THE BLUNDERS OF PAUL DEHAAN
Maurice M Johnson
Los Angeles, California
December 6, 1959
I'm going to prove by the grace of God that Paul didn't blunder, but DeHaan did.
But first let me confess to a blunder Maurice Johnson has made that is very up to date. I don't have the two tapes of DeHaan. I looked through everything from top to bottom, front tail light to bumper in my car, and Ted and Jim volunteered to go out to Ted Hampton's house where my wife and I’ve been staying and look through the stuff that I took out of the car and Jim just called and said, "Nothing doing. Not there." But brother Ross kindly gave me a copy. I tried to get one several different places on the way from Tulsa here. I played those tapes, both of them, last Sunday in Tulsa, and announced this morning on the tape that was played in San Luis Obispo that, God willing, l was going to have, God willing, a joint discussion next Sunday in San Luis Obispo next Sunday afternoon as I did last Sunday in Tulsa and would be, I said, in Alhambra.
But brother Ross brought me this book that is a compilation of the five addresses by DeHaan recently given over the radio concluded last Sunday or the Sunday before last on "The Blunders of Paul", "The Blunders of Paul". So l hope you will allow me to read and be easy to reread and be satisfied without hearing his voice. (Personally I don't think his voice, not meaning to criticize him for that, I don't think his voice is any more pleasing than mine is on the radio. It's pretty harsh. But that of course doesn't disapprove by that.)
He preaches, I've often said, I believe DeHaan preaches more truth than any preacher I know of that has a national hook-up. I've said that for years. Therefore, it is all the more sad to me, it is all the more devilish that he should have come out with this. There's a sense however that we should thank God that he has. I appreciate more and more God's order, God's law that a good tree brings forth good fruit and a bad tree bad fruit. And when a man is walking contrary to the unity of the Spirit, not endeavoring to keep it in the bond of peace, it's an awful thing for him to be able to successfully preach nothing but truth. Doesn't that sound bad for me to say that? Listen to it again. I said when a man isn't walking worthy of the calling wherewith we're called, at least endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace by his walk, it's an awful thing for him to be able to preach only truth because his walk will give all the more excuses for people to walk likewise. When they hear him preach so much truth but find that it doesn't affect his feet.
I first met DeHaan, in fact it's the only time I've met him face to face, I met DeHaan in about 1925 if I remember correctly in Chicago. I went by to see the late brother O'Hair and DeHaan was there at the meeting house. They called it then the North Shore Congregational Church. DeHaan had recently before, not long before, come out of the Christian Reformed denomination that practices sprinkling for water baptism and is very strong Calvinistic . . . where is brother Stevens? Brother Stevens, you use to be in that "Christian Reformed" so-called denomination, and brother Stevens' tract "Does God Save By Election?", maybe the immediate occasion was the fact that he use to believe that or be in it and his brother, one of them, still does believe that extreme doctrine of predestination.
Some of you know that that was the semblance of a reason for a break between my sister Evelyn and her husband Paul the Noels down in San Diego, the extreme doctrine of Calvinism. Well DeHaan had recently come out of that denomination, and I understood, and I think I'm right, had accepted the teaching that O'Hair was giving on no water baptism for today. DeHaan had a Tabernacle in Grand Rapids, Michigan; good sized Tabernacle with a promising fundamentalist organization. He began to invite O'Hair to go over there and to speak. So I have those reasons, if somebody wants to write him and ask him if he ever did agree with O'Hair, J. C. O'Hair of Chicago, on water baptism, that you heard it said that he did and get him to write you, I'd be glad to hear what he might write to you. But anyway, he was in fellowship with O'Hair who was strong on his doctrine of no water baptism for today.
DeHaan began to see what his association with O'Hair and men like that who went as far as O'Hair did go on rightly dividing. He began to see what it would do to his ambition to be a great preacher, so he joined the Baptist Church, joined the Baptist Church. One reason I want to emphasize that is that believe that kind of compromise, that kind of smart trickery is at the bottom of his trying to bring Paul into the same line of blunder. While not admitting he's blundering but to try the witness, because Paul of course is witness number one in his inspired epistles against such compromise and against the Baptist's position as the Baptists.
DeHaan teaches in here over and over again of the awful sin of trying to do evil that good may come, and of compromise . . . I'm going to skip about, but before I go much in this, I want to read several passages in the inspired record. To me, it's undoubtedly suggestive, if not very significant that DeHaan refers over and over again to Luke as Dr Luke. You know, he is Dr DeHaan. His doctorate is from the medical school; he's an MD, was a MD. And Luke was a physician. Nowhere in the bible is he called Dr Luke, but DeHaan refers to him over and over again as Dr Luke.
He says here, another one of the things from DeHaan that's quite new to me, he says that undoubtedly Paul took Luke, Dr Luke, accompanied him on his missionary tours as his private physician. Now brother Stevens, I'm going to credit that to you Dutch people, cause that didn't come from heaven. At least, at least I'm going to attribute it to one Dutchman, brother DeHaan. Incidentally, l know enough of Texans, and personally I'm a Texan, I know there's no essential difference between one member of Adam's family and another one. But in this case it's the Dutchman that said (DeHaan) that Paul's personal physician was Dr Luke that travelled with him. I wonder if his personal physician was with him when he was performing special miracles referred to in Acts 19 and sent blessed handkerchiefs. That was hard on Dr Luke for Paul to send blessed handkerchiefs and have people put them on their bodies and get healed. But little things like that don't bother 'Dr' DeHaan. Now l don't mind calling him doctor because he's a medical man. However, for him to use like Dr T. Myron Webb and Dr Walter Wilson, all three of whom got their doctor's degree from being doctors in some degree. T. Myron Webb, J W Cotten will tell you . . . didn't get his doctor from a graduate of a medical school; he used to be a travelling medicine salesman, but he's Dr T. Myron Webb and an able Bible teacher in the main. And Dr Walter Wilson was a Plymouth Brethren for years and years and pulled out of it and started Fundamentalist work and he's the head of a school now in Kansas City, Missouri, but he's Dr Wilson; been out here many times to the Bible Institute, and so-forth.
Now over and over again Dr DeHaan I repeat, referred to Dr Luke. I'll read the first few statements here in this booklet. "Lecture Number One. The Blunders of Paul. Paul the apostle, the apostle of grace, made one great blunder." Now later on, he's going to undertake to prove that Paul made that blunder, actually his entire ministry was under the cloud of his carnal, stubborn determination to do what God told him when he was saved he mustn't do. Because He said as soon as God saved Paul, He said, "Hurry and get out of Jerusalem." But in spite of that, Paul was rebuked over and over again. So instead of it being true, as he tries to, as there being just one blunder, Paul's whole life was under that blunder that he never confessed... that he never confessed.
Now that sort of thing my friend, you talk about Modernism. Modernists are those in religion, they are those (I think I can more or less accurately describe them in religion, Christendom) who profess to believe in God who profess to believe the Bible is the main book for Christendom, but that the ideas of God and the doctrines in here came as a result of Evolution, and that God's method of creating and all is theory and an evolutionary process. Therefore, their standards are all on a raft that has been cut from the shore if you please from the ... lighthouse, uprooted from the rock shore and put on the raft and whichever way the raft is going that's the way to go because the light's always ahead of you. Whichever way you go that's it. That's the modern philosophy, theory of organic evolution. So I repeat, if the apostle Paul labored during his entire ministry from the time of his salvation to his execution under the delusion, now under the stubborn . . . he says blind, he was blinded and so-forth. In his going to Jerusalem, he gives up his going to Ephesus, and instead he sends word to the elders of the church to meet him at Miletus. "On Paul's decision will rest his whole future." That's his statement there; I'm correct even according to his own statement, DeHaan, in saying Paul's determination to go to Jerusalem and he dates it from his conversion. That Paul's determination to go to Jerusalem was, "On Paul's decision will rest his whole future." "Paul felt that his zeal, his passion, his love to see souls saved, gave him license to compromise and disobey the clear revelation of the will of God. He seemed to feel that the end would justify the means. There are many today who hold the same false conviction." You know, like becoming a Baptist so you won't have the offense of the cross, when people ask what you are, but not having the courage n to come out over the radio and say I want all you to be Baptists. If DeHaan were to do that, his radio audience would be whittled and whittled and whittled and whittled down plenty. So he's exactly guilty of what he accuses Paul of.
"Paul has left us a striking example of the danger of evil compromise in order to obtain a noble end. God had told him at the very beginning of his ministry to avoid Jerusalem; he had been warned and warned time and again, entreated, pleaded with, and commanded. But his burning passion to bring the Gospel to his kinsman, his pure, unimpeachable motive . . . " Well, how can a man that's stubborn and disobedient have a pure, unimpeachable motive? Then I suppose if you were really godly and obedient, you'd have a purer and more unimpeachable. You know it's just like being complete when you're saved and when you join the Baptists you're completer. It's just like being saved and in the position therefore so maybe you should do all things through Christ which strengthens you and join the Baptists so you can do more than all things. That's the line of argument.
And my main reason, I repeat but in different words, in bringing this out, is to call people's attention that a man in his position. . . DeHaan probably has a larger listening audience of saved people (that's my guess because I've heard a good many different parts of the country speak about him and ask me if I knew him and ask me what I think about him), I dare say DeHaan has a larger percentage of saved people in the United States listening to him on his Sunday broadcasts than any other one man. That's my opinion. And when he comes to Los Angeles, he's asked to write for the Bible Institute, speak, he spoke here... three years ago at the commencement exercises, was the imported preacher for the Bible Institute graduating class. And he's honored and honored and honored here and yonder. Here's a little booklet, and it's the ablest, it's the most clever method I think of (when I say clever, maybe I should say efficient, physical method of) getting out truth: is to broadcast and then have what you broadcast in print to send out for those who may check up by careful reading when they have time on what they heard you give over the radio. I think that's probably a better method. I wish I had been able to do it myself, and maybe I will a little bit more... I don't know.
But now, let me read this again. . . "Paul has left us a striking example of the danger of evil compromise in order to obtain a noble end. God had told him at the very beginning of his ministry to avoid Jerusalem; he had been," but he goes ahead and, "But his burning passion to bring the Gospel to his kinsman, his pure, unimpeachable motive, his willingness to die in the attempt, blinded his eyes to the obedience of Christ." Look now, imagine having a pure, unimpeachable motive blind your eye. A pure and unimpeachable motive to preach the gospel to his brethren blinded his eyes. "It was not a passing fancy with Paul," now get this, "It was not a passing fancy with Paul, but a long-cherished . . ." We've got to remember now that from the time Paul was saved, all his stubborn, deliberate, blinded eye planning was going on. Now watch. Honestly, when I heard this on the tape first . . . in fact I heard this on the radio. Brother Parke Davis from Tulsa wrote me and he said, "Have you been hearing DeHaan? I wish you would answer him," and he told me a little bit about what he was giving. Well. . . the very next day, the soonest it was possible, I took up the subject and they said, "If you could only have heard DeHaan who immediately preceded me on the Tulsa radio by his broadcast" (it's a national hook-up chain station), they said, "If you could have heard DeHaan and then heard what you gave . . . if anybody didn't know that you sent the tape, would have thought you'd have heard DeHaan, been right there in the studio and heard everything he'd said and then took it up one, two, three, four." Well the Holy Spirit knows how to help us do that, of course. When we know a man's false doctrine and know his salient point, we can bring out the truth by the help, of God. But when I heard DeHaan say this, I thought that's just more than I expected from him. I didn't think he'd skip that fast for a nosedive. Look now, he said, what Paul did, "It was not a passing fancy, but a long-cherished, constantly nourished . . ." He was constantly nourishing his stubborn, rebellious, pussyfooting, diplomatic compromise. Now that's the man we're supposed to believe is the master builder of the church as he says in 1 Corinthians, "I as a wise master builder have laid the foundation." This is the one that said, "Mark those which walk as you have me for an ensample," after he was put in jail, DeHaan says, because of his compromise.
My friend, this thing has the subtle seeds of more pernicious infidelity than anything l remember having read from an evangelical writer. "How art the mighty fallen," mighty in some respects he wrought. "It was not a passing fancy with Paul, but a long-cherished, constantly nourished, carefully prepared plan. He would go to Jerusalem, soft-pedal the message of grace. . ." Now what Paul is he writing about? I've read about Pope Paul, there was a Roman Catholic pope by the name of Paul, and I've heard of others, but this doesn't sound like the Paul I've read about. What? One DeHaan made. "It was not a passing fancy with Paul, but a long-cherished, constantly nourished, carefully prepared plan. He would go to Jerusalem, soft-pedal the message of grace he had proclaimed among the Gentiles, put himself back under the law . . .", we're going to read directly, and DeHaan has the nerve to quote it like a Campbellite debater. He'll quote the scriptures that he riddles later on. That's the most effective way of deceiving, is to pretend to believe it as an introduction to your determined effort to riddle it, to cut it to pieces. "He would go to Jerusalem, soft-pedal the message of grace he had proclaimed among the Gentiles, put himself back under the law..." I started to say I'm going to read directly from 1 Corinthians 9:19, "Though I'm free from all men yet have I made myself servant to all that I might gain the more, to those that were Jews I became as a Jew, to those under the law as under the law." Yes Paul said he put himself under the law. What for? "That I might gain the more." DeHaan quotes that and says Paul, though he had a pure unimpeachable motive, it was willful disobedience, it was compromised, it was soft-pedaling grace, and yet interesting enough and significant enough, in the same immediate context Paul said, "I fight not as uncertainly, not as one that beateth the air, but I keep my body under lest after I have preached to . . ." He said, "They that run in a race, run all, but one receives the prize, so fight I, not uncertainly, but I keep my body under lest after I have preached to others I myself should be a castaway." ? Corinthians 9. Doesn't that sound like he was a deliberate compromiser, blinded, and so-forth.
"He would go to Jerusalem, soft-pedal the message of grace he proclaimed among the Gentiles, put himself back under the law, shave his head, take a Jewish . . ." Now he shaved his head, and DeHaan acknowledges it at the time of Acts 18, at the time of Acts 18. "Take a Jewish vow, honor the forsaken temple, bring a bloody sacrifice, and thus having pacified their anger," the anger of the Jewish Christian that was zealous of the law of whom we read in the 21st chapter of Acts. "And silenced their accusations, he could then preach the Gospel and win them to Christ. A superb plan, a noble purpose, but a tragic mistake, displeasing to the Lord. And it failed utterly in accomplishing Paul's purpose or achieving the end for which he was willing to die."
Now let's turn please to the 15th chapter of Romans; I think probably's a good place to begin here in the reading of the Scripture. Romans the 15th chapter. Some of you folks will appreciate, others of you probably are not yet prepared to appreciate what I'm going to bring out now. The doctrinal distinction between 'us' as a group of Christians professing to meet together only in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and professing to want to walk only in Christ Jesus the Lord, Colossians 2:6; professing to believe with joy and satisfaction that we are complete in Christ, Colossians 2:10; and that therefore we should "let no man judge us in respect of meat or drink or holy day or Sabbath days or new moons which things are shadows of things to come, but the body is of Christ," Colossians 2: 6-18; professing to believe that the middle wall of partition, the law of commandments between Jews and Gentiles, the ordinances, physical ordinances, were done away at the cross, for to make of the twain, Jew and Gentile, one new man in Christ so making peace, Ephesians 2:10-15; professing to believe that we should walk, and we're trying to walk, worthy of the calling wherewith we're called with all lowliness and meekness (God help us to believe it and to do it), and long-suffering, forebearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. What is it we're to endeavor to keep by our W - A - L - K, with that godly attitude? It is by the walk as though there is but one church, while there is but one, one body; one Spirit, walk that way. DeHaan does not walk as though there were one church. He, in his booklet which I have, four sermons on "The One True Church", in his first three messages he gives all but sublimely beautiful teaching on the one church. He said the one and only true church is the body of Christ. The only true church. The one true church. The only true church. The one and only true church. And I put in my margin several times there, "Baptist?" What's that? Will you dare come out and say it's an untrue church? Wait'll you hear him do that. He won't do that, he's too smart, he's smarter than Paul, he's a lot smarter than his 'Paul'. As you said Paul, this man DeHaan, his Paul is a whole lot smarter than DeHaan. Well you know I expect every creator of a character is smarter than the character, the dummy he creates. Don't you think so? So anyway, DeHaan is smart enough to teach beautifully there's one true church and then join the Baptists, and uphold that. Paul wasn't smart enough. He said, "The things that were gain to me I," what? "counted them but dung," refuse. "Counted all things that were gain to me but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord," and so-forth. Let's go ahead with Romans 15th chapter please. Now for all of us who believe . . oh, I started to say, I haven't finished yet, that for those of us who believe there's only one church and that it's spiritual and that our worship is in the realm of the spiritual, Philippians 3:3, and that we should have no confidence in the flesh in our Christian activities, worship, and service, and that . . . henceforth know we no man after the flesh though we have known Christ, we've known Him as concerning the flesh an Israelite we read in the 9th chapter of Romans and from the loins of David we read in the 2nd chapter of Acts and so forth, the tribe of Judah, born in the city of David, Bethlehem, the city of David, born king of the Jews, minister of the circumcision Romans 15:8, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.
And, oh if you'd have seen the response and heard it from the folks, that little group of folks down in Baton Rouge as I went over those things, and I made a two hour tape on the Transition period and the New Covenant Supper. They asked me, " Do you have a tape recorder there?" And I said, Well let's just make the recording while I'm giving it, and you can hear it, and then you can hear it back again." And when I brought those things, and knowing no man after the flesh sort of thing, their hearts seemed to rejoice and their eyes sparkle. The fellows, I can see them right now, and the ladies, they have several little children, and they tended their children sometime and didn't listen as uninterruptably.
But those of us who believe that the church of Jesus Christ is not different from God's program with Israel in degree but in kind, that we don't have any kind of rehash of the physical temple, we don't have a dilution or abbreviation of God's physical ordinances, meats and drinks and divers baptisms. We believe that the program is radically different, that one was an earthly people that had the God of heaven as their God all right and they were to worship in spirit and truth, yes. But they had physical types and physical shadows and physical ? and physical priesthood and physical meeting house and physical blessings, physical land, and physical divinely given strategy for physical warfare. But we in this present dispensation are a new people, we're the new man, we're a people that was never known before in Old Testament prophecy, we're a company of people that was utterly unheard of in prophecy and type and shadow in the Hebrew Scriptures.
We who believe that, believe it because of our ability, under God, to understand the book of Acts first! And if DeHaan is correct, then we are hopelessly at sea on the question of healing. DeHaan cannot with these arguments, he can no more meet the healers, victoriously, doctrinally, then he can fly to the moon. He can't meet the Campbellites victoriously, he can't do it at all consistently because he lays himself wide open on too many vulnerable points -- vulnerable with his doctrine. He can't meet the Seventh Day Adventists, they could whip him to a frazzle if he'd meet them in joint discussion, using his own arguments here. He can't meet the Roman Catholic, he credits the apostle Peter with preaching to the Jews almost like the Roman Catholics do. But anyway, it is of the utmost importance my friend that we understand, not for people that are not right with God, my message this afternoon more or less doctrinally follows the things I sought to give this morning. I'm not preaching things that people that like to fight for themselves or their flesh and blood kinfolk, I'm not presuming that they can get in this good fight at all. They can be straightened out temporarily from their chin up, but they're not in the fight with devotion and love and joy and spiritual confidence until they are defeated . . . until they are victorious in their own personal life... in their own personal life.
Now watch again please, here I repeat, it is so important that we understand what we profess to believe. I believe, God bless you, I believe what I’ve been preaching for years. I still believe it. I believe the position that the book of Acts is an inspired history of the overlapping of two programs, the gradual fading out of God's program of Israel from Acts 2, Pentecost or shortly after it, to Acts 28. My other thumb, letting my thumbs represent Acts 2 record of Pentecost, I believe the historical beginning of the church which is Christ's body, my hand and arm here representing God's people Israel, beginning with the time they were baptized unto Moses and the cloud and the sea, my other hand and arm representing the church which is Christ's body. You notice here that I do not have . . . one ending as the other begins. Not at all. I have one ending long after the other began. The other beginning long before the one ended.
The book of Acts is an inspired history book of the overlapping of two programs. Let my hand again, I repeat, let my hands here from thumb to thumb represent the book of Acts from Acts 2 through Acts 28:28. The inspired history of the overlapping of two programs.
In his fifth talk, DeHaan quoted from Gaebelein. I phoned up in San Luis Obispo day before yesterday and asked by daughter-in-law to please, either she or Jim, go by my house in my library and they did and found this book all right I've had it for years, read from it over the radio, it's A C Gaebelein's book on the book of Acts. And in it he gives the same arguments briefly but not as viciously, but it's the same essence, ugly essence, as DeHaan gives. This book was copyrighted, oh I've forgotten, not too important, but 1912; Gaebelein wrote it many years ago in other words. And I repeat, DeHaan quoted from it in his fifth and closing address. Gaebelein makes this statement on the book of Acts, "A great meeting took place a short time later. Many Jews assembled in Paul's lodging. The meeting lasted from morning to evening. Once more he testified the Kingdom of God to a large company of Jews. He also persuaded them concerning Jesus both out of the laws of Moses and out of the Prophets. What a wonderful message must have come from his lips as he unfolded the prophetic testimony concerning the Messiah in the power of the Spirit of God! but what was the result? Some believed and some believed not. They did not agree amongst themselves. The end of God's gracious way with the Jews is reached."
Now that's exactly what I believe and have taught for many years. The end of God's gracious dealing with the Jew ended when Paul got to Rome, called the chief of the Jews together as we're told in Acts 28 and spoke to them for hours out of the Hebrew scriptures proving that Jesus was indeed the promised, prophesied Messiah, redeemer of Israel, king of the Jews. And when they rejected the message we read in Acts 28 that Paul said, "Well did the Holy Spirit say through Isaiah, Go to this people," Israel, "and say Hearing you shall hear and not understand, seeing you shall see and not perceive. Be it known therefore unto you," you, Israel, the last representative group of Jews that Paul preached to, "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto to Gentiles and they will hear." And God's dealing with the Jews as a nation was through with for this dispensation.
I believe that that was the breaking off of the last natural olive branch. The Jews, most of you know, being referred to in the 19th chapter of Romans as the natural olive tree. Paul writing to Rome said, some of the branches are broken off. "I hope to come there to Rome before long." Paul, why are you going to come there to Rome? Dr DeHaan said because of his stubborn rebellion, his compromise, his blinded disobedience to God; he got in trouble, and was put in jail, and spent the rest of his life in the Roman jail. That's what DeHaan says. Let Paul tell us by divine inspiration why he was going to Rome.
But first let me read a little bit more from Gaebelein on Acts. "The end of God's gracious way with the Jews is reached. We repeat for the last time, it was to the Jew first," referring there to Romans 1:16, "I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it's the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." "The final crisis is reached. Judgment must now be executed upon the nation and the blindness is now to come." Now I disagree with Gaebelein there. he's a Bullingerite there. He's teaching what J C O'Hair, the late E W Bullinger, and what Stam, and the Bible College of Milwaukee, and one or two of the outlets here, what Wright (?) preaches up in west Riverside, and the various modified Bullingerites, they say that Israel wasn't broken off until Acts 28.I don't believe it for a second. They were
broken off gradually. They were broken off gradually. As said at a conference in O'Hair's building in Chicago in February of 1934, 1 said, "Brethren, before I go back to the Pacific coast I'd like to make this observation. It seems to me that your fundamental blunder in this conference is," well . . . I was the only one there that fought for the fact that the church of 1 Corinthians 12 was the same as Ephesians, they were going that strong including O'Hair and Bullingerism. And I said, "Brethren, it seems to me your fundamental blunder is that you are arguing that Paul must have spoken from Rome over an international hookup with all the Jews all over the world listening in. Because your whole argument is on the assumption that Paul officially declared to all-1-1 Israel from Rome that God was turning to Gentiles. When the Bible makes it plain that he spoke to different groups in his journeys.
Now, let's see what Gaebelein did bring out that God was dealing with the Jews as Jews during the book of Acts period. Now watch (and he's right), since God Himself was dealing with the Jews during the book of Acts period, did He want any human beings to deal with them? Since God Himself was dealing with Israel during the book of Acts period, of course He wanted His representatives on earth, the apostles, to deal with them. And that's precisely what we find in the book of Acts. "God's mercy had still waited. Marvelous Grace, which took up the young Pharisee, Saul, and made him the Apostle to the Gentiles! Through him, the chosen instrument, the Lord still sought His beloved Israel." But earlier here Gaebelein says Paul was disobedient in going to Jerusalem and he teaches the same rotten doctrine that DeHaan took up and passed out. But later on he said that God Himself was seeking Israel through Paul. But Paul was self-willed in seeking Israel.
Listen my friend, I thank God that nobody can be consistent in false doctrine. You can't be consistent to a walk that's contrary to the walk in Christ Jesus the Lord. In other words, I hope I have proper humility that God brake my neck if it gets stubborn to where I'll learn . . . I better be humble this side of the judgment seat of Christ, I know I will be there. But I thank God that I know our position is unassailable, at least it can't be effectively assailed. Bless God what we're contending for we're contending for Christ. The others.. can say it, but they’ve got to have Christ plus! Christ plus water baptism, Christ plus this, and Christ plus that. Oh God help us to be more joyous. More joyful to God than we’ve been allowed to see. . . one of the reasons I read these men's books: I'm glad to find out that God taught them more when they don't walk ("I'm not glad to find they don't walk right), but to find that they know better. They know better. Imagine Gaebelein saying at the close of this book, commenting on Acts 28, apparently forgetting all that he gave on Acts 21 about Paul going to Jerusalem and Acts 20, when he got to Acts 28 God is now going to give up the Jew. He has fought them over and over again and He's finally used His servant Saul to go and seek the Jews but He's through now. I agree with that. But he didn't use Saul because Saul was stubborn and willful and determined to go to the Jew, but because God Himself wanted Paul to go to the Jew.
Let's read about it in the 15th chapter of Romans, beginning there. Beginning at the 17th verse, well make it the 15th verse,
Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. For, I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem
where I was a pig-headed, rebellious, stubborn, blinded by my pure and unimpeachable desire (according to DeHaan. No, he said that God has made the Gentiles obedient, some of them,
Through mighty signs and wonders,
accompanying my ministry,
by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
Was he wrong in going to Jerusalem at this time? If he was, then we better tear this out of the Edible, because he's writing as a servant of Jesus Christ, the apostle writing by divine inspiration.
Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation.
Remember that DeHaan said that Paul's action in going to Jerusalem wasn't a hasty thing, it was long planned, tong studied, and so-forth, from the time he was saved.
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see; and they that have not heard shall understand. For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you.
Why Paul? "Well I didn't get stubborn soon enough. I didn't get rebellious and blunder soon enough. No, that's right, I did; I blundered from the time I was saved," according to Dr DeHaan. Let's see what Paul says by inspiration.
For which cause I also have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts.
Dr DeHaan said that Paul was . . . arrested in Jerusalem and sent to Rome to spend the rest of his life in jail because of his stubborn, wilful, blinded policy business of going to Jerusalem. I've got it here in black and white, of course. But Paul said "The reason I expect to come to Rome before long is that l have finished my ministry." And he argues over and over again, he says why Paul was chosen to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, the great apostle to the Gentiles, and yet he was determined to go to the Jews when God told him not to; he had no business in going to Jerusalem; and he wouldn't stay at Ephesus and preach, and he was in such a hurry to go on to Jerusalem and be there for a Jewish feast that he wouldn't stop along the way and preach the gospel, he said. But Paul by inspiration says, "The reason I'm going to Jerusalem and from there to Rome is that I have no other place to preach around here." He had thoroughly discharged his Spirit led ministry, his God given ministry. Look how he says it. Romans 15:23,
But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for l trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled by your company. But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things,
in other words the Jews have overflowed with the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles. Now the Jews are suffering dire trials and poverty in Jerusalem, and Paul said some of the saints in Macedonia and Achaia have been well pleased to give of their material things to be sent to the Jews who have given of their spiritual things. And he said, Ye
also to minister unto them in carnal things. When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain. And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come
as a result of my being a bad planner, being a smooth hombre, being a blunderer and pussy-footing, compromising, blinded man. Can you believe what DeHaan argues and believe this?
I am sure that, when I come unto you, l shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.
Brother Horace Strader came up to me after meeting Sunday afternoon, and he's pretty slow in making comments sometimes, too slow I think (cut that out of the tapes please), I'm too fast sometimes (leave that in), brother Horace came up to me at the close last Sunday and he said, "I never dreamed that it was so important," and he would speak some things like that, "l never dreamed it would go so far," words to that effect. Rather unusually enthusiastic for him along those lines.
And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the, fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ. Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me,
because in my bull-headed, stubborn, blundering, compromising, blindness and wilfulness, I sure need a lot of prayer. Let's see what he says. Pray,
That I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judea, and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints,
that the Christian Jews . . . you know (now if there's any Christian Jew here, you tune out for a minute), one of the reasons that I'm pretty sure these Jews at Jerusalem were really saved was because Paul wasn't sure they would gladly receive the money (you tune out, you forgive me if you think l shouldn't have said that); Gentiles kinda likewise too. Paul wasn't sure that these Jewish Christians would readily receive the money. He said I hope they will.
... which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints; That I may come unto you,
you pray for me,
That I may come unto you by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed. Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Now that's Paul's inspired statement, one record of it, about his trip to Jerusalem and then to Rome. Do you find the faintest hint in there that he was out of the will of God? Can you possibly believe this and believe he was out of the will of God in going? I can't, I don't think I can. Now we're going to have evidence piled up. Turn back please to Acts the 19th chapter, and begin at the 20th verse. (I think there's not one earlier, I mean one that I have used.) Acts the 19th chapter, begin at the 20th verse.
So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome. So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.
I suppose we better go now to the 20th chapter, and begin at the 13th verse.
And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot. And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene. And we sailed thence, and came the next day over against Chios; and the next day we arrived at Samos, and tarried at Trogyllium; and the next day we came to Miletus. For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hosted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.
And DeHaan just rails and rails about that: imagine the apostle Paul wanting to be at Jerusalem, determined to go there and be there for a Jewish feast! Well you see he doesn't take up all the statements in the book of Acts about Paul going in the synagogues on the Sabbath day as was his custom. He does mention Paul having his head shaved in Acts 18, and he said it would seen Paul's downhill began there. But earlier he had said that his downhill... it must have begun (he didn't use the word 'downhill' there) when he was saved because the Lord told him right then to get out of Jerusalem. He did. At that time Paul was just saved, he hadn't been taught of the Lord, and the Lord said, "Make haste to get out of Jerusalem, they won't receive your testimony."
Lest I fail to get back to it, I want to remind you right here, and I've got it marked over and over again in the margins of this book, part of which I hastily read when I could get away about 2:00 awhile ago, read part of it though I heard it on the radio most of it, that in Galatians the 2nd chapter -- now Paul says that Paul should never have gone to Jerusalem -- in Galatians the 2nd chapter Paul said he went up to Jerusalem by revelation. He went up by revelation to Jerusalem. And DeHaan says (I've found it at least twice in here) that he said Paul went up to Jerusalem to try to learn something from those apostles who were apostles before him. But he said he was absolutely disappointed in that because he said, "I didn't learn a thing from them." That Paul went up to Jerusalem in order to learn from Peter, James, and John but he was disappointed because he said, "I didn't learn a thing from them." Now you read Galatians 2nd chapter carefully, and it's a very important chapter on rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Paul said, "Those who were apostles before me didn't add a thing to me, but contrariwise," he gave something to them. Imagine any man DeHaan's age (I think he's a few years older than I am), imagine any man DeHaan's age that's been studying the Bible for years and years and years and years, and has such a following, imagine him being so stupidly ignorant or deliberately unfair in his appraisal of Paul as to say that Paul went up to Jerusalem to try to learn, to try to learn from those that were apostles before him.
Acts the 20th chapter, let's continue please, 20:16.
Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hosted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.
Can you imagine the holy Spirit having Luke write things like this that we just read in the 19th chapter and now the 20th chapter without the faintest hint that Paul was stubborn and wilful. But to the contrary.
Let's go on.
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church, and when they were come to him, he said, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons.
"I have been stubborn and rebellious since I was saved because, according to Dr DeHaan, the Lord told me when I was saved never to go to Jerusalem, and I determined right then I was going to go. And my plan, when I finally got there, wasn't the result of a quick hasty plan, but one that had been deliberate and planned for a long time."
Don't forget my dear friend, that the difference between ‘us' doctrinally and the Church of the Open Door and the Baptists and the Fundamentalists at-large and the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics that are saved (whatever ones there are that are saved), the difference between 'us' doctrinally and the people that are walking in some measure of Judaism, denominationalism, is the difference in our understanding of the book of Acts. I said doctrinally. "While ago I spoke about those . . . if there are any here who are not walking in the Spirit, but maybe correct doctrinally from their chin up. In that case of course we'd be characterized by a knowledge that puffeth up.
And we can throw it overboard like Julius Schacknow when it crosses his fleshly path. As long as he saw it was a powerful line of doctrine, the most powerful he'd ever heard of and saw what it did with his Bible Institute professors and all, and he wanted to use the power, he went ahead and did it. And God overruled. I said over and over again in Virginia this last time, I said, "Every time I come to Virginia, and between times, I think of the marvel the way God used Julius Schacknow in Virginia.'' And now he's in one of the wildest Pentecostal cults, and I heard the other day back east that they split wide open by the way, that big sect, that were just waiting their time to take over. Their doctrine is one of these days the Lord's going to use them to restore the most marvellous miracles the world has ever heard of and everybody in the world will know them, they're it, they're God's people. And we've got to go to school to them, can't learn a thing in the world in the Bible spiritually but to go to them. No wonder Julius wanted to hone in on that you know. But anyway, knowledge puffeth up. It's only as our hearts are overwhelmed with the love of God that we can teach truth effectively.
Acts 20 again please, and are you trying to follow carefully. If you have Bibles, read them yourself, it might help you to stay awake better, It might help some of you that don't see any value in this. Oh, if you've dealt with Seventh Day Adventists, if you've dealt with Campbellites -- I mean lovingly and zealously -- if you've dealt with people mixed up in the healing programs of today, if you've dealt with Roman Catholics zealously, and Mormons, you will appreciate some of these things because we're workmen that (if we work), we're workmen that are ashamed and not approved unto God if we don't rightly divide the Word of Truth.
Again now, Paul determined to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. These elders now he called from Ephesus. Again the 18th verse, Acts 20 verse 18.
And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, Serving the Lord with all humility of mind.
You can't believe that for one second if you believe this, because he says from the time Paul was saved the Lord told him never to go to Jerusalem but he determined to go; So Paul didn't Serve the Lord with all humility of mind, but with impudence and stubbornness and rebellious blunder, the blunders of Paul DeHaan argues.
Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews: and how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks,
though I have no business in going to the Jews DeHaan says,
testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me.
"The Holy Spirit needn't talk to me.", according to DeHaan.
And there's one verse we're going to read directly that by itself Seems to authorize DeHaan for all of his argument. There's one verse that by itself, taken out of its context, and I'm giving you a little bit of the more remote context beginning with the 15th chapter of Romans on this very same subject, this verse taken out of its context by itself seems to back up DeHaan in all of his contention. But its just another reminder of the danger of jerking a verse out of context. Just like Herbert Armstrong does with the verse in John." I say ye are gods." And Armstrong doesn't even abide by that verse right there, because the text there is, "I say, Is it not written, I say ye are gods," not going to become gods at the resurrection after you've lived a perfect seven day Sabbath law keeping life; Send your tithes to Box 111 Pasadena, because Armstrong says that's the only place to send it.
None of these things,
the Holy Spirit tells me in every town I go to are awaiting ahead of me,
none of those things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, So that I might finish my course with joy.
Paul, you're talking about your course to Jerusalem being a part of your God given course? And that you can finish a stubborn, willful, blundering course with spiritual joy? What does he say in his last epistle and the last chapter? "Timothy, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, I fought a good fight. Henceforth, there's laid up for me a crown of rejoicing, and not for me only, but also for all those that love his appearing."
Yes? (comment from audience) All right, let's go ahead now.
And the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God,
l want to finish it,
And now, behold, l know that ye all among whom l have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore l take you to record this day, that l am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Now doesn't that sound like a man that's compromising: he should never have gone this way, he should never have called the elders from Ephesus; DeHaan says he should have gone to Ephesus and preached to the Gentiles some more. He argues that over and over again, and says Paul was in such a stubborn hurry to go to Jerusalem that he even had the elders meet him on the way, and he wouldn't preach to Gentiles on the way. I just read to you where the apostle Paul said by inspiration, Romans 15, "The reason I'm going to Rome at this time is because I have no more place to preach over here." He's already preached in all the Spirit led missionary ministry. All from Jerusalem and out, and Asia Minor -- all Asia Minor, and then over in Greece, and now the Lord has shown him he must go to Rome.
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter it) among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years,
"I was upset and beset, and blinded by a stubborn determination to disobey God who told me never to go to Jerusalem and l was determined to go," according to Dr DeHaan. But I’ll read what Paul by inspiration says.
Therefore watch, and remember that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, l commend you to God.
And you better take care of yourself Paul, you stubborn, blundering, politician -- according to DeHaan.
I commend you to God, and the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are,
separated,
sanctified. I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how that so laboring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
May I stop just here and say I ran into again on this trip several different times one of the occasions for some of the blundering in Baton Rouge was that the three so-called elders down there, the oldest's oldest child is about six. . . was about four years of age when he began to assert his eldership, and the other two elders have one or two children -- the oldest is about four I think. There are three elders down there they say. And the leader took the position while he was yet a student in the Dallas Seminary that no preacher should give full time preaching and teaching, that they should all be employed in secular work like Paul was. I brought out there, not with the leader there, he wouldn't come to hear me, didn't even get to meet him, but with the other brethren I said we make a great mistake when we think that the apostle Paul was like the rest of us as to how he got his knowledge of the Word of God, He said, "Timothy give yourself wholly to the study of the Word of God." How much did Paul have to study to get the truth of 1 Corinthians? 2 Corinthians? Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians? He got them by revelation, but Timothy, you have to study. You'11 have to study. Let's not forget that.
Back to this now. And he said it's written in the Old Testament, it's written for our learning he said, that you mustn't muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. He's talking about the very thing I'm on right here now. But he himself was an example, an apostle who received by divine . . . it's more blessed to give than to receive, and it is of course.
And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all.
And confessed his stubbornness? No. Confessed his wilfulness? No. Confessed his years of blundering? No. Confessed his blinded disobedience to the Lord? No.
They all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship. And it came to pass, that after we were gotten from them, and had launched, we came with a straight course unto Coos,
(there's a town up in Oregon and it's named Coos),
and the day following unto Rhodes, and from thence unto Patara: and finding a ship sailing over unto Phoenicia, we went aboard, and set forth. Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the ship was to unlade her burden. And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.
Now that verse by itself seems to teach unequivocally what DeHaan contends for.
I hope I can find without waste of time a passage that I used last Sunday afternoon about where the Lord to (you can't guess my mind now), the 9th chapter of Deuteronomy. It's a parallel (thank you for your efforts), it's a parallel, I'm sure in a very interesting parallel. The children of Israel have become rebellious and disobedient to God, and listen to what God says, Deuteronomy 9:13,
Furthermore the Lord spake unto me,
Moses,
I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people: Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they. So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire,
and so-forth. Look at the 19th verse,
For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the Lord was wroth against you to destroy you. but the Lord hearkened unto me at that time also.
The Lord said, "Don't talk to Me." Did He mean that, period? If He did, Moses flatly disobeyed Him because Moses talked to Him. And God heard Moses. Now there's another case where we must read the statement in the light of the inspired context. Why did God say this to Moses? So far as I know, in the light of the context, to test him. "I alone, am ready to judge these people."
We read not exactly a parallel, but something like that thing, when the Lord told his disciples, "Give ye them to eat. This he said to prove them, for he himself knew what he would do." And it may be somewhat the same, not exactly, as the Lord said to the two disciples on the road to Emmaeus. "Why do you sorrow so as you walk along here on the road and are sad? And they said, "Are you a stranger here? Are you a stranger here? And don’t know what's happened in Jerusalem?" And He said, "What?" And they said, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth," and down the line. Their eyes were holden that they shouldn't recognize who He was.
But back again a little bit in Deuteronomy 9, the last part of the 19th verse,
But the Lord hearkened unto me at that time also. And the Lord was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him: and I prayed for Aaron also the same time. And I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burn it,
and so-forth. Look at the 25th verse,
Thus I fell down before down the Lord forty days and forty nights, as I fell down at the first; because the Lord had said he would destroy you.
But we have to take that in the light of the whole context that the Lord was saying it with a provision in his own mind. Me was going to test Moses, and he did test Moses, and Moses came through the test as a great intercessor.
And I prayed therefore unto the Lord, and said, O Lord God, destroy not thy people, and thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness, which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand. Remember thy servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin.
Isn't that a beautiful prayer?
Lord, your people Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have claimed your promises of a great nation. Are you going to let these rebellious children of theirs break the tine? That's a beautiful prayer. And he said, don't,
Lest the land whence thou broughtest us out say,
Egypt,
say, because the Lord was not able to bring them into the land which he promised them, and because he hated them, he hath brought them out to slay them in the wilderness.
Hah, hah, hah, can't you imagine the Egyptians having a big laugh. And isn't it a beautiful way Moses is arguing with deity. But it's the arguments of a godly man who believed the promises of God.
Yet they are thy people and thine inheritance, which thou broughtest out by thy mighty power and by thy stretched out arm.
And the Lord heard his prayer.
But we read two, three of those verses by themselves, jerk them out of their context, and we have what seems to be the unequivocal statement, "I'm going to destroy them. Don't you interfere with Me, Moses. Don't pray." But Moses did pray, and God heard him. Was Moses wrong? We can't believe it in the light of the whole context, of course.
Well the same way back here. Well we're not through with this, in Acts 21. But that these men said to Paul
through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem. And when,
watch now, 21:5,
And when we had accomplished those days, we departed,
now imagine Luke, by divine inspiration recording this, without saying but Paul was stubborn, and so rebellious, and so blind, that he was going anyway. But Luke wasn't inspired to say a thing like that. Watch now. And Luke was accompanying Paul, he was accompanying Paul.
And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way.
You mean you went with Paul in that rebellious stubbornness of his that DeHaan talked about? "Yeah, I was with Paul. It was our way. We went on"
our way; and they all brought us on our way with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.
You kneeled down with that rebellious, stubborn, pig-headed Paul in his blunder, according to DeHaan?
And when we had taken our leave one of another, we took ship; and they returned home again. And when we had finished our course from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais, and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day. And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle.
What did Paul pray about that as we find in Romans the 15th chapter? He said, "You folks, you Christians at Rome, you pray for me that I may be delivered from the Jews in Judea that don't believe, and that I may come on my way from Jerusalem to you. You pray for me," he said, "and I'm sure of this, that I will come in the full assurance of the gospel of Christ," Romans 15.
And this prophet by the Holy Spirit said the Jews are going to
bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things,
Luke included, and DeHaan brings it out,
when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.
You should hear DeHaan on that, he just waxes eloquent, and said Paul said, "Why do you blubber like babies." You think Paul would talk like that to these godly Christians?
And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.
Did he mean because of "my stubbornness"? Did he mean because of "my rebellion"? Then why didn't the Holy Spirit have Luke say so? He said as Paul said, "I'm ready to do it for the name of the Lord." My friend, if Paul was bluffing and pretending here, he's one of the most contemptible hypocrites recorded in all of the Bible.
And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
The will of this stubborn blundering Paul.
And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge. And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
Now watch, pick up your ears, and look here please, Acts 21:18.
And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
James and the godly Jewish elders at Jerusalem. James and the godly Jewish elders at Jerusalem. DeHaan shouldn't have put down here the blunders of Paul, he should have said the blunders of Paul and James and many thousands of believing Jews, as we’ll see in a moment. I mean if Paul blundered, which of course he didn't. They
went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law.
Did James. say, "What an awful condition they're in. What an awful condition they are in: they are zealous of the law."
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and DeHaan says and Gaebelein said, "And of course Paul had told the Christian Jews to forsake Moses." Well let me just say without any garnish or any artificial flowers, that's a lie. That's just a stupid lie. And it doesn't make only Paul out like it does, but James and all the elders, and the Holy Spirit for not recording it, and having Paul say in 1 Corinthians 9, "I do these things for the gospel of Christ."
Now watch; we'll see some more evidence in a moment. You see how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither walk after the customs, that's the Jewish customs of religion What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: we have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, that's one of the Jewish water baptisms God-given, Levitical purification,
and be at charges with them,
pay your part of the heifers, turtle doves, whatever's necessary,
that they may shave their heads,
God-given vow, like Paul himself had done Acts 18, and all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing. That you have never told Christian Jews to quit circumcising their baby boys, and walking after Jewish customs. That you've never told Christian Jews to give up Judaism.
I announced over two radios in Tulsa, and Coffeyville (?) gets into Tulsa, and over radio in Tulsa last Sunday morning, one at 9:30 the other at 10:00, I said I'll give a ten dollar bill this afternoon to the person that will tell me . . . to the person that believes water baptism is for this present dispensation who will tell me when the Christian Jews were first told with God's authority to forsake Judaism. I’ll give a ten dollar bill to anybody who believes water baptism is for this present church dispensation who will tell me when the Christian Jews were first told to give up their God-given system of meats and drinks and different baptisms and carnal ordinances imposed upon the Jews. You think anybody was there to claim it? There was a Campbellite preacher there; Campbellite preacher. But he never claimed it, never even asked for it. He butted in several times, but he never even asked for the ten dollar bill.
But now don't you answer me, but let me ask you the question. When did God (because that's the fundamental, the fundamental error of DeHaan), when did God for the first time tell Christian Jews to quit practicing God-given Jewish religion? Write McGee and ask him. Write McGee and ask him. Write Louis Talbot and ask him. Write Charlie Fuller and ask him.
By the way, I saw in the paper. . . I think just before I left, that one of the new professors at Fuller Seminary is Right Reverend so-and-so, a Church of England clergyman who's going to teach one of the Bible doctrines and he was pictured with his high vest and mule collar (like ? were). He teaches that water baptism may be sprinkling, and if babies are not sprinkled with holy water (because they use holy water in the Anglicans like Rome does), if a baby isn't sprinkled with holy water, his Adamic sin isn't washed away. That's one of Fuller's teachers now. Fuller's a Baptist, yes sir! But he doesn't try to get anybody else over the radio to be Baptists. DeHaan doesn't either. Theodore Epp of Back To The Bible is a Baptist, but he doesn't try to get anybody over his radio audience to be a Baptist.
l reminded this Baptist preacher in Amarillo the other day, I said, "Fella, stop and think about this. You Baptists," I said, like brother Morey said awhile ago. . . what's his name; like he said, in the garage, like he said awhile ago, I said, "Don't you teach that a person must be a Christian so far as you can tell before you’ll vote on him, as a candidate for water baptism, membership in the Baptist Church?" He said, "Yes sir." I said, "In other words, you rightly tell him, he must go to Christ to get all he needs." And he wouldn't answer that. He must rightly tell him that he must go to Christ to get all he needs. All he needs to take him to heaven. But not all he needs to make him a Baptist. All he needs to make him "accepted in the beloved," Ephesians 9:5, but not all he needs to make him accepted in the Baptists. He's got to be voted on and dunked in the water before he'd be a candidate. . . accepted in the Baptists.
But back to this now, please. And I realize I must draw toward a close. And I also realize that those of you who haven't studied these things some and haven't met the error, won't appreciate the clarifying truth (though I'm not giving it the most effective way possible I'm sure).
"Now this multitude of Christian Jews will hear you've come, and they're going to come and want to know what, what about this: your telling the Jews around among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and not walk after the Jewish customs? They're going to hear you're here and they're going to come. Now come here. You take these four men that have a vow and you go through with them, you practice water baptism (one of those purifications), and walk in Judaism in such a way to prove that the things
whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepeth the law.
Now watch.
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have
already
written and concluded that they observe no such thing.
Now I thought that last Sunday afternoon . . . and I hope to have a similar meeting in Los Angeles maybe in Long Beach, and I don't know where else, maybe up in Riverside when we can get out printed announcements and put them out. And listen folks, we want to help people to see that such an outstanding trusted Bible teacher as DeHaan is wrong. People have got to lose confidence in these biggest Fundamentalists before they will listen to some of us who say never mind our size in the estimates of those who walk by sight -- oh, it's plainer and plainer to me that nobody can be a big man today and be a godly man. You’ve got to manipulate the Word of God. You’ve got to know how to carry water on both . . . preach three messages on the one true church and only true church and talk like you believe it as you give God's Word, and then walk in a way to make all the sectarians feel that.
You should have been present, maybe brother Brian Kerr told you about it, the other night in Dallas in the city park. I said, "I used to be a Methodist," talking about the one true church, "I used to be a Methodist, and every Sunday morning used to quote the so-called 'Apostles Creed' starting with "I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, Jesus Christ only Son . . . I believe in the holy catholic church," and I said then, "we got busy building and supporting the Methodist church." What did we mean by that "I believe in the holy catholic church"? I said, "I have here one of the church bulletins of the Presbyterian Church right over here on Vine and Harwood. I got it years ago when I was leading singing and doing solo work in an international Bible conference, just before I went to California 1921." And I said, "Here they have a statement of faith. The Bible," fine statement, "only sufficient rule of faith and practice. Therefore, they could never be a Presbyterian if they believed it. On the one true church, "the one and only true church is the church which is Christ's body." I have another bulletin here put out by the First Presbyterian Church of Glendale, California, I got years ago on the subject of Christ, His saviorhood, fine, Bible, fine, the church, "the one and only true church is the church which is Christ's body." Now what in the world does it mean by that? And the Presbyterians quote every Sunday morning like the Methodists, the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, "I believe in the holy catholic church"?" I said, "What do the Presbyterians mean when they say that and turn right around and build the Presbyterian church?" Lady, nicely dressed, lady about 45-5O years of age spoke up, put up her hand, I said, "What is it, madam?" She said, "I'm a Presbyterian, and I say that, but we don't mean a thing by that." I said, "Madam, I hope you didn't mean just what you said. You said that when you Presbyterians quote the so-called Apostles Creed saying "I believe in tile holy catholic church," that you don't mean a thing by that." She said, "That's right, we don't mean a thing by that." Well I said, "Maybe you meant what you said." I said, "Maybe you don't mean a thing when you say it. I sure didn't know what I was saying when I used to say it." But I said, "We should mean what we say when we say I believe so and so." But for the third time she said, "Why we don't mean a thing by that." Well I said, "Maybe you don't. Certainly you can't mean anything that is spiritually accurate and honest when you say it."
But back to this now please.
As touching,
Acts 21;25,
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Now watch, I thought that if we had somebody present last Sunday afternoon in Tulsa that would claim the ten dollars, that they'd probably claim it by saying, "I’ll tell you when the Christian Jews were first told when to quit practicing Jewish religion; it was at the conference in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15." That's what I expected to hear, because that's the reply that I hear more often (it isn't an answer, but it's a reply), that I hear more often from Bible teachers and preachers when I ask them personally. When were the Christian Jews first told to quit practicing temple worship, seventh day Sabbath worship, circumcision, head shaving, meats and drinks and divers baptisms, carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation. Until the time came when God was through with Israel as a nation and would have Paul write from the Roman jail that the middle wall of partition, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, the enmity between the Jew and the Gentile was taken away at the cross. Now DeHaan, as Len Baker brought out, DeHaan says over and over again, imagine Paul going up to Jerusalem ;Acts 15th chapter (maybe I can find it quickly without a waste of time -- yes here on page 10 and 11), "What business, we ask, did Paul have in going to keep an Old Testament feast which had been ended at Calvary? That feast to which Paul referred was the feast of Pentecost, one of the Old Testament feasts of which Paul himself had written, that Jesus "hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph.2)." I put in my margin, "Paul had written Ephesians 2 before he went to Jerusalem Acts 21, before he got to Rome?" Now that is stupid ignorance or vicious manipulation of the Word of God. He knows Paul didn't write Ephesians before he got to Rome. He knows Paul wrote Ephesians after he got to Rome and wrote it from the Roman jail. And the same here about Colossians 2.
Look now. That this feast that Paul was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem, "This feast to which Paul referred was the feast of Pentecost, one of the Old Testament feasts of which Paul himself had written that Jesus -- "hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph 2:14,15). Or listen again to this man who now had no time to stop at Ephesus because he was determined to go to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Pentecost. he declares in Colossians that Christ had blotted out" ...the handwriting of ordinances that was against us," and nailed it to his cross. "The feast of Pentecost was one of the legal Sabbath days, abolished at the Cross. Why then, O Paul," and he goes on.
Some of you heard me bring out when Christ died on the cross that he cried out with a loud voice, "It's finished." And a little earthquake in Jerusalem had tore the temple veil from top to bottom. Did God have a skywriter write over the sky above the temple that "the middle wall of partition, law of commandments contained in ordinances is now abolished just like this veil is torn"? No!' It wasn't written for years and years and years, and was it taken up at the council of Jerusalem so far as the Jews were concerned? There wasn't the faintest hint in Acts the 15th chapter that the Jewish Christians were to quit practicing any of their Jewish religion. But that they mustn't impose on the Gentile Christians, and exactly the same in Acts the 21st chapter. James and the . . . Jewish elders say, "Paul you prove to these Christian Jews that you've never yet taught the Jewish believers to quit circumcising their baby boys and keep the Jewish law."
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have
already
written and concluded that they observe no such thing,
only these four negatives: don't eat things strangled, keep yourselves from idols, from blood, and from fornication, "for Moses hath disciples in every city that preach him in the synagogues on the Sabbath day." God was still dealing with Israel as Gaebelein correctly observes in the closing of the book, that God is now through with the Jew as Jews and had used Paul as the chosen instrument to the very end to plead with the Jew. So Gaebelein in the close of his book says Paul was God’s yielded instrument to go to Jews, but earlier he said Paul was rebellious in going to Jews.
(Question from audience.)
You mean that Paul went up to Jerusalem to try to get help, but that ...
(Further comment by questioner.)
END OF TAPE.