down and decorated trees, then believers have no business decorating Christmas trees etc under Grace.
I actually replied to his video a while back with the following, "Our apostle says we can eat meat offered in sacrifice to idols just like the heathen as long as we understand the idol is nothing (1 Cor 8:4-8). As long as the tree does not become an idol, then it is like any other decoration in the house."
Most Mid Acts Dispensationalists state that Romans through Philemon is theological "mail" for the Body of Christ. However, when faced with the subject of Christmas trees rather than going to our spokesman under Grace, Paul, many go to the book of Jeremiah (not our mail) for an answer. What if a Baptist went to Matthew to defend the practice of water baptism? The Mid Acts Dispensationalists would lambast him for going to the wrong spokesman in regard to the subject of water baptism. They would shout to the Baptist "you are not rightly dividing." However, when a Mid Acts Dispensationalists wants to reject a particular thing (like decorating Christmas trees) his fellow Mid Acts friends often times will give him a pass when he fails to rightly divide and go to the correct spokesman for the age of grace. I have found many right dividers, no matter the camp (Acts 2, Mid Acts or Acts 28ers), will drop Paul and consistent right division in a heart beat if Paul's teaching/right division crosses their traditions or the traditions of their favorite "right division preacher/teacher"!
For right dividers to be taken seriously they must start being more consistent in their Bible study, teaching and preaching. I would even suggest dropping any discussion of frivolous topics and just stick with solid Bible subjects that people need to understand in our to be a faithful ambassador of Christ.
I hope all of my readers have fun decorating the tree and also have a Merry Christmas!
Is Halloween Satanic (From a Right Division Standpoint)
Most of the right dividers I know take the position that Satan is no longer working in the Dispensation of Grace as he did in time past. Most right dividers do not believe Satan is possessing people and causing them to do evil things now as is described in the Gospel records. Most right dividers say things like cursing, drunkenness, fornication, etc is just the flesh operating according to its own desires, and that Satan has nothing to do with those things. Most right dividers do not believe Satan gives power to people today to cast spells, tell the future, perform miracles, etc.
Most right dividers say Satan's mode of attack is now one of spiritual deception. Most right dividers will say today that "Satan's primary work today is to oppose God's grace message by blinding people to it and promoting false doctrines." Satan's work today is to promote doctrines of devils (1 Tim 4:1). These doctrines include adding works to salvation such as making church membership, water baptism, communion, etc requirements for salvation. Most right dividers say that Satan is primarily working in religion promoting these false doctrines. Many in the right division camp will even make fun of conservative Christians who still believe Satan is possessing people and causing people to "live bad." They say Satan has all of these non rightly dividing Christians fooled in believing Satan still operates today as he did under the "Kingdom Program."
After taking all of the above positions the funniest thing happens to many in the "right division camp" when it comes to the subject of Halloween. All of a sudden dressing up in a costume becomes Satanic! Putting on a mask becomes Satanic! All of a sudden a person in a "witch costume" can really cast spells! Decorating pumpkins and giving out candy becomes an act of worshiping the Devil!
What is going on in the minds of many right dividers when it comes to Halloween? Although I can not answer for any of them, it appears from my observation they fail to be consistent in applying sound doctrine rightly divided when the subject of Halloween comes up. All the knowledge they have of how Satan is operating under Grace gets thrown out the window. To settle this issue I think the best place to go would be our Apostle to the Gentiles. 1 Corinthians 8 speaks of the question of eating things offered to idols. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says it is fine to eat meat sacrificed to idols if done with a conscience that understands that an idol is nothing (1 Cor 8:4 & 7). Whether to participate or not participate in Halloween is a matter of Christian liberty. Romans 14:3 states, "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him."
For all my fellow Right Dividers that participate, "Happy Halloween!"
C.R. Stam Corrects the King James Bible at Acts 28:28
Acts 28:28 in the King James Bible states, "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." Note that "is sent" is present tense. In other words the sending of the salvation of God unto the Gentiles without Israel was happening at Acts 28.
In C.R. Stam's commentary on Acts he changes the verb tense of Acts 28:28 from "is sent" to "has been sent." See the copy of the page from his commentary below:
Why would C.R. Stam change the verb tense at Acts 28:28? Also why have I not seen any KJV Defenders of the Acts 2 Dispensational persuasion or KJV Defenders of the Mid Acts Dispensational persuasion call him out on changing the text of King James Bible. It appears to me that C.R. Stam changes the verb tense because as the KJV text stands at Acts 28:28, it teaches a dispensational change takes place at Acts 28:28 (present tense "is") concerning Gentile salvation totally apart from Israel, and not earlier! My guess as to why the KJV defenders, whether Acts 2 or Mid Acts, do not call out Stam on this, is because they do not believe a dispensational change takes place at Acts 28:28. They all believe the change takes place earlier in the past tense. The Acts 2 crowd will say the dispensational change is at Acts 2. The Mid Acts crowd, in giving themselves more "wiggle room" (I have seen Mid Acts theology range from Acts 7 to Acts 19) say the dispensational change is Mid Acts.
At Acts 28:28 the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles totally apart from Israel. Stam tries to imply that this had already been going on before Acts 28:28, but that is simply not true. Up until Acts 28:28 Gentiles either had to become proselytes (as in early Acts) in order to get the salvation of God, or they had to wait until the Jew first got a chance to hear the gospel, and then afterwards the salvation of God could be sent to them (see Romans 1:16). Please note that I did not say the Body of Christ starts at Acts 28:28 as most Acts 28 Dispensationalists teach. The Body of Christ exists before Acts 28:28. In fact I think the Body of Christ was probably formed at the cross, and was revealed to Paul during his Acts ministry. The Body of Christ experiences a variety of dispensational rule changes as the gospel goes from the Jew only to the Jew first in the book of Acts. As has been stated in prior posts, After Acts 28 the Gentile believers not only receive the salvation of God apart from Israel, but they also become "fellow" citizens and heirs. In other words the Gentiles become equal, and the Jew is no longer first after Acts 28.
As a King James Bible believer, my dispensational position is not traditional Acts 2, traditional Mid Acts or traditional Acts 28. I think all these positions have some things correct, but I can not fully join any of these camps, because they all at times deviate from the text of the God honored King James Bible. I remain a Bible Believer first, and a Dispensationalist second.
Why Did Paul Water Baptize, Since he was not sent to Baptize?
I have heard the question often asked, but never answered to my satisfaction, as to why Paul water baptized in light of his statement in 1 Cor 1:17 that states he was not sent to baptize. Some of the answers I have heard in answer to this question include:
"Paul was ignorant about water baptism early on in his ministry, but he later understood God did not send him to baptize."
"Paul baptized because that is what the other apostles were doing, but later on Paul got the revelation of the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5."
"We don't know why Paul water baptized in light of what is said in 1 Cor 1:17, because the Bible not tell us."
The first two reasons above do not make any sense in light of what the Bible record says. Paul was not ignorant early in his ministry about baptism, for he says in the past tense "I was sent not to baptize." The second reason listed above makes no Biblical sense either, because Paul knew from the beginning that he had a gospel unique from the 12 (Gal 1:11-12). Of the reasons above the last one listed is the most Biblical and honest, although I am not satisfied with that answer either. I believe a deeper dive into the Scriptures can shed some more light on answering the question.
In the remainder of this blog post I would like to offer another reason as to why Paul water baptized, although 1 Cor 1:17 says Paul was not sent to baptize. First let us consider the verses that come before 1 Cor 1:17 to get the completed context as to Paul's discussion on water baptism. Many of the legalists that forbid water baptism altogether in the age of grace only quote 1Cor 1:17, and thus give people the impression that is Paul's only statement about water baptism, and that Paul is totally against the practice. When one reads the verses that come before verse 17 it becomes obvious that Paul is not against water baptism, and he did not forbid water baptism. Paul did not thank God that he baptized few people, because he was against the practice or was not sent to baptize, but because he was concerned people would say he had baptized in his own name (see verse 15 below).
1 Corinthians 1:13-17 states:
[13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
[15] Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
[16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
[17]
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with
wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
I think the key to understanding "For Christ sent me not to baptize" is to consider, who was Paul sent to? Although the Bible says Paul would be a chosen vessel to bear Christ's name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15), there is only one group of people the Bible says Paul was specifically sent to, and that was to the GENTILES! Acts 22:21 states, "And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles." Acts 26:17 states, " Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee." An apostle is defined as "one who is sent." Romans 11:13 speaking of Paul says, "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office." The fact is Paul bore Christ's name to Jews, Proselytes, and Gentiles, but the Bible says Paul's sending was to one group i.e. the Gentiles! Why is this fact important? The reason this is important is because this narrows down Paul's "sent not to baptize" to a specific group of people, and that is the Gentiles. Paul was sent to the Gentiles, and he was not sent to baptize them but preach the gospel to them. What gospel did Paul preach to them? The gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal 1:11-12 & Gal 2:7). Remember it was agreed by the Apostles, including Paul, in Acts 15 that the Gentiles did not have to observe the ceremonial ordinances of the Law, but they were to abstain from from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication (Acts 15:29). It is important to note that nowhere in Acts 15 does Paul tell the other apostles that they need to start teaching the Jews that they need to stop observing the Law. I believe the reason for this, based on my study of Acts, is God continued to allow Israel time to repent of their unbelief all the way through the book of Acts, and if they had repented they would be grafted back in the olive tree (Rom 11:23) and the Kingdom would be set up in the first century. Remember during the Kingdom Age the Jews would continue observing parts of the Law (see Ezek 40-48 & Col 2:16-17) and would be a witness of God's Light to the Gentiles as a Kingdom of Priests and a holy nation (Ex 19:6 & 1 Pet 2:9).
If one accepts that the Kingdom offer is still on the table in the book of Acts then one can understand Paul practicing water baptism. Water baptism would be necessary for the Jews and proselytes to act as a priestly nation during the Kingdom Age. It appears most of those baptized by Paul according to the Bible record were either Jews or proselytes to Judaism (there may be a few exceptions like the Philippian jailer and this will be discussed later), and their baptism was necessary for them to be part of the holy nation and kingdom of priests.
To sum up my answer as to why Paul baptized, although not sent to baptize, Paul baptized mostly people he was not sent to i.e. Jews and proselytes. He baptized them because they would be part of the holy nation and be a kingdom of priests had Israel repented of unbelief during the Acts period (Romans 11:23) Paul was not sent to baptize the people he was sent to, that is the Gentiles. What about the Philippian jailer, wasn't he a Gentile? The Philippian jailer in Acts 16 could have also been a proselyte to Judaism just as Lydia, and thus Paul would have baptized him with the hope that he would also be part of the holy nation and kingdom of priests. If the Philippian jailer was an unbelieving Gentile, without being a proselyte, then he would be an exception to my answer to why Paul water baptized. However, if it is true that the Philippian Jailer was not a Jew or proselyte, Paul did not violate a command in water baptizing a Gentile. Remember what was said earlier about 1 Cor 1:17, that "not sent to baptize" does not equate with being forbidden to baptize. In fact water baptism was not just a legal requirement for the priestly nation of Israel, but it also served as a physical figure of salvation (see 1 Pet 3:21). If the Philippian jailer (and also possibly Gaius & Stephanus) were unbelieving Gentiles, then they, after believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, were under no legal obligation to observe any ceremonial ordinances as Acts 15 states. Water baptism was not one of the necessary things mentioned in Acts 15 to be observed by Gentiles so as not to offend the Jews, so the jailer did not have to be baptized for that reason either. So if the jailer was a converted Gentile, then the only reason I can come up with from the Scriptures, is he voluntarily got baptized in water to demonstrate in a figure (1 Pet 3:21) God's work of salvation in a lost sinner.
Do I have to take up Snakes to Prove my Salvation
Many use Mark 16 to teach that a believer in the dispensation of grace must have signs following to prove salvation. Mark 16:17-20 states:
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18]
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover.
[19] So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
[20] And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Click on the link below to find out if a believer must prove his salvation with signs in the dispensation of grace.
The Last Pilcrow (Paragraph Mark) in the King James Bible
There are several theories as to why there are no more paragraph marks (pilcrows) in the King James Bible after Acts 20:36. Did the typesetters just run out of pilcrows at Acts 20:36? Did the translators decide that the paragraph marks were not necessary for the remainder of the Bible? Was God supernaturally involved in there being no more pilcrows after Acts 20:36? Since I can't speak for the King James translators or for God, then I can not give a dogmatic answer to these questions. I have read a few King James Bible believers that say something to the effect that God prevented more pilcrows from being used after Acts 20:36 to signify that doctrine is "fixed" at this point for the "church age." I too am a King James Bible believer, but I can't dogmatically state this is the reason for no more pilcrows, but it is an interesting idea and one I am tempted to embrace.
If you have read some of my past blog posts, then you know I take an "Acts 20" position in contrast to the Acts 2, Mid Acts, and Acts 28 Dispensational positions. If doctrine is fixed at Acts 20, then would it not make sense to take the "Acts 20" position? My Acts 20 position in summary is Paul received a different gospel for the uncircumcision (Gentiles) as compared to the gospel of the circumcision during the Acts period. Paul even describes this as being a time called the Dispensation of the Gospel (1 Cor 9:17). I believe Israel still had a chance of repenting of their unbelief and receiving the Kingdom all the way through the book of Acts (see Rom 11:23). Paul would go to the Jew first with the message of what the Messiah accomplished on the cross and he held out hope for the national salvation of Israel and the setting up of the Kingdom all the way through the Acts period. His prayer was, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved" (Romans 10:1). During Acts Paul went to the Jew first with this message, and when they rejected it he would then go to the Gentiles with the gospel of the uncircumcsion. The gospel of the uncircumcision was the grace message of the cross for salvation, without having to keep the Law, but with the caveat that Gentiles had to observe a diet not offensive to the Jews (see Acts 15-16:4). The Gentiles saved during the Acts period were graffed into Israel (Rom 11:1-24) and became "one body" with the saved Jews (1 Cor 12:13). The saved Jews continued in their ceremonial observances of the Law, not for salvation, but for memorials which would be done in the Millennial Temple described in Ezekiel 40-48. Remember if Israel had received their Messiah during the first century, then Millennial Kingdom would have also been setup during the first century and the saved Jews and the graffed in Gentiles would have enjoyed the Millennial Kingdom together as prophesied in the Old Testament prophets.
At Acts 20 Paul's Acts ministry to the Jew first in the synagogues ends. It is also about this same time Paul writes the book of Romans and mentions the "mystery" for the first time (Rom 16:25), but he gives no details of what it entails until his prison epistles. The reason no details of the mystery are given in Romans is because the nation of Israel has to reject one final time the Kingdom offer in Acts 28 before the Dispensation of the Mystery (Col 1:25-26) can begin. In Acts 20, with the last pilcrow, Paul gives a message is to the Ephesians. Guess where Paul gives the details of the Dispensation of the Mystery? The prison Epistle to the Ephesians after the Acts period is over! It is in Ephesians 2:19 that the Gentiles are said to be fellow citizens with the believing Jews. It is in Ephesians 3:6 that the Gentiles are said to be fellowheirs with believing Jews. The mystery was not just being in "one body" which was true during the Acts period. The Dispensation of the Mystery made Gentiles "equals." A "fellow" is an equal. A fellow citizen has no more rights or privileges than another citizen. During the Acts period the Gentiles were in "one body," but the Jews were first and had special privileges the Gentiles did not have. The Gentiles were not equal to the Jews during the Acts period. Also with the revelation of the mystery the Gentiles were no longer required to worry about offending the Jews with their diet (see Col 2:16). With Israel being pronounced in judicial blindness at Acts 28, the details of the Mystery are finally given in the prison epistles of Ephesians and Colossians. I don't believe a new body begins at Acts 28 like some teach, but I believe the existing "one body" of saved Jews and Gentiles from the Acts period come under a new dispensation called the Mystery.
I don't know how much stock we can put in definitions given by AI, but AI describes the pilcrow as being "used to signify a change in actions or a transition to a new event." A change to a new event is certainly on the horizon at Acts 20:36. During the time of Acts 20 Paul wrote the last pre-prison epistle, Romans, and mentions the "Mystery" without giving the details of what it meant. Shortly after Acts 20 Israel will reject the gospel one last time, and with that Paul reveals the new dispensational "rules" of the mystery. For me the Acts 20 Dispensational Position is much more consistent than the Acts 2 and Mid Acts positions in trying to reconcile what is said in the book of Acts and the pre-Acts 28 Epistles of Paul. The Acts 20 position also provides a separation from the Acts 28 Dispensatonalists of which some fall into extreme positions such as soul sleep, rejecting the doctrine of hell, denying the Trinity, and discounting the importance of a local church.
Can John 1:17 Refer to the Dispensation of Grace?
I just finished watching a fairly well known Mid Acts Dispensationalist (I want mention his name, so I can't be accused of trying to use his name to get people to read my blog) speak about errors in study Bibles, and he specifically referenced the 1917 Scofield Study Bible. One of the so called "serious" errors he pointed out was the Scofield note # 5 at Genesis 1:28. In that note Scofield lists the name of the different dispensations and gives a Bible reference for each. This particular Mid Acts Dispensationalist says Scofield is in serious error by listing "Grace" with the Bible reference of John 1:17. His argument is since the Dispensation of Grace was given to Paul, then John 1:17 could not refer to the Dispensation of Grace. I don't think I see the "serious error" this brother believes Scofield made. Scofield says John was written between 85-90 AD. I personally think this is late, and I would date it before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. As long as John 1:17 was written after Paul received the dispensation of Grace, then there is no error at all with the Scofield note. Does this brother think that John never knew about the Dispensation of Grace? Does this brother think Paul was the only one that could write about the Dispensation of Grace? This brother, like many right dividers, says that our doctrine must only come from Romans through Philemon, and nothing else can be used to form our doctrinal statement. One finds out very quickly that these particular believers have a serious problem of their own. It is called inconsistency!
The above brother I mentioned above who has a problem with John 1:17 referring to the Dispensation of Grace also has a video on "Does one have to be born again during the dispensation of grace?" This brother's motto of only Romans through Philemon goes straight out the window at this point! Guess what? Paul never uses the term "born again!" You can vainly search Romans through Philemon and the term is not there. The term "born again" is only used three times in the King James Bible (John 3:3, John 3:7, and 1 Peter 1:23). If you watch this video, then you will find out from this brother that it is fine to use the term "born again," although Paul never does. In essence the non Pauline book of John is not good enough for this brother at John 1:17 to refer to the dispensation of Grace, but since he likes the term, born again, he will allow the John 3:3 and John 3:7 to apply to the Dispensation of Grace. As a footnote, I have no problem using the term "born again" in a devotional way to refer to a saved person under Grace, but I would qualify it by saying John 3:3 and 3:7 are doctrinal references to Israel being born again in the future. I believe a more Scriptural motto for Grace Believers would be, "All Scripture (Genesis to Revelation) is profitable for doctrine as long as it is rightly divided in light of the revelation of the mystery given to Paul in Ephesians and Colossians.
Romans 16:25 Gives No Details of "The Mystery"
Although I am a dispensationalist, I do not label myself as either Acts 2, Mid Acts, or an Acts 28 Dispensationalist. For me, I see God's revelation progressing all the way through the book of Acts. I do not see a good place to "park" anywhere in the book of Acts as far as a "doctrinal boundary" is concerned. My position is all scripture is profitable for doctrine as 2 Tim 3:16 states. A "workman" has to rightly divide all scripture, and these divisions are not straight lines like the Acts 2, Mid Acts, or Acts 28ers would have you believe. Some of the Acts 28ers believe that Romans 16:25 was added to the book of Romans sometime after Acts 28, because they do not believe the "mystery" was revealed until Acts 28 or later. The Acts 2 and Mid Acts brethren argue that Romans 16:25 was written at the same time as the rest of the book of Romans (i.e. before Acts 28), since they believe Paul was preaching the mystery shortly after his conversion. I can not prove that Romans 16:25 was written at the same time as the rest of the book of Romans, and I can not prove that Romans 16:25 was added after Acts 28. For me it does not matter, because although the fact of the "mystery" is manifest or revealed at the time of the writing of Romans 16:25, the details of the mystery are not spelled out in Romans. It is my belief, based on Romans 1:11 that Paul gave the details of the mystery (i.e. imparted a spiritual gift) sometime after he got to Rome. Paul says this "spiritual gift" (the mystery and its details) would end up establishing the believers at Rome. Romans 1:11 states, "For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established..." In fact Romans 1:11 is a good cross reference to Romans 16:25 where Paul lists several things that would "stablish" the believers at Rome, and one of those things is said to be the "mystery." When Paul writes Romans 15 Paul indicates that the kingdom salvation for the Gentiles is still in view. Romans 15:8-12 states:
[8] Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the
fathers:
[9] And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his
mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the
Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
[10] And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
[11] And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.
[12]
And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that
shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
Note that Paul makes it clear that Christ's earthly ministry had a twofold purpose. First, it was to minister to the circumcision (Israel) the truth of God. Second, after Israel accepted the truth, then Israel would be a witness to the Gentiles of God's truth resulting in the Gentiles accepting God's truth. Paul does not indicate anywhere in Romans 15 that anything has changed in God's plan to reach Israel, and then to bless the Gentiles. In fact Paul implies that his own ministry is in accord with what Isaiah said about the Gentiles in that he quotes part of Isaiah 52:15 in Romans 15:20-21.
Most of the Acts 2 and Mid Acts brethren try to make Paul a minister preaching the mystery, as defined in Ephesians and Colossians, during all of the Acts period. However, once you understand what the mystery is, you have to do a lot of twisting and turning to get Paul preaching the mystery before the end of the book of Acts. In fact in Romans 15:16 Paul actually states what his ministry consisted of during Acts: "That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost." Note that Paul says he is ministering the "gospel of God" to these Gentiles, and this Gospel of God was not a mystery (see Romans 1:1-3). The gospel of God is according prophecy and not mystery! Paul goes on to say in Romans 15:27 that during Acts the Gentiles were partaking of the spiritual things of Israel, and this certainly could not refer to the mystery program Paul speaks of in Ephesians and Colossians. The mystery made Gentiles equal with the Jews. Consider how the Gentiles are called "fellowcitizens" (Eph 2:19) and "fellowheirs" (Eph 3:6) under the mystery program. By definition a "fellow" is an equal, and it is obvious that the Gentiles during the Acts period were not equal. The gospel, as late as the book of Romans, was still to the Jew first (Rom 1:16). Under the mystery program the gospel is to all men alike. Romans even states that the Jews still had an advantage during the Acts period (Romans 3:1). It is true that Paul did have a distinct gospel during the book of Acts, but Paul does not equate it with the "mystery." He lists "my gospel" as a separate item from the "mystery" in Romans 16:25. "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..." Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision was a grace message to the Gentiles in which they did not have to observe the law of Moses (Acts 15:5), but they did have to be observe "necessary thing" in order not to offend the Jews (Acts 15:28-29 & Acts 16:4). Under the mystery the gospel is still of grace, but the Gentiles no longer have to worry about offending the Jews in meat or drink (Colossians 2:16-17).
Based on my study of Acts and Paul's epistles, it is my belief that a better way to divide Paul's early epistles and Acts with his later epistles, is by considering the statements in 1 Corinthians 9:17 and Colossians 1:25-26. In Acts and Paul's early epistles written before Acts 28, I think we can say based on 1 Corinthians 9:17 "a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (i.e. Paul). Paul preached a gospel message of grace to the Jew first and then to the Greek, with the idea that the Kingdom was still at hand if Israel repented. This would explain Paul still praying for Israel's national salvation in Romans 10:1. Since Paul believed Israel would repent and the Kingdom would be setup in the first century, he told the believers at Rome God would bruise Satan "shortly" (Rom 16:20). With Israel's final rejection of God's message in Acts 28, the kingdom offer is withdrawn. At some point afterward Paul imparts the details of the mystery. The "dispensation of the gospel" ends with Israel being set aside in judicial blindness at Acts 28. The details of another dispensation are given by Paul in Ephesians and Colossians. The gospel is still one of grace, but it is no longer to the Jew first,the earthly kingdom for Israel is no longer viewed as imminent, and the Jew no longer has an advantage. This dispensation is called "the mystery" according to Colossians 1:25-26:
[25] Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
[26] Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
This dispensation is also called the dispensation of the grace of God according to Ephesians 3:2.
The existence of a "mystery" was revealed at the time Romans 16:25 was written. The time of writing really does not matter, because the details of the mystery were not given and practiced by Paul until Ephesians and Colossians. Paul's ministry covers two dispensations, the dispensation of the gospel during the book of Acts, and the dispensation of the mystery or the dispensation of the grace of God after Acts 28.
"To the Jew First" is According to Prophecy not Mystery
Many of the Mid Acts Dispensational position are critical of the Acts 2 Dispensational position, because Acts 2 Dispensationalists mix prophecy (i.e. the events on the Day of Pentecost) with the Mystery Program. I have no problem with this accusation, because it is true that Acts 2 Dispensationalists mix prophecy with mystery. My problem is I see the Mid Acts position also mixing prophecy and mystery. For example, the practice by Paul of "to the Jew first," in the book of Acts is according to prophecy and not the mystery, yet the Mid Acts proponents insist the mystery starts at either Acts 9 or Acts 13 at the latest. It is evident is studying the Old Testament prophets that Israel was to get saved first, and then they were to be a witness to the Gentiles.
For example, Isaiah 60:1-3 states:
[1] Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
[2]
For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the
people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen
upon thee.
[3] And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
When the Mid Acts proponents are confronted with this, many will say that this practice of "to the Jew first" was just transitory during the early part of the book of Acts. My question would be, What if an Acts 2 Dispensationalist argues that the things happening on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 were transitory during the early part of the book of Acts? Would the Mid Acts proponent accept this explanation? My guess, based on studying Mid Acts Dispensationalism, is they would not accept this explanation from an Acts 2 Dispensationalist.
For the Mid Acts Dispensationalist, he has another problem in that "to the Jew first" was not just during the early part of the book of Acts. It was all the way to Acts 28! Right before Paul got to Rome he writes, "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" (Romans 1:16).
In conclusion, I would argue that the Mid Acts Dispensationalist, in order to be consistent has two or at most 3 options. First, he has the option of allowing the Acts 2 Dispensationalists to use the same explanation as the Mid Acts Dispensationalist, "Acts is a transitional book" for an excuse to mix prophecy and mystery. A second option proposed by a few Mid Acts people would be to argue that during Acts both the prophecy program and mystery program ran concurrently all the way to the end of Acts when Israel is set aside in judicial blindness in Acts 28:25-31. Some refer to option 2 as the "overlap position." If the Mid Acts Dispensationalists rejects both options one and two, then he must concede that the details of the mystery are not revealed until
after Acts 28.
It is Time to Drop the Slogan "Romans through Philemon"
Many "Grace Believers" claim their mail and doctrine is only found in the books of Romans through Philemon. I have in the past shared this sentiment, but I no longer agree with using this slogan. Why? I am going to answer the question with a question. Did the Apostle Paul say that the Grace Believers' mail and doctrine was only in Romans through Philemon?
Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Note that Paul does not chant off the slogan "Romans through Philemon." Paul says all scripture is profitable for doctrine, etc. All scripture is Genesis through Revelation! As Grace Believers all the Bible is our mail, and we have to study and rightly divide all of it to determine what applies doctrinally to us under the mystery program.
In considering this matter, take the Gospel of John for an example. Many Grace Believers say John is not my mail, because it is not in "Romans through Philemon." I understand that John contains much "kingdom doctrine" that does not line up with the dispensation of grace; however, there are some truths in John that match the preaching of Paul. John 20:31 states, " But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." Many Grace Believers will read this verse and say John is "Jewish," since it is talking about believing Jesus is Christ. This argument is their proof that John is not for them. The strangest thing happens when these same people read Acts 18:5. It states, "And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ." At this point these same people, who claim the "mystery" started in Acts 9 or at the latest Acts 13, make excuses for Paul preaching the same thing John preached! If John 20 is not for Grace Believers because it is speaking about believing that Jesus is the Christ, then Acts 18 can not be for Grace Believers either because it is the same message! Keep in mind Paul not only used the title, "Christ" in Acts but he used the title numerous times in Romans through Philemon! John 20:31 not only states to believe Jesus is the "Christ," but it also states to believe Jesus is "the Son of God." As a Grace Believer I can take this part of John and doctrinally apply it to me! The title, "Son of God" definitely matches the revelation of the mystery doctrine. Ephesians 4:13 states, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" John 20:31 also makes it clear that believing results in spiritual life. This doctrinal truth also matches mystery doctrine, for 2 Timothy 1:1 states, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus."
For those Grace Believers who still hold to the slogan, "Romans through Philemon," I would encourage you to start following Paul (rather than your favorite Grace Teacher/Preacher) in that All Scripture is Profitable for doctrine, etc. Once you start studying and rightly dividing all Scripture, you will find there is much doctrine for the Grace Believer outside of Romans through Philemon. Yes, doing this will require much more time studying and less time in worldly entertainment, but it is what God requires under Grace!
Lessons From Judas Iscariot
“Lessons from Judas Iscariot”
Text: John 6:70-71 states:
[70] Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? [71] He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
I. Introduction
A. Judas Iscariot is probably best known as the disciple that betrayed Jesus
B. There are several false ideas and teachings based on Judas Iscariot
C. There is an interesting hypothesis that Judas will come back in the future 7 Year Tribulation as the “Antichrist”
II. Lessons from Judas Iscariot
A. Judas is not an example of a believer losing salvation, for he was never saved to begin with. Jesus referred to him in the present tense as “a devil.” John 6:70 states, “…Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” Judas did not become a devil after sinning, but he was one from the beginning!
B. Some use Matthew 26:24, which states, (“The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born”) to falsely teach Judas had no “freewill” in betraying Christ, since this event was prophesied. Some in doing this imply that Judas’ betrayal of Jesus was God’s fault. In considering Matthew 26:24 keep in mind the following:
1. God is able to accomplish His will in the fact that He foreknows what man will do in his freewill. Acts 2:22-23 states: “[22] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: [23] Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:”
2. The blame for Judas’ action is to be placed on his wicked heat (John 13:1-2) and his willingness to be used of Satan (Luke 22:1-3).
C. Judas’ was willing to be used of Satan because his heart was concerned with material things rather than spiritual things. Consider the following:
1. Judas complained that costly ointment was “wasted on Jesus” rather than be sold. John 12:4-6 states: “[4] Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, [5] Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? [6] This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.”
2. After Judas complains about the ointment above Matthew 26:14-16 states: “[14] Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, [15] And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. [16] And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
3. Judas’ main motivation in being a “disciple” was for material wealth and not spiritual wealth!
D. Judas is a prime example of the fact that having “power” to perform miracles does not necessarily equate with being “of God.” Matthew 10:5-8 states that Judas along with the other 11 disciples had power to heal the sick and raise the dead!
E. Judas is also proof that “partaking of Christ” in the “Lord’s Supper” does not equate with salvation. Matthew 26:17-27 speaks of the supper and verse 20 makes it perfectly clear that Judas also was a partaker. It would be rightly assumed that Judas was also water baptized, since that was what was required to be a disciple during Christ’ earthly ministry, yet that did not save Judas either!
F. The preaching of Jesus and his disciples was concerning the gospel of the Kingdom, and this kingdom would have been realized if Israel had “received it.” Judas, of course, wanted the material blessings of a kingdom, but rejected the spiritual blessings that it offered.
1. Matthew 11:13-14 states: “[13] For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. [14] And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. According to prophecy Elijah was to come before the Kingdom would be set up.
2. Prophecy also spoke of an “Antichrist” that would come on the world scene before the kingdom would be setup. Whoever this “Antichrist” is, will have control over the finances of the world. Revelation 13:17 states, “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
G. What about the hypothesis that states Judas Iscariot is the “Antichrist?” Are there any valid Biblical arguments for this?
1. This future “Antichrist” is called the “son of perdition according to 2 Thes. 2:3
2. Jesus referred to Judas as the “son of perdition” in John 17:12. It states, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
3. If Israel had repented during the earthly ministry of Christ, then the “son of perdition” (Judas Iscariot) was certainly there on the scene.
4. Israel of course rejected the Kingdom and had Jesus crucified. Jesus’ prayer on the cross (Luke 23:34) bought Israel another opportunity to receive the Kingdom in early Acts. The Kingdom was rejected again with Israel’s stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. Stephen prayed a prayer (Acts 7:60) similar to Christ on the cross, and as a result Stephen bought Israel more time to receive the Kingdom (until Acts 28).
5. In Acts 28 the Kingdom is preached to Israel one last time by Paul to the “chief Jews,” but the message is rejected for a final time.
6. With Israel’s rejection of the Kingdom message in Acts 28, the Kingdom is put on hold as well as the coming of the “Antichrist.”
7. At some point in the future, the mystery dispensation will end with the rapture, and God will again give Israel another opportunity to receive the Kingdom during the tribulation period.
8. The “Antichrist” (also called the beast) will ascend out of the bottomless pit during the tribulation in an attempt to thwart God’s plan of the Kingdom. Some believe that this “Antichrist” will be a return of Judas Iscariot based on:
a. When Judas died the Bible says he went to his “own place.” (see Acts 1:16-25)
b. Revelation 17:8 describes the beast (Antichrist) as someone that lived in the past, but died, and yet will come up out of the bottomless pit. This description could certainly fit Judas Iscariot.
III. Conclusion
A. Judas is an example of a false believer who only “followed” Jesus for what he could get materially. Judas had no interest in the spiritual things of God.
B. There are some strong arguments to indicate that Judas may literally return in the future in the person of the Antichrist/Beast. The question of Judas being or not being the Antichrist is a very interesting study, but one’s answer to the question is not one to break fellowship over.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)