glorydaz
Well-known member
I like the idea that a door was opened in heaven. I hadn't really noticed that before.
The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?
- Thread starter Arial
- Start date
Arial
Active member
I have a question about that. If Revelation is for believing Jews only, if it was written to believing Jews only----as has been said by some----why is that book in our Bible? I guess I would have the same question about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and all the epistles not written by Paul.
Some think Paul preached a gospel that was not known in the OT.
But what they mean by "written for us but not to us" is akin to Noah being told to build an ark.
We can glean from the story that YHWH is the Most High God, thus the one we should place our faith in; but that "build an ark" part was not written to us to do.
In other words it was a command for Noah only.
Right Divider
Body part
The entire Bible is the truth.
I don't think Arial questions that.
Right Divider
Body part
And yet he was asking why Jewish stuff is in the Bible.
That's what you thought her question was?
Hmmm.
Right Divider
Body part
glorydaz
Well-known member
If we didn't have Genesis, we wouldn't know about Creation....every book of the Bible is written for us. Not every book is written to us. It wouldn't be the Bible if we didn't know what God has been doing from the beginning. Of course the Gospels are in the Bible because we can see Jesus walking among us and dying on the cross. Revelation was written for us so we can warn the unbelievers to get right with God before He brings His wrath upon this world.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Arial
Active member
That is true of the entire OT, but does not really answer the question. God chose, for His own reasons, to reveal Himself in a covenantal saving way to and through Israel, but His plan was not for Israel only but ultimately for the whole world. And yes I know there were other covenants outside of or before Israel was a nation in the land. The shadow of the coming of Christ and and promise of Him actually began in the garden. A specific covenant of redemption for Jew and Gentile alike was made with Abraham----the covenant of faith.
Only Israel had the OT writings, God was working at that time only through them, but it was and is, now, for all. I see the NT making no such distinction as some of it applying to Jews and primarily for them, and another for Gentile, when it comes to salvation. There is one salvation, not one for Gentiles and another for national Israel.
True but yet all THROUGH Israel!
Then how does that NOT undermine your entire thesis?
Exactly, and so, unlike your inaccurate characterizations of what Dispensationalism teaches, the Body of Christ was not an after thought, nor was it a plan B.
Because Israel was cut off! (Romans 11)
Your blindness to (i.e. refusal to see) a thing doesn't make it disappear.
Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:
“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.
Two women: one in bondage, the other free.Two children: one of the flesh, the other of the Spirit.
Two covenants: one of law, the other of grace.
Two people groups: one the Jews only, the other everyone (i.e. there is now no distinction between Jew and Gentile).
Acts 21:17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”
Sure sounds to me like two different things, one applying to believing Jews and the other to the Gentiles! The book of Acts is in the New Testament, the last time I checked!
Saying it doesn't make it so, Arial! You couldn't establish this claim biblically, if you tried, which you would never do.
Questions that Arial would never answer....
Was circumcision (i.e. obedience to the Law of Moses) ever REQUIRED of the Jews (whether natural born or proselyte) for salvation?
Is it required of a Jew today?
Clete
Not for salvation of eternal life because one could be circumcised in the flesh and not gain eternal life, such as some Pharisees and Judas.
Paul tells us that Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision, and that the law that came later cannot annul it.
Paul also informs us that if there could have been any law at all that could grant eternal life then Christ died in vain.
All you've established with this observation is that circumcision was not ALL that was required for salvation, that circumcision did not cause salvation. It does not establish that circumcision wasn't required at all.
In other words, any Jew that refused circumcision would not have been saved. Instead, he himself would have been cut off. (Genesis 17:14)
Abraham was a special case. He was intentionally used to symbolize two groups of believers. This is specifically why I added "obedience to the Law of Moses" to my question.
Again, this merely indicates that obedience to the law as not ALL that was required. It does not argue that obedience to the law was optional. Faith has always been the real key factor. Under the law one had to have faith which was made manifest through good works and obedience to the law (James 2). The degree to which obedience to the law as impossible is the degree to which God's grace played a role in the previous dispensation. The point being that obedience to the law absolutely was required of those who were under the law.
Clete
P.S. Thank you, by the way, for making an actually argument. Arial could learn a lesson or two.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Doesn't Acts 15:20 indicate that, while they aren't under perhaps the "whole" law, that Gentiles are nonetheless required to obey some of the law?
The covenant pertaining to the law was to obey the whole law or be guilty of all.
The council at Jerusalem it was asked why should the burden that none of the fathers could keep be placed on anyone.
Israel always broke the covenant.
To remain in the covenant one needed to be circumcised along with keeping the whole law.
Israel always broke the covenant.
And as the NT tells us, if the old covenant had been faultless then there would be no need for a new one.
Right, obedience to the whole law was require, and yet none kept it.
Sacrifices were also of the law and the NT tells us that the blood of bulls and goats never took away sin.
Again, if the old covenant had been faultless then there would be no need for a new one.
Arial
Active member
You are defeating your own theory but not answering the question. Or perhaps you don't understand the question?
glorydaz
Well-known member
You're talking about this question? Seriously?
"I have a question about that. If Revelation is for believing Jews only, if it was written to believing Jews only----as has been said by some----why is that book in our Bible? I guess I would have the same question about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and all the epistles not written by Paul."
I certainly understood it was a foolish question to begin with, and then, lo and behold, it got even more foolish as the "question" went on.
So, I decided to dumb it down enough for you to get the gist of why all of the Biblie is FOR US.
No!
You cannot be required to obey some of the law. (Galatians 5 & James 2)
If you abstain from sexual immorality because there's a list of rules on the wall that tells you that you have to then you've got big problems, right?
And, Paul gives his converts explicit permission to eat meat sacrificed to idols. (I Corinthians 8).
This doesn't seem responsive to the point.
Was obedience to the law required or not? I'm not talking about sinless perfection because no one denies, not even the Jews of the time, that perfection is impossible. You're surely not suggesting that because perfection was impossible that people could just do whatever they wanted on the Sabbath and neglect their tithes and offerings, skip Passover and ignore the Feasts as well as any other part of the law you want to name.
Isn't it perfectly obvious that obedience to the law was required?
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
It should also be noted that the law contained what to do when one breaks the law. So it wasn't like a "dead-end" when an Israelite broke the law.