SOAP BOX 37- THE WORD "TRANSITION" DOES NOT COVER A MULTITUDE OF SINS

Some years ago, I wrote the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review concerning a little note that appeared in each issue to inform readers about some authors, who may have alternate writing styles, than some readers may be accustomed while reading. This magazine has contributions from a rainbow of writers. That is, in the field of Archaeology, even in the area of "Biblical Archaeology", you may find the non-religious, Protestants of various denominations, Roman Catholics, Jewish scholars and Muslims. They can and do work together, since they have a common field in which to work.

The "A Note on Style" states: B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C. E. (Common Era), used by some of out authors, are the alternate designations for B.C. and A.D. often used in scholarly literature.

The letter to this editor asked why the "note on style" did not spell out what B.C. and A.D. were, just as B.C.E. and C.E. had in the parenthesis what those letters meant. It was sort of an inquiry about equal explanation or equal justice, possibly fairness. Full disclosure would help some of the readership. There is nothing more confusing, than to have a scholar writing for/to the public and using unexplained Latin phrases or saving paper, by not spelling out some of these A. B. C.s as to what they mean and stand for.

Needless to say, I did not receive an acknowledgement that this would be a good idea and that a fuller "note on style" would be used. (In reality, there is more to it than just a matter of style) In the publishing world, the "game" is to cover all the bases and in a sense, please your readers.

If Christianity were a game, covering all the bases would also be a good game plan.

It is interesting that James 5:20 mentions, "that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins". Peter says this: "And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover a multitude of sins." I Peter 4:8

It is also interesting that in a book, A Bible Handbook of the Acts of the Apostles, the word "transition" is used. While speaking of the book of Acts this text says, " It is a book of transitions of many things and an historical account of the shift from the dispensation of the law to the dispensation of grace." (Page 18) On this same page it states, "It is possible to discern at least seven transitions in the book of Acts." The listing of the seven transitions is, historical, religious, God's program from Israel to the Church, theological, pneumatological, national and dispensational.

H. A. Ironside in Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, chapter three, The Transitional Period, page 25, states: "A careful reading of the book of Acts shows us the gradual manner in which the truth of the new dispensation was introduced, and this is what has led some to speak of this book as covering a transitional period. Personally, I have no objection to the term 'transition period,' if it were understood that the transition was in the minds of men and not in the mind of God. According to God, the new dispensation, that in which we now live, the dispensation of the grace of God, otherwise called the dispensation of the mystery, began the moment the Spirit descended at Pentecost."

J. Sidlow Baxter, in volume six, page 42-43, from Explore The Book, says," We do not say that it is wrong to date the beginning of the historic Christian Church back to Pentecost, but it should be with guarded reservations, lest we misread the miraculous accompaniments of that abnormal manifestation as the norm for the Christian Church right through the present age." (Italics his) Then he goes into some kind of double talk, almost like speaking in a strange tongue and says, " To finalize the point as sharply and clearly as possible, we put it that the Pentecostal effusion of the Holy Spirit, which was patently the Divine attestation of the renewed kingdom-offer to Israel, was also latently the historical origination of the Church by the Spirit-wrought fusion of those first individual human units into one spiritual organism and corporate body. The meaning of the supernatural effusion was clear at once so far as Israel was concerned; it only emerged later in relation to the Church." (Italics his)

If this is speaking sharply and clearly as possible, there ought to be a protest. This is utter confusion (to me).

In all likelihood, Dr. Baxter needed to make those statements. He needed to clarify by confusion. I think he knew that if he didn't explain away, what he originally stated, he would have fewer speaking engagements. He could be classified as slightly ultra or extreme in what he teaches concerning the beginning of the Body of Christ. Patent and latent are just foggy talk.

The same goes for Dr. Ironside. Everything seems to be clear as crystal to him, but his readers are not as sure. In his book, Lectures On The Epistle To The Romans, page 174 he states :

" 'The Mystery' was not something of difficult, mysterious character, but a sacred

secret never known to mankind until in due time opened up by the Holy Spirit

through the apostle Paul, and by him communicated to all nations for the obedi-

ence of faith. It was not hid in the Scriptures to be brought to light eventually;

but we are distinctly told it was hid in God until such time as He chose to manifest it."

Then he makes the following statement, which negates (to me) almost all that he says concerning God's decisive, abrupt and pointed action of beginning the Body of Christ on Pentecost, which was not a transition in God's mind.

"This was not until Israel had been given every opportunity to receive

Christ BOTH IN INCARNATION AND RESURRECTION."

( bold type and capitals are this writers)

Dr. Ironside has said two things at two different places which do not agree and can not be reconciled even with the word transition. We might say on the one side of his mouth, he states that the Body of Christ begins the moment the Spirit descends on Pentecost.

With another statement, he says that the mystery was not made known, until Israel was given every opportunity to receive Christ both in incarnation and resurrection.

But, between the resurrection of Christ and Pentecost there is no opportunity given to Israel to receive Christ in resurrection. Is this writer the only one who sees a glaring problem ?

I agree with Dr. Baxter partly, "We do not say it is wrong to date the beginning of the historic Christian Church back to Pentecost"… We would be a little more direct and say it is dead wrong to date the beginning of the historic Christian Church back to Pentecost.

Instead of having a number of transitions to explain things that are referring to Israel at a time when things should be happening to the Church which is Christ's Body, it is far more consistent to acknowledge God's dealings with Israel in those early chapters of Acts.

Some of this so-called theology and teaching concerning Acts sounds more like the story of the Emperor without clothes. He may have been convinced he was dressed royally, but we know he was naked as a jay bird. Somebody has dressed up the early chapters of Acts with the wardrobe of the church, the Body of Christ. But the clothes do not fit. Clearly, the clothes belong to Israel. Calling them by any other owner does not take the ownership away from Israel, nor does it give them to the church.

Need I say more. Of course, but in another paper.

Return to Index of Jerry's Writings

e-mail Jerry Sterchi