According to Chafer the Lord assigned the Apostles the "ministry of the new gospel age". But they failed to comprehend it!

According to Chafer the Apostles were with the Lord Jesus for forty days after His resurrection while He gave them "the immediate ministry of the new gospel age". Then on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was abiding with the Apostles to "guide" them in "all truth" (Jn.14:16; 16:13) but yet they still did not preach the "good news" of the Cross.

It is obvious that the "word of reconciliation" was not preached on the day of Pentecost but Chafer has a simple solution to this dilemma. They just did not understand despite the fact that the Holy Spirit was abiding with them to guide them in all truth.

In a Bible tract entitled Paul's Gospel Acts 2 dispensationalist William R. Newell wrote that "The twelve Apostles (Matthias by Divine appointment taking the place of Judas) were to be the 'witnesses' (Acts 1:22) of Christ's resurrection--that is, of the fact of it. They were not to unfold fully the doctrine of it, as Paul was...But unto none of these twelve Apostles did God reveal 'the great body of doctrine for this age'...The great doctrines that Paul reveals may be outlined as follows--Reconciliation. The removal, by Christ's death for man, of that obstacle to righteousness which man's sin had set up between God and man" (Newell, Paul's Gospel).

After reading this Bible tract Chafer said:

"This is a great tract, a clear treatise on the truth of God for this age. The author was one of America's greatest Bible expositors. It glorifies the Savior as the author desired it to do. It should be distributed by hundreds of thousands" (Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1994, Volume 7:12).

So at one place Chafer says that the Lord assigned to the Apostles "the immediate ministry of the new gospel age" and then he turns around and agrees with a Bible tract that says that "unto none of these twelve Apostles did God reveal the great body of doctrine for this age".

Chafer makes it plain that there is a difference between the "gospel of the kingdom" and the "gospel of grace":

"The Messianic rule of God in the earth was the theme of the prophets; for the prophets only enlarge on the Covenants which guaranteed a throne, a King, and a kingdom, over regathered Israel, in the land which was sworn to Abraham. The good news to that nation was the 'Gospel of the kingdom,' and should in no wise be confused with the Gospel of saving grace (Acts. 20:24)" [emphasis mine] (Chafer, Grace - The Glorious Theme , p.132).

Chafer also writes: "He with others contends that the Kingdom Gospel is identical with the Gospel of divine Grace. Here nevertheless will arise an absurdity which does not deter this type of theologian, namely, that men could preach the Pauline Grace Gospel based as it is on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ when they did not believe Christ would die or be raised again (Lu. 18:31-34)" (Chafer, Systematic Theology, VII:176).