Discerning the difference.

[Right Divider]

The difference between Paul's ministry and that of the twelve should be obvious to anyone, but tradition blinds the eyes of people that don't let the scripture speak.

The term "Son of man" occurs 85 times in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The term "Son of man" occurs ZERO times in Paul's thirteen epistles.

There is a simple and obvious reason for that. Paul was teaching something different.

 

[glorydaz]

The difference between Paul's ministry and that of the twelve should be obvious to anyone, but tradition blinds the eyes of people that don't let the scripture speak.

The term "Son of man" occurs 85 times in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The term "Son of man" occurs ZERO times in Paul's thirteen epistles.

There is a simple and obvious reason for that. Paul was teaching something different.

That's very interesting. I wonder why.

 

[Right Divider]

That's very interesting. I wonder why.

I believe that it's because "Son of man" refers to Christ's earthly position (relating to the nation of Israel).
Paul tells us that we are no longer to know Christ in that way. 2 Corinthians 5:16

 

[glorydaz]

I believe that it's because "Son of man" refers to Christ's earthly position (relating to the nation of Israel).
Paul tells us that we are no longer Christ in that way. 2 Corinthians 5:16

Ah, that must be it. Thanks RD.

 

[Arial]

The difference between Paul's ministry and that of the twelve should be obvious to anyone, but tradition blinds the eyes of people that don't let the scripture speak.

The term "Son of man" occurs 85 times in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The term "Son of man" occurs ZERO times in Paul's thirteen epistles.

There is a simple and obvious reason for that. Paul was teaching something different.

"Son of man was Jesus' self designation, and though it is a reference to His humanity (and deity), it is quite likely that it is a direct reference back to the OT. Dan 7:13-14. This can be seen in Jesus' own reference to Himself as Son of man. John 5:27; Matt 24:30; Mark 13:24-27.

Jesus was identifying Himself as the Son of man mentioned in Daniel, the preexistent Son of God and Messiah.

 

[Right Divider]

"Son of man was Jesus' self designation, and though it is a reference to His humanity (and deity), it is quite likely that it is a direct reference back to the OT. Dan 7:13-14. This can be seen in Jesus' own reference to Himself as Son of man. John 5:27; Matt 24:30; Mark 13:24-27.

Jesus was identifying Himself as the Son of man mentioned in Daniel, the preexistent Son of God and Messiah.

Yes, Daniel was a prophet of Israel speaking to and about the people of Israel.

"Son of man" was the term Jesus most frequently used about Himself (30 times in the book of Matthew alone) while He was on earth. Paul never once refers to Jesus using that term.

This is a very important distinction between the earthly ministry of Christ to Israel and Christ's other mission to and through the apostle Paul for the body of Christ.

 

[Arial]

Yes, Daniel was a prophet of Israel speaking to and about the people of Israel.

"Son of man" was the term Jesus most frequently used about Himself (30 times in the book of Matthew alone) while He was on earth. Paul never once refers to Jesus using that term.

This is a very important distinction between the earthly ministry of Christ to Israel and Christ's other mission to and through the apostle Paul for the body of Christ.

Although I do not completely disagree with you as it is obvious by Jesus' own words that He came first to the house of Israel. There was a reason for this. God entered into covenant first with Israel and Israel alone, as a nation and people. It was through Israel that He first revealed Himself in a relational and saving way. (Though Gentiles could be brought in even then, but they were brought in through the covenant with its law and worship.)

However, this covenant with Israel was shadowing and moving towards the Covenant of Redemption by grace and through faith, that was brought to all nations and peoples by Jesus and through Him. It is only natural, in fact necessary to God's plan, that the Savior would be of Israel. The revealing of God, who He is, came first to Israel. Jesus was spoken of and prophesied in the OT. Sometimes using the same terms, such as servant, that did refer to Israel the nation. There are places in which Israel is referred to as God's servant----because that is who they are. And sometimes the Servant is prophesied as being Christ. Much of this is actually clarified in Rev. Daniel 7:21, compared to Rev 13:7 and Rev 13:1 as an example.
In Daniel We see this One like the Son of man---the very words that Jesus used to identify Himself. We see this Son of Man in Rev 14:14-16. We see Him in Ez 1:26-28 and Jesus speaking of the same thing in Matt 24:30-31; Luke 21:36. So Daniel, like Is and the other prophets, are sometimes speaking of Israel the nation and sometimes of the Savior who comes out of Israel----Jesus as the true Israel. I still say that when Jesus referred to Himself as Son of man, He was identifying Himself as the Son of Man spoken of in the OT. And the Jews of His time were probably very aware of this, which is why some became so angry.

 

[Right Divider]

Although I do not completely disagree with you as it is obvious by Jesus' own words that He came first to the house of Israel.

Please make sure that you quote scripture so that we can discuss scripture accurately.

What Jesus actually said is that He was send ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matt 15:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24
New King James Version
24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

There was a reason for this. God entered into covenant first with Israel and Israel alone, as a nation and people.

Actually the first covenant was with Noah... then Abram... then....

It was through Israel that He first revealed Himself in a relational and saving way. (Though Gentiles could be brought in even then, but they were brought in through the covenant with its law and worship.)

Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join with Israel from the very beginning. That did not change when Christ came to earth.

Exod 12:43-51 (AKJV/PCE)
(12:43) ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This [is] the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: (12:44) But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. (12:45) A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. (12:46) In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. (12:47) All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. (12:48) And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (12:49) One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. (12:50) Thus did all the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. (12:51) And it came to pass the selfsame day, [that] the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

However, this covenant with Israel was shadowing and moving towards the Covenant of Redemption by grace and through faith, that was brought to all nations and peoples by Jesus and through Him.

Again, please QUOTE the scripture.

The dispensation of the grace of God is not a covenant and has no requirements (apart from faith in Christ).. It is more akin to a PROMISE like God gave to Abraham where Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness.

It is only natural, in fact necessary to God's plan, that the Savior would be of Israel. The revealing of God, who He is, came first to Israel. Jesus was spoken of and prophesied in the OT. Sometimes using the same terms, such as servant, that did refer to Israel the nation. There are places in which Israel is referred to as God's servant----because that is who they are. And sometimes the Servant is prophesied as being Christ. Much of this is actually clarified in Rev. Daniel 7:21, compared to Rev 13:7 and Rev 13:1 as an example.
In Daniel We see this One like the Son of man---the very words that Jesus used to identify Himself. We see this Son of Man in Rev 14:14-16. We see Him in Ez 1:26-28 and Jesus speaking of the same thing in Matt 24:30-31; Luke 21:36. So Daniel, like Is and the other prophets, are sometimes speaking of Israel the nation and sometimes of the Savior who comes out of Israel----Jesus as the true Israel. I still say that when Jesus referred to Himself as Son of man, He was identifying Himself as the Son of Man spoken of in the OT. And the Jews of His time were probably very aware of this, which is why some became so angry.

Until you understand the difference between God's two plans, you will try to force them to be one before their time.

Eph 1:10 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

We are not YET in the "dispensation of the fullness of times".

 

[glorydaz]

Although I do not completely disagree with you as it is obvious by Jesus' own words that He came first to the house of Israel. There was a reason for this. God entered into covenant first with Israel and Israel alone, as a nation and people. It was through Israel that He first revealed Himself in a relational and saving way. (Though Gentiles could be brought in even then, but they were brought in through the covenant with its law and worship.)

However, this covenant with Israel was shadowing and moving towards the Covenant of Redemption by grace and through faith, that was brought to all nations and peoples by Jesus and through Him. It is only natural, in fact necessary to God's plan, that the Savior would be of Israel. The revealing of God, who He is, came first to Israel. Jesus was spoken of and prophesied in the OT. Sometimes using the same terms, such as servant, that did refer to Israel the nation. There are places in which Israel is referred to as God's servant----because that is who they are. And sometimes the Servant is prophesied as being Christ. Much of this is actually clarified in Rev. Daniel 7:21, compared to Rev 13:7 and Rev 13:1 as an example.
In Daniel We see this One like the Son of man---the very words that Jesus used to identify Himself. We see this Son of Man in Rev 14:14-16. We see Him in Ez 1:26-28 and Jesus speaking of the same thing in Matt 24:30-31; Luke 21:36. So Daniel, like Is and the other prophets, are sometimes speaking of Israel the nation and sometimes of the Savior who comes out of Israel----Jesus as the true Israel. I still say that when Jesus referred to Himself as Son of man, He was identifying Himself as the Son of Man spoken of in the OT. And the Jews of His time were probably very aware of this, which is why some became so angry.

I'm wondering where you find the "Covenant of Redemption" in scripture?

 

[Arial]

I'm wondering where you find the "Covenant of Redemption" in scripture?

Heb 13:20 Now may the God of peace who by the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus.
Luke 22:20
It is called covenant because the plan involves two or more parties. It was not between God and humans, but among the person's of the Godhead. God's triunity is eternal and that is why it is called the eternal covenant. Like the Trinity itself as a word does not appear in the scripture, so to the wording "covenant of redemption" does not appear explicitly in scripture but the concept is heralded throughout.

 

[glorydaz]

The eternal covenant is speaking of the covenant with Israel. I'm not sure where you get the idea of it being a covenant among the person's of the Godhead.

I'm pretty sure the covenants are all with the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 speaks of this..

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[Tambora]

Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join with Israel from the very beginning. That did not change when Christ came to earth.

True.
And Gentiles didn't even have to join Israel to be one of God's people.

Naaman (2 Kings 5) was a pagan who had a Jewish servant girl in his household that told him to go to the prophet Elisha to be healed of his leprosy.
He was healed and went right back to his own country.
Didn't join Israel.
Didn't keep the feast days.
Wasn't circumcised.
Didn't ask for a copy of the Torah to follow.
etc.

The only thing that changed in him was that he now realized that YHWH was the only true God.

 

[Arial]

The eternal covenant is speaking of the covenant with Israel. I'm not sure where you get the idea of it being a covenant among the person's of the Godhead.

I'm pretty sure the covenants are all with the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 speaks of this..

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

How do you figure the eternal covenant was the covenant with Israel. It had a beginning and an end. And by end I do not mean God's rejection of Israel, but the old covenant being replaced with the new, as Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the old covenant died a substitutionary death shedding the blood of the new covenant----a covenant not of works as the old but of salvation through faith in Jesus. It did much more, and did it permanently, than the covenant with Israel as land grant covenant, did. There is One eternal God. Eternal Father. Eternal Son. Eternal Spirit. An eternal covenant can only be with that which is eternal. The new covenant, the covenant of redemption through faith in the person and work of Jesus, was fulfilled in His death and resurrection and ascension. And it is with all believers, Jew and Gentile alike. This covenant of redemption of necessity had to be made in eternity past and within the Godhead. The Father sent, the Son came, the Holy Spirit applied this covenant to persons. They were the designing and fulfilling parties of the covenant and only they were involved in bringing it to pass.

Romans 9 is Paul expressing the deep love and concern for the people and nation from who he came. He was an Israelite. Israel was adopted by God as His people and as such He made covenants with them, not other nations. He gave them the law and worship and promises. Through them He brought the Savior. Believers are spoken of as adopted by God, Jew and Gentile alike, and many Jews rejected the Messiah when He came, though given all that God had revealed to them, they should not have. They were in many cases clinging to that very thing----that simply by being "of Israel" God was exclusively theirs as was salvation. This broke Paul's heart. All believers are spiritual Israel---a designation meaning God's people.

 

[Arial]

Please make sure that you quote scripture so that we can discuss scripture accurately.

What Jesus actually said is that He was send ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.



Actually the first covenant was with Noah... then Abram... then....

Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join with Israel from the very beginning. That did not change when Christ came to earth.


Again, please QUOTE the scripture.

The dispensation of the grace of God is not a covenant and has no requirements (apart from faith in Christ).. It is more akin to a PROMISE like God gave to Abraham where Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness.

Until you understand the difference between God's two plans, you will try to force them to be one before their time.

We are not YET in the "dispensation of the fullness of times".

I am not a dispensationalist so we will never agree on some of scripture and I do not need to understand it. I can see what is off from scripture when they say it. Though I do not think it affects salvation. And I know full well to debate the points of difference is futile in making anyone even consider other than what they are firmly attached to.

 

[glorydaz]

True.
And Gentiles didn't even have to join Israel to be one of God's people.

Naaman (2 Kings 5) was a pagan who had a Jewish servant girl in his household that told him to go to the prophet Elisha to be healed of his leprosy.
He was healed and went right back to his own country.
Didn't join Israel.
Didn't keep the feast days.
Wasn't circumcised.
Didn't ask for a copy of the Torah to follow.
etc.

45 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.


46 And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the Lord their God.

The only thing that changed in him was that he now realized that YHWH was the only true God.

But they didn't believe in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, so they were not baptized by the Spirit into the body of Chrsit.

I am not a dispensationalist so we will never agree on much in scripture and I do not need to understand it. I can see what is off from scripture when they say it. Though I do not think it affects salvation. And I know full well to debate the points of difference is futile in making anyone even consider other than what they are firmly attached to.

Consider this Arial, you aren't willing to even consider other than what you are firmly attached to.
So are you any more willing to keep an open mind? Paul spoke of dispensations. Perhaps you could discuss what Paul is saying in these verses, and consider why he is teaching about dispensations. Do you think the entire Bible is address to us?

• 1 Corinthians 9:17
  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.
  
  
• Ephesians 1:10
  That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
  
  
• Ephesians 3:2
  If ye have heard of the dispensationof the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
  
  
• Colossians 1:25
  Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

 

[Arial]

Consider this Arial, you aren't willing to even consider other than what you are firmly attached to.
So are you any more willing to keep an open mind? Paul spoke of dispensations. Perhaps you could discuss what Paul is saying in these verses, and consider why he is teaching about dispensations. Do you think the entire Bible is address to us?

• 1 Corinthians 9:17
  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.
  
  
• Ephesians 1:10
  That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
  
  
• Ephesians 3:2
  If ye have heard of the dispensationof the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
  
  
• Colossians 1:25
  Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Here's the thing. I have considered both sides. First dispensationalism then covenant as a framework (not a doctrine) of how God relates in a personal way to humans, and His means of moving forward His plan of redemption. And of course it depends on how one is using the word dispensation, when they adhere to dispensationalism. And truthfully, I do not know. Is it being used as is described in the notes in the original Scofield Reference Bible? "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture." If so, does it recognize or consider the implication in relation to "age" or take into consideration basis or lack of basis of the scriptural revelation itself? In other words, does it consider what the revelation is in reference to which age it occurs, and is it consistent with the revelation itself and future revelation?

Or is it being used as as coming from its Greek root when translated in the NT. As a verb it means "to weigh out, to dispense, to distribute, or to give out. As a noun means "the conducting, supervising, or managing of a household." As translated dispensation in the scriptures you give, in the NLT they are explained as:
1 Cor 9:17 "If I were doing this on my own initiative, I would deserve payment. But I have no choice, for God has given me this sacred trust."
Eph 1:10 "And this is the plan: At the right time He will bring everything together under the authority of Christ---everything in heaven and on earth."
Eph 3:2,9 "assuming, by the way, that you know God gave me the special responsibility of extending his grace to you Gentiles...I was chosen to explain to everyone this mysterious plan."
Vol 1:25 "God has given me the responsibility of serving his church by proclaiming his entire message to you."

 

[Arial]

Please make sure that you quote scripture so that we can discuss scripture accurately.

What Jesus actually said is that He was send ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

My bad. But nevertheless, I do not dispute that.

Actually the first covenant was with Noah... then Abram... then....

The first covenant was the covenant of redemption (see my post to GD) within the Godhead. If you speak of the covenant signified by the rainbow, that was with the earth and all its people. Abraham is the father of Israel and that covenant was a covenant of faith fulfilled in Christ. Yes there were many covenants in the OT but I am specifically speaking of one in particular---as you know.

Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join with Israel from the very beginning.

And I said as much. But they had to keep the covenant stipulations.

Until you understand the difference between God's two plans, you will try to force them to be one before their time.

He doesn't have to plans of salvation. He has one plan progressing according to His will.

We are not YET in the "dispensation of the fullness of times".

The fullness of time is not a dispensation. It is an age. There are two ages. This age and the age to come.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How do you figure the eternal covenant was the covenant with Israel. . . . but the old covenant being replaced with the new . . .

Jeremiah 31:31-34:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

 

[glorydaz]

Here's the thing. I have considered both sides. First dispensationalism then covenant as a framework (not a doctrine) of how God relates in a personal way to humans,

Well, let's just discuss how God relates in a personal way to humans. You'll admit it's changed over time, I imagine?

 

[Arial]

Well, let's just discuss how God relates in a personal way to humans. You'll admit it's changed over time, I imagine?

I do yes. And when I said we don't consider what is different than what we are attached to---I was including myself in that. I realized later that the way I said it sounded like I was considering myself right (and I do think I am otherwise I would believe something else ) and trying to sway others to my way of believing. I am actually simply discussing and responding to what is said and questions asked. But the post was responding to when I said that was of a "tone" in my perception, that is moving to a knock down drag out for the sake of it. May be wrong but experience and all.

So how has the way in which God has a personal interaction with humans changed over time and why? To me it has seemed that in our Bible, in the beginning and for a time, God spoke out loud to individuals. Adam and Eve of course and Cain and Abel, Noah and others including Abraham (sometimes through angels or theophanies) and Moses. He also made covenants with these people and I see the personal relationship as sealed and established through those covenants. They are for the most part bi-lateral, that is, stipulations and promises for stipulations kept, God's departing as their protector and provider if they are not kept. We then have the covenant He made with Israel with the law and worship stipulations, which is a land grant covenant. God gives them the land, destroys their enemies, provides for all their needs, teaches them His ways and who He is------provided they......keep the covenant. At that time He began to communicate with them through the law, particularly the Levites, (priests) and the prophets, and kings. And now through Jesus Christ as the Bible says. And we see all these "offices" in Jesus. Prophet, priest and king. But the relationship was through the covenant, as it is today----the covenant of faith (redemption). So I see all the previous covenants as God's chosen way of progressing forward towards the final and eternal covenant of redemption, teaching mankind and revealing Himself progressively. Although we still await the age to come, the redemption is accomplished. The believer, Jew and Gentile alike, are now in a covenant relationship with God and it is unilateral. By grace, through faith which is a gift of God. Jesus has done all the covenant work. That is how I see it.