Please note, I had a proper response typed up for this, and then I lost it, so my answers will be somewhat shorter, as I don't feel like typing it all again.
Been there, done that. Thanks for persevering on this.
To establish His Kingdom on earth.
Correct.
Correct. Christ was planning on returning in all His glory as King of Israel.
No.
Correct. Christ was planning on returning to judge the world.
No, it did not.
Wrongly.
What are you even talking about?
They were to go out into the world, only to stay in a city until they were rejected.
Where do you get that they would go out "two by two"?
Jesus sent them out two by two,
[Mar 6:7 KJV] And he called [unto him] the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
It's the parallel passage to the one are talking about.
The only way Christ's COULD will for John to stay alive is if Christ returned within His lifespan, no?
Yes, but He could accomplish it by extending John's life however long He saw the need. That's where the legendary nature of it was heading, that the author had to refute.
The point is that Christ fully planned to return within their lifetimes, yet that's not what happened.
I don't think He planned to return within all of their lifetimes, because He told them some would think they were doing God's work by killing them.
Are you not familiar with Daniel's prophecy of 70 weeks?
Sure, but there are plenty of differing interpretations.
graceambassadors.com
The final week began at Pentecost in Acts 2, but God put everything on hold one year in (Acts 9), due to Israel's rebellion and rejection of Him.
Again, the point was that Jesus was planning on returning within their lifetimes, not after 2000+ years.
Or He was planning on establishing His kingdom within their lifetimes, even at the expense of their lives.
Exceptions that prove the existence of the rule.
That kind of exception disproves the rule.
Are you not familiar with Galatians 1-2?
Paul tells us in Galatians 1 that it was three years after his conversion on the road to Damascus before he visited Peter, and he only did so in secret: the only other person he met was James, the Lord's brother.
Then in Galatians 2, he tells us it was another 14 years after that, that he visited the apostles again, this time for the Jerusalem council (Acts 15).
3+14=17
Ok, I see that. Thanks.
Sidenote:
It's a little confusing, because Acts says he went to Jerusalem before he met Barnabas. Barnabas met him there and brought him to "the apostles", which must include Peter and others (not just Peter).
[Act 9:26 KJV] And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
[Act 9:27 KJV] But Barnabas took him, and
brought [him] to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
[Act 9:28 KJV] And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
Which sounds different than:
[Gal 1:17 KJV]
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Yet Paul's first visit to Jerusalem must have been within a few months of his conversion, and Galations 1 must be talking about his 2nd visit after his conversion.
End sidenote.
Because God didn't immediately reveal everything about the mystery to Paul, but gradually over time. 17 years is a long time to learn a doctrine.
If Paul was instructed personally by Jesus between his conversion and his visit with Peter 3 years later, did he need the additional 14 years to understand that he was to go to the Gentiles without any of the law's shackles? No, because Peter must have confirmed it for him, comparing notes on Paul's call and Peter's vision. So when the Jerusalem crew sent Barnabas to Antioch, he knew where to find help in reaching the Gentiles.
Acts 10 was right after Paul's conversion, so obviously, not everything would have been revealed yet.
Also, the changeover was gradual, from the focus on Israel, to the focus on the Body of Christ. The beginning of the Body of Christ was Acts 9, with Paul being the first. But the shift in focus wasn't as immediate.
I agree with the "focus" language. But "focus" is hardly "gospel". "Focus" works well with the agreement between the Twelve and Paul, but "gospel" doesn't.
God showing Peter that it was okay to interact with the Gentiles was the beginning of that process.
Yes, I agree.
What?
Did you bother to read what Jesus told Peter in Acts 10?
And a voice spoke to him again the second time,
“What God has cleansed you must not call common.”
And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”
www.biblegateway.com
Yes, at first, Paul went to both the Jews and the Gentiles.
Not just at first, but everywhere he went, he first went to the synagogue, if he was able to. After the Jews rejected the gospel (the same gospel as he was preaching to the Gentiles. Even when he was under house arrest in Rome at the end of Acts, he was still reaching out to Jews.
And then 17 years later, He agreed to go only to the uncircumcised, and Peter, et al, agreed to go only to the circumcision.
Yet he continued to go to the synagogue first.
Before the agreement in Acts 15:
[Act 13:14 KJV] But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
[Act 13:16 KJV] Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with [his] hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.
[Act 13:46 KJV] Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
And
[Act 14:1 KJV] And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
After the agreement in Acts 15:
[Act 18:4 KJV] And he reasoned
in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
and
[Act 28:17 KJV] And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called
the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men [and] brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
Note that he was rarely in Israel, however.
Are you saying "the circumcision" means only those in Israel? And by default, all area outside Israel's territory. is "the uncircumcision"? This sounds different than "Jews" vs "Gentiles". If that's what you mean, then I think I'm on board with it.
His ministry did not overlap that of the Twelve.
If "the circumcision" means all Jews, then his ministry certainly overlapped that of the Twelve, as shown above. But if "the circumcision" only includes those within the territory of Israel, then when Peter and Paul were both in Antioch, what was going on? perhaps you are saying that Antioch, being part of "the uncircumcision" was Paul's territory, and so Peter was either "just visiting", or he was interloping. (Or, if Antioch is Peter's territory, then those options apply to Paul.)
So what?
Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.
What does Scripture say?
It says that "blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."
It says that "through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles," and "if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"
It says, "because of unbelief they were broken off," and "if they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in [again]."
Remember, Scripture states, clearly and unequivocally, that the New Covenant is made between God and Israel, jus like the Old Covenant.
Yes, and when those who had no access to those promises suddenly have access to them?
[Eph 2:12 KJV] That at that time ye
{you Gentiles} were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers from the covenants of promise,
{defined as:} having no hope, and without God in the world:
[Eph 2:13 KJV] But now
{in contrast, meaning that the above conditions no longer apply} in Christ Jesus ye
{you Gentiles} who sometimes were far off are made nigh
{to the commonwealth of Israel AND no longer strangers to the covenants of promise} by the blood of Christ.
[Eph 2:14 KJV] For he is our peace, who hath made both
{those that had the covenants of promise and those who were strangers to the covenants of promise} one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
[Eph 2:19 KJV] Now therefore ye
{you Gentiles} are
no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
[Eph 2:20 KJV] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets
{not just on the foundation of Paul}, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
You say that because you assume, wrongly, that there is only one church.
There are two.
The church of Israel.
The church of the Body of Christ.
This is what Paul spoke about so vociferously...that Gentiles were brought into the same commonwealth/covenants of promise as the Jews already had. How, if
1. Paul's gospel was not the same as the Apostle's, and
2. The church of Israel was not the same as the church of Jesus Christ
? What was "the commonwealth of Israel"?
And thus, two dispensations, one for Israel, one for the Body of Christ.
What is a dispensation? Isn't a "pouring out", or "dispensing"? Of what? Paul was given a pouring out of the gospel to the Gentiles. Peter started with a pouring out of the gospel to the Jews, moving toward including the Gentiles. The pouring mechanism might have changed, but the material being poured did not.
The differences were resolved by recognizing the differences between the two churches, and their house rules.
Go read Acts 15 and tell me that there was no disputes that were resolved by recognizing that Paul's ministry was different.
I don't see any disputes between the Twelve and Paul.
NO.
The backup plan was hidden from EVERYONE, the entire world.
NO ONE BUT GOD knew of it.
Because you've oversimplified it.
Israel is known as the people of the law. Their covenant with God required them to keep the law. That covenant was built on circumcision (which is itself a symbol of the law). In order for someone to enter into a relationship with God, under BOTH Covenants, they had to circumcise and keep the law.
not if Paul is correct that the strangers to the covenants of promise are no longer strangers to those covenants.
That is the message Israel was to take to the world.
This is where you are mistaken. No doubt Israel THOUGHT this was their message, but if the "focus", as you called it, was changing to the Gentiles, the message didn't change.
Tell me, why do you think God chose circumcision in the first place?
Paul's dispensation, however, was that of grace alone, through faith alone, not of works of the law. He taught that one did not have to be circumcised in order to have a relationship with God.
That is the message Paul was to take to the world.
"You must circumcise" is diametrically opposed to "do not circumcise."
So that couldn't have been the message that Israel was to take to the world after the apostles took the gospel to Israel.
The ENTIRE REASON for the Jerusalem council, was to resolve the dispute over whether the Gentiles (specifically, Paul's converts, and not those who entered into a relationship through Israel's covenant) had to circumcise. Under the New Covenant, they would have had to. But it was decided that Paul's dispensation of Grace was not the New Covenant,
I never read that there. I don't believe that's what they decided, because that wasn't the question. The question was whether Gentiles that were already recognized as being accepted into the church of Jesus Christ had to circumcise and keep the laws of the Old covenant. This
Old Covenant stuff was what those that went to Antioch were trying to enforce, not New Covenant stuff. We can tell that because it is called "of Moses":
[Act 15:1 KJV] And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be
circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
[Act 15:5 KJV] But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them]
to keep the law of Moses.
I agree that Paul's dispensation wasn't
equal to the New Covenant, but that doesn't mean Gentiles can't become "no longer strangers to" the New Covenant.
and therefore they did not have to circumcise!
Because they weren't Jews, not because they weren't of the same Church.
Because of their rebellion against God.
I've mentioned it before, but I'll say it again here:
The Mosaic Law was undergirded by grace.
Yes, but it was still faulty, which required a NEW covenant.
Without grace, no one would have been able to keep the law.
Grace is what one needs AFTER he finds out he can't keep the law.
In order for Israel to achieve salvation, they HAD TO keep the law, and not only that, it had to be done faithfully, with the right attitude. Faith was part of the law.
Part of the law was what to do when one broke the law. Maybe that's what you mean by the grace needed to keep the law. And yes, faith is required to obey the law or obey the gospel.
[Heb 11:6 KJV] But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
The Body of Christ, on the other hand, does not and SHOULD NOT place themselves under the law. For we are "justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."
Not meaning, of course, that murder is suddenly ok, nor homsexuality, nor disobedience to parents, etc.
With that out of the way...
No.
The Jews were to achieve salvation in the same manner as the Body of Christ:
since there is one God who will justify the circumcised
by faith and the uncircumcised
through faith.
since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
www.biblegateway.com
Both parties, Israel and the Body of Christ, shall be saved by grace.
Good.
But Israel will be justified BY faith (keeping the law faithfully), and the Body of Christ will be justified THROUGH faith (placing their trust in God).
I'll have to think about this distinction some more.
Grace is key for both parties. But that does not mean that they were the same party.
No, not necessarily, but with the other scriptures, especially Eph 2, they are of the same party.
What are you even talking about?
Only under the Old and New Covenants.
Where does the bible say Gentiles are unclean under the new covenant?
But what did Paul say:
I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
The Law of Love - I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
www.biblegateway.com
And this applied to the Jews as much as the Gentiles, just as Jesus declared (and referred to later in Peter's vision):
[Mar 7:19 NKJV] "because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods?"
Wut?
Jesus was not unclean.
Then why did God forsake Him on the cross? Wasn't it because He became sin for us? Isn't "uncleanness" about sin? In that sense, Jesus became unclean on the cross.
Paul recognized that sin was associated with uncleanness, but stopped being so:
[Gal 2:15 KJV] We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
www.biblegateway.com
