by R.L.B.

Some current dispensational views

        Bible study from a dispensational point of view was popularized by the recovery of some features of dispensational bible truth in the 1800's by scholars like John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), William Kelly (1820-1906), Charles. H. Mackintosh (1820-1896), F. W. Grant (1834-1902), and more recently by Cyrus. I. Scofield (1843-1921), F. C. Jennings (1847-1948), Louis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) and others.  All these men placed the beginning of the church at the day of Pentecost, when God poured out His Spirit on the twelve apostles and on other believers assembled that day (Acts 2:1-4).

        J. N. Darby, (1800 - 1882), is credited by many with recovering the foundations of the largely forgotten body of truth known as "dispensationalism."  A recent television broadcast on "The History Channel" puts this in prospective, in spite of the fact that its contributors seem to be rather unsympathetic to the biblical concept of dispensationalism itself.  We, of course, totally disagree with the History Channel's conclusions that dispensational truth is a recent invention of man, that man being J. N. Darby.  Many features of biblical truth were lost very early in the history of the church, including the truth of justification by faith, the character of the local and universal church, and dispensational truth.  However, these concepts were in the bible from day one for all to accept.  The fact that Huss, Luther and others rediscovered many generally ignored biblical doctrines, such as the truth of justification by faith without works, does not mean the doctrine of salvation by God-given faith alone was invented by those reformers.  So with dispensational truth.  Although others before Darby may have begun to understand portions of this system, Darby was certainly instrumental in beginning the process of recovering it, systematizing it, and popularizing it.  The History Channel program made the following observations:

Narrator:  But this gripping end-time scenario [of the rapture and the great tribulation] is not a twenty-first century evangelical invention.  And perhaps more surprisingly, academics don’t believe it’s a first century concept either.

Dr. Segal:    It comes from nineteenth century, and early twentieth century protestant evangelical preaching which connected together a number of separate scenes in the New Testament and came up with what is essentially a new myth about the end of time.

Narrator:  This influential form of biblical interpretation is called dispensationalism.  It was the brain child primarily of one man, John Nelson Darby, a nineteenth century British evangelist.

Dr. Weber:  John Nelson Darby’s teachings, were called dispensationalism because he divided the bible into various eras or dispensations he called them.  And he believed that God had worked with humanity in different ways in each dispensation to bring them along in this redemptive process.

Narrator:  Darby’s innovation amounted to a biblical super-system, a way to read scripture that unified disparate texts and in particular incorporated difficult apocalyptic books like Daniel and Revelation which were often ignored in mainstream protestant churches. . . .   Dispensationalism caught on quickly in America.

Dr. Weber:   And between 1880 and 1940 there were literally dozens of these bible institutes formed all over the country.  And almost without exception, dispensationalism was the perspective taught in those bible institutes, which put out hundreds and thousands, over the years, of pastors and missionaries and Christian educators  (The Antichrist, Part II, The History Channel) 

(Above contributors were:  Alan F. Segal, PhD., Professor of Religion, Barnard College, and Timothy Weber, PhD., Author, On the Road to Armageddon)

Darby's ministry took him on multiple trips from Great Britain to France, Germany, Canada, and the United States.

        Regarding the differences between "prophecy" and the "privilege of the church," Darby wrote, in his typical cumbersome style:

John Nelson Darby

Prophecy applies itself properly to the earth;  its object is not heaven.  It was about things that were to happen on the earth; and the not seeing this has misled the church.  We have thought that we ourselves had within us the accomplishment of these earthly blessings, whereas we are called to enjoy heavenly blessings.  The privilege of the church is to have its portion in the heavenly places;  and later blessings will be shed forth upon the earthly people.  The church is something altogether apart -- a kind of heavenly economy, during the rejection of the earthly people, who are put aside on account of their sins, and driven out among the nations, out of the midst of which nations God chooses a people for the enjoyment of heavenly glory with Jesus Himself.  The Lord, having been rejected by the Jewish people, is become wholly a heavenly person.  This is the doctrine which we peculiarly find in the writings of the apostle Paul.  It is no longer the Messiah of the Jews, but a Christ exalted, glorified;  and it is for want of taking hold of this exhilarating truth, that the church has become so weak.  (The Hopes of the Church of God, In Connection With the Destiny of the Jews and the Nations as Revealed in Prophecy, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 2, p. 376, [1840] )

The calling of God for the earth is never transferred to the nations;  it remains with the Jews.  If I want an earthly religion, I ought to be a Jew.  From the instant that the church loses sight of its heavenly calling, it loses, humanly speaking, all. (Op cit, p. 378)

The body or membership of the body forms no part of Peter's revelation.  Nor does he speak of the Church or assembly at all.  Let us now turn to Paul.  He is full upon this question.  He was a minister of the Church to fulfil or complete the word of God.  Hence the doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ is fully developed by him.  (The Church--The House and the Body, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 14, p. 97 [1867] )

As to the 'birthday' of the church, Darby identified this day as Pentecost.

In the Ephesians, however, when the body is fully spoken of, the apostle refers to the elect saints, who are created again in Christ Jesus, and are sealed for the day of redemption;  that is, united to the Head, as God knows it;  quickened, raised, and seated in heavenly places in Christ the Head.  That which has wrought this unity is the baptism of the Holy Ghost, under which the elect and manifested remnant were brought on the day of Pentecost. (The House of God; The Body of Christ; and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 14, pp. 24-25, [1860] )

While Darby did not teach that the present dispensation began after Israel's rejection of God's word at Acts 28:28, he did recognize some of the importance of that dispensational milestone:

If we trace the actual order of church history in the Acts, we shall find the breaking up and scattering of the central and only church of Jerusalem by the death of Stephen, gone to Jesus — and then the church on earth scattered;  thereon Saul called for, an entirely new instrument to Gentiles, rulers, and the people of Israel;  and thereon the union of the church with Jesus in heaven for the first time mentioned, "Why persecutest thou me?"  but after this (though the principle of Paul's mission and the union of the church with Jesus was established), the patience of God continuing to work by the ministration of Peter . . . the calling of the Gentiles is by his mouth, that the witness of the Jewish stock might still be preserved in grace . . . and thereon extraordinary intervention might effect besides in one born out of due time, the witness of prerogative grace in the disorder of the dispensation as to man.  We find the lingering traces of habitual evil in the saints, for they objected to Peter his having gone to the Gentiles;  yet this was the final sin of the Jews.  Such was the patience of God, that they were not, historically, then shut up, till Paul's intercourse with them at Rome (Acts 28).  (Footnote to Notes on the Revelation, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 2, p. 176 [1839])

It is when the enmity [of man] has arrived at its height, that He says, "Make the heart of this people fat" (Isaiah 6:10):  but it is not until nearly eight hundred years after (Acts 28:27), that we find the accomplishment of this judgment pronounced so long before by the prophet.  It was when the people had rejected everything, that God hardened them, to make them a monument of His ways.  What patience on the part of God!  (The Hopes of the Church of God, In Connection With the Destiny of the Jews and the Nations as Revealed in Prophecy, Lecture 9, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 2, p. 362 [1840] )

Ethelbert W. Bullinger

This Dispensation . . . commenced outwardly by the ministry of Paul, in the Dispensation or administration committed formally to him. (E. W. Bullinger, How to Enjoy the Bible, p. 95)

Bullinger, at this time, took a 'mid-Acts' position with regard to the beginning of the present dispensation, but it is not entirely clear whether he also took a 'mid-Acts' position as to the birthday of the church.  Equating the beginning of a dispensation and the birthday of the church that occupies that dispensation is characteristic of most, but not all, 'non-Acts 2' dispensationalists.         

John C. O'Hair

Cornelius R. Stam

         Cornelius R. Stam, (1908 - 2003), was the former editor of the Berean Searchlight, and late president of the Berean Bible Society.  Although he was an early member of the GGF, certain issues prompted him to form a rival organization in 1967 known as the Berean Bible Fellowship.  Stam placed the birthday of the church at the conversion of Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9.  Stam says the following in his commentary on the Acts: 

THE PENTECOSTAL CHURCH  --  In this passage [Acts 2:42-47] we find the first  mention of "the church" in Acts.  This fact has been used to support the traditional view that the church of this age (the Body of Christ) had its historical beginning at Pentecost -- that Pentecost was "the birthday of the Church."  This is one of the great blunders which has caused such confusion and division among God's people today.  (Cornelius. R. Stam, Acts--Dispensationally Considered, Vol. 1, p. 116)

Expressing his view that the birthday of the church and the beginning of the present dispensation were simultaneous occurrences, Stam goes on to say:

[Paul's] conversion marked the beginning of the new dispensation . . . of grace.  (Op cit Vol. 2, p. 17)  The reader is encouraged to refer to Stam's five specific proofs of his position, pp. 176-180.

        Charles F. Baker was an important organizer of the GGF.  He was editor of Truth magazine beginning with the magazine's inception in 1950.  He, along with a majority of GGF members, believed that both the church and the present dispensation began, not at Acts 9 at the conversion of Saul, but with the commencement of Paul's ministry in Acts 13.

        To promote unity between the two camps within the GGF, (i.e., between those who hold an Acts 9 position and those who hold an Acts 13 position), the "Grace Gospel Fellowship," adopted the less specific doctrinal statement:

In the present dispensation there is only one true Church, which is called the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22, 23; 3:6). The historical manifestation of the Body of Christ began with the Apostle Paul before he wrote his first epistle (1 Thess. 2:14-16 cf. Acts 13:45, 46; Phil. 1:5, 6 cf. Acts 16; 1 Cor. 12:13, 27 cf. Acts 18) - (Doctrinal statement of the Grace Gospel Fellowship)

        One of the implications of the view that a 'new church' was born at Acts 9, or Acts 13 is that 'two bodies,' or 'two distinct churches,' a Pentecostal kingdom church, and the church known as 'Christ's body,' must have coexisted side-by-side after the 'new church' began.  This view has been held by many dispensational teachers, including a dear brother this writer was once privileged to know, the late Ike T. Sidebottom (1897 - 1970), former editor of The Timely Messenger, and pastor of "The Church at 615 College Avenue" in Fort Worth, Texas, from 1929 to 1965.  More recently Dr. W. Edward Bedore, Executive Director of the Berean Bible Institute, an arm of the Berean Bible Society, wrote an article supporting this view in The Berean Searchlight, a 'mid-Acts' publication.

The foregoing list of things that took place following Paul's conversion provides compelling evidence that there was a major departure from the prophecy program at that time.  God dispensed grace instead of wrath.  This unprophesied dispensing of grace initiated a new Church, the Body of Christ, which over the next several years would grow even as the existing Kingdom Church would wither and finally die out. - (W. Edward Bedore, The Practical Beginning of the Body of Christ, in The Berean Searchlight, February 2006, p. 20)

        Dr. Bedore believes, along with many mid-Acts teachers, and with many Acts 28 dispensationalists, that the Scriptures teach a new ekklesia (church, or assembly) was born at the same historical time that the present dispensation was manifested, whether that time be Acts 9, Acts 13 or after Acts 28:28.  In the case of the mid-Acts systems, this requires the problematic theory that 'two bodies' simultaneously existed during the Acts, as stated by Dr. Bedore (above).  As just one example of the difficulties created by this approach, the Acts 9 system  holds, for example, that when Saul of Tarsus believed, he became the first member of the ekklesia known as the "Body of Christ," yet he was baptized with water, an ordinance believed by most mid-Acts dispensationalists to be a 'kingdom ceremony.'  Moreover, Ananias, who baptized Saul, was undoubtedly part of the Acts 2 church.  Thus we have someone in the 'old' church baptizing someone into an entirely different, 'new,' church.

        Yet, after having discussed these concepts with others, it is our feeling that many dispensationalists simply take for granted that the historical beginning of the present church must necessarily coincide with the revealing of the present dispensation, whether that timeframe is Acts 9, Acts 13, after Acts 28:28, or during the second imprisonment of Paul.  They assume a new church would necessarily have to be born at the time God, in His sovereign wisdom, introduces a new administration, or dispensation.   For example, when Israel's opposition to their Messiah became irrevocable, God initiated the present, (new) dispensation, and it is sometimes assumed this dispensation could not be compatible with the church already in existence, so God created a 'new and distinct church' that was consistent with His new dispensation.  More on this theory later.

        In England, in the early 1900s, after discussions with a young man, Charles H. Welch , the aforementioned Dr. E. W. Bullinger, became convinced that his previously held 'mid-Acts' position was inconsistent with the occurrences of kingdom miracles and signs in the Acts and earlier Pauline epistles, and their complete absence in the 'prison epistles.'  Although the majority of Bullinger's writings reflect his earlier 'mid-Acts' position, his final writings adopt a firm Acts 28:28 position which held that the birthday of the church, the body of Christ, and the beginning of the present dispensation, coincided with the significant dispensational boundary line at Acts 28:28.

Before we take up the Prison Epistles, written after Acts xxviii, 29, 30, it is absolutely necessary that we should have a very clear understanding of the great dividing line which separates the earlier from the later Pauline Epistles.

In order to gain this understanding we must have a clear view of the scope and design of the Acts of the Apostles as being a Dispensation characterised by CONCLUDING ISRAEL'S BIBLICAL HISTORY.

Of no book of Scripture has the key been more effectually lost, or more difficult to recover.  The eyes of Christendom have been blinded by the tradition, originated by the Popes of Rome, that "Jesus Christ came on earth to found a church, and that He gave the keys to Peter, and Peter gave them to the Pope."  This, or the milder and more modern form of expression, "The Church began at Pentecost," is the root of all the darkness, which, like a thick veil, hides the truth from the churches to this very day.

Through the unfortunate translation of ekklesia by "church" in Matt. xvi. 18, instead of "assembly" or "congregation" (as in the Old Testament), the Romish and Protestant figments have brought forth the pernicious fruit that, in the Acts of the Apostles, we have the formation of "the Christian Church." - (E. W. Bullinger, The Foundations of Dispensational Truth, p. 182)

        Charles H. Welch, (1880 - 1967), continued his own ministry as editor of The Berean Expositor, which commenced publication in 1909.  He also organized The Berean Forward Movement.  The author of this paper met Mr. Welch during his visit to the United States in 1955.  Brother Welch has consistently held to an Acts 28:28 dispensational position.  Regarding Pentecost he says:

Charles H. Welch

It is practically a "fundamental" that "The church began at Pentecost."  This consensus of opinion has wrought havoc among the people of God.  It has been the foundation of much of the "gifts" and "tongues" movements, "faith healing," and the many sects and splits that go to form Christendom.  We unhesitatingly challenge this hoary tradition, and seek to show by the Word itself that Pentecost has nothing whatever to do with the "church," but like "Matthew," and the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus, is a continuation of the gospel of the kingdom, related to Abrahamic and Davidic promises, hopes, and people. (Charles H. Welch, Dispensational Truth: or the Place of Israel and the Church in the Purpose of the Ages, p. 137)

        Others who held dispensational positions similar to those of Mr. Welch included Otis Q. Sellers (1901 - 1992), founder of The Word of Truth Ministry in 1936, and the late Oscar M. Baker, (1898 - 1987), editor of Truth For Today which began in 1948.       

        Gordon K. Edgar claimed that the complete revelation of the truth of the present dispensation did not take place until well after Acts 28:28, and that many of the the prison epistles are "transitional" in nature.  Commenting on Acts 28:28 Edgar states:

It may be asked whether the quotation of Isaiah 6:9, 10 in the latter portion of Acts 28, had any real significance at all.  The answer is, yes it did, but the importance of its appearance during the events at Rome must be neither minimized nor overemphasized.  (Gordon K. Edgar, Dispensationalism and Acts 28:28, Sept. 10, 1953, p. 26)

There can be no doubt that this was an important step away from the program of God to Israel.  It is as it were a climactic event in the history of the Acts, yet it was several years later before we have tangible evidence that God was absolutely through with Israel as a nation.  That evidence is presented historically in the destruction of both the Temple and the city of Jerusalem by Titus in 69-70 A.D.  (Op cit, p. 27)

Finally, we must take note of when the present economy of grace actually did begin if, as claimed in this study, it did not begin at any time during the book of Acts.  The answer is, that in conformity with the unique character of this administration, it had its beginning secretly and mystically, with no recorded action to mark the historicity of the event.  The transitional nature of many of Paul's final epistles gives adequate evidence as to the evolutionary nature of the administrational change.  Because of this, we must be especially alert to "test the things that differ" in those epistles of Paul written after the close of the book of Acts.  For some of these writings are transitional in nature and contain much material related to the systematic closing out of the kingdom program of the Acts era, as well as the unfolding and expansion of truths connected with this present administration.  (Op cit, p. 28)

Mervin A. Tillinghast

Mervin A. Tillinghast, (1909 - 1998), and the author of this paper were involved together in several personal ministries.  We regularly gave gospel messages to inmates at a county jail, we gave out gospel tracts together, and we visited numerous people in need of eternal salvation.  "Merv" and I also engaged in numerous in-depth discussions regarding various features of truth found in the scriptures.  We also published a limited circulation monthly Bible study known as "The Steward."  Eventually brother Tillinghast came to believe that Ephesians and other prison epistles written during Paul's first imprisonment contained a number of elements of 'kingdom truth.'  This theory puts Ephesians and other prison epistles outside the 'zip-code' mail zone specifically addressed to believers in the present dispensation.  As to whether the birthday of the body of Christ and the beginning of the present dispensation occurred at the same historical time, this brother personally told me he believed that "the body of the Lord Jesus Christ could not begin" until the truth of that one body was revealed.  However, he did not indicate to me when that revealing took place and he was unable to point to scriptural evidence that substantiated the historical beginning of any new ekklesia during or after Paul's second Roman imprisonment.

Supportive arguments for and against the various positions

        Thus far we have cited four positions as to when the present church began.  These are:

• Pentecost (Acts 2)

• Mid-Acts (Acts 9 or 13)

• Shortly after Acts 28:28

• During or after the second imprisonment of Paul

        There are, as should be noted, variations on the above four positions, but inasmuch as these are the most popular stands taken on this issue we will confine our discussion to them.  We will not be discussing "covenant of grace" positions in this paper.

The position of ThyTestimonies.com

        At this point it is appropriate that we insert our own position as to when the church began, and also our understanding as to when the present dispensation began.  We believe these are two entirely distinct concepts.  Being part of Christ's universal church is a privilege enjoyed by every person who has a personal, spiritual link to the Savior.  This 'membership' has nothing to do with 'belonging' to some local church, chapel, or religious body.  Thus, Christ's church began when the first repentant believer was baptized by the Holy Ghost into that church. This event occurred when God was literally offering the earthly kingdom to Israel within the framework of the prophesied new covenant.

        Within that company of believers making up Christ's church God has, at various times, administered different spiritual and physical programs, or dispensations.  These differing programs affect not only the spiritual blessings enjoyed by members of His universal church; they also affect those who might be in some local, earth based, religious group (Christian or otherwise).  God's dispensations, or economies, also affect unbelievers who may be entirely outside the visible, physical, sphere of Christianity or, for that matter, of any religion. 

        As the reader may have already surmised, while we firmly believe the present dispensation began at or soon after Acts 28:28, we believe the church began at Pentecost and continues unending to this day.  Significant non-biblical, and even un-biblical, conclusions are forced upon us if we assume that a new church had to be born whenever a new dispensation, or sub-dispensation, is perceived to begin subsequent to Acts 2.  This is true whether we believe a new dispensation, or sub-dispensation, began at Acts 9, Acts 13, Acts 28:28, or during the second imprisonment of Paul.  Here, in brief, is a summary of our position:

• The formation of God's church began at Pentecost.  This church was born when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the disciples in fulfillment of John the Baptist's prediction.  And, although the Pentecostal kingdom dispensation was initiated at the same time the original church was born, a dispensation is a concept entirely distinct from the idea of forming a church.  The characteristics of that kingdom dispensation became obvious when Peter preached to the Jews, offering them the physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 'times of refreshing,' conditional on Israel's repentance and baptism with water.  This dispensation continued until the stoning of Stephen.

• The next dispensation, or perhaps 'sub-dispensation,' began when the Jerusalem Israelites decisively rejected their Messiah by stoning God's prophet Stephen.  This stoning was reckoned by God as being the same as if the Jews had stoned the Lord Himself (see Mat. 25:40), except that now they were also rejecting the works of the Holy Spirit (see Matthew 12:31).  These works were obvious in the miracles and signs given as Divine evidences to the Jews.  Because of their unbelief, God at that time began an ongoing process of hardening Israel's heart.  Note that Stephen saw the Lord Jesus "standing," not "seated" (see James 5:9).  This was a warning that the Lord Jesus was about to dispense judgment upon His people Israel.  Up until this point in the book of Acts the gospel had been preached to Jews only, because, according to prophecy, Jews were to be God's missionaries to enlighten the gentiles.  In order to become missionaries, Israel must first believe the word of God and accept their Messiah.  But in Acts 7, rather than accept their Messiah, the Israelites at Jerusalem demonstrated their unbelief, thus disqualifying themselves from fulfilling their prophesied missionary roll.

In response to their unbelief, God began the process of hardening corporate Israel's heart (Rom. 8:18), and of provoking them to jealousy (Rom. 10:19; 11:11; see also Acts 17:5), while mercifully saving individual Jews (Rom. 11:14; 1 Cor. 9:22).  This sub-dispensation, in which God began the process of terminating His prophesied relationship with Israel, spanned the period from Acts 8 through Acts 28:28.

In order to provoke His people Israel to jealousy God permitted Gentiles to partake of His mercies.  This inclusion of Gentiles took place not through the preaching of a believing Israel, but in spite of the fact they refused to believe.  Peter, the apostle with the keys of God's government, or kingdom, was used by the Holy Spirit to open the door of salvation to Cornelius, a gentile.  God then raised up His "chosen vessel," Saul of Tarsus, to be the specific "apostle of the gentiles" (Rom. 11:13).

Yet, during this 'sub-dispensation,' in spite of the fact that Paul was the apostle of the gentiles, whenever he entered a new city on one of his missionary journeys, he always preached the word to the Jew first.  Christians in modern Messianic movements wrongly believe the Jew is still first!  Not so!  This belief hangs on a failure to "rightly divide" the Word of truth.

But what about the church?  Did a new church begin with this sub-dispensation?  Did a new church begin at Acts 9, or at Acts 13?  If so this fact is hidden from us in Scripture.  The fact that God had begun to blind Israel (Rom. 11:25) had no effect on the spiritual position of those individual, faithful, believing Jews who had formed His church since the day of Pentecost.  Therefore, we hold that although God began to irreversibly change His program at Acts 8, He did not create a new church to accommodate this changed dispensation.  Nor did he discard the church that had its inception on the day of Pentecost.

• The present dispensation began following Acts 28:28.  When we come to the final chapter of the Acts, the gospel had been sent to Israelites throughout the world, but had not reached the Jews at Rome.  Wherever the gospel had been preached it was rejected by the Jewish leaders, and, hence, by national Israel itself.  Moreover, the signs and wonders of the Holy Spirit had also been rejected by them (see Mat. 12:31).  Finally, at Rome, Paul preached his last appeal to the nation that had killed the prophets, and had even executed their blessed Holy Messiah. At this point in Israel's spiritual history, the Jews at Rome joined their unbelieving brethren in Jerusalem and throughout the world by rejecting the risen Lord Jesus Christ, and by rejecting the miracles and signs of the Holy Spirit.  With finality Paul then quoted the judgment presented in the prophet Isaiah that sealed Israel's blindness, deafness, and hardness of heart.  This rejection of their Anointed One ended Israel's opportunity to fulfill God's prophetic program at that time.  With this final rejection, we believe the signs and wonders ceased, having no further purpose in provoking Israel to a jealousy that, could once have led them to salvation.  Even the gentiles would no longer have those signs, because gentiles had received them specifically as signs within God's purpose toward unbelieving Israel (1 Cor. 14:22), not, as some suppose, to verify God's message until the canon of Scripture would be finished (E.g., in AD 98).

After Acts 28:28, the great 'mystery' was revealed in all its fullness.  The Jew was no longer first.  Israel was reckoned now as being no different from any of the other nations.  An unbelieving gentile and Jew now have the same doctrinal and governmental standing before God.  They are both sinners in need of salvation, and the Jew no longer has a preferential, covenant, place of blessing.  After they believe, of course, all of God's saints, whether Jew, gentile, male or female, were one in Christ Jesus, just as was doctrinally the case during the two previous dispensations described in the Acts.

     "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
     "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
     "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26-28)

What about the church?  Did a new church begin at Israel's final rejection of Christ, after which Paul for the first time in history unveiled the full impact of the blessed heavenly doctrines that had been kept secret from before the foundation of the world?  On the contrary, in Ephesians 1:13 Paul provides a link to the baptism of the Holy Spirit that took place in Acts 2, and identifies the Ephesian believers with that momentous event when the Lord Jesus first "poured out" the Holy Spirit, thus making the Ephesians a part of that truth.  Ephesians 1:13 says, "ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."  The word "promise" refers to the promise made by John the Baptist (Mat. 3:11-12; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16), and by the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:5).  Paul could have simply said 'ye were sealed with the holy Spirit,' in which case the vital connection with Pentecost would have been lost.

In Ephesians 2:19-22 Paul reintroduces the concept of the holy temple, a doctrine he had subjectively, but only partially, developed in the pre-prison epistles (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16). In Ephesians 2 Paul fully develops the doctrine, and specifically mentions that this holy temple, of which the Ephesian saints were part of, was "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."  While it is true there were apostles other than Paul and the twelve, the term "the apostles" usually refers to the classification known as the twelve apostles who lived following Acts 1:26.  Thus, Paul is careful to connect the believers at Ephesus with those believers who witnessed the initial going forth of God's message on the day of Pentecost and the pouring out of the promised Holy Spirit.

There are also three references in Paul's writings where he laments the fact that he had persecuted the church.  Two of these references occur in the pre-prison epistles, and one in his prison epistles:

"For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Cor. 15:9)

"For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it." (Gal. 1:13)

"Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." (Phil. 3:5-6)

Which "church" did Saul persecute?  Clearly the "church" that began at Pentecost.  Mid-Acts dispensationalists generally hold that "the historical manifestation of the Body of Christ began with the Apostle Paul before he wrote his first epistle."  Since Saul had not yet been converted at the time he persecuted the church, the particular church he persecuted must have been the church that began at Pentecost.

However, in Philippians, one of the prison epistles, Paul again mentions that before his conversion he was "persecuting the church."  Paul did not simply persecute "a church," but "the church," the Greek definite article being present.  The Divine mover of Paul's pen could have simply stated that Paul had persecuted "the believers," or "the saints," or "the brethren," but He did not.  He had persecuted "the church."  Paul does not distinguish between a supposed 'old' church that began at Pentecost, and a 'new' church that existed in 'prison epistle' days.  In the absence of any disclaimers in this passage of scripture, Paul was clearly implying that the church, the body of Christ with which Paul and the Philippians were identified was the same church Paul had once persecuted. 

When a controversy arose as to whether believing Gentiles must be circumcised (Acts 15:1), Paul did not announce that the kingdom church composed of Jerusalem Jews could do their thing, whereas the "body of Christ" (the so-called other church to which Paul belonged) would do the opposite.  Since there was only one church, which included the Jerusalem Jews, the Jews of the dispersion, and the Gentiles, Paul took his case to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.  When Peter, James and other Jews in Jerusalem reached a decision that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised, the brethren at Jerusalem sent a company of Jews from their assembly to the Gentile believers to convey that decision, thus strongly reinforcing the unity of all believers, whether they were in a local congregation at Jerusalem or in the far off lands of the Gentiles. 

One other argument mid-Acts dispensationalists have wrongly used in an attempt to prove that the church that began at Pentecost is not the church "the body of Christ" is that the body of Christ is composed of both Jews and Gentiles, whereas the church that began at Pentecost was composed of Jews only.  But there is no Scripture, to my knowledge, which says that the body of Christ has always consisted of both Jews and Gentiles.  In other words, is it a requirement that the body of Christ must include Gentiles from day number one?  As a matter of fact, the aforementioned argument, if true, would also exclude the Apostle Paul, at his conversion (Acts 9:1-21), from being the first member of the body of Christ, since Saul (Paul) was a Jew, and it was not until some time after Saul's conversion that the Apostle Peter, under Divine guidance, opened the door of the kingdom to the first Gentile, Cornelius (Acts 10).  Thus this argument would automatically disavow the particular mid-Acts position held by some G.G.F members including our late brother Cornelius R. Stam.  Furthermore, the above reasoning shows us how careful we must be in arriving at scriptural conclusions.  It must be based on the Scriptures, not on "I think such and such...."  In other words, be a Berean!

Therefore, based on scriptural evidence, instead of a new church being initiated at Acts 9, or at Acts 13, or after Acts 28:28, the character and message of the church which had existed since Pentecost simply changed with the dispensational theme that God, in His absolute sovereignty, had brought to the called saints.  These believers, (this "church"), no longer offered the kingdom to Israel, no longer had miraculous powers, no longer spoke in tongues, but they now had the very highest blessings to be revealed, blessings in heavenly places in Christ.  Yet it was the same "church" that had existed since Pentecost.

        Although we hold that the present dispensation began after Acts 28:28 we do not necessarily agree with all of the conclusions of those who believe that both the present dispensation and the church, the body of Christ began following Acts 28:28.  For example, we must ask which practices of the early church are 'truth for today,' and which belonged strictly to the early church that preached the restoration of the earthly kingdom to Israel.  Indeed, the fact that the prison epistles stress the unity of the church from Pentecost to the present time requires us to resolve these questions in a more moderate way, as 'Bereans,' rather than adopt inflexible formulae to either include or to exclude certain early practices.  A study on early church practices will soon be released on this web site, Lord willing.

        But let us now examine what others have said to support their positions about the church, and some of their reasoning behind their positions, and any scriptural evidence they have offered to support their views about the present dispensation.  Again, we shall confine this paper to the four primary positions taken by dispensational writers.

Pentecost (Acts 2 viewpoint)

        C. H. Mackintosh, (1820 - 1896), beloved author of numerous books, such as his six volume set on the Pentateuch and several volumes of Miscellaneous Writings, said the following regarding the formation of the church.

Charles H. Mackintosh

In Matt. xvi., we have the very earliest allusion to the Church, and there our Lord speaks of it as a future thing.  He says, "On this rock I will build My Church."  He does not say, "I have been, or I am building."  In short the Church had no existence until our Lord Christ was raised from the dead and glorified at the right hand of God.  Then, but not until then, the Holy Ghost was sent down to baptize believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, into one body, and unite them to the risen and glorified Head in heaven.  This body has been on the earth since the descent of the Holy Ghost; is here still, and shall be until Christ comes to fetch it to Himself.  It is a perfectly unique thing.  It is not to be found in Old Testament Scripture.  Paul expressly tells us it was not revealed in other ages;  it was hid in God, and never made known until it was committed to him.  (See, carefully, Rom. xvi. 25, 26; Eph. iii. 3-11; Col. i. 24-27) . . .  The termini of the Church's earthly history are Pentecost (Acts ii.), and the rapture (1 Thess. iv. 16, 17).  ( C. H. Mackintosh, Footnote in The Assembly of God, pp. 18 - 19)

Thus, C.H.M. believed there were several prerequisites that had to be met before the church could be formed.

• It was still future at Matthew 16:18

• It must begin after Christ's resurrection

• It must begin after His ascension and glorification

• It would begin when the Holy Spirit was sent down to baptize believers.

C.H.M identified this 'church' as "the body of Christ," and claimed that believers from Pentecost onward were members of that body of Christ, but that the full doctrinal truth concerning that one body was unrevealed, (kept secret), until it was revealed through the apostle Paul.  This is known as "progressive revelation."

        Lewis Sperry Chafer, (1871-1952), who authored his eight volume Systematic Theology, held a very similar position to that of C.H.M. as to when the church began:

Lewis Sperry Chafer

 
The word church is not found in the Old Testament because of the fact that the Church did not then exist, and being a mystery or sacred secret of the New Testament (Eph. 3:3-6), it is not even a subject of Old Testament prophecy.  [It is used but] once in a prophecy by Christ of the true Church which was yet to be formed (Matt. 16:18).  The true Church could not have existed until Christ died; for she must be redeemed by His blood (Eph. 5:25-27).  The true Church could not have existed until His resurrection; for she partakes of His resurrection life, and she is the harvest of which He, in resurrection, is the "Firstfruits" in the New Creation.  The true Church could not have existed until His ascension; for He must first become "head over all things to the church."  Likewise, the true Church could not exist until the advent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost; for she can be formed only by the present ministry of the Spirit in baptizing all members into one body and causing them to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:14).  Therefore we turn to the Epistles for the unfolding of the doctrine of the Church.  This revelation was given to the Apostle Paul (Eph. 3:3-6), as before stated, and is set forth by him particularly in the Ephesian and Colossian letters.  (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes, The Church: Her Membership, p. 205-206.)

        Although both Mackintosh and Chafer believed the church began at Pentecost, and both held that the doctrinal truth of the church was first made known to Paul, neither appear to have fully appreciated the kingdom character of the dispensation(s) that took place throughout the Acts.  Nor did they apparently grasp the significance of the dispensational changes that took place with the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 that began God's purpose of hardening the heart of Israel.  Nor did they appear to fully comprehend the overwhelming significance of Acts 28:28 which marked the temporary end of God's dealings with national Israel and the beginning of the present dispensation.  Indeed, the index to scriptures referred to in Chafer's Systematic Theology fails to include a reference to Acts 28:28.

Mid-Acts (Acts 9 and 13 viewpoints)

        Cornelius R. Stam, (1908- 2003), was a staunch supporter of the position that both the present dispensation, and the formation of the church which is Christ's body, began with the conversion of the apostle Paul.  We met brother Stam at the Grace Gospel Fellowship convention in 1962 and on other occasions.  He made no distinction between these two very distinct features of truth.

Much has been written on the question of the historical beginning of the dispensation of grace and of the body of Christ....  (Cornelius R. Stam, Acts--Dispensationally Considered, p. 167)

. . . it is serious error to hold that the new dispensation began at Pentecost with Peter and the eleven working under the "great commission."  (op cit, p. 168)

But the teaching that the present dispensation, or the Body of Christ, did not have its historical beginning until after the close of Acts is no less serious an error....  (op cit, p. 169)

As an example of the first "serious error" he says:

The most conspicuous modern product of this error has been the Pentecostal fanaticism which has swept the 'Christian' world on the wings of the Fundamentalist argument that we are to obey the 'great commission' and in response to its cry: "Back to Pentecost!"   (op cit, p. 168)

Interestingly, however, the very same miraculous, signs, and wonders of Pentecost to which he refers, are the identical miraculous signs and wonders that were unmistakably prevalent in the church that existed from Acts 9 through Acts 28.  These same signs and wonders are likewise prominent in Paul's epistles written during the same period in Acts.   Thus, were it not for Stam's contention that two distinct churches existed between Acts 9 and Acts 28, the same argument our brother levied against the Acts 2 position regarding "Pentecostal fanaticism" could conceivably be used against the Acts 9 and Acts 13 positions.  These signs did not slowly fade away as the written word became more and more complete.  They were in full force throughout the book of Acts, even as late as Acts 28:3-5, because God's offer to corporate Israel of the earthly kingdom remained in full force until Acts 28:28.

        Stam reasoned that Acts 9, rather than Acts 13, was the time when the church which is Christ's body was formed, and when the present dispensation began.

Many able Bible teachers believe that the Body, or the new dispensation, had its historical beginning [in Acts 13].  Generally speaking, they hold this view on the grounds that here Paul was separated to begin his Gentile ministry, that the wording indicates the commencement of a new program and that Saul's name was changed to Paul in connection with an incident which all dispensationalists look upon as dispensationally significant.

In the light of the Scriptural background, however, we have not been convinced that these arguments are valid or, for the most part, even correct.

First, this passage does not say anything about the beginning of the Body or of a new dispensation any more than Acts 9 does.  In fact we have already pointed out no less than eight significant departures from the old dispensation prior to Acts 13.  (op cit, p. 173, 174)

        Although Stam admitted that Acts 9  "does not say anything about the beginning of the Body or of a new dispensation" (page 173), he goes on to state five reasons why he believes "Paul's conversion and call to apostleship marks the beginning of the new dispensation and of the Body of Christ."  Our quotations are necessarily limited, so we encourage those interested in exploring these arguments to consult his book

• As the twelve apostles represented the twelve tribes of Israel so Paul, as one apostle, represents the Body of Christ, the oneness of which is consistently emphasized in Scripture (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:4; etc)

• Especially is this so since Paul, like the Body, was two-in-one.  He was a born Hebrew and a born Roman (and intensely both) in one person. . . .  Moreover he was an enemy, reconciled to God by abundant grace.  In this he is the natural representative of the joint Body, composed of Jews and Gentiles reconciled to God by grace.

• Several Scripture passages clearly imply, if they do not actually say, that the new dispensation began with Paul's conversion.  [See 1 Tim. 1:15,16; Rom. 3:24; 5:20; Eph. 1:7; etc.]

• In Acts 9 attention is focussed [sic.] entirely on Paul, first as 'breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord' and then as gloriously saved, commissioned and filled with the Spirit.  Nor is the emphasis on Paul in any way modified.  It is not 'Saul and Barnabas,' much less 'Barnabas and Saul,' but Saul.

• . . . the number of significant departures from the old program to the new that took place in the period covered by Acts 9 to Acts 13.  (op cit, pp. 176 - 179)

  1. The call of Paul as an apostle, separate from the twelve....

  2. Paul was not saved as a repentant Jew seeking baptism for the remission of sins.  He was baptized three days after his conversion. . . .  [just as the Gentiles in Acts 10] were baptized after being saved and receiving the Holy Spirit

  3. Gentiles were saved at Antioch, not because of Israel's conversion but because of the persecution at Jerusalem. . .

  4. "Kingdom prosperity" (Acts 4:34, 35) broke down and the Gentile believers at Antioch sent help.

  5. James was slain with the sword and the other James, the Lord's brother in the flesh, began to take the precedence even over Peter. (op cit, p. 179)

        As can be seen, although some of the above points are worthy of serious discussion, most of them have to do with the point in time he believed the present dispensation began, not with when the church began.  Unfortunately, he, along with many teachers with both 'Mid-Acts' and 'Acts 28:28' persuasions mingle arguments relating the historical beginning of the church with those pertaining to the beginning of the present dispensation.  Stam and many other dispensationalists see no difference between these two concepts.  The presuppositions that equate the beginnings of church & dispensation are not only unnecessary, but we believe they are totally incorrect and lead to serious interpretive problems.  They assume something not stated in Scripture, namely, that when God, in His Sovereign wisdom, changes the way he deals with his people, He cancels out one spiritual relationship, [His church], and start a new spiritual relationship, [a new church].  We do not find this argument to be supported by Scripture.  This mixing of two distinct features of truth is not "rightly dividing the word of truth."  More on this later.

The Acts 28:28 viewpoint

        Citing the verse ". . . for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain" (Acts 28:20), Charles H. Welch said:

The hope of Israel reaches to the last chapter of Acts, yet according to traditional teaching the church began at Pentecost ! (Charles H. Welch, Dispensational Truth: or the Place of Israel and the Church in the Purpose of the Ages, p. 147)

[Acts 28:28] is a climax, and a climax having nothing to do with the church, but with Israel. ( op cit, p. 147)

Thus, Mr. Welch assumed there could not be two dispensations without their being two distinct 'churches.'  He believed the first 'church' began at Pentecost and had to do with Israel.  Then, following Acts 28:28 there was a new dispensation, and, necessarily, a completely new church.  But, actually, Welch listed eight different and distinct churches that he believed must be distinguished from one another.

1. The nation of Israel viewed as distinct in their calling to be a kingdom of Priests in the earth (Acts 7:38).  In this light it will be perceived that some care must be exercised when we are seeking to differentiate between the Kingdom and the Church.

2. The Church spoken of as existing in the days of Christ's earthly ministry before either His sacrificial death, or before the day of Pentecost (Matt. 18:17).

3. The Church concerning which Christ spoke as future, and built upon the rock, and confession "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God" relating to Peter with his keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:18).

4. The Church which was formed in the day of Pentecost, which
   1. partly fulfilled the prophecy of Joel 2:28,29.
   2. awaits complete fulfilment until the future day of the Lord
   3. is inseparable from the enduement of spiritual gifts.
   4. is inseparable from the kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6, 2:30,31).
   5. is inseparable from baptism for the remission of sins.  This Church is related to the dispersion (Jas. 1:1,5:14).
5. The Church of God, which Paul persecuted before his conversion in Acts 9 (Gal. 1:13, 1 Cor. 15:9, Phil. 3:6) and which continued to assemble and to grow under his subsequent ministry (1 Cor. 1:2, 11:16, 1 Thess. 2:14, 2 Thess. 1:4).
6. The Church of God, called in the same chapter, the Church of the living God (1 Tim. 3:5,15) to whom was directed that ministry of re-adjustment which had in view the building up of the body of Christ until all arrived in the unity of the faith, etc. (Eph. 4:11-13).
7. The Church of the One Body, the calling that goes back before the foundation of the world, and ascends to the position "far above all" where Christ sits.  This church is entirely disassociated from all previous companies, having no relation with Israel, Abraham or New Covenant, but filling the great dispensational parenthesis of Israel's blindness, which fell on that nation in Acts twenty-eight.  The status, calling and constitution of this Church can be gathered by reading Ephesians and Colossians, remembering as the reading progresses, ever to “try the things that differ”.
8. The seven Churches of Asia (Rev. 1-3), one of them namely the Church at Pergamos, will be in the city "where Satan's seat is" (Rev. 2:13).  These seven churches will resume where the Church of Pentecost left off and carry the fulfilment of Joel 2:28,29 through to its end.  In these Churches there will be some who will "say they are Jews and are not" (Rev. 2:9).  This company, though enumerated separately, really falls under heading No. 4, but owing to the setting aside of Israel at the coming in of the dispensation of the Mystery, we have listed these Churches separately. -  (Charles H. Welch, An Alphabetical Analysis, part one, p. 162

        Apparently Welch believed that the "church" which Saul of Tarsus persecuted prior to his conversion (point #5) was a different church from what was born at Pentecost (point #4).  And, unless we misunderstand him, Welch also believed "the church of God" and "the church of the living God" (1 Tim. 3:5; 3:15), in his point #6, was a different church from "The Church of the One Body" listed in his point #7.  If these were truly Welch's beliefs, I would have to say that his description boldly underscores this writer's contention that it is a mistake to insist that a different church comes into being each time God, in His sovereign purposes, makes a dispensational change, whether major or minor, to His program.  We believe Welch's points #3 through #8 speak of a single church.  We also believe that within this one church there occurred significant dispensational differences, but Welch offers no scriptural evidence that each church he cites had a beginning and ending, particularly one that coincided with the beginnings and endings of various dispensational outpourings. 

Second Pauline imprisonment viewpoint

        As mentioned earlier, some dispensationalists felt there were smatterings of "kingdom truth" in some of Paul's prison epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Timothy).  For this reason a small number of dispensationalists take the position that the present dispensation began with the second imprisonment of Paul.  They also say the church which is Christ's body did not have its beginning until that time, thus leaving Second Timothy as the most, and only, current revelation of truth for today.  However, the truths of the mystery and of the one body are not developed in Second Timothy, so 'second imprisonment dispensationalists' are left with little to base any dispensational claims upon.

        One of their 'concerns' is, for example, that Ephesians 6 makes an earthly promise of long life to those who honor parents.

     "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." (Eph. 6:1-3)

The epistle to the Ephesians also likens the husband-wife relationship to that which exists between Christ and the church, thus indicating that the church is portrayed as the bride, or wife, of Christ.  This concept is felt by some to be uncomfortably close to the kingdom term "bride of Christ" as presented in the Gospels and the Revelation.  However, the late pastor John D. LaVier (1906 - 2005), a "Mid-Acts" dispensationalist, freely volunteered during a personal conversation with me in his home in Indianapolis, Indiana in January 1959, that Ephesians 5 speaks of the present-day church as a 'bride.'  Such an idea, however, may not set well with many Mid-Acts and Acts 28:28 brethren who teach that the church is a "body," but never a "bride."  They find it difficult to conceive that it may be both, forgetting that these are symbolic representations, and it sometimes takes two or more 'symbols' to bring out the full truth.  We quote the full passage for your convenience.

     "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
     "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
     "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,  that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
     "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.  He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
     "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
     "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
     "Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." (Eph. 5:22-33)

        As stated above, 'second Pauline imprisonment' dispensationalists are left with very few scriptures specifically addressed to believers today.  Many of the foundation truths of the faith, and even of the mystery itself, are not mentioned in Second Timothy.  But the fact that Paul does not repeat these features of truth in Second Timothy does not indicate these foundations are invalid in the present dispensation.  One 'post-Acts 28 plus-plus' dispensationalist confided to me that he was not even sure that the apostle Paul himself had fully come to understand the distinctiveness of the mystery, because of hints here and there of non-heavenly elements that appear even in his later writings.  Hmmm!  With that we move on in our study. 

        The Holy Spirit uses several words to describe believers God has called together.  Among them:

• "Holy temple" (Acts 17:24; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21-22; see also Rev. 21:21)

• "House of God" (Gal. 6:10; Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6; 10:21; 1 Pet. 2:5; 4:17) - referring to the outward, visible, presence of the local church (body of believers) on earth, as opposed to the invisible spiritual body in heaven.  Man builds this aspect of the church, all too often with hay, wood and stubble.  Thus, the "house of God" is composed of a mixture of truth and error.  This fact is painfully brought out in the passage in 2 Tim. 2:20, where "a great house" is mentioned, referring to an unholy mixture of believers, unbelievers, and fence-sitters within the mixture known as the house of God)

• "Bride" (Rev. 18:23; 21:2, 9; 22:17 - excluding references in parables in the four gospels)

• "Wife" (Eph. 5:23, Rev. 19:7; 21:9 - the latter reference showing that bride and wife are equivalent terms)

• "Body" - referring to what the Lord Himself builds.  On earth this is a body of true believers, in heaven it is the invisible spiritual entity whose Head is the Lord Jesus Christ, as distinct from the house (described above).

• And, of course, the general word "church," which could be translated "assembly," "congregation," "meeting," or "gathering."

        Each of the above words presents a distinctive aspect of God's truth regarding His elect, and it would be well worth everyone's efforts to search out these distinctive meanings.  For the purpose of this study, however, we will primarily confine ourselves to the words "body," "holy temple," and "church," which are frequently used to describe that company of God's elect He is calling out, and that we form a part of.

       Several years ago a construction company placed an advertisement in Christianity Today stating, "Let us build your church. . . ."  We frequently hear news reports of churches that were set on fire.  However, the word “church,” ekklesia, does not mean a physical building, such as a tabernacle, cathedral, chapel or gospel hall.  It refers, rather, to people who assemble together, whether that assembly of people takes place in a building, a private home, a cave, or in an open field.  This word occurs about 115 times in the New Testament.  Three times it is used to describe a protest crowd (Acts 19:32, 39, 41), twice to describe an Old Testament congregation of Israelites (Acts 7:38; Heb. 2:12), and 110 times to represent a corporate company of Christian saints.  Dr. E. W. Bullinger defines the word as follows:  [Note, we have eliminated the Greek characters present in the original work.]

ekklesia the common term for a meeting of the ekkletoi (those summoned) to discuss the affairs of a Free State; the body of citizens summoned together by a herald kerux.  The lxx. transfer the term to the assembly of the people of Israel, whether summoned or met for a definite purpose (1 Kings vii. 65), or considered as the representative of the entire nation.  In N.T. it denotes the redeemed community in its two-fold aspect.  (i)  The entire community of all who are called by and to Christ out of the world, the Church universal,  (ii) every Church in which the character of the Church as a whole is seen in miniature.  The summoning is expressed by the latter part of the word kalein, and out of by the first part ek.  (Ethelbert W. Bullinger, D.D., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament")

         The ministry of John the Baptist paved the way for the eventual formation of the early church.  The prophet Isaiah had predicted:

        This prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist.

        John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins.  He called for all Israel to get right with God.

        John knew that his own ministry was only a forerunner to that of the Messiah.  His baptism looked forward to the time when Israel as a nation would repent, be baptized, and receive remission of sins.  That baptism envisioned the day when the Lord Jesus Christ would baptize believers with the Holy Spirit.

        The purpose of John's baptism with water was to declare the Messiah to be Israel's Lamb of God, and to ceremonially cleanse individual Jews from their sins as part of their repentance from these sins.

        In Matthew 16 the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, declared His intention to form His "church."  We quote the entire passage in order to give the context. Note that Caesarea was the place where images of the various 'gods' were displayed, and where much public debate occurred as to the true nature and importance of each of these heathen gods.  Thus the query of the Lord:

        In the above passage the Lord said: "on this rock I will build my church," indicating that it had not yet been built.  Lest anyone be confused, the identity of  "the rock" in this passage is clearly defined in other scriptures not as 'Peter,' but as none other than the Lord Jesus Himself.

        Note the fact that Christ Himself would build His church, meaning the inward spiritual thing, in contrast to the outward 'house' that would be the aspect of the church that men would build, and that might prove to be either gold and silver, or, more likely, hay, wood, and stubble.  Confusion on this point has led to drastic consequences by sectarian Christendom by misidentifying the utter failure of outward 'churchianity' with the true, perfect, invisible church.

        The word ekklesia occurs more than 100 times in the Greek scriptures.  When the Lord announced He was about to build His "church," He was referring to building a company of believers called out of the world and spiritually joined to Himself.  As to its inward, spiritual character, Paul refers to this company of believers as a "church," a "body," and a "temple."  As to its external character, the professing church is known as a "house."  Note particularly the "great house" of 2 Timothy:

     "And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
     'Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
     "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
     "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
     "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work." (2 Tim. 2:17-21)

        It is shamefully true that much of the outward 'church' has miserably failed to honor its Head.  Our study, however, has to do primarily with the inward spiritual 'body' which has a Divine foundation, Christ Himself, and which foundation is made and built by God.  So we now look at the words which describe this inward spiritual organism, this glorious church that he will present to himself "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing", a church that is "holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:27).

        The table presented above indicates there are 20 references to God’s “church” in the book of Acts, 43 in Paul’s pre-prison epistles, and 19 in the prison epistles.  The word "church" is a general term.  It is not dispensationally distinctive, because the word "church" is associated with three distinct dispensations.  In the following paragraphs we briefly describe these three dispensations. There is, however, no obvious attempt by the blessed Spirit to split these three groups of ‘churches’ into separate 'bodies,' as is done by some dispensationalists.

• The church in dispensation #1:  The gathering of believers, (the church), in the early Acts period were saints who expected the Lord Jesus to return and restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 3:19-21; compare Mat. 17:10-13; Acts 1:6).  These believers were twice called a “church,” ekklesia, in the first seven chapters of Acts (Acts 2:47; 5:11).  They were added to the church beginning on the day of Pentecost. 

• The church in dispensation #2:  The "great persecution" of Acts 8 began the second dispensation (or sub-dispensation) in Acts.  Whereas previously, the apostles openly offered the kingdom to Israel, God now began a new phase in his dealings with His covenant people.  With Israel beginning to persecute the disciples, and, hence, persecuting the Lord Jesus Himself, God began to progressively dispense what is later called in the epistle to the Romans, the mystery of Israel's blindness (Rom. 11:25).

Paul’s apostolic ministry is historically recorded from Acts 9:20 through Acts 28.  This ministry of Paul spans the time period identical to when he wrote his six 'pre-prison' epistles (Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Romans).  In these twenty chapters of Acts, the word “church,” ekklesia, referring to God’s elect people, occurs 18 times (Acts 8:1, 3; 9:31; 11:22, 26; 12:1, 5; 13:1; 14:23, 27; 15:3, 4, 22, 41; 16:5; 18:22; 20:17, 28).  Both "church #1," and "church #2" (above) are referred to by the same word ekklesia.  There is nothing in the word ekklesia to distinguish the earliest “church #1,” created on the day of Pentecost, from "church #2" which existed during Paul’s pre-prison ministry, (Acts 9 - 28).

Interestingly, Paul the apostle to the gentiles, recognized the church at Jerusalem as being the very same church he identified himself with during his ministry to the gentiles.  When a question arose as to whether physical circumcision was a requirement for gentile salvation (Acts 15:1), Paul did not simply say, "Well, we are independent of the 'old Jewish' church, we are not in the same 'church' as they, so I will simply announce my independent determination of this matter."  No, Paul returned to Jerusalem where the Holy Spirit brought the mind of God to the apostles and elders and the whole assembly there.  Thus the matter was settled (Acts 15:22).  To announce their conclusions to the gentiles, these apostles and elders, and the brethren at the Jerusalem assembly, sent "chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul," and "Judas and Silas" (Acts 15:25, 27).  It was not enough for them to send Paul back with their determination.   Representatives of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem had to go also, presumably to make the decision official and authoritative.  Thus Paul recognized the moral authority of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.  Both Paul and the Jerusalem saints were members of the same church.  It is very difficult to reconcile a "two-body" position with this section of Scripture.  In addition, if a 'new' church was born at Acts 9 or at Acts 13, why is Paul allowing himself to be subject to the decisions of the 'kingdom' church that began at Acts 2?

This governmental 'chain of command' is referred to in Ephesians, where the "holy temple" is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the chief corner stone.  Moral "authority" during both halves of the Acts, and, apparently even in Ephesians, flowed from Christ (the corner stone), to the apostles & prophets (the foundation), then to all the rest who make up the holy temple.  (See Ephesians 2:19 - 22).  But direct Divine revelation, such as flowed from the Holy Spirit to and through a specially appointed apostle, Paul, was another matter.  He it was who communicated God's changed message to the twelve apostles at Jerusalem (Gal. 2:7-9; Eph. 3:5; 2 Pet. 3:15), not the other way around.

• The church in dispensation #3:  After Israel’s heart was judicially hardened at Acts 28:28, Paul wrote his “prison epistles” in which the glorious truth of the mystery is fully set forth.  In those epistles he uses the word ekklesia, “church” 19 times. (Eph. 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; Phil. 3:6; 4:15; Col. 1:18, 24; 4:15, 16; 1 Tim. 3:5, 15; 5:16; Philemon. 2).  Again, there appears to be no attempt by the Divine mover of Paul’s pen to distinguish  “the church in dispensation #3” from "the church in #1" or "the church in #2."  They are all reckoned to be one and the same "church."

        If the “church” in each of these three dispensations was a distinct “church,” meaning each “church” had a distinct historical starting point, or “birthday,” we are not so informed in Scripture.  Nevertheless, Mr. Welch is correct in his observation:

It is not enough to point to the word "church" and thereby set aside the distinctive callings of God. (Charles H. Welch, An Alphabetical Analysis, part one, p. 161)

        This brings us to the fact that there is an additional descriptor Paul used to define the church.  By adding this descriptor the Holy Spirit narrows down the meaning of the word church and reinforces our belief that one single church existed during the three dispensations cited above.  That church began at Pentecost and continues today.  The additional descriptor is the word “body.”

        The word soma, “body,” occurs 61 times in Paul's pre-prison letters and 20 times in the prison epistles.  By our count, soma, when referring to Christ's body, the church, or to the figure of the human body as an illustration of the structure of the church, occurs about 35 times in the pre-prison letters and 18 times in the prison epistles.  Describing the church as a “body” is exclusively Pauline.  The church is never described as a “body,” or the “body of Christ,” in the Gospels, Hebrews, the epistles of James, Peter, John, Jude, or in the Apocalypse.  Even in the Acts, which records Paul’s ministry during the time he was actively writing about the "body of Christ" in his epistles, Luke never once mentions the word “body” to describe the church.  The reason for this is that Acts is not primarily a doctrinal record.  It is a historical record of God's offer of the millennial kingdom to Israel, of their rejection of this offer, and of God's inclusion of Gentiles into His program to provoke Israel to jealousy, and eventually to completely suspend that kingdom offer at their sentence of spiritual blindness at Acts 28.

• In Paul’s pre-prison ministry, the word soma, “body,” occurs 35 times to describe the church.  Some key passages:

• In Paul’s prison epistles the word soma, “body,” occurs 18 times, referring to the church.  Again, some key passages:

        Thus, both the earlier and the later epistles of Paul use the word soma, “body,” to describe the ekklesia, "church."  Scripture makes no attempt to distinguish 'churches' or 'bodies' in different time periods or in different dispensations.  Furthermore, several of the above passages specifically define the church as “Christ’s body,” or, “the body of Christ:”  This is true in both the earlier and later writings of Paul.

• In a pre-prison epistle Paul specifically states that the Corinthian believers “are” the body of Christ:

• This same truth is stated in several passages in the prison epistles Ephesians and Colossians:

        C. H. Welch argues that 1 Cor.12:15-26 is not the body of Christ.  His reasoning is:

Verses 15--26 give a detailed and graphic analogy between the parts of a human body, and the various diversities, yet withal unity, of the saints. . . . It cannot be the 'one body' of Ephesians, for that had not been revealed, neither is there in that one body members who are 'the ear, the eye, or the nose," all of which belong to the head;  neither are some members of the body of Christ 'uncomely.'   (Charles H. Welch, Dispensational Truth, p. 162)

        Welch implies that the body of Christ could not exist until the full doctrinal truth of that body was set forth.  But, taking that assumption a step further, does that suggest that the Ephesian believers could not have been part of the dispensation of the mystery until the physical parchment describing this calling 'came in the mail' to them, perhaps months or even years after Acts 28:28?  The apostle Paul, for example, states that Abram was justified by faith without works (Rom. 4).  This establishes the fact that God has only one soteriology, only one plan of eternal salvation for believers of every dispensation.  Yet this feature of truth, though it existed from day-one, was not as clearly revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures as compared to the crystal clear manner in which it was revealed by Paul.  We suspect there were many things that saints possessed positionally before they knew the doctrine concerning them.  Certainly that is the case with many of us today.  Therefore, to say that the 'one body' of Ephesians could not exist because the doctrinal truth of that body had not yet been fully revealed is not sound hermeneutics.  Furthermore, Welch ignores the passages in Paul's pre-prison epistles that, in this writer's mind, clearly speak of Christ's body the church.

        Regarding 1 Cor. 12:27, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular," Welch said:

The verse reads, "But ye are body of Christ, and members partially."  It is not the body; it is simply 'body,' the absence of the article showing us that a description (not a definition) is intended.  The word 'partially,' or 'in part,' is a translation of two Greek words, ek merous, and they occur together nowhere else except in 1 Cor. xiii.  (op cit, p. 162)

        Regarding his translation of ek merous, as "partially," as though the believers at Corinth may have been "partially" members of "body of Christ," but not fully members, unlike the glorious position enjoyed by the Ephesian believers, we took the trouble of going through a collection of Bible translations to see if any resembled his interpretation.  Caution!  A number of these translations are definitely not on our "recommended" list, but I list their rendering nonetheless.

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. KJV
Now *ye* are Christ's body, and members in particular. Darby
Now ||ye|| are the body of Christ, and members severally;  Rotherham
Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof. (marg. Or, members each in his part) RV
Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof. ASV
Now you are Christ's Body, and severally members of it.  Moffatt
Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.  New KJV
And ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. Youngs
As for you, you are the body of Christ, and individually you are members of it. Weymouth
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.  Websters
Now you are Christ's body and individual parts of it.  ISV
So you are Christ's body, and individually parts of it.  William's
Now you are the body of Christ, and individually members of it.  Montgomery
and you are a body for Christ, and participating members.  Ferrar Fenton
Now you are Christ's body, and each of you a limb or organ of it.  New English Bible
But you are Christ's body and members with assigned parts.  Berkeley
Now you are Christ's body, and individually mem