Why? Such a little word that asks such a profound question. From a very early age, we ask questions. Just ask anyone who has parented a toddler and they can tell you about a child’s penchant for asking the incessant “why” question. It’s a good question.

WHY JESUS?

When we are talking to people about salvation, we often ask them, “Why did Jesus have to die?” If we could be saved by works, Christ did not have to die. This shows the necessity of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. A lot of people believe in God (even the demons, James 2:19), but just a belief in God will not get you into heaven. A lot of folks like to talk in vague terms about God in general, but when you start talking about God in particular—the Lord Jesus Christ, they start to get uneasy.

In Christian circles, a similar thing is true. As long as we talk about “Jesus” in nonspecific terms, everyone is happy. But say that He is indeed the Son of God, that He is Deity, that He is the ONLY way to heaven, then folks start to get nervous. Rather than allow Jesus to speak for Himself, they choose to speak for Him—and then they never get it right. They apparently think that He surely didn’t mean those narrow-minded, intolerant things (in their opinion) He said about being divine and the only way to God! Surely He was more “inclusive” and enlightened than that!

No, Jesus Christ said exactly what He meant! When He said that He was the Son of God, He meant it! When He said that He was THE way, THE truth, and THE life and that NO MAN comes to God EXCEPT through Him, HE MEANT IT! He IS the only way. Have YOU believed the good news of salvation for today? Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and He rose again the third day, proving that He was who He claimed to be. Believe this good news and you will be saved (1 Cor 15:1-4).

WHY PAUL?

Why? This is also a good question to ask regarding the Apostle Paul. “Why Paul?” If Paul just taught the same thing as the twelve, if he was in the same group as they, why bother? Why would God go through such trouble to raise up Paul if he was not doing something different?

While religious sorts get nervous when you say that Christ meant what He said, they get even more upset when you insist that Paul meant what he said.

In the gospels, Jesus clearly says that He came only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” and that His disciples were NOT to go to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5,6). Repeatedly, events related to Jesus were in fulfillment of prophecy; He never says one word about a new body, a new creation, or a new program. Jesus clearly says that He came in keeping with Israel’s prophetic program.

Likewise, Paul clearly says that he is the apostle to the Gentiles. But just as people think that they know better what Christ meant than Christ Himself, they also seem to think that Paul did not mean what he said either.

They will read Paul’s explicit statement that he is the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13 cf. Acts 9:15; 13:47; 18:6; 22:21; 26:20; Rom. 1:13; 15:16,18; Gal. 2:2; Eph. 3:1,8; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; 4:17) and then turn around and explain Paul’s statement away to fit their theology or doctrine. “Oh,” they insist, “Paul was just preaching the same thing as the twelve apostles.” Some even go so far as to say that Paul was supposed to be the twelfth apostle to replace Judas despite the clear fact that he was unqualified for the position based on the requirements set forth in Acts 1:21,22 (not to mention the fact that these men were under the control of the Holy Spirit when they chose Matthias, Acts 1:24).

A point of clarification. When we say that Paul did not preach the same thing as the twelve, we are not saying that the twelve did not preach Christ. Both Paul and the twelve preached Christ—the difference is in HOW they proclaimed Christ. While it may be debated if the twelve began to preach the gospel of grace after Paul revealed it to them, it is certain that they did not preach it BEFORE Paul!

THE DIFFERENCE

The key is to recognize both the differences and the similarities between the kingdom program and the mystery program. The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ was not the mystery. This was prophesied. It was these same Old Testament prophecies that Paul used to convince his hearers that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

Both Paul and Peter preached Christ. The distinction to be made is in HOW they preached Christ. In Romans 16:25 we read, “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the Mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.”

Paul preached Christ and Peter preached Christ, but Paul preached Christ ACCORDING TO THE REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY, whereas Peter preached Christ according to (or in keeping with) the revelation of prophecy.

In Acts 2, Peter proclaims that Jesus is the Messiah. But he does this in the context of the millennial kingdom. The entire focus is that if Israel will accept her Messiah, God will send Christ back and set up the long-awaited kingdom of God on earth. The Jews always had an earthly hope—a heavenly city yes, but a heavenly city on the earth!

THE PROBLEM WITH PAUL

Do you see the problem here? The church at large continues to disregard the clear statements of both Christ and Paul and reinterpret them to fit their own scheme of things. How strange that readers can think that they know the intent of an author’s statement better than the author himself does!

But nothing has really changed has it? After all, this is exactly what the Pharisees and Scribes did during Christ’s earthly ministry. They had so twisted God’s law to fit their desires that they argued with the very author of those laws as to their meaning (Matt. 12:2-8; 15:3-6; Mark 3:1-5; 7:7-13).

This brings us back to my original question, “Why Paul?” If Paul’s epistles only repeat or continue the program and message of the gospels, then why this need to directly intervene in time and history and overwhelm Paul on the road to Damascus?

Why Paul? Paul was raised up because God instituted a whole new program with him. Prophetically, God’s next step should have been the Great Tribulation (70th week of Daniel’s prophecy, Dan. 9:24-27) to punish Israel for rejecting Jesus Christ. But instead we see God, in the person of the risen, glorified Lord, confronting Paul on his way to Damascus.

And what did the Lord Jesus Christ tell Paul that day? Did He tell Paul that he was going to be a messenger to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? No. Just the opposite. From the beginning, Paul was called specifically to be an apostle to the Gentiles—in keeping with God’s new program.

Listen to what God told Ananias about Paul: “he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake” (Acts 9:15,16). In Acts 26:17, in his defense before King Agrippa, Paul says that he was sent to the Gentiles by God.

Can there be any question when we allow the plain words of Scripture to speak for themselves? Christ came to Israel (“He came unto His own, and His own received him not.”—John 1:11). His disciples were sent only to Israel (Matt. 10:5,6). Peter preached only to Israel (Acts 2) with a message straight out of the prophetic books. Paul never says he was sent to Israel. But he says or implies many times that he was sent to the Gentiles.

HOW ARE WE SAVED TODAY?

Why Paul? Where else in the Bible do you find salvation by grace through faith alone explicitly stated and laid out so clearly? Where else do you find the concept of the Body of Christ? (Others have seen this distinction as well—see Scofield’s preface to Paul’s epistles in the Old Scofield Bible.)

But some may be thinking that salvation by grace through faith is found before Paul. We beg to differ! While it’s true that salvation has always been by faith, it is only with the dispensation of Grace that it has been by faith ALONE. Salvation has always been by a faith response to what God has said. In previous dispensations, He said “believe and DO.” It is only now (as Paul says, “But now”) that the message is to “only believe.”

Some folks insists that the same salvational message is found before Paul and use John 3:16 or Revelation 3:20 as evangelistic verses. BUT, without being explained in light of the gospel of the grace of God, these verses could never be used to save anyone today!

The word “believe” in John 3:16 is always explained as having to do with belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ—the gospel as related to us in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. In it’s context, John 3:16 says nothing about the gospel of the grace of God. What was Nicodemus supposed to believe? That Jesus was the Messiah, that He was the Son of God, and in that context, that belief also included baptism and continuing to keep the law (Matt. 3:8; 5:20; John 20:31). Without Paul’s gospel to explain what it is we are believing, no one is saved.

Revelation 3:20 is really a stretch, but some people do still try to fit it into their evangelism. “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20). By itself, there are zero facts about the gospel in this verse. At least John 3:16 had the word believe in it, but Revelation 3:20 doesn’t even have that. You can never be saved by “opening the door of your heart” and “letting Jesus come in”—not unless you use Revelation 3:20 as an analogy and compare “opening the door of your heart” to believe the gospel for today (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and “letting Jesus come in” with being saved.

The point is, without reading Paul’s gospel back into these passages, you do not find the message of salvation for today. It is only by explaining these verses in terms of God’s plan for today that they are used to bring someone to salvation.

It is no wonder that so many people are confused and unsure about their salvation. They have never come to fully understand the facts of their salvation. Instead of sticking to Paul’s clear presentation of the gospel for today, we resort to emotional pulls and unbiblical words. Paul says to believe the gospel, that Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose again the third day; we too often say things like “ask Jesus into your heart” or “make Him Lord of your life” or other such phrasing. No wonder folks are confused as to whether they got saved or are still saved!

The fact is, you do not find the explicit terms of salvation by grace through faith ALONE outside of Paul’s epistles.

WHAT IS GOD’S PLAN FOR TODAY?

Why Paul? It is Paul because during this dispensation of Grace God has temporarily set aside Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Rom. 11:25). Contrary to popular belief, Israel is not the chosen nation today. After the rapture she will once again have “most favored nation status,” but not today in the dispensation of Grace. Today, God has concluded ALL men in unbelief that He might have mercy on them all. Today God is dealing with individuals for salvation, not nations.

Why Paul? Because Paul alone teaches us about the blessed hope of Christ’s return for the Body, which is His church today (1 Thess. 4:13-18). Our hope is not Israel’s hope. We do not hope for God’s kingdom on earth—our hope is heavenly. Likewise, a Jew never hoped for heaven—he hoped for God’s kingdom on earth (“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”—Matt. 6:10). Some have lost sight of this distinction and are blurring God’s future plans and programs for Israel and the Body of Christ.

Today it seems that some are starting to turn away from a consistent dispensational approach to the Scriptures. Once you leave the literal interpretation of the Bible, only your imagination and reason limit your doctrine. Sadly, it sometimes seems that the post-modern mindset is seeping into the ship of Church.

Why Paul? That’s a good question! Do you know the answer?

Many years ago, H. A. Ironside¹ published a booklet entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth in which he threw Charles Baker and C. R. Stam into the same bucket as E. W. Bullinger. Ever since then, we have been labeled as having the same extreme views as Bullinger. Men who have never looked into what we really teach continue to spread the slander started by Ironside back in the 1930’s. Besides, it’s much easier to label us as “hyper” and dismiss us than it is to address us based on the Scriptures.

This was recently done again in the July/August 1999 issue of Uplook magazine (published by the Plymouth Brethren). In this their Dispensationalism Issues issue, they presented an excellent overview of dispensationalism. As a matter of fact, we would agree with the majority of what was written. But then, one writer had to add this statement:

“One final word. Like all good things, the study of dispensations can be abused. There are some Christians who carry dispensationalism to such an extreme that they accept only Paul’s Prison Epistles as applicable for the church today. As a result, they do not accept baptism or the Lord’s Supper, since these are not found in the Prison Epistles. They also teach that Peter’s gospel message was not the same as Paul’s….These people are sometimes called ultra-dispensationalists or Bullingerites (after a teacher named E. W. Bullinger). Their extreme view of dispensationalism should be rejected.”²

This article was then followed by the following excerpt from Ironside’s book:³

“What is Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism? This system was first advocated some years ago by Dr. E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913), who was educated at King’s College, London, and was a clergyman in the Church of England. These views have been widely spread through the notes of the Companion Bible which he edited. Dr. Bullinger’s positions are glaringly opposed to what is generally accepted as orthodox teaching. This movement has been carried forth in our day by ardent proponents such as Cornelius Stam, J. C. O’Hair and Charles Baker. [emphasis mine]

“There are a number of outstanding tenets of Ultra-dispensationalism. First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church. Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul’s Prison Epistles. Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body. All of the other epistles of Paul are relegated to an earlier dispensation and were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish Church of that time. Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.

“Beside these points, there are many other unscriptural things which are advocated by Bullingerism. Many boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, the universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit. All these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism.”

“But wait!” You’re thinking, “I don’t believe those things!” Well, neither do I, but these are their tactics. As far as most Acts 2 folks are concerned, we agree with Bullinger’s far out views regarding soul sleep, annihilation of the wicked, universalism, and that the Body of Christ did not start until Acts 28. You either believe in their interpretation of dispensationalism or you are an extremist like Bullinger. They do not recognize any middle ground. This is what we are up against.

In the above quote, Ironside lists some the “outstanding tenets” of what he calls “ultra-dispensationalism.” While this is a convenient label, it does not Biblically address the issues. Let us examine what Ironside said (and everyone else seems to repeat) and see if we agree or not.

“First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church”: We do not believe that the four gospels have no real message for the church—Paul says that ALL Scripture is profitable. However, we do believe (because we hold to a literal historical interpretation of the Bible) that Christ’s earthly ministry was in keeping with Israel’s prophetic kingdom program (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24). We find application in the gospels to be sure, but to say that the basic message of the gospels is directed to the Body of Christ is not being consistent or literal. As Scofield says in his reference Bible, “The Epistles of the Apostle Paul have a very distinctive character….Through Paul alone we know that the church is not an organization, but an organism, the Body of Christ; instinct with His life, and heavenly in calling, promise, and destiny. Through him alone we know the nature, purpose, and form of organization of local churches, and the right conduct of such gatherings. Through him alone do we know that `we shall not all sleep,’ that `the dead in Christ shall rise first,’ and that living saints shall be `changed’ and caught up to meet the Lord in the air at His return. But to Paul was also committed the unfolding of the doctrines of grace…Paul, converted by the personal ministry of the Lord in glory, is distinctively the witness to a glorified Christ, Head over all things to the church which is His Body, as the Eleven were to Christ in the flesh.” And if, according to traditional dispensationalism, the Body of Christ started at Pentecost, how can it be found retroactively in the gospels? The message that Peter preached at Pentecost was an offer of the millennial kingdom to Israel (Acts 2:22) conditional upon their repentance and recognition of Jesus as their Messiah—something that we now know will not happen until after the tribulation.

“Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book, refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul’s Prison Epistles”: You’d think they would at least understand this! Regarding the assembly in the book of Acts, we have both “churches” mentioned, depending on the context. If you see the Body of Christ in the gospels, you are closer to a covenant position than a dispensational one. If the Body is found in the gospels, then to be consistent, it also has to be found in the Old Testament prophetic program as well. It was Bullinger (with whom we do not agree) who said that the Body of Christ did not start until the close of the book of Acts and that only Paul’s prison epistles are for us today.

“Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body”: We do not agree with Bullinger on this point either. We do say that Paul received a special revelation (Gal. 1:11-12), but we do not agree that only his prison epistles are applicable to us today. Paul began to receive his special revelation of the mystery upon his conversion in Acts 9.

“Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation”: Regarding the “ordinances” of the church, there is no place in Scripture where water baptism and the Lord’s supper are linked. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial that we are instructed in I Corinthians 11 to keep “until He come.” However, we do feel that water baptism is a Jewish ordinance and is something that was phased out during the transition period. It is also rarely pointed out that we are not unique in understanding that water baptism is not for today. Other groups throughout church history, such as the Quakers, have also come to this same conclusion.

“Many boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, the universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit. All these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism”: This is the worst sort of guilt by association, but I’m sure you see the implication. If you believe in a mid-Acts position, then, according to them, you also believe in these extreme and unscriptural viewpoints as well. By associating us with these cult-like beliefs we can be discredited without ever having to answer our Biblical arguments.

This is what we are up against. These are the same battles, misunderstandings, and deliberate misrepresentations that Pastor Stam has had to fight against for over 60 years—and we must continue to do so today if the gospel of the grace of God is going to continue to go forward.

Yet rather than discourage us, these things should motivate us. We know what we have found. We know how confused we used to be. We can honestly say that this is a more consistent and literal approach to Scripture. We no longer have to explain away what the Bible clearly says in verses such as Acts 2:38. We know that by reading the Body of Christ back into the gospels, we rob them of their distinctive kingdom character. By not understanding the difference we either have to make the clear statements in the gospels (such as a distinction between Jew and Gentile and water baptism) conform to Paul’s epistles (where he says there is no difference between Jew and Greek, and that he is the apostle to the Gentiles) by explaining them away or we have to read the gospels into Paul’s epistles and make them conform to the message in the gospels (which is what John MacArthur has done with “Lordship Salvation”).

We are not the wild-eyed radicals that the theological media tries to portray us as. We are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of traditional dispensationalism. Our two primary points of disagreement are that we see the Body of Christ starting with the conversion and call of the Apostle Paul and that water baptism is not a requirement for this dispensation.

Let us stand firm in proclaiming the unique message revealed to and through the Apostle Paul. It is like telling others about our faith in Christ. We know what it has done for us. We know that it has cleared away our confusion. Let us graciously and boldly share with others what this message has done for us.

Notes:

1. If you’d like to order a copy of Holding Fast the Faithful Word, you can read more about Ironside’s history as related to the Grace Movement. Just visit the BBS Bookstore.
2. William MacDonald, “Distinguishing things that differ,” Up-look, July/August 1999, pp. 11-12.
3. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, H. A. Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers, New York, 1938.

Introduction

Those of us who understand Paul’s unique apostleship and message usually have a pretty clear understanding of his epistles and how they apply to us today. We also tend to have a good grasp of the prophetic nature of the gospels and how they fit into the kingdom program. Through the gospels and up to and through Paul’s epistles, we seem to recognize the proper dispensational distinctives. But after Paul’s epistles things seem to get a little fuzzy for some of us. “What about the General Epistles? Where do they fit in? How do they apply to the Body of Christ today?” Such questions are typical of those we receive here at BBS about the books that follow Paul’s Epistles.

While many Grace pastors preach and write about Paul’s epistles (which they certainly should do), some of them unfortunately neglect the rest of the Bible. This leaves many Grace folks having to get their instruction on the General Epistles from teachers who do not understand Paul’s unique apostleship and message. While we certainly want to emphasize the teaching and preaching of the dispensation of the grace of God committed to the Apostle Paul, we do not want to neglect the other Scriptures because we know that “ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Our goal should be to know and understand the entire Bible in light of Paul’s gospel.

Why are the General Epistles seemingly ignored when it comes to sermons and dispensational commentaries? Go to just about any dispensational Bible conference and you will likely find numerous commentaries on Paul’s Epistles but nothing dealing with the General Epistles. Perhaps part of the reason is that the General Epistles raise some issues and questions not found in the Gospels or Paul’s Epistles.

Those of us who understand Paul’s unique apostleship and message usually have a pretty clear grasp of where the gospels fit in dispensationally. We understand that the gospels present Jesus’ prophesied earthly ministry to the nation of Israel. (Even some non-Pauline dispensationalists understand that Christ’s earthly ministry was “but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and did not include the Body of Christ—and how could it, since even according to an Acts 2 dispensationalist the Body of Christ did not start until Pentecost?) Up until Paul, we know that God had been dealing specifically with Israel.

Everything in the gospel accounts has to do with the prophesied earthly kingdom and salvation coming to Israel. In the book of Acts we see the offer of the kingdom to Israel—an offer which they reject. Following Israel’s rejection of the kingdom proclaimed by Peter, we see the transition from Law to Grace at the calling of Paul after the stoning of Stephen. By the end of the book of Acts we know that the Law (and Israel’s position as the chosen nation) has been set aside and that the gospel of the grace of God is now the salvational message for this dispensation.

Up until this point, most Grace believers are in agreement. Up to and through Paul’s epistles there is confidence and clarity as to the right division of Scripture. Why then do we see hesitancy and confusion as to how to rightly divide the Scripures after Paul’s epistles?

12 In or Out?

There may be a number of issues that cause Grace expositors to be more tentative when it comes to teaching on the General Epistles. One issue that has clouded the understanding of some regarding the General Epistles is whether or not the 12 Apostles and the kingdom saints became members of the Body of Christ. In the past, a person’s position as to the “12 in or out” has caused needless division and loss of fellowship between believers. And because (it is commonly said) our position on this issue will affect our interpretation of these books, this potentially divisive issue may be why more Grace teachers have not dared to venture into exposition of the General Epistles.

Some are reluctant to teach on the General Epistles because they believe that they will have to stake out a claim as to whether or not the 12 are in the Body of Christ. And since they do not want to cause any dissension or division over the 12 in or out issue, they simply avoid the General Epistles altogether. This is unfortunate because such an issue should not really affect our understanding of the General Epistles.

Even if the 12 Apostles and the rest of the kingdom saints became members of the Body of Christ, it should not change our interpretation and application of the General Epistles. Merging kingdom saints into the Body does not change the fact that Paul is our apostle, not Peter, James, Jude, or John. It does not alter the fact that our doctrine has to come from Paul’s epistles. Paul never tells us to learn from any epistles other than his own (although Peter does tell the Jews to learn from Paul (II Pet. 3:15-16).

In addition, if kingdom saints became members of the Body of Christ, it would not change the prophetic and kingdom nature of the General Epistles. Regardless of where we place the 12 and kingdom saints after the formation of the Body of Christ, it does not change to whom these books are written.

Perhaps an illustration will help. Let us compare the Body of Christ to the United States and the kingdom Church to a Territory. In this analogy, Paul is the president of the United States and Peter is the governor of the Territory. Years later, we find a directive written by Peter. We ask the question, “How does Peter’s directive apply to us as citizens of the United States?” “Did Peter’s Territory become a state?” “Was it a part of the United States?”

Maybe you know where this analogy is going. You see, whether the Territory became a state or not does not really affect the impact of Peter’s directive on us. Whether a state or a Territory, Peter’s citizens can only be kingdom Jews; we cannot belong to Peter’s group—we are not eligible for citizenship. If Peter’s group remained a Territory, it is obvious that what he wrote does not apply to us because we are in a different country. This would be equivalent to saying that the 12 did not become members of the Body of Christ.

Now let us say that Peter’s Territory did indeed become a member of the United States (the equivalent of the 12 becoming members of the Body of Christ). Now what effect would Peter’s directive have on us? It would be the same; nothing has changed. Even if the kingdom Jews were a state, something written by their governor would have no jurisdiction on the residents of another state.

An individual state is a subset of the United States. The federal government can dictate to the states, but a state cannot dictate to other states or to the federal government. If the 12 became members of the Body of Christ (subsets), Paul could write to them (just as the president can give directives to the states), but Peter could still write only to his subset, the Jews (or returning to our analogy, as governor of a state, Peter could still write to residents of his state but it would not have jurisdiction or authority over the other states).

Because Paul is our Apostle and because we get our doctrine from his epistles alone, we know that the General Epistles are written for us, but not to us. In practical terms, this means that their primary application is to Israel. The General Epistles will find their primary application to the kingdom saints during the tribulation. We may draw applications and principles from the General Epistles but we must never forget that they are written to kingdom saints with a decidedly prophetic emphasis.¹

With that lengthy introduction, let us try applying what we have said to I Peter and see if we can answer a few basic questions.

First Things First

There are some basic questions that we must ask before we can properly understand any portion of Scripture. The first question of authorship is not debated. Peter, one of the twelve apostles, wrote I Peter. The next thing to determine is to whom the epistles were written. The fact that Peter wrote these epistles should let us know that they are not written to us since we know that Paul is ourapostle. But even if we don’t know that fact, the first verse of I Peter tells us that Peter wrote to “strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” i.e., Peter wrote these epistles to the dispersed Jews.

Therefore, verse 1 gives us two reasons why I Peter is written for us but not to us: (1) It is written by Peter, not Paul and (2) It is written to the dispersed Jews, not to the Body of Christ. Even if we do not agree that Paul is our unique Apostle, we still cannot escape the fact that Peter’s epistle is written to the Jews and not to us.

Answering these first two questions correctly is very important. People often ask us a question because they are concerned about a verse or passage in either the Gospels or the General Epistles. At first glance the passage in question seems to say that we can lose our salvation, or that we have to work for salvation, or that we could be guilty of the unpardonable sin (just to name a few). But when we ask these two questions about the particular passage, we see right away that they are not written by our apostle and neither are they written to us. We must never lose sight of these basic principles of biblical interpretation (or to use the fancy word, hermeneutics).

Now What?

Having established the authorship and audience of Peter’s epis-tle, now what? What exactly do we mean when we say that a book of the Bible is written for us versus to us? Books that are written to us are those books from which we build our doctrine. As members of the Body of Christ, that means that we must be careful to make sure that all of our doctrines are founded upon Paul’s epistles (Romans through Philemon). Books that are written for us include all of the rest of the Bible. Because all Scripture is profitable we can find principles and applications from the entire Bible, but we must be careful to build our doctrine on Paul’s epistles alone. This does not mean, however, that we throw out the rest of the Bible. It simply means that until we can properly understand the primary interpretation of a passage of Scripture (who wrote it, to whom, and why) we will be unable to make a proper application of the passage.

Why?

Now that we have established the authorship and audience of Peter’s epistle, we need to understand why he wrote the books. What condition or problem was he trying to address?

Referring back to verse 1, we see that Peter is writing to the Jews who are “scattered abroad.” Why are they scattered abroad? They were scattered abroad following the persecution of the kingdom church that followed the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8:1; 11:19; James 1:1).

What It Meant to Them Then

When you compare I Peter to what he said in the book of Acts, you see that some things have definitely changed. In Acts, we see that Peter was preaching the immediate return of Christ and the inauguration of the millennial kingdom—contingent upon Israel repenting and believing on Jesus Christ as her Messiah (Acts 3:19-26).

But as we know, Israel did not accept Jesus as her Christ (Acts 4:1-3). While a few thousand Jews believed, Israel as a nation continued in unbelief. Then, in Acts 7 we have the stoning of Stephen, followed by the dispersion of the Little Flock from Jerusalem. As we read in Acts 8:1, “And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.”

We should be aware of a prime mover in this persecution. Acts 8:3 tells us that Saul (Paul) “made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.”

Rather than experiencing the earthly blessings of the prophesied and long-awaited kingdom, the Jews were persecuted, imprisoned, killed, and dispersed. It is to address these trying circumstances that Peter writes his epistles to the kingdom Jews scattered throughout the Roman Empire.

I Peter has double application for the Jews. When it was written, Peter’s first epistle addressed the problem of the kingdom saints’ dispersion from Jerusalem and of their persecution under an Antichrist of sorts—Saul of Tarsus. Speaking of Saul in his preconversion state, we read in Acts 9:1 that he was “yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord.” Just like the Antichrist who is to come, Saul was intent on destroying the followers of Jesus.

These early saints were no doubt confused as to God’s plan for them. After all, hadn’t they believed on Jesus as their Messiah? Had not God promised them the kingdom? Had they not been given a foretaste of the kingdom to come (Acts 2:1-21; Heb. 6:4)? But instead of experiencing the utopia of God’s kingdom come to earth, they were being pursued and persecuted for their faith. Has God forsaken Israel? What about the promises to Abraham? What about the promised kingdom? It is to answer questions such as these the Peter wrote his epistles to the Jews.

What It Will Mean to Them Later

Likewise, these same questions will need to be answered by the tribulation saints. They too will be persecuted, pursued, imprisoned, and killed by the real Antichrist, of whom Saul of Tarsus was just a prefiguring. The Antichrist will have the same hatred and single-minded intent of eradicating the followers of Jesus. It is during this time of the Great Tribulation that I Peter will have its primary application to the Jews. I Peter tells them how to persevere with hope and holiness under God’s planned time of suffering for them. The theme of I Peter is suffering, sanctification, and salvation. Just as kingdom saints of years ago were comforted and challenged by its message of victory over suffering, tribulation saints will be likewise edified by what Peter wrote by the inspiration of God. That Peter fully understands God’s gracious purpose in all of these things is indicated by his conclusion in I Peter 5:10:

“But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.”

What It Means to Us

While we do not receive direct application of I Peter, we can learn many vital lessons about how we should respond to suffering in this dispensation of Grace. I Peter can teach us the principles of submitting ourselves to God’s sovereignty in the midst of suffering.

Suffering as a tool of God is common in all dispensations. Human nature seems to be such that our best lessons are learned through the fire of suffering. To a great extent, responding properly to such things will determine our practical growth as believers.

Even in this dispensation of Grace, God allows suffering to play a part in our spiritual development. The Apostle Paul wrote about the place of suffering and tribulation in our lives today—something of which he had first-hand experience (II Cor. 12:7-10). He also warned us in II Timothy 3:12 that “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”

Conclusion

While I Peter can give us edification and teach us how to have the proper outlook regarding suffering in our lives, we must not forget that it’s primary application is to Israel’s tribulation saints.

The General Epistles and especially the book of Revelation make much more sense when we understand their unique application to the prophetic program. The kingdom phraseology and emphasis that used to make us wonder now makes perfect sense in light of its proper dispensational context. See if you notice the difference when you read them now too!

Notes:

1. Some are confused by what they consider “Paulinisms” in the General Epistles. Whether the 12 technically became members of the Body of Christ or not, it seems obvious that they read and learned from Paul’s epistles. Apparently it was from Paul that Peter fully learned why the kingdom was put on hold (Rom. 9-11; II Pet. 3:15-16). Therefore, it is no wonder that we find the influence of Paul in Peter’s later epistles. Just as Peter’s epistles are for us but not to us, likewise Paul’s epistles were for the kingdom saints but not to them. Of course, this depends on your view of 12 in or out. If you believe the 12 were in, then you would say that Paul’s epistles were to them. But either way—to them or for them, they learned from Paul’s epistles about the new dispensation of Grace and why Israel’s kingdom was not forthcoming.

Although no one may actually come right out and say it, when it comes to the distinctive ministry and message of the Apostle Paul, many believers apparently think, “What difference does it make?” While such a question is understandable when it comes from someone unfamiliar with Pauline dispensationalism, the question is quite disturbing when it comes from those within the “Grace Movement.”

The “third generation syndrome”¹ that afflicts Christianity in general also seems to affect the Grace Movement. By the third generation, we see many descendants of Pauline grace believers going back to denominationalism or other belief systems. When asked why they are reverting back to what their grandparents or parents came out of, they often answer, “What’s the big deal?” or, “What difference does it make?”

While those of us who stand for the Grace message may chafe at such a question, it is still vitally important that we know the answer to such a question. What difference DOES it make?

The answer to the question, “What difference does it make?” will depend largely on whether or not we place a high premium on God’s Word. If we take God’s Word and living a God-honoring Christian live seriously, the Grace message makes a tremendous difference. But if we are noncommittal to God, apathetic to His Word, and don’t care to live a Christ-honoring life, then it will not make much of a difference at all.

But let us say that you take the Bible and your walk before Him seriously. If you do, then the knowledge of God’s Word rightly divided will affect all areas of your life. However, for the sake of discussion, we will focus on just three areas: Bible Interpretation, Evangelism, and our Christian Walk.

Bible Interpretation

Understanding the distinctive ministry of the Apostle Paul is absolutely necessary if we are going to be able to consistently interpret the Word of God. Many times critics of the Bible say that they cannot believe it to be true because it is full of contradictions. Of course, we do not believe that it is “full of contradictions,” but it is true that without a full understanding of God’s different dispensations the Bible does appear to contradict itself.

Proper Method

The only method of biblical interpretation that allows the Bible to mean what it says and say what it means—to whom it was written—is the literal method of interpretation. By literal interpretation we mean letting the Bible speak with the normal meaning of words. While the Bible is a supernatural book, we read it as we would any other book, letting the normal rules of grammar and word meanings speak to us.

Even those who do not accept dispensationalism admit that if you stick to a literal method of interpretation you will have to be a dispensationalist. If you do not believe in dispensationalism then you are forced to explain away the contradictions in the Scriptures — which are not contradictions when properly understood in their dispensational context.

Many dispensationalists understand the difference between Israel and the Body of Christ. That such a distinction exists cannot be missed if you literally interpret Paul’s epistles. Many dispensational Bible teachers of the past and present (such as Scofield, Darby, Chafer, Walvoord, McGee, Swindoll, etc.) understand that we are now in the dispensation of grace, or as some call it, “the Church Age.”

But unfortunately, they fail to see the distinctive message and nature of Paul’s apostleship. By failing to see and accept this clearly stated distinction they fail to see the kingdom nature of the gospel accounts and read the Body of Christ back into them. They understand the principle of progressive revelation and know not to read doctrines about the Body of Christ back into the Old Testament, but they do not see that this same principle should also apply to the gospels as well.

They constantly take us back to the earthly ministry of Christ to the Jews as our model of conduct for today. They do this in spite of the fact that even they themselves do not believe that the Church, the Body of Christ began until Pentecost. This leaves the question of how Christ can be speaking to the Body of Christ in the gospels when it did not come into existence until afterward?

It is also hard to understand how dispensationalists who claim to interpret the Bible literally can believe that the Body of Christ is in the gospels when even Christ Himself clearly states that He did not come to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24). How can they not believe and accept Paul’s unique apostleship and message when he proclaims it so clearly? (Acts 9:15; 22:21; 26:17; Rom. 11:13; Gal. 2:8-9; Eph. 3:1; 3:8; Col. 1:27; I Tim. 2:7; II Tim. 1:11).

Proper Message

Only by interpreting the Bible literally and being a consistent dispensationalist will we arrive at the proper message for us today. There are many preachers and Bible teachers who proclaim the truth of salvation by grace through faith alone. They quickly run to Paul’s epistles to expound on the great doctrines of the Christian faith. They do not go to the gospels or the general epistles to prove salvation by faith alone—because you will not find it there! As the late C. I. Scofield said in the preface to Paul’s epistles in his original reference Bible:

“The Epistles of the Apostle Paul have a very distinctive char-acter…Through Paul alone we know that the church is not an organization, but an organism, the body of Christ; instinct with His life, and heavenly in calling, promise, and destiny. Through him alone we know the nature, purpose, and form of organization of local churches, and the right conduct of such gatherings. Through him alone do we know that `we shall not all sleep,’ that `the dead in Christ shall rise first,’ and that living saints shall be `changed’ and caught up to meet the Lord in the air at His return. But to Paul was also committed the unfolding of the doctrines of grace…Paul, converted by the personal ministry of the Lord in glory, is distinctively the witness to a glorified Christ, Head over all things to the church which is His body, as the Eleven were to Christ in the flesh.”

It is unfortunate that the editors of the New Scofield Bible chose to water down Dr. Scofield’s clear teaching on the distinctive nature of Paul’s apostleship.

Many Bible teachers today properly teach salvation by grace through faith alone for this dispensation, but because they fail to understand Paul’s unique apostleship and message to the Gentiles, they often take us back to the gospels or general epistles for many teachings today.

While Paul himself says that all Scripture is profitable, we must still understand the difference between what is written for us and what is written to us. Only Paul’s epistles are written to us, but all Scripture is for us. That is, we build our doctrine from Paul’s epistles. We are then free to study all of Scripture in light of Paul’s gospel and draw application and principles from all of the Bible and apply it to our life (Rom. 15:4; I Cor. 10:6; II Tim. 3:16).

Evangelism

Proper Message

We are often criticized for our lack of emphasis on evangelism. Thankfully, many grace believers are starting to develop a renewed emphasis on evangelism. However, before we can evangelize, we first need to know what message it is that we are proclaiming for salvation.

It is interesting that even those who reject Pauline dispensationalism go to Paul’s epistles to get the majority of their evangelistic texts. This is because anyone who is saved in this dispensation is saved by believing the gospel of the grace of God as given to and through the Apostle Paul. In a way, ALL believers today are “grace believers.” NO ONE is saved today apart from understanding Paul’s gospel of faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ on our behalf.

There is only ONE gospel for salvation today—Paul’s gospel. Some balk at calling it that, but under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit this is what it is called (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; II Tim. 2:8). This good news is clearly laid out for us in I Corinthians 15:3-4 and it includes the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

“But what about Peter?” you may be thinking. “Didn’t he preach the same thing as Paul?” It is true that he also preached about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, BUT he preached about it in keeping with Israel’s earthly kingdom program. When we look at Acts 2:22-36 and 3:13-15, we see that he preached about the crucifixion of Christ as the cause of judgment upon the Jews. You do not find Peter preaching faith alone at Pentecost.

Peter told the Jews to repent of killing Jesus Christ. If they would repent (as a nation), then the times of refreshing from God would come upon the nation Israel. While it is true that Jesus Christ is the source of the good news for both Jew and Gentile under both the prophetic and mystery programs, we certainly cannot say that Peter understood the gospel of the mystery at Pentecost (after all, it was not revealed until the Apostle Paul).

When Paul preached about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, he did it not according to prophecy, but according to the mystery,:

“Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:25-26).

The proper application of the gospel in this dispensation of grace is FAITH ALONE. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly states, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

“What difference does it make?” It makes a BIG difference! If we do not understand Paul’s distinct apostleship and message we may wrongly try to evangelize by preaching the gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) according to prophecy and not according to the revelation of the mystery.

Ephesians 2:8-9 flatly contradicts the message of faith plus works as the expression of their faith that we find in the gospel accounts (Matt. 5:19-20; 12:50; 23:3; Mark 11:26; Luke 3:10,12,14; 6:46; 8:21; 10:28; 17:10; 18:18-20). If we fail to “rightly divide” the Scriptures we will have a contradictory gospel. The New Testament clearly teaches both the gospel according to prophecy and the gospel according to the mystery. In an attempt to harmonize the Scriptures, most theologians do one of three things when faced with these facts:

• Superimpose the kingdom gospel into Paul’s gospel
• Read Paul’s gospel back into the kingdom gospel
• Rightly divide the Scriptures

The first choice is what some Bible teachers have done in an attempt to make sense of the kingdom gospel and the gospel of the dispensation of the grace of God. An example of this is the Lordship Salvation teaching of Pastor John MacArthur.

The second choice is what most evangelicals and fundamentalists do. They understand the gospel of salvation as revealed in Paul’s epistles. They teach that salvation today is apart from works and totally by faith alone in the finished work of Christ. They are forced to explain away, rationalize, or spiritualize the clear teachings of the gospels that teach faith plus works.

The third choice, right division, is the only choice that allows God’s Word to say what it means and mean what it says. Understanding Paul’s unique apostleship and message allows the Bible to teach what the literal sense of the words clearly indicates—a message of faith plus works to the Jews in keeping with their earthly prophetic program under the dispensation of law and a message of faith alone to everyone today in keeping with the heavenly mystery program under the dispensation of the grace of God.

Proper Motivation

Understanding Paul’s gospel not only gives us the proper evangelistic message, it also provides us the proper motivation for sharing the gospel of the grace of God.  We are not to be motivated by guilt.  Rather, the love of Christ should compel us just as it did the Apostle Paul (II Cor. 5:14).

The end does not justify means.  This is especially true when it comes to interpreting and applying the Scriptures.  While they may mean well, far too many Bible teachers revert to kingdom Scriptures when trying to motivate us to share our faith.

An Old Testament passage commonly used to this end is Ezekiel 3:17-21.  After this passage is read, we are then exhorted that we are the designated “watchmen” of our generation and that if someone who we failed to witness to dies and goes to hell, “his blood will be upon our head.”  Should we take advantage of every opportunity to share the good news of salvation?  Most certainly!  But if we don’t take advantage of the opportunity, will that person’s blood be on our head?  Absolutely not.  However, we should be aware that while we will not be guilty of the person’s blood, we ourselves will suffer loss at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

What difference does this make?  It can make a big difference in our motive and approach to evangelism.  If we share the gospel with others because we are motivated by guilt or fear our attitude will be evident to them.  Our motive for evangelism should be the love of Christ, not our own self-interest.  And believe me, people can tell the difference.

Another verse used is Luke 14:23 wherein we are told to go out into the highways and byways and “compel” them to come in.  Again, while it is true that we should lovingly urge those to whom we witness to accept Christ, there is no place for arm-twisting or being ungracious in our approach.

Probably the most frequently misapplied passage as related to evangelism is Matthew 28:19-20.  Most conservative Christians have been taught that this is the “Great Commission.”  Most people fail to see the 100% Jewish context of these verses.  The command to “teach all nations” does not refer to teaching them the gospel of the grace of God; rather, what they are to go out teaching is the gospel of the kingdom.  The Jews were always intended by God to be the channel of salvation for the Gentiles.  (That Gentiles could be saved is not the gospel of the mystery.  The aspect of Gentile salvation that was not revealed until the Apostle Paul is that Gentiles could be saved apart from Israel).  The fact of the kingdom gospel is further emphasized in that they are to be “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”  You never find water baptism to be a part of the gospel of the grace of God.  As a matter of fact, Paul said just the opposite in I Corinthians 1:17 where he states, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”

Another phrase within this text that shows its Jewish/kingdom nature is “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”  What did Christ command His disciples?  He taught them to keep the law: “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matt. 23:1-3).

It is only by reading Paul’s gospel into the kingdom program that we can try to apply the so-called “Great Commission” to us today.

But even as we say that the “Great Commission” is not for us today, we also want to point out just as quickly that this does not mean that we do not believe in the need for evangelism.  Quite the contrary!  We have what has been called the “Greater Commission!”

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.  And all things are of God, Who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.  Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (II Cor 5:17-20).

We are sent out not as someone who testifies under compulsion, fear, or guilt.  Rather, we are sent out as joyful ambassadors on behalf of our God!  We do not go to the world with a message of judgment, but with one of reconciliation.  This we can do with joy and love on behalf of those to whom we are sent.

What motivates us to testify of the gospel of the grace of God is love, not guilt or fear.  We share our faith because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts and not out of self-interest.  We witness for their benefit, not ours.  The lost world around us can tell what motivates us, and as one has said, “The world doesn’t care what you know until they know that you care.”

Christian Walk

Not only does understanding the gospel of the grace of God provide a proper motive for us to share our faith, it also gives us the proper motive and means to live the Christian life effectively.

Proper Method

By what method or means are we enabled to live a proper Christian life?  The fact that a proper walk is desired by God is evidenced by the many times in Paul’s epistles that we are exhorted to “walk worthy” or to practically live up to what God has called us to be in Christ.  In Ephesians 4:1 Paul beseeches us that we would “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called” (Eph 4:1).  (See also Rom.6:4; Eph. 2:10; 5:8; Col. 1:10; 2:6; 4:5; I Thes. 2:12; 4:1).

But while we may readily admit the need to live in such a way that honors Christ, we also ask “How?”  What is the means to living what some call a “victorious Christian life”?

Some would have us believe that the way to walk worthy is to “speak the word of faith” and to command Satan to leave us alone.  Any lapse or failure to achieve victory is blamed on us.  “You didn’t have enough faith” we are told.  Unfortunately, those who try to live out this misapplied teaching find themselves frustrated because it simply does not work in this present evil age.  In this age, we are not exhorted to bind or rebuke Satan, but to put on the whole armor of God so that we can stand against him:

“Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Eph 6:11-13).

THIS is the secret to a dynamic Christian life!  Not in “speaking the word of faith” or other such New Age and in some cases, occultic practices!  There is no magic formula, no quick and easy shortcut to Christian maturity and victory.  Maturity comes only as we read and submit to God’s Word in our life.  Victory comes only by the daily sacrifice and submission of ourselves to God (Rom. 12:1-2).

Proper Motivation

The gospel of the grace of God also gives us the proper motivation for living righteously before God.  Our primary motivation to live as we should is the overwhelming love of God that is poured out upon us (Rom. 5:5; II Cor. 5:14; Gal. 5:6; Eph. 2:4; 3:19).  It is this love that is supposed to motivate us to in turn love God and others (Eph. 5:2).

The reason that we are separated from the world and unto God is not because of some legalistic mindset, but because of our love for others.  Paul says that he is careful to not offend the unsaved (Jews or Gentiles) or the saved (the church of God) and that he doesn’t seek his own profit, “but the profit of many, that they may be saved” (I Cor. 10:32-33).

This is why we refrain from certain activities.  Not because we think we are more pious or holy than others, but to make sure that we do not place a stumbling block in front of them (i.e., trip them up) spiritually.

“We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.  Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.  For even Christ pleased not Himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell on Me” (Rom. 15:1-3).

And:

“But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak… And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?  But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ” (I Cor. 8:9,11,12).

We see that the love and grace of God toward us and our love for others for the sake of the gospel should constrain us to live righteously and holy in this present evil age.  Our motivation should not be what pleases us, but that which leads to the edification and salvation of others.

Another seldom mentioned aspect of the dispensation of Grace that should motivate us to walk as we should is the Judgment Seat of Christ.  As stewards we will be required to give an account before God as to how we have administered the gospel that He has entrusted to us (Rom. 14:12; I Cor. 4:2; II Cor. 5:10).

We do not have to ever worry about eternal damnation or judgment for sin because that was paid for by the blood of Christ and we are secure in Him (Rom. 8:31-34; Col. 2:10).  However, there will be an accounting.  Just as God’s love compels us to serve Him (as that of a son who wants to please his earthly father), fear of His displeasure likewise motivates us as well.  Just as an earthly son does not want to experience the displeasure of his father, so we should also be concerned about our Father’s displeasure at the Bema Seat of Christ.

But we must remember that displeasure does not equal damnation or loss of sonship.  My son may do something that displeases me, but that will never change the fact that he is my son and heir.  While there is nothing that can change the established fact that we are sons of God and heirs with Christ, this does not mean that our Father cannot be displeased with us, either here or at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

This is why Paul, speaking of the children of Israel, writes in I Corinthians 10:5, “But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”  And he goes on to say, “Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted” (I Cor. 10:6).  Paul is saying that just as God was not well pleased with many (not a few) of the Israelites, He is often not pleased with the Church, the Body of Christ today—in a practical sense.  The Israelites were still His chosen people.  We are still members of the Body of Christ.  But being in the Body of Christ and knowing certain truths does not mean that we are living in such a way that is well-pleasing to God.

Some believers have unfortunately (and to their detriment) misinterpreted II Timothy 2:15.  They mistakenly think that “study” simply means to academically study God’s Word and know the facts about God’s program for today as revealed through the Apostle Paul.

To “study” means to be diligent.  Diligent unto what?  Diligent unto the end of being “approved unto God.”  Approved unto God refers to the Judgment Seat of Christ (II Cor. 5:10).  What will be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ?  Our knowledge of the Scriptures?  Our knowledge of “right division”?  No!  What will be judged at the Bema Seat of Christ are “the things done in his [our] body, according to that he [we] hath done, whether it be good or bad.”  Notice that it is our works that will be judged—our walk, not our talk.

The last part of II Timothy 2:15 “rightly dividing the Word of truth” is the means to the end, not the end itself.  “Rightly dividing the Word of truth” or knowing God’s program for today is what gives us the means or way to “be diligent” and live our life in such a way that we will be “approved unto God” at the Bema Seat of Christ.

Notes:

1. The “third generation syndrome” is the tendency for third generation Christians to walk away from the faith. The first generation of people saved tend to be enthusiastic and “on fire” for the things of the Lord. The children of the first generation are in church and saved but tend to be less enthusiastic for the things of the Lord. By the third generation many children are typically nominally involved in church, or not involved in the things of God at all, or in worse case scenarios, not even saved.