Much harm and loss has come to the church because God's "workmen" have failed to note the distinctions and divisions in the Word of Truth.  But serious harm can and does also result from a failure to recognize the unity of God's great plan for the ages; from a failure to observe connections as well as distinctions.

Extreme dispensationalists see many distinctions in the Scriptures -- even distinctions which do not exist! -- but they fail to see some of the most important connections.  And, strange to say, in seeking to establish non-existent distinctions they frequently blunder back into the camp of the traditionalists and likewise fail to note some of the most basic distinctions!

An example of this is found in the contention that Paul, when he wrote his early epistles, had not yet come into his special Gentile ministry; that at that time he preached practically the same message as the twelve; that at that time he dealt primarily with the Jews; that his early epistles were addressed primarily to Jews and that during that time he offered the kingdom to Israel -- but that after Acts 28 his ministry had no connection whatever with that of the twelve!

The fact is, that from the beginning Paul's apostleship was clearly separate and distinct from that of the twelve.  He was called and commissioned far from Jerusalem, on the road to Damascus.  His appointment was "not of men, neither by man," but by the glorified Lord Himself (Gal. 1:1).  Moreover, he was, from the beginning, called to a different ministry than the twelve: "to testify the gospel of the grace of God," to "preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Acts 20:24, Eph. 3:8).  But it must not be supposed from this that there was not, at the same time, a connection between the ministry of the twelve in Acts and Paul's ministry at that time, or even between the Acts ministry of the twelve and Paul's post-Acts ministry.

To begin with, Paul represented the same God as the twelve, against whom Israel was now rebelling.  He represented the same Christ, whom Israel was now rejecting.  And "the salvation of God," which Israel had refused, was now being "sent unto the Gentiles" (Matt. 1:21, Acts 4:12, 13:26,46, cf. Acts 28:28).

Furthermore, the apostles at Jerusalem soon came to realize that because Israel was now refusing the risen, glorified Christ, God had chosen Paul to preach salvation to the Gentiles through Israel's fall and, in a solemn covenant, their leaders gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, agreeing to confine their ministry to Israel while Paul went to the Gentiles.

Paul's ministry was not merely the starting of another program separately from the church at Jerusalem.  It was the next step in the program of God, and unless we see the development in the whole program we miss a great deal.

This development is best demonstrated by some of the very passages which extreme dispensationalists use to prove that Paul's Acts ministry was "a Jewish kingdom ministry" in fulfillment of the prophetic program.  We deal with some of these in the following pages.

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

"FOR SO HATH THE LORD COMMANDED US, saying, I have set Thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that Thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth" (Acts 13:46,47).

Because of Paul's words: "for so hath the Lord commanded us" and his quotation of an Old Testament prophecy, it is contended that this ministry of Paul to the Gentiles still had the kingdom in view and was in no way connected with the mystery.  Let us see:

When the Jews at Pisidian Antioch contradicted and blasphemed "those things which were spoken by Paul," he and Barnabas "waxed bold and said:"

"It was NECESSARY that the word of God should first have been spoken to you."

Why was this necessary? The answer is found in Peter's words to the multitudes at Jerusalem:

"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of THE COVENANT WHICH GOD MADE WITH OUR FATHERS, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

"Unto YOU FIRST God, having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (Acts 3:25,26).

The great Abrahamic Covenant guaranteed the blessing of the Gentiles through Israel; therefore Israel first must be saved and blessed.  The whole prophetic program is founded on this great covenant.

This is why our Lord said to the Syrophenician woman: "Let the children first be filled" (Mark 7:27).  This is why He said to the Samaritan woman: "Salvation is of the Jews." This is why He commissioned the eleven to begin their ministry at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47, Acts 1:8).  And mark well: Peter explicitly states, in Acts 3:25,26, that God had sent Christ to bless Israel first because of the covenant made with Abraham.

As we have seen, Paul went to the Jew first, during his early ministry, confirming the fact that "Jesus is the Christ" and seeking to win his hearers to personal faith in Christ.  He did this because God had not yet officially postponed the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.  God was still stretching forth His hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people.  He was not going to leave them with any excuse for rejecting Messiah.  But let us continue with Paul's statement to the Jews at Antioch:

"It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: BUT . . ."

Does not this "but" indicate that there is to be a departure from the prophesied procedure?

Note, however, that it was not unfaithfulness on God's part, but their own unwillingness to accept the fulfillment of God's promise, that caused this change in the program -- a change which God, foreknowing all things, had accordingly planned in His secret, eternal counsels.

"SEEING YE PUT IT FROM YOU, AND JUDGE YOURSELVES UNWORTHY OF EVERLASTING LIFE, LO, WE TURN TO THE GENTILES."

Here let the reader carefully and candidly answer the following questions: Is salvation here being sent to the Gentiles because of Israel's acceptance of Christ, or because of her rejection of Christ?  Is it going to the Gentiles on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant or by grace?  Is it going according to prophecy or according to the mystery?

There is but one answer to each of these questions.  Paul at Pisidian Antioch departed from the prophetic procedure and began to do something never once prophesied, for the salvation of the Gentiles through Israel's rejection of Christ is never anywhere predicted in the prophetic Scriptures (See Rom. 11:11,12,15,25).

But why, it may be asked, does Paul then add:

"FOR SO HATH THE LORD COMMANDED US, SAYING, I HAVE SET THEE TO BE A LIGHT OF THE GENTILES, THAT THOU SHOULDEST BE FOR SALVATION UNTO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH" (Acts 13:47).

Paul does not mean here that the Gentiles are now to receive salvation according to the program outlined in prophecy, for we have already seen that the opposite is the case.  The blessing of the Gentiles through Israel will have to wait until a future day.

The apostle simply points out here that God had "set" Christ to be "a light to the Gentiles" and "for salvation unto the ends of the earth" and that He would have it so, Israel notwithstanding.  Since Israel refused to be the channel of blessing to the nations, God was now to bless the nations directly through Christ, apart from Israel, and Paul had been "commanded" to proclaim this fact.
 
 

"Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying NONE OTHER THINGS than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come" (Acts 26:22).

Extreme dispensationalists have probably used the above passage more than any other to prove their "two body" theory.  This passage, in their opinion, is conclusive proof that until the close of Acts, Paul had preached nothing which the prophets and Moses had not already foretold, confining his ministry entirely to the proclamation of God's prophetic purpose.  Thus in effect, they have Paul preaching "the gospel of the circumcision" which, according to his own testimony, had been committed not to him, but to Peter (Gal. 2:7).

To teach from Acts 26:22 that Paul thus far had taught nothing that the prophets and Moses had not already foretold is manifestly contrary to the record.

As we have seen, neither the prophets nor Moses had foretold anything concerning the salvation of the Gentiles through the fall of Israel.  Nor had they foretold "the gospel of the grace of God," in which neither circumcision nor the law was to have any part.  Nor had they even hinted that Jews and Gentiles would be baptized into one body by the Spirit.  Nor had they said or even known anything about believers being "caught up" to heaven by "the Lord Himself." Yet all of this was proclaimed by Paul before the close of the Acts period (Rom. 11:11,12, Acts 20:24, I Cor. 12:13, I Thes. 4:16,17).

And had not Paul plainly spoken of "the mystery" and its associated "mysteries" in his early epistles?  (Rom. 11:25, 16:25, I Cor. 2:6,7, 4:1, 15:51). Is the mystery, then, to be found in prophecy -- that which was "hidden" and "kept secret," in that which had been "made known"?

Indeed, even if we were to admit that Paul proclaimed the kingdom during his entire Acts ministry, he would then still have taught more than "the prophets and Moses did say should come," for even under the gospel of the kingdom our Lord uttered things which had been "kept secret from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 13:35); truths which neither the prophets¹ nor Moses had even known about.

What, then, did Paul mean by saying to Agrippa that until that time he had witnessed "none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come"?

The answer is simple when we read on:

"That Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles" (Acts 26:25).

In other words, Paul's testimony that Christ had died and risen, and that He was to bring light to Israel and the Gentiles, was nothing but what the prophets and Moses had said should come, and we find from the preceding context that it was because Paul had preached the risen Christ to the Jews and "then to the Gentiles," that the Jews now sought to kill him.

The answer is as simple as that, and the misinterpretation of this simple passage shows how much confusion and loss can result from using one verse in disregard of its context.
 
 

". . . FOR THE HOPE OF ISRAEL I AM BOUND WITH THIS CHAIN" (Acts 28:20).

The above is another passage which extreme dispensationalists frequently use to prove that Paul's Acts ministry was primarily to the Jews and that "to the end Acts deals with the gospel of the kingdom."

But what does the apostle mean by "the hope of Israel"?  Does he mean that which Israel hoped for (i.e., the kingdom), or that which gave her reason to hope (i.e., the resurrection)?  Does he refer to the object of their expectation or their basis for it?  Those who teach the "two body" theory have concluded in favor of the former.  They are sure that Paul meant the promise of the kingdom when he spoke of Israel's hope.

But they are wrong.  Paul had not been imprisoned for proclaiming Israel's kingdom promises.  The Jews had opposed him so bitterly for preaching to the Gentiles a risen Christ whom they were rejecting, while Peter, who represented the kingdom promises, and sought still to bring Israel to Messiah's feet, remained free in Jerusalem.

The very point of Paul's statement here is that the truth of the resurrection of Christ, which the Jews so feared and hated, and which was now taking hold among the Gentiles, was actually "the hope of Israel."

The hope of Israel is the risen Christ.  Thank God, for Israel's sake, that the Sadducees proved to be so utterly wrong when they sought to convince themselves and others that the resurrection of Christ was an impossibility and a delusion; that Christ was dead.

Had this been true, Israel would have been forever without hope.  With the only One who could possibly have been their Messiah dead in a tomb, how would they have been any better off than the followers of Buddha or Mohammed?

What other hope is there for Israel?  Could another son of David arise and be identified now?  Could he arise in time to fulfil the time prophecies of the Old Testament?  And if he could, would that mean that he must still first be "cut off," as Daniel had predicted (Dan. 9:26), before delivering his people from their enemies?

To fit the Hebrew Scriptures concerning Messiah, such an one would have to suffer, die, rise again and ascend into heaven before coming in power and glory to reign.  But it is too late to talk about that now, for no messiah could appear in the time predicted, or even be identified as David's son.  No, if the Christ whom Israel crucified nineteen hundred years ago is not risen and living today, then Israel is utterly and eternally without hope.

That this is what Paul had in mind when he said he was bound with a chain for the hope of Israel is clear from other passages in Acts on the same subject.

In Acts 5:31, for example, we find Peter pointing to the resurrection of Christ as Israel's hope:

"Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."

Paul, of course, had a further revelation concerning the risen Christ, and proclaimed Him as Savior of Jew and Gentile alike -- as the hope of fallen mankind.  This is what hurt the jealous Jews.  Nevertheless Paul insisted that the risen Christ was the hope of his nation too.

In Acts 23:6 we find Paul before the Hebrew council:

"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: OF THE HOPE AND RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD I AM CALLED IN QUESTION."

Note clearly that it was for "the hope and resurrection of the dead" that he had been "called in question," and note the connection with the phrase: "for the hope of Israel am I bound."

In Acts 24:14,15 again the resurrection is the point at issue:

"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

"AND HAVE HOPE TOWARD GOD, WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ALSO ALLOW, THAT THERE SHALL BE A RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, BOTH OF THE JUST AND UNJUST."

In Acts 26:6-8 his argument is the same again.  There he stands before Agrippa and carefully points out just why he is being tried:

"And now I STAND AND AM JUDGED FOR THE HOPE OF THE PROMISE MADE OF GOD UNTO OUR FATHERS:

"Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come.  FOR WHICH HOPE'S SAKE, KING AGRIPPA, I AM ACCUSED OF THE JEWS.

"WHY SHOULD IT BE THOUGHT A THING INCREDIBLE WITH YOU, THAT GOD SHOULD RAISE THE DEAD?"

Here note carefully that the promise referred to was that of kingdom blessing, while "the hope of the promise" was the resurrection of Christ, which was the very foundation of Paul's message.  For this "hope's sake" Paul was "accused of the Jews." Thus it was that the apostle could say to the Jewish leaders in Rome: "For the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain."

That this was in fact why Paul had been "called in question" and "accused" and "judged" and "bound with this chain," is borne out even by Festus who informed Agrippa that when Paul was brought before him the Jews "brought none accusation of such things as I supposed:

"But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one JESUS, WHICH WAS DEAD, WHOM PAUL AFFIRMED TO BE ALIVE" (Acts 25:18,19).

Thus in the book of Acts alone we have overwhelming proof as to the particular point at issue between Paul and those who had had him "bound with this chain." And that point was not his proclamation of the kingdom promises, but his distinctive and powerful proclamation of the resurrection of Christ, which, he maintained, was the hope of Israel.  Had these facts been noted in time in the recovery of the Pauline message much of the confusion of extremism could have been avoided.
 
 

Attention should also be called, at this point, to Rom. 15:8-16 where, after pointing out that "it is written" (Ver. 9) "again" (Ver. 10) "and again" (Ver. 11) "and again" (Ver. 12) that the Gentiles were to be saved, the Apostle Paul points out that God has appointed him "the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles" (Ver. 16).

But here, as in Acts 13:46,47, we simply find again the connection between prophecy and the mystery.

It had indeed been prophesied that the Gentiles would one day rejoice with God's people Israel.

But, as Paul declares to the Romans, Israel herself refused Christ.  How then could the Gentiles be blessed through her?  It is because of this difficulty that the apostle exhorts the Gentiles at Rome:

"NOW THE GOD OF HOPE FILL YOU WITH ALL JOY AND PEACE IN BELIEVING, THAT YE MAY ABOUND IN HOPE, THROUGH THE POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST" (Rom. 15:13).

And then the apostle speaks boldly, not expounding the Scriptures he has just quoted, but declaring his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ:

"Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort [in a sense], as PUTTING YOU IN MIND, BECAUSE OF THE GRACE THAT IS GIVEN TO ME OF GOD,

"THAT I SHOULD BE THE MINISTER OF JESUS CHRIST TO THE GENTILES, ministering the gospel of God, THAT THE OFFERING UP OF THE GENTILES MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE, BEING SANCTIFIED BY THE HOLY GHOST" (Rom. 15:15,16).

Here again we have God sending salvation to the Gentiles, not in the manner prescribed in prophecy, but sending it nevertheless.  We might paraphrase the apostle's argument thus:

"That the Gentiles should glorify God for His mercy is written again and again and again.  You say that Israel, through whom the blessing should flow, is rejecting Christ?  Then just trust and rejoice in God, and let me speak boldly and remind you of the grace given to me, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles.  And my offering up of the Gentiles is acceptable to God, too, for it is being sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

How beautiful this passage is!  Those who would understand the plan of God should read it again and again until the blessed truth of it is fully comprehended.
 
 

A final word in this connection should be written for those who stumble over such phrases as "Abraham's seed" and "heirs according to the promise," applied to Gentile believers in Paul's early writings.

Is not Christ Abraham's seed?  Are not we members of Christ?  Do we not fall heir to all things in Him?  True, we became heirs through God's secret, eternal purpose, when the promise seemed to have failed, but the fact remains that we Gentiles have become heirs.²

Moreover, we have become heirs "according to the promise," for the promise was to Abraham and his seed and we, being in Christ, are indeed Abraham's seed.  Thus Israel, to whom the promise pertained (Rom. 9:4), did not become heir, while we, the members of the secret, unprophesied body have become heirs in Christ.  This, however, does not nullify the promises made to the nation, Abraham's natural seed.

Those who stumble at such phrases as these should certainly have difficulty with many phrases in Paul's later epistles, where we read that we are "sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise" and made "partakers of His promise in Christ, by the gospel" (Eph. 1:13, 3:6, cf. Gal. 3:14,22,29).  But these passages are no stumbling block when we take proper note of the relation between prophecy and the mystery.
 
 

1.  Give three indications that the apostleship of Paul, from the beginning, was distinct from that of the twelve.

2.  What connection was there between their ministries?

3.  In what solemn agreement between the Jerusalem apostles and Paul, are both the distinction and the connection emphasized?

4.  Name three passages of Scripture often used by extreme dispensationalists to prove that Paul did not begin preaching the mystery until after Acts 28.

5.  Why had it been "necessary" to preach the Word of God to the Jews first?

6.  How did the Jews at Pisidian Antioch respond when Paul brought the Word of God to them first?

7.  What did Paul do then?

8.  Was this according to prophecy or according to the mystery?

9.  Name three unprophesied truths proclaimed by Paul before Acts 28.

10.  What had he preached that was in strict accordance with what the prophets and Moses had said should come?

11.  What is "the hope of Israel"?

12.  Explain the difference between "the promise made of God unto the fathers" and "the hope of the promise . . . ."

13.  Was Paul imprisoned for proclaiming the promise or the hope?

14.  Did Old Testament prophecy predict the salvation of the Gentiles?

15.  Did it predict the salvation of the Gentiles through Israel's fall?

16.  Has God sent salvation to the Gentiles?

17.  Has He sent it in the manner prescribed in prophecy?

18.  Did He send it through the twelve, under the "great commission"?

19.  Did He send it in connection with Israel's rise or fall?

20.  In what sense are believers today Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise?