DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH
ACTS
39
AND
`Wherefore of these men which have companied with us ALL THE TIME that the Lord Jesus went in and out
among us, BEGINNING FROM THE BAPTISM OF JOHN, unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one
be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection'.
It was, therefore, not only a matter of piety, learning, or fitness of character: what was essential was capacity to
bear personal testimony.
It is generally taught that the words, `that he might go to his own place' (Acts 1:25), mean that Judas had been
consigned to hell, or perdition, but the passage bears another sense and should read:
`shew whether of these two Thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship (from which
Judas by transgression fell) that he might go to his own place ... and he was numbered with the eleven'.
The further fact that the Holy Spirit made no difference between Matthias and the rest of the apostles should
silence all objection. That Paul himself speaks of `The twelve' as separate from himself is eloquent, and additional
testimony to the rightness of the inclusion of Matthias among the twelve (1 Cor. 15:5).
In face of these facts we believe that the appointment of Matthias was in complete harmony with the will of God,
and that of necessity, therefore, Paul was an apostle of an entirely distinct and independent order.
Did The Church begin at Pentecost.- It is often assumed that because mention is made in Acts 2 of Parthians and
Medes, and other non Jewish names, and that each man of the gathered throng heard the apostles speak `in his own
language', that a great number of Gentiles were included among the assembled throng at Jerusalem on the day of
Pentecost, and that upon this assembled multitude of both Jews and Gentiles the spirit fell, baptising them into one
body. This, however, is far removed from the fact. The Parthians, Medes, and others mentioned in Acts 2:9-11, are
but a detailed enumeration of those dwelling at Jerusalem who were `Jews, devout men, out of every nation under
heaven', and it is `they' who were amazed and marvelled, it is `they' who said, `How hear we every man in our own
tongue, wherein we were born?' It is `they' who went on to describe themselves as Parthians and Medes, and under
the names of the other nationalities whence they had come, who did `hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful
works of God'.
How did Peter address this gathered multitude? When he stood up to explain the meaning of Pentecost to the
assembled multitude, he `lifted up his voice, and said':
`Ye men of Jud -a, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem' (Acts 2:14).
`Ye men of Israel ... among you ... in the midst of you' (Acts 2:22).
`Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly' (Acts 2:36).
`The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God
shall call' (Acts 2:39).
`Men of Jud -a,' `the Jews who dwelt at Jerusalem' (Acts 2:5), `Israel', and then, together, `the whole house of
Israel', are those to whom Peter addressed his words. Peter's own recorded act and word, given in Acts 10:28, and
the attitude of the apostles and brethren that were in Jud -a (Acts 11:18), together with the exclusiveness of Acts
11:19, are sufficient to prove that the presence of a Gentile at this feast of Israel would have been intolerable, while
the attitude of the Jews as recorded in Acts 21: 26-36 shows what is likely to have happened had Gentiles been
present at this feast of Pentecost. As Zechariah 14:16-19 reveals, one day the nations of the earth shall go up to
Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles, but that event awaits the time when the Lord descends, and His feet
once more touch the Mount of Olives. The feast of Acts 2 takes place after He had ascended from the Mount of
Olives, and the difference is great and far-reaching.
There can hardly be found in human language more explicit words than Peter's explanatory `This is that'. Such
specific language makes it imperative that we understand, at least in measure, the teaching of the prophecy of Joel,
and found our idea of Pentecost upon his teaching. If, as most will admit, the `church' cannot be imported into Joel,
then that alone should, if we still hold it, shake our faith in the tradition that the church began at Pentecost. We trust