When once we have grasped the great sacred secret of the Christ, we have a key to open several other difficult subjects, which have been made difficult and dark through the shutting out of the only light that could explain them. Many false notions have sprung up, as the necessary consequence of having lost the truth of the Sacred Secret.
(I) WHY WAS THE SACRED SECRET KEPT?
But first let us ask, why was the great doctrine of the "Sacred Secret" ever kept secret at all? Why did Father hide it in Himself, so that no one could possibly discover it till He chose to reveal it? The reason is clear. Had it not been kept secret, the Hebrews would have had a reason for their rejection of Christ again in the Acts of the Apostles! They could have pleaded that they were only fulfilling the prophecies, and would have lost at once all their responsibility. True, the rejection of the Messiah was foretold, but there was not a word about their rejection of the renewed offer of the King and the Kingdom, which was made authoritatively after the Ascension. In Acts 3:18 the holy spirit, by Peter reminds the nation how "Howbeit, God--what things he had before declared, through the mouth of all the prophets, for his Christ to suffer,--did thus fulfill!" There was an end of the matter, so far as Old Testament prophecies were concerned. Christ had suffered, but now, as to His entering into His glory, and fulfilling all the prophecies concerning that glory which was to follow, -what of these? What hindered their fulfillment? Why should there be delay in their accomplishment? The condition had been laid down in Lev. And Deut. And reiterated all through the Prophets that "Repentance" - that National Repentance must precede National Blessing. The call goes forth therefore in the very next verse (19). "Repent ye, therefore, and turn,--unto the blotting out of your sins; to the end that in that case, there may come seasons of refreshing from the face of God, And he may send forth him who had been fore-appointed for you--Christ Jesus: Unto whom, indeed, heaven must needs give welcome, until the times of the due establishment of all things, of which God hath spoken through the mouth of his holy age-past prophets."
The question is, 'Was this most formal offer merely a mockery?' Suppose they had obeyed that call and repented, and turned to God, Would not the times of refreshing have come from His presence? Would He not have sent Jesus Christ? And in that case, Would not all that He had spoken by His prophets have been fulfilled? True, Christ had suffered; the Heavens had received Him, but not for ever; only "until" Israel should repent, and turn to God. Can we believe that this offer so formally and solemnly made was unreal? We cannot so believe. Israel was responsible before God for the rejection of that offer; but, had the consequence of their rejection of that offer been previously made known, such responsibility would have been impossible. Therefore was the secret purpose of God hidden in Himself: therefore was it kept secret during times eternal; and not until Israel had definitely refused to repent, and thus, rejected the offer to send Jesus Christ from Heaven, not until then, was the sacred secret of God revealed.
We must never adopt any system of interpretation, which would have necessitated that rejection of the Messiah by Israel. Had the great sacred secret been revealed before, they would have been compelled to reject the Messiah, and they could not have been held responsible for that rejection.
Their present administration with all its sufferings, is in consequence of that rejection, and Father is righteous in all His acts.
(2) A KEY TO OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION
The second consequence which flows from the doctrine of the Sacred Secret is this: Had Israel obeyed the call in Acts 3:19-21, and the Lord Jesus had been sent, there is not a prophecy in the Old Testament or in the Gospels which would not have been fulfilled! This is a great truth and an important principle far- reaching in its results. It tells us that the Gospels are the conclusion of the Old Testament history, and not the commencement of the Assembly of God teaching; except of course, so far as Christ crucified is the foundation of all blessing, whether for Creation, for Israel, or the Assembly of God.
The Gospels are a record of the rejection of the Messiah on the part of Israel, and not a record of the foundation of the Assembly. This exposes the follies of those who seek to apply the Sermon on the Mount to the Assembly of God and the world during this present administration; and who would build up "the New Theology" on "the teaching of Jesus," instead of on the teaching peculiar to this administration. It reveals to us the mistakes and errors of those who go back to the historic Gospels to preach the "Come-to-Jesus Gospel," instead of preaching the Glad Message from the Pauline Epistles, which are specially given to the Body of the Christ for it's teaching and Glad Message preaching. Those who adopt the former plan are those who generally more or less ignore the latter. It explains the cause of the difficulties of those who seek to derive from the Acts of the Apostles a system of "Church Government," while that book records the history of the transitional period between the rejection of the Messiah by Israel, the rejection of Israel by God, and closes with the solemn recital of Isa. 6:9, as to Israel's judicial blindness, and the great declaration, "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it."
It seems impossible for us to fix the date of the revelation of the Sacred Secret to Paul, or to say in what part of the Acts it should be placed. From 2 Cor. 12:1-7 it would appear that "the abundance of the revelations" was given "fourteen years before." This was written about A.D. 60, and fourteen years before would bring it to A.D. 46, which would synchronize with the important dispensational chapter, Acts 13, where we have the solemn epoch-marking words pronounced to the Hebrews, "And Paul and Barnabas, speaking boldly, said--Unto you, was it necessary, that the word of God should first be spoken: seeing ye are thrusting it from you, and, unworthy, are judging yourselves of the age-abiding life, lo! we turn unto the nations;" (verse 46). The Nations, as such, had been brought in and blessed long before this. But now, a special work connected with the Sacred Secret was about to be commenced, as is clear from verse 1, where "Barnabas and Saul" had been separated by the Holy Spirit Himself (it is God Himself), for the work "whereunto (He says) I have called them" (verse 2). There can be no doubt that the Acts of the Apostles (as man calls the book) records the transitional history between the rejection of the Kingdom, and the setting up of the Body of the Christ.
(3) THE TRUE PLACE OF PENTECOST
It also removes another popular tradition that the Assembly of God dates from Pentecost! It is only a traditional interpretation on the part of man, and is destitute of any authority unless it can be proved to be so from the Word of God.
Had Israel repented in response to the call in Acts 3:18, 19, then, What about Pentecost? What would it have been then? Had Christ come in His glory in "the Day of God," then, What about Pentecost and the Assembly of God? The fact is that then Joel 2 would have been (completely) fulfilled, for there Pentecost is distinctly declared to be the ushering in of the day of God.
"And it shall come to pass, afterwards, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters, shall prophesy,--your old men, shall dream, dreams, your young men, shall see, visions; Moreover also, upon the servants and upon the handmaids--in those days, will I pour out my spirit; And I will set forth wonders in the heavens, and in the earth,--blood, and fire, and columns of smoke: The sun, shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,--before the coming of the great and awful day of God. And it shall come to pass, whosoever, shall call on the name of God, shall be delivered" Joel 2: 28-32).
In Acts 2 (the first part of) Joel was therefore fulfilled. The preliminary events before the Day of God then took place. Everything was in readiness, and hence in Acts 3, as in Matt. 3 the call went forth, Israel "Repent." When the King had come it was "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." But they refused to repent, and rejected the Kingdom. Now, once again, on the (new) ground of (the) Atonement (already) made, the call goes forth in Acts 3, and it is the same as before - "Repent" - that the King may be sent (back to you, oh rejecters of him!) Again they refuse to repent, and reject the King. Thus the Acts of the Apostles, is (for the Hebrew Nation) like the Gospels, a historical record of the rejection of the King and the Kingdom by Israel, and this explains how it was that God rejected Israel for a season, while He revealed and made known His sacred secret purpose concerning the Assembly of God.
Pentecost thus is shown to have nothing whatever to do with the Assembly of God; and all the modern talk about "Pentecostal blessing," and "Pentecostal enduement," etc. etc., and the awful heresy of the Pentecostal league' are all based on a scripture which does not refer to the Assembly of God at all; and those who so base it are those who so greatly neglect the teaching of God in the Pauline Epistles, which are expressly given for the guidance, teaching, blessing, and building up of the Body of the Christ. All that Christians need of teaching concerning the work and power of the holy spirit is fully contained and revealed in the Epistles, which are written for that purpose.
(3) RIGHTLY DIVIDING OR STRAIGHT CUTTING THE WORD OF GOD
We thus have a fourfold Key for the interpretation of the Old Testament, the Four Gospels, the Acts, and the Apocalypse. We are not (when interpreting Scripture) to read into it that which was the subject of subsequent revelation! This principle cannot be over-estimated in its power to clear our understanding of the Word of God. Why is there so much confusion in reading the Word? Why are there so many conflicting opinions? Why so many "schools of thought," and divergent "views?" It is because we do not "rightly divide" the Word of God (2 Tim. 2:15). That Word is, "the Word of Truth," and this is why we are bidden to "rightly divide" or "skillfully handle" it. If therefore we fail thus to divide it, it is impossible for us to have "truth"; and we cannot fail to have error.
We must "rightly divide" off the Old Testament, Gospels, (some parts within) Acts, and the Apocalypse from the teaching concerning the Assembly of God. We must not read Assembly of God's-truth into the Old Testament. We must not read teaching concerning the "Sacred Secret" into the Gospels and Acts. If teachers had always thus divided the Word, we should never have confused Israel with the Body of the Christ, or the Kingdom with the Body of the Christ. We should never have put the "extension of Christ's Kingdom (to Israel)" for the spread of the Glad Message (by the Assembly of God). We should never have taken "the glad-message of the Kingdom of Heaven" as being synonymous with "the glad-message of the Grace of God;" or have supposed that the former is being, or could be, preached now, thus perverting Matt. 24:14. We should never have taken Matt. 24 as referring to the Assembly of God; or have supposed that the Assembly of God would be on the earth during the great Tribulation therein described. We should not have based our Missionary effort on Ps. 2:8 or Matt. 28:19, 20, for we should have seen that "the great Commission," as it has been called, was obeyed by those to whom it was first given (see Col. 1:6, 23; Rom. 10:18; Titus 22:11), and will be completely fulfilled in the time of Matt. 24:14. The commission for the Assembly of God's Missionary effort must be drawn from the Epistles, which are specially written for the Body of the Christ's guidance and instruction, and not from the Gospels or any Scripture prior, at least, to Acts 3. We are not speaking of Missionary labor in itself, but only as to the Scriptural ground on which it should, or should not be based.
The closing verses of Mark would never have been mutilated by all its various readings had they not been wrongly taken for the Assembly of God-teaching (only). It was, we believe, the difficulties created by thus interpreting the verses that led to the rejection of the passage rather than to the rejection of the false principle of interpretation. The fact being that the Commission in verse 18 was obeyed by those to whom it was given, and the signs predicted did (indeed) follow in those who believed. The Church afterwards took this Commission as specially given to itself to carry out, and not seeing those specific signs following, questioned the genuineness of the Scripture, which predicted them, rather than its own wisdom in thus misapplying it. Kingdom-Truth in the Sermon on the Mount would never have been taken as Assembly of God-teaching, and thus Infidels and the world would have been deprived of one their readiest weapons against the Word of God.
The Church would never have been put into the Judgment of Matt. 25, which concerns only Gentile nations; and says nothing at all about resurrection. For even Infidels can plainly see (as the majority of (the blinded-by-religions) Christians cannot) that a judgment based on works can have no connection with a Assembly whose standing is in grace. The truth, instead of being "rightly divided" dispensationally, is thus made to become a source of error; and things, which differ and are each true in their proper place, are robbed of all their meaning by being confounded together. We should have had clearer views of the Apocalypse, and have seen that it referred to the setting up of the rejected Kingdom with power and in judgment after the Body of the Christ shall have been removed; and that the end of the Body of the Christ being revealed in 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thess.4, it could have no part or place on the earth during the events which take place in "the day of God."
We should not go to the Gospels or Acts for passages concerning the Parousia of Christ, as "the hope of the Body of the Christ," while in the Epistles alone is that coming set forth as the Body's hope. We should never have substituted "a happy death" for "that blessed hope." We should never have made the death of man our goal, instead of the appearing of "Christ, our Life" (Col. 3). We should never have taken dissolution (in death) instead of Ascension as our hope (1 Thess. 4), and then we should never have been driven to use Hymn-Books as the source of Christian Epitaphs, instead of the Pauline Epistles. We should not have confounded the special Revelation of that resurrection which is connected with the Sacred Secret in 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15, with what is known as "the First Resurrection." The first Resurrection was, as we have shown, no secret. The Old Testament clearly reveals it, and it would have taken place just the same (as it will yet take place), had Israel accepted the offer in Acts 3:18, 19, and had there been no Assembly of God at all. The one is quite independent of the other, and they would never have been confounded, had the truth of the "Sacred Secret" been discerned.
We should not have taken the "breaking of bread" in the Acts of the Apostles, and exalted into the place of the Lord's Supper, had we seen that it has nothing to do with a Church ordinance; or had we known that it was and remains till to-day, the common and universal Hebrew idiom for partaking of an ordinary meal together. We should never have taken John 6, as containing teaching as to the Lord's Supper, which had not then been instituted, but, seeing that such an interpretation of the Gospels is incompatible with the doctrine of the Sacred Secret, we should have studied that Scripture afresh, and scientifically in the light of figurative language, and have seen that the figures of Metonymy and Enallage, and their Hebrew idiom as to eating and drinking, clearly explain it as referring to that spiritual receiving, partaking of, and "inwardly digesting" of Christ and His words as the bread or support of spiritual life.
And, as to the Lord's Supper itself, have we not fallen into many errors, "not discerning the Lord's Body (i.e., the Assembly of which Christ is its Head)?." See 1 Cor. 11:29. For "the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of the Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16.) This must refer to the Assembly "Body of the Christ", as the next verse goes on to explain - "Because, one loaf, one body, we, the many, are, for we, all, of the one loaf, partake." That is to say the bread or loaf, which we break sets forth our communion not with Christ personal (which is the source of all the errors connected with the Lord's Supper), but the communion and fellowship of all the members of Christ's Body. The one loaf setting forth the fellow-partnership of all the members with one another and with Christ the Head of the Body in glory, with whom we hope shortly to be, and hence "as oft as we break that bread, we "show forth the Lord's death till He Come." This is what is meant by "discerning the Body."
These and many other mistakes would never have been made - had the true doctrine of the Great Sacred Secret been preserved and held by the Body of the Christ; and had "the Word of the Truth" been consequently rightly divided.
