Jump to content


Photo

After The Cross, Was Peter Under Law Or Grace?


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#21 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 27 August 2011 - 04:36 PM

What is the doctrine of Balaam?

Jude 1:10But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. 11Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. 12These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; 13wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

14It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, 15to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” 16These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage. Here it says nothing of meat.

Nor here: 2 Peter 2:14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; 15 forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error,

What they did was feast with the pagans, which included worship of false gods and fornication. The wording in Revelation is a reminder of what actually took place.

ME, your last paragraph so clearly shows that Paul was walking a tight-rope. God had given him the gospel of grace. What he was teaching his followers was new--don't get circumcised, don't keep the Sabbath, don't keep the feasts, and so on. Most of Paul's persecution did not come from Gentiles; it came from believing Jews. God would turn his back and believing Pharisees would come into his church and teach that they had to be circumcised according to the law of Moses to be saved. Paul would come back and go postal: "O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Having begun in the Spirit [saved by grace] are you now made perfect by the law? I fear for you!"

Jews were forbidden to eat meat sacrificed to idols in pagan temples. So if a Jew went to dinner at someone's house, and they were afraid that the meat could have been bought at the pagan temple, then they would refrain eating meat and only eat vegetables. And, of course, the Jews had clean foods and unclean foods. This had nothing to do with diet, but foods were clean or unclean with regard to sacrifice. Recall that Noah took clean and unclean animals on the Ark and this was before God allowed men to eat animals.

Now Paul's followers were free from dietary laws. Paul told them they could eat meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:3) and to let no one judge them in food or drink (Col. 2:16-17). But Paul warned his followers that if they were eating with a Jewish brother who would be offended, then to refrain from eating the meat. I do the same if I am having Pizza with a Baptist. I do not have a beer with my pizza. Love for our brother trumps our freedom from the law. If I can, I try to politely teach him that "what God forbids, let no man permit and what God permits, let no man forbid.

Now whiles Paul can tell his followers not to worry about eating meat sacrificed to idols, what does Jesus say to the nation of Israel or the "people of the circumcision." Wrting to the church at Pergamos, Jesus said, "I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling stone before the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL TO EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS..." (Rev. 2:14). Now Paul says just the opposite of Jesus. Who's right? Both are.

Paul is talking to followers saved under God's new dispensation of grace. Jesus is talking to Jews. John wrote Revelation to "the seven churches which are in Asia." Now lest I get an argument that these churches were not Jews, read Rev. 2:9 and 3:9.

TeeJay



#22 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 27 August 2011 - 04:50 PM

Just asking... I'm still working through all this myself.... Any verses that falsify what TeeJay is suggesting (a verse that TeeJay's position cannot accommodate)?

Fred

I thought that Hebrews 8:13 did?

#23 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 27 August 2011 - 06:48 PM

lets delinate what a jew is first.

because the modern judaism sad to say isnt what paul would call a jew at all! it has the occulting kaballah in it where according to the zohar God is a mystic force.and they accept reincarnation(these are the orthodox jews) and then theres the reformed jews.

so i we take these as jews and the seed of abraham as they(one can be a jew by conversion or be mothers name in orthodoxy) reformed dont hold to that. so which is the lord talking about when he says" ye shall not see me till ye say blessed is he that cometh in the name of the lord?"

it would have to the faith group that formed the jewish sanhedrin as they are the leaders that can make that statement.

so unless you want to remove all of the mixed jews from the promise which God didnt do that as many times in the nation of isreal's past certain groups joined them. ie the mixed multitude of persons that left with the isrealites the gibeonites, naomi and also rachab and uriah the hittite. these would be jews if they circumised , and you cant remove the idea that theres some lost tribes that have to be gathered. for the state of modern isreal isnt really isreal at all. but a JEWISH southern kingdom that was allowed to settle. the other ten tribes are lost.

one is jew and isrealite but one can be an isrealite and not a jew. a jew is one from judah or the tribe of benjamin.

#24 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 27 August 2011 - 08:09 PM

James speaks of the Law of liberty? What is he speaking of? I would also assume that he would not need to remind Jews who were observing the Law that faith should show through works?

#25 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 August 2011 - 10:09 AM

[quote] name='Fred Williams' timestamp='1314479049' post='74606']
My understanding is that James and the other Apostles were still under the kingdom gospel after the cross, and all new believers regardless of previous nationality were under the gospel of grace. Hence the transition (Hebrews 8:13) but I think this was probably a poor choice of words on my part.[/quote]


Fred,

Yes. The Twelve were under the Gospel "OF" Circumcision or law (Gal. 2:7-9). Now I must ask that when anyone on this thread looks up Galatians 2:7-9, please use the original King James. The original King James has correctly translated this gospel "OF" the circumcision (law) and gospel "OF" the uncircumcision (grace). New Bible translators wrongly translate this passage gospel "FOR" circumcision and gospel "FOR" the uncircumcision. Paul writes plainly that the "gospel OF circumcision was given to Peter and the gospel OF uncircumcision wa given to me (Paul).

What we must understand is that God was ready to cut off Israel before the Book of Acts. In the parable of the fig tree, Jesus is warning Israel that for three years he has found no fruit in Israel. Jesus lamented that the Gentile Centurion has more faith than HIs people. "Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, "Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground" (Luke 13:7). In this parable, the fig tree is Israel and the three year period is Jesus' ministry. But apparently, the keeper of the vineyard (the Holy Spirit) convinces Jesus to wait another year. "... Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. And if it bear fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down" (Luke 13:7-8).

Israel, as a nation, totally rejected Jesus as their promised Messiah, miracles and wonder not withstanding. So I gues Jesus and Holy Spirit reasoned that "surely they will accept their risen Messiah. Surely." So in the Book of Acts, in the first chapter, Jesus sends the Twelve to "Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria" FIRST (Acts 1:8), and then the plan was to go to Gentiles. Israel was to be God's evangelical nation to the world. But, and this is an important but, God the Father's decision to send Jesus back to Israel and set up a kingdom was CONTINGENT on Israel accepting Jesus as their Messiah. As an aside, theologians agonize over why Jesus did not know the time of His second coming. Afer all, Jesus is God; how can He not know. It's not that He did not know, but that decision was future, it was God the Father's decision, and His decision was based on Israel's acceptance or rejection of Jesus.

So, not surprisingly, in the early part of Acts, we see Peter and his people pleading with the nation of Israel to accept Jesus as their Messiah. See Acts 2:22, 36, 38-39, 46-47; 3:12-13). In Acts 3:19-21, we see Peter offering the kingdom to Israel: "Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshiing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may SEND JESUS CHRIST... whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began."

"You [Israel] are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant of which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed'" (Acts 3:25 based on Gen. 12:3). The same argument Jesus used to prove life after death proves that the Old Covenant was still in effect here in Acts. For Jesus said, "have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham...'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Mat. 22:31-32). So too here, the Jews "are the sons of... the covenant which God made with... Abraham." Thus Peter would not call them sons of a dead covenant, but of a living one.

Alas, the whole nation of Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah. They hated the King. So God did what He warned them would happen if they became evil in His sight (Jer. 18). He cut Israel off and as He promised in Jeremiah 18, He did not give them their kingdom. Now understand that there were individal believers in Israel (Peter, James et.al.) who were not cut off. This has nothing to do with individal salvation. The Twelve will rule over the twelve tribes of Israel in the coming kingdom as Jesus promised them. Now when did God cut off Israel? I'm convinced that we will have to get to heaven to find out the exact date. But God sent a message to Peter when God sent him to the Gentile Centurion Cornelisu.

ATTENTION ALL: Here's a bombshell. Other than Peter going to Cornelius, there is no Biblical record of any circumcision apostle or believer witnessing to any Gentile. None! Some things to consider with Peter's witness to the one and only Gentile Cornelius: The Holy Spirit fell on these Gentiles WITHOUT THEM BEING CIRCUMCISED! This is why Peter and the circumcision followers that were with him were "astonished" (Acts 10:45). God did this after Paul's conversion and God directed Peter to use this incident to defend Paul's gospel of uncircumcision at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Now you would think that when other Jews in Israel found out that Peter had witnessed the first Gentile, that they would be elated and praising God. Just the opposite occurred. When they learned what Peter had done, they "contended with him" (Acts 11:2). What! "Yu went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!" (Acts 11:3). Now this will be a real shocker: Other than Peter witnessing to the one and only Gentile Centrion Corneliu, the record shows that the circumcison Jews Preached to "no one but the Jews only" (Acts 11:19).

Personally, I think God cut off Israel and simultaneously commissioned Paul. But who knows? Eventually, the Twelve got the message that the mantle had been passed to Paul. After Paul, Peter and his group fade away. They are still under their gospel of circumcision (Gal. 2:7-9), but God has loosed them from their Great Commission to go to the world. Instead, God takes Paul and bypasses Israel and goes directly to the Gentiles (and Jews) but with the Gospel of uncircumcision or grace.

Here's another shocker: The grace gospel can't be found in any circumcision gospel or epistle. Only in Paul's letters does one find the gospel of grace with no works or law keeping.

[quote]What is your take on the AD 70 temple destruction and its impact on those under the kingdom gospel? Was this perhaps the end of the kingdom gospel at that time? I haven't worked through this aspect much... I also confess to not being familiar with the idea that Israel, when grafted back in, will be put back under this everlasting covenant of circumcision, I'll have to do more scriptural homework on this.

Thanks for an interesting topic!

Fred
[/quote]

What's interesting about the AD 70 temple destruction is that it's proof positive that many of the gospels and letters written by the apostles were not written hundreds of years after Jesus' crucifixion. Why? Because it is not mentioned by any of them. This would be similar to a modern day historian omitting the 9-11 destruction of Trade Center and the Pentagon. The destruction of the Temple, the center of Jewish culture, would have been a centerpiece event for at least one apostle. So when they wrote their gospels, Acts, and letters, it must have been prior to AD 70.

Now certainly this event added to the demise of Twelve's ministry. But we must also consider that God had cut them off. The miracles faded away. Their kingdom plans were dashed. And when they looked over at Paul, they saw signs, miracles, tongues, and a growing ministry with the Gentiles. Eventually, all circumcision apostles and believers died out. Peter was in a holding mode and Paul was in a growth mode. The dispensation of circumcision gospel given to Peter by Jesus was no longer in effect. Oh, I imagine a few were saved under Peter after Paul's conversion. But for the most part, Peter and his followers faded off the scene.

TeeJay

#26 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 August 2011 - 10:58 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1314488203' post='74612']
What is the doctrine of Balaam?

Jude 1:10But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. 11Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. 12These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; 13wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

14It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, 15to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” 16These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage. Here it says nothing of meat.

Nor here: 2 Peter 2:14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; 15 forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error,

What they did was feast with the pagans, which included worship of false gods and fornication. The wording in Revelation is a reminder of what actually took place.
[/quote]

ME, I'm not sure what you're getting at? I will explain my position again. During the time of Peter and Paul, there were pagan temples. Pagans would bring meat offerings to their pagan gods in their pagan temples. Then the pagan priests would take the meat down to a butcher shop under the temple and sell it to the public. The meat was plentiful and the prices were good. Jews were always fearful that they would eat this meat that had been offered to idols. If they had doubts, they would refrain from eating any meat and would eat vegetables. Peter, under the gospel of circumcision would never advise his followers: "Don't worry about it. Just eat the meat."

But then Paul writes: "Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one...yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live... But food DOES NOT CONDEMN US TO GOD; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse." (1 Cor. 8:4-8). And of course Paul then goes on to teach that we who are saved under his gospel should not flaunt our liberty in Christ if we are eating with a circumcision apostle whose conscience would be offended. Love for our neighbor trumps our liberty in Christ.

But when Jesus is talking to Jewish believers under the gospel of circumcision He says the exact opposite: "[Jesus speaking] But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS..." (Rev. 2:14).

Now, ME, a question: Can Jesus Christ give different marching orders to two different groups--Peter under the law and Paul under grace. A US Army commander can order one battalion to dig in an hold while he tells his other battalion to do a flanking attack. Jesus as our Commander can give different orders to different groups. Can He not?

TeeJay

#27 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 August 2011 - 11:22 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1314489024' post='74613']
I thought that Hebrews 8:13 did?
[/quote]

ME, Explain to me what you think Hebrews 8:13 is referring to with the "new covenant." Before you answer, realize a few things: Hebrews is written to Jews and not to us. Chapter 8 is mainly talking about the end of the priesthood because Israel now has a "great HIgh Priest who sits at the right hand of God." Verse 13 says, "Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old IS READY TO FADE AWAY." It does not say it has "faded away" (past tense. Whatever God had planned for Israel is on hold because God "cut off Israel for unbelief." Israel has been cut off for over 2,000 years. When Jesus decides to come back to Israel, He will rapture the Body of Christ out of here first (that's us). Israel will go through a Tribulation lasting approximately 7 years. Jesus wll come back TO ISRAEL and give them their kingdom. Jesus will sit on King David's throne in Jerusalem and will judge nations, etc. Then Israel will have a Thousand Year Kingdom. And then Isreal will get a new heaven and a new earth. None of this negates the fact that Paul, and only Paul, was given the dispensation of the grace gospel for us. Israel, as a nation, are the people of the circumcision or law.

While Jesus is the "King" and "Great High Priest" for Israel, for us Jesus is the "Head" of His Body of which we are members and not subjects. God deals with us as individuals. God's relationship with Israel is corporate or national. When you learn to separate Israel from the Body, circumcision from uncircumcision, law from grace, then all of your conundrums and doctrinal disputes will disappear.

James says that for salvation works are required. Paul says just the opposite. Who's right. Both are. James is obeying Jesus under the gospel of circumcision. Paul is obeying Jesus under the Gospel of uncircumcision. Paul says you can eat meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus says just the opposite. Who's right? Both are. Jesus is talking to Jews under the gospel of circumcision. Paul is talking to Gentile (and Jew) believers under the gospel of uncircumcision. Paul was not given the same marching orders as Peter. Peter was cut off. Why would Jesus give the same gospel to Paul as He did to Peter. It would not work.

TeeJay

#28 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 August 2011 - 11:34 AM

[quote] name='jason' timestamp='1314496108' post='74616']
lets delinate what a jew is first.

because the modern judaism sad to say isnt what paul would call a jew at all! it has the occulting kaballah in it where according to the zohar God is a mystic force.and they accept reincarnation(these are the orthodox jews) and then theres the reformed jews.

so i we take these as jews and the seed of abraham as they(one can be a jew by conversion or be mothers name in orthodoxy) reformed dont hold to that. so which is the lord talking about when he says" ye shall not see me till ye say blessed is he that cometh in the name of the lord?"

it would have to the faith group that formed the jewish sanhedrin as they are the leaders that can make that statement.

so unless you want to remove all of the mixed jews from the promise which God didnt do that as many times in the nation of isreal's past certain groups joined them. ie the mixed multitude of persons that left with the isrealites the gibeonites, naomi and also rachab and uriah the hittite. these would be jews if they circumised , and you cant remove the idea that theres some lost tribes that have to be gathered. for the state of modern isreal isnt really isreal at all. but a JEWISH southern kingdom that was allowed to settle. the other ten tribes are lost.

one is jew and isrealite but one can be an isrealite and not a jew. a jew is one from judah or the tribe of benjamin.
[/quote]

Jason, I debated a Jew on ToL (and won) about the lost tribes and who's Jews and not jews. You can start a thread on this if you like. But I'm absolutely positive that when Jesus comes back to set up His kingdom, He knows where they all are and who's who. I am going to leave that to Him. But Jesus did promise His twelve apostles that each of them would rule over a tribe of Israel in the coming kingdom. So in the kingdom, apparently all Jews will be in their places with sun shinny faces." Each Tribe will be where they belong. And each Jew will be in his Tribe. I'm sure God wll see to it.

TeeJay

#29 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 August 2011 - 11:49 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1314500976' post='74618']
James speaks of the Law of liberty? What is he speaking of? I would also assume that he would not need to remind Jews who were observing the Law that faith should show through works?
[/quote]

ME, I try to address each question or objection you raise. I would appreciate some quid pro quo. I present an argument to you and I get nothing back--no agreement or disagreement. I just get another argument or objection. For example, what does Paul mean when he says, "If you are circumcised, don't become uncircumcised. If you are uncircumcised, don't become circumcised." Doesn't this show the existence of two groups? When Jesus teaches about the Tribulation, He says, "Pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath." Now this is after the Cross. Doesn't this show that the Jews would still be under Sabbath law after the Cross? Without a response from you, I have no idea if you are reading them, agree with them or disagree.

And to answer this post, I previously posted that the Jews were saved by works plus grace. Again, God can add grace to works but He can't add works to grace. If your husband gives you a diamond ring for your wedding anniversary and you pay him back with monthly payments, then it's no longer a gift of love. You can't pay for a gift of love. You can't pay for Jesus' sacrifice for us on the Cross. We don't have that much money nor can we ever do that much work.

Now Peter, at the Jerusalem Council, points out that although they are under law, they are still saved by grace. A Jew under the law would give it his best shot, and God would add a little grace, and say, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

And, ME, you could not get Paul to agree with James if you held a gun to his head.

TeeJay

TeeJay

#30 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 28 August 2011 - 01:26 PM

ME, Explain to me what you think Hebrews 8:13 is referring to with the "new covenant." Before you answer, realize a few things: Hebrews is written to Jews and not to us. Chapter 8 is mainly talking about the end of the priesthood because Israel now has a "great HIgh Priest who sits at the right hand of God." Verse 13 says, "Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old IS READY TO FADE AWAY." It does not say it has "faded away" (past tense. Whatever God had planned for Israel is on hold because God "cut off Israel for unbelief." Israel has been cut off for over 2,000 years. When Jesus decides to come back to Israel, He will rapture the Body of Christ out of here first (that's us). Israel will go through a Tribulation lasting approximately 7 years. Jesus wll come back TO ISRAEL and give them their kingdom. Jesus will sit on King David's throne in Jerusalem and will judge nations, etc. Then Israel will have a Thousand Year Kingdom. And then Isreal will get a new heaven and a new earth. None of this negates the fact that Paul, and only Paul, was given the dispensation of the grace gospel for us. Israel, as a nation, are the people of the circumcision or law.


Very interesting topic. I think ME raised a good objection, but only insofar as it pertains to the future Israel. Obviously I'm still struggling to see one aspect of your argument, namely that the future Israel will be under the kingdom gospel. I have assumed (and may easily be wrong on this) that Hebrews 8:13 suggested that all new converts going forward, who didn't start out as a kingdom believer, would be under the gospel of grace. The verse says the old way is obsolete, then in the next breath it says its fading away, which seems to me it is saying "The kingdom gospel is over, kaput, except for those already saved under it". I'll try to keep an open mind going forward. After some digging around, it seems Matt 24:14 supports your argument of a future application of this gospel to Israel, as this would be at the very end when Christians should no longer be around (this support is in addition to the verses you already have raised regarding everlasting covenant).

While Jesus is the "King" and "Great High Priest" for Israel, for us Jesus is the "Head" of His Body of which we are members and not subjects. God deals with us as individuals. God's relationship with Israel is corporate or national. When you learn to separate Israel from the Body, circumcision from uncircumcision, law from grace, then all of your conundrums and doctrinal disputes will disappear.


I couldn't agree more, I've seen many of doctrinal dispute vanish if we "rightly divide" (2 Tim 2:15) as you mentioned above. I struggled for years with OSAS, works vs faith, etc, and all the seeming contradictions vanished when I recognized this division and who the letters were written to, either to the uncircumcision (body/grace gospel), or circumcision (Israel, kingdom gospel). Folks, is it just a coincidence that the verses for salvation+works happen to always be to letters written to the Jews?

(BTW, please feel free to correct any terminology errors on my part).


James says that for salvation works are required. Paul says just the opposite. Who's right. Both are. James is obeying Jesus under the gospel of circumcision. Paul is obeying Jesus under the Gospel of uncircumcision. Paul says you can eat meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus says just the opposite. Who's right? Both are. Jesus is talking to Jews under the gospel of circumcision. Paul is talking to Gentile (and Jew) believers under the gospel of uncircumcision. Paul was not given the same marching orders as Peter. Peter was cut off. Why would Jesus give the same gospel to Paul as He did to Peter. It would not work.



[Emphasis added] You had me at hello, until you mentioned that Peter was cut off. :) Can you elaborate on this?

Fred

#31 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 August 2011 - 05:39 PM

[quote] name='Fred Williams' timestamp='1314563176' post='74634']
Very interesting topic. I think ME raised a good objection, but only insofar as it pertains to the future Israel. Obviously I'm still struggling to see one aspect of your argument, namely that the future Israel will be under the kingdom gospel. I have assumed (and may easily be wrong on this) that Hebrews 8:13 suggested that all new converts going forward, who didn't start out as a kingdom believer, would be under the gospel of grace. The verse says the old way is obsolete, then in the next breath it says its fading away, which seems to me it is saying "The kingdom gospel is over, kaput, except for those already saved under it". I'll try to keep an open mind going forward. After some digging around, it seems Matt 24:14 supports your argument of a future application of this gospel to Israel, as this would be at the very end when Christians should no longer be around (this support is in addition to the verses you already have raised regarding everlasting covenant).[/quote]

Fred,
Initially I struggled with the concept that circumcision, Sabbath laws, and certain feasts were forever—before and after the Cross. But when I would read God talking to Abraham and Moses in the Old Testament, He seemed to be very adamant and unyielding –“forever,” “everlasting,” “throughout your generations.” Conversely, God forbids circumcision for Christians in the Body of Christ as a religious rite (Gal. 5:2-3; 3:10; Acts 15:24). So, the two diametrically opposed teaching s have to be reconciled. Perhaps I can convince you with some interesting Scripture. Read on.
In addition to circumcision being an everlasting covenant, God also commanded Israel to observe the Day of Atonement “forever.”

“It [the Day of Atonement] is a Sabbath of solem rest for you…. It is a statute FOREVER” (Lev. 16:31).

Notice the specifically Jewish purpose of the Sabbath: “Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath… throughout their generations as a PERPETUAL covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel FOREVER” (Ex. 31:16-17).

God commanded the “children of Israel” to keep the Sabbath as “a sign between” Him and their nation. (See also Neh. 10:33 and Ezek. 45:17.) Once God “cast away” that nation (Rom. 11:15), bringing it into equality with the Gentiles (Rom. 11:32), God no longer required the sign of their unique covenant relationship. The Lord has temporarily nullified that symbol until He grafts Israel back “in again” (Rom. 11:23-26).

Yet during Christ’s earthly ministry, He openly affirmed the belief of the Jews that the law of Moses should not be broken:

“Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers)…. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the LAW OF MOSES SHOULD NOT BE BROKKEN, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?” (John 7:22-23).
The Millennium Kingdom and the New Earth

Ezekiel’s book begins with God’s call of the prophet (chs. 1-3), then brings a lengthy warning against the Jews (chs. 4-24, and against the Gentiles (cs. 25-32). God next instructs Ezekiel about the personal responsibility of the righteous to warn the wicked (ch. 33). The following six chapters look forward to coming events like the restoration of the Davidic leadership, the implementation of Israel’s NEW COVENANT [Heb. 8:13?] , and the routing of invaders, which would all occur subsequent to Israel’s return to her land (chs. 34:39). After than seven chapters describe worship at the Temple during the Millennial Kingdom (chs. 40-47:12). The remaining chapter describes the division of the land during the Kingdom. According to Ezekiel’s prophecy, during the millennium, Israel:

“…shall keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed meetings, and they shall HALLOW MY SABBATHS “ (Ezek. 44:24 (See also Ezek. 45:17; 46:1, 3-4 and 12).

Will God still recognize the Sabbath beyond the millennial Kingdom, after the creation of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1)? The later part of Isaiah deals with the time frames of both the Kingdom and the new earth:

“… he who blesses himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth… because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hidden from My eyes. For behold, I CREATE A NEW HEAVENS AND A NEW EATTH; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind” (Isa. 65:16:17)

“… I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing… the voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her…” (Isa. 65:18-19)
“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together…” (Isa. 65:25).

“For behold the Lord shall come with fire. The Lord will judge all flesh;… “ (Isa. 66:15-16).

“I will gather all nations and tongues…” (Isa. 66:17).

And then (drum roll please):

“’For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will made shall remain before Me,’ says the Lord, ‘so shall your descendants [who are Jews, vv. 8, 10, 21) and your name remain. And it shall come to pass that from one New Moon to another, and FROM ONE SABBATH TO ANOTHER, all flesh shall come to worship before Me,’ says the Lord” (Isa. 66:22-23).

In other words, since God connected Israel with Sabbath worship and other celebrations such as the New Mood, then even while living on the new earth, as long as Israel exists as such, she will keep the Sabbath. And I think I recall that somewhere in Revelation this is backed up. I have to do a little research on this.

[quote]I couldn't agree more, I've seen many of doctrinal dispute vanish if we "rightly divide" (2 Tim 2:15) as you mentioned above. I struggled for years with OSAS, works vs faith, etc, and all the seeming contradictions vanished when I recognized this division and who the letters were written to, either to the uncircumcision (body/grace gospel), or circumcision (Israel, kingdom gospel). Folks, is it just a coincidence that the verses for salvation+works happen to always be to letters written to the Jews?

(BTW, please feel free to correct any terminology errors on my part).[/quote]

Fred, you are right on. I have found that when we “rightly divide the word of truth” as Paul instructs, ALL DOCTRINAL DISPUTES AND CONUNDRUMS DISAPPEAR!







[quote][Emphasis added] You had me at hello, until you mentioned that Peter was cut off. :) Can you elaborate on this?

Fred
[/quote]

For some reason, Christians think that Peter and his followers were separate from Israel. But Jesus was a Jew born under the law, circumcised on the eighth day, and He kept the law and taught Israel to keep the law. Peter was a Jew, also born under the law, circumcised on the eighth day. In the early part of Acts, we see Peter doing everything within his power to convince Israel (leaders and the people) to accept Jesus as their Messiah. Jesus’ return to Israel in seven years (after the Tribulation) was contingent on Israel accepting their Messiah. God’s plan was to send Jesus back and give Israel their kingdom with Jesus sitting on King David’s throne and the Twelve “ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. But the whole nation of Israel totally rejected Jesus and their promised kingdom. So God cut off Israel. Now when God cut off Israel, Peter and his followers were also cut off because they were part of Israel. They were saved and are now in heaven and they will rule over the twelve tribes as Jesus promised them in their coming kingdom which is future and is on hold “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” Now God could have destroyed the nation of Israel and established a kingdom with just the Twelve. But God decided to bypass Israel with Paul and go directly to the Gentiles. But if He had given Paul the same gospel as Peter, then we would be no different than Israel—law keeping and works. He gave us a better deal.

Now I think that eventually He was going to establish a love relationship with Israel as He has with members of the Body of Christ. The reason I believe this is that God has brought us full circle from the Garden where God had a love relationship with Adam and Even with no law as we have today in the Body of Christ. But that's just conjecture on my part--and arbitrary conjecture at that. It's God's choice to "conceal a matter" if He wants to.

TeeJay

#32 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 29 August 2011 - 01:09 AM

Now, above we have God clearing stating that for Israel these laws are “perpetual” and “everlasting.”


And when you say forever, do you mean these laws will still be in affect when God creates a new heaven and earth and we are standing around His throne? Or perhaps forever doesn't really mean until infinity - at least until something happens that changes the scenario and the laws are meaningless. Perhaps the scenario changes when someone dies to the Law through the body of Christ - and therefore the Law does not have jurisdiction over those who are in Christ (no matter what their ethnic heritage) - (see Rom. 7:1-6)

You really think Paul was only preaching to Gentiles in his epistles and therefore was preaching a Gentile specific gospel?

What about Paul's message to the Jews in Rom. 2:17-29? Or his message in Rom. 7 "for I am speaking to those who know the Law"

when God comes back to the nation of Israel to give them their kingdom, Jews will be required to circumcise, keep the Sabbaths, and the other perpetual feasts—forever, as long as there are descendants of Abraham.


What possible purpose would these observances serve? If Christ circumcises us when are saved, what point is there in being circumcised in the flesh? What purpose does keeping a feast serve when you have already eaten the true bread of life. What purpose is there in keeping the Sabbath law when we enter the true Sabbath rest in Christ (Heb. 4:10)

Circumcision is not necessary for all people.

If you are not circumcised, you are not in Christ. But, I'm not talking about the physical cutting - I'm talking about the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ. It is necessary and it happens automatically when you are in Christ (Col. 2:11). Again I ask, if someone comes to Christ (no matter which so-called gospel alternative) and they are automatically circumcised with the truest of circumcisions - then they are a part of the covenant. What need is there to be circumcised in the flesh? It would be representational at best.

Paul says that those who are in Christ are the true circumcision
(Phil 3:3). That means that the fleshly circumcision is the false circumcision. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

But you could not write the above and be correct prior to Paul.

So, are you saying that the gospel to the Jews before Paul was that they had to be circumcised and do their best to obey the whole law to enter into covenant with Christ? And that wherever they might fall short, Christ would add his work of the cross to their lack so that they might be saved? What if their best effort included not being circumcised and only obeying 1 of the laws? Is that not enough work to merit Christ's grace?

Were they required to have any measure of faith in Christ while they attempted to obey the law? If so, what were they believing in? Christ's atonement on the cross? Christ's ability to justify sinners? Or seemingly, Christ's ability to justify only those who do their best at obeying most of God's laws.

Yikes! Air, I must warn you that you are on dangerous ground! When you write, “Christians are the true Israel,” you are into Replacement Theology. The JW’s and the Mormons teach this.

It was also the standard teaching of the church for most of its history. What am I supposed to do with the verses that teach that those in Christ are the true people of God?

1.) Christ has made Jews and Gentiles into one group, one man, and has included us in the covenant as fellow citizens (ie: made us Israelites). (Eph. 2:11-16)
2.) Some who are Israelites by ancestry aren't really Israelites. (Rom. 9:6)
3.) Some of those who are Jewish by ancestry are not really Abraham's decendents. (Rom. 9:7)
4.) God's children are not determined by their physical ancestry, but by promise. (Rom. 9:8)
5.) Issac represents the ancestry of the promise - which are those who are born of the Spirit into God's family - and is not determined by the physical ancestry of Abraham - those born under Law (represented by the children of Hagar) (Gal. 4:21-31)
6.) The covenant made with Abraham and the promised blessings were made to Jesus, not to physical Israel - because Jesus was the only one who could keep humanity's end of the bargain. And those who are in Christ partake of the covenant and the blessings - they are the true offspring of Abraham. (Gal. 3:16-29)

“For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel UNTIL THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES HAS COME IN. And so all Israel will be saved...” (Rom. 11:25-26). God loves Abraham and He has a covenant with him that He will fulfill.


God's covenant is with Jesus and those who are in Jesus - the true sons of Abraham.

Paul just got done saying that not all physical Israel is truly Israel - that some who are Gentiles are really Israel. All Israel will be saved because if you are saved then you are true Israel. This new man will include those who are ancestrally Gentile and those who are ancestrally Jewish - and praise God for those future Jews who will turn to God in the future in order to become part of God's true people. But, do you really think all ethnic Jews will be savedo? It can't mean all Jews - because billions of unsaved Jews have died since Paul wrote this. Does it then mean all Jews who are still alive at that future point will be saved? That's not all Israel - that's only a small portion of historic Israel. You think that every Jew will respond with faith and believe? Every single one that is alive at that time? I suppose you believe that once the hardness is lifted, Jews will have no choice but to believe the truth. If that's the case, how are Jews coming to Christ now if that hardness is yet to be lifted? If no hardness means automatic faith, why doesn't hardness mean no possible faith? Or why are some hardened and some are not? Questions to ponder...

#33 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 29 August 2011 - 04:39 AM

I do not address your arguments because Fred asked for one scripture that would disprove them, so that is what I was attempting to provide in my post.

I have already looked into this because those who follow the teachings of Charles Taze Russel are of this belief. If you look hard enough, you will find a scripture that speaks of the kingdom covenant and the new covenant as one and the same. I will post it if I find it, but it wasn't something that I felt was important to write down at the time, as I didn't realize that there were others who had this viewpoint.

#34 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 29 August 2011 - 04:52 AM

I need to give more time to reading the replies and see if some other scriptures I am thinking of have already been discussed. I just don't understand this at all. The whole book of Acts does not seem to support this view. Peter does preaches to gentiles and Paul preaches in the synogogues.

Thank you for reminding me that I must make something clear. God can add "grace" to works.

This post is clearing things up for me as to Teejay's position. My position is that the circumcision covenant was pointing to Christ.

Paul makes this point in the mddle of a lecture on marriage (1 Corinthians 7): "Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not become circumcised. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called" (1 Cor. 7:18, 20).

We must realize that God cut off Israel. But Peter and James and their followers were originally saved under the gospel of circumcision or the law. While there was a difficult co-existence and friction, some of the circumcision apostles helped Paul in his ministry to the Gentiles: "Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas... and Jesus who is called Justus. These are my only fellow workers for the kingdom of God WHO ARE OF THE CIRCUMCISION. They have proved to be a comfort to us" (Col. 4:10-11). These two groups should have helped eath other, but there was conflict between the two groups and Paul lamented that only these three of the circumcision were a help to him.

Peter and James converts would hear that Paul was teaching his converts not to keep the law. So naturally some of Peter and James' converts were complaining that Paul had no respect for the law of Moses. So to keep "peace in the family" so to speak, Paul, as an apostle and a Pharisee could consent to show Peter's followers he did indeed have respect for Moses and consent to pay the expenses for the four Jewish men who had taken a vow (Acts 21:23-24). This is much like Jason visiting his family on a Jewish holiday. To show respect for his parents, it is perfectly proper to observe it with the family. Now if Jason did this to do works and gain salvation, then he would not be walking in the Spirit and he would be fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.

When Paul went to the Greeks in Greece, he could not preach the same gospel that Peter preached at Pentacost. Peter's audience was grounded in Jewish law and teaching. Peter did not have to convince the Jews that God was creator for example. But Paul was preaching to pagan Greeks who thought the earth was supported by turtles. Different audience, different way to witness. And also realize that Paul was preaching to unbelieving Jews who had not yet been saved by Peter. His message to them had to be tailored to Jews.

Yes, I agree with what you say here. When they were told to stay as they were called it was to keep them from stumbling. Paul was told to go to the Gentiles because the Jews were not ready for his message.

There is no reason a Christian cannot choose to follow the Mosaic Law, but they are under no obligation to do so.

#35 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 29 August 2011 - 03:32 PM

For some reason, Christians think that Peter and his followers were separate from Israel. But Jesus was a Jew born under the law, circumcised on the eighth day, and He kept the law and taught Israel to keep the law. Peter was a Jew, also born under the law, circumcised on the eighth day. In the early part of Acts, we see Peter doing everything within his power to convince Israel (leaders and the people) to accept Jesus as their Messiah. Jesus’ return to Israel in seven years (after the Tribulation) was contingent on Israel accepting their Messiah. God’s plan was to send Jesus back and give Israel their kingdom with Jesus sitting on King David’s throne and the Twelve “ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. But the whole nation of Israel totally rejected Jesus and their promised kingdom. So God cut off Israel. Now when God cut off Israel, Peter and his followers were also cut off because they were part of Israel. They were saved and are now in heaven and they will rule over the twelve tribes as Jesus promised them in their coming kingdom which is future and is on hold “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” Now God could have destroyed the nation of Israel and established a kingdom with just the Twelve. But God decided to bypass Israel with Paul and go directly to the Gentiles. But if He had given Paul the same gospel as Peter, then we would be no different than Israel—law keeping and works. He gave us a better deal.

Now I think that eventually He was going to establish a love relationship with Israel as He has with members of the Body of Christ. The reason I believe this is that God has brought us full circle from the Garden where God had a love relationship with Adam and Even with no law as we have today in the Body of Christ. But that's just conjecture on my part--and arbitrary conjecture at that. It's God's choice to "conceal a matter" if He wants to.

TeeJay


OK, I see what you are saying. I was confused with "cutting off" since it can generally be construed to be the result of unbelief. There was Israel's unbelief (Rom 11:20) as a nation, but it doesn't mean Peter or his followers are "cut off" due to unbelief.


Fred

#36 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 29 August 2011 - 04:30 PM

[quote] name='Air-run' timestamp='1314605394' post='74643']
And when you say forever, do you mean these laws will still be in affect when God creates a new heaven and earth and we are standing around His throne? Or perhaps forever doesn't really mean until infinity - at least until something happens that changes the scenario and the laws are meaningless. Perhaps the scenario changes when someone dies to the Law through the body of Christ - and therefore the Law does not have jurisdiction over those who are in Christ (no matter what their ethnic heritage) - (see Rom. 7:1-6)

You really think Paul was only preaching to Gentiles in his epistles and therefore was preaching a Gentile specific gospel?

What about Paul's message to the Jews in Rom. 2:17-29? Or his message in Rom. 7 "for I am speaking to those who know the Law"



What possible purpose would these observances serve? If Christ circumcises us when are saved, what point is there in being circumcised in the flesh? What purpose does keeping a feast serve when you have already eaten the true bread of life. What purpose is there in keeping the Sabbath law when we enter the true Sabbath rest in Christ (Heb. 4:10)


If you are not circumcised, you are not in Christ. But, I'm not talking about the physical cutting - I'm talking about the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ. It is necessary and it happens automatically when you are in Christ (Col. 2:11). Again I ask, if someone comes to Christ (no matter which so-called gospel alternative) and they are automatically circumcised with the truest of circumcisions - then they are a part of the covenant. What need is there to be circumcised in the flesh? It would be representational at best.

Paul says that those who are in Christ are the true circumcision
(Phil 3:3). That means that the fleshly circumcision is the false circumcision. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.


So, are you saying that the gospel to the Jews before Paul was that they had to be circumcised and do their best to obey the whole law to enter into covenant with Christ? And that wherever they might fall short, Christ would add his work of the cross to their lack so that they might be saved? What if their best effort included not being circumcised and only obeying 1 of the laws? Is that not enough work to merit Christ's grace?

Were they required to have any measure of faith in Christ while they attempted to obey the law? If so, what were they believing in? Christ's atonement on the cross? Christ's ability to justify sinners? Or seemingly, Christ's ability to justify only those who do their best at obeying most of God's laws.


It was also the standard teaching of the church for most of its history. What am I supposed to do with the verses that teach that those in Christ are the true people of God?

1.) Christ has made Jews and Gentiles into one group, one man, and has included us in the covenant as fellow citizens (ie: made us Israelites). (Eph. 2:11-16)
2.) Some who are Israelites by ancestry aren't really Israelites. (Rom. 9:6)
3.) Some of those who are Jewish by ancestry are not really Abraham's decendents. (Rom. 9:7)
4.) God's children are not determined by their physical ancestry, but by promise. (Rom. 9:8)
5.) Issac represents the ancestry of the promise - which are those who are born of the Spirit into God's family - and is not determined by the physical ancestry of Abraham - those born under Law (represented by the children of Hagar) (Gal. 4:21-31)
6.) The covenant made with Abraham and the promised blessings were made to Jesus, not to physical Israel - because Jesus was the only one who could keep humanity's end of the bargain. And those who are in Christ partake of the covenant and the blessings - they are the true offspring of Abraham. (Gal. 3:16-29)


God's covenant is with Jesus and those who are in Jesus - the true sons of Abraham.

Paul just got done saying that not all physical Israel is truly Israel - that some who are Gentiles are really Israel. All Israel will be saved because if you are saved then you are true Israel. This new man will include those who are ancestrally Gentile and those who are ancestrally Jewish - and praise God for those future Jews who will turn to God in the future in order to become part of God's true people. But, do you really think all ethnic Jews will be savedo? It can't mean all Jews - because billions of unsaved Jews have died since Paul wrote this. Does it then mean all Jews who are still alive at that future point will be saved? That's not all Israel - that's only a small portion of historic Israel. You think that every Jew will respond with faith and believe? Every single one that is alive at that time? I suppose you believe that once the hardness is lifted, Jews will have no choice but to believe the truth. If that's the case, how are Jews coming to Christ now if that hardness is yet to be lifted? If no hardness means automatic faith, why doesn't hardness mean no possible faith? Or why are some hardened and some are not? Questions to ponder...
[/quote]

Air, I have to post this way, because my computer dumps me. Your posts are longer than my computer allows me to answer. Sorry.

[quote] name='Air-run' timestamp='1314605394' post='74643']
And when you say forever, do you mean these laws will still be in affect when God creates a new heaven and earth and we are standing around His throne? Or perhaps forever doesn't really mean until infinity - at least until something happens that changes the scenario and the laws are meaningless. Perhaps the scenario changes when someone dies to the Law through the body of Christ - and therefore the Law does not have jurisdiction over those who are in Christ (no matter what their ethnic heritage) - (see Rom. 7:1-6)[/quote]
Air, I think you're getting close to grasping what I'm teaching here. But you are under a few misconceptions. You and I are saved under Paul's gospel of uncircumcision. As such, you are saved by grace with no works or law required for your salvation. Under the gospel of circumcision a Jew had to do good works, produce fruit, have faith, keep the law (symbolic and moral), "the weightier matters without leaving the lesser undone." And if he gave it his best shot, God would add a little grace and say, "Well done, good and faithful servant." A Jew's salvation was not assured under the gospel of circumcision as it is for you and I under grace. The dispute of once saved always saved would not exist unless there is conflicting scripture. And there is! But the reason there is conflicting Scripture on OSAS is that there are two groups--the circumcision and the uncircumcision. The Jews under the law could lose their salvation. We can't.
Air, if you read the posts I did above to Fred, Scripture shows that Israel will indeed be circumcising and keeping Sabbath law and the Feast of Atonement. But understand that your citizenship is in heaven (spiritual) and Israel's citizenship is on earth (earthly). The Body looks forward to living in heaven (Phil 3:20; Col. 1:5; 1 Thes. 4:16-17). The nation of Israel looks forward to the new earth (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 49:8; Hag. 2:6-9; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1, 24).
So, we will not necessarily be "standing around Jesus' throne" because Jesus will be sitting on King David's throne ruling the world from Israel with His twelve apostles ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. And as far as I can learn from Scripture, Israel will be circumcising, keeping Sabbath law, keeping the Feast of Atonement, keeping the law, and teaching other Gentile nations on earth to keep the law. In the kingdom, Gentiles will have to approach God through the nation of Israel and get circumcised.
But what you should realize is that we Gentiles do not merit our approved position. No, we are as wicked as ever (Rom. 5:8-10). Actually, God did not bring us Gentiles up to Israel's position. He brought Israel down to our position, committing Israel to disobedience right along with us Gentiles.
"For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Rom. 11:32 & Gal. 3:22).
By committing both Israel and us to disobedience, God can have mercy on both Israel and Gentiles WITHOUT DISTINCTION. Gentiles no longer have to become proselyte Jews for salvation, since the Jews themselves were in a terrible position. Thus no distinction exists any longer between Jew and Gentile (Gal. 3:27-28; Col. 3:10-11; Eph. 2:14-16). Notice that the Gentiles were not grafted into Israel. That could not have worked because the nation of Israel was "cast away." The Gentiles (and Jews) are grafted into the Body of Christ when we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior (Rom. 10:9-10).
Now Paul was a Jew, a "Pharisee of Pharisees," and he would always go the the Jews first when he entered a city or town. But his gospel was new and different. I will use ME's post to show that the gospel of grace was a "mystery never before revealed by God" and it was given to Paul only. But consider Galatians 2:7-9 carefully. The original King James translated this scripture correctly. Many new Bibles do not.
“But on the contrary, when they [circumcision apostles at Jerusalem Council] saw that the gospel for [OF] the uncircumcised had been committed to me [Paul], as the gospel for [OF] the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the GRACE [GOSPEL] that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” Gal. 2:7-9
Note: The KJV renders the passage in the most common manner, true to the usual function of the genitive case of these Greek nouns, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter.” The KJV translates these nouns as expected as genitives of description (describing the Gospel that was committed to each). Unexpectedly, the NKJV translates them as though they were indirect object genitives. Even if this unlikely translation were correct, WHICH IT IS NOT, the point remains: there is the Gospel for the Body and the Gospel for Israel, the former based on grace, the latter on circumcision [law].
[quote]You really think Paul was only preaching to Gentiles in his epistles and therefore was preaching a Gentile specific gospel?[/quote]
Paul was preaching a grace gospel under which there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free. All can bypass Israel’s circumcision rite and simply accept Jesus (Rom. 10:9-10). Until Jesus comes back to Israel, Jews are saved in the same manner as we are--grace without works.
[quote]What about Paul's message to the Jews in Rom. 2:17-29? Or his message in Rom. 7 "for I am speaking to those who know the Law"[/quote]
Air, I was waiting for someone to bring up Romans. There are some passages in Romans that one could get a little confused. But what we must realize s that Paul wrote Romans to several groups. He wrote it to Jews (believers and unbelievers). He wrote it to his new converts in the Body of Christ (all believers). He wrote Romans to atheists. And He wrote it to the man in deepest, darkest Africa who never heard of Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Paul.. But a careful reading of Romans shows Paul setting the stage to show that Israel was cut off and that there is a new program in town. I will go into this further as we progress. My computer times out if I stay on her too long. I hope I cleared things up a bid. But if I did not let me know.[quote]What possible purpose would these observances serve? If Christ circumcises us when are saved, what point is there in being circumcised in the flesh? What purpose does keeping a feast serve when you have already eaten the true bread of life. What purpose is there in keeping the Sabbath law when we enter the true Sabbath rest in Christ (Heb. 4:10[/quote]
God has a "special covenant" with Israel. He points out that these laws separate Israel as a "peculiar" or special nation from the rest of the world. I gave a write up on circumcision earlier showing that the cutting off of the flesh points to Jesus who came in the flesh and was Himself cut off, for example.
[quote]If you are not circumcised, you are not in Christ. But, I'm not talking about the physical cutting - I'm talking about the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ. It is necessary and it happens automatically when you are in Christ (Col. 2:11). Again I ask, if someone comes to Christ (no matter which so-called gospel alternative) and they are automatically circumcised with the truest of circumcisions - then they are a part of the covenant. What need is there to be circumcised in the flesh? It would be representational at best.[/quote]
Not so for a Jew under the gospel of circumcision. Failure to circumcise was a death penalty. After working with Moses for 80 years, God almost killed Moses for not circumcising his son by his Midionite wife Zipporah. True that circumcision is a symbol for us in that the flesh wars against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. And circumcision for us is circumcision of the heart but not so for the Jews under circumcision law.
[quote]Paul says that those who are in Christ are the true circumcision [/b](Phil 3:3). That means that the fleshly circumcision is the false circumcision. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.[/quote]
Paul could say this under the gospel of grace or uncircumcision. Did Jesus or Peter ever tell their followers to not circumcise or not keep the Sabbath. No!
[quote]So, are you saying that the gospel to the Jews before Paul was that they had to be circumcised and do their best to obey the whole law to enter into covenant with Christ? And that wherever they might fall short, Christ would add his work of the cross to their lack so that they might be saved? What if their best effort included not being circumcised and only obeying 1 of the laws? Is that not enough work to merit Christ's grace?[/quote]
Failure to circumcise was a death penalty for them. Circumcision is the entry way into the Covenant of Circumcision. Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day. If a Jew did not get circumcised, and refused to circumcise his sons, he was cut off from Israel and their covenant. "Cut off" is a synonym for the death penalty. Recall, God almost killed Moses for his refusal to do so. God was deadly serious about circumcision. God did not show any grace to Moses. If Moses' wife had not circumcised her son, God would have killed Moses.
[quote]Were they required to have any measure of faith in Christ while they attempted to obey the law? If so, what were they believing in? Christ's atonement on the cross? Christ's ability to justify sinners? Or seemingly, Christ's ability to justify only those who do their best at obeying most of God's laws.[/quote]

Israel had to obey the law and have faith. But God only required them to believe what was revealed to them. Before the Cross, Jesus' resurrection was hid from them. So if it was hid from them, what gospel were the disciples preaching when Jesus sent them to Israel? Repent, be baptized, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Jesus ministry to Israel was to get them to accept Him as their promised Messiah, nothing else. When Peter preaches, he is trying to get Israel to just accept Jesus as their Messiah. Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah (promised One) when He walked among them (in spite of miracles). So Jesus was ready to cut off Israel (parable of the fig tree). But the Holy Spirit talks Jesus into giving Israel one more year. "Surely they will accept Me now that I am risen," Jesus must have reasoned. But their hearts only grew harder. Patience exhausted, God cut off Israel and had Paul bypass Israel and go directly to the Gentile world. But God did not give Paul the gospel of circumcision or law. He gave Paul the gospel of uncircumcision where we are saved by grace and not works lest any man should boast. After Christ, the law, by itself, could no longer save Israel. The Great High Priest had come, as promised. No amount of law keeping could not be sufficient if a Jew rejected their promised Messiah. Paul writes that the reason God cut off Israel was for their rejection of their Messiah.
[quote]It was also the standard teaching of the church for most of its history. What am I supposed to do with the verses that teach that those in Christ are the true people of God?/quote]
We can’t ignore that God has a covenant with Israel (Abraham ) that He will keep. God is coming back to Israel (after their Tribulation) to give them a thousand year kingdom and a new heaven and a new earth. You will be in heaven. God will rapture you out of here before all this happens. We will never replace Israel.
[quote]1.) Christ has made Jews and Gentiles into one group, one man, and has included us in the covenant as fellow citizens (ie: made us Israelites). (Eph. 2:11-16)
2.) Some who are Israelites by ancestry aren't really Israelites. (Rom. 9:6)
3.) Some of those who are Jewish by ancestry are not really Abraham's decendents. (Rom. 9:7)
4.) God's children are not determined by their physical ancestry, but by promise. (Rom. 9:8)
5.) Issac represents the ancestry of the promise - which are those who are born of the Spirit into God's family - and is not determined by the physical ancestry of Abraham - those born under Law (represented by the children of Hagar) (Gal. 4:21-31)
6.) The covenant made with Abraham and the promised blessings were made to Jesus, not to physical Israel - because Jesus was the only one who could keep humanity's end of the bargain. And those who are in Christ partake of the covenant and the blessings - they are the true offspring of Abraham. (Gal. 3:16-29)[/quote]

"Christ has made Jews and Gentiles into one group" IN THE BODY OF CHRIST. But before Paul, Paul could not write this. And after Jesus raptures us out and returns to Israel, Israel will be in their prominent position as a separate nation, a kingdom ruling the earth.
“For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel UNTIL THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES HAS COME IN. And so all Israel will be saved...” (Rom. 11:25-26). God loves Abraham and He has a covenant with him that He will fulfill.
God's covenant is with Jesus and those who are in Jesus - the true sons of Abraham.

Paul just got done saying that not all physical Israel is truly Israel - that some who are Gentiles are really Israel. All Israel will be saved because if you are saved then you are true Israel. This new man will include those who are ancestrally Gentile and those who are ancestrally Jewish - and praise God for those future Jews who will turn to God in the future in order to become part of God's true people. But, do you really think all ethnic Jews will be savedo? It can't mean all Jews - because billions of unsaved Jews have died since Paul wrote this. Does it then mean all Jews who are still alive at that future point will be saved? That's not all Israel - that's only a small portion of historic Israel. You think that every Jew will respond with faith and believe? Every single one that is alive at that time? I suppose you believe that once the hardness is lifted, Jews will have no choice but to believe the truth. If that's the case, how are Jews coming to Christ now if that hardness is yet to be lifted? If no hardness means automatic faith, why doesn't hardness mean no possible faith? Or why are some hardened and some are not? Questions to ponder...[/quote]
Air, I can see that I am going to have to start another thread on “Replacement Theology,” that Israel has been replaced by us Gentiles in the Body of Christ. The Mormons teach this that they are the new Jews. The JW’s teach that they will rule in the coming kingdom. And Martin Luther used it to teach persecution of the Jews. Later in history, Hitler used Luther’s teaching as grounds for the killing of six million plus Jews. It’s necessary here to quote some of Luther’s teachings. They are disturbing!

“I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them… these miserable and accursed people… Much less do I propose to convert the Jews, for that is impossible.” (Martin Luther, 1543, translated by Martin H. Bertram in Luther’s Works, Volume 47, Fortress Press, 1971, p. 137, Philadelphia)

“Listen, Jew,” Luther mocks them. “[Your] Jerusalem… temple and priesthood have been destroyed for over 1,400 years,” and adding, “Let the Jews bite on this nut…” (Ibid. p. 138)

“So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them.” (Ibid. p. 267

Adolph Hitler echoed Luther:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (Mein Kamph, translated by Ralph Manheim, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971, p. 65)

This Replace Theology has is alive and well in false religions and the Body of Christ is not immune to its deadly influence. But what does the Bible say about Israel being no more?

Luther wrote that God cut off the Jews, “fixing no time limit and no end to it.” But Paul writes, “For I do not desire… that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel UNTIL the fullness of the Gentles has come in” (Rom. 11:25).

Replacement theologians teach that once Israel was cast away, God will never accept them back. But here’s this troublesome little Jews named Paul again: “For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead” (Rom. 11:15).

Replacement theologians: Prophecy never suggests that God might graft Israel back in again. Paul: “And they [Israel] also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again” (Rom. 11:23).

Replacement theologians: Once God unified Gentiles spiritually through the Body of Christ, He was finished with natural Israel. Paul: “For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these [Israel], who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?” (Rom. 11:24)

Replacement theologians: Prophecies yet future concerning Israel refer to the Body of Christ, not Jacob’s descendants. They refer to “us” not “them.” Paul: “And so all Israel will be saved as it is written: ‘The Deliver will come out of Zion. And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob [Israel]; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins” (Rom. 11:26-27).

Replacement theologians: Paul’s present tense, positive remarks about Israel no longer refer to the Jews but now to the Body of Christ. Paul: “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are belived for the sake of the fathers [Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses]” (Rom. 11:29).

Replacement theologians: God has forever revoked his covenant with the Jews of Israel. Paul: “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). And, Paul backs this up with: “Was anyone called while circumcised [accepted Jesus under Peter, prior to Paul] ? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised ? Let him not be circumcised” (1 Cor. 7:18). Believe it or not, I’ve had Christians argue that this was reverse surgery.

We must also admit that Abraham was the father of two groups. Abraham is “the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised” (Rom. 4:12). “…so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law [circumcision], but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all…” (Rom. 4:16).

And there is one verse in the Bible that puts a wooden stake in the heart of Replacement Theology. In Revelation, John is describing his vision of the New Jerusalem descending out of Heaven: “Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the NAMES OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14). Now recall that Jesus promised His twelve that in the coming kingdom, they would rule the twelve tribes of Israel. The Twelve will be resurrected and will rule over the twelve tribes with Jesus sitting on King David’s throne in Jerusalem.

Air I hope I addressed all your concerns. If not, please let me know.

TeeJay

#37 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 29 August 2011 - 05:55 PM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1314618776' post='74645']
I need to give more time to reading the replies and see if some other scriptures I am thinking of have already been discussed. I just don't understand this at all. The whole book of Acts does not seem to support this view. Peter does preaches to gentiles and Paul preaches in the synogogues. This post is clearing things up for me as to Teejay's position. My position is that the circumcision covenant was pointing to Christ. Yes, I agree with what you say here. When they were told to stay as they were called it was to keep them from stumbling. Paul was told to go to the Gentiles because the Jews were not ready for his message.

There is no reason a Christian cannot choose to follow the Mosaic Law, but they are under no obligation to do so.
[/quote]


ME, Yes. Paul preaches to Jews and Gentiles. Why? Because God cut off Israel (Peter and his followers are included). When God did this, He gave Paul the Gospel of Grace which is for everyone—every human on Planet Earth. This is why Paul writes that there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free. God cut them off for unbelief. In spite of Peter’s efforts to convince Israel to accept Jesus as their Messiah, the whole nation rejected their Messiah. Jesus’ return to Israel to give them their kingdom was contingent on Israel’s acceptance or rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. This is why Jesus told Peter in the first chapter of Acts not to go to the Gentiles. It was Israel first. Israel was to be God’s evangelical nation to the world.

Other than Peter witnessing to the Gentile Centurion Cornelius, there is no Biblical record of any circumcision apostle or follower witnessing to any Gentile. When I present this fact, most Christians are shocked and reluctant to accept it. But I have yet to be proved wrong on this. In fact the Bible explicitly says that they went to “none but the Jews only” (Acts 11:19). And when Peter told the other Jews that he had gone to a Gentile’s house and even ate with him, they were not exactly happy (Acts 11-2). What was significant about this event, a point that most Christians miss, is that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles WITHOUT THEM BEING CIRCUMCISED! Peter and the circumcision followers that were with Peter WERE “ASTONISHED” (Acts 10:45). And they were obeying Jesus by not going to Gentiles until Israel was converted (Acts 1:8).

ME, you are exactly correct. The rite of circumcision pointed to Jesus Christ, and it forever identified Israel as the “people of the circumcision.” Earlier I posted a writing on why did God give circumcision? I will post it again.
Why this unusual circumcision ritual? Recall that these laws were symbolic, neither moral nor immoral, were for the Jews only, and pointed to Jesus. Circumcision is the cutting off of the flesh. Jesus Christ (God the Son) became flesh, and was cut off. God told Abraham: “He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:13). God had also said to Abraham, “in you all” nations will be blessed (Gen. 12:3), and in Abraham, because Jesus came from Abraham’s loins, and from David’s body (2 Sam. 7:12). Thus, the Covenant of Circumcision pointed to Jesus Christ, who “became flesh” (John 1:14) and then the “Messiah” was “cut off” (Dan. 9:26; Mat. 27:46, 50). The Jews, called the Circumcision, the people of the Covenant of Circumcision, were themselves cut off (Rom. 11:20, 22). So, too, Christ, the King of the Jews (Mat. 2:2; 27:11), became flesh and was cut off. Thus the circumcision of Jesus Christ according to the Law on the eighth day (Luke 2:21) foreshadowed the very purpose of His coming. Consider also that God used the Hebrew word silver when He said to Abraham, “he who is bought with your money [silver].” Then recall two things: that the High Priest bought Christ with “thirty pieces of silver” from Judas (Mat. 26:15); and also that Jesus was born a Jew. Thus, throughout all history, He was the One both “born in your house [Israel] and… bought with your silver.” Thus the Covenant of Circumcision uniquely pointed to Christ.
You wrote that God sent Paul to the Gentiles because they were not ready to accept his message. It is not exactly correct. While Paul grace gospel is for both Jews and Gentiles (AS INDIVIDUALS) AFTER HE CUT OFF ISRAEL FOR FAILURE TO ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR MESSIAH, the grace gospel given to Paul was never intended for Israel AS A NATION. Israel, as a nation, will not get Paul’s gospel of grace when Jesus comes back to them to give them their kingdom. They will be back under the Gospel of Circumcision or law, for many of these laws are perpetual for Israel—everlasting, forever, as long as Israel exists. Israel as a nation will never be “ready” for the gospel of grace because they, as a nation, are under the gospel of circumcision.

There is a very good reason for us, today, not “to follow the Mosaic law. Under the gospel of grace, God gives us a free gift of love. If you attempt to pay Him back for this gift, then it is no longer a free gift. And Paul warns that when one gets circumcised for salvation, he is then obligated to keep the whole law. Now he does not lose his salvation for being confused, but his walk with the Lord will be less fruitful. Ask yourself: Which will keep a man from committing adultery? The commandment that says, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” Or love for his wife and God. If you love your neighbor, he does not have to lock his door to keep you out and God’s law against stealing is not necessary. Love for God and neighbor fulfills the whole law. But the law is still necessary as a tool to evangelize unbelievers.

When we attempt to do good works or obey laws to earn our salvation, God is insulted. Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross for us is of infinite value. There is no amount of works or law keeping we can do to pay Jesus back.

ME, I would like to use your post to show that the dispensation of grace gospel was given to Paul and Paul only. A careful reading of Paul letters reveals that Paul wants it known that the grace gospel was given to him for us.

“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner for you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the DISPENSATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD WHICH WAS GIVEN TO ME FOR YOU” (Eph. 3:1-2 ).

“… for the sake of His Body, which is the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was GIVEN TO ME FOR YOU, to fulfill the word of God, the MYSTERY WHICH HAS BEEN HIDDEN from ages and from generations, but HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED” (Col. 1:24-26). Also see Eph. 6:19).

Note: Notice that Paul reveals that his gospel has been hidden (not prophesied).

To make his point that this grace gospel was given only to him, He calls it “my gospel.”

“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to MY GOSPEL and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the MYSTERY WHICH HAS BEEN KEPT SECRET since the world began” (Rom. 16:25)

“[the law is not for believers vv. 8-10] according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which WAS COMMITTED TO MY TRUST” (1 Tim. 1:11).

“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David, was raised from the dead ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL” (1 Tim. 2:8).

“… God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to MY GOSPEL” (Rom. 2:16).

“Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, A DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL IS COMMITTED UNTO ME.” (1 Cor. 9:16-17 KJV).
I recommend that everyone do a careful reading of Galatians. Paul makes is clear, crystal even, that he did not get his gospel from any man (especially Peter). He states emphatically that he got his marching orders from Jesus Himself. He even says that Jesus took him to Arabia (most likely Mt Saiani) for a private one on one Bible study. Jesus probably spent most of His time trying to get Paul uncircumcised in his heart. Paul makes it real clear that he did not get tutoring from Peter. And Peter writes of Paul, ‘’things hard to understand.” Paul’s message went over the heads of the circumcision apostles even though Paul explained it to them at the Jerusalem Council.

TeeJay

#38 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 29 August 2011 - 07:29 PM

[quote] name='Fred Williams' timestamp='1314657163' post='74649']
OK, I see what you are saying. I was confused with "cutting off" since it can generally be construed to be the result of unbelief. There was Israel's unbelief (Rom 11:20) as a nation, but it doesn't mean Peter or his followers are "cut off" due to unbelief.


Fred
[/quote]

Fred, And what must be understood, is that while Peter was saved and is with the Lord, Israel's program of going to the world with the Gospel of circumcision and their getting a kingdom was also put on hold. So Peter and James loosed themselves from the Great Commission. Why? God cut them off for unbelief and commissioned Paul to bypass Israel with the gospel of grace. Their program is on hold. When the "fullnes of the Gentiles has come in," God will rapture us out, Israel will go though their tribulation (Book of Revelation), and Jesus will come back to Israel (His first love) and He will set up their kingdom, judge nations, etc. and will rule the world sitting on King David's throne in Jerusalem with the Twelve ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel.

Now I have a request for all on this thread. I would like everyone to read all my posts even if not directed to you. I will make a promise. Once you grasp this concept and divide Israel from the Body, gospels of circumcision from uncircision, law from grace, all your conundrums and doctrinal disputes will disappear. And you will be light years ahead of your pastor and any bible teacher at your church or on TV (with the exception of Les Feldick from Oklahoma). Most splits in churches are the result of not "rightly dividing the word of truth" as Paul admonishes. Most pastors, bible teachers, and theologians are unaware of Galatians 2:7-9. But Paul could not be more clear that there were two gospels in effect at the time of Acts and Paul makes it so clear that the gospel of circumcision was committed to Peter while the gospel of uncircision was committed to him. It's irrefragable!

I must ask all to be aware of the danger of Replacement Theology, that we have replaced Israel. I think I showed that this is a false doctrine in Air's post above. It's a dangerous doctrine and I showed where the teachings of Martin Luther were used by Hitler to justify the Holicost.

TeeJay

TeeJay

TeeJay

#39 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 30 August 2011 - 01:42 AM

Under the gospel of circumcision a Jew had to do good works, produce fruit, have faith, keep the law (symbolic and moral), "the weightier matters without leaving the lesser undone.


The answer to this question would help me out: What is the difference (if any) between the "gospel of circumcision" pertaining to the Jews after the cross and the covenant of the Jews before the cross? Did the cross change anything for the Jews under Peter in how they should come to God?

Also, you keep throwing out that clip "the weightier matters without leaving the lesser undone." How do we know that phrase means what you imply it means - that Jews needed to keep up with the feasts, and sacrifices, and circumcision even after the cross?

In context, Jesus is talking about the need for the Pharisees to focus on justice and mercy and faithfulness - the true heart behind the Laws. The Pharisees were relying on their behavior to be in right standing with God - but those who live by the law die by the law and are under the curse of the Law. I don't think Jesus is commanding or suggesting we need to keep the feasts, sacrifices, and circumcision - if indeed these are what he means by "lesser things." I think he's scolding the Pharisees who thought they had it all together. He's saying if they really wanted to be justified by the Law they should actually be obeying the heart matters of the law (weightier matters) while they were obeying the surface rituals (other matters). He's certainly not commending them for obeying the "lesser matters" - it's a rebuke of their hypocritical nature.

Air, if you read the posts I did above to Fred, Scripture shows that Israel will indeed be circumcising and keeping Sabbath law and the Feast of Atonement


“’For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will made shall remain before Me,’ says the Lord, ‘so shall your descendants [who are Jews, vv. 8, 10, 21) and your name remain. And it shall come to pass that from one New Moon to another, and FROM ONE SABBATH TO ANOTHER, all flesh shall come to worship before Me,’ says the Lord” (Isa. 66:22-23).

In other words, since God connected Israel with Sabbath worship and other celebrations such as the New Mood, then even while living on the new earth, as long as Israel exists as such, she will keep the Sabbath.


Those are yours words. It seems I could take "new moons" and "Sabbaths" as references to passing time - since that is the context in which they are being used. This doesn't clearly state that keeping the festivals of the law is a necessary part of the new Kingdom.

The remaining chapter describes the division of the land during the Kingdom. According to Ezekiel’s prophecy, during the millennium, Israel:

“…shall keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed meetings, and they shall HALLOW MY SABBATHS “ (Ezek. 44:24 (See also Ezek. 45:17; 46:1, 3-4 and 12).


Why do you think these chapters are talking about a millenial reign? The stated purpose of God showing Ezekiel the temple and all these things is so that Israel will be ashamed of their iniquities and realize all that they strayed from. (Ezek. 43:10) It does seem strange that after Christ became the sacrificial lamb for the world and ripped the veil leading to the inner court that the future Kingdom will again involve sacrificing goats and bulls for sin offerings (Ezek. 43:25) and will involve an inner court that is again sealed off from non-priests (Ezek. 44:1,17).

That seems absolutely backwards. Hebrews 10:
1.) "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" - so God wants to re-introduce a useless practice?
2.) "sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast not desired, nor hast Thou taken pleasure in them" - but God will re-introduce sacrifices that He takes no pleasure in?
3.) "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." - if there's no more need for more sacrifices, why would God reinstate them?
4.) "Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin." There is now forgiveness, so atonement sacrifices are redundant and pointless. When Christ comes back, it will not be in reference to sin for his people (Heb. 9:28) - So why would his people need to keep up sin offerings?

Either God is confused or you are confused about your interpretation of these passages. (but you'll probably claim I made an "either or" fallacy)

He brought Israel down to our position, committing Israel to disobedience right along with us Gentiles.
"For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Rom. 11:32 & Gal. 3:22).
By committing both Israel and us to disobedience, God can have mercy on both Israel and Gentiles WITHOUT DISTINCTION. Gentiles no longer have to become proselyte Jews for salvation, since the Jews themselves were in a terrible position. Thus no distinction exists any longer between Jew and Gentile (Gal. 3:27-28; Col. 3:10-11; Eph. 2:14-16).


Are you saying that the only sense in which Gentiles and Jews are without distinction is that God brought both groups low to a condemned position? If that's what you are saying, they that is completely opposite of what Paul is talking about. He is saying the level ground comes once Gentiles and Jews are in Christ. THEN they are one man and one body and without distinction. It happens as part of the "renewal" (Col. 3:11), not part of the condemnation. It sounds like you are suggesting that Gentiles and Jews are without distinction only as pertaining to equal condemnation - but once they are in Christ, they are distinguished again as separate people groups.

God has a "special covenant" with Israel. He points out that these laws separate Israel as a "peculiar" or special nation from the rest of the world.


Would you say that I Peter 2:9,10 is referencing this idea of Israel being God's special chosen people? "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own posession...for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God..."

Think carefully now. If you think Peter was only ministering to Jews - you'd have to think that Peter is talking about Israel's special role here correct?

But look at what Paul says when he quotes the same Hosea passage about the called people: "whom He called, not from among Jews only , but also from among Gentiles. As he says also in Hosea..."

Paul could say this under the gospel of grace or uncircumcision. Did Jesus or Peter ever tell their followers to not circumcise or not keep the Sabbath. No!


So Paul was correct when he told the Gentiles that fleshly circumcision was the false circumcision, but if he was talking to Jews he would have said that fleshly circumcision was the true circumcision. Interesting.

And Martin Luther used it to teach persecution of the Jews. Later in history, Hitler used Luther’s teaching as grounds for the killing of six million plus Jews. It’s necessary here to quote some of Luther’s teachings. They are disturbing!

It's not really necessary. He took the doctrine to a wrong extreme. The same could be done with any true doctrine.

Replacement theologians teach that once Israel was cast away, God will never accept them back

I agree that is nonsense and not-biblical. God will receive all repentant sinners, no matter what country they are from.

Replacement theologians: Once God unified Gentiles spiritually through the Body of Christ, He was finished with natural Israel.

There's a fine line here. God is not finished with Israel as a national people. He desires that all men come to him, no matter what their nationality. What I believe to be true is that Gentiles enter into the Abrahamic covenant by faith and become part of God's chosen people - therefore, since the cross, nationality is not the determining factor of who is God's chosen people, but adoption by faith. In that sense, God is done with basing his chosen people on Jewish nationality.

Replacement theologians: God has forever revoked his covenant with the Jews of Israel. Paul: “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29)

The covenant with Israel remains - however since Abraham's children are now realized to be the children of faith - God has redefined who Israel really is. Please deal with this verse which you have yet to "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel."

The calling may not be reversed, but does that mean that ethnic Jews must by definition answer the calling?

And there is one verse in the Bible that puts a wooden stake in the heart of Replacement Theology. In Revelation, John is describing his vision of the New Jerusalem descending out of Heaven: “Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the NAMES OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14).



So, metaphoric literature involving a city floating from the sky is more clear than verses that clearly state that not all ethnic Jews are really of Israel, that national heritage does not determine who are the children of God? (Rom. 9:6-8)

This turned out longer than I intended. I'm sure you have time to respond for hours to these inquiries as a retired guy, but I don't really have time to go round in circles about minor doctrines. Don't get me wrong - this has been interesting and I enjoy studying - but I'm not going to keep this up for 8 pages. I still have to get back to some of our discussions on the other threads.

#40 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 30 August 2011 - 07:56 AM

Guys, this is going a little off topic, I think a separate thread on Replacement theology would be great. I'm unfortunately a little busy now or would start it myself (I could do so in probably a week's time, if no one gets around to it). I happen to go to a Lutheran Missouri Synod church, and I disagree with their doctrine profusely on Replacement theology. I believe Luther's anti-Semitism clearly bled in to his theology. It would be great for you guys to hash this out.

I would like to thank TeeJay, Air-run, ME and others in this thread for keeping their disagreements civil thus far, in what is definitely a contentious topic!

Fred




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users