|
Does the Church begin at Pentecost?
by
s.v.m.
Translated from Dutch.
| A — |
It always pleases me to meet you, as we both support on the same rock: the Scriptures, God's Word, fully inspired by Him. But I also regret now and again that we differ in thought from many points of view. I also do not understand how you can remain so isolated and not simply accept what pious and learned fathers have studied. |
| B — |
Be assured that I would much rather agree with you and others than disagree. I have respect for pious and learned people, but they themselves will be the last to assert that their view of the Scriptures is the right thing in all respects. I will therefore consider their thoughts in earnest, but I am obliged to test them against God's Word. |
| A — |
I fear that this is a sign of pride. Do you want to know better than Luther, then Calvin, not to mention so many other men of God? |
| B — |
Do those people agree in everything? If not, you also have to choose? And on what grounds? What would you answer to a Roman Catholic if he accused you of pride, because you want to know better than the « Catholic Church »? On the basis of the Scriptures I trust that every believer, however inelaborate, will be led by God's Spirit when he investigates God's Word for the purpose of learning His will and His works. It is true that the truth is difficult to bear and knowledge makes lightly inflated. But he who wants to glorify God will be able to count on Him. Just when all pride or carnal
goals are excluded, one can come to the full truth. |
| A — |
But to study the Bible, one must be prepared, one must know all sorts of things. You yourself say that a translation can not be completely trusted, then you must nevertheless know Greek to read the manuscripts? |
| B — |
The knowledge you are now talking about is helpful and useful, but for a large part dispensable. God's Word declares itself. Other skills can also sometimes be an impediment. And as far as Greek is concerned, I admit that its knowledge is very important and that believing parents might would have better teach their children Greek than other languages, which are often only eligible for material gain. But ... so much Greek is not needed again. One can largely rely on a translation and only resort to Greek, if one thing or another, by the use of a particular Greek word or a certain word form, has to be decided. There are also tools, such as e.g. the marginal notes of the KJV or other translations. |
| A — |
I must confess to you, that in my opinion, it is precisely here, why you do not agree with others: if your opinion is in the way, then you try to distort the Greek so that it corresponds to your thoughts. That's how it is with that strange book « The Purpose of the Ages ». |
| B — |
Will you allow me to first say a word about the knowledge of Greek? I argue that even without the slightest knowledge of the language, people can in many cases support on source text. You believe that the Bible is literally inspired; then you must also assume that every word is chosen by the Holy Spirit. A sentence is composed of words and its meaning can be completely changed by a single word. The translators have mostly been obliged to translate the sentence with sufficient accuracy, but with some words they can often be mistaken. |
| A — |
Right! You also do not like the KJV! |
| B — |
Excuse me. I think I value it as high as you do, but if I want to make sure that the translators have chosen the right word, then I take my Concordant and find, without knowledge of Greek, in which places the same Greek word occurs. In most cases an examination of these places will give me a better idea of the correct meaning of that Greek word, then all scholars combined.
 I repeat: the Scripture declares itself. I want to give an example of this and also answer your accusations, that I twist the texts, to make them correspond to my personal opinion. |
| A — |
Allow me to speak freely: I do not trust you, because your view differs in many respects from generally accepted thoughts. But I am willing to change my judgment about you if you can convince me. As far as Greek is concerned, I must admit at once that even here the experts do not agree. If we could only let the Bible speak, it would certainly be invaluable. |
| B — |
I thank you because you are so tolerant and want to listen to my defense; This is unfortunately often not the case among Christians. Thus, Aristarkos, the author of « The Purpose of the Ages » is usually condemned without research, just because this interpreter or that journal thinks otherwise. Without bitterness, I say that many speak of « sanctification » and « love » and disdain « knowledge »; but if one does not share their opinion in something, they have forgotten their love and place their knowledge above everything else. I believe that there must be a balance between all our gifts. They are not in conflict with each other, but complement each other. But now the example.
When I used to read Heb. 11:3, my opinion was that the phrase « the world was framed by the word of God » pertained to creation and I did not see the slightest connection with Eph. 4:12 « to perfect the saints ». However, when I opened the Concordant, it turned out that « world » is literally « aions ». Furthermore, that « framing » and « perfection » descend of the same verb. My aim now was not to make an opinion prevail. I left my opinion for what it was worth: nothing, and I tried to form an opinion from God's Word that was more accurate. The Concordant showed that in Mat. 4:21 also the Greek word translated by « framed » and « perfection » has been used. This is a very simple matter, which falls entirely within the concept of every man: « mending their nets ». They did not « make » the nets, they « did not prepare them », they « did not perfect » them. No, they were « setting them in order », and the Holy Spirit chose the word that had this very meaning. For « perfecting » and « framing » the Holy Spirit could take a different word. The net had once been « prepared », but got worn or torn and it had to be « set in order ». Now I take « aions » and « setting in order » literally, so I see that in Heb. 11:3 is something that corresponds with many other places, which speak of a series of each other succeeding « aions », that are not equal; not arising from each other, but always set again in order by God. A new beginning, a new opportunity, and the end ... a failure of man.
So you understand: 1° that I let God's Word speak for itself, 2° that I change my provisional view of something according to the light that I receive, but not reversely take my opinion, or that of others, as the starting point. |
| A — |
You have not convinced me, but I now understand your attitude somewhat better. If you really do this, you have to get closer to the truth. But why do not most people accept your conclusions? |
| B — |
Because no one of us is perfect. No more than anyone else I am always inclined to glorify God. We are so often prepared to defend a human thought. To the truth, however, one only comes when one wants God to work in him. |
| A — |
And we are all short in that, that is true. Paul knew how necessary it was not to stop « praying and desiring that you might be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that you may walk worthy of the Lord. » (Colossians 1:9, 10). |
| B — |
May I make you note that « knowledge » is not the ordinary knowledge, such as e.g. in Eph. 3:19, but literally « above-knowledge ». This is offered to us like so many other things by God, and we only must receive them. That can be by every child of God without learning. And if two people would accept all that above-knowledge, they would agree on everything. Do you prefer the knowledge of pious people? |
| A — |
No, I now see even better how you perceive things. You want to investigate with God's help if the knowledge of our teachers does correspond to God's above-knowledge and if you do so in all sincerity, without self-glorification, I admit, that you can sometimes see things differently from them. But it would be hard for me not to have complete confidence in the confession of my church. |
| B — |
I understand you. It is indeed a serious matter, if one is forced by God's Word, to no longer affirm a point of his former confession. You must bring this before God. I only want to remind you that no man has ever claimed that a confession represents the pure truth. You know that e.g. the Reformed Church in the 7th article of its confession writes: « One may also not equate generic manuscripts, however sacred they are, with the Divine Scriptures, nor the custom with the truth of God, (for the truth is above all), nor the great multitude, nor the antiquity, nor the succession of times or persons, nor the councils, decrees, or decisions; for all men are in themselves liars and more vain than vanity itself ». A confession is useful in so far as it is according to Scripture, but may not be regarded as the perfect expression of the whole truth. |
| A — |
Even if you would see some things more correctly, I would still fear the consequences. |
| B — |
Your intention is that you fear for the consequences that the proclamation of these things might have for weak believers? One must be guided by God's Spirit. The truth may, inconveniently used, for some indeed be an obstacle. A hungry person must be given the food carefully. But nothing allows us to give him impure food. Can you, moreover, see the consequences of your current practice? Here Abraham is my example, he went out by faith, not knowing where he would come (Heb.11:8). You can leave the consequences in God's hands. If you speak to a Roman Catholic about the Gospel, he also fears the consequences. Is it perhaps better to leave him at his tradition? No, dear friend, one speaks thus because one does not yet clearly see things. People often think they will lose something, because they do not notice the riches that become us when we let go what we once considered to be the most valuable. |
| A — |
I want to think again about all this. On a subsequent occasion, you may want to talk to me about the « Church ». That book by Aristarkos still bothers me. Where does that man get the idea from, that the church would not start at Pentecost? Had he then said that the Church actually always existed! |
| B — |
Let us examine that matter quietly. Aristarkos is a human being who can just as easily wander as another and you are right to be very careful when he comes up with « something new ». Let us pray for this research... |
| A — |
We should actually start with the first verse of O.T., since our research on the Church should be as short as possible, it might be enough to start with Adam.
If we accept the scriptures literally, then we must believe that God wanted to make Adam a king over the earth: « ... Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth » (Gen. 1:28). |
| B — |
Right, but then we also see that Adam failed. God's purpose was to establish a kingdom on the earth, and to this end He will come, notwithstanding all the unwillingness and opposition of His creatures. Do you see any connection between the calling of Adam and Mat. 25:34 « ... the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world »? |
| A — |
No, because the New Testament speaks about the kingdom of heaven. The Lord Jesus himself said: « My kingdom is not of this world » (John 18:36). |
| B — |
But he also says « Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth ». (Mat. 5:5) You want to check in the Concordant which Greek word is used for « from » in John 18:36? |
| A — |
I notice that it is the same word, that e.g. is used in Mat. 1:3 etc. « And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar ... ». In Mat. 2:6 it is translated by « out »: « ... for out of thee shall come a Governor ... ». Also the other texts, where this Greek word is used, indicate that it speaks of the origin or the starting point of something. |
| B — |
Says John 18:36 then, that the kingdom is in heaven? |
| A — |
No, indeed, there is only the origin. That kingdom would not come through human power, but it would have a heavenly origin. But can not it therefore be in the heavens? |
| B — |
Of course this is possible, but the verse quoted by you does not say it. It can also be on earth. We will return to this later. In the meantime, think of Dan. 2 and 7. In the 27th verse of this last chapter, Daniel says: « And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven ... ». Remember also that the Lord Jesus is called the « second Adam ». Whatever the first lost by disobedience would the second receive through His faithfulness.
Let us talk about Satan now. He always presents himself in opposition of Christ and tries to fail God's purpose. First we see that with Adam and further in Gen. 3:15 a permanent enmity is revealed between the seed of the woman and that of the serpent. |
| A — |
You mean that Satan will oppose the establishment of God's kingdom as much as he can? Yes, I believe that too. He works in Cain, who was « of the wicked one » (1 John 3:12), by the « sons of God » he destroyed all mankind, except Noah (Genesis 6:9), uses the Canaanites against God's people and after constant opposition in every way possible, he addresses Christ when He comes in the flesh to establish His kingdom. At first it seems as if Satan is victorious, but the cross is just his downfall. After many other things, which God always uses to reach His goal, we also know that Satan will finally use the Anti-Christ to try to establish his kingdom instead of that of God. |
| B — |
Let us now, very briefly, consider which ways God follows to come to His kingdom. After the failure with Adam, the lordship is given to Noah (Gen. 9:1 — 17). Then we see how Shem is specifically called (Gen. 9:26), and then Abraham. God concludes with Abraham a series of covenants, which in particular concern a certain people, the « seed ». That nation would possess the whole land of Canaan (Gen. 15:18; 17:6 — 10). But « in » this seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12:1 — 3, 22:15 — 18). Which people is meant here? |
| A — |
The people of Israel, of course, because that covenant would be established « with Isaac » (Gen. 17:21) and then again confirmed in relation to Jacob (Gen. 28:3, 4, 14). |
| B — |
You also believe, of course, that God's gifts and callings are unrepentant (Romans 11:29). Then Israel still has a bright future. |
| A — |
No, I do not believe that at all. I believe that the Church has come in the place of Israel and that all these blessings must now be applied to her spiritually. Doesn't say Rom. 9:6 that not all Israel, which are of Israel? And is no spiritual Israel placed in front of « Israel that is after the flesh »? (1 Cor. 10:18). |
| B — |
May I ask you to reread Rom. 9:6 again, we have agreed to test our own thoughts against God's Word. Does this verse speak of the nations? |
| A — |
No, indeed, it only talks about Israel and the previous and following verses too. It only says that all carnal descendants of Jacob are not necessarily counted as Israel. |
| B — |
And what allows you to suppose that some of the nations may be called « spiritual Israel »? We can, however, distinguish two kinds of Israelites « Israel after the flesh » and the Israelites who are called « children of the promise » (Romans 9:8). Rom. 2:29 does not say more than that all Jews are not true Jews. You must distinguish between: 1° Unbelieving Jews (Israel after the flesh). 2° Believing Jews (spiritual Israel). 3° Unbelieving Gentiles (Gentiles after the flesh). 4° Believing Gentiles (spiritual Gentiles). We will also see further, even though there is « in Christ » unity, always « to the flesh », that is as far as natural conditions are concerned, there is a difference between Israel and the Gentiles, at least as long as Israel is counted as God's people. But let us go further. After Jacob we have Judah and then Moses. Did God give the law to the nations? |
| A — |
No to Israel alone, but the peoples can therefore apply them anyway. |
| B — |
Yes, the spirit of the law, but none of the special things that the people (Israel) are concerned when it is in the land (Palestine). Have you noticed that the essential thing of the law is the heart? The external forms were an inseparable part of it, but came only in the second place. Let us e.g. read Deut. 6:5; 10:12, 13. And then Lev. 19:18 « you shall love your neighbor as yourself », does not that sound « new testamentary »? |
| A — |
Indeed, I always thought more of sacrifices, temple service, etc. when I read about the law of Israel. |
| B — |
The Israelites knew God's will « instructed out of the law », Rom. 2:18. And they had to continue to fulfill that law « for ever ». |
| A — |
This is a mistake of you, the law would cease with Christ, everyone knows that. I thought that you felt so much for distinguishing the « dispensations » and especially for these three: the Law-Mercy-Kingdom. If you now assume that the Jews still have a future during the kingdom, then they surely will not be able to follow the law any more! |
| B — |
It is very necessary to distinguish between the eras, in which God places people in other circumstances, under a different stewardship, but such distributions must not be superficial and can be tested in all respects against God's Word. I see for example that the law is « for ever », from Exo. 27:21; 28:43 and so many other places. How we can agree this with other parts of the scriptures, we will have to see. However, I can already tell you this: if it is a difficulty to assume that the law is « for ever » for Israel, then that difficulty is created by the interpreters themselves. Firstly, « for ever » does not mean « without end » and secondly we must distinguish between « law » and « Old Covenant ». With regard to the expressions « for ever » and the like, I propose to you to consult the Concordant and to examine whether these expressions necessarily have the meaning of « for ever ». |
| A — |
I see that it is usually the translation of the Hebrew « olam », which indeed indicates a limited space of time. I only take two examples: « ... and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever » (Exodus 21:5, 6). Furthermore, 1 Sam 1:22 says. « for ever », while verse 11 indicates that same space of time as « all the days of his life ». |
| B — |
We have already said a word about the aions, however important this matter is, we can not elaborate on it here. The conclusion is that the law will not always have to be followed, but as long as the « aions » or some of these « aions » will last. |
| A — |
We'll talk about that later. However, I am curious to hear what difference you want to make between the law and the Old Covenant. |
| B — |
Well, this is very simple, and therefore not noticed. The law is « for ever », the Old Covenant is not « for ever », that is will not last through the whole aion, or aions, but would be replaced by Christ by a New Covenant. The law gave all of God's will for His people, the Old Covenant was that Israel took upon itself to follow that law in its own strength (Exo. 19:3 — 8 etc.); they thought they could be justified on the basis of the works of the law (Romans 10:5) and thus put themselves under the curse (Galatians 3:10) and were in slavery (Galatians 4:3), « under » the law. We will examine all this further closely. Let us keep those things in mind and test them to God's Word. |
| A — |
Yes, for the time being I can go with you, but I want to be very careful. |
| B — |
Be careful as a serpent. We have agreed not to defend or build a system, but to try to come to the truth. We can not render each other a better service than to demonstrate the defectiveness of our deductions from the Scriptures. If we always have an open mind and do not stick to pre-established opinions or preliminary conclusions. Are you willing to believe Deut. 30:1 — 10 literally? I read here: of the conversion of Israel, of their assembly out of all the nations, of the inheritance of the land, of the circumcision of their hearts, their blessings, etc. |
| A — |
I believe all that, but it certainly concerns the return from the exile in the past? |
| B — |
That is, on that return this prophecy might have had to be fulfilled? But the matter is: Was it fulfilled? Did Israel love God with all of its soul? Has the Lord returned? Have they converted to Him with all their soul and all their heart? Was Israel then a « kingdom of priests, and an holy nation »? (Exo. 19:6). |
| A — |
No, indeed, this seems to confirm that Israel still has a future, but I still want to see if this can be sustained on the basis of the entire Bible. |
| B — |
And what do you think of 2 Sam. 7:10 — 16 and of the prophets, such as for example Isa. 49:6 « And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth ». The attention is always drawn to the blessings that the nations will share when Israel will repent. There are also already indications, such as in Deut. 32:21, who point out that the nations will also be blessed, so to speak, before their time, in order to provoke Israel « to zeal ». God chose a people to bless the other nations. All God's election is for the benefit, not at the expense of the rest. But they always took all the blessings and turned away from God. But after all, they will still be God's tool among the nations. Read e.g. Isa. 66:19 « and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles ». Then they will actually be a royal priesthood. Jeremiah also speaks so clearly about their future and the kingdom (Jer. 23:3 — 8) and then Ezekiel (11:16 — 20; 34:12 — 24; 37). He also gives the description of the future temple, the sacrifices, the Sabbath, the circumcision, etc. You see that here too we must assume that the forms of the law must be observed by Israel throughout the kingdom. Finally, let me report Hos. 3:4, 5; Amos 9:11 — 15; Micah 4:1 — 5; Zach. 6:12, 13; 14:16; and so many other texts. |
| A — |
All right, let us see whether all this after all must not be applied spiritually to the believers in general. You yourself say that the nations are blessed in connection with Israel. Well, then you must confess that this is not the case now. Israel is not God's people now, and yet we have the blessings. If you want to show these texts, then you must apply them to the church and not to Israel. |
| B — |
Let us calmly consider that matter. All I want for the time being is that you acknowledge that the Old Testament teaches nowhere that Israel itself no longer awaits a bright future in relation to the earth liberated from the curse. We will see later what we must think about the present conditions, which according to the prophets are indeed completely abnormal. Have you noticed the condition for the coming of the kingdom? |
| A — |
Yes, if one takes the Old Testament literally, Israel had to convert to God (Deut. 30:1 — 10, Isa. 55:3, Jer. 4:1, 18:11, 25:5, Eze. 14:6; 18:30 — 32; 33:11; Hos. 3:4, 5; Zec. 1:3; Mal. 3:7 etc.) Furthermore, e.g. Isa. 53 also speaks of the coming of the Messiah in humiliation, before the conversion of Israel. Then we have many indications concerning a great tribulation that would precede the kingdom (Isa. 13:10, 34:4, Joel 2:3 — 32). I also read about all kinds of miracles. The blind would see, the lame hopping up etc. (Isa. 35:3 — 6 etc.). The converted Israelites would receive a new heart and the gift of the holy spirit. (Isa. 32:15, Joel 2:12, 13, 28 — 31 etc.).
If we literally incorporate everything that concerns Israel's future, it is beautiful, but still on earth. Can the purpose of God's Word be that Israel should not expect anything more glorious, not look forward to heaven? All of this is so material if one does not understand it spiritually. Could the Israelites really think that God would bless them for ever on earth? |
| B — |
If you want to apply this to us, you can not literally accept it. If you consider it the final state of Israel, either. But if you leave to Israel, that which belongs to Israel and you take into account, that this is not an eternal state, in the sense of « for ever », then I see no obstacle to assuming everything as it stands. We must not, however, see things too narrowly. In the future you have two groups of Israelites: 1° Those who repent and partake of the first resurrection, before the kingdom; 2° Those who do not repent and continue to live. The first group therefore has a glorified body, and will not be exclusively on earth, but in the heavenly sphere. Those of the second group continue to live on the redeemed earth with their normal body. Other times follow the kingdom, with new conditions. This only in passing, as a result of earlier research.
Now that we can somewhat imagine what expectations Israel might have, we can further examine the New Testament. |
| A — |
Yes and first the four Gospels. Here we have the words of Jesus himself. |
| A — |
Well, that I put more faith in these words than in those of the Prophets or of the Apostles, that is only natural of course? The others could present something flawed or proclaim their own dogmas, but in the Gospels it is the Son of man himself who speaks. |
| B — |
So you make a difference between the inspiration of the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Letters? Why do you think that Matthew e.g. has the words of the Lord Jesus correctly reproduced? Actually, you also do not have the « words of Jesus » Himself here. |
| A — |
Well, John 14:26 says that the Holy Spirit would make them remember « whatsoever I have said unto YOU ». Matthew could thus literally reproduce those words. |
| B — |
Well answered. But John 16:12 — 14 states that there are other things to say. The Holy Spirit would later lead them into all the truth. So you must not content yourself with the Gospels, you have only the beginning. But now another question: Do you think that the Lord Jesus spoke His own words and proclaimed His own doctrine? |
| B — |
Then you have to go and read John. 14:24 again: « The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me ». And then John 7:16: « My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me ». |
| A — |
I must confess that I misunderstood those things. But one hears so often speaking of « back to Jesus » and that we should not seek it with Paul! |
| B — |
If you make a difference between the importance that we must attach to the « words of Jesus » and to the other parts of the Scriptures, then you reject the full inspiration of these Scriptures. Remember, Paul's words are not his, but those of God. See e.g. 1 Thes. 2:13, and for Peter: 1 Pet. 1:25. |
| A — |
I thank you for these remarks, I now see how easily one can be brought to criticizing Scripture. |
| B — |
Now let us begin with Matthew. In Mat. 3:1 — 3 we read: « Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ». If you keep an eye on what we have learned from the Old Testament, do not these words affect you? Mat. 2:2 says that the Lord Jesus is « the born King of the Jews ». In Mat. 4:23, 24 we read of the Gospel of the kingdom and of many healing, the inheritance of the earth is found in Matt. 5:5, Is that a new message? |
| A — |
No, indeed e.g. Psa. 37 speaks of them four times. It also surprised me, that verse 29 of that Psalm says that they would dwell on that earth forever. After what you have said about the « aions », however, this is clear. |
| B — |
Furthermore, we see that Jerusalem is the city of the great King (Mat. 5:35). Does it not surprise you that the disciples only have to go to Israel? (Mat 10:5, 6). We also see that the Lord Jesus is recognized as the Son of David (Matthew 21:1 — 9). He now brings the core of the law fully to the fore (Matt 22:36 — 40) with citing Deut. 6:5; 10:12; 30:6; Lev. 19:18. He points out with more emphasis than the Prophets on what the inner man is concerned. Without inner renewal, all forms of God are an abomination. They must do the heaviest of the law (Matthew 23:23), but do not neglect the other things (the forms). No jot or tittle of the law would pass away (Matthew 5:17 — 19). |
| A — |
I must confess that this way of looking at things is defendable, but I do believe that you will get stuck somewhere. You can still e.g. not insist that the gospel according to Matthew speaks only of Israel? You take some texts that concern Israel, but most of them are also addressed to us. And then we also read about the conclusion of the New Covenant, where Israel is no longer involved at all. You allow yourself to be carried too far by your own thoughts and I think it is a bit daring to go against age-old beliefs. |
| B — |
But my dear friend, how can I let myself be carried away by my thoughts, if I have not started with those thoughts myself? I used to share your opinion earlier, but a fair inquiry drove me to sacrifice my thoughts. I mean, indeed, that all of Matthew is Israel. The only reference to one of the Gentiles, I find in Mat. 15:22 — 28 and you see how that woman may still be very satisfied, that she receives « crumbs » by her great faith, such as the « puppies ». You yourself see the position of the nations in that time. As far as the New Covenant is concerned, I appeal your candid judgment. I know that I am very bold, but you agree that it is better to believe God than the people, even though they were so pious and learned. The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant. With whom was Old Covenant closed? |
| A — |
With Israel and one speaks of the « Old Covenant people ». But therefore the New Covenant can be closed with the church? |
| B — |
That should at least be expressly stated. But now we have just indications that say the opposite; that makes every assumption from us unnecessary. Let us e.g. read Isa. 55:3: « I will make an everlasting covenant with YOU ». Of those to whom this is said, Isa. 54:3 says: « and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles ». Then we read in Jer. 31:31 — 34: « Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah ... I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ... for I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more ». Also Ezekiel 37:24 — 28 speaks of that covenant in connection with the kingdom, the land, the statutes, the sanctuary, and the nations. Tell me now what allows you to assume that the New Covenant is closed with the church? Is not Israel the « new-covenant people » as well as the « old-covenant people »?
We see that the nations participate in the blessings, but the New Covenant is not closed with them, but closed with Israel. |
| A — |
But man, you don't mean that in earnest? Everyone knows that it is New Covenant concerns us. The entire N.T. is full of it, yes the name itself, N.T. or New Covenant, indicates that all this is addressed to us. What else would be left for us? Think of the consequences of such a doctrine. |
| B — |
I must remind you that all this is not refutation, no proof that it is closed with the nations. You rely on everyone, you are afraid of the consequences. I ask you a clear indication in God's Word. What will remain for us outside the New Covenant, we will investigate later, and I can assure you that it will not be so bad at all, that you will not lose anything, but will come to know the incomprehensible gifts that are now in the darkness for you, because you always see on that New Covenant. |
| A — |
Now, we will wait for that, I am extremely skeptical. If, by the way, you think that I can not rely on the scriptures to show that the New Covenant is closed with the believers from the nations and not Israel, you are wrong. Let me speak only of Heb. 8 and 9. |
| B — |
In Hebrews I search in vain for the nations. Heb. 8:8, 10 confirms, on the contrary, that the New Covenant is established with Israel and Judah. The entire Letter is addressed to the « Hebrews ». They were not believers from the nations, were they? |
| A — |
No, of course not, but because of that the Letter is also for us. |
| B — |
Certainly, the whole Scripture is for us. But that is why she does not necessarily focus entirely to us, nor does she act entirely over us. We come back to this distinction. In Hebrews, in any case, you have no proof that the New Covenant has been closed with the nations. |
| A — |
Well, let us consider things differently. If we assume that Israel is rejected for good and the Church takes its place, then you see how everything ends up correctly. Then we can apply all those texts to us, even if they are addressed to Israel. This is what the fathers did. |
| B — |
Our further investigation will decide. For the time being, we are taking things as God says. I must admit, moreover, that those who spiritualise the O.T. and apply the blessings of Israel to the Church are, in a sense, more logical than those who claim that the O.T. is literally to be believed and that Israel has a future, but not literally assume that the New Covenant is closed with Israel.
Remember, too, that I do not claim that the nations have no part in the blessings in connection with the New Covenant. That says O.T. as well as the N.T. and was never a mystery. But let us now examine Matthew. |
| A — |
Then I can immediately tell you that Mat. 28:1 and the mention of the « first day of the week » shows that Israel has nothing to do with this and that the Sabbath was now replaced by Sunday. What does the Sunday have to do with Israel? |
| B — |
Your comment would have some value if God's Word really spoke of Sunday. Would you like to consult the Concordant and look up the word « Sunday »? |
| A — |
Well, that word is not used, but « first day of the week » is the expression. |
| B — |
You mean the expression of the translators. But what are the words that the Holy Spirit uttered? |
| A — |
Except in Mat. 28:1 one finds that expression in Mark, 16:2; Luk. 24:1; Joh. 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2. In Mark. 16:9 Greek is somewhat different, but I do not know enough Greek to criticize the translators. |
| B — |
Well good, my intention was to investigate which word is used for « week ». Let us do it without the least knowledge of Greek. The margin of the KJV can help us here. |
| A — |
It says: « Greek: the sabbaths », that is to say, that the Greek text is literally: « the sabbaths ». But it also says: « which word is sometimes taken for the whole week ». |
| B — |
That is a human opinion, which can not be defended by any image from Scripture. We seek God's intention. Let us further note that « day » is printed in italics. That word is therefore added by the translators. What does the Greek text literally say? |
| A — |
« The first of the sabbaths ». |
| B — |
Actually, « first » in Greek is « one », but we will not dwell on that now. May I ask you where the Sunday is? |
| A — |
Well, that would have been the use of speech to describe Sunday; that is how the translators interpreted it and that is how it meant by all Christians from the first century. |
| B — |
Please beware. We examine the words that the Holy Spirit inspired. The apostasy also started from the first century, and wrong terms could then easily be introduced by the nations. They celebrated the « day of the Lord » or day of the Sun. From Paul's last letter written immediately after the first half of the first century, all of them turned away from him (2 Timothy 1:15). He can not sufficiently point to the necessity of holding sound doctrine and going to the Scriptures all the time. And that was so necessary, because just then the great mass of Christians turned away from sound doctrine. We can not rely on the writings of the first centuries. See e.g. in Acts 20:29 — 31 how Paul for three years has not ceased to admonish them for the « grievous wolves » and those who would speak wrong things. Also the fact that some things are accepted by a large number of believers is not of paramount importance. Only God's word is safe and I stick to the inspired words « the first of the sabbaths ». For « week » there is also another Greek word, often used in the translation of 70. And the use of the plural form does not make any sense at all if the Sunday is meant. |
| A — |
Now let us suppose that you are right, what does « the first of the Sabbaths mean »? Is it not clear that people do not have to translate this literally. |
| B — |
If you start with a certain opinion, then you are right, but let us see if God's Word here does not explain itself. The disciples keep the Jewish feasts. So we find in Mat. 26:17 « Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread » that was the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread of Lev. 23:6. Do you want to read this chapter? |
| A — |
Amazing! In verses 15 and 16 I read: « And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD ». Here is a series of seven sabbaths, of 50 days, and the 50th day was what we now call « Pentecost » (i.e., fiftieth). |
| B — |
Do you see the connection with Mat. 28:1 etc.? |
| A — |
Yes. It was then the first of the seven sabbaths that followed the annual Sabbath (the 15th of Nisan), since 50 days after the resurrection the Pentecost was celebrated. I must confess that the Greek text can and must be understood entirely literally here. I must also confess that you did not twist a single text to carry out your opinion and that God's Word simply and clearly explains things to us. |
| B — |
So that was an annual holiday of Israel and not a new weekly holiday for the church. Therefore I repeat that in Matthew nothing is addressed to the Church. |
| A — |
But ... but ... I can not accept all that at once, that is beyond all thought! So many Christians could not be mistaken. |
| B — |
Remember who the god of this aion is. You have said that you want to be careful, well be careful. But then just as cautiously with regard to things that you were taught from childhood, as opposed to the other. In God's Word alone we have safe ground. God has spoken, for that the whole of Christianity has to give way. But we have not yet reviewed the other texts. E.g. Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2. Suppose that also there shortly after Pentecost was spoken, that would not completely convince you that our conclusion from Matt. 28:1 is correct and there is no question of a weekly holiday? |
| A — |
Yes, it is interesting to examine these texts too; here we may find another solution. |
| B — |
Did you believe the gospel and were you baptized? |
| A — |
Yes of course, from where this strange question? |
| B — |
Because I've never seen you do any signs, seen you casting out devils, speaking with new tongues, picking up snakes, making sick people healthy. Do you want to read Mark, 16:17, 18? |
| B — |
You do not say anything? Why do not you apply this text to you? |
| A — |
I want to be sincere. I have been told that these things no longer existed, because they only came to pass in the foundation of the Church, and also because we are unworthy of them. I must confess that that statement never satisfied me. The Lord Jesus does not speak specifically about the beginning of the Church. And then the Corinthians had these gifts and were certainly no more worthy than we were. But how do you explain this? |
| B — |
I have nothing to explain. There is no difficulty for me, because Mark does not speak to us. These words too are addressed to Israel and they will once again be literally fulfilled, when Israel is God's people again. I want to assume that in those times those gifts will also extend to the believers from the nations who have been blessed by Israel. But that is just an assumption. If you go through the whole scripture, you will see that such signs exist as long as Israel is God's people. You can find them in the whole book of Acts. Heb. 2:4 says « God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will ». It was the « powers of the aion to come » (Heb.6:5) that is of the kingdom. As soon as Israel is no longer God's people (Acts 28:28), those signs stop because the kingdom is no longer near. In the Letters, written after Acts (Eph., Col., Php., 2 Tim.), one can not find any sign. Do you want e.g. compare Eph. 4:11, 12 with 1 Cor. 12:28? |
| A — |
Indeed, the first letter to the Corinthians speaks of powers, gifts of healing, languages, whereas they are no longer mentioned in Ephesians. This also reminds me that Paul does not heal Epaphroditus (Php. 2:27), nor Trophimus (2 Tim. 4:20) and he himself remains imprisoned for a long time, whereas in such a case he usually miraculously would have been liberated. |
| B — |
And in Col. 4:14 he calls Lukas the « beloved physician ». Had they systematically made sick people healthy, as during the time of the Acts, then no « physician » was needed. I do not mean that there are no exceptions. Just as in the past not all were redeemed and healed, so there might still be « faith cures » now. Are you beginning to notice that this time of Acts was a very special time, in no comparison with ours? This is one of the main keys to understanding the so-called « New Testament » and to « rightly dividing the word of truth ». |
| A — |
I have read Luke since our last conversation. It now strikes me that there is « the throne of His father David » (Luke 1:32); that Zechariah speaks only of Israel (Luke 1:67 — 79); that Simon and Anna expect « the consolation of Israel » (Luke 2:25); that the nations are promised relief, but to Israel glory (Luke 2:32); and so many other things that I did not notice earlier. |
| B — |
Let us further notice what the Lord Jesus said of the kingdom in Luk. 17:24 — 30: it comes suddenly at the revelation of the Son of man. This is therefore a real kingdom on earth. |
| A — |
But He also said, « The kingdom of God is within you », yet that seems to be a spiritual realm again? |
| B — |
« Within you » could not be said of the hostile Pharisee. The meaning is: « in your midst » in other words, the Lord Jesus, their King, who personified the kingdom, stood in their midst, the kingdom was at hand (Mat. 12:28, John 1:26). |
| A — |
And is Luk. 21:8 — 27 not fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem? |
| B — |
No, it was a beginning of fulfillment. From verse 12 to 24 it concerns in particular the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, but you see that this part begins with the words « but before all this ». The rest should have happened not long afterwards, because Israel should have repented in the meantime, but now it is still in the future. Our time is, as it were, a break that was not foreseen by a prophet. See e.g. Psa. 118:22; Isa. 9:5, 6; 53:10; 61:1, 2; Dan. 9:26, 27, and so many others. In all these texts there is an interruption of about 2000 years. You also know how the Lord Jesus in Luke. 4:18, 19 in the quotation of Isa. 61:1, 2 stopped in the middle of the sentence. The last part has to be fulfilled now. During that interruption Israel is not God's people and the kingdom is not near. That interruption does not start with Pentecost, but after the time of Acts. It becomes manifest through the destruction of Jerusalem and the spread of Israel. That break ends, when the temple is rebuilt. |
| A — |
I now begin to understand you better. Let us now check John. Everyone says that at least this Gospel is more specifically addressed to the Church. |
| B — |
Let us examine without being influenced by « everyone ». |
| A — |
Do you want to claim that John 1:9 e.g. is not addressed to « every human »? |
| B — |
I assert, indeed, that it is not addressed TO us, but it nevertheless concerns us. |
| A — |
But what difference do you make between something that is addressed TO us and something that is FOR us? |
| B — |
It is indeed necessary to express myself more clearly here. Allow me to use a simple equation. Suppose someone writes a letter to a factory clerk and talks about things that concern his work and his job and also about other things that concern him as a human, e.g. his state of health. That letter is given to you for reading because it contains such good advice. Now you do not consider this letter to be addressed to you, but it is for you. Some parts are not applicable to you, because they concern the special position of that servant. Even those parts can also be useful to you, but especially the other parts that concern people are also literally applicable to you. So it is with God's Word and you make after all the same distinction for many parts of the O.T. Or do you apply literally to yourself, what is said or prescribed to Adam, Noah and so many others? No, but all of this is useful and necessary for you. Some things, which do not specifically concern their position, can even be taken entirely for you. |
| A — |
If you look at things like this, I can agree with you, but why do you emphasize this distinction? |
| B — |
To prevent confusion. As long as we do not clearly envisage that the four Gospels and other parts of the N.T. concern a time in which God focuses primarily or even exclusively on Israel, we run the risk of applying to ourselves things that are not intended for us. When it comes to man in general, about sin and salvation e.g. then we can apply everything to us. However, when it concerns a special people in a special time, it does not concern me, although I can also learn a lesson here. « All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness », (2 Tim. 3:16). But therefore all Scripture is not addressed to me. |
| A — |
That indeed seems to me a correct view, but I thought that for you all the parts that are not addressed to us had no value anymore, were only incidental, that there were only a few Letters left from all the Bible. |
| B — |
For me the Bible continues to retain its inestimable value. The parts that are addressed to us, however, have more value than for those who make no distinction and therefore do not see their special privileges so clearly. I assert that by applying only that which God has for me, I can better praise the glory of God's grace. I hope to show that to you in the future and to make you realize at the same time that our research is not only occupied with the head, but finally takes the heart as much as no other consideration can do. |
| A — |
Now we must further examine whether John is really addressed to Israel. Is « children of God » (John 1:12) not the believers of the nations? |
| B — |
Yes, but in the first place those from Israel. See e.g. Hos. 1:10. The prophets had never said that even some of the nations would bear that name, they only spoke of Israel. |
| A — |
Indeed. Furthermore, I see that the Lord Jesus is recognized as the « Messiah » and the « King of Israel » (John 1:42, 50). But in the third chapter I read of « being born again ». That is not for Israel, but the most important for us, Christians. Nicodemus therefore understands nothing of it. |
| B — |
But that does not mean that he should not have understood. The Lord Jesus says that he should have known these things as « the teacher of Israel » (v. 10). Remember, furthermore, that Israelites who believe in Christ are also Christians. John places the « flesh » (or old heart) against the « spirit » (or new heart). In Deut. 30:6, Psa. 51:12; Jer. 24:7; 31:33; 32:39; Eze. 11:19; 18:31; 36:25 — 27 we find a lot about that. Incidentally, you see from John 3:12, that it is an « earthly thing » and in connection with the kingdom (verse 5). We have much more than a « rebirth », which you will see later. |
| A — |
Is not Christ OUR good Shepherd? (John 10:11). |
| B — |
The Shepherd belongs to the Nation. The Shepherd feeds His People Israel (Mat. 2:6). See also Isa. 40:11; Eze. 34:12 — 24; not even to mention Psalm 23. We are in a different relationship to Him. One can apply these texts to us, but they literally concern Israel. |
| A — |
But Heb. 13:20 and 1 Pet. 5:4, do they also speak of that Shepherd in relation to the Church? |
| B — |
I beg your parson, to whom are these Letters addressed? |
| A — |
Well, the first is addressed to the « Hebrews », you have already noticed that, but Peter does speak to all believers? |
| B — |
Let us not suppose anything, but hear God's Word. 1 Pet. 1:1 says that the letter is addressed to « the strangers scattered in ... », the Greek has « diaspora », the well-known expression for the scattered Jews. Thus also James begins: « to the twelve tribes that are in the dispersion ». So I press it again, that, although there even though there is so much applicable to us, everything is not addressed to us. Neither Peter nor James speak of the actual Church. |
| A — |
But John 10:16 says, « I have other sheep », they are the believers from the nations? |
| B — |
I do not even believe that. If you want to consult the Concordant, you will find that the word « other » is the translation of « allos ». In other cases it is the translation of « heteros ». You can check the texts yourself, where these words are used and will see, which is also generally known, that « allos » means other of the same kind and « heteros » more « of a different kind ». If the nations were meant, the Holy Spirit would certainly have used « heteros ». The believers from the nations would be « a different kind of » sheep. You also see that « stable » is a local indication for Jerusalem. Outside of that city the other sheep were scattered. See also Joh. 11:51, 52. |
| A — |
I see further that the Lord Jesus is greeted as « King Israel » (John 12:13) and that it was the fulfillment of the prophecy « your King comes ».
With the proviso that the Gospels are FOR us too, I can finally agree with you that they are directed to and deal with Israel. |
| B — |
You will have the full assurance of that, if you will see that long after the cross there is only Israel, and the nations do not yet have a part in the blessings. In the meantime it turns out how well the Gospels adapt to the O.T., if one takes everything literally.
We now come to the Acts. If one realizes how the believing Israelites were still awaiting the kingdom on earth, then one may expect that they will speak about it to the Lord Jesus. After the humiliation and the cross, the time of glory could soon dawn. We therefore read in Acts 1:6
« Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? ». That is as clear as possible: to Israel. |
| A — |
I must confess that this verse has always hindered me. I do not dare to accuse the apostles of having a false expectation. The Lord himself does not tell them, however, that they should look more to something heavenly or speak about the church; He only says that they do not have the right to know at what time the kingdom will be established. |
| B — |
I am pleased that you do not accuse the apostles of errors. How dare one speak so when one thinks of Luke 24:45: « Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures », and see that they received 40 days of teaching about the kingdom of the Lord Jesus himself. (Acts 1:3). Do you know why He could not tell them anything about the time when it would begin? |
| A — |
No, I see no particular reason for that. |
| B — |
The kingdom was « near » again, Israel would again be invited to convert to the Messiah. But the Lord knew that they would reject Him again. Of course He could not say this to the apostles, for they had to bring their message as if the kingdom was really going to begin. They had to have faith in the good results, to be able to deliver their message and to leave the entire responsibility to the Nation. |
| A — |
I see that this explains many other things, but here is another difficulty for me now. After the cross Israel was rejected, how can there be mentioning of the kingdom? And then still so soon? |
| B — |
Do you believe that Christ's prayers are answered? |
| A — |
Certainly, there is no doubt about that. |
| B — |
Good. In Luke 23:34 he prayed: « Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do ». And that this petition concerns Israel, we see from Acts 3:15 — 19. |
| A — |
So the kingdom could indeed be proclaimed again. What a grace! They could once again be invited to repent. What a long-suffering! I begin to see all this better now and fear that I have spoken somewhat hastily about these things. I regret having fallen short of you and often having judged you without investigation. |
| B — |
Let us now speak about the apostles. Do you believe that Paul is one of the 12 Apostles? |
| A — |
Yes, I believe that. But to tell you the truth, I would prefer to let such things rest, that makes just warm heads and cold hearts. We do not talk about that. |
| B — |
How do you know that this matter only concerns the head? Do you think that God has written something that would be useless and would not touch our hearts? I fear that those who speak in such cases of warm heads and cold hearts have built up a system with which they are completely satisfied and now prefer not to speak about things that do not fit into their system. I believe that one should not be afraid of examining whatever part of Scripture. The question that I asked will later prove to be of great importance. So I urge you and ask now why Paul is part of the 12, if the 11 apostles did « numbered » Matthias? |
| A — |
Well, you know actually why people think this. Of Matthias we hear nothing more and Paul is the most special of the apostles. Furthermore, the 11 could have been a bit too expeditious here, because they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. And then gave forth their lots! How could they do something like that? |
| B — |
Be careful. You accuse the 11 apostles and finally God himself. I want to examine those arguments one by one. That nothing more is heard from Matthias means nothing; that is also the case with most other apostles. That Paul is one of the chief apostles, I agree, but ... that is why he does not belong to the 12. |
| A — |
What is that now? If Paul is an apostle, he automatically belongs to the 12. |
| B — |
That is not automatically. There are 12 apostles, chosen by Christ during his service in humiliation. They form a special group, with a special vocation. I can understand that you did not notice all this before, because you considered Israel rejected for good by God. But now you must over think Mat. 19:28. These 12 apostles will sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. And that shall come to pass when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, and in the kingdom. But beyond that, we were given other apostles, also by the Lord Jesus, but after His ascension. You can learn this from Eph. 4:10 and 11. Apostles include Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14); Silvanus and Timotheus (1 Thes 1:1 and 2:6); Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7). So at least 6 apostles. Even though Paul was one of the principal apostles, he did not belong to the 12. |
| A — |
I never saw this. But why do you mind so much that the 11 would have been mistaken if they had not yet received the Holy Spirit? |
| B — |
I think that's bad because they did receive the Holy Spirit. John 20:22 says that, long before Pentecost, the Lord blew on them and said: « Receive the Holy Spirit ». You know that their minds were opened and that they were taught by Christ for 40 days. If you can assume in these circumstances that they are mistaken, you can better deal with modern criticism. |
| A — |
Peter later also acted wrong? |
| B — |
Certainly, he was a man; but you see that the Holy Spirit points us to that error and restores it. Here, however, it is not the least indication that they are all mistaken. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit himself confirms that Matthias belonged to the 12, since he speaks of the 12 in Acts 2:14; 6:2, long before Paul's conversion. Paul, by the way, could not qualify because he had not dealt with them « beginning from the baptism of John » (Acts 1:22). That condition was also indicated by the Lord Jesus in John 15:26, 27. |
| A — |
I must be convinced by such arguments. You let the Bible speak, while I only supported assumptions and reasoning. But now I would like to know why they chose two of them and cast lots? |
| B — |
That is very simple. Nothing allows us to suppose that there were more than two who fulfilled the condition of verses 21 and 22. They did not « elect » them anyway, but they « set » them. They never choose for themselves, and that is precisely why they cast lots. That was imposed on them in such circumstances by the Lord, as you can see from Lev. 16:8 — 10; Num. 26:56; Neh. 10:34; Jonah 1:7 etc.. Verse 26 says « numbered » in Greek, not « chosen ». |
| A — |
I confess that there is no reason to get a warm head, if one is willing to accept God's Word in its entirely. Meanwhile, I see how this case clearly reveals Rome's error. If the 12 apostles form a very definite group, Peter can not have successors. |
| B — |
Now we come to Pentecost, that is the 50th day from the sheaf of the wave offering (Lev. 23:15, 16). You see that the Christian-Israelites very faithfully observe God's feasts. Here we read about the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel 2:28 — 31; Isa. 32:15 etc. |
| A — |
That does not seem right to me. In Acts 2 there were both believers from the nations and Christian Jews, while according to you the prophets speak only of Israel. Unless you also want to assume that the nations are now taking Israel's place? |
| B — |
I do not find any nations in Acts 2, yes, not even in the seven first chapters. Acts 2:5 speaks of Jews. The following verses speak of « Parthians, and Medes ... », but verse 10 says that they were also Jews or proselytes. The Jews, who were dispersed in these countries, had united in Jerusalem (see verse 14). Verse 22 therefore only knows « men of Israel ». From the history of Cornelius, in the 10th chapter, you see how all of the nations even if they were « godly and fearing God ... and doing many alms ... and prayed to God always » by Peter were still compared to the unclean (Acts 10:14). This is enough to see that there is no question in the first chapters of the nations and that Peter does not seem to know anything about a Church, which begins at Pentecost and where no distinction is made between Jew and Gentile. Unless he is mistaken again. He himself says that what happened at Pentecost is the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel (Acts 2:16). I say « beginning » because the Holy Spirit was not yet poured out on « all flesh ». Do you want to read Joel 2:18? |
| A — |
« Then will the LORD be jealous for his land, and pity his people ». This concerns Palestine and Israel. |
| B — |
So it is certainly not a characteristic of the Church. Only if one spiritualizes the O.T. one can speak of the Church here. |
| A — |
But the Church is still mentioned in Acts 2:47? |
| B — |
Yes in the translation, but the most important manuscripts do not speak of it. Incidentally, you know that the Hebrew and Greek expressions for « church » simply denote a group of chosen persons. There was already a « church » in the desert according to Acts 7:38, where « church » is the translation of the Greek word « ekklesia ». So if you find the word « church » somewhere, then this is not proof that it indicates what we call « church » in particular. You also see that Peter speaks of the « throne » (Acts 2:30) and reminds Israel to repentance. |
| A — |
Is not that conversion, like the one we are talking about? |
| B — |
No, it is the repetition of what the prophets asked (Jer. 3:7, 14, 22, 4:1, 18:11, 25:5, Eze. 14:6, Hos. 14:2, Joel 2:12, 13) and what was repeated by John the Baptist and Christ himself. It concerns especially Israel as a Nation and is the condition for the founding of the kingdom. |
| A — |
I indeed read in Acts 3:19, 20: « Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins might be blotted out; when the times of refreshing shall have come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send Jesus Christ, who was preached unto you ... ». |
| B — |
And notice that this translation is not faithful and the words of the Holy Spirit are largely deprived of their meaning. Instead of « and he shall send », one reads « and He may send ». Newer translations also improve this and as I know that you have a lot of confidence in Bavinck, you can consult e.g. Part IV of his « Reformed Dogmatics » page 74 about this. You see that we do not have to find an « explanation » here. Israel is very clearly presented with the condition of the arrival of the long awaited kingdom. |
| A — |
I just remembered that Peter was entrusted with the keys of the KINGDOM (Mat. 16:19). He had thus received a special stewardship (Isa. 22:15 and 22) in relation to the kingdom. Here in Acts he uses these « keys ». And then this is again an indication that this concerns the kingdom and not the church. |
| B — |
I notice that you are beginning to see how things stand and I believe that we can now shorten our research somewhat. You can consult « The Purpose of the Ages » for most cases. However, I still want to draw your attention to some situations that characterize the time of the Acts. First of all, the miracles and forces are a sign of the coming kingdom, see e.g. Acts 2:16 — 22; 5:19; 8:5 — 12; 19:12 even in the last chapter 28:5, 8, 9. |
| A — |
Yes, and as you already said, in the Letters after the time of the Acts, there is no longer any sign of those gifts. If the people of the Pentecostal church recognized this, they would no longer remain in their error. |
| B — |
Secondly, there are other characteristics of the kingdom state: immediate judgment and community in everything. See e.g. Acts 2:42 — 46; 5:5, 10; 12:23; 13:11; 1 Cor. 5:5. |
| A — |
I now understand why those conditions do not exist now. Many things become clear to me. Christian « Communists » would have something to learn here. |
| B — |
The prophecies were fulfilled, including the blessings of the Gentiles in connection with Israel as God's people. The latter was no secret. There is a visible, tangible, audible intervention of angels. But especially: Israel holds first place, the temple exists, the law is followed. |
| A — |
Although they also share in Israel's blessings, the Nations are in second place, they are not « God's people », at least as far as material things are concerned. Let us examine this a bit further. |
| B — |
Yes, because if the Scripture says that the Christian-Jews are then especially God's people and they still have to keep the forms of the law, then it is clear that that time is completely different from our own; that at the end of the Acts, and not at Pentecost, a new dispensation begins, that of the church. We will of course also take into account the letters written during that time. First and foremost, we read from time to time the apostles and Christian-Jews go to the temple and the synagogue (Acts 5:20, 13:14). Some thirty years after Pentecost, Paul goes to the temple to sacrifice. You know what Acts 21:21-26 says about that. |
| A — |
Was that not an application of 1 Cor. 9:20? |
| B — |
No, for Paul is here not the Jews as « a Jew », and those under the law have not become « under the law ». It was not the case to avoid everything that the Jews could dispose of, but he wanted to publicly prove that what they said about him, namely, that the Jews should no longer be circumcised and no longer had to act according to the manner of the law, was a lie. He wanted to show clearly that he was following the law himself. James and the elders invited him to this. If Paul no longer maintained the forms of the law, could he then make people think with full consciousness that he did? Suppose you are facing a Roman Catholic. You will not speak to him first about all kinds of things, that is only a consequence of his error. You will begin with something about which you agree with him and in the beginning he may even take you for a member of his « church ». If you have said the most special, you may come to the wrong. You have become Roman as a Roman to win him, but you will not think of going publicly to mass, to prove that you follow the Roman rules in every way! So there is also a world-wide difference between 1 Cor. 9:20 and Acts 21:26. Many serious researchers therefore recognize that there is a great difficulty here. Some assume that Paul acted wrongly; others dare not say this and leave the case without explanation. You see that there is no difficulty for us. Paul, like all Christian-Jews, followed the law, so he could go to the temple very well and offer a sacrifice. He will come back to this later (Acts 24:17 — 19) and also says in Acts 25:8: « Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all ». |
| A — |
I believe that we will have a lot of trouble with Gal. and Heb., but you will talk about that and also say something about the New Covenant. |
| B — |
Yes, we will examine all places related to this. I do not want to defend a system, but to consult all God's Word altogether and I'am always willing to give preliminary conclusions for others that are more in line with the Scriptures. If you would, help me with this. Let us now read Heb. 9:8 — 10 read. |
| A — |
I do not see that these verses say anything about the observance of the law? |
| B — |
The translation of the KJV speaks here as of the past, but other translations and the Greek text itself speak of the time when the letter was written. It is necessary to read: « for the time then present, in which are offered both gifts and sacrifices, that can not make him that does the service perfect » and so on.
But let us now check Peter. We have already seen how he considers Cornelius 10 years after Pentecost. Acts 10 shows us how it was necessary to send him a vision, repeated three times, and another command through an angel, to persuade him to go to Cornelius. He said: « Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean ». |
| A — |
On the other hand, it is clear that if the Church had started Pentecost, Peter would have been the first to open the arms to a « godly » man like Cornelius. Let us note, in passing, that the blessing of the nations in connection with and by Israel was no « mystery ». We have discussed that earlier. However, is Acts 15 not an indication that the circumcision should no longer be applied? |
| B — |
Let us read this chapter calmly. Which believers are involved here? |
| A — |
Verse 3 speaks of the conversion of the Gentiles (Nations), this was made known by Paul and Barnabas in Jerusalem (verse 4). Some believers (i.e. Christian) Pharisee claimed, however, that they should be circumcised and sanctify the law of Moses. I now see that it concerns the nations, not the Jews. |
| B — |
The question was: should those believers be included as « strangers » in Israel through circumcision? That was of course not necessary. James cites Amos 9:11, 12, a text that speaks of the restoration of Israel and of the blessings that come to the nations. These would be blessed as people, not as members of Israel. This text therefore says nothing about the following of the law by the Christian-Jews. Or rather he confirms that they still used circumcision, because would this proposal have brought so much twisting and upheaval, if the Jews themselves no longer had to be circumcised? No, isn't it, then the case was very simple. |
| A — |
It is becoming clearer to me more and more, but it is still difficult to abandon previous opinions. |
| B — |
Dear friend, I started my research years ago to clarify myself and I had to give up a lot of thoughts, even though they came from highly esteemed, pious, serious researchers. Now we oversee many things in a short time. Think about all this quietly, research again and again, and ask God's help in your research. I ask no applause, no honor, but I ask you for God's will to let His word come to its full right, notwithstanding all the opposition of our old nature and of Satan.
You spoke of difficulties that we would have in the Letters of Paul if we assume that the law was yet to be followed after the cross. I must admit that in the superficial reading of a translation, in the firm thought, that the law was then undone, one can think that Paul also says this. First let us review Rom. 3:21, 28. « Without the law ». Since we claim to get light from the Greek text, without knowledge of Greek, we want to show that here again. Do you want to search « without » in the Concordant? |
| A — |
Yes, I see that this is a simple means accessible to anyone who wants to give a little trouble. « Without » here is the translation of « chooris » and from other texts, where this word occurs, we see that the meaning is: « separated from » , « except », « apart ». Some Concordances do not give all the texts, but in the « Englishman's Concordance » I find e.g. Mat. 14:21 specified. This text very clearly shows this meaning, « without the women and children », that does not mean that they are not there, but that they are counted separately. |
| B — |
You also see that « without » is sometimes also the translation of « aneu », that e.g. in 1 Pet. 4:9 and really wants to say « without ». So... |
| A — |
So we decide that Rom. 3:21, 28 does not say that the law is no longer to be followed, but only that the righteousness of God is revealed apart from the law and further, that man is justified by faith, apart from the works of the law, separated from those works. |
| B — |
And precisely this had to be shown, because now the New Covenant was closed. You know that the Old Covenant had its origin in the fact that Israel promised to do everything that the Lord had said and thus thought they could be justified from the works of the law. Always it had to be pointed out that this was not possible. In the same chapter we read that Paul says that they therefore do not destroy the law (Romans 3:31), but affirm or « made to stand » it, as Rom. 14:4 is represented by the Greek. Do you see the big difference with Eph. 2:15, where the law is « abolished »? |
| A — |
But now Rom. 6:14. Here I see no way out, unless the translation is wrong. |
| B — |
There is nothing to say about the translation. It says: « ye are not UNDER the law ». Rom. 7:4 adds that we are dead to the law. The meaning of Rom. 6:14 depends on the word « under ». It expresses complete slavery. See e.g. Mat. 8:9 « under authority »; Rom 7:14 « under sin »; 1 Tim. 6:1 « under the yoke ». That also tells us Gal. 3:10, they were « under the curse », and Gal. 4:3 in slavery « under the elements of the world ». In that state one is, if one wants to be justified by the works of the law, then one is fallen from grace. However, it is perfectly possible meet the « right of the law » that is to meet the legitimate demands of the law, without, therefore, expecting justification from it. Those who supported the faith for justification were delivered from the curse and slavery (Galatians 3:13), no longer UNDER the law, but under grace, and now enjoyed the law (Romans 7:22), they served in newness of the spirit. They were no longer slaves, but had sonship (Galatians 4:3 — 5). |
| A — |
But if that is the meaning of « under » and the law also speaks to those who are not « under », then Rom. 3:19 should you use a different expression? |
| B — |
I did not think about that. Let us examine this verse. |
| A — |
I find Rom. 3:19 not mentioned in the Concordant at the Greek word, usually translated by « under », that is curious. And all translations, both French and English, use « under ». Let us consult the « Englishman's Concordance ». |
| B — |
Here I see that Greek has « in » and not « under ». Then the matter is all right, the Holy Spirit speaks of all the children of Israel who are « in » the law, therefore they are not necessarily « under » the law. |
| A — |
Now another « difficulty ». Rom. 10:4 « For Christ is the end of the law ». For some, this text alone is sufficient to believe that the law was then done with. |
| B — |
We shall see here again how dangerous it is to support a single text to decide an important matter. Let us consult the Concordant. |
| A — |
Two Greek words are translated by « end ». Usually it is « telos ». If we use texts like Mat. 26:58 and Rom. 6:21, we see that the meaning is more to reach a goal or point to a consequence than to stop something. If Rom. 10:4 means that the law no longer exists, then says Jas. 5:11 that the Lord no longer exists. |
| B — |
And the other Greek word? |
| A — |
That is « peras », as in Heb. 6:16 « an end of all strive ». So that is the cessation of the strive. It is very clear that through the use of « telos » in Rom. 10:4 is meant that in Christ the law had reached a goal, and not that it had ceased. |
| B — |
It did indeed lead to Christ. For a time the law was « added because of transgressions » (Galatians 3:19). This goal was accomplished at the coming of Christ and now the law would simply express God's will for Israel (Rom. 2:18) and exist to be followed, not in own strength for justification, but in God's power, after justification by faith. |
| A — |
Now Gal. 4:9, 10. Paul blames them to serve the « the weak and beggarly elements » and to « observe days, and months, and times, and years ». I have already learned to appreciate the words of the Holy Spirit and want to see for myself what is meant by « bondage » and « observe ». I see that the Concordant gives at least 9 Greek words for « bondage ». The word used in Gal. 4:9 represents serving as a slave. I also remember now having seen such a comment in some translations. Paul thus says that they should not serve the external forms, which in themselves are « weak and beggarly elements », as a slave, as being « under » the law. He does not say that they can no longer perform these forms in a new spirit. |
| B — |
That is in line with what we have already seen about following the law under the New Covenant. But now the word « observe ». |
| A — |
I notice that the Greek word translated here by « observe » has always been used in an unfavorable sense. So e.g. Mark 3:2 (watched); Acts 9:24 (watched). The meaning is: to focus all attention on something. Like this of course they should not celebrate the feasts. The external, was not the most special, but the interior, that all prophets already said in the O.T.
Now also those words of the Lord Jesus come to mind from Mat. 23:23 for the spirit: « ... and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone ». He also says in Mat. 5:17 — 19 that not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (and not until the cross). If one decides from the texts that we have checked in N.T., that the forms of the law should no longer be followed, then one can just as well conclude this from what the prophets have said. |
| B — |
We must not say much more about this matter. In Gal. 5:1 — 11 Paul speaks about yoke of bondage. Those who are circumcised with the thought that they can be justified by the law (verse 4) had fallen from grace. That circumcision has no strength in itself (verse 6); so he does not preach them the circumcision. |
| A — |
In Gal. 6:13 I see no difficulty. Those who were circumcised did not themselves keep the entire law, even though they had to keep them. |
| B — |
Furthermore, one can quote Heb. 10:18 « Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin ». A true sacrifice, that of Christ, is no longer there. It has been done forever. But that is why there may still be a ceremony as a memorial to that sacrifice. Just as the offerings before Christ were to the cross, the sacrifices after Christ can also point back to this cross. So we also have in Eze. 40 — 45 an accurate description of all the forms, including the sacrifices, that will be followed during the kingdom. This includes the circumcision of the flesh (Ezekiel 44:9), because it was the sign of an « eternal » covenant (Gen. 17:13). |
| A — |
I agree that there are no difficulties to assume that during the time of Acts the Christian-Jews should follow the forms of the law. |
| B — |
Let us now further examine the position of the nations and then examine what the Scriptures say about us. Until the end of the Acts, Israel was God's people. The Jew took the first place, according to the flesh. They are always mentioned first (Romans 1:16, 2:9, 10). They had many advantages (Romans 3:1, 2, 9:3 — 5). Jesus Christ has become a servant of CIRCUMCISION, that He might confirm the promises of the FATHERS (Rom. 15:8). Of the blessings that the nations receive, is only spoken in the second place and the prophets are quoted (Romans 15:9 — 12). The position of the nations is perhaps best seen from Rom. 11. Israel is the olive tree: the nations are grafted in branches. They share the fatness of the olive tree (see also Romans 15:27), but they are not themselves that tree. In Rom. 11:11 is « falling » the real fall. When this happens, the olive tree disappears. At that time they had not yet fallen. « But rather through their fall » indicates something completely different. The Concordant shows us that « fall » has a different meaning, namely: crime. They did not accept the Messiah as a Nation, this was their crime and now they were in danger. In the meantime they are still stimulated by the coming of blessings to the nations. That was then mainly to make them jealous (Rom. 10:19, 20, see also Deut. 32:21) This was no secret, these conditions no longer exist, there is no olive tree and there are no grafted branches. By persevering in its crime, Israel has lost its position as God's Nation for a time. After his last attempt with the representatives of the Nation, Paul says in Acts 28:28: « Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it ». As was the case before, there is now an interruption in Israel's history and in all that is connected with it, e.g. the New Covenant. Paul's words were soon endorsed by the destruction of the Temple. The people were driven out of the land and scattered among the nations, as in the past when God also called His people « Lo-ammi » (i.e. not my people) (Hos 1:9, 10). |
| A — |
I still fear that your zeal will take you too far. What do you say about the words "there is no difference, neither Jew nor Greek" (Romans 10:12)? Which were nevertheless pronounced during the time of the Acts? |
| B — |
You believe that the man is the head of the woman? (Eph. 5:23, etc.) And yet Paul also says that in Christ there is no man and woman (Gal. 3:28) any more than Jew or Greek. How do you explain that? |
| A — |
The first text concerns the material things, the second the spiritual things. As far as social relations are concerned, the man is the head of the woman. There is no difference in the spiritual sphere. |
| B — |
So it is with Israel and the nations to the end of the Acts and so will it be in the future. E.g. under the kingdom. Israel is God's people and through him the blessings come to the nations. These are only grafted branches, as far as the earthly matters are concerned. But Rom. 10:12 speaks about righteousness from faith. For this there is no distinction, here it is about something individual, not national. |
| A — |
I notice again that I too hastily accused you of going too far. When I read « The Purpose of the Ages » I also always thought that Aristarkos went too far. As long as one stays with God's Word, one can go far beyond the tradition. For me, who could not be separated from unscriptural considerations, this naturally seemed « too far ». Now I also see why Aristarkos insists that our dispensation does not flow from the Acts, is not the product of development, but of a new creation. |
| B — |
If one has a correct view on the time of the Acts, one can also make the other Greek Scriptures come into their own. |
| A — |
May I still ask you a clarification? If I have understood you correctly, then the kingdom would no longer be proclaimed after Acts 28. How do you explain that in Acts 28:31 is it said that Paul was preaching the kingdom afterwards? |
| B — |
May I make you notice that Paul preached the « kingdom of God »? This kingdom encompasses everything, both the kingdom of heaven and the « above-heavenly kingdom » of 2 Tim. 4:18 (Greek text). To Paul was revealed more than to others. He could speak of the 1000-year kingdom and also of other places and times. It does not say in your text that he proclaimed that the « kingdom of heaven » was near, although he probably spoke of this kingdom. Those who distinguish the special position of the Church can now also speak about everything that has been revealed and in this sense proclaim the « Kingdom of God ». |
| A — |
Yes, I see that we also have to distinguish between the different kingdoms. |
| B — |
It is actually incomprehensible how those who have an open eye for the kingdom and the future of Israel are so often blind to the position of the church of the mystery. Just before and during the kingdom, Israel is God's people again. They are, of course, also « Christians », as are many of the nations, and the whole of the N.T. is addressed to them (except the parts to the members of the Church). Suppose that the entire N.T. was addressed to the Church, what would be left for these Christians? There is then a distinction between Israel and the nations. All the prophets speak of the role that Israel then has to fulfill: they will be an instrument in God's hands to pour out His blessings upon the nations. The Christian Jews have witnessed their temple, their forms, the Lord through signs, wonders and powers. The Holy Spirit will be poured out over all flesh. Now if one finds the characteristics of this time in the Acts, what difficulty is there to assume that the believers from the nations are then in the same relationship with Israel as during the kingdom? And if what the members of the church are concerned does not apply to the Christians who are on earth during the kingdom, then that also does not apply to the Christians during the time of the Acts. And then one sees in reverse that only Eph., Fil., Col., 2 Tim., addressed to the church, even if everything else is for them. If there were already members of the Church during Acts, they did not yet know their position, since Paul would only later reveal them.
The research of prophecy also leads to the same result: the conditions in Acts and in the kingdom correspond to what the prophets wrote. They knew that the nations would be blessed by or in connection with Israel. The things about which they did not say a word begin only after the Acts. They knew nothing of a church that would be blessed completely independent of Israel and more than Israel.
You see, that both through an examination of the « sound words » and through a general inquiry, we must reach the same conclusion: the Church does not begin at Pentecost and has a position far above all, also above that of the believers of the Acts and of the kingdom. |
| A — |
All attempts at objection, usually done without benevolence, forbearance and gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24, 25), are based on the fact that the nations are already blessed in Acts. I now clearly see that therefore the Church is not yet beginning, since the nations will be much more blessed during the kingdom, though they do not belong to the Church. All this was never hidden, but on the contrary proclaimed by all the prophets. The opponents see nothing of the special position of the Church. They also come back with the claim that you and others only keep a few letters from the Bible and thereby show that they have understood nothing. You keep everything right, but better see the value of what is addressed to the members of the Church. They also always speak of the impossibility that so many would have been mistaken. If this can be used as an argument, they would do better to turn to Rome.
How can I thank God for having an open eye for what He has written down in His Word. |
| B — |
Another word about the time after the Church. The conditions of Acts are perfectly aligned with those that will exist after the actual Church. Acts should have been followed by the kingdom and was not a preparation of our dispensation. Had Israel converted, then, more humanly speaking, our dispensation would not have existed. There are many examples of such a situation. Think e.g. about the desert trip. The exodus from Egypt was not a preparation for 40 years of wandering.
God's invitation to go into Canaan was meant. The general world conditions after the Church will be the same as during the Acts. The Roman empire, or something resembling it, will exist again, Israel will be partly in the land (Palestine), the Christian Jews will follow the law in the temple, the Christians from the nations will be separated from them (as nation). You know how everything already points to those situations. The formation of separate Christian-Jewish communities is also very remarkable in this connection. |
| A — |
How could I be so blinded not to see things before? |
| B — |
Perhaps there is someone who has an interest in your blindness? |
| A — |
How so? Who would have an interest in that? |
| B — |
Think about it. Is there no creature that has an interest in not letting God's Word come into its own right, mixes up the things that God has separated; assumes that the apostles were mistaken; that there is contradiction between Christ and Paul and what more? Who hinders it above all if one literally accepts the scriptures? |
| A — |
I get it. You mean Satan. Yes, that is true. How awful! We never count enough with that opponent, we do not use the sword in our strive (Eph. 6:17). |
| B — |
We now come to the characteristics of our dispensation, unless you still fear hot heads and cold hearts? |
| A — |
You want to tease me. No, brother, let us glorify God and praise the fullness of His grace. This is only possible if one takes notice of His Word beyond all sectarian spirit. I now also see that I was never fully aware of the position in which God placed me and that I did Him short in the first place, and worked Satan in the hand. |
| B — |
Now the rest of our research will give you the opportunity to make everything right. The words will fail us here to express the glories. However, we want to keep our feeling silent and investigate things in a down-to-earth manner, even if this is not to the wishes of some. I have learned to be very careful with the feelings and to leave the free rein only after a very « cold » examination.
After the last chance that God, through Paul, gave to Israel to repent, He leaves them. Now all conditions change. No kingdom is proclaimed and miracles, signs and powers are completely absent. These new conditions were hidden from all ages, and the fulfillment of the prophecy has therefore been suspended. All forms disappear, faith only has to rule. A Church is created, a « fellow-body », of which Christ is the head. The members of this Church do not belong to the earth, nor even to the heavens, which were spoken of earlier, but to the « above-heavenly », on the right hand of God, far above all. They are blessed with all spiritual blessings and are perfect in Him. |
| A — |
I was somewhat prepared by reading the book « The Purpose of the Ages », but perhaps you want to show some more details? In which parts of the N.T. do they find these things and how can a simple believer know what is specifically addressed to that « Church of the Mystery »? |
| B — |
After Acts Paul writes in prison: Eph., Fil., Col., 2 Tim.. These Letters are thus written after the rejection of Israel and concern the new situation. Of course, Paul had dealt with many things verbally; the Letters show what we need to know about it. Now you will see the importance of whether Paul belongs to the 12 apostles. If he does not belong there, then there is no difficulty in understanding that the stewardship (dispensation) was only given to him concerning this time. To him the great mystery was first revealed (Eph 3:2, 3, 6 — 9). Let us now also read Col. 1:25, 26: « 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; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints ». And notice that the words « made manifest » is not the same in Greek as in Eph. 3:3 « revelation », the latter is used exclusively of something that comes from God himself. The word of Col. 1:26 is used for something that can also come through people (see for example Col. 4:4). I do not speak of Ef. 3:4, 5, that would take us too far here and is treated in « The Purpose of the Ages ». You see that in these times the 12 apostles no longer have a role to play. Their work begins again after the Church and especially under the kingdom (Matthew 19:28). What do you think now about the Roman system, which is based on Peter? |
| A — |
The only thing that can support it is tradition. God's Word, however, is contrary to that tradition. In the Protestant circles, however, there is still a lot of tradition. It does not surprise me either that Paul had a great conflict for the consolation and amalgamation in love and for all the riches of the full assurance of understanding, for the knowledge of the mystery (Col. 2:1, 2). He was therefore abandoned by « all who are in Asia » (2 Tim. 1:15, see also 2 Tim. 4:16). |
| B — |
This will also be the case with us if we believe in the whole of God's Word. Opposite of it is God « who blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heaven in Christ » (Eph. 1:3). Such a thing was never said for earlier dispensations. Even more so since « in heaven » is an expression that had never been used before. Literally it is « in the above-heavenly » and those words are only found in Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12. You see from Eph. 1:20 that this « above-heavenly » is the sphere where God lives. There we are put in Christ (Eph. 2:6); there is our task (Eph. 3:10), our strive (Eph 6:12), our walk or citizenship (Php. 3:20). May I now ask you of what importance it is, to see that we have nothing to do with the New Covenant? |
| A — |
I now clearly see that this covenant is only closed with Israel, and though in this dispensation the nations are also blessed in connection with Israel as an outflow of this New Covenant. These blessings are nothing compared to ours. These are completely independent of Israel and give more than ever to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob promised, If we apply the New Covenant to us, we must consider ourselves as « grafted branches », we do not know our position, or at its best its very unclear. |
| B — |
Have you noticed that our position is not only of Israel but of the whole world? Eph. 1:4 says: « chosen ... before the foundation of the world ». The kingdom, covenants, and all things related to Israel were « from the foundation of the world » (Mat. 25:34). |
| A — |
But you do not mean that Christ did not die for us? |
| B — |
Well no. Eph. 1:7 says precisely: « in whom we have redemption through His blood ». As children of Adam we are sinners by birth and all that is said of sin is applicable to us. That is why the WHOLE Bible is so important to us. Even though we see in Eph., Php., Col., Letters that are specifically addressed only to the church, therefore we can't lack Rom. etc.. But all the children of Adam have not been placed in the same conditions by God, not under the same stewardship, not chosen for the same purpose, and therefore I can not apply to myself what was said to others in relation to their dispensation.
Where we speak of Eph. 1:7, I can also draw your attention here to the fact that « salvation » in this verse is the translation of another word than in the earlier Letters, and this salvation goes beyond the ordinary salvation. Thus the members of the Church also have a « reconciliation » (see, for example, Ephesians 2:16) which includes more than ordinary reconciliation. |
| A — |
O! « That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints ». (Eph. 1:17, 18) |
| B — |
Amen. Now further Christ is the head (not the King) of the Church, which is His body. (Eph. 1:22, 23). In Rom. did you read about a community that went to death and spoke about the resurrection; but a community like this, which places us with Christ at the right hand of God, is not met anywhere. That communion between Head and body is not there as long as there is a high priest, or a king, or statutes, covenants, etc. A covenant can be made between a bridegroom and bride, not between a Head and body. You always see how much you lose and how you have to fall short to God, if you cling to it all. « forgetting those things which are behind » says Paul in Php. 3:13. And what a responsibility for those who teach others and for all who, usually without research, reject those things!
In the second chapter of Ephesians we see how this body is formed. There used to be Israel AND the nations. Even the Christian Israelites were separated from the Gentiles by the law as regarded to material things (Eph. 2:11 — 15). Now that Israel has been temporarily abandoned by God, the law has been « made void ». You see that this is something completely different than in Rom. and Gal.. Col. 2:14 speaks of « blotting out » and « took it out of the way ». While the conditions during Acts partly support the Sabbatist doctrine, their error in connection with our dispensation becomes evident now. Now the two, the Gentiles and the Jews, were created into a « new man » in Christ. It is a creation, not an evolution from the time of Acts. They are fellow-heirs, fellow-body, fellow-partakers of His promise in Christ to the gospel of which Paul is a servant (Eph. 3:6, 7 to the Greek). In the past there had already been other « happy messages ». Paul had to proclaim the « unsearchable riches of Christ ». It is therefore foolish to try to trace that richness in earlier writings. Those who see no further here than Romans lose that wealth. |
| A — |
Will you allow me a comment? Eph. 3:6 speaks of a promise. What then is that, if it is not a promise that God had made before to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob? |
| B — |
Eph. 2:12 says that they were « strangers to the covenants of promise ». The covenants had nothing to do with the Church. The promise that concerns us is in 2 Tim. 1:1 stated: « the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus ». We can not say much about « eternal life » here. Only this: that expression primarily concerns the character of that life, not the duration. « Eternal » is literally « aionic » that is in relation to THE aion or the aions. Those who have eternal life do live on after the aions, but that is not indicated here. Being content with eternal life, however beautiful it is, does not accept ALL that God has to give us. Col. 3:4, however, speaks of something else: Christ is our life and that life is hidden in God according to verse 3 with Christ. Here you have the promise for us. I can not understand the width, length, depth, and height of it. But ... I believe it. Our thoughts and words can only draw those things to a lower sphere. |
| A — |
You were right to say that the heart would not remain cold. When we spoke about the gifts to the Church; we have already seen that there were no languages, gifts of sanitation, etc. Now that I read Ephesians 4:11, 12 about this, I also remember what you said about « preparing again ». I now see the importance of understanding the correct meaning of « perfection ». Usually it is said that the saints from Pentecost are now being further taught. We know, however, that there is no evolution of the Church. The word « perfection », which has the meaning of « preparing again » expresses this again. |
| B — |
You also see how necessary it is to have knowledge of the scriptures. I mean here the word « knowledge », that Paul uses in Eph. 4:13; Fil. 1:9; Col. 1:9, 10; 2:2. It is literally « above-knowledge » (if one wants: full knowledge), namely believing what God knows. Rom. 10:2 uses that word: « that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge ». How many of us, brothers, can this be said. It is true that « in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow » (Ecc. 1:18), but grief is precisely our part in this « evil aion ». There is a fellowship, also in suffering (Col. 1:24, Php. 1:29, 3:10).
I would like to quote another privilege of the church members: their body shall be conformed to His glorious body (Php. 3:21). That is more than Rom. 8:29, as you have read in « The purpose of the Ages ». Furthermore, these believers in Christ are already « perfect » (Col. 2:10). |
| A — |
I now see the great privileges of the church, its extraordinary position, and it does not surprise me that Paul thus insists that the walk would be in accord with it (Eph. 4:1). How great is our responsibility towards the people and the spiritual beings! (Eph. 3:10). How lightly are we shaming the Head! How necessary is it to examine God's Word over and over again, proving the things that differ (Php. 1:10) and rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15)!
Your opponents must not seek excuses, but clearly answer the following questions:
| |
1. |
Should the Christian-Jews not follow the forms of the law during the Acts? Should they not follow such forms during the kingdom? If so, why, should the members of the Church, who are of Israel, not now follow the law?
|
| |
2. |
Why is the whole time of the Acts characterized by all sorts of things that do not exist now, but will exist during the kingdom?
|
| |
3. |
Is not the New Covenant made with Israel? Are there two new covenants?
|
| |
4. |
What parts of Scripture are for the Christians who will be on earth after the Church?
Are the prison letters addressed to the believers just before and during the kingdom?
|
| |
5. |
Why does Paul say that the believing Thessalonians will be saved OUT OF the future wrath if the church does not come in it? (1 Thess. 1:10 Greek Text).
How can Paul expect to be taken up alive, if he knows he will die? (2 Tim.4:6).
|
| |
6. |
Is the position of the church in the « above-heavenly » or in relation to earthly things? Is that position the same as that of the Christians of Acts and of the kingdom?
Are the blessings and the position of the nations greater than that of the church under the kingdom?
|
| |
7. |
Is the church just a grafted branch on the Israeli olive tree?
|
| |
8. |
Why were there no believers from the nations at the beginning of the Church, assuming that she began at Pentecost?
|
| |
9. |
Does Peter unlock the Church with the keys of the kingdom? Why does he state as a condition the conversion of Israel, when he should have actually spoken of the Church? (Acts 3:19 — 22).
|
| |
10. |
Were the conditions of the Acts « hidden in God »? Why do the prophets speak about those conditions, as well as those of the kingdom, but not about the blessings of the Church wholly independent of Israel (as after the Acts)?
|
All this, and much more, is explained by assuming that the Church began only after Acts. The only reason that can be brought against this extremely simple solution is that it is not consistent with tradition.
|
| B — |
Let me add something very serious here. You see that in our research the scriptures are accepted in all their parts as inspired by God. You see that every word comes into its own without complicated interpretation. Everything is simple, makes a whole and explains itself, if you take it as it says it. We must not suppose that the Lord Jesus or the apostles were mistaken. We understand why there is often such a difference between their word. Although we do not see miracles, yet it does not bother us to believe that there used to be, and will be in the future. Even the O.T. we can literally accept in everything without difficulty, even if it says that New Covenant will be closed with Israel.
On the other hand, you know what has been the result of widely shared thoughts in the Christian world. In short: apostasy and Scripture criticism. One can now go against the Modern Criticism; This is all in vain if one does not affect the deep causes. Those who are afraid to accept and proclaim the full truth unconsciously work to promote this criticism and its consequences. Think of the strive from Eph. 6; we have only one weapon: God's Word. On the other hand, the main means of the enemy is tradition.
Scripture criticism actually began in Paul's day, so he always reminded Timothy of the Scripture and the inspiration of Scripture (see 2 Tim. 3:16) and warned of those who turned the ear away from the truth. The main cause of this apostasy was: 1° That they did not keep the example (model) of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13) and 2° That they did not rightly divided the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). The result was that they turned away from the truth, turned to fables, did not strive lawfully (2 Tim. 2:5), that is not walked according to God's will. And finally they were vessels of dishonor (2 Tim. 2:20). Paul was not afraid of the consequences of his gospel (2 Tim. 2:8), of his doctrine (2 Tim. 3:10), even though he saw that all in Asia turned away from him (2 Tim. 1:1), 15, 4:16) and he was persecuted, as « all who would live godly in Christ Jesus ». (2 Tim. 3:12) The great majority, who turned away from Paul, has evolved into contemporary Christendom with all its tradition.
So if one is afraid of the consequences of a new consideration, one also pays attention to the consequences of the present view. Consequences are, however, difficult for us to see, and the main thing is to investigate whether the considerations are scriptural. Then we can leave the consequences in God's hands.
And now let me finish by saying that true righteousness does not exist in believing what the fathers said, but in literally believing what God has said through the Scriptures.
We must come to full assurance of the understanding, to the above or full knowledge of the mystery of the God and Father of Christ, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. Not in tradition or confession, in Him they are hidden, and from His fullness we receive mercy by the Scriptures.
|
Copyright © 2003 - 2019 Uit de Schriften
|
You are reading: Does the Church begin at Pentecost