22. "God's Gospel."
This was good news of a different character. This was news of grace proclaimed, not to Israel only, or to any one nation, but to individual transgressors of the Jews, and sinners of the Gentiles alike; to all without distinction.¹ It was grace proclaimed to Jews who deserved wrath, and to Gentiles who deserved nothing. Hence it is called
The Gospel of the Grace of God.
This was further good news, as set forth in Romans and the other Church Epistles. It was the good news that those who are in Christ are reckoned by God (and hence are to be reckoned by us) as having died with Christ and having risen with Him; and that when this Gospel shall have accomplished its object and gathered out from Jews and Gentiles all the members of the one Body, these shall be gathered together unto Christ the Glorious Head in glory (2 Thess. ii. 1).
This good news is called THE GLORIOUS GOSPEL, or better,
"The Gospel of the Glory of the blessed God which was (Paul says) committed to my trust" (1 Tim. i. 11). In 2 Cor. iv. 4 it is called "the glorious Gospel of Christ," i.e., the good news of the "glory" which is to follow the "sufferings" of Christ; and which is to be the outcome of those sufferings. This good news is preached now. It is part of the good news of the Grace of God; for grace and glory are inseparably bound together. There is no Gospel of the grace of God, without the Gospel of the glory of God. Grace is the flower, Glory will be the fruit. The Church is not always to be in sorrow and trial; and the good news concerning the glory is "the knowledge of the glory of God in the person of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. iv. 6).
But when the preaching of this double Gospel of Grace and Glory shall have closed, we read of another Gospel which is to be proclaimed in the midst of the Dispensation of Judgment. It is called
"The Everlasting Gospel."
It is not proclaimed until the very crisis of the apocalyptic judgments; after the Judgments of the Seven Seals, the Judgments of the Seven Trumpets, and the revelation of the Beast in his superhuman stage
¹ See above, p. 110.
2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: VARIOUS GOSPELS
(Rev. xiii.). Then, before the final judgments of the seven Vials, seven angels make seven proclamations (Rev. xiv. 6-20). The first is the proclamation of "the everlasting Gospel"; of mercy in the midst of judgment. It is the command to mankind simply to "Fear God" as the Creator. Not a word as to the Redeemer, or as to grace or glory, but a simple command to "Fear God." What else will be contained in that Gospel of the coming Day of Judgment we know not now.
It is called "everlasting" because the acknowledgment of God as the Creator was before all other news; and will follow after all news of the kingdom, grace and glory will have passed away. It announces God, only as the Creator: not as Lord, or as Jehovah (the Covenant God), but as "God" (the Creator). It is not "Repent," or "do this" or "do that," but only "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come; and worship Him that made heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Compare Exod. ix. 30. Ps. xxxiii. 8.)
Is it not strange that this should ever have been supposed to be the same as the Gospel of the Grace of God? Is it not strange that news of God's present grace should ever be taken as being the same as the news of God's mercy in the midst of judgment?
Nothing can account for such perversity but the fact that it comes only from human selfishness, and the determination to take everything, past, present, and future, as belonging to, or having to do with, the Church of God.
Rightly divide these different Gospels, according to the Dispensations to which they belong, and we have only harmony, consistency, and truth.
(f) The Sermon on the Mount.—Few portions of God's Word have suffered more from want of compliance with the one great requirement of the Word of truth as given in 2 Tim. ii. 15.
It occupies the greater part of the first of the four periods of the Lord's ministry.¹
¹ For the other three Subjects of His Ministry, see Christ's Prophetic Teaching, by the same author and publishers.
The first period was occupied with the Proclamation of the King and the Kingdom.
It begins in Matthew at ch. iv. 17, and goes on down to the end of ch. vii., and thus occupies the whole of chs. v., vi., and vii.
This shows us that what we call "the Sermon on the Mount" (which, after all, is only Man's name for it) has to do with the Kingdom. It shows that the laws of that Kingdom which was the sole subject of that first period of Christ's ministry were to be very different from the laws given by God through Moses on Mount Sinai; and very different also from the traditions which had made so many of them of none effect. This teaching follows, naturally, as being in harmony with the truth which pertains to the Kingdom, and not with that which pertains to the Church of God. It is appropriate to a Dispensation of Law and not to a Dispensation of Grace; to a Past or Future Dispensation, but not to the Present Dispensation.
This is, of course, the case so far as interpretation is concerned. But, when it comes to application, then, if there be truths of eternal application we may, of course, apply them; and if there be truths in harmony with what is addressed specially to the Church of God, and agreeing with the truth addressed directly to it in the Church Epistles, then we may apply it, so far, but no further.
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. v. 18). This is truth, of eternal application.
"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. vi. 21) is also truth of eternal application.
But the instruction as to "agreeing with our adversary" (ch. v. 25); instructions as to "fasting" (ch. vi. 16-18), the "danger of the Council" (ch. v. 22); the "Judge," the "Officer," and the Altar (ch. v. 24, 25); the seeking the kingdom (ch. vi. 33), the profession "I never knew you" (ch. vii. 23), the doing, and works (ch. vii. 21, 24); all these are like a foreign language when compared with the language addressed to us in our Church Epistles.
Moreover those who hold that this discourse is to be interpreted of the Church of God make no attempt to obey its precepts. Instead of loving their enemies
2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: SERMON ON MOUNT
(ch. v. 44) they do not even love their brethren, if they commit the unpardonable sin of daring to differ from them in opinion.
Instead of trying to agree with their adversary quickly (ch. v. 25) they do not try to agree with their fellow-believers, even slowly.
Instead of not judging others (ch. vii. 1) it is the one thing that they are most addicted to, and well-practised in. If any sue them and would take away their coat (ch. v. 40), then, instead of letting him have their cloak as well, they let him have the law.
They read (ch. v. 42), "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away," but, all we say is, "Try it; go and 'ask,' and see how they carry out this precept which they maintain is written and addressed to them." As for ourselves we feel under no such obligation, either on the one hand to give or to lend whenever we may be asked; or, on the other hand, to wait till we are asked.
And then, to what altar do they carry and lay their gift, or offering (ch. v. 23, 24)? unless they count Flowers, and Eggs, and Dolls, as "Sacrifices," and their Communion Tables as Altars.
Who is to compel them to go one mile, and they go two miles? (Matt. v. 41).
Finally we strongly advise our readers, if they smite those who interpret this "Sermon" of the Church on one cheek (ch. v. 39), not to wait and see whether they turn the other, but to get out of the way as quickly as they can.
They will glibly pray "thy kingdom come" (ch. vi. 10), but with the same breath, and the same persistent inconsistency shown throughout, they will pray for the "advancement" and the "extension" of the same kingdom which, according to this, has come and is already here.
1 This was perfectly intelligible in that Past Dispensation, though it can have no place in the Present. The verb ἀγναστὸν (aggarcuō) is a word brought into the Greek language from Persia, and refers to the practice of commandering or forcing others into the royal service. The ἀγναστὸν (aggarō) are mentioned as royal couriers, in the papyri. The verb had come into general use, and was naturalized as early as the third century B.C., and was well understood by the people, though quite technical. It is still found in modern Greek in the sense of compelling. (See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 86.)
They will not think of measuring the forgiveness they ask God for, by the forgiveness which they extend to those who have sinned against them.
As to asking why they behold the more in their brother's eye (ch. vii. 3), we would ask why they behold so many which are not there at all.
All this confusion comes from interpreting what is said of the *Kingdom*, and was spoken to those who were proclaiming it, of a condition of things wholly different. The kingdom, whose laws the King was there laying down, was, after that, rejected. And the King having been crucified, the kingdom is therefore now in abeyance. The precepts pertaining to it are in abeyance also. His own words "BUT NOW" in Luke xxii. 36$^{1}$ are sufficient not only to warrant us in so treating "the Sermon on the Mount," but sufficient to *compel* us to do so.
If we do not heed the corrective instruction contained in the words "But now," and thus carry out the principle involved in them, then all must be confusion.
The world can plainly see the inconsistency produced by it; and, in consequence, turns it against the Church, and against Christians; and uses that very inconsistency, which is so manifest, as an argument against the truth of Christianity itself.
Those Christians who say that these chapters are addressed to them are charged by the world with direct disobedience to their precepts. And Christ also is charged with the inconsistency of giving commands which cannot possibly be carried out.
But once we rightly divide the Dispensations, and *the truth pertaining to them*, we see that "the Sermon on the Mount" belonged to a past brief Dispensation, while the kingdom was being proclaimed; and will be appropriate again to a succeeding Dispensation when the kingdom shall have come: but it neither belongs to, nor can be interpreted of, nor even applied to the totally different circumstances of this present Dispensation of Grace.
Those who are imbued with the precepts peculiar to the Church of God, in the Epistles addressed to it, could never for one moment make the grave mistake of putting them-
---See pages 107, 108, above.
2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: LORD'S PRAYER selves under these laws of the kingdom which are infinitely more stringent and spiritual than the laws of Sinai; nor could they thus mislead the world and give it its strongest argument against the very truth of the Gospel of the Grace of God.
(g) The Lord's Prayer.—This occurs in the "Sermon on the Mount," and it manifestly forms an integral part of it.
That it pertains wholly to the kingdom is clear. It is a prayer for that kingdom to come, in order that God's will may be done on earth, as it is done in heaven.
Its standard is Law, and not Grace.
Forgiveness is sought not on the ground of grace, but of works; and not on the ground of mercy, but of merit.
The future and approaching Tribulation is contemplated as imminent, if not present.
The Evil One, the Beast, is present in power. None are able to buy or sell except that which has his mark (Rev. xiii. 17). Daily bread must be miraculously "given," if those who use this prayer are to be kept alive.
No name of Christ is in it, nor is it offered in His name or merits, as He Himself declared it should be (John xvi. 23, 24).
It is a prayer suitable to the time, while the kingdom was being proclaimed as "at hand." And when the Church shall have been removed it will be seen how appropriate it will be when the kingdom shall be again proclaimed as "at hand"; and the "Gospel of the kingdom" shall be again preached in the coming days of "the Great Tribulation."¹
(h) As to Priesthood.—All the false doctrine connected with Priestly assumptions in the present day arises from this same misplacement of truth, which takes that which was true for the Past and Future Dispensations, and mistakenly regards it as being true for the Present Dispensation, which it is not.
Not only does priestcraft and all its attendant evils spring from this misplacement, but the mischief can be
¹ See a pamphlet on "The Lord's Prayer," by the same author and publisher.
met and remedied only by replacing the truth in the Dispensation to which it belongs.
The difficulty is experienced; and to get over it, truth is taken from the coming Dispensation and put into the present in order to meet the error which comes from first taking truth from the Past and putting it into the Present Dispensation. These are the shifts which have to be resorted to in consequence of disobedience to 2 Tim. ii. 15.
It is urged that in this present Dispensation "all are priests"; but this is just as incorrect as to say that some, or any, are priests.
On earth, God has never recognized a priesthood except that which He ordained Himself and confined to the nation of Israel (Exod. xix. 6), and to the tribe of Levi (Exod. xxix. 9). To those who had put themselves under the Law it was said, "If ye shall obey my voice and keep my covenant then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation" (Exod. xix. 5, 6).
That was a true promise and prophecy of and for Israel, in the past Dispensation. But Israel failed to fulfil the condition necessary for national priesthood as announced in Exod. xix. 5. Israel did not keep the covenant. Hence the conditional promise, "Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests," was not performed. The tribe of Levi was substituted for the nation, and the national performance of that promise remains still in abeyance until such time as Israel shall turn to the Lord. Hence, the prophecy was repeated at a later period in the prophecy of Isa. lxi. 1, which the Lord read, only in part, in the Synagogue at Nazareth, when He "closed the book," and stopped at the point where the prophecy had been fulfilled (Luke iv. 18-20). After "the day of vengeance" (which the Lord omitted, because it was still future) shall have passed, then it is declared of the nation as a whole: "Ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD; men shall call you the ministers of our God" (Isa. lxi. 6; lxvi. 21).
John sees in proleptic vision, i.e., by anticipation, the yet future fulfilment of this prophecy. In Rev. i. 6 he announces it when he gives glory to God for what He will then have done, even to "Him who hath made us (i.e.,
2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: PRIESTHOOD
John and his brethren according to the flesh) kings and priests unto God and his Father."
In Rev. v. 9, 10, John hears the four Zōa (or Living Creatures), and the Twenty-four Elders sing a new song referring to that yet future day: "Thou hast redeemed [a People] to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people and nation; and hast made them unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they shall reign on the earth."
This is the true reading and rendering¹ of Rev. v. 9, 10; and with this the R.V. practically agrees.
Peter, who wrote specially to believers among the Dispersed (the Diaspora) of Israel, could speak of them as the spiritual house (of Israel) and call them "a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices."
But in no case could this be said of believing sinners of the Gentiles either then, or now, or in the future.
Is it not strange that those who do this, do not see that they are compelled to take only one of the two classes mentioned? Only the "priests!" We never hear of their claiming to be "kings," now, in this day of grace. Wrongly dividing the word of truth, or not dividing it at all, introduces "priests" into the Church of God, and those who do that are driven into a further and necessary inconsistency, and are, perforce, obliged to leave out the "kings" altogether!
Surely this is sufficient to show us the error of Sacerdotalists and the error also of their opponents. Both are wrong. The one is wrong in making a baseless claim, and the other is wrong for attempting to refute it by a baseless argument. Both the false claim and the false argument proceed alike from the same cause.
The fact is there is no priesthood recognized by God on the earth during this present Dispensation, while Israel as a nation is excluded.
It is said even of the Lord Jesus Himself, that now, "IF HE WERE ON EARTH He would not be a priest" (Heb. viii. 4).
And the reason given is that, on earth, priesthood belongs to the tribe of Levi only; and "our Lord sprang
¹ See the author's work on the Apocalypse, p. 242.
out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Heb. vii. 12-14).
Christ is a Priest, but HIS priesthood belongs to Heaven, and not to earth; and is "after the order of Melchizedek," and "not after the order of Aaron."
To see the truth as to priesthood, Dispensationally, puts an end to all controversy as to the claims of Sacerdotalists, as well as to all the weak replies of Protestants, which only serve to strengthen those claims instead of meeting them.
To see this Dispensational truth makes a priesthood in the Church of God an impossibility. For Christ never was a priest on earth; and He would not be a priest if He were on earth to-day.
Once we rightly divide the Word of truth as to Priesthood, away goes all Prelacy and Priestcraft, which have created "Christendom," and turned it into a Babylon; a "hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird" (Rev. xviii. 2).
True, Peter can write to Believers among "the Dispersion" (1 Pet. i. 1; compare John vii. 35) and apply Exod. xix. 6, as the Lord applied Isa. lxi. 1, in the Synagogue at Nazareth, and show how those believing Israelites to whom he wrote fulfilled the past, and anticipated the future in a "spiritual" manner (1 Pet. ii. 4-10). All this could be applied to them, as it could not be even applied to us; though, even here, there was one thing that could not be then applied to them. They were priests only in a "spiritual" sense; but they were not "kings" in any sense at all. So the reference to the past Dispensation was rightly divided so far as it could be applied to the new (though transitional) condition of things.
Here we have, then, another example of how, and how far, we may apply a scripture to that of which it cannot be interpreted.
(i) As to Baptism.—We have the same confusion in Truth and Teaching, and all the controversies as to doctrine and practice.
It is clear, from the Gospels, that it has to do with the kingdom. The very first time it is mentioned is in connection with the kingdom (Matt. iii. 1-6).
2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: BAPTISM
It was preached by John who was known as "the Baptiser"; and John 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 came "to confirm the promises made unto the fathers" (Rom. xv. 8).
His ministry was unique; and his 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 i. 31).
Moreover he testified of the One who should come after him, and who should baptize also; not with material water, as John did, but with pneuma hagion or spiritual water, that is, with "power from on high."¹
This the Lord Himself confirmed in Acts i. 4, 5.
But, as we have already abundantly shown and seen, the kingdom was rejected, and the King crucified.
John, as we have said, baptized individuals who "believed on Him who should come after him" (see Acts xix. 1).
But, in Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, the Lord speaks of a future baptism, not of individuals, but of all "nations," not in the name of Him as the coming One, for He had already come, and would be with them; but "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Strange to say, this command was never obeyed on any one of the several occasions recorded in the New Testament, when baptism was "administered." Not once do we find any of the apostles, nor any of the first preachers of the Gospel making any exception to the use of this one particular formula. This practice was invariable.
In Acts ii. 38 Peter commands those of the Dispersion who believed: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ."
In Acts viii. 10 Peter and John "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
In Acts x. 48 Peter "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (R.V. Jesus Christ).
In Acts xix. 5 (whether this refers to those who heard John or those who heard Paul²; or whether it refers to
¹ See The Giver and His Gifts, by the same author and publisher, pp. 26-35.
² See The Giver and His Gifts, pp. 104-105.
F
John's act or Paul's) it is certain that "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
In Rom. vi. 3 Paul speaks of "as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ."
And in 1 Cor. i. 13, 15. "baptized in the name of Paul," is clearly contrasted with baptism in the name of Christ.
There is not one exception to this practice.
It is equally certain that Matt. xxviii. 19, 20 definitely commands the DISCIPLINE of "THE NATIONS" by baptizing them in the Triune name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
The full command is as follows:
"Go ye therefore and make all nations disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold, I (even I) am with you all the days until the end of the age."
This command speaks of "nations" (or Gentiles), and thus excludes the Jews, for it is distinctly declared of them that they should "not be reckoned among the nations" (Num. xxiii. 9). Whereas, the Gospel of the Grace of God is preached to day to Jew and Gentile alike.
The command speaks of "all nations," and it says, "make all nations disciples" or "Disciple all nations" as such; whereas this present Dispensation is eclectic, and it is individual Jews and Gentiles who are taken out of all nations.
The word rendered "teach" in verse 19 is not the same as "teaching" in verse 20. The former means to "make disciples"; while the latter means to instruct the individuals who are thus made disciples. But neither of these terms is peculiar to the present Dispensation. Ministerial work to-day is, according to the Church Epistles, not to "disciple nations" or Gentiles, but to preach and proclaim the Gospel of the Grace of God to individuals, as lost sinners, that they may be taken out not only from among the Jews, but from AMONG the nations. It is to "preach the Word"; and we are to do this the more earnestly because, as the days get darker,
2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: BAPTISM men will be less ready to "endure sound doctrine" (2 Tim. iv. 1-1).
The command in Matt. xxviii. manifestly applies to a very different condition of things from that which is common to our experience.
The only ground for this command is that "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." For, while, in the Divine counsels, it can be said, "Thou hast put all things under his feet," yet, it is immediately added (Heb. ii. 8), "we see NOT YET all things put under him." The references given in the margin of Matt. xxviii. 18 fully bear this out. Not until the yet future opening scene in the coming Dispensation of Judgment will the gift of "all power" on the earth be formally made and received, and the heavenly song burst forth, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power," etc. (Rev. v. 12, etc.).
But this is the only reason given for obedience to this command: "Go ye THEREFORE."
Moreover, certain definite days seem to be marked off; and this, at the end of the age, or of that Dispensation of the kingdom, when the proclamation of "the gospel of the kingdom" will again be made and accompanied by its companion ordinance of baptism.
That baptism will not be into the name of the One who was to come (as in the Gospels); not into the name of One who had come and been rejected (as in the Acts of the Apostles); but into the Triune name of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This will indeed be a work which will require "all power" in order to secure the submission of Jews and Mahommedans, as nations, to receive this baptism as the sign and token that they have acknowledged and submitted themselves to Christ, the Messiah, as their Lord and King.
This national work is that referred to in Matt. xxiv. 13, 14, "He that shall endure unto the END shall be saved. And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in the whole world for a witness, and then shall come the END"; i.e., the end of "the days" referred to in Matt. xxviii. 20.
This is the "end" here referred to in Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.
1 Matt. xxiv. 14 (see pp. 113-119, above).
The whole of this Dispensation is leaped over, as is done in Isa. lxi. 2, and many other passages, as we have shown above.¹
This command spoken of the Future, in a past Dispensation, entirely disregards this present interval and contemplates obedience to it as being carried out not in the Present, but in the Future Dispensation.
We have exactly the same phenomenon in Matt. x. There the Lord commissions the Twelve for their immediate proclamation of the kingdom to Israel alone, as distinct from the Gentiles (Matt. x. 1-15). The Lord then passes on, and passes over this present Dispensation: and contemplates the yet future proclamation in which the heralds will be sent forth as "sheep among wolves." This Gospel of the kingdom is to be "for a testimony" to the nations (here rendered Gentiles) as well as to Israel; and we have the same promise made to the preachers in Matt. x. 22 as in ch. xxiv. 13. The words are exactly the same in both passages (in the Greek): "He that endureth to the END the same shall be saved." The command is continued in the next verse (ch. x. 23): "But when they persecute you in this city flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come."²
If this coming be the same as the destruction of Jerusalem (as is generally supposed) then it is perfectly certain that the Twelve could not have gone on proclaiming the kingdom as being "at hand" for nearly forty years after it had been rejected, and the King crucified!
Moreover, in the ministry of the Disciples as recorded in the Gospels, we have not the slightest hint of their going among "wolves," and of their being "persecuted," and "fleeing" from city to city. On the contrary, their ministry seems to have been most peaceful and peaceable; and they had no such report of trial and trouble to give the Master when they returned from their mission. On the contrary it was marked as having had great success (Luke x. 17-19).³
¹ See pp. 100-101.
² Greek, hep (clthē), shall have come.
³ It seems as though, after they had spoken of the Present, that the Lord, in preleptic vision, passes over and sees beyond this Present Dispensation; and, beholding Rev. xii. 9, repeats the promises suited to that time, as given in Matt. x. 16-37; xxviii. 19, 20. Mark xvi. 15-18.
2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: BAPTISM
That mission must indeed have been very brief, for we gather from the Gospel record that they were with the Lord the greater part of His ministry.
And where did His promise to be "with" them "all the days" of that proclaiming and baptizing, find its fulfilment, if He were immediately going away, and about to send the Holy Spirit to be with them during His absence. When the promise is so strongly personal and definite it seems very forced to interpret that presence as being spiritual or delegated to the Holy Spirit. The pronoun ἐγώ (εχώ), I, is very emphatic: "And, behold, I, even I, am with you all the days, until the completion of the age (sunteleia, or Dispensation)." (R.V. margin, until the consummation of the age.)
It seems clear, therefore, that the proclamation referred to in Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, is yet future; and that it is closely connected with the then imminent personal appearance and promised presence of the Son of Man.
From all this it is abundantly manifest that, to take a command which belongs to a Past and Future Dispensation and to interpret it as being operative during the whole of this Present Dispensation can lead only to difficulty and contradiction.
Indeed, the bringing of John's baptism, which belonged to the kingdom, into this present Church period has led to confusion and disruption. It has proved a bomb which has rent the visible Church into fragments.
It has led to controversies and divisions, and strifes and contentions, which are to-day carried on with unabated vigour, and with the same bitterness as of old. It has led to the breaking up of the Church instead of its building up. It is the ordinance which has divided the Church instead of uniting it.
Is it not passing strange that, if the command in Matt. xxviii. 19, 20 really belongs to this Dispensation, the Apostles themselves, to whom the command was given, never once so interpreted it; and never once attempted to obey it?
The Lord had continued with them for forty days "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts i. 3). One would have thought (judging from present-day interpretation) that He spoke only of the things pertaining to the Church, which according to the teaching of most Christians was set up, within ten days. But not a word was spoken about the Church. It was all about the kingdom. The Church of God was still kept a "great secret." It was "hid in God" (Eph. iii. 9). It was not yet "made known unto the sons of men" (Eph. iii. 5). It had been "kept secret since the world began" (Rom. xvi. 25).
The only question the Apostles asked was about the kingdom, not about the Church. They did not ask whether the kingdom was to be restored to Israel or not. They asked only as to the "time" when it was to be restored; whether it would be now, "at this time," or at some future time. They neither doubted nor questioned the fact of its restoration.
It is certainly very strange that Peter, who heard these words, should, within a few days, have stood up and said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST" (Acts ii. 38).
It is impossible for us to suppose that Peter, and those who afterward baptized, should be either forgetful of, or disobedient to, the Lord's command, within so few days of its having been given.
Having had direct teaching from the Lord Himself on these very subjects, surely we should see, in the immediately subsequent acts of the Apostles, the nature of the instructions they had received.
If we thus rightly divide this portion of the Word of truth, we find that all is truth. There is no confusion. No violence is done to the Word of God. The command of Christ is left untouched. There it stands, through all these centuries, in all its truth and power, waiting for the moment when it will be obeyed (as it has never yet been obeyed), and the promise fulfilled to the very letter.
The action of the disciples is left unimpaired. Their obedience is not called in question. We are not called upon to blame them, or to excuse them; to condemn them, or to defend them. They followed John the Baptiser in their proclamation of the kingdom, and they continued to use the baptism with which he had baptized.
As long as the Divine offer of the kingdom made by Peter in Acts iii. 19-21 (R.V.) was open, baptism with
2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: BAPTISM material water was carried on, side by side with the baptism with spiritual water (pneuma hagion), which was administered by the laying on of hands (compare Acts xix. 6'); the one decreasing and the other increasing, on the principle of John iii. 30.
This coming change had been four times foretold (Matt. iii. 11. Mark i. 8. Luke iii. 16 and Acts i. 5), and we see it taking place; but the change is not complete until the offer of the kingdom made in Acts iii. 19, 20 was finally and formally closed and withdrawn in Acts xxviii. 25, 26. Until then baptism with water was continued, though it was decreasing. And it is mentioned only in those Pauline Epistles written during that period (1 Cor. and Rom. vi.), but never again afterward. In the Epistles written after that solemn epoch it is never once referred to; but only the "one baptism" with pneuma hagion. In Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles there is no mention of any ordinances; except to emphasize the fact that they no longer exist, but are all done away in that completeness which is ours "in Christ."
Ordinances that had to do with the flesh have no place in the Mystery or Secret which was revealed to Paul.² There, all is Spiritual.
The Phenomena as to the two Baptisms may be thus presented:—
When the Mystery was revealed to Paul, and by him was "made known to the sons of men," the Hebrew "doctrine of baptisms" was left behind with many other
¹ Verses 4 and 5 were what Paul said, and verse 6 is what Paul did. The "they" in verse 5 were the people who heard John, not they who heard Paul. See The Giver and His Gifts, pp. 104-107.
² See The Pauline Epistles, by the same author and publisher, also Things to Come, Feb. 1907. The Acts of the Apostles, Historically and Dispensationally Considered; and Section No. 6, below, the concluding portion of this Division. Also a series of Papers "On Baptism," in Things to Come, Vol. XIII.
things, and the new doctrine of the "one baptism" with pieuma hagion, or with a spiritual (instead of a material) medium, was brought in.
"Thus, while the Word of truth" is cleared of all confusion the "traditions of men" are torn up by the roots.
The churches to-day profess to take the Acts of the Apostles as their guide to church doctrine and practice (instead of the Epistles that were specially addressed to them as churches); yet they ignore its teaching as to that very ordinance which they all agree in treating as fundamental, though at the same time they differ so widely as to its administration.
They then wrest a command of Christ, given with reference to the totally different and Future Dispensation, and strive to obey it in this present Dispensation in which it has no place.
They thus land themselves in an insurmountable difficulty; and erect barriers which effectually divide up the visible Church into hostile camps.
Failing to divide the Word of truth rightly, they get error instead of truth; and, believing they are obeying the Word of God, they are really only following the tradition of men.
For what is the state of the case historically?
From the Acts of the Apostles we know that they baptized only in the one name.
We know also that for some time this practice must have continued.
We hear nothing of baptism in the Triune name till the time of Justin Martyr¹ (A.D. 111-165), and at the London Synod, called by Augustine in 605, any other form of words was pronounced to be invalid. This was confirmed by Pope Zacharius (741-752).
On the other hand, we have evidence of the baptism in the one name in the days of Cyprian, for he condemns those who held that it was sufficient to say "in the name of Jesus Christ."² But it was declared to be valid by the Council of Frejus, A.D. 792, and also by Pope Nicholas I. as late as (858-867).³
¹ Apologia, lxxix.
² Ep. lxxii (Migne), lxxiii. (Oxford).
³ Responsa at Bulgaros.
2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: BAPTISM
So that there was evidently confusion of practice as well as of doctrine, down to a very late period.
Various explanations of this diversity are given, but they are all based only on reasoning and probability.
We cannot believe that such a difference between the command in Matt. xxviii. and the practice of the Apostles in the Acts, can be accounted for on the ground that there is no difference between the use of the three names and the one. For in this case we may ask, What are words for? They are useless for the purpose of revelation, if in a simple and yet crucial case like this they do not mean what they say.
We could understand it better if the command had been to baptize in the one name, and the practice had been in the three names, for then the greater would have included the less. But, How can the less include the greater? How can the one include the three? and In what respect would this differ from John's baptism? John baptized into the one name. Did this include the three? If not, Why not? and Why should Peter's baptism include the three, if John's did not?
The fact is, there is no real explanation of any kind. The actual conflict is between tradition and revelation.
Our choice lies between these two. We may disobey 2 Tim. ii. 15 and follow tradition with all its consequent confusion; or, we may rightly divide the Word of truth, and find clearness of vision and peace of mind.
No question of infant baptism, or of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, can arise where all is spiritual and Divine.
We must include the closing verses of Mark's Gospel in considering the effect of rightly dividing the Word of truth, as it touches the question of baptism.
Here, again, the difficulties are great indeed, if those verses which refer to the kingdom and its proclamation in the yet Future Dispensation, be taken and read into the Present.
Some of those who do this, logically insist on the point that we ought to see these miraculous signs and gifts in the Church to-day; but, as we do not see them, it is concluded that there must be something wrong in the Christian lives of believers; and, hence it is urged that, an increase of holiness must be acquired by some means or other.
Some, who do not see these wonderful gifts and signs, conclude that the passage refers only to the past, and is now done with.
While others, seeing the difficulty created, treat the whole passage as spurious, and regard it as a corruption of the text which ought to be removed.
These are the difficulties which result from reading the commands that refer to the Past and Future Dispensations into the Present; whereas, if we rightly divide them, all difficulties are at once removed.
(k) The prophecy of Amos. Acts xv. 11-18, in which the prophecy of Amos ix. 11, 12, is quoted, was written in a Past Dispensation, and is to receive its fulfilment in the Future. It must not, therefore, be read into the present Dispensation.
When James quoted it in the Council at Jerusalem, the Mystery had not yet been made known for the obedience of faith, for (as we have seen) it was never the subject of Old Testament prophecy.
The prophecy of Amos refers to what will take place "in that day" (ch. ix. 11). The "day" spoken of is the day when (Jehovah says) "I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them" (v. 14). Then:
"In that day will I raise again the Tabernacle of David that is fallen,
And close up the breaches thereof;
And I will raise up his ruins,
And I will build it as in the days of old;
That they may possess the remnant of Edom
And of all the heathen, which are called by my name,
Saith the LORD, that doeth thus.'
This prophecy refers neither to the Church of God nor to the temple of Jerusalem: but to "the Tabernacle of David," which stood on Mount Zion before the Temple was erected on Mount Moriah (2 Sam. vi. 17).
2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: AMOS IX. & ACTS XV.
It speaks of the heathen, i.e., the Gentile nations, being called "in that day" by the Name of the LORD.
When Peter declared in the Council how God made choice of him, that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the word of the Gospel (committed unto him) and believe; and was followed by Paul and Barnabas declaring what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them: then James said that the words of the prophets agreed with this, for God had declared by Amos that He would return and build again the Tabernacle of David, and bring the Gentiles into blessing with Israel.
God had just shown this by using Peter to proclaim the good news of the Kingdom, first to Israel (Acts vi., vii.) and afterward to the Gentiles (Acts viii. -xii.).
The moment had come, therefore, for the call to Repentance, which was the one condition of this national blessing of Jews and Gentiles as such.
But we know that the proclamation was unheeded, and Peter's call was not obeyed. All this was followed shortly afterward (Acts xxviii. 25-28) by the solemn and formal proclamation of Isa. vi. 9, and the fulfilment of the threat of judicial blindness which has, from that day, covered Israel's heart (2 Cor. iii. 15. Rom. xi. 25).
Gentile blessing in association with Israel is now in abeyance: and Acts xv. does not refer to the Mystery, or to the Church of God, but to the Gentile nations as such.
The Mystery had not yet been made known, but "these things" had been "made known from the beginning." The following is the correct rendering of what was the Primitive Greek text of Acts xv. 17 and 18, according to the R.V., Rotherham, J. N. Darby, and other translators:--
"That the residue of men may seek after the Lord,
And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,
Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from the beginning of the world."
Thus it is quite clear that this Scripture, written in the Past, and referring to the Future, must not be read
1 According to Greek Texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, the Revisers' Greek Text. See above, p. 52.
2 Margin: "Or, who doeth these things which were known."
into the Present Dispensation of the Mystery, which was "hid in God from the beginning of the world."
(l) "Son of Man."—The title of the Lord Jesus Christ as the "Son of Man" is a title that belongs to Him in the Past and Future Dispensations as "the Second Man," "the last Adam," having *dominion in the earth*; and not to the Present Dispensation.
Its first occurrence¹ in Ps. viii., and its first occurrence in the New Testament (Matt. viii. 20), and its last (Rev. xiv. 14—16), all show this connection with the earth.
Out of the eighty-four occurrences of this title in the New Testament, eighty of them are in the four Gospels and *not one in the Church Epistles*. There is only one in the Acts (ch. vii. 56), and after a quotation in Heb. ii. 6, we do not meet with it again until we come to the two places in Revelation (ch. i. 13, and xiv. 14), and these are in connection with His coming to take up His great power and exercise His *dominion in the earth*.
This of itself is sufficient to show us the significance and teaching of this title; and that, quite apart from the principle we are now illustrating, we must not read *past* and *future* Dispensational truths into the *present*.
We have no more to do with the Lord Jesus as "the Son of Man," than the Gentile woman of Canaan had to do with Him as the "Son of David." When she made her plea and based it on that relationship, what could the Lord say but "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"? (Matt. xv. 21—24).¹
The Church of God is brought into union with the risen and exalted Christ as "THE SON OF GOD," and in no sense are we associated with Him in His title "Son of Man."
This at once shuts the Church out of the Gospels, and out of the Tribulation of Matt. xxiv. (of which we have more to say below), and out of all the passages in which we have the title "the Son of Man."
If we were imbued with the words employed in the Church Epistles, and had them ever in our minds, we should instinctively reject any teaching which would
¹ See Canon V., below, Part II.
2. PRESENT NOT INTO PAST: THE MYSTERY bring us into union with Christ as the "Son of Man," or into Tribulation and Judgment scenes where that title is, and will be, so appropriate.
3. The PRESENT not to be read into the PAST.
As we may not read the Past into the Present, so we may not read the Present into the Past.
A few examples will suffice.
(a) The Mystery, or Secret, concerning "the Church of God."—This was first "made known to the sons of men" directly, by special revelation from God to the Apostle Paul, and by the "Apostles and prophets" specially raised up for that purpose.
Before that, it had been "kept secret since the world began" (Rom. xvi. 25).
"In other ages it was not made known unto the sons of men" (Eph. iii. 5). "From the beginning of the world it had been hid in God" (v. 9).
It had been "hid from ages and from generations" (Col. i. 26).
Surely these statements are perfectly plain, and admit of no dispute.
It has been suggested that this secret refers to the blessing of Gentiles, as such, with Israel: but the simple and conclusive answer to this is, that such blessing was never a secret, but was made known at the same moment as the blessing for Israel was made known.
In Gen. xii. 3, it was included in, and was an integral part of, the very first promise ever made to Abraham: "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed."
This was repeated at various times. In Gen. xviii. 18, Jehovah said of Abraham, "All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him." (See also Gen. xxii. 18; xxvi. 4, etc. Deut. xxxii. 43. Ps. xviii. 49; lxvii. 2. Isa. xi. 10; xlix. 6. Luke ii. 32. Rom. xv. 8, etc.)
This was blessing for Gentiles as such, in contrast, and yet in conjunction with Israel. But this is a very different thing from what had been "kept secret." The secret was not concerning Jews and Gentiles as such, but concerning a people taken out from both, and made "fellow-heirs" and members of "the same body"
(Eph. iii. 6), i.e., "the one body," the spiritual body of Christ, which is the one great subject of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Rom. x. 12. 1 Cor. xii. 13. Gal. iii. 28. Col. iii. 11).
It seems almost unnecessary to say more, for if these plain Scriptures are not convincing, nothing that we may add of our own is likely to make them so. Language, for the purposes of revelation, is useless if what is said to be "hidden" was made known; or what is called a "secret" had never been kept in silence.
If, however, we accept the statements as to the Mystery having been kept secret until revealed to and by Paul, then we shall look in vain to find it in the Old Testament, or in the Four Gospels, or anywhere before its revelation through the Apostle Paul.
If we think we find it, then we shall at once introduce confusion into the older Scriptures, because we shall arbitrarily, and of our own will, dislocate the Scriptures of truth, and read into the Old Testament what God says He carefully kept out of it.
The Church of God is specially instructed in the Epistles addressed to it.
In these Epistles the Holy Spirit fulfils the Lord's promise made in John xvi. 12-15. There, Christ said, "He shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you." Twice over the Lord repeats these words (vv. 14 and 15). These things, which related to Christ, included all that God has made Christ to be unto us who are saved, and all that He has made us to be in Christ. Of this truth the Lord says, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of Truth shall have come, he will guide you into all the truth" (John xvi. 12, 13).
If, then, we take the truth which was afterwards revealed, and which could not have been then borne or understood, and put it into the Gospels, from which the Lord designedly and purposely excluded it, we do despite to His purpose; we set at nought His wisdom; we attempt to do what He declares could not be done.
In the Greek they are the same, though the A.V. unnecessarily renders them differently in the two verses.
3. PRESENT NOT INTO PAST: THE MYSTERY
His hearers could not have understood His words had He revealed them then, for the great foundation facts of His death and resurrection on which they were based had not then taken place. But people to-day think they can understand the four Gospels if they read this subsequently-revealed truth into them now.
It is just this which brings in all the confusion in our reading of the Gospels; and causes us to use one truth to destroy another truth, and prevents us from understanding either.
It is this that makes many exalt what they irreverently call "the teaching of Jesus" in the Gospels, and set it up in opposition to the teaching of Paul.
Whereas both spake by the Holy Ghost: both uttered the words of God as given to them to speak.
The Lord Jesus said of Himself:
"He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God" (John iii. 34).
"My teaching is not mine but his that sent me" (John vii. 10).
"I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me" (John xvii. 8).
But the Apostle Paul also spoke only the words given him to speak, and he declares that they were "the words . . . which the Holy Ghost teacheth" (1 Cor. ii. 13).
Paul was commissioned to speak and write the truth which, in John xvi. 12, was designedly kept back. If, therefore, we take what Paul wrote, and put it in where the Lord left it out, what can be the result but confusion in our own minds, and a flouting of the expressed purpose and design of the Holy Spirit, in what He withheld and in what He revealed?
This is why, if the Church is put into the Great Tribulation of Matt. xxiv., it must be to the destruction of that "blessed hope," which should ever be with us as our present comfort and strength.
This is why John vi. is interpreted of the Lord's Supper, which was the subject of a subsequent revelation, and could therefore have no possible teaching concerning it.
¹ See Below, page 183.
² See under No. 5, below, "The Future not to be read into the Present."
This is why the Church of the Pauline Epistles has been read into the Old Testament prophecies and put in the place of the Bride. (See Ps. xlv. Isa. liv. 5—8; lxii. 4. Jer. iii. 14. Hos. ii. 16, 19, etc.)
This is why the Church of God is spoken of as “she,” while in the Epistles its members grow up “unto a perfect MAN”; and are part of Him who is the Bridegroom; and in Him are made “one new man,” and not a “new woman.”
(b) The title “sons of God” is closely associated with the Church of God; for, according to the Pauline usage it is the peculiar title of those who are new creations in Christ Jesus. This we see from all the Church Epistles, especially Rom. viii.
We must not therefore read this usage into the Old Testament, and interpret in the same sense the expression “sons of God” which we meet with there eight times: viz., Gen. vi. 2, 4. Job i. 6; ii. 1; xxxviii. 7. Ps. xxix. 1; lxxxix. 6. Dan. iii. 25.
In all these passages the expression “sons of God” is used of *angels*.
The ground on which the two distinct usages are equally true of the two different classes of beings, respectively, is this: that “a son of God” denotes a being which exists as the direct creative act of God; produced by Him in contrast with being produced by man.
The angels are called “sons of God” because they are a separate creation distinct from all others. The first man, Adam, could be called a “son of God” in the same sense (Luke iii. 38), because God created him. But Adam’s descendants were not the special creations of God; for Adam, “created . . . in the likeness of God” (Gen. v. 1), BEGAT a son “*in his own likeness*” (v. 3). So that, being the sons of the first Adam, we are “sons of men,” and we cannot be called sons of God by natural generation. When, however, we are His workmanship, created in “Christ Jesus” (Eph. ii. 10); “new creations” in Christ
$^{1}$ See below, p. 188, etc. Also a pamphlet on *The Sons of God*, by the same author and publisher. Job xxxviii. 7 was clearly before the creation of man. And in Dan. iii. 25 there is no article, and it does not denote Christ, but an angelic being.