|
|
 Right Division In Practice - Articles 11 thru 15
|
|
RIGHT DIVISION IN PRACTICE #11
The Acts of the Apostles
Luke’s gospel and Acts are addressed to the same person. Theophilus (Beloved of God
). This one item ought to tell us who the writer of Acts might be. If the reader is interested in the places in the record where Luke is associated with Paul, he only has to look for the sections
where the writer uses the pronoun we. These prove the authorship without question.
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach.
This first verse not only gives a clue to the authorship, but it states the content of the book. The subject is Jesus:
and the continuation of what he began in His earthly ministry, His works and His teaching. This is not the Acts of the
Apostles, as is the common idea. It is not what they did and taught. And neither is it the Acts of the Holy Spirit, as so
many suggest. There is some truth in that, but Luke says that it is the Acts of Jesus.
One of the easiest things in the world then is to find exactly what the content of Acts is. All we have to do is to go
back to the gospels and see what the record is of what the Lord began to do and to teach. His subject was, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand
(Matt 4:17, Mark 1:14,15). And along with His teaching were miracles and signs.
The commission of Mark 16:15-18 was literally carried out in Acts with the signs following. The Lord was still
teaching and working thru the apostles.
To whom (the apostles) also He shewed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs, being
seen of them forty (40) days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Not only is the first verse of Acts denied and set aside, but this 3rd verse is also nullified. The popular teaching
today is that although these apostles were taught concerning the kingdom during the 40 days, they rebelled and started a church at Pentecost instead of obeying the Lord as to the kingdom.
Thus the whole trend and purpose of Acts is nullified and denied. The apostles knew very well that these were
the last days (1John 2:18), the end of the world or age, and that the new world or age was at hand. That was their
message, that the kingdom age was at hand. They could have proved it from Dan 9:24.
But orthodoxy today reverses and denies all this and says that it was the beginning of the church, and says that it
was the beginning of the church, that it was the first times, not the last. Those who honestly search the Scriptures find
that the theme that is announced in verse 1 is carried right thru to the very last. In Acts 28: 3-6 is related the miracle the
Lord did which saved Paul from sudden death. In the same chapter, verse 23-29, thru the mouth of Paul, the Lord was still
preaching the kingdom. Then came the end, and the salvation of God was sent to the Gentiles. No church ever began in
Acts. You will have to go the Ephesians and Colossians to find the beginning of the church.
As John the Baptizer, the Lord, the 12 and the 70 preached repentance and the kingdom up to Calvary, so did the
12, Paul, and others preach the same message and perform the same miracles and signs during Acts. Now it is up to you to search and see.
|
|
RIGHT DIVISION IN PRACTICE #12
In Acts 1:3 we noticed that the Lord taught the apostles whom He had chosen. He spent 40 days with them. The theme of His
teaching was kingdom, not the church, as tradition would have it.
They were not to begin teaching what He had taught them until they had been endured with power from on high, or
baptized with the Holy Ghost. He said that it would be but a few days till this would happen. So they were to stay at Jerusalem till this event took place. They stayed.
In the interval of 10 days from the ascension to the day of Pentecost, they chose another to take the place from
which Judas by transgression fell. They also had prayer meetings and some of the women were present. What were they expecting?
We have anticipated a little. In verse 6 they asked the Lord if He would at that time restore the kingdom to
Israel. A natural question. Had He not been teaching them 40 days concerning the kingdom?
And with the kingdom in mind when the 12 apostles would sit on 12 thrones and rule with Christ, was it not natural
that they would fill up the number of 12 by choosing Matthias? Twelve is the number of dominion. That has to do with the kingdom.
With all this background and preparation for the kingdom, how is it that people today accuse Peter of beginning a
church at Pentecost instead of continuing with the Lord’s instructions? Did Peter misunderstand? Or did the apostles decide to disobey and begin a church there? The traditionalists
cannot answer these questions.
And if Peter was preaching the church, which is made up of Jew and Gentile, how was it that he addressed his
audience. Ye men of Israel? What would Gentiles be doing in Jerusalem on a Jewish feast day, anyway? Going back to verses 8 to 11 in the 2nd chapter, we have the audience listed, the people that were visiting Jerusalem at that time. There were Jews and proselytes from nearly every country under heaven, but no mention of Gentiles. How do the traditionalists get Gentiles into this picture?
And when Peter preaches at Pentecost, he quotes a plenty of the OT concerning the last days and the setting up of
the kingdom, but not a word concerning a church. Christ bore the label. Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews when He died. Note in verse 30 that this Jesus, the same One, was
raised up, not to be Head of a church, but to sit on the throne of His father, David. This is kingdom, not church.
When the people were convinced and convicted of the truth, they were told to repent. This was the same as
what John had preached at the Jordan, Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Now just where in the Bible is anyone told to repent in order to enter the church? And when did Peter
ever hear of a church of which Christ was the Head?
At the end of chapter 2 we find that the miracles, which had accompanied the preaching of the
kingdom, are still being worked. Mention is made of a promise made to the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). So there is every evidence that the kingdom was in view and no evidence of a church
can be found.
|
|
RIGHT DIVISION IN PRACTICE #13
Acts 3-6
When one starts to read Acts 3 he can see that the idea of a church stating in Acts 2 is only a silly notion.
Peter and John are going up to the temple. The church was never in the temple. The Gentiles could not enter, except into the court of Gentiles. And Jews and Gentiles did not mingle there,
or anywhere else save in the market place.
The lame man was a Jew and so when healed he too entered the temple. Later we find that he was about 40 years
old, or maybe above, which means that he was helpless and unable to walk for 40 years, the time that Israel wasted in the wilderness. This healing was a lesson to and for the Jews.
Further light is gained from 3:25. Peter’s audience were the children of the prophets, Jews. No
church made up of Jew and Gentle in evidence here.
In chapter 4 you find that these apostles are under the jurisdiction of the rulers of the Jews. Even the
Sadducees take part in trying to suppress them because resurrection was the theme. The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection. If there had been Gentles preaching the truth, they would hardly
have been under the law of the Jews, but would have had to answer to the Romans. This brings up another point. The apostles did not obey the religious authorities. But never did nay
apostles, even Paul, teach or practice civil disobedience. Another case of right division. Even today Christians are not teaching and practicing civil disobedience. That is the work of the
Communists and other enemies.
Peter time after time makes it plain that it was the Jews that crucified their Messiah. It was solely their
responsibility. Pilate had washed his hands of the affair and made them to understand that it was their doings. They accepted the blame and said that they were willing that His blood should be on
them and their children. But notice how that they renege on this bargain in Acts 5:28. Not very consistent!
Chapter 5 tells us about a couple of liars and the result of their lying. Again this shows us plainly that
this is not the church with its grace program. The law is in force and Ananias and Sapphire die the death, the penalty of a broken law.
The speaking in tongues at Pentecost and this evidence of the law at work shows that these folks indeed are tasting
of the age to come, that is, the kingdom. In kingdom preaching there is no time to waste in schools learning the languages. And when the great commission time comes when the apostles will preach
the kingdom to the nations during the millennium, there is to be one language, a pure language. So Pentecost was a foreshadowing.
So up to the end of chapter 5 we still find that the affairs mentioned are strictly Jewish and about the kingdom,
not the church. All authorities are Jewish and they deal with Jews. No gentiles there.
The Grecians in chapter 6 are Greek speaking Jews, Hellenistes. Greek speaking Gentiles were all called Hellens. And these in turn called all people who could not speak Greek, Barbaros. Nations in general were called Ethonos. Note
that all meetings were in Synagogues in chapter 6. Better watch Stephen!
|
|
RIGHT DIVISION IN PRACTICE #14
Acts 6-9
In Acts 6:3 there was an appointment of 7 men to take over the business of distribution of goods and food to the poor. Only Stephen and Philip are heard of again. Tradition
says that these 7 men were deacons, but the word deacon is not used in Acts.
In these early days of the Pentecostal administration, we must rightly distinguish between temple and
synagogue. The temple was a place of worship. The synagogue was a place of instruction from the Scriptures and also a court to settle disputes and keep heresy out. Today, God has not
designated any place for worship. The temple is gone. Our Lord said that worship should be in spirit and in truth, not in some building and with rituals and priesthood. Worship is a scarce
word in the epistles to us Gentiles. Maybe we should look into this.
Acts 7:2-53 contains Stephen’s sermon. It is a history of the nation of Israel from Abraham up to the
time they crucified their Messiah and were now rejecting the testimony concerning Him. It is a sermon made up of condemnation and with no offer of mercy or salvation. This testimony to the truth
of them and their fathers cost Stephen his life.
But remember this, thus far there is nothing said about Gentle believers among all these thousands in Jerusalem who
had taken to the Way.
Chapter 8 tells us that Saul was consenting to the death of Stephen. In 7:58 we are told that the took care
of the garments of those who stoned Stephen. Again we must say that this was strictly a Jewish affair, no Gentiles being involved; no, not even the Roman guard. That a church began at Pentecost
made up of Jews and Gentiles is pure fiction, a myth.
Saul began persecuting the Christian Jews. Thus came about the dispersion of the believers from
Jerusalem. But the apostles remained.
Acts 8:26-39 tells of Philip preaching to a man from Ethiopia, a eunuch and a man of authority in the court of the
queen. Again we must read carefully and use our right division. It does not say that this eunuch was an Ethiopian. He does have the prophecy of Isaiah. Certainly then, he was a Jew, a
slave and a man of authority like Daniel was in Babylon and later in Medo-Persia. This was no Gentile.
Saul was a devout Jew, a Pharisee, a teacher of the law, a member of the Sanhedrin, a believer in the Jehovah of
Israel and looked for the coming Messiah. There is no doubt about his having life as we find it offered in John 3:16 and as Peter speaks of such in Acts 19:43. but Saul had not accepted the fact
that Jesus of Nazareth was the King long looked for. So Saul could have no part in the first resurrection nor enter into the kingdom. So Saul had life, but was not saved. Hence the
necessity of his experience on the road to Damascus.
Do not make a mistake here. Saul was learning about the King and the kingdom, not the church. And immediately Saul began to preach what he had seen
Stephen and the other apostles preaching (Acts 26:16). If at this time Saul proclaimed the dispensation of the mystery, then the 12 were preaching the same. Come now, just how do you read it?
|
|
RIGHT DIVISION IN PRACTICE #15
Acts 10-13
Acts 10 marks one of the important turning points in history. The date was about 38, or 9 years after Pentecost in chapter
2. No Gentiles had any part in the happenings at Pentecost. The apostles were still preaching Christ as the King of the Jews. Even as late as Acts 11:19 we are told that upon the scattering
abroad because of the persecution and death of Stephen, they preached the Word unto none but unto the Jews only. So Peter was the first to preach a message unto Gentile believers.
This is brought out in Acts 15:7 where Peter declares that God made a choice of him to proclaim the gospel to
Gentiles. James takes it up in verse 14 and tells how that in the house of Cornelius the gospel was first preached to Gentiles.
Now read chapter 10 very carefully and see how that God had to prepare Peter to go and speak to a Gentile
believer. Peter had never done such a thing before. Note also in verse 43 that the word whosoever is used. This is very significant.
Nothing more is said of any of the 12 ever going to Gentiles with a gospel after this one event in Acts 10.
After acts is over and the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, then John writes his gospel and it is to Gentiles.
About 8 years after the events of acts 10, we find Paul in Antioch in Pisidia along with Barnabas. He there
turns from the Jews to the Gentile believers and preaches to them the kingdom.
There is a reason why that Peter and then Paul preached to Gentiles during acts. It was something out of
time. This commission of preaching to the Gentile nations was not to be done by the 12 till the time of the millennium as given in Matt 28:18-20. But it had been foretold, and Paul reviews the
Scriptures about it in Rom 11. It was done to provoke Israel to jealousy so they would bear fruit. When there was a rejection of the messiah in Jerusalem and Judea, Peter went to the
Gentiles. When Israel outside the land rejected, then Paul turned to the Gentiles. This was no mystery. Moses had foretold it. So this is not the beginning of the mystery.
No one yet has found the church of the dispensation of the mystery in Acts 9,10 or 13. The whole time of acts
is still a part of the 70 weeks (490 years) reckoned from the dedication of the temple in 405 B.C. The salvation of God was never sent to the Gentiles till Acts 28:28. Up till that time, salvation was
still of the Jews (John 4:22). The Jew was first (Rom. 2:9,10). The kingdom was in view (Acts 1:6).
Chapter 11 of Acts shows plainly that Peter has done something very much out of the ordinary. He was called
in question before the rest of the apostles. He had a hard time explaining why he spoke to Gentiles about the kingdom of God. But he had witnesses who said that the Holy Ghost came there as it
had at the first at Pentecost, and so the apostles were reconciled to the idea of Gentiles coming into the hope and blessings of the kingdom by grace.
Paul was told in his Damascus vision that he would be sent far hence unto the Gentiles (Acts
22:21). So his efforts failed in both Damascus and Jerusalem.
|
|
|
