 |  |
"Perhaps no one book in the whole of the Scriptures may be considered to have a
claim upon all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ more than the Epistle to the
Romans."
Romans is "undoubtedly authoritative" where doctrine is concerned, but where we see
a difference between Romans and the epistles of the Mystery is in their dispensational
teaching. Both Romans and Ephesians teach the same truths concerning sin, salvation,
redemption, life, but they are diametrically opposed when it is a question of the
constitution of the Church. This aspect of truth will come before us again, as "B" has
raised the question of the meaning of the phrase "the Jew first"; so we pass on to the
matter of the four prison epistles. To be exact there are five epistles marked as from
"prison", but as Philemon is so personal, we usually leave it out when speaking of the
revelation of the Mystery.
The four prison epistles are the only source of instruction on the distinctive character
of the Church of the Mystery. No other company was chosen before the foundation of
the world. No other company is seated together at the right hand of God. So while we
believe all scripture is for us, we do not believe that all scripture is about us. We
recognize that in the epistle to the Romans there is that which is permanent, e.g., the
doctrine of redemption, and also that which is passing, e.g., the teaching concerning the
wild olive graft. We believe that unless the Church of the Mystery had had beneath it the
solid rock of Romans, it would have needed a special revelation concerning these basic
things. These things are accepted and assumed in Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians,
and the time is occupied in making all men see what is the dispensation of the Mystery,
with its own peculiar constitution, hope and sphere:--
"It is claimed that Paul's words in Acts 28: 28 are the announcement of the new
order. Please compare with them his words in Acts 13: 46, 47 and Acts 18: 6 which
to me seem absolutely identical. On page 37 of `Things most surely believed', we read
that `in this new company there is an equality of membership never known before'.
Why, it is stated by Peter in Acts 11: 15, etc., 15: 9, And He put no difference between
them, the Gentiles, and us."
We have compared Acts 28: 28 with Acts 13: 46, 47, and we find in
Acts 28:, "The salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles", and in Acts 13:, "Lo, we
turn to the Gentiles". If our brother's intention is to suggest that both passages teach the
same thing, a reference to Acts 14: 1 will show that the apostles themselves had no such
thought. Paul did not set aside the Jew in Acts 13:; he merely set aside that one
synagogue. As far on as Acts 17: 1, 2 we read that, "as his manner was", he went to
the synagogue of the Jews. It is strange that we may even compare scripture with
scripture and yet miss the meaning of the comparison.
Acts 13: and Acts 28: answer to one another as type does to antitype or
prophecy to fulfillment. In Acts 13: Paul brings about the blindness of one Jew
(verse 11); in Acts 28:, he pronounces the same doom on the nation. In Acts 13:
one Gentile and his house are saved, as a consequence of the judgment upon the Jew, and
both the saved Gentile and the apostle are of the same name, Paulus. In Acts 28:,
consequent upon the judgment of the Jews, the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles.