QUESTION: Does not the fact that Romans states that the gospel is to the Jew first and that there was much profit in every way in circumcision and advantage in being a Jew, Ch. 1:16 and 3:1,2, prove that at the time Romans was written the Body of Christ and the dispensation of the mystery had not yet begun?

ANSWER: These statements must be considered in the light of their context, and in the light of other epistles written at the same time and even earlier. Let us ask first what Paul meant when he said that the gospel was to the Jew first. He surely did not mean that at the time he was writing the Jews had a priority over the Greeks. Ch. 10:12 states: “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him.” Therefore Ch. 1:16 cannot mean that there was at that time a difference. Ch. 11 further shows that Israel nationally at that time had fallen from its position of privilege and had been cast away and that blindness in part had happened to the nation. In the light of these and may similar statements it is most difficult to understand how anyone could claim that the Jews were at that time in a place of priority over the Gentiles. Instead, God had concluded them both in unbelief, that is, He had put Jews and Gentiles all on the same footing, under sin, so that He might have mercy upon all.

In order to bolster up the theory that the Body of Christ had its beginning only after Acts 28, it is necessary to take these statements from Romans out of their context and try to make people believe that they mean that the Jews at that time were in spiritual supremacy over the Gentiles, a condition which would surely be antagonistic to the truth of the Body of Christ. Romans 11 by itself disproves the theory that there was a difference between Jews and Gentiles at that time, and Ch. 12:5 proves that the Body of Christ was already in existence.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: If Paul was ministering the Gospel of the grace of God during the Acts period, how do you reconcile this with the fact that he circumcised Timothy, took a Jewish vow and shaved his head in Cenchrea, and again took a vow and shaved his head and even offered an animal sacrifice in Jerusalem?

ANSWER: It cannot be denied that Paul had written during the period that he did these things: “If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing,” and “ye are not under law, but under grace.” And it is most evident from Acts 20:24 that Paul was ministering the Gospel of the grace of God at that time. Therefore, as we see it, only one of two things could be true: either Paul was out of the will of God and was going contrary to what he had written, or there was a dispensational situation then present which made it possible for him to engage in these practices without frustrating the grace of God. We believe that the latter is the true explanation.

While it is true that “in Christ” there was no difference between Jew and Gentile, and that there was no difference in the position of the Jew and Gentile regarding the privilege of salvation, there was this distinction between these two groups during the latter half of the Acts period. Although Israel nationally had been cast aside by the time Paul wrote Galatians and Romans, God permitted the temple with its worship and ministry to continue for some years. During this interim of God’s longsuffering, the Jewish believers continued in their practice of the law; for they had never been commanded to do otherwise. In Acts 15:28 the Holy Spirit placed His approval upon the distinction that the apostles made: namely, that the Gentiles which believe should observe no such things as did the Jewish believers, Acts 21:25. This distinction had nothing to do with the matter of salvation, as Peter plainly states in Acts 15:9, but was concerned wholly with the outward observance of those things of the law of Moses, around which the national life of the Jews was built. For example, in Israel one whole tribe was dependent for its livelihood upon the temple sacrifices and the tithes of the other tribes. As long as God permitted Israel’s national structure to stand, it was necessary for the Mosaic practices to continue.

We must remember that Paul was an Israelite and a Jew, and as such he had a right to become a Jew unto the Jews. This is what he did when he took Timothy, a half-Jew and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters. Of course, Paul would not have tolerated for one moment of the circumcising of a Gentile believer, cf Gal. 2:3-5. And we can be sure that Paul was not surrendering in Acts 21 what he had fought so hard for in Acts 15. It is our firm belief that the transitional character of the latter half of the Acts period fully explains Paul’s seeming inconsistency in engaging in the Jewish practices against which he had warned the Gentile believers. Paul was not perfect in the sense of being incapable of making mistakes, but we do not believe he made any mistake in these particular matters.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: Are Christians never named sheep, always saints?

ANSWER: Paul never uses the word sheep as a name for saints today. The only time he uses the word is in Rom. 8:36. “we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” A quotation from Ps. 44:22. He uses the word flock in I Cor. 9:7: “who feedeth a flock, and eateth not the milk of the flock?” And then, of course, he uses the word pastor, in Eph. 4:11, which is literally the word shepherd.

Israel, as God’s covenant people, are looked upon as God’s flock, as God’s pleasant vine, whereas the Gentiles who were alienated from God are looked upon as dogs, as wild beasts and uncultivated plants. Israel was in times past near to God by reason of the covenant whereas the Gentiles were far off. This is no doubt the teaching of the scriptures and it is important to keep these dispensational distinctions in mind.

There is another truth, however, that is just as important, and that is to see that while God did make a difference between Israel and the Gentiles for a while, He did so in order to show that essentially there was no difference. We as members of the Body of Christ can surely appropriate the blessed spiritual truths in such passages as Psalm 23 and John 10. These truths are not for us only: they are also for the redeemed Israel. I fear that some have carried the distinction made above to the extent that they can’t get any blessing out of reading: “I am the good shepherd, the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. . . My sheep hear my voice, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

C.F.B.

QUESTION: Is the Gospel of the uncircumcision the same as the Gospel of Justification by faith, and is justification by faith the same as salvation by grace?

ANSWER: A search of the New Testament Scriptures shows that Paul, to whom was committed the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, used the words justification, justified, justifieth, justifier, and justify 29 times, whereas the apostle of the Circumcision never uses these words, except for James, who in 2:21,24,25 says: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac . . . ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only . . . likewise also was not Rehab the harlot justified by works . . .” Paul uses the word just in connection with justification by faith 3 times, and this word is used 3 times also in the writings to the circumcision, Heb. 10:38, “the just shall live by faith,” (which is also quoted by Paul in Rom. 1:17 and Gal. 3:11); I Pet. 3:18. “Christ hath also once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust”; and I John 1:9, “. . . He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins . . .”

While it is plainly evident that Paul alone unfolds the doctrine of justification by faith, it appears that others knew something about it, and it was even contained in germ in the O.T. Scripture, Heb. 2:4. The Gospel of the uncircumcision is surely based upon the doctrine of justification by faith, but it is more than just that. To see the real distinctions between the gospels of the Circumcision and of the Uncircumcision, it is necessary to study the life of Abram before Gen. 17 and after Gen. 17 as Paul sets it forth in Rom. 4. Before Gen. 17 Abram was a heathen or Gentile coming from an idolatrous home. Josh. 24:2, when God appeared to him and justified him by faith. Some years later God made a further covenant with him and changed his name to Abraham, and it seems evident from Gen. 26:5 that this covenant of Circumcision was a conditional or works covenant; for we read that God promised His blessings to Isaac “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Paul’s Gospel was a message of salvation for Gentiles in their idolatry and heathenism. I Thes. 1:9, apart from any covenant relationship, whereas the Gospel of the Circumcision was a message for a people that were in covenant relationship with God. Because the Gentiles were saved under Paul’s gospel by faith apart from works, they were called children of Abraham, but they were no more under the covenant of Circumcision than Abram was when he was first justified by faith.

For all practical purposes, I would say that justification by faith is the same as salvation by grace.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: In the light of the following Scriptures would you say that the fall of Israel was part of the mystery revealed to Paul, or to use another word, was it unprophesied truth? Deut. 32:21; Isa 65:1; Rom. 10:19, 20; Luke 2:34.

ANSWER: I would not say that the fall of Israel in itself was a part of Paul’s message of the mystery; for it is plainly revealed in the Old Testament. Israel nationally has had several falls and dispersions. The particular truth which Paul connects with the mystery is this, “that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” Rom. 11:25. The fulness of the Gentiles, through and because of Israel’s fall, is the thing Paul is speaking about. Gentile salvation through and because of Israel’s blessing is predicted throughout the prophets, but not the fullness of the Gentiles through Israel’s disobedience and fall, which Paul declares to be the fact in this present dispensation of the mystery.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: Is the Great Commission as given in Mark 16:15-18 to be followed in present day missions? I have been confronted by some friends of another church and have refrained giving an opinion without more light on the subject.

ANSWER: We do not believe that this commission is for members of the Body of Christ in this present dispensation for the following reasons:

1. Water baptism for the remission of sins, as commanded here and as practiced by the apostles at Pentecost, Acts 2: 38, cannot be reconciled with the revelation of truth given through Paul for this dispensation. Paul was not sent to baptize, and this fact would immediately rule him out as being under this commission. If we follow Christ by following Paul, preaching the gospel of the grace of God, we will find that we are also ruled out as being under this commission. It is not possible to be sent to baptize and to be sent not to baptize at one and the same time.

2. The gospel referred to in this commission is the Gospel of the Kingdom. This is the Gospel which our Lord preached while He was on earth. It has in view the establishment of the earthly kingdom. This gospel has in it a lot of grace, but it is distinct and separate from what the Scripture calls the gospel of the grace of God, which Christ revealed to Paul after His ascension. One who is preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom today as called for in this commission is just not in the will of God. Of course, most preachers who take this commission for themselves mix in with the Kingdom Gospel quite a bit of truth from Paul’s Gospel, and while people may get saved through such preaching, such converts never become fully established in God’s truth. Paul’s Gospel, Rom. 16:25, is the only thing that can establish believers today.

3. This commission demands something besides believing for salvation. “He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved.” If there is one thing made plain in Paul’s epistles it is that there is no AND to be added after believing, as far as salvation is concerned. We are justified by faith apart from any kind of religious work. Some men, unwilling to give up this commission but seeing the inconsistency with Paul if the baptism is interpreted as water, have argued that the baptism here is Holy Spirit. This is surely a forced interpretation and it is surely one that is contrary to the practice of the Twelve in the early chapters of Acts.

4. The miraculous signs and wonders which were promised to follow the preaching of the Kingdom Gospel do not follow the preaching of the Gospel of the Grace today. There are many who claim the power of healing the sick and speaking with new tongues, and a few try handling poisonous serpents. Of course there are many people, such as zoo keepers, who also handle such snakes, but when the snake bites the religious zealot it has the same effect upon him as it does upon the zoo keeper. And the so-called cases of healing fall so far short of the healings of Scripture that there just isn’t any comparison.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: What is the Church of God, I Cor. 10:32? Paul said he persecuted the church of God. If the Body of Christ did not begin until Acts 13 or later, how could Paul have persecuted the Church of God, if the Church of God in I Cor. 10:32 is the Body of Christ? Can you prove that the church of God which Paul persecuted was different from the one in I Cor. 10:32?

ANSWER: The expression, “church of God,” may be applied to any called-out group which belongs to God. It is not a specific, technical expression, such as “the church which is His body,” Eph. 1:22, 23, although this church is surely also the church of God. In the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament which is quoted in the New Testament, the word “congregation” is rendered by the New Testament word for church, see Heb. 2:12 cf. Ps. 22:22. Upon the authority of this usage we find that the word “church” and the expression “church of God” appear many times in the Old Testament, see Neh. 13:1. Paul in I Tim. 3:5, 15, which was written after the Acts period, still speaks of the Church of God. If there was a difference between the church of God in Neh. 13:1 and that in I Tim. 3:5, 15, then there may be a difference between the Pentecostal church of God which Paul persecuted, and the Church of God in I Cor. 10:32, which Paul established. We believe that there was a difference because the Pentecostal church was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and was wholly Israelitish, whereas the church which is Christ’s body was not a subject of prophecy, and it was and is a joint-body of Jews and Gentiles.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: Can you explain Eph. 3:5?

ANSWER: I take it that you have reference to the expression, “as it is now revealed,” which has been used as an argument that the mystery concerning the Body of Christ was revealed in the Old Testament but was not clearly understood, and that it was merely given to Paul to shed more light upon the subject. Those who oppose the truth of the Mystery say that Paul here is talking about the same thing as Peter, in I Pet. 1:10-12. But in opposition to this we have the unqualified statements: “The mystery, which was kept secret since the world began”—Rom. 16:25; “The mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God” –Eph. 3:9; “the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations”—Col. 1:26. Unqualified statements such as these could not be true if this mystery had been previously revealed. If Paul only shed a little more light on the subject, then we should be able to find this truth in some previously written scripture, and the very fact that no place outside of the Pauline epistles can be found a hint of the truth of the Church which is Christ’s Body in which Jew and Gentile are joint heirs (contra. Deut. 18:13; Zech 8:23), is added proof that the “as” in Eph. 3:5 does not mean this. This “as” should be connected with the “as” in vs. 3.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: Is the resurrection “in the last day,” John 6:39, 40, 44, 54, different from the other resurrection?

ANSWER: The resurrection “at the last day” has been taken as proof by Post and A-millennialists that there will be only one general resurrection day, and they think to prove their point by quoting John 12:48: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” Therefore they say that the resurrection and judgment of both the saved and the unsaved will take place at the same time, at the last day. In spite of the fact that Rev. 20:5 plainly states that one thousand years intervene between these two events, they hold to their error and explain away the book of Revelation by inventing the interpretation that the first resurrection means the conversion of the sinner. But if this is so, then we must of necessity be now reigning with Christ and such passages as Rom. 8:18-25 and II Tim. 2:12 become senseless. The last day does not always have the same meaning as to specific time; for in John 7:37 the last day was not to be the last of all days, but merely the last day of the feast. So likewise, the last day of the blessed dead is an altogether different day from the last day of the unsaved dead. Therefore no doctrine as to the specific time of these resurrections can be built upon the expression, the last day. The specific time is given in Rev. 20:5, 6.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: When will the saints who lived from Adam to Moses be resurrected? Will they be in the New Jerusalem?

ANSWER: We are told that “many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 8:11, and we believe that that kingdom will be established at the second coming of Christ, so these saints must be raised before the Millennium. We know that all the dead in Christ will be raised before that time, I Thess. 4:13- 18, and we know what is designated as the first resurrection in Rev. 20:5, 6 will also take place before that time. Some believe that the former is just an earlier phase of the latter, the one occurring at the beginning and the other at the end of the great tribulation. I would say that the former is synonymous with the mystery of I Cor. 15:51, 52, and is therefore connected with the Body of Christ solely, which is itself called a mystery, I Cor. 12:27 cf. Eph. 3:3 6. It is logical to suppose that since the truth concerning the Body was a secret revealed only through Paul, that the truth concerning its out-calling was also a secret revealed only through Paul. That would place all of the remainder of the righteous dead in the first resurrection of Rev. 20.

We know that Abraham looked for the heavenly city, Heb. 11:10, and we know that he will sit down in the kingdom of heaven. It would seem from this that there will be a very close relationship between the New Jerusalem and the Millennial Kingdom.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: Were the Jews under the Old Testament born naturally as children of God by virtue of the covenants, as I recently heard a radio preacher claim?

ANSWER: The nation of Israel had a place of nearness to God by virtue of the covenants, Eph. 2:12, 17, which the Gentiles did not enjoy until Christ broke down the middle wall of partition, vs. 14. Paul makes it clear, however, that individual Israelites in time past were not born naturally as children of God, but “were by nature the children of wrath, even as others,” vs. 3. Why should Jesus have told Nicodemus that he must be born again, if he had already been born a child of God by nature? In John 8:44 Jesus called the religious Jews the children of the devil. In Deut. 14:1 Moses called the Israelites children of the Lord your God, but nothing is there said as to how and when they became the children of God.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: It is usually taught from 2 Thess. 2:7 that the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the world when the Church is taken up to be with the Lord. Does this verse refer to the Holy Spirit? If so, how can the Gospel of the Kingdom be preached in all the world without the Holy Spirit? (Matt. 24:14) How would there be any witness of Christ without the Holy Spirit?

ANSWER: A number of interpretations have been given to this difficult passage. The earlier protestant commentators tried to make the man of sin to be the Roman Catholic Church and the restraining power to be the Roman Empire which kept the Roman bishops in check until the fall of the empire in 476 A.D. You have stated the generally accepted premillennial interpretation as presented in the Scofield Bible. I personally do not agree that this is the real interpretation of 2 Thess. 2:7, although it is true that the Holy Spirit indwells the church and that the church is going to be removed at the rapture.

The language itself poses one of the greatest difficulties in this passage. What is the meaning of the words, “withholdeth” and “let,” in vs. 6 and 7? In the Greek they are one in the same word, which means to hold fast, and the word is so translated in I Thess. 5:21, “Hold fast that which is good.” To translate this, “Restrain or withhold that which is good,” would completely reverse the meaning. Therefore I cannot believe that this word means withhold or restrain in the passage under consideration. Although I do not agree with Dr. E. W. Bullinger in some of his teachings, I believe he has translated this passage correctly in his book, The Church Epistles,

“Do ye not remember, that while I was yet with you I said these things to you? And what holdeth (him) fast now, ye know, to the end that he should be revealed in his own (appointed) time. For the secret (counsel) of lawlessness is already working: only, there is one (Satan) who at present holdeth fast (to his possessions in the heavenlies) until he be cast out (into the earth), Rev. xii. 9-12, and stand upon the sand of the sea. Rev. xiii. 1, R.V.)”

The unholy trinity of the Revelation, Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet, who shall be cast into the lake of fire finally, are here seen as Satan, the Lawless One and the Man of Sin. According to Rev. 9:1, 2 and 11:7, the Beast is now held fast in the abyss and will come forth in the earth when the angel opens that place at the beginning of the Great Tribulation.

It is evident from such passages as Rev. 11:11 that the Holy Spirit will be present and will be working in the world during the time of great tribulation. The Spirit is omnipresent and of course in that sense has always been in the world and always will be. We must recognize that his ministry has varied during the different dispensations.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: Were the Jews under the Old Testament born naturally as children of God by virtue of the covenants, as I recently heard a radio preacher claim?

ANSWER: The nation of Israel had a place of nearness to God by virtue of the covenants, Eph. 2:12, 17, which the Gentiles did not enjoy until Christ broke down the middle wall of partition, vs. 14. Paul makes it clear, however, that individual Israelites in time past were not born naturally as children of God, but “were by nature the children of wrath, even as others,” vs. 3. Why should Jesus have told Nicodemus that he must be born again, if he had already been born a child of God by nature? In John 8:44 Jesus called the religious Jews the children of the devil. In Deut. 14:1 Moses called the Israelites children of the Lord your God, but nothing is there said as to how and when they became the children of God.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: It is usually taught from 2 Thess. 2:7 that the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the world when the Church is taken up to be with the Lord. Does this verse refer to the Holy Spirit? If so, how can the Gospel of the Kingdom be preached in all the world without the Holy Spirit? (Matt. 24:14) How would there be any witness of Christ without the Holy Spirit?

ANSWER: A number of interpretations have been given to this difficult passage. The earlier protestant commentators tried to make the man of sin to be the Roman Catholic Church and the restraining power to be the Roman Empire which kept the Roman bishops in check until the fall of the empire in 476 A.D. You have stated the generally accepted premillennial interpretation as presented in the Scofield Bible. I personally do not agree that this is the real interpretation of 2 Thess. 2:7, although it is true that the Holy Spirit indwells the church and that the church is going to be removed at the rapture.

The language itself poses one of the greatest difficulties in this passage. What is the meaning of the words, “withholdeth” and “let,” in vs. 6 and 7? In the Greek they are one and the same word, which means to hold fast, and the word is so translated in I Thess. 5:21, “Hold fast that which is good.” To translate this, “Restrain or withhold that which is good,” would completely reverse the meaning. Therefore I cannot believe that this word means withhold or restrain in the passage under consideration. Although I do not agree with Dr. E. W. Bullinger in some of his teachings, I believe he has translated this passage correctly in his book, The Church Epistles,

“Do ye not remember, that while I was yet with you I said these things to you? And what holdeth (him) fast now, ye know, to the end that he should be revealed in his own (appointed) time. For the secret (council) of lawlessness is already working: only, there is one (Satan) who at present holdeth fast (to his possessions in the heavenlies) until he be cast out (into the earth), Rev. xii. 9-12, and stand upon the sand of the sea. Rev. xii. 1, R.V.)”

The unholy trinity of the Revelation, Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet, who shall be cast into the lake of fire finally, are here seen as Satan, the Lawless One, and the Man of Sin. According to Rev. 9:1, 2 and 11:7, the Beast is now held fast in the abyss and will come forth in the earth when the angel opens that place at the beginning of the great tribulation.

It is evident from such passages as Rev. 11:11 that the Holy Spirit will be present and will be working in the world during the time of great tribulation. The Spirit is omnipresent and of course in that sense has always been in the world and always will be. We must recognize that His ministry has varied during the different dispensations.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: Since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, is it not impossible for a man TO ACCEPT Christ by making up his mind to. Does not man either believe (by illumination of the Holy Spirit) that Christ has paid for his sins, or otherwise he can’t understand it (no prevenient grace)? Does predestination affect a man before he is born of the Spirit or after? If before, how do we reconcile that with “God is not willing that any should perish” and “to seek and to save that which is lost?”

ANSWER: A clear distinction needs to be made between the moral depravity of man’s will and human responsibility. Man left to himself would never will to do God’s will, because “the carnal mind (man’s whole nature before he is saved) is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” But nevertheless God holds man to be fully responsible for rejecting His mercy and grace. The case is similar to that of a man who is so embittered against another that he declares with a vengeance: “Even though it costs me my life, I will never to my dying day accept anything from that man.” It is not that he couldn’t that he wasn’t able to, but that he had willed that he would not. Man’s moral depravity is not that he is unable to do anything that is good, for unsaved people do many things which are intrinsically good, but that his mind is at enmity with God, so that he does not will to do God’s will.

John 1:13 makes it plain that it is not by the will of the flesh or by the will of man that man is born again. Christ said unto the Jews: “Ye will not come unto me” (you have willed not to come, or it is not your will to come to me.) A study of every occurrence of the word “to will” in the N.T. will bear out the conclusion that no one would ever be saved, no one would ever do the will of God, unless God took the initiative.

And that answers the question: Does predestination affect a man before or after he is born again? Predestination is according to the foreknowledge of God. Rom. 8:29 cf. I Peter 1:2. Foreknowledge is not merely that God knew ahead of time who would believe, but that he foreknew all things, all possibilities, all that He planned to finally accomplish, how to do all things in the very best and most righteous way. Unless God works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure, Phil. 2:13, there is no hope that we ever will.

If we were endowed with the omniscience and foreknowledge of God, we could understand how God can save some without being partial or unjust to those who are lost, who, it may seem to us, never really had a chance to be saved since God apparently does not work in them to will and to do. We could understand too how God could permit some to be lost without defeating His own will, Who is not willing that any should perish.

In conclusion it should be noted that God never compels a man to believe. None of the lost will ever be able to offer the excuse: I am lost because God did not force me to be saved, and none of the saved will ever be able to say: I am saved because God forced me to believe. Every saved person has willed to be saved and every unsaved person has willed not to be saved. So after all, the Gospel message is, “whosoever will”: for in the act of faith every sinner must say, “I will,” even though it is all according to the working of Him whose ways are past finding out. Apart from election none would have been saved; howbeit justice would have been done. Through election all will be saved who should be saved, and that according to the very best plan that omniscience could devise in the all-embracing foreknowledge of God.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: Is Sunday a holy day and how should the Lord’s people observe or regard Sunday in this age of Grace?

ANSWER: There are several words used in the N. T. to define one’s attitude towards days. In Rom. 14:5 and 6 the expressions: “esteemeth one day above another.” And “he that regardeth the day” occur. The word esteem is more often translated judge. The word regard is usually translated mind, as in Phil. 3:16: “let us mind the same thing.” In Gal. 4:10 Paul says: “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.” The word observe is always translated elsewhere watch, as in Lk. 20:20: “And they watched him.” In Col. 2:16 Paul says: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day.” The meaning of this passage is clearly that the believer is not to permit anyone to sit in judgment upon him in an effort to enforce the observance of the Levitical ordinances, which now are seen to be but shadows of things to come.

There is no mention in the Scripture of Sunday, but of course there is of the first day of the week. It is evident that our Lord was in the grave on the seventh or Sabbath day, and that He arose as it began to dawn on the first day of the week, or Sunday, Matt. 28:1. It is evident from Acts 20:7 that it was by that time the custom of Paul’s converts to hold their meetings on the first day of the week. I Cor. 16:2 also confirms this fact: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.”

The observance of Sunday is thus not to be confused with the keeping of Jewish feast day and Sabbaths; for Paul assuredly approved of the former and disapproved of the latter. Observing Sunday in a scriptural way is no more legalistic than observing the Lord’s Supper. It is evident that many in Christendom have made both Sunday and the Lord’s Supper to be legalistic, but the fault lies with those who have distorted the meaning of these things. Sunday is not called a holy day in Scripture, and it is surely not a holy day in the sense of Col. 2:16.

There is no instruction in the Bible concerning the manner in which Paul and his followers observed Sunday, only that they met on that day for fellowship and for the preaching of the Word. One thing is evident: it was their custom to have a Sunday evening service; for Paul preached until midnight, and the meeting did not break up until day break, Acts 20:7-11.

Since this is the day of grace, it seems that the Lord has left it up to us to manifest as little or as much of that grace as we desire. If we feel that spending one hour out of each week in fellowship and preaching of the Word is sufficient, that is the measure of our appreciation to Him and of His Word. If we feel that we want to glorify Him more, if we have a greater hunger for His Word and for fellowship with those of like precious faith, then we are free to use more of this day which is almost universally set aside for this special purpose. It is evident that people who have to work five or six days a week do not have any other day upon which they can meet in such a way. And it is surely fitting that we as a part of the new creation should meet on the first day, the day upon which Christ arose from the dead in order that He might become the Head of the new creation.

There is probably another principle which we should mention in this connection. It is no more sinful to play golf on Sunday than on Monday, as far as the game is concerned. But if the golf is put ahead of Christ and His work, then there is surely something wrong with the saint. If one can honestly say that he can find nothing else that will bring as much glory to Christ as a game of golf, then the golf is surely in order. It is possible that some Christians do more for the Lord every day of the week than others do in a month of Sundays. and such as one might be well justified in using part of Sunday for recreation. The other principle which must be considered, however, is the influence of such examples upon young and immature believers. If Deacon Jones or Elder Smith spend most of their Sundays in recreation, then Johnny and Mary will feel that Sunday School is enough for them and probably before long will feel that it is too much. We should say with Paul: “Let every man be persuaded in his own mind,” Rom. 14:5,13, 16.

C.F.B.

QUESTION: In what sense is Christ “the firstborn of every creature,” when the context makes Him the Creator of all creation? (Col. 1:15)

ANSWER: The questioner realizes that the context plainly teaches that Christ is the Creator of everything that was ever created, and that verse 15 could not therefore mean that Christ is Himself a part of creation. Arians, of course, have used this verse to try to disprove the eternal deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but the context will not at all support such a conclusion.

The Expositor’s Greek Testament states that the term, firstborn, “in its primary sense expresses temporal priority, and then, on account of the privileges of the firstborn, it gains the further sense of dominion.” It is interesting to note too that the substantive plural of this word is translated, “birthright,” showing that the word has in it the sense not merely of the time of birth, but of privilege and authority. Since verses 16 and 17, along with many other passages, exclude the idea of the Son of God being a creature, it is evident that the word, firstborn, as used in verse 15 does not mean that He was the first person to be born in the universe, but that by reason of His position as Creator who existed before all creation. He exercises the dominion or lordship over creation similar to that which a firstborn son exercises over his father’s household.

Notice that in verse 18 it is stated that He is also “the firstborn from the dead.” Does this mean that He was the first person ever to be brought back to life from the dead? No; for even in the Old Testament people were raised from the dead, and surely our Lord raised a number of people from the dead during His earthly ministry. What the does it mean that He is the firstborn from the dead? Why just what Paul says: “that in all things He might have the preeminence.”

C.F.B.

QUESTION: Was there any difference between John’s Baptism and that of the Day of Pentecost?

ANSWER: It is commonly taught that there is a great difference between the two: John’s baptism as an Old Testament rite or at least a baptism for Israel; the baptism of Pentecost as the Christian’s.

Our proposition is to prove that there is no essential difference between John’s baptism and that of Pentecost. Both were practiced for the same reasons: “for the remission of sins” and as part of the kingdom of heaven message.

Let us first consider the remission of sins aspect. The beloved physician, Luke, records in his gospel that, “the Word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” Luke 3:2-3. Luke also records the words of Peter to the convicted Jews on the Day of Pentecost when they asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” The Peter said unto them, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” Acts 2:37-38.

When the Scriptures assert that both these baptisms were “for the remission of sins” it does not mean baptismal regeneration as some teach, but it means that water baptism was required together with true faith and repentance. In no dispensation has God ever been satisfied with mechanical religion. The Old Testament abounds with God’s utter disgust for animal sacrifices that were offered without true faith and repentance. But is equally true that animal sacrifices were absolutely essential together with true faith. So also with the practice of water baptism in John’s ministry and on the day of Pentecost.

The importance of water baptism stated above is confirmed by Luke 7:29-30: “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.” In the light of a clear text like this, how can anyone say that water baptism was not important in John’s ministry and on the day of Pentecost?

Secondly, both John’s baptism and that of the day of Pentecost were in connection with the kingdom of heaven program; i.e. the millennial reign of Christ. John was the herald of the King. His message was to prepare Israel to receive Christ as her Messiah. The people to whom he ministered were in covenant relationship to God; they were not heathen Gentiles.

The angel Gabriel had announced plainly to Mary that the Son she was to bear would “be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David; and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end” Luke 1:32-33.

Jesus Christ was the rightful heir to David’s throne and therefore the kingdom of heaven was announced as “at hand.” Israel as a nation rejected Him and cried, “We will not have this man to reign over us.” “We have no king but Ceasar.” They demanded the death of Christ, but God did not withdraw the kingdom from Israel with the crucifixion of Christ. He gave Israel another opportunity to repent under the ministry of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

The Apostle Peter reasoned with Israel to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead to take the throne of David. Let us examine Acts 2:25-36; where Peter quotes David’s words in the sixteenth Psalm that God would not leave his soul in Hades, neither would he suffer his holy one to see corruption. David was not speaking of himself, Peter said, because David died and saw corruption. As a prophet he predicted that God would raise Christ from the dead to sit on his (David’s) throne. “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne” Acts 2:30. It was on the basis of Christ being raised from the dead to sit on David’s throne that Peter was able to offer the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-20, if Israel would repent and be converted.

The Scriptures make it plain that the kingdom could only be offered to Israel after Christ had died and rose again. Thus briefly we have established the proposition that there was no essential difference between the practice of water baptism by John the Baptist and that practiced on the day of Pentecost. Both were “for the remission of sins” and part of the kingdom of heaven program.

D.E.

QUESTION: Just what do you mean by the Transition Period?

ANSWER: The Transition Period was the time of change-over from the Law of Kingdom dispensation to the present dispensation of the Grace of God. We call it a transition period because the two dispensations seemingly overlapped. The old did not immediately disappear, but gradually passed away, while the new grew into prominence. This principle is seen in Heb. 8:13: “By using the words, ‘a new Covenant,’ He has made the first one obsolete. But whatever is decaying and showing signs of old age is not far from disappearing altogether.”

The transition may be likened to the dawn or the twilight, where day and night seem to be mixed, and not to the switching on and off of an electric light. Almost all of the dispensational changes in the Bible involve such a transition, of shorter or longer duration.

Among those who speak of the transition period, however, there are varieties of opinion concerning the actual period it covered. There are some who place the transition period in the latter part of Christ’s earthly ministry, beginning with Matt. 13 and ending with the Cross. These begin the present dispensation either with John the Baptist or at Pentecost. Others place the transition in the first few chapters of Acts, also beginning the Body of Christ and its dispensation at Pentecost. Still others claim the Pentecostal dispensation ran without any transition entirely through the Acts period and ended abruptly with Acts 28:28, and that just as abruptly the present dispensation then began.

It is my conviction that the Transition Period began with Paul’s ministry and covers the latter half of the Book of Acts. There is no indication in the earlier part of Acts that an entirely new and unprophesied dispensation was beginning. The message of Pentecost and thereafter was a continuation of what Jesus began to do and to preach while He was on earth, and it all had reference to the establishment of the earthly Messianic Kingdom. With Paul’s ministry there is the beginning of something new. At the outset, this fact is not seen very clearly, but by the time Paul wrote his first epistles it is very evident that a new dispensation has begun and that a new body composed of believing Jews and Gentiles has been brought into being.

But not only is the new dispensation getting underway; the old is decaying and waxing old. Jerusalem still stands and God still deals in grace towards Israel as long as the Acts period endures. The close of that period marks the end of the long day during which God stretched forth His hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, Rom. 10:21, and it also marks the end of the Transition Period. From that point on Jerusalem, the temple, the priesthood, and the covenants were completely set aside from for the duration of this present dispensation. Outward signs, miracles, tongues and all that accompanied that Pentecostal period passed away.

C.F. Baker

QUESTION: “You ridicule baptism by water”. Please answer this befuddled Lutheran minister who wants to know: What did Christ mean when He said, “Unless one is born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom”?

ANSWER: First, let me state that we do not “ridicule baptism by water” as you state. We believe water baptism was necessary to one’s salvation under the circumcision ministry (Acts 2:38), but that it adds to the completed work of Christ and thus “frustrates the grace of God” in the present dispensation.

John’s baptism was with water. It is clear from a study of the Gospels that it has to do with the Kingdom. The very first time it is mentioned is in connection with the Kingdom. Matt. 3:1-6.

John, who was known as “the baptizer,” proclaimed the Kingdom as being “at hand.” He was not a minister of the Gospel of the Grace of God, but a prophet under the old covenant, appointed to “prepare the way of the Lord,” who was to come “to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.” Rom. 15:8.

John’s message was “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” and he baptized those who believed his preaching and confessed their sins. The reason why he baptized was in order that Christ should “be made manifest to Israel.” John 1:29-31.

John testified of One who should come after him, and who should baptize also, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit. This is confirmed by our Lord Himself. Acts 1:4-5.

To bring John’s baptism, which belonged to his Kingdom proclamation, into this present church period has led to confusion and disruption. It has proved to be the bomb-shell which has rent the church into fragments. The baptism for our dispensation is found in Col. 2:12. Here is a baptism about which Israel knew nothing. Their ceremonial cleansing in water was only a weak type of the real baptismal cleansing through Christ’s burial and resurrection.

We have died together with Him, we have been buried together with Him, and we have been raised from the grave also, not from a watery grave by the strong arm of the baptizer, but in Him, by the Almighty arm—“through faith in the operation of God who hath raised Him from the dead.”

Our baptism gives flesh no place. Our cleansing is by the Spirit and finds real and genuine acceptance by our God. If I am complete in Christ no fleshly rite can add to my completeness. If I do add to it I deny that Christ’s work has fully met God’s claims. I dishonor His work by subtracting from its power, and spoil it by adding something of my own dead, putrefying flesh.

Now let us consider the progression from adolescence to maturity, from flesh to spirit. The ministry of John the Baptist and the earthly ministry of our Lord was characterized by one baptism--- that in water. Yet John bore record concerning Christ: Matt. 3:11:

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”

And Christ, just as he was about to ascend to heaven, confirmed John’s declaration, saying, Acts 1:5:

“For john truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

From Pentecost until the close of the Acts period there were two baptisms--- water and spiritual. During the transitional administration (Acts 13-28), however, water takes a secondary place, while the baptism of the Spirit becomes the portion of all.

With the rejection of the offer of the kingdom in the Acts period on the part of Israel, Paul turned to the nations (Acts 28:28), and revealed the truth of the present economy which had been a secret “hid in God” up to that time.

With the change of administration there was a return to the “one baptism” Ephesians 4: 5. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism,”---The question arises, is it water or Spirit? If we say “water,” we rule out that baptism which entitles us to all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ.

It is now that I Cor. 12:13 finds full recognition. Without this baptism, in the one Spirit, there could never be the one body. It is by the one Spirit that we are united one to another and have access into God’s presence. This unity of the Spirit is one of the precious truths of this secret economy.

So then, the baptism in Spirit remains, and as there is but one baptism, that in water disappears. Thus we see that gradually, a step at a time, the progression has been away from the outward expressions by means of water toward the inward reality by means of the Spirit.

No question of infant baptism, or of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion can arise where all is spiritual and divine---and this also settles the controversy of the baptismal formula.

Quoted from ROMANS (P. 287) by Rogers: “Why do good men cling so tenaciously to the external, physical rite and forget the spiritual reality? It is true that the rite is full of significance, and yet it is devoid of real spiritual efficacy. When water baptism was instituted, it was plainly taught that it was but a symbol of spirit baptism. In Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts at the first mention of water baptism the speaker in each case points from John’s baptism in water to Christ’s baptism in Holy Spirit. People persistently cling to John, though he steadily points to the One stronger than he, would come after him, and baptize in Spirit instead of water (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33.”

G.L. Hesselgrave

QUESTION: What is the meaning of the word Zion in Scriptures, and does it ever refer to the Church which is His body?

ANSWER: Nothing certain is known of the meaning of the word Zion. Hebrew scholars differ in opinions on the derivation of the word. Gesenius suggests it may have come from the Arabic word which means “ridge of a mountain”, or “citadel.”

It is evident from 2 Sam. 5:6-9 that Zion was the name of the citadel of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem. Zion was renamed the City of David and came later to be used as the equivalent of Jerusalem.

Zion is mentioned 7 times in the N.T. (spelled Sion): Matt. 21:5; John 12:15; Rom. 9:33; 11:26; Heb. 12:22; I Peter 2:6; and Rev. 14:1. In every one of its many O.T. occurrences and in all of its N.T. references with the exception of one, it should be evident that the word applies to the actual city of David, where God chose to place His Name. The language of Heb. 12:22 might seem to indicate a figurative usage, but even there it is evident that Zion is not called the church for the church is mentioned as separate and distinct from Sion. Hymnology and much of theology to the contrary, members of the body of Christ are not marching to Zion.

(Charles F. Baker in Truth Magazine – Used with permission)

QUESTION: What about the parable of the ten virgins in Matt. 25? I have not as yet found a satisfactory interpretation of this parable.

ANSWER: The fact that the Kingdom of the heavens is likened to ten virgins, at once settles the issue of its interpretation. It applies to the Messianic Kingdom and not to the Body of Christ.

The first word in this chapter, THEN, settles the time of its fulfillment. It is after the tribulation of those days, mentioned in the chapter before, that these things take place. THEN shall the kingdom of the heavens be likened unto ten virgins.

It is evident that our Lord is the Bridegroom. There is no mention of the bride at all, so we are not called upon to speculate about that point. The ten virgins represent those, apparently of Israel, who will be expecting their Messiah to come. The oil, which is generally made to mean the Holy Spirit, could hardly be thus applied; for the wise virgins could not have given the foolish ones the Holy Spirit; nor if they could would the have said, “Not so, lest there be not enough for us and you;” nor would they have told them to go to them that sell, and buy for themselves; for the Holy Spirit can not thus be bought.

It is my belief that expositors have read entirely too much into this parable. It is simply a lesson in watchfulness. The Lord does not say that a wedding is actually going to take place, but that His followers are to be just as watchful and ready for His return as such virgins would be who were awaiting the return of a bridegroom to enter upon the marriage feast. The ones who are not prepared are going to be shut out.

The whole context, beginning with Matt. 24:42, is concerned with watchfulness. The four parables which follow: that of the Servants, that of the Virgins, that of the Talents, and that of the Sheep and the Goats, all teach various aspects of watchfulness and preparedness for the coming of Christ back to earth.

(Charles F. Baker in Truth Magazine – Used with permission)

QUESTION: John preached repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. This was God’s way at that time for an individual to be saved, was it not? Was Christ’s message identical with John’s? This means that they were saved, not by grace thru faith alone, as we are today, does it not? Yet, was not Abraham justified by faith alone and doesn’t one of the prophets say that the just shall live by his faith?

ANSWER: You are correct concerning John’s preaching. This same order was preached while Christ was on earth, and also at Pentecost, Acts 2:38. Yes, before this present dispensation God had various requirements which men had to meet if they were to be saved, but these works were the works of faith; they believed God and therefore did what God said to do. When Paul was sent out with a message of justification entirely apart from the works of the law, he used Abram before he was circumcised, to show to the Jews that if God had justified Abram this way, He could still do so. There is this one big difference, whereas both we and Abram were justified by faith alone, we were not given the same message to believe that Abram was given. God told Abram how He would multiply his seed, and he believed God. For believing this God justified him, Gen. 15:5,6. Today God tells us about Christ and His finished work, and upon believing this He justifies us. Paul shows, of course, in Rom. 3 and 4, that although Abraham didn’t have the same message to believe that we have, yet Christ’s death was the only basis upon which God could remit the sins of those who lived in past ages (3:25) C.F.B.

(Charles F. Baker in Truth Magazine – Used with permission)

QUESTION: I heard a preacher say that the “pleroma” of Rom. 11:25 had reference to the completion of the Body of Christ. Is this the correct interpretation of this verse?

ANSWER: No. This interpretation ignores the fact that national distinctions were lost in the Body of Christ (Gal. 3:28). We believe the “pleroma” of the Gentiles has reference to the “times of the Gentiles” spoken of by our Lord (Luke 21:24).

The salvation of Israel does not depend upon the completion of the Body of Christ but upon the coming of “the Deliverer out of Zion.” Rom. 11:26. G.L.H.

(Charles F. Baker in Truth Magazine – Used with permission)

QUESTION: Is it true that one of the differences between the dispensations of law and grace is that under the law people were commanded, whereas under grace there are no commands?

ANSWER: If you will read through Paul’s epistles you will find that he uses the words command and commandment several times in addressing members of the Body of Christ. See I Corinthians 7:10; 2 Thessalonians 3:4, 6, 10, 12; I Timothy 4:11; 6:14; I Corinthians 14:34; I Thessalonians 4:11. Besides the use of the words themselves, Paul many times uses the imperative mode of the verb, and according to the dictionary the imperative is expressive of positive as distinguished from advisory or discretionary command; in other words, a positive command. It is not simply good advice when God imperatively states: Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God. It is a command. I would say that there are better ways of distinguishing law and grace than by the use of the word command.

(Charles F. Baker in Truth Magazine – Used with permission)

QUESTION: What difference does it make whether we begin the Church at Pentecost, as most Fundamentalists do, or with Paul during the Acts period as you people do, or after Acts as the so-called Acts 28 people do?

ANSWER: It should be evident that God would not give any Scripture, any commission, any religious program for the Body of Christ before He had revealed that there was to be such a thing as the Body of Christ. If we say that the Body began at Pentecost, then the commission of Mark 16:15,16, the preaching of repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins, and the miraculous signs and wonders with tongues, healings, and all the rest, should logically be the program for the Body of Christ. This is what all Pentecostalists believe and try to practice. Many Fundamentalists claim to believe it but are illogical in not practicing the program. If we say that the Body began only after Acts 28, then none of the Scripture written before that, including at least six of Paul’s epistles, do not contain specific instructions for us in this dispensation. If we begin the Body with Paul in mid-Acts then all of Paul’s writings are for and about the Body of Christ. Thus where we begin the Body of Christ determines largely the commission and the spiritual and religious program we are to follow.

(Charles F. Baker in Truth Magazine – Used with permission)

QUESTION: What kind of glass was Paul talking about when he said, “Now we see through a glass darkly?"

ANSWER: He was not talking about glass, nor was he talking about seeing through it. He was talking about a reflector or mirror. The mirrors of that day were made of polished copper which reflected comparatively little light. The passage should be translated: “For now we see in a mirror dimly.” Mirror occurs also in James 1:23, and the verb, to see one’s self in a mirror, in 2 Cor. 3:18.

(Charles F. Baker in Truth Magazine – Used with permission)

QUESTION: Doesn’t John 5:39 indicate that we cannot be sure about having eternal life? We may think we have it, but that doesn’t mean that we do.

ANSWER: We could answer this question by quoting another statement by John: “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life? (I John 5:13). Jesus was not casting doubt upon the Scripture. He was telling these Jews that they thought they had eternal life simply because they searched the Scriptures. One can study the Bible all of his life, but he will never receive eternal life until he finds the Christ who is revealed therein. Eternal life resides in Christ. “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (I John 5:12).

(Charles F. Baker in Truth Magazine – Used with permission)

QUESTION: If Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, why did God send Peter instead of Paul to first preach to the Gentiles?

ANSWER: First of all it should be remembered that Peter at this time was preaching the circumcision-kingdom gospel. The kingdom gospel is to be preached to the Gentiles in the future when God fulfills His promises to Israel in the establishment of her kingdom. Cornelius is a picture of Gentile salvation in the coming kingdom. God sent Peter to him because he was a good man, one who feared God and gave alms to God’s earthly people. But when God raised up Paul he did not send him to deserving Gentiles, but to the undeserving and ungodly, with the gospel of the grace of God.

Doubtless, another reason for having Peter go to the Gentiles first was to substantiate the revelation given to Paul. There needed to be a historical bridge for Paul’s ministry. He had received his revelation directly from Christ in heaven apart from any human instrumentality. What evidence did he have that his message was genuine? From Acts 15 it is evident that God used the testimony of Peter to substantiate Paul’s claims. Then Peter, James, and John turned over their Gentile ministry to Paul, recognizing that God had entrusted this new dispensation to him.

(Charles Baker in Truth Magazine – Used with Permission)