For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[chickenman]

How do you understand 1 Corinthians 15:11 now?

From my perspective, in context it seems Paul is stating that they (the other Apostles) were preaching the same gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4 as context). Otherwise, why would Paul say they his audience believed the gospel whether they or he preached it? How different are our perspectives regarding that scripture?

Thank you for your time, brother.

Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. I Cor. 15:11​

Paul writes this to set up his message that fills the rest of the chapter. It's all about the resurrection. Verse 11 is to point out that they actually believed in the resurrection at one point. Whether Paul or Peter or anyone else preached it, they believed in it.

Immediately after that statement, he writes:

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? I Cor. 15:12​

There is where he writes the specific message that was preached and that they had [supposedly] believed before. "...if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead..."

While it's true that it wouldn't matter who preached the gospel that saves (from verses 1 - 4) to them, it seems to me that the specific message to which he refers in verse 11 is the resurrection.

 

[chickenman]

Doormat,
You're asking a lot of questions and posing challenges to several MidActs folks, which is good and edifying for all (if done the right way, which I think you're doing). However, it's difficult to fully understand anything (a theological position, how to get a man on the moon, where babies come from) without attempting to understand the more fundamental things, first. So I'd like to go back to those more fundamental things and ask some basic questions, if you don't mind. I'll start here:

What is your understanding of when the body of Christ began? Has it always existed (as a spiritual entity in which believers dwell)? Did God institute that corporate Body at Pentecost (the common belief today)? Or what?

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Doormat]

Doormat,
You're asking a lot of questions and posing challenges to several MidActs folks, which is good and edifying for all (if done the right way, which I think you're doing).

Thank you. I'm just following where the discussions are leading, brother. It started with brother BrightRaven's Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth thread, with the claim of two gospels, progressed to brother Lighthouse claiming one gospel required law keeping for justification, then the MidActs Disponsationalism [sic] poll thread where among other exchanges sister Tambora directed me here.

It seems to me the one thing that we (you, me, and other MidActs folks) share in common is the righteousness of God without the law, in that we all seem to believe that is what we reflect in Christ. This is very important to me because I've been under the impression that most Christians don't understand that concept sufficiently to keep from being legalistic and thus they are often preaching another gospel.

I'm trying to understand how we arrived at a similar conclusion regarding such an important concept while at the same time having such seemingly different views regarding other concepts, i.e. two versus one gospel, Body as Israel versus Body different than Israel, etc. This is very interesting to me. I mean no ill will with any challenges I offer, and hope I do not offend anyone the way I often imperfectly communicate my thoughts.

However, it's difficult to fully understand anything (a theological position, how to get a man on the moon, where babies come from) without attempting to understand the more fundamental things, first.

I agree.

So I'd like to go back to those more fundamental things and ask some basic questions, if you don't mind.

Not at all. And I hope you don't mind if I respond to your post regarding the narrow way, even if it seems to be getting ahead of those fundamental things because I think it is a fundamental concept from my perspective. I also what to answer your question about the relevance I see in Jesus being our king. I'll address that soon, God willing.

I'll start here:

What is your understanding of when the body of Christ began? Has it always existed (as a spiritual entity in which believers dwell)? Did God institute that corporate Body at Pentecost (the common belief today)? Or what?

I don't believe the body of Christ has a beginning or end because I see it as His literal body, and He is God (eternal - without beginning or end). One thing I found intriguing about MidActs folks reading through some posts is that at least some believe as I do, that we are literally part of Christ's body.

Regarding Pentecost, I don't believe that God instituted the body of Christ at that time for the reason stated above (His body has no beginning or end, in my view). I believe that the experience at Pentecost written about proved that Joel 2:28 was true, but not that it necessarily started to be true on that day only or signified the beginning of Christ's body.

What do you believe regarding the body of Christ?

 

[chickenman]

Good morning, Doormat.

Thank you. I'm just following where the discussions are leading, brother. It started with brother BrightRaven's Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth thread, with the claim of two gospels, progressed to brother Lighthouse claiming one gospel required law keeping for justification, then the MidActs Disponsationalism [sic] poll thread where among other exchanges sister Tambora directed me here.

It seems to me the one thing that we (you, me, and other MidActs folks) share in common is the righteousness of God without the law, in that we all seem to believe that is what we reflect in Christ.

More than "reflect", as I see the scriptures, then by virtue of being in Christ, we have been MADE the righteousness of Christ. By trusting in His finished work on the cross for our sins and believing that He rose from the dead, then the Holy Spirit baptizes us into His body, sealing us for the day of redemption. And because we are clothed with Christ, we are just and righteous, holy and blameless...because HE is those things.

This is very important to me because I've been under the impression that most Christians don't understand that concept sufficiently to keep from being legalistic and thus they are often preaching another gospel.

Baptism by the Spirit into Christ is, I believe, the most important thing that Christians need to understand. For as you've alluded, it is the difference between living a life of legalism or living a life of liberty.

I'm trying to understand how we arrived at a similar conclusion regarding such an important concept while at the same time having such seemingly different views regarding other concepts, i.e. two versus one gospel, Body as Israel versus Body different than Israel, etc. This is very interesting to me. I mean no ill will with any challenges I offer, and hope I do not offend anyone the way I often imperfectly communicate my thoughts.

No offense perceived, on my part, at least. Hence my earlier comments to you.

I don't believe the body of Christ has a beginning or end because I see it as His literal body, and He is God (eternal - without beginning or end). One thing I found intriguing about MidActs folks reading through some posts is that at least some believe as I do, that we are literally part of Christ's body.

My question wording was awkward, probably. Let me use a different phrase, then. When did the "one new man" of Eph. 2:15 begin? Since it's called "new", then it has not always been.

Regarding Pentecost, I don't believe that God instituted the body of Christ at that time for the reason stated above (His body has no beginning or end, in my view). I believe that the experience at Pentecost written about proved that Joel 2:28 was true, but not that it necessarily started to be true on that day only or signified the beginning of Christ's body.

What do you believe regarding the body of Christ?

I'll use "one new man" to refer to the collective body of believers in the "dispensation of grace" in an effort to be sure we're on the same page a little better. Though we might need to have a brief dialogue about those phrases, as well.

Many believe the dispensation of grace and the one new man began at Pentecost, based on a philosophy of something like: "Well, we have the Spirit within us, and the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. So that's when it began." But Peter actually TOLD his audience what was happening there. He said it was what Joel spoke of. It had nothing to do with the one new man or the dispensation of grace. The were witnessing a sign of the coming end, getting a taste of what was to come.

As I see the scriptures, the events of early Acts (hopefully you've read this already in this thread) were prophetic fulfillments. Nothing was going on that was contrary to things foretold to unfold for Israel. It is with God's calling out of and commissioning Paul that we see things beginning to happen that were either not foretold or that were happening out of the prophetic sequence of events.

So, to answer your question, the dispensation of grace and the one new man could not have begun until Paul was called out.

 

[Doormat]

Good morning, Doormat.

Same to you, brother.

More than "reflect", as I see the scriptures, then by virtue of being in Christ, we have been MADE the righteousness of Christ. By trusting in His finished work on the cross for our sins and believing that He rose from the dead, then the Holy Spirit baptizes us into His body, sealing us for the day of redemption. And because we are clothed with Christ, we are just and righteous, holy and blameless...because HE is those things.

I agree. The reason I use the word reflect is because I believe it is not I, but Him (Gal 2:20).

When did the "one new man" of Eph. 2:15 begin? Since it's called "new", then it has not always been.

Ephesians 2:14-15 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

In context, "between us" means between Jew and Gentile. Therefore, the one new man in this context began with the abrogation of the law that separated Jew and Gentile. I think an argument can be made that the ordinances were abrogated before the cross when Jesus became Israel's high priest, but it seems Colossians 2:14 is sufficient to show that they were at least abrogated by the crucifixion and the dissolution of the earthly temple (Mt 27:51).

When do you believe the change in the law occurred? Hebrews 7:12. Or rather, if you prefer to answer it this way: when do you believe Jesus became high priest?

It is with God's calling out of and commissioning Paul that we see things beginning to happen that were either not foretold or that were happening out of the prophetic sequence of events.

What is the most compelling example of that, in your opinion?

So, to answer your question, the dispensation of grace and the one new man could not have begun until Paul was called out.

Doesn't Cornelius being baptized into the body of Christ suggest otherwise?

 

[chickenman]

I agree. The reason I use the word reflect is because I believe it is not I, but Him (Gal 2:20).

I understand. :up:

Ephesians 2:14-15 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

In context, "between us" means between Jew and Gentile.

Sort of. There were some Gentiles that were part of Israel's commonwealth; therefore, the things of Israel pertained to them, in some way, as well. So while the one new man is certainly made up of Jew and Gentile, the "twain" were those of the commonwealth of Israel...and those who were not (those who were "far off", Eph. 2:13).

Therefore, the one new man in this context began with the abrogation of the law that separated Jew and Gentile. I think an argument can be made that the ordinances were abrogated before the cross when Jesus became Israel's high priest, but it seems Colossians 2:14 is sufficient to show that they were at least abrogated by the crucifixion and the dissolution of the earthly temple (Mt 27:51).

The text in Ephesians doesn't say when. It says:

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby... Eph. 2:15-16​

So it's not saying that at or before the cross He made in Himself of twain one new man. Since it says "BY the cross", and abolishing in His flesh the enmity..."FOR TO make", then we can only take that from that specific text. His crucifixion would accomplish those things, and they would go into effect at some point. It just doesn't say when.

When do you believe the change in the law occurred? Hebrews 7:12. Or rather, if you prefer to answer it this way: when do you believe Jesus became high priest?

Throughout Jesus earthly ministry, seen in the gospel accounts, the law and ordinances are required. Adherence to them is demanded. Some examples:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Matt. 23:23

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. Matt. 23:1-3

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 5:17-19​

Since the Twelve are commissioned to follow all that Jesus commanded to them...

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. 28:19-20​

...then it makes sense to see them doing just that. Per the earthly learning under Jesus, they're preaching the requirement of ordinances:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38​

They're preaching communal living...

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:44-45​

...in accordance with Jesus' command:

Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. Luke 12:33​

In Jesus' absence, they're continuing His earthly ministry in hopes of reaching their countrymen to get them to repent, collectively, so that God will deliver their promised kingdom.

In early Acts, there's no change in the teachings given by Jesus during His earthly ministry...a ministry specifically to the circumcision to prepare them for their coming, promised kingdom.

It is only with Paul that things begin to change. No apostle before Paul would ever teach that one could be justified APART from the law of Moses, but that's exactly what Paul taught.

And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Acts 13:39​

No apostle before Paul could have said to their audience that "you are not under the law." Yet Paul did just that:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Rom. 6:14​

So...when do I believe the "change in law occurred?" I believe that God cut off Israel from her promises (for a time) either with Stephen's stoning when Jesus stands [in judgement] or with the calling of Paul. And with that, God dispensed something that He had not before revealed to mankind: Salvation by faith alone through grace. An eternal inheritance with the Lord that could be obtained completely independent of Israel (whereas before that Israel was foretold to become a kingdom or priests and Gentiles would come to God through the chosen nation).

What is the most compelling example of that, in your opinion?

I've given some basic evidence above. This thread contains plenty more. I'm not ever too eager to say "this is the best evidence" because then, if you or anyone else is completely settled on an opposing viewpoint, the "best" evidence is quickly debunked and the case is closed because...that was the "best evidence."

Doesn't Cornelius being baptized into the body of Christ suggest otherwise?

Cornelius received the Spirit AFTER Paul was called. So this example completely backs up my point. I think you might have your timing mixed up.


Thanks, Doormat.

Randy

 

[Doormat]

There were some Gentiles that were part of Israel's commonwealth; therefore, the things of Israel pertained to them, in some way, as well. So while the one new man is certainly made up of Jew and Gentile, the "twain" were those of the commonwealth of Israel...and those who were not (those who were "far off", Eph. 2:13).

I agree. There were two types of proselytes, I believe: Proselytes of the Gate and Proselytes of Righteousness. It appears that Cornelius was at least a Proselyte of the gate:

Acts 10:2 ... a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

Acts 10:22 "... a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews ..."

Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 2:14-15 seems to describe a man like Cornelius, and I believe it was that type of Gentile Paul had in mind when he wrote Ephesians 2:15. It appears it was not only the "enmity" that separated them, but the "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," which I believe is a specific reference to the Book of the Law (the Mosaic ordinances for uncleanness that were abrogated according to Col 2:14 cf. Deut 31:26 and Deut 6:25).

The text in Ephesians doesn't say when.

I believe the timing is implicit in the phrase "even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." In my view, it was because of those Mosaic ordinances regarding uncleanness there was a perceived necessity of enmity between Jews and Gentiles. That seems evident in Peter's statement to Cornelius:

Acts 10:28 "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean..."

In my view, Peter's statement links the enmity between Jew and Gentile to the Mosaic ordinances regarding uncleanness. That is why I focused on the abrogation of the ordinances in my explanation of when the new man of Ephesians 2:15 began.

Since it says "BY the cross", and abolishing in His flesh the enmity..."FOR TO make", then we can only take that from that specific text. His crucifixion would accomplish those things, and they would go into effect at some point.

I believe that when Jesus forgave sin without sacrifice before the cross, and told men they were clean, and "clean every whit" before the cross, and healed people of infirmities that made them unclean under the law, he was doing so as high priest, necessitating a change in the law (mercy without sacrifice, forgiveness and cleanness without legal rituals, i.e. the righteousness of God without the law).

In my opinion, the phrase "by the cross" does not mean the crucifixion of the body of Jesus or the timing of that crucifixion event caused the abolition of enmity or ordinances in every person's heart, but means that each person's death on the cross accomplishes the abolition in his heart (Mt 16:24, Ro 6:6, Gal 2:20).

Throughout Jesus earthly ministry, seen in the gospel accounts, the law and ordinances are required. Adherence to them is demanded. ... Matt. 23:23 ... Matt. 23:1-3

In my view, Jesus is not demanding adherence to the law, but telling people to not be hypocrites. It appears to me that Paul taught the same thing Jesus was saying in those verses you've referenced:

Romans 2:23-27 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

This may be a good time to mention the narrow way again, and to ask you: how did the uncircumcision fulfil the law? How do the Gentiles "do by nature the things of the law?" Romans 2:14. My answer is they fulfil the law by living Matthew 7:12, which I believe is the narrow way--the righteousness of God without the law. I believe Matthew 7:12 is the righteousness of God without the law because if, for example, I show you mercy when you deserve to be executed (like David and Bathsheba), I am disregarding the letter of the law to show you that mercy, and I am doing to you what I would want you to do to me. Frankly, I can't imagine an easier yoke or lighter burden (Mt 11:30).

... Matt. 5:17-19

In my view, Jesus explained what the law meant (Mt 7:12). It seems that is the change in the law (Heb 7:12) that does not effect one jot or tittle because the abrogation of the law (the righteousness of God without the law) is witnessed by the law and the prophets (Ro 3:21). In other words, it appears the future abrogation of the law was always part of the law and prophets, e.g. Jer 31:31-32. We can think of it as contractual clause that always existed that places one above the letter of the law, as God is above the law, e.g. David ate the holy bread that was unlawful to eat, yet was blameless.

Since the Twelve are commissioned to follow all that Jesus commanded to them...

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. 28:19-20​

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Romans 13:9 ... and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

In my view, Paul taught what Jesus told his disciples to do.

...then it makes sense to see them doing just that. Per the earthly learning under Jesus, they're preaching the requirement of ordinances:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38​

I don't perceive that Peter was preaching the requirement of ordinances in Acts 2:38. Can you elaborate?

They're preaching communal living...

I don't understand how that would relate to keeping ordinances for justification, or how living communally would amount to preaching communal living for justification. Am I understanding you?

...in accordance with Jesus' command:

Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. Luke 12:33​

I don't perceive he was commanding them to sell everything they owned and give it to the poor, or sell everything God gave them at the expense of providing for the children God gave them, or at the expense of their communal living. His message appears deeper than that to me. In my view, Jesus wanted them to value their neighbor as themselves versus selfish materialism, and there are at least several ways that can appear.

In Jesus' absence, they're continuing His earthly ministry in hopes of reaching their countrymen to get them to repent, collectively, so that God will deliver their promised kingdom.

What would collective repentance look like, and why would God require that?

In early Acts, there's no change in the teachings given by Jesus during His earthly ministry...a ministry specifically to the circumcision to prepare them for their coming, promised kingdom.

It is only with Paul that things begin to change. No apostle before Paul would ever teach that one could be justified APART from the law of Moses, but that's exactly what Paul taught.

I'm just not seeing that change yet, brother. I think the scriptures and thoughts I've shared above show why I don't.

So...when do I believe the "change in law occurred?" I believe that God cut off Israel from her promises (for a time) either with Stephen's stoning when Jesus stands [in judgement] or with the calling of Paul.

How do you address the change in the priesthood then? Hebrews 7:12. It seems the change in the priesthood necessitates a change in the law. Do you believe Jesus became their (whoever Hebrews is addressed to) high priest with the stoning of Stephen or with calling of Paul? If not, when did Jesus become their high priest? And what is the evidence?

And with that, God dispensed something that He had not before revealed to mankind: Salvation by faith alone through grace.

Then why does Paul state it was witnessed by the law and the prophets, in your opinion?

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

An eternal inheritance with the Lord that could be obtained completely independent of Israel (whereas before that Israel was foretold to become a kingdom or priests and Gentiles would come to God through the chosen nation).

If the olive tree of Romans 11:17 is the olive tree of Jeremiah 11:16, and if Christ is Israel according to Matthew 2:15 compared with Hosea 11:1, doesn't if follow that Israel is not only the name for a nation of men, but another name for the body of God? And if that is true, haven't the promises been fulfilled in some spiritual sense?

Cornelius received the Spirit AFTER Paul was called. So this example completely backs up my point. I think you might have your timing mixed up.

That may be, but here's what I am getting at: Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles and the children of Israel.

Acts 9:15 ...he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

That appears no different (regarding who to preach to) than the commission our Lord gave the other Apostles. The timing seems less relevant than who delivered the gospel to Cornelius and what he preached.

Thanks, Chickenman.

 

[chickenman]

Good morning, Doormat.

Please don't miss my last two paragraphs. Keeping up with and responding to very lengthy posts like this (that keep growing as we keep responding) doesn't fit my lifestyle. So we need to figure out a way to pare down these exchanges.

I agree. There were two types of proselytes, I believe: Proselytes of the Gate and Proselytes of Righteousness. It appears that Cornelius was at least a Proselyte of the gate:

Acts 10:2 ... a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

Acts 10:22 "... a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews ..."

I agree with you.

Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 2:14-15 seems to describe a man like Cornelius, and I believe it was that type of Gentile Paul had in mind when he wrote Ephesians 2:15. It appears it was not only the "enmity" that separated them, but the "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," which I believe is a specific reference to the Book of the Law (the Mosaic ordinances for uncleanness that were abrogated according to Col 2:14 cf. Deut 31:26 and Deut 6:25).

Both types of proselytes were connected to Israel in a way. Both would receive blessings as a result of that connection. The full-blown proselytes, or "proselytes of righteousness", were effectively Israelites themselves by virtue of their circumcision and abiding by the things required of Israel. The Romans (to whom Paul wrote his epistle) would be these type of Gentiles. The "proselytes at the gate", like Cornelius (it seems) weren't circumcised but would abide by Israel's laws within the "gates" of Israel. They would also bless Israel and would, in turn, be blessed by God (per the promise to Abram in Gen. 12). These are also referred to in Zech 12 as those who, in the latter days when the kingdom is established, will come unto Jerusalem yearly to worship the king.

Paul went to Ephesus during his Acts ministry. Per his Acts commission, he always went to the synagogue in each city, first (unless there wasn't a synagogue, as appears to be the case in Phillipi, though he still went to the Jew first there). Ephesus is no different:

And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. Acts 18:19​

In the synagogues were both Israelites and Gentile proselytes (Acts 13:16, 42, e.g.). So in Ephesus, his commission would take him first to those that were part of the commonwealth of Israel. But also in Ephesus were other Gentiles that did not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Think of the pagans in Acts 19:23-41 who crafted idols and worshipped Diana. Paul's ministry during Acts was not to these type of Gentiles. His commission was to those connected with Israel (though of course the message of God's grace was applicable to even the pagans).

The Ephesians to whom he wrote his epistle had no connection with Israel at all. They were not the same Ephesians he had gone to while in Ephesus. Paul had (like the Romans) only heard of their faith.

Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints... Eph. 1:15​

They had no connection to the commonwealth of Israel.

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world... Eph. 2:12​

Unlike proselytes, these Ephesians were strangers from the covenants of promise.

I believe the timing is implicit in the phrase "even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." In my view, it was because of those Mosaic ordinances regarding uncleanness there was a perceived necessity of enmity between Jews and Gentiles. That seems evident in Peter's statement to Cornelius:

Acts 10:28 "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean..."

In my view, Peter's statement links the enmity between Jew and Gentile to the Mosaic ordinances regarding uncleanness. That is why I focused on the abrogation of the ordinances in my explanation of when the new man of Ephesians 2:15 began.

I agree that the "enmity" is the law of commandments contained in the ordinances, because that's exactly what the text says. The question, though, is when the law was abrogated. We see many zealous Jews keeping the law and sacrificing late into Acts. Was the law abrogated for them? While we see Peter being given a message about God making Gentiles clean, we don't see Peter, James, or John teaching that the law, for their audience (Israelites awaiting the promises) was done away with. We never see them telling their audience that one can be justified apart from the law. Yet we do see Paul teaching that.

I believe that when Jesus forgave sin without sacrifice before the cross, and told men they were clean, and "clean every whit" before the cross, and healed people of infirmities that made them unclean under the law, he was doing so as high priest, necessitating a change in the law (mercy without sacrifice, forgiveness and cleanness without legal rituals, i.e. the righteousness of God without the law).

I don't agree, but I hear you.

In my opinion, the phrase "by the cross" does not mean the crucifixion of the body of Jesus or the timing of that crucifixion event caused the abolition of enmity or ordinances in every person's heart, but means that each person's death on the cross accomplishes the abolition in his heart (Mt 16:24, Ro 6:6, Gal 2:20).

With the context of Eph. 2 being about what Jesus Himself did, and by using the phrase "the cross" as opposed to "our cross", then I can't accept that it's not talking about His crucifixion.

In my view, Jesus is not demanding adherence to the law, but telling people to not be hypocrites.

I quoted a passage in Matt. 23 where he says they should have tithed, AND kept the weightier matters of the law. He regularly commanded adherence to the law. Certainly you're right in that He rebuked hypocrisy. And with that, surrounding that, all over His earthly ministry, He commanded adherence to the law.

It appears to me that Paul taught the same thing Jesus was saying in those verses you've referenced:

Romans 2:23-27 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

The Romans were proselytes. They were circumcised, law-keepers (at least to some extent, enough in their own minds to make them right), who were called "Jews" by virtue of those things. So in Romans 2, he uses the law they claim to follow to condemn them. Makes sense for him to use that approach with them. He wouldn't use that approach for pagans, like the Ephesians (epistle), though.

This may be a good time to mention the narrow way again, and to ask you: how did the uncircumcision fulfil the law? How do the Gentiles "do by nature the things of the law?" Romans 2:14. My answer is they fulfil the law by living Matthew 7:12, which I believe is the narrow way--the righteousness of God without the law. I believe Matthew 7:12 is the righteousness of God without the law because if, for example, I show you mercy when you deserve to be executed (like David and Bathsheba), I am disregarding the letter of the law to show you that mercy, and I am doing to you what I would want you to do to me. Frankly, I can't imagine an easier yoke or lighter burden (Mt 11:30).

In my view, Jesus explained what the law meant (Mt 7:12). It seems that is the change in the law (Heb 7:12) that does not effect one jot or tittle because the abrogation of the law (the righteousness of God without the law) is witnessed by the law and the prophets (Ro 3:21). In other words, it appears the future abrogation of the law was always part of the law and prophets, e.g. Jer 31:31-32. We can think of it as contractual clause that always existed that places one above the letter of the law, as God is above the law, e.g. David ate the holy bread that was unlawful to eat, yet was blameless.

As I've said before, I believe it's fair to use "narrow way" as a general phrase for following Christ. But you keep referring to "the narrow way" that Jesus refers to in Matt. 7. So you'll need to show how He is using it the way you're using it. In context, the way He uses the phrase has nothing to do with "the righteousness of God without the law."

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Romans 13:9 ... and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

In my view, Paul taught what Jesus told his disciples to do.

There were many things that each commission had in common with one another. God, throughout all times and all dispensations, or course commands people to love others. I also showed above why Paul addressed the Romans the way he did.

I don't agree, though, that Paul was teaching the SAME message about love that Jesus was teaching in John 13. Jesus had a very specific point that he develops, using foot washing in John 13 as an example, and taking it to its conclusion in John 15. Something that should strike anyone that knows the scriptures is this: Jesus said, "A NEW commandment I give you, that you love one another." But...the command to love one another was not NEW. It was built into the very heart of the law itself.

Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Deut. 10:19

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. Lev. 19:18​

So loving one another wasn't new. Jesus was referring to a specific WAY to love that was new. And he was demonstrating that something that He would do would be the example of how to love each other. His message of that "new commandment" to love culminates in John 15 with the idea that they will need to show their love for one another by being willing to die for their brethren. Loving one another even unto death was the "new commandment" He was giving them.

I don't perceive that Peter was preaching the requirement of ordinances in Acts 2:38. Can you elaborate?

Water baptism was an ordinance.

I don't understand how that would relate to keeping ordinances for justification, or how living communally would amount to preaching communal living for justification. Am I understanding you?

No. I'm sorry. My only point was that the apostles were continuing on with Jesus' teachings, even after He had ascended, for that is what He commanded them to do. He commanded, during His earthly ministry, to do and teach many things, and they obeyed him.

I don't perceive he was commanding them to sell everything they owned and give it to the poor, or sell everything God gave them at the expense of providing for the children God gave them, or at the expense of their communal living. His message appears deeper than that to me. In my view, Jesus wanted them to value their neighbor as themselves versus selfish materialism, and there are at least several ways that can appear.

Sure, there was a heart matter that he addressed. But it doesn't change the fact that He told them to sell all they had, etc. With the kingdom being at hand, as He preached, they would have no need for earthly possessions.

What would collective repentance look like, and why would God require that?

After I hit "submit" here, I'll next post an article I wrote that addresses Israel's required confession. I don't have the time or energy at the moment to continue here.

As I mentioned at the beginning, I won't be able to keep up with long posts like this. When I log into TOL (which I do multiple times daily, just to read a few things), I rarely have much time to make any kind of substantive posts. When I see a lengthy post to which I'm being asked to reply, then the longer it is, the longer it will take me to even think about being able to get to it. So let's figure out a way to pare down these things.

I know there are a few things left to answer in your post. I'm happy to address point as best I can. It would make it easier, though, if you could pick out a single point that is most important to you, and post that asking for a response. After we wrap that up, then you can move on to the next one. Will that work for you?

]

 

[chickenman]

Doormat, you commented how you're "just not seeing the change, yet." I understand. I don't think it's possible, for someone who is firmly grounded in what he believes (like you are) to be able to see, as long as we keep discussing details like this. That's why I noted earlier that without discussing foundational things, then discussing details doesn't help much. So hopefully when we wrap up this particular round of your questions we can do just that.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[chickenman]

Here's the article I referenced. I wrote it with a specific purpose, different than posting on TOL. So it might read a little weird in parts ("this author's view", etc."). But I don't feel up to tailoring it to TOL. I'll just copy and paste.

It's long, so you may not want to take the time (I'd understand). But if you do, it should do a fair job in helping you understand some of the foundational aspects of my MidActs position, Doormat.




Israel’s Required Confession
by Randy Arendell


Purpose of the Article
This author’s intention is to demonstrate what was required of the individuals of the nation of Israel in order for them to receive the promises God made to her forefathers regarding the nation as a whole. In doing so, it will also be shown why the nation was set aside for a time and what became of those who remained faithful to their calling.


The Unconditional Promises to a Nation

God made several promises for the nation of Israel. The land promise, originally given to Abram, was made only on the condition that Abram would come out of Ur and to Canaan.

Now the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee…
And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land… Gen. 12:1, 7​

After Abram came to Canaan, the promise became an unconditional one that would be reiterated throughout the centuries as being a promise to Abram’s descendents…specifically the children of Israel.

To Isaac…

Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed… Gen. 26:3-4​

To Jacob…

And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed… Gen. 28:13​

To Moses…

And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Ex. 3:8​

To Jeremiah…

For, lo, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it. Jer. 30:3​

To Ezekiel…

And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Ez. 37:25​

This land promise was unconditional for Israel because of Abraham’s obedience.

…because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Gen. 26:5​

Therefore, the actions of individuals in the nation would not have any bearing on this promised being delivered. God certainly had and has the prerogative to deliver it when He sees fit, however long that may take, but it is nevertheless an unconditional promise, set in stone due to Abraham’s obedience.

Later, God would also promise a kingdom in this promised land.

To David…

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. II Sam. 7:12, 16​

And lest any think that promise was fulfilled with Solomon:

To Isaiah…

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. Is. 2:2​

And to Ezekiel…

And say to them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all. Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have on shepherd; they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Ez. 37: 21-25​

You can see the connection between these two promises. The promised kingdom would be in the promised land. Two promises, yet delivered together. With this, God also promised to enter into a new covenant with them.

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Jer. 31:31​

This covenant would be with those of the northern kingdom, or house, of Israel and with the southern kingdom, or house, of Judah. You also saw in the Ezekiel passage above how both of these houses will be made one, reunited together in the land from which they were scattered abroad. And upon being united and entering into the new covenant, they will receive the corresponding promises of having their iniquity forgiven and sins forgotten forevermore (Jer. 31:34), as well as other related promises shown in Daniel 9:24 and elsewhere.

Like the land promise, the promise of the kingdom and entry into the new covenant were also both unconditional, since they applied to the nation as a whole, as opposed to being promises guaranteed to individual members of the nation. This is a very important idea to know and grasp. The promises were national in nature. So while faithful David (for example) the individual, will partake of the land, kingdom, and new covenant in the resurrection to take place in the future, it will be because he was not cut off from the nation. The promises were national in nature, so those who remained faithful members of the nation will inherit the land, kingdom, and new covenant promises.

Recall the land promise originally given to Abram in Genesis 12. God said it was for his seed.

And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land… Gen. 12:7​

So that is clearly a corporate/national promise. But later God places the first conditions upon which an INDIVIDUAL would be able to partake, or not, of that promise.

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen. 17:10, 14​

This concept of an individual being removed from the chance of partaking of the national promises is seen later, as well, prior to Israel entering into Canaan.

Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; and repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face. Thou shall therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them. Deut. 7:9-11​

So it should be abundantly clear that the promises of the land, kingdom, and new covenant were corporate promises, and that individuals could be cut off from the nation and thus miss out on receiving them.


Conditional timing

God also later said, through Paul, that the promises were irrevocable.

For the gifts (to Israel, in context) and calling of God are without repentance. Rom. 1:29​

This makes sense, after seeing the passages noted above. A promise made to a man could not be done away with based on the actions of other men. However, the timing of delivery was never something that was in stone.

To Jeremiah, God said that He could promise to do something but then relent, depending upon the actions of the recipient(s) of that promise.

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounce, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. Jer. 18:7-10​

The message is clear: If God says He will do good for a nation, and they do not obey Him, then He can relent.

Jesus reiterates this idea, specifically with His people in mind, in a parable.

He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: and if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. Luke 13:6-9​

There is a clear parallel to Jesus earthly ministry shown in this parable. God the Father is the “certain man” seeking fruit for three years (through His Son, Jesus, during the earthly ministry) among the nation of Israel (the fig tree). Finding none near the end of that term, He is ready to cut it down. This action would have been acceptable, as we can see from Jeremiah that it is His prerogative to do so. However, the parable tells us that Jesus, the “dresser” wished to take another year to cultivate it. This would undoubtedly be the year following His crucifixion, where His chosen apostles acted on His authority to reach their countrymen. The stoning of Stephen likely marks that end of that year (of attempting to cultivate the fig tree more), as Jesus is seen standing to judge the nation.

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Ps. 110:1

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. Mark 16:19

But [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of god, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7:55​

The promises to the nation were unconditional. They were irrevocable. But it should be clear, even to the one who disagrees with this author’s conclusion about what Stephen saw, that the timing of the delivery of the promises was definitely not set in stone. The timing was conditional.

An individual could be removed from the right to receive the national promises. But what would prompt God to cut off the entire nation (again, temporarily), not just an individual? Jeremiah is told that it is disobedience to God’s commands. But to what extent? How many of the nation would have to be disobedient to prompt God to do such a thing? The question, as worded, might be impossible to answer. So instead of looking at what they could do to be cut off, let us look at what God would require from them collectively in order for him to deliver. Let us look at the confession He demanded from the nation as a whole.


National Confession Required
The representatives of the people of Israel made a serious promise to God at Sinai. Upon Moses delivering to them the words the Lord commanded him, we see their response:

And Moses called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord. Ex. 19:7-8​

God had made an oath, by way of a covenant with Abraham, to deliver his descendants into a special land. He intended on delivering on that promise.

…that I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a land flowing with mild and honey, as it is this day… Jer. 11:5​

And though that was an unconditional promise, he still expected individuals to be obedient or there would be consequences. They said they would do what He said (“All that the Lord hath spoken we will do”), and He demanded they keep their word. In Leviticus 26, God told Israel about the rewards they would receive if they were obedient to him in the land. And He told them of their punishments if they chose to disobey Him. For instance:

…I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. Lev. 26:16-17​

The list goes on, showing how their punishments would increase the longer they disobeyed. If they chose to disobey and experienced all the punishments God laid out, they could still, afterward, be restored. He said:

If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; and that I also have walked contrary unto the, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. Lev. 26:40-42​

We know the story. They entered the land and very quickly acted against the Lord’s commands. So for a long period of time, they experienced the curses God promised. The period of the Judges has their enemies raiding them and reigning over them for centuries. The promised curses of drought and wild beasts and pestilence are all brought to bear. And the list of curses in Leviticus culminates in them being scattered among the heathen (Lev. 26:33-39) to give the land the rest required by God. We see that happen as both kingdoms (northern kingdom of Israel; southern kingdom of Judah) are invaded and scattered (Assyria and Babylon, respectively).

Throughout all those centuries of Israel’s disobedience and God, therefore, intensifying His punishments on them, the promise of Lev. 26:40-42 still stood. All they had to do – NATIONALLY – was to confess their iniquity and return their hearts to Him, and He would restore them. Solomon knew this when he prayed:

“When thy people Israel be smitten down before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee, and shall turn again to thee, and confess thy name, and pray, and make supplication unto thee in this house; then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy people Israel, and bring them again unto the land which thou gavest unto their fathers.” I Kings 8:33-34​

There were faithful men in the nation (Ezra, Daniel, etc.), but God required a national confession…national repentance…in order for Him to deliver the promises to the nation. He was holding out until He got that national response.

Recognizing the need for national repentance, some prayed on behalf of the entire nation in hopes of turning away God’s wrath.

Isaiah prayed:

…behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou has hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou are potter; and we all are the work of thy h and. Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither remember iniquity for ever: behold, see, we beseech thee, we are all thy people. Is. 64:5(a)-9​

In the days of Hezekiah, Micah cried out:

Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old. Micah 7:18-20​

God desired this repentant heart from the nation, and men like Isaiah and Micah pleaded with God to turn his wrath from the nation and deliver that which He had promised. They knew that only by doing so would they be able to enter into that new covenant where He would “cast all their sins into the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:19).

Daniel, discerning the time nearing the end of captivity in Babylon, said:

And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said, “O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love Him, and to them that keep His commandments; we have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments; neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.” Dan. 9:4-5​

The response to Daniel’s prayer of supplication and confession, on behalf of his countrymen, was the Lord sending an angel to tell Daniel of God’s plans. While, according to the word to Jeremiah, they would indeed come out of captivity after a total of 70 years, that would not be the fulfillment of the promises. Those would come after another 490 years (70 “weeks”) from a king’s decree (Dan. 9:25). So even though a faithful man was making the required confession, the nation as a whole was still going to have to wait. In this case, they would get 490 years to make their national confession, to repent, and turn their uncircumcised hearts to the Lord.

Ezra, after leaving Babylon and going back to Jerusalem to rebuild, said:

And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, “Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure; and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from strange wives.” Ez. 10:10-11​

He’s pleading for them, his countrymen, to confess their iniquity collectively. This would allow God to stop punishing them. But as we can see from Daniel 9, they would still have to wait, AS A NATION, to receive the ultimate promises God had made to Jeremiah, David, and their forefathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).

Zoom way up to the time that approached the end of 483 years (the 7 weeks + 62 weeks of Daniel 9)… the time approaching the cutting off of Messiah. What was going on? John the Baptist was crying out for repentance from the nation, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Jesus and the appointed Twelve were preaching “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. So, those that were being baptized were repenting and making the required confession.

And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Matt. 3:6​

The confession would not be a detailing of all they and their forefathers had ever done wrong. Rather, it was a confession of unbelief…confessing that they had been unfaithful and were now repenting of the fact that they had turned from God. As Daniel and Micah prayed, the people of the nation as a whole were to confess that they had turned from God and recognized their need to save them. So throughout early Acts, the apostles are preaching that the men of Israel needed to repent. They had rejected their Messiah, He was waiting in heaven to return, and they needed to repent so He would do so.

Now when they (“men of Israel”, 2:22) heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:37-38

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts 3:19-21​

Notice the result of this repentance. Just as foretold by Jeremiah and Daniel, they would have their sins blotted out. And Peter’s statement about Jesus returning in response to their corporate repentance is as seen in Ezekiel, where it was foretold that the Lord would return and Shepherd them in their promised land. This is the new covenant promise made to the houses of Israel and Judah. The early period of the Acts has nothing to do with the dispensation of grace and the one new man. It is clear that the offer of the promises God made to Israel’s forefathers is being made to the men of Israel there in that early Acts period. They just needed to make the required confession in order to receive those promises as a nation.

At Peter’s (with the Twelve’s) preaching in early Acts, many believed, repenting and being baptized as was required. But a great many more refused to believe that their Messiah had come. They continued in their rebellion against God. According to the timeline given to Daniel in Daniel 9 (where it was said that Messiah would be cut off after 69 weeks, then another week would follow), the time was approaching for the new covenant promises to be fulfilled. Yet the nation as a whole still rejected Him, thus failing to give the required confession of their corporate iniquity against God.

So according to the principle set forth to Jeremiah in Jeremiah 18 and reiterated by Jesus in the parable of Luke 13, God exercised His right to not deliver on the promises when He said He would. He cut off the nation, halting that prophetic timeline for a time. He wanted to use them to reach the Gentile world, but their mass rejection of Him compelled Him to choose to unfold another plan that He had planned on at some point anyway, but that He had kept hidden from the foundation of the world. He called out Paul, commissioning him with a unique apostleship to deliver a message that had been hidden until then. This is a topic for a different article. But it is necessary to discuss what happened to those believing Israelites after Israel was cut off and Paul was called out.


The Little Flock and their Call to Patience

The promises were to be delivered to a nation of faithful people. Overwhelmingly, though, the Israelites were an unfaithful people. Jesus told the supposed religious leaders of the nation:

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matt. 21:43​

The chief priests and Pharisees, to whom Jesus spoke, were wicked. They represented the nation, and Jesus declared that they would have no part of the promised kingdom. So who is the “nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” to whom He said the kingdom would be given? Many today say it is us: Gentiles. Or the Body of Christ. But Jesus tells the reader elsewhere. To His chosen apostles, He said:

Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Luke 12:23 (Aside: like when He wanted to kill the nation and start over with Moses in Ex. 32)​

God would take the kingdom away from the wicked nation as a whole and give it to a “nation bearing forth the fruits thereof”. The chosen apostles were the start of this nation. And by believing the message preached by the apostles after Jesus departed, those who believed would become part of that nation. By doing so, God was still intent on delivering the promises to the flesh and blood seed (who were faithful) of Abraham, as promised. Israel was still to be the recipient of the promises, but it would be a new (so to speak) nation, made up of faithful people, that began with the chosen apostles and filled by those who believed and had made the required confession.

This “little flock” awaited the promises of old. So what happened to them when God turned aside from delivering on that which was foretold for Israel? They awaited incredible promises of a new Jerusalem, a land flowing with milk and honey in which the house of the Lord would sit on the mountaintop, the nations flowing to it, ruled over by the One King and One Shepherd, the very Man Jesus Christ who they rightly believed to be their promised Messiah. Was that hope no more for them?

Many believe they became part of the “one new man” of which Paul was the first member. However, I believe they remained in the same calling and were exhorted to remain faithful and patient for those promises to still come about.

God never said for how long He would keep Israel in that state (of being cut off, put on par with the rest of the world). I see no indication anywhere of a specified time period. In fact, the epistle writers seem to be expecting that the Lord would return soon. With the scattered tribes apparently losing patience, heart, and faith, Peter wrote to them:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” II Peter. 3:9​

God was holding off on the promises, wanting all to come to repentance.

They were expecting the promises to have already been fulfilled. Scoffers were saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (II Pet. 3:4), and the Israelites seemed to have lost heart that He would actually deliver. Peter’s epistles were admonitions to them to be patient. “He’s still coming.” “Keep enduring and remaining faithful.” As far as Peter was concerned, He could return any time. So he was continuing to operate as he was called, and encouraging his audience to faithfully do the same.

The author of Hebrews gives a similar exhortation as he writes:

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Heb. 10:35-37​

So here is the key. Those who believed early in Acts, repenting, being baptized, enduring, following the commandments, abiding in Christ, etc., were never explicitly told THAT they had been cut off or (after it became apparent that something had happened) for how long God was delaying. They were still looking for their earthly hope of abiding in the promised land with their one King, one Shepherd, one Lord Jesus Christ. God had cut off the nation as a whole from the promises, but He could have returned to that plan at any time. Hence, the writings of Hebrews through Revelation to exhort the audience to be faithful, even through the fiery trials that they were about to supposedly endure.

The masses of the nation failed to repent and give their national confession, so as a whole they were cut off. The few faithful, though, while having to wait longer for delivery of the promises, were to remain faithful to the end, not knowing when He would return to the plan for them. Now that they have long ago died and been buried, after God returns to that program one day in the future, then those will be resurrected into that earthly kingdom and receive the promises they awaited during their lives.

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of days. Dan. 12:2-3, 13

Marvel not a this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:28-29​

 

[Tambora]

bump

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The few faithful, though, while having to wait longer for delivery of the promises, were to remain faithful to the end, not knowing when He would return to the plan for them.

Those believers were to take part in the new plan, the one for the body of Christ. They were waiting for an imminent coming of the lord Jesus, and the only imminent coming is the rapture. here James speaks of that coming:

"Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh (eggizō)" (James 5:8).​

The Greek word translated "draweth nigh" at James 5:8 is eggizō and in this verse that word means "to be imminent" (A Greek English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], 467).

Mid Acts dispensational teacher Paul Sadler says the following about the imminent rapture:

"According to Paul’s gospel the Rapture is "imminent," that is, it could take place at any moment. There are no signs, times, or seasons that will precede this glorious event" [emphasis mine] (Sadler, "The Present Obsession With the Anti-Christ," The Berean Searchlight, June, 1999, 7).​

He also says that only those in the body of Christ will be raptured:

"The 'secret' resurrection that will take place at the Rapture should never be confused with the 'first' resurrection at the Second Coming of Christ. Those who rightly divide the Word of truth now see that only the members of the Body of Christ will be raised at the Rapture" [emphasis mine] (Sadler, Exploring the Unsearchable Riches of Christ [Stephens Point, WI: Worzalla Publishing Co., 1993], 167).​

Therefore, the book of James was addressed to members of the Body of Christ.

 

[john w]

Those believers were to take part in the new plan, the one for the body of Christ. They were waiting for an imminent coming of the lord Jesus, and the only imminent coming is the rapture. here James speaks of that coming:

"Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh (eggizō)" (James 5:8).​

The Greek word translated "draweth nigh" at James 5:8 is eggizō and in this verse that word means "to be imminent" (A Greek English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], 467).

Mid Acts dispensational teacher Paul Sadler says the following about the imminent rapture:

"According to Paul’s gospel the Rapture is "imminent," that is, it could take place at any moment. There are no signs, times, or seasons that will precede this glorious event" [emphasis mine] (Sadler, "The Present Obsession With the Anti-Christ," The Berean Searchlight, June, 1999, 7).​

He also says that only those in the body of Christ will be raptured:

"The 'secret' resurrection that will take place at the Rapture should never be confused with the 'first' resurrection at the Second Coming of Christ. Those who rightly divide the Word of truth now see that only the members of the Body of Christ will be raised at the Rapture" [emphasis mine] (Sadler, Exploring the Unsearchable Riches of Christ [Stephens Point, WI: Worzalla Publishing Co., 1993], 167).​

Therefore, the book of James was addressed to members of the Body of Christ.

"The Greek word translated "draweth nigh" at James 5:8 is eggizō and in this verse that word means "to be imminent" (A Greek English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], 467). "-Jerry


Is this also the plucking out, rapture:?


Luke 21:28 KJV
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.


_____________
Rapture?

Luke 21 KJV

6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.

10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:

15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.

18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.





Luke 21:28 KJV "draweth nigh"

James 5:8 KJV "draweth nigh."


Ezekiel was written when?:


Ezekiel 30:3 KJV
For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.

 

[ttruscott]

I've asked what MAD was a number of times and was always ignored...so thanks.

Peace, Ted

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Is this also the plucking out, rapture:?

Luke 21:28 KJV
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

No, because the redemption spoken of will not happen until "all these things come to pass." Therefore, it cannot be described as being imminent. Once again I will quote Sadler where he explains these things:

"According to Paul’s gospel the Rapture is "imminent," that is, it could take place at any moment. There are no signs, times, or seasons that will precede this glorious event" [emphasis mine] (Sadler, "The Present Obsession With the Anti-Christ," The Berean Searchlight, June, 1999, 7).​

The rapture can take place at any moment while the verse you quote says that certain events must happen before their redemption draws near.

 

[DAN P]

I am interested.

I don't find it convincing, but I want to know why some people do.

In my opinion, it is clear that the message of Jesus and his instructions to the apostles are universal.

I wondered how they reconciled his words with their beliefs.

Do you believe that Jesus only meant Jews when he said all nations?

Hi , and dan p already has a thread on Matt 28:19 and what NATION/ETHNO means , under the forum , Mid-Acts Dispensationalism ,

dan p

 

[godrulz]

I've asked what MAD was a number of times and was always ignored...so thanks.

Peace, Ted

You missed the answer, I guess. MAD=Mid-Acts dispensationalism, a hyper-disp view with roots in E.W. Bullinger, Stam, etc. A contingent on TOL embraces it, but most favor a more moderate disp view (Acts 2) or covenantalism.

It wrongly teaches two true post-cross gospels, limits non-Pauline NT books to Jewish Christians, etc.

 

[godrulz]

Hi , and dan p already has a thread on Matt 28:19 and what NATION/ETHNO means , under the forum , Mid-Acts Dispensationalism ,

dan p

The plural has a different meaning than the singular. There is also a range of meaning with many words depending on context.

MAD is wrong to deny the Great Commission for most NT believers.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You missed the answer, I guess. MAD=Mid-Acts dispensationalism, a hyper-disp view with roots in E.W. Bullinger, Stam, etc. A contingent on TOL embraces it, but most favor a more moderate disp view (Acts 2) or covenantalism.

As usual, the truth is not in you. From the beginning the dispensationalism of Bullinger was rejected by the Mid Acts dispensationalists.

A "dispensation" is in regard to a "stewardship" that is given to man from God in order to carry out a specific task. Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).​

"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" (Col.1:25).​

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

Many of those of the moderate dispensational view admit that Paul was the first to preach the gospel of grace.

Therefore, the idea that the present dispensation of grace did not begin until sometime after Paul was converted is confirmed by many leaders of the Acts 2 community.

 

[godrulz]

We agree to disagree. Your view is more moderate than MAD here and Bullinger, but I still don't buy it.