For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[Pam Baldwin]

Thanks for jumping in, PB. I agree with you.

Can you expound upon that a bit, for the sake of those who are following along? Are you saying that we in the Body of Christ can make application from non-Pauline writings, but those writings are not to be treated as doctrine by which we are to live our lives? Can you explain? Take Leviticus, for example. Why do you believe we are not to treat that as doctrine by which we should live?

I'd love that opinion of non-MidActs'ers, too, on the questions I posed earlier.

Thanks!

Okay, I'll try and expound on that. But really, it seems kind of logical to first try and understand WHO something was written to before you try and follow the instructions.

Most times, if you read the salutation, it says this:

Lev.1: 2 Speak unto the children of Israel,

Since Paul's epistles are written to Body, you can find where Paul says that there is neither greek not Jew (i.e. no "children of Israel"), so that would mean that Leviticus was not instructions for the Body.

Pam :upright:

 

[Pam Baldwin]

I have found that learning about OT things like the arc of the covenant can have enormous benefits for believers in this dispensation.

Have you ever wondered why the wood had to be an exact kind of wood, or why it had to be an exact size, or why the gold had to be located where it had to be? Or how about the two cherubs on top of it? What did they represent?

In my opinion, once a believer learns about all the feasts, sacrifices, laws, tabernacles, temple, etc, it helps the believer understand the shadow system of what was to come, and an understanding of why God made replicas on earth of what is in Heaven.

If more believers understood the OT, there would probably be much less confusion over the NT.

Hi tetelestai!

I am in agreement with you here....wow :jawdrop:

But we are saying that those things are not directly applicable to the Body......all Scripture is given for us to learn. All Scripture helps up understand God more, us more and the dispensations more.
We need it all for a full understading.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

We need it all for a full understading.

I agree, too. Also, Paul says "consider what I say and the Lord give thee understanding in all things". We won't find any information in the Old Testament about a people ruling & reigning with Christ in heaven (the Holy of Holies), since it was a mystery. We find plenty about the priesthood on the earth, Genesis-early Acts, Hebrews-Revelation.

But, the Temple is incomplete without Romans-Philemon!

 

[Pam Baldwin]

Lotsa questions here.....and good ones too.

Which Jews?

Kingdom Jews or Judaism Jews?

In Acts 10:9-19 Peter is shown the sheet with unclean animals. Some say this is where God first says it is ok to eat any meat, and others say it is an allegory showing salvation was now available to Gentiles the same way as Jews.

At this point according to my understanding, We are talking about Kingdom Jews(i.e. elect Jews). Peter's vision did not tell him that salvation was NOW available to the Gentiles.....salvation was always open for the Gentiles. There are examples of Gentiles being saved inteh Gospels. But the Jews at that time had made a false division in that they looked down on the Gentiles ( and people not "pure', like the Samaritans) The Jewish nation was to be the channel of blessing to the Gentiles....not seperate and not "touch" them.

Later in Acts Paul tells the new believers not to eat meat sacrificed to idols in order to not offend certain people.

Who where these people?

I think what you are referring to is how the Jews were not allowed to eat meat that was beforehand sacrificed to idols, by Gentiles. These they could buy at the market, but they ( kingdom Jews) were not to eat this stuff....Paul says that it isn't wrong to do so. But if by Body members insisting on using their liberty it would offend the kingdom saints, to refrain from doing so.

Were dietary laws abolished when the New Covenant started (was offered) at Pentecost?

Why did the Kingdom believers (if there is such a thing) have to observe the Old Covenant dietary laws? Did they have to observe dietary laws?

Body is not "New Covenant".
Dietary laws were not abolished for kingdom saints. But as the Body dispensation took hold, they were to place themselves under this Law.

Adam and Eve could only eat fruit. They couldn’t even eat vegetables because to eat a vegetable you have to kill the plant (i.e. carrot), and there was no death to anything before the fall.

After the fall they were allowed to eat vegetables.

I've never heard this before. It was animals that they didn't eat, I always thought. What about green beans? You don't kill the plant....

Noah new about clean and unclean animals, he took 7 pairs of clean animals and 2 pairs of unclean animals on the ark. Since this was before the Old Covenant, it wasn’t strictly an OC issue.

During the OC, the Jews could not eat unclean animals.

So, when did not eating unclean animals end?

Pentecost? Peter’s vision? Mid Acts?

IOW, how does eating meat of unclean animals and MAD jive?

Noah taking clean and unclean animals in to the ark doesn't = eating.
I'm trying to remember, but weren't animals declared "clean" and "unclean" later in history? Noah wasn't Jewish.

So, the dietary laws are not for the Body. It ended, for the dispensation now....but will be back "in force" in the Kingdom Millenium.

 

[Pam Baldwin]

___
"I have found that learning about OT things like the arc of the covenant can have enormous benefits for believers in this dispensation."-tet

Agreed:

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples:(types-my note) and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." 1 Cor. 10:11


"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." Romans 15:4

I took a "Jewish roots" course.

"We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long." Psalms 74:9

" For the Jews require a sign, ...." 1 Cor. 1:22


"And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning." Exodus 12:22

The teacher showed me the following re. Exodus 12:22:

If you take a piece of paper, draw a door, and do exactly as the LORD instructed, i.e., take your pencil/pen from the bottom of the door from the bason of blood(at the mid point of the bottom), trace the blood straight up to the midpoint of the lintel, and then go straight to midpoint of the left side of door("side post"), and then straight across to midpoint of right side of the door("side post")-do not "lift up" the pen/pencil-What do you have?


Answer: The Cross! Is not the LORD saying, in western idiom, "You want a sign, you have it! My only Begotten Son!"

Nice post, john w, except Jesus was crucified on a pole....arms straight above nailed to the straight pole.

 

[bybee]

Understanding

Understanding

I have found that learning about OT things like the arc of the covenant can have enormous benefits for believers in this dispensation.

Have you ever wondered why the wood had to be an exact kind of wood, or why it had to be an exact size, or why the gold had to be located where it had to be? Or how about the two cherubs on top of it? What did they represent?

In my opinion, once a believer learns about all the feasts, sacrifices, laws, tabernacles, temple, etc, it helps the believer understand the shadow system of what was to come, and an understanding of why God made replicas on earth of what is in Heaven.

If more believers understood the OT, there would probably be much less confusion over the NT.

Good morning, I agree with you. Knowledge of the Old Testament is essential if one is to understand the preparation for Jesus the Christ. However, we, christians do interpret this testament quite differently from Jewish people. I have a Jewish Study Bible and the wording is different in some instances but there is a world of difference in the exegetical notes found at the bottom of pages and the articles written in the back of the book. They are very careful to not make remarks which might be construed as judgmental against Christianity or Islam. I've learned a good deal through the eyes of people who are living within God's Covenant with Moses. When I was younger I read almost exclusively the Gospels. Now I find The Acts of the Apostles occupy my time almost exclusively except for reference material suggested. Time for coffee! peace, bybee

 

[tetelestai]

Peter's vision did not tell him that salvation was NOW available to the Gentiles.....salvation was always open for the Gentiles. There are examples of Gentiles being saved inteh Gospels.

Hi Pam:

Ok, let me reword that.

Peter’s vision was a message to Peter from God that Gentiles no longer had to go through Israel for salvation (i.e. a proselyte)

IOW, salvation was equally available to Gentiles the same exact way it was available to Jews.

Agree?

Now here is the tricky MAD part.

To the best of my MAD knowledge, MAD teaches that this vision to Peter was God continuing with plan A (New Covenant), and now salvation was given to the Gentiles the same way it was given to the Jews. Right after the vision Cornelius is saved.

Plan B (according to MAD), when Paul reveals the mystery doctrine to Jew and Gentile alike, is different. Plan A was for Kingdom believers, and plan B was for Body believers. To those MAD’s who believe Cornelius is part of plan B, it gets really confusing because the Body doctrine has not been revealed to Peter by Paul yet. (I think)

Most non-MAD’s see the vision of Peter as part of the transition from Jew to Gentile in the Body from Pentecost to the completed canon of scripture.

Another interesting point about Peter’s vision is that the sheet is described with four corners. We see elsewhere that the word of God is to be preached to the four corners of the world.

Could the four corners of the sheet have anything to do with the four corners of the world and Gentiles?

If yes, then for those MAD's who believe Cornelius was part of the Body, doesn’t this make Peter the Apostle who first preached salvation to the Gentiles?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Peter’s vision was a message to Peter from God that Gentiles no longer had to go through Israel for salvation (i.e. a proselyte)

Hi Tet, it was still through Israel (Corny blessed the seed of Abraham), only now it was made known that the Gentiles did not necessarily have to be circumcised. This opened the door for the salvation of certain types of Gentiles (as the ones Paul preached to during Acts), and Peter came to Paul's defense in Acts 15 over this circumcision issue.

 

[tetelestai]

Hi Tet, it was still through Israel (Corny blessed the seed of Abraham), only now it was made known that the Gentiles did not necessarily have to be circumcised. This opened the door for the salvation of certain types of Gentiles (as the ones Paul preached to during Acts), and Peter came to Paul's defense in Acts 15 over this circumcision issue.

Was Corny a Body believer or a Kingdom believer?

If he was a Kingdom believer, why did he no longer have to be circumcised, but still have to follow dietary laws?

If Corny was a Body believer, did Peter know about the mystery revealed to Paul (Body doctrine) when he preached to Corny?

 

[Tico]

(Rom 14:2) One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.


Romans chp 14 is often used by MAD’s to show that Body believers were not to eat unclean meat in order to not make a Kingdom believer perish.

My first question is how could a Body believer make a Kingdom believer perish by eating unclean meat?

1 Cor. 8:9But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols?

It's not that a grace believer caused someone to sin, but that their eating in the Kingdom believer's presence emboldened his conscience to sin.

My second question is that most non-MAD’s see Romans chp 14 as Paul simply addressing believers to not judge weaker believers who observe the Sabbath, or that do not eat unclean meat. Paul says that if they do it in faith, then who are we to judge them for doing so.

If Paul is addressing Body believers in relation to Kingdom believers, why are the Kingdom believers referred to as “weak”? In Rom 14:2, Paul says these people have weak faith. Did Kingdom believers have weak faith?

First, weak in this sense means to be under law. Paul would never encourage a grace believer to be weak in their faith. In fact, he chewed them out for being weak:

Gal. 4:9But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

Yes, those who observed days, months, seasons, years, foods, circumcision, etc. had the weaker of the faiths. Just as Scripture refers to the woman as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7), it also refers to those under the law as the weaker faith.

 

[tetelestai]

Yes, those who observed days, months, seasons, years, foods, circumcision, etc. had the weaker of the faiths. Just as Scripture refers to the woman as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7), it also refers to those under the law as the weaker faith.

I have brought this up before, and will ask again.

If as you say the “weak” are Kingdom believers, then why wouldn’t a Kingdom believer who had knowledge of Body doctrine just convert to a Body believer, if Kingdom faith was “weaker” than Body faith?

It’s really hard for us non-MAD’s to grasp the supposed two kinds of believers sitting side by side in a church with their two different gospels. Especially if one is said to be “weaker” than the other.

Anyway, there are many believers today who observe the Sabbath, who don’t eat pork or shellfish, etc. Couldn’t these Body believers of today be considered “weak” in their faith for failing to rightly divide?

On one hand you have the Amish, then on the other hand you have gay bishops, same sex marriages being performed by pastors, women pastors, etc. Couldn’t these extremes to the left, and right be considered “weak” faith?

 

[john w]

Nice post, john w, except Jesus was crucified on a pole....arms straight above nailed to the straight pole.

_
"..except Jesus was crucified on a pole....arms straight above nailed to the straight pole."-Pam

Scripture, or history books, what people say?

The Exodus passage, and others, these "nuggets", answer the question. Look at Numbers, and how the tribes were arranged about the Tabernacle in the wilderness-from overhead, in the pattern of a cross. Dig into the book.


"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2

 

[chickenman]

Thought I'd throw this out there again. It's a REALLY important question, and TOTALLY pertinent to the topic at hand. And the answer to it exposes the the ignorance (which is sometimes honest, often not though) behind many of the straw man arguments that are propped up in attempts to make the MidActs position look foolish.

Good morning, everyone! :wave2:

Good time for a question.

How does one determine what, in the Bible, is supposed to be doctrine by which we in the Body of Christ are to live our lives?

Notice I'm not asking what's for us; it's all for us. Notice I'm not asking about how to determine things from which we can make/take application.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Tico]

I have brought this up before, and will ask again.

If as you say the “weak” are Kingdom believers, then why wouldn’t a Kingdom believer who had knowledge of Body doctrine just convert to a Body believer, if Kingdom faith was “weaker” than Body faith?

It’s really hard for us non-MAD’s to grasp the supposed two kinds of believers sitting side by side in a church with their two different gospels. Especially if one is said to be “weaker” than the other.

Rom. 11:29For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

For one, they couldn't change their calling.

1 Cor. 7:18Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

This passage talks of spiritual circumcision and uncircumcision because it was impossible to be uncircumcised after being circumcised.

Yes, it's difficult today to imagine two different kinds of unchangeable faiths interacting and fellowshipping. However, this is just why the Corinthians letters and Romans were written to explain the differences and how to live together. For example:

Rom. 15:1We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification.

Anyway, there are many believers today who observe the Sabbath, who don’t eat pork or shellfish, etc. Couldn’t these Body believers of today be considered “weak” in their faith for failing to rightly divide?

No, they are sinning. Gal. 4:9-11 speaks directly to them.

On one hand you have the Amish, then on the other hand you have gay bishops, same sex marriages being performed by pastors, women pastors, etc. Couldn’t these extremes to the left, and right be considered “weak” faith?

The only way weakness is sin is when the believer saved under grace like you and I choose to do those things that are under the law. Weakness was never a sin like supporting evil--which was always contrary to the law.

 

[bybee]

???

???

Hi Pam:

Ok, let me reword that.

Peter’s vision was a message to Peter from God that Gentiles no longer had to go through Israel for salvation (i.e. a proselyte)

IOW, salvation was equally available to Gentiles the same exact way it was available to Jews.

Agree?

Now here is the tricky MAD part.

To the best of my MAD knowledge, MAD teaches that this vision to Peter was God continuing with plan A (New Covenant), and now salvation was given to the Gentiles the same way it was given to the Jews. Right after the vision Cornelius is saved.

Plan B (according to MAD), when Paul reveals the mystery doctrine to Jew and Gentile alike, is different. Plan A was for Kingdom believers, and plan B was for Body believers. To those MAD’s who believe Cornelius is part of plan B, it gets really confusing because the Body doctrine has not been revealed to Peter by Paul yet. (I think)

Most non-MAD’s see the vision of Peter as part of the transition from Jew to Gentile in the Body from Pentecost to the completed canon of scripture.

Another interesting point about Peter’s vision is that the sheet is described with four corners. We see elsewhere that the word of God is to be preached to the four corners of the world.

Could the four corners of the sheet have anything to do with the four corners of the world and Gentiles?

If yes, then for those MAD's who believe Cornelius was part of the Body, doesn’t this make Peter the Apostle who first preached salvation to the Gentiles?

Herein lies the rub! I have believed that the sheet, lowered by it's four corners, was a multi-layered message. God want's His message given to all peoples. He wants Peter to know this and do this. He shows that the whole of creation is good because God created it. Essentially, this begins the new understanding between God and man, not just God and Covenant people but God and man. And this new understanding has been purchased through the Life of Christ. It may be that this was a mystery, heretofor, to the Apostles. It may be that Paul was the Apostle who more clearly revealed the purposes of the mystery revealed. I am not hung up on this. peace, bybee:idea:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Essentially, this begins the new understanding between God and man, not just God and Covenant people but God and man.

Hi dear bybee,

What occurred in Acts 10 was definitely an "opened door", but Corny was blessed in accord with the Abrahamic Covenant. This situation cleared the way for Paul's Acts ministry to Jews and Greeks who were also the children of the promise to Abraham. There's no record that Pete ever preached to another Gentile. I have to believe the main purpose for Peter going to Cornelius was so that Peter would later come to Paul's defense in Acts 15 when circumcision was the hot topic. Peter witnessed an uncircumcised household of Gentiles baptized with the Spirit and speaking in tongues (a sign to the Jew, Peter).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Was Corny a Body believer or a Kingdom believer?

I don't see how he was either. I just call him a Gentile who was for the Lord, "called out for his name" according to prophecy.

If Corny was a Body believer, did Peter know about the mystery revealed to Paul (Body doctrine) when he preached to Corny?

Peter did not know the gospel of Christ until Paul communicated unto him that gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. That's when Peter perceived the grace given unto Paul.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Thought I'd throw this out there again. It's a REALLY important question, and TOTALLY pertinent to the topic at hand. And the answer to it exposes the the ignorance (which is sometimes honest, often not though) behind many of the straw man arguments that are propped up in attempts to make the MidActs position look foolish.

The best answer I can come up with is: compare scripture with scripture, that's how the Holy Ghost teaches. :cheers:

 

[bybee]

I agree

I agree

Hi dear bybee,

What occurred in Acts 10 was definitely an "opened door", but Corny was blessed in accord with the Abrahamic Covenant. This situation cleared the way for Paul's Acts ministry to Jews and Greeks who were also the children of the promise to Abraham. There's no record that Pete ever preached to another Gentile. I have to believe the main purpose for Peter going to Cornelius was so that Peter would later come to Paul's defense in Acts 15 when circumcision was the hot topic. Peter witnessed an uncircumcised household of Gentiles baptized with the Spirit and speaking in tongues (a sign to the Jew, Peter).

I agree it was an "opened door". Peter must have been stunned by it. Still a new "universal" light did shine forth. And it predated Paul in order to validate Paul? Isn't this fascinating!!! I've always been intrigued by "the sheet" vision and now I see so much more in it! Funny isn't it. The Holy Bible doesn't change but all of a sudden I learn something and I change! It's sort of like how very wise our parents become once we enter our twenties! peace, bybee

 

[nothingsound]

That is awesome! You're going to enjoy reading the scriptures more and more now. You won't feel like you're trying to cram square pegs into round holes every time you pick up the Bible.

It was just that in the beginning. The Bible isn't a hunt and peck for reading, it is a study for life.