 |  |
of the Lord upon their repentance. It seemed to me an ominous evidence of the power of
one's own opinion which led you to give public utterance to the idea that Peter made a
mistake in Acts 1 and 3. In Acts 3 Peter was but following out the principle expressed
in the parable of the Nobleman who had gone into a far country to receive a kingdom
and return. The final rejection of Israel and the use of Isa. 6 in Acts 28 is crucial.**
Before this Paul had written Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. Already he had
suffered at the hands of those who, though believing that Christ was the Messiah, were
still zealous of the law (Gal. 2) and although you quote this chapter I fear you
approximate to Peter and James rather than to Paul. Nevertheless, these leaders were
compelled to allow Paul to preach his glorious teaching of `in Christ' even though some
said his teaching led to licence, yet he still emphasized their freedom in Christ. If you
will compare the epistle to the Ephesians with the epistles written before Acts 28 you
will see a noteworthy difference. For example the Jew is personally addressed in
Romans and occupies a considerable space in that epistle (chapters 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11). In
chapter 11 it is definitely taught that Gentile blessings is through the Jew, and the
associations with the hope as set out in Rom. 15 are Millennial. So in I Corinthians,
the gifts were a witness to Israel, they are called in Hebrews the powers of the age to
come. Paul could only speak to spiritual ones at Corinth concerning the mystery (cf. milk
and meat). Paul's `sin' (as taught)*** is overruled to take him to Rome and there
Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians were written, each epistle refers to the fact that he
was a prisoner--why? to show that Jerusalem was rejected as the centre (`beginning at
Jerusalem'), and that Rome, the city of the Gentiles, with Paul the prisoner, taking its
place. He now can declare that which it would not have been expedient to utter while
Israel (humanly speaking) had the opportunity to repent. The dividing line which affects
us is Acts 28. You will remember that we saw, very blessedly, that we were in a
dispensation of foreshadowing `the earnest', but we have not seen this in true perspective.
From Acts 2 to 28, gifts, assemblies and the position of Israel--all were prophetic of,
and foreshadowing, the Millennium. After Acts 28 it is the New Creation that is
foreshadowed.
[* -
These remarks refer to long discussions arising out of the teaching and divisions
among the early brethren, and would have then been understood far more
than it is possible for any one now reading them to enter into.
** - Acts 28 as the dispensational boundary is here evidently seen.
*** - This was immature teaching given at the time concerning Paul and his journey
up to Jerusalem, and is rectified later.]
This new creation does not come in the epistle to the Hebrews, the object of Hebrews
being very different. Hosea 3 declared that Israel shall abide many days without a King,
Priest or Sacrifice, and Hebrews point to the only One who sums up these offices in
Himself. In Heb. 6 is Paul's final appeal to his brethren still entangled in Judaism. To
me, your exposition of Heb. 6 places you on the wrong side of Acts 28, and is
consequently undispensational. Paul exhorted the believer to `leave' these things. You
would make them fundamental . . . . ."
Here the rough draft of the letter ends. How it was concluded cannot now be
remembered, but there is sufficient evidence here to enable the reader to understand the
cause of the separation indicated, and the place that Acts 28 had assumed in the writer's
estimate before The Berean Expositor saw the light.