Do Dispensationalists See the Statements of James in Acts 15 and 21 As Christian Doctrine?

[tulsa 2011]

Do Dispensationalists See the Statements of James in Acts 15 and 21 As Christian Doctrine?

In Acts 15 some of the Pharisees who joined the Jerusalem Christian group insisted that everyone must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, meaning other practices of the Old Covenant in addition to circumcision. In a meeting between Paul and the Jerusalem Christian leaders, Peter pointed out that God had through Peter brought the Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles (Acts 10), whose hearts were purified by it, and that the Jerusalem Christians should not put a yoke on them (circumcision, etc).

James then said in Acts 15: 19-21 said: "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

James did not impose circumcision on the Gentiles, but what he says here is a defense of a few parts of the Old Covenant

Then, by Acts 21: 17-24, when Paul and his crew met with James and the other elders of the Jerusalem group, James goes farther. Acts 21: 17-24 says "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
18. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
19. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
20. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24. Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."

The question is, whether dispensationalists of the various kinds see the statement of James in Acts 15: 19-12, and especially what James says in Acts 21: 17-24, as statements of doctrine and part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or is Luke just recording what James said to be part of an accurate history of the issues between the Jerusalem group and Paul's crew?

 

[DHC]

Hello Tulsa.

What is your opinion on this matter?

How do you read the text (Acts 21)?

 

[tulsa 2011]

Supposedly Mid Acts dispensationalism starts from the idea that the uncircumcised had no hope of salvation in previous dispensations. See Genesis. 17:14; Exodus. 12:48, and Ezekiel . 44:7. That is, in the Old Covenant, those who are not circumcised were not accepted by God, as Ezekiel 44; 7 says.

Because the present salvation of Uncircumcised Gentiles was never foretold by any Old
Testament prophet, this present "dispensation of grace"is seen by Mid Acts dispensationalists as being the mystery Paul talks about in Colossians 1: 26-27. "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations..."

Mid Acts dispensationalists also say that the coming of the kingdom of God was
prophesied and that Jesus and His apostles proclaimed it as being "at hand" (see Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4: 17, and Matthew 10: 7). But the "dispensation of grace" was not prophesied, they say.

They do not, however, go into what Christ meant by that kingdom in John 3: 5 ("except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"), that the kingdom of God does not appear by observation (Luke 17: 20) and that the kingdom of God is within you ("for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" Luke 17: 21). Note that the NIV for Luke 17: 21 says "because the kingdom of God is in your midst." The key Greek word is entos, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance number 1787, from 1722, "inside, within." The kingdom of God is not a carnal, earthy kingdom; it is spiritual life within a person. To translate entos as in your midst is limiting the kingdom to being Christ himself who was in the midst of the people at one time. But the kingdom of God has been within millions of people, in their spirits and inner life.

Dispensationalists, then, recognize the distinction between Israel and the church, from their literal interpretation of scripture. But John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5 and Ephesians 4: 4 all say God has one group, not two.

Mid Acts Dispensationalism is based upon the teaching that the present body of Christ began with the apostle Paul, when he was saved during the mid Acts period. Mid Acts Dispensationalists may also tend to believe that neither the Old Testament or the Four Gospels ever mention the possibility that Uncircumcised Gentils could be saved.

Dispensationalism starts from a supposedly consistent literal "Hermeneutic," which is also a peculiar way of interpreting scripture which often denies clear implications of the actual, or literal, words of a text. And the dispensationalist method of interpreting scripture tends to compartmentalize scriptures, so that support for a dispensationalist doctrine is pulled out of a set of scriptures which as a whole do not support that doctrine. For example, in Romans 11: 1-5, Paul begins by saying "I say then, hath God cast away his people? God forbid." This statement in isolation from Romans 11: 2-5 is taken as proof that Old Covenant Israel is somehow still the chosen people of God. But Paul in Romans 11: 1-5 is talking about the remnant of Israel, and that such a remnant at the time in the first century became the elect by grace.

Hosea 2: 23: "And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God."

Hosea 2: 23 is a prophecy saying that God will make a people who were previously not his people the people of God. The inference is that this people are the Gentiles, who are all people who are not descended from Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. Since the Gentiles, as a whole, were not circumcised, then Hosea 2: 23 can be inferred to say that God will allow uncircumcised people to become members of his elect by grace.

Haggai 2: 9: "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts."

"Normative" dispensationalism claims that Old Covenant Israel is still a people of God, alongside the Capital C Church, and that Old Covenant Israel retains its status of being God's chosen people. But the peculiar "Hermeneutic" of John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer does not accept Haggai 2: 9 - if they ever knew about this text - as prophecy that the New Covenant would have greater glory than the Old Covenant. Haggai 2: 9 does not say that in an explicit way and so the literal dispensationalist "Hermeneutic" does not see the text as prophecy saying the New Covenant is superior to the Old. But Hebrews 7: 22 does say the New Covenant is a better covenant. But like many other texts, Hebrews 7: 22 is not acknowledged by disppensationalists as contradicting their system of doctrines.

Since Mid Acts dispensationalists focus on the Book of Acts, it is interesting to look at the statements of James in Acts 15: 19-21 and Acts 21: 17-24 where he is affirming some Old Covenant doctrines as the spokesman for the Jerusalem Christians, including Peter and John.

If dispensationalists somehow see Old Covenant Israel continuing as the chosen people of God contrary to Hebrews 10: 9 ("He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second"), then they might see the statements of James as being part of Christian doctrine.

 

[DHC]

Hello Tulsa.

If you do not mind assisting me in understanding how you read the text (Acts 21). Could you elaborate what you mean by the following statement.

Since Mid Acts dispensationalists focus on the Book of Acts, it is interesting to look at the statements of James in Acts 15: 19-21 and Acts 21: 17-24 where he is
affirming some Old Covenant doctrines as the spokesman for the Jerusalem Christians, including Peter and John.

 

[tulsa 2011]

Again, it is implications that are involved in what James says to Paul and his crew in Acts 21: 17-24
First,James says in verse 20 that "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe: and they are all zealous of the law." What are the implications of saying these Jews are zealous of the law?
Then James tells Paul the Jews are informed that Paul has been teaching not to circumcise, and not to walk after the customs. What does this mean? Finally, James sends Paul into the temple to take part in an Old Covenant purification ceremony.

 

[DHC]

Hello Tulsa.

You said the following.

Then James tells Paul the Jews are informed that Paul has been teaching not to circumcise, and not to
walk after the customs. What does this mean?

Was Paul teaching not to circumcise Tulsa, was this claim of the Jews correct?

 

[tulsa 2011]

On Acts 21: 20 where James says many Jews have believed and are zealous of the law, John Gill says of these Jews that "...for though they believed in Jesus of Nazareth as the true Messiah, yet they had not light enough to see, that he was the sum and substance of all the ceremonies of the law, and that they all ended in him; and therefore were zealous in the observance of them, and could not bear to hear of their abrogation. "

Then on Acts 21: 21 Gill says "saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children; though this does not appear; it is true the apostle taught that circumcision was abolished, and that it was nothing; yea, that to submit to it as necessary to salvation, was hurtful and pernicious;........neither to walk after the customs; either of the law of Moses, meaning other rites there enjoined, besides circumcision; or of their fathers, and their country, the traditions of the elders, which as yet they had not got clear of; the disuse of old customs is not easily brought about, or it is not easy to bring persons off of them. "

John Gill's commentaries can often be taken to represent the Protestant views on scripture before dispensationalism took over so many denominations and churches beginning in the late 19th century. The question is whether dispensationalists agree with the view on Acts 21: 20 that "yet they had not light enough to see, that he was the sum and substance of all the ceremonies of the law, and that they all ended in him; and therefore were zealous in the observance of them, and could not bear to hear of their abrogation."

John Darby's doctrine saying that it is a fundamental error of Christianity to believe that the church is the true Israel is still a fundamental starting point of dispensationalism. You see, Darby, C.I Scofield, Lewis S. Chafer and other dispensationalists set up the dialectic of two groups, Old Covenant Israel and the Church. There is no place in dispensationalism for a remade Old Covenant Israel, so that there is one Body of Christ, and one group of the elect as scripture says (John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4).

For dispensationalism there is only one Israel, and that is Old Covenant Israel. Dispensationalism then claims that the church was not in Old Testament prophecy but came about because the multitude of Old Covenant Israel rejected Christ. But Hosea 2: 23 predicts that a people who were previously not the people of God will become his people, meaning the Gentiles, and the implication is that believing Gentiles join remade Israel or born again Israel (Jeremiah 18: 4, John 3: 1-6) which became the spiritual house of I Peter 2: 5,9.

The Catholics made the ekklesia, the assembly, into the authoritarian Capital C Church and claimed it replaced Old Covenant Israel. Later the dispensationalists made that Capital C Church - which has a clergy class that rules over the doctrines of the members to insure they are dispensationists - into the lesser of two people of God, Old Covenant Israel and the Church.

In dispensationalism the ekklesia, translated as church (not a capital C Church) becomes a proper noun and the Church becomes equal to the elect of God though ekklesia means meeting, gathering, assembly or congregation.

If Old Covenant Israel remains the chosen people of God in dispensationalism alongside but superior to the Church (contrary to Haggai 2: 9), then would not dispensationalists say that the Old Covenant customs, including circumcision, are still in effect, and would side with the Jews in Acts 21: 21?

Yet a great deal of New Testament scripture has to be contradicted in order for dispensationlists to teach that somehow the Old Covenant was not done away with when the New Covenant was established. Somehow dispensationalism has to say that all the Old Covenant was not done away with, while also saying it was done away with. Interestingly, it is James in James 1: 8 who teaches that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways, the same James who boasted to Paul in Acts 21: 20 about the many Jews who have believed and are zealous for the law, with the implication being that this is the law of Moses, the Torah, which includes circumcison, etc.