We cannot deal here with the further differences that are clearly discernible between the ministries of Peter and

Paul, but we feel sure the reader will agree that, if a special message has been sent through the apostle of the

Gentiles, that should be the gospel for the time in which we live, and not the gospel of the kingdom or the gospel of

the circumcision. Needless to say there are no `discrepancies' here. Peter is perfectly right in Acts 10. Paul is

perfectly right in Titus 3. Both are inspired and both are true, but Peter's message would be untrue in Titus 3 or

Ephesians 2, even though it was true in the Pentecostal period, simply because the dispensation had been changed,

and a new order inaugurated.

Some simple illustrations of `wrong division'.

The chapter headings of our English Bible supply a good example of `wrongly dividing' the Word of truth. At

the beginning of Isaiah 29 we read: `God's heavy judgment upon Jerusalem. The senselessness and deep hypocrisy

of the Jews'. At the beginning of the very next chapter (Isa. 30) we read: `God's mercies towards His Church'. In

Isaiah 29:1 we read of `the city where David dwelt', and in Isaiah 30:19 of `the people dwelling in Zion at

Jerusalem'. Yet, while the judgments are reserved for the Jew, the blessings in the same passages are appropriated

by the church. If we will but look for ourselves, we may at once discover the people to whom, and concerning

whom, this prophecy was written, for in Isaiah 1:1 we read: `The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw

concerning Judah and Jerusalem'.

All Scripture is for us, but not necessarily about us.

This appropriation, or rather misappropriation, of Scriptures written concerning Israel and the Kingdom is a

fruitful source of confusion among believers. Think of the many who have stumbled over the Epistle of James.

Those who have seen `justification by faith, without legal works of any kind' to be vital to the integrity of the gospel

of grace (Gal. 2:16), have had considerable difficulty in deciding what to do with the teaching of James. Some have

laboured to `harmonize' the teaching of James and the teaching of Paul. Others, seeing the futility of this, have

discredited the Epistle of James. Luther called it an `epistle of straw'; while others, of equal orthodoxy, have

questioned its canonicity. On the other hand, there are those - to whom the emphasis upon works is more palatable

than Paul's emphasis upon grace - who have used James to `water down' the teaching of Romans or Ephesians.

The address on the envelope.

If we will but rightly divide the Word of truth, all this `vain jangling' will cease. We are saved Gentiles. We

have never been connected with the people or promises of Israel. God has sent to us an apostle, the apostle `for you

Gentiles', and we are responsible for the way in which we receive His message. James did not write his epistle to

saved Gentiles, nor to the `church which is the body of Christ'. As the first verse of the epistle tells us, he wrote `to

the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad'. If any reader is a member of one or other of these twelve tribes, he

may perhaps feel that the epistle has a word for him, although even in that case we hope to show that the

dispensation in which we find ourselves (whether Jewish or Gentile believers) is not directly in view in this epistle.

If the reader is a believer of the Gentiles, then although he may learn much and profit much by reading this epistle,

only confusion will result unless he rightly divides the Word of truth. If we consider the `address on the envelope' a

little more closely, we shall not be found appropriating the promises and blessings of others, and confusing our own

Suppose a father, having several sons, sends to them letters containing advice, words of encouragement, and

promises of help and reward. We can quite understand that one son, John, would be glad to read the letter written to

his brother William, and vice versa. Each would doubtless find much in the letter written from their father to the

other that would be profitable, but neither would think of claiming the promises made to the other, nor of obeying

the other's instructions. If John were a bank clerk, and William an artist, the instructions given to the brother in the

bank would be of no service to the brother at his easel. So it is with the children of God. The same Father in heaven

has many sons. All the messages of love, cheer, hope, instruction and warning may be profitably read by all, but

each one must see that the words sent to him and written about him, are duly considered and placed foremost.