the saved reign to the ages of the ages
it is a plural : though it is spoken of post millenium history: in my opinion there is only one aion after the millenium
why is there a plural form ?
thank you very much
At this point John is looking to the future from His standpoint in Patmos.
We also see that the devil will be tormented for the eons of the eons, (Rev. 20:10) and yet it seems there is only one remaining eon. The truth is that the devil is cast into the LOF towards the end of our present eon.
Our present eon extends back to the flood, yet when Christ cursed the fig tree it was “henceforward for the eon” So when we refer to the eons of the eons, is does not need to refer to the entire time period of the eons of the eons, anymore than “henceforward for the eon” needs to refer to the entire period of our present eon.
Eons or ages overlap and can be grouped into larger categories. So it’s true that there is both only one more age to come, and also ages of ages. Moreover, the ages of ages are themselves (on this theory) part of the transitional overlapping period between ages.
This is why the scriptural authors (and Jesus by their report) talk sometimes about a new age still on the way and the current age ending eventually, and also about the new age having already started–there were even multiple starts (but not restarts) to the new age; and we have had several ages since the days of Christ’s earthly ministry already (though not specifically prefigured in the scriptures). Some Christian eschatologists have gone so far as to expect there will be seven ages from Christ’s first to second coming. (I don’t know I would try to number them, much less identify the divisions in some meaningfully significant schedule. But those people aren’t just pulling the idea out of their butts.)
Interestingly there is an age before Adam. This could explain the apperant discrepancies between scripture and science, if there are any discrepancies.
I am wondering Jason if the ages you are referring, is what some of us consider to be administrations, and dispensations?
( I am not sure)
There is also the re-adjustment of the ages Heb 11:3. “By faith we are apprehending the eons to have been readjusted to a declaration of God, so that what is being observed has not come out of what is apparent.”
When Israel rejected the Kingdom, and were set aside at the end of Acts, the eons were re-adjusted, so that what is being observed ‘present secret administration’ has not come out of what is apparent. There was a readjustment of the saints that had to occur because of the apostasy of Israel, Eph. 4:12
Yep, an age before Adam, too. 
(Possibly with its own sub-ages or ages-of-ages.)
Ages are definitely chronological periods, but ages tend to be identified by administrations and/or dispensations, which are not chronological periods per se. There are category differences, but since administrations and dispensations occur during significant swatches of chronological time, it’s easy for people to confuse them.
I wouldn’t go so far as to definitely identify administrations and dispensations in any systematic fashion, although neither do I begrudge other people taking a shot at that. (Unless by doing so they run up against more fundamental theological concepts, or engage in historical inanities, but then it would be the theological or historical inaccuracies I would be having a problem with. )
I don’t think this has anything to do with sequences or categorizations of the ages being adjusted by God from what they were into something different (the term doesn’t mean “re-adjusted” per se), but rather has to do with perceiving God’s supernatural actions in natural history: the things that happen in the Hebraist’s long subsequent list are thanks to God’s specially miraculous contributions, not what natural history would have brought about in its own workings (set up by God though those operations also are). Our natural system and its operations are observable, but God beyond Nature introduces effects into it, as well as giving it a general operational character and continually upkeeping it. The latter are providences, the former are miracles.
Um… Israel wasn’t set aside at the end of Acts. Paul’s citation of Isaiah was a standard reply to particular Jews rejecting Jesus as Savior, and had been used as such back by Jesus more than once. (Also by God through Isaiah originally, in regard to things Israel was already doing and had been long doing throughout their history, which God was complaining about.) There is no reason to infer from Paul’s rejection by representatives of one Roman synagogue at the end of Acts (and not even by all the representatives, since some accepted what Paul was preaching and disputed with the others present until they went home!) that that one particular synagogue somehow broke the camel’s back and Israel was set aside from then on, no sooner and no later.
Paul certainly isn’t talking about re-adjusting the saints due to apostasy of Israel in Eph 4 either: Israel’s apostasy isn’t even mentioned, and the context is about properly using gifts to build up the body of the Church so that we should all attain to the unity of the faith. Pastors and teachers join with evangelists, prophets and apostles toward training saints for the work of dispensing: there isn’t anything about readjusting saints due to something else that happened.
Thank you Jason, for your response. My friend!
I agree Ages are chronological periods. Often dispensationalists mix all these terms together, which is quite ironic when you think about it. An age is the longest period of time expressed in the scriptures, and a proper understanding of them is a death kneel to Eternal torment. So we can assume the teaching of the ages will never become popular to Christandum. It may not disprove E.T. (to some), but it becomes impossible to declare E.T as a teaching of scripture.
I feel there is nothing wrong in trying to identify administrations and dispensations in a systematic fashion, but I am sure even among Concordant believers there will be disagreement, however I wonder how many believers realize these are scriptural terms? Paul does mention a few of these administrations and so we should take him at his word, and use what he says as a learning opportunity, to better help us to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’ The fact is most Christandum is unaware of Paul’s teaching concerning certain specific administrations.
I feel the CLV translates this word properly. Admittedly I am weak in the original languages (though I did take Greek N.T. in college) Here is the verse in uniform standard sublinear:
PISTEI NooUMEN KAThRTISqAI
to-BELIEF WE-ARE-MINDING TO-HAVE-been-DOWN-EQUIPPED
TOUS AIwNAS RhMATI qEOU
THE EONS TO-DECLARATION of-GOD
EIS TO Mh EK fAINOMENwN
INTO THE NO OUT of-APPEARING
TO BLEPOMENON GEGONEN
THE being-LOOKED TO-HAVE-BECOME
“In the Authorized Version it is rendered mend (Matt.4:21; Mark 1:19), perfect (Matt.21:16; Luke 6:40; 2 Cor.13:11; 1 Thess.3:10; Heb.13:21; 1 Peter 5:10), fit (Rom. 9:22), restore (Gal.6:1), prepare (Heb.10:5), frame (Heb. 11:3), perfectly join together (1 Cor.1:10). Now it is evident, at once, that it is impossible to get the Mind of Inspiration through all these various renderings. The CONCORDANT VERSION uses the synonyms “readjust,” “adapt” and attune.” They are the secondary standard for DOWN-EQUIP, the first standard katartizoo.
By the study of the first use of the term in Matthew 4:21 and Mark 1:19, we get a graphic commentary on the word. In these Scriptures, we are told that James and John were in the ship “mending their nets” (King James Version). But this is very unusual. Fishermen are known to readjust their nets in their ships, so that there will be no trouble when they let them fall over the side for another catch, but seldom, indeed, do we know of them mending them on board. They are taken to a more roomy and convenient place for such work. But every time they are used, they must be folded or readjusted for the next catch. So this gives us the first evidence in favor of the rendering."
by Adlai Loudy, God’s Eonian Purpose.
If Israel had not been set aside at Acts 28, are you saying Israel was set aside earlier? Some may see the dividing line between the O.T and the N.T, but Paul says
"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers" (Rom. 15:8). So Israel was not set aside before the coming of Christ.
Some would see the death of Christ as bringing the end to Israel, but we read “Lord, art thou at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?” They were not given the answer by Christ. It is given by Paul in Acts 28.
Peter gives an explanation of Pentecost (so called birthday of the Church)
He refers to Joel (Acts 2:16-21) and David (Acts 2:29-31)
He does not refer to the secret administration!
The key to understanding the Acts period, is to know that the kingdom is being proclaimed one final time. Paul has a two fold ministry, (1) Jews first (2) Apostle to the nations.
The twelve apostles go entirely to the nation of Israel.
If Israel was not set aside at Acts 28 then when did it occur? The Prophet Hosiah makes it clear that Israel will become
la-ammi “not my people” He further says that
"The children of Israel shall abide many days without a KING, and without a PRINCE and without a SACRIFICE, and without an IMAGE, and without an EPHOD, and without TERAPHIM."
Since a few years later (after acts 28) the temple was destroyed, it suggests to me that Israel’s la-ammi comes on the heels of the closer of the Acts period.
Paul’s quoting from Isaiah the prophet was very significant. When Christ quoted from Isaiah the prophet His ministry changed. His Kingdom message had been rejected and He began to speak in parables, so that they would not understand his words.
Two things are very clear, that Israel had not been set aside sooner than Acts 28, and that with Paul’s prison ministry after Acts 28, we see that Israel has been set aside. I quote from C.H.Welch
“Israel were the people of God at the birth of Christ (Matt. 2:6), Israel were the people of God at the crucifixion (Acts. 4:27), Israel were a disobedient and gainsaying people, but still a “people” throughout the period of the Acts (Rom. 10:21). Israel were still a people when Paul reached Rome (Acts 28:17). The hope of Israel reaches to the 28th chapter of the Acts, and after that is heard no more until seen in the Prophetic visions of the book of the Revelation. A few years after the time of Acts 28, Jerusalem was destroyed, the temple razed to the ground, and Israel scattered. What greater evidence do we need to prove that at Acts 28 we reach a crisis?” - The Dispensational Frontier
Also a few years later, we begin to receive Paul’s last revelations, and He makes clear that He completes the word of God.
“to complete the word of God–the secret which has been concealed from the eons and from the generations, yet now was made manifest to His saints, to whom God wills to make known what are the glorious riches of this secret among the nations, which is: Christ among you…” (Col.1: 25-27).
Also when Paul is in Rome and giving his final speech he specifically says **“For on account of the expectation of Israel this chain is lying about me.” ** This event is actually quite significant. The kingdom had been heralded in Israel, and rejected by it’s leaders, it had also been heralded outside the land to the dispersion and also been rejected. Now Paul is imprisoned in Rome for the hope of Israel.
Acts is the sad account of the increasing apostasy of Israel. As Israel rejects the message, Paul’s ministry to the gentiles increases 'from glory to glory. When Stephen is stoned, Saul is introduced, when the disciples are scattered, Saul is called, when James is killed, Saul is severed, and now when Paul is imprisoned, the secret administration is revealed. Acts is about the downward path of Israel. It ends when Isaiah is quoted , and Paul says “Let it be known to you, then, that to the nations was dispatched this salvation of God, and they will hear” Acts 28.28
There was a special period of growth and transition from Paul’s call to this prison ministry. Now Paul is bringing the believers into perfection and maturity. Then the Jew was still first (Ro. 2:10) This is the period Paul talked about to the Corinthians “but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.” The body of Christ is not Israel, and it was only through the setting aside of Israel that the secret administration was able to begin. To understand Paul properly we need to know that his ministry went from glory to glory (2Cor. 3:18) and why it went from glory to glory.
“And He [Christ], indeed, it is Who gives the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers for the readjustment of the saints, with a view to the work of dispensing, for the upbuilding of the body of Christ, until we should all attain to the unity of faith, and the realization of a son of God, to mature manhood, to the adult stature of Christ’s complement, that we should no longer be minors,…” (Eph.4:11-14).
The book of Ephesians does testify “to something else that happened”. It is the context of the book itself.
We appear to have different copies of the CLV, as mine just translates it “to adjust”, without any implication, tacitly or explicitly, of re-adjusting. I was working from it when I wrote the previous comment.
The same term is translated with a past-tense concept in both versions of the Concordant Greek sublinears found in the pdfs at scripture4all.org: “to having been adjusted” or (as you reported) “to having been down-equipped”. There isn’t any intrinsic reason to translate it past-tense based on the word’s own construction; that’s purely a question of immediate context. But even if it’s translated to a previously completed past-tense operation, there’s nothing indicating a second adjustment (or re-adjustment), as though God had set the eons one way and then went back and adjusted them another way for some reason.
Your quoted commentary gives no reason why “re-adjust” (after a first adjustment) should be regarded the proper translation here instead of “adapt” or “attune”, which your commentary regards as “synonyms” (although “adapt” isn’t necessarily synonymous with “readjust” anyway).
That the term can mean “mend” or something actually synonymous with “re-adjust”, is indisputable, but the stated example regarding nets from GosMatt clearly sets the context: they aren’t making new nets but fixing old ones after a night’s work. Normally the term doesn’t mean that. No less than one chapter earlier the Hebraist himself uses the same term to refer to the Father creating a body for the Son–those are in fact two of the three times he uses the term, the other being at 13:21 where he prays that God will adapt or adjust the congregation to every good work. “Equip” (as you yourself reported from one of the CLV sublinears) is a better general translation; “train” or perhaps “empower” would be proper when teaching people (as in 13:21, or in your Ephesians citation).
I would have been more interested in what your commentaries said to differently account for 11:3 in its context than I did, since I went to the trouble of doing so myself.
Well they weren’t set aside back in Isaiah’s day in regard to being criticized by God thusly, and Paul says nothing about them being set aside at the end of Acts 28 when quoting Isaiah (or God through Isaiah rather). The only vague reason for supposing they’re being set aside at the end of Acts is that nothing of Paul’s life in Rome is narrated afterward aside from a quick report that he kept receiving visitors while under house arrest. But nothing at all has changed. Acts certainly doesn’t say that the Jews were from that time (much less for that reason) set aside.
I’m not convinced Israel was set aside so much as set themselves aside, and not all Israel but only those who reject Jesus as the Messiah. Paul has a lot to say about this in Romans 11 and earlier back through chapter 9. Even those who are not spiritual Israel, the ones who are stumbling over the stumbling stone for whom Paul has unceasing grief, still have the promises and the covenants and even Christ Himself.
If Israel per se was set aside by God no longer serving the purpose of being a light to the world and a witness to the nations, however, I expect that happened when Jesus departed from the Temple with the admonition that He would not return until His enemies welcomed Him in the name of the Lord. I’m not convinced God entirely set them aside from that purpose even then (although no doubt they can only be a secondary witness so long as they are not Christian), but from a narrative and thematic standpoint Christ’s dramatic departure would make the most sense. More on that in a minute.
According to the prophets they were set aside for a while in a cultic relationship sense (which in turn definitely had connection to them being a witness to the nations, since no other nation could claim to have the living Presence of YHWH in their temples) during the Babylon captivity, but then were brought back into a stronger fellowship with God. I say “stronger” because even in the great captivity they were not completely set aside (or there would have been no prophets), but the whole reason that the Jews kept trying to upgrade the Temple was because they perceived that for some reason they still were set aside–mainly due to a lack of the return of the Presence of YHWH to the Temple. (Although a lack of authorized prophets also was a serious problem. Some later rabbis complained that the synagogue system worked directly against God sending new prophets, since no prophet had ever not criticized Israel, but one of the chief rules of guest speakers at a synagogue was that under no circumstance should Israel be criticized, the synagogues having been instituted for the consolation of Israel instead.)
Having not perceived the return of the Presence of YHWH to the Temple, in and as the Messiah, the Presence departed once again. Some non-Christian rabbis themselves later admitted that something had happened which rendered their sacrifices null and void for 40 years before the fall of the Temple.
That question was asked by apostles who didn’t understand, and as you note Christ doesn’t answer one way or another about the kingdom. Besides which, based on their prior expectations they were asking whether Israel would finally become its own kingdom under a Davidic king once again, out from under Roman rule, and I’m pretty sure that’s not what you’re talking about at all.
Except that Paul in Acts 28 certifies the kingdom of God, without talking about whether Israel is or is not being restored to anything. All he says against some (not all) Jews, is to quote Isaiah in regard to the unbelief of some of the local Roman Jews, just as Jesus had done before him (and in fact as Isaiah had done). Then he adds God’s salvation is being dispatched to the Gentiles, and that they’ll accept it. He certainly doesn’t say that God’s salvation would henceforth be dispatched only to the Gentiles instead; neither do any of your quoted sources dare suggest that.
Your position might be stronger if you actually bothered to argue from details in Acts 28 which supported your contention, rather than vaguely referring to Acts 28.
I guess I’m willing to agree he didn’t refer to any secret administration. Neither, notably, does he say that Israel is being set aside. On the contrary, his whole thrust by means of those references was to announce that the fulfillment of Israel is now at hand.
Paul certainly talks in Eph 3:8-9 that he has been granted the grace to bring the evangel of the untraceable riches of Christ to the nations and to enlighten all as to what is the administration of the secret which has been concealed from the eons in God, that now may be made known to the sovereignties and the authorities among the celestials through the ecclesia.
But a secret hidden from angels for eons and now being proclaimed even to heavenly authorities by the Church is not some kind of second gospel that only applies to the Gentiles and only comes into effect once Israel has been set aside. Only one gospel is being talked about by Paul there, and it’s a gospel for everyone, even for Gentiles and (presumably rebel) angels.
That has to be argued from evidence, not presupposed as the key. You certainly haven’t shown where in Acts Paul says he is proclaiming the kingdom a final time, much less in the epistles, after which the kingdom will not be proclaimed again.
Considering that the Gospels (and Acts) were written contemporary with or after the Epistles, for purposes of evangelism in strongly Jewish contexts, talking routinely about the coming of the kingdom in reporting the words of Jesus and the first evangelists–it is therefore extremely bizarre to say that Christians stopped proclaiming the kingdom, to Jews or to anyone else. If Paul did so, and we have no positive evidence that he did so (or you don’t provide positive evidence he stops proclaiming the kingdom anyway), that was at most a quirk of his theology, and more likely an incidental side-effect of why and to whom he was writing epistles. Generally speaking, Christians obviously went right on proclaiming the kingdom after Paul, at least tacitly if not explicitly, because we went on promoting the canonical Gospel material! We wouldn’t be sitting here talking about some even theoretical difference if we didn’t receive and have access to the gospel of the Gospels.
Except for Peter, apparently, seeing as how a large chunk of Acts is dedicated to Peter’s story and confession of how it took miracles from God to get it through his head that he was supposed to evangelize Gentiles, too.
Admittedly he then proceeds to continue not doing so (passing that off to Paul when he gets a chance); but failing to do what God insists, is not evidence that he was following orders correctly. Besides which, we don’t really know what happens to Peter in the second half of Acts, as Luke doesn’t follow his side of the story any more.
Church tradition says the apostles eventually went out in all directions to the Gentiles, just as Jesus specifically instructed them to do in the Great Commission. More specifically he’s still preaching “the eonian kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter (apparently to a largely Jewish audience); and the whole reason he brings up preaching the gospel to dead sinners (and/or rebel angels) in 1 Peter is to draw a comparison between how far Jesus has gone in preaching the gospel to how far he and his congregation ought to be preaching the gospel to those in the nations who persecute them (from whom some but not all of his congregation have themselves previously come). So although he does identify himself as “an apostle of Jesus Christ to the chosen expatriates of the Diaspora” (i.e. to dispersed Jews in various places he then lists), he isn’t only preaching the gospel to them. Much less some different gospel than what he says should be preached also to those beset by the will of the nations.
As in fact they did in the Babylonian captivity. That was fulfilled once at that time; and fulfilled again after the fall of Jerusalem until now.
Peter in his first epistle, writing in regard to Jewish converts among his congregation, admittedly says that in becoming Christians they are becoming the people of God again after not being the people of God. He doesn’t say they were set aside by God specifically, though; and in citing Hosea the referent problem would be that they had previously rejected God, thus making themselves not the people of God, not vice versa.
Since Peter was writing before Peter died, and since Peter died several years before the Temple was destroyed, that suggests to me that Israel’s la-ammi, or at least the la-ammi of some Israelites, comes before the period in which he’s writing, therefore before the close of the Acts period.
Which if anything would indicate Israel’s la-ammi period came back in Christ’s ministry. Not at the end of the Acts period. But Christ also speaks to the Jews extensively without parables after that point (such as in GosJohn, where Christ’s reference to Isaiah comes at the very end of His ministry–probably on the day after His departure from the Temple).
From a harmonization standpoint, the speaking in parables with the purpose that some there (not all) would not understand His words, which happens relatively early in His ministry, should be regarded as applying to that afternoon of teaching only, with occasional applications of parabolic language afterward (and not necessarily for the goal of obscuring things for His opponents: Christ definitely expects even His opponents to get the point of some of His parables later in His ministry). Certainly His ministry had been rejected by some Jews before then, too, without Him resorting to a diet of only obscure parables to confuse His enemies ever afterward.
Well you haven’t made that timing “very clear” yet; certainly not from any evidence in Acts. Christians continued to preach the gospel to Jews for centuries after, making numerous converts (even though by the nature of relative population sizes the converts from Gentiles soon outstripped them), so the Jews weren’t set aside in that sense either.
(I may add that neither is it “very clear” what any of this has to do with the notion of God re-adjusting the eons, a topic you never bother to bring up, despite it having led into this discussion.)
What your quote from C. H. Welch mainly demonstrates, if it demonstrates anything, is that he can’t find anywhere in scripture to cite indicating where Israel stopped being the people of God. “No more is heard” about “the hope of Israel” “after the time of Acts 28”? What does he regard as being written in the scriptures after Acts 28; and why would he regard silence on the topic in any such texts as being instructive for the point?–because clearly he can point to no actual denial! If he regards RevJohn as being written afterward, that is no help for him because he himself admits the hope of Israel in seen there!
Evidence from Acts 28 itself, which Welch explicitly does not think exists, would be a start. Positive declarations from elsewhere in the NT which Welch basically admits does not exist would be helpful, too. Arguments from silence in texts not being referenced by Welch (in your citation anyway) do not count as great evidence in my reckoning, or that of most analysts on most topics.
As far as the positive evidence goes, any special crisis at Acts 28 beyond the normal acceptance of the gospel by some Jewish leaders and its rejection by others, with Gentiles next on the list as usual, exists only in imagination so far.
Yeaaaahhh, I’m not going to give Paul the divine capitalizations. 
He’s talking about the hope of the gospel that is being proclaimed in all creation under heaven, of which Paul was made a minister (v.23). A gospel proclaimed to all creation doesn’t exclude Israel. On the contrary, the scope goes so far as to include things in the heavens which still need reconciling to God (vv.19-20), the goal being to present every person perfect in Christ. (v.28) Paul’s admonition to the Colossian congregation that they should not submit themselves to kosher decrees in order to rabbinic teachings (2:16ff), indicates they still have strongly influential connections to Judaism and may have a substantial number of Jewish converts; and he expressly condemns the notion of dividing between Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised. (2:9-11)
So the secret concealed from the eons which is now being made manifest to the saints, isn’t some special secret given only to the Gentiles. Rather, what’s important is that the scope of the secret, which is “Christ among you”, includes (against much Jewish expectation) Gentiles as well as Jews, just like it includes slaves and freemen (and those in the heavens as well as those on the earth who still need reconciliation to God).
Um, no that isn’t what the story says. The kingdom of Christ had been accepted by some of the leaders (as Acts reports, including Acts 28), both in Jerusalem and in the Diaspora. There is no difference here in Rome; but even if it had happened that all Jewish leaders rejected it in Rome, that wouldn’t have been specially special, just unusual. (I seem to recall that some places previously visited by Paul, all the local Jewish leaders had rejected the gospel; but so what? Paul kept on preaching it. And meant to go on from there to Spain after being set free. And maybe even did, before returning to be more harshly imprisoned.)
Even in Acts it doesn’t say that he stopped preaching to the Jews. It says rather that he welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered. (Except for still being under a respectful and relatively light house arrest of course.)
Actually, Paul seems to do better among the Diaspora Jews, generally speaking, than among the local Jerusalem leaders; though admittedly other apostles seem to do better converting Jewish leaders (per Acts’ early chapters) than Paul, who doesn’t evangelize in Jerusalem much to begin with. Many priests are converted by the other apostles; and by the time of Paul’s trial before the Sanhedrin many Pharisees are willing to stand up and declare they find him guilty of nothing. Relatedly, the early apostles would not have been able to preach so openly at the Temple for so long had there not been substantial support for them among the Sanhedrin (and GosJohn reports that many of even the chief priests were secretly disciples of Jesus, though they fell away when the crux came–as did His own apostles.)
There is no increasing apostasy in any narrative or thematic sense. Some Jewish leaders accept it, some don’t. Rome’s results seem about average. There were surely worse receptions earlier. No one among the Diaspora leaders in Rome is trying to have Paul assassinated at least!
A sad act performed by one insane king, not by the people generally though it pleased certain members of the Sanhedrin. (On the other hand, when James the Brother of Jesus is executed by an opportunistic high priest after the end of Acts, Josephus relates that this execution greatly displeased many Jews who regarded him as a holy and righteous man!)
Saul is already far away in Antioch and does nothing different afterward than what he had been doing before, namely going to Diaspora areas and preaching first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. The Holy Spirit sends him and Barnabas on a longer missionary journey, but does not declare them set apart for any more special reason. There is exactly no narrative connection made between the death of James the Apostle and the sending of Paul and Barnabas to Gentiles in another area than the Gentile area they were already in.
You’ve got the grammar swirled around. Paul was made an administrator of the secret concealed for eons (as the CLV itself clearly puts it, and from which I am quoting in putting the phraseology that way), and by his account that happened when he was made an apostle, which happened long before any epistles were written.
No one thinks the epistle to the Romans was written during Paul’s late Roman post-Acts imprisonment, and he talks about it there, too. (16:25-26) Where, not incidentally, he stresses in the strongest language, “God has not rejected His people, has He? MAY IT NEVER BE!!” (11:1) So even when they are broken off from the vine, they are not cast aside, but only a partial hardening has occurred.
Meanwhile, in regard to Ephesians 4 I see that after appealing to it you aren’t going to discuss the actual details or contexts of it, unlike what I did; so I’m going to suppose you concede that Paul certainly isn’t talking about re-adjusting the saints due to the apostasy of Israel (or for any other reason).
Simply quoting it again doesn’t count as discussing the actual details or contexts, by the way.
And when he wrote Romans Paul was already the administrator of the secret (or actually earlier since his apostolic call, per the actual texts of what you’re citing). So that can’t be something that only showed up later in his late imprisonment ministry.
Obviously when writing to a congregation long since evangelized (by Paul and others), such as in Ephesus, Paul isn’t going to talk about how they ought to go to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. That simply isn’t a practical operation anymore. There’s no special secret difference in the evangelism: even back when Paul was first evangelizing the Jews he kept telling them (which some resented) that the gospel was for the Gentiles, too. The same gospel is still for the same Jews and Gentiles in Ephesians; Paul would prefer they stop quarreling with one another, and that’s the same attitude he always had. The only minor difference is that in one situation they haven’t been converted yet, and in the later situation (the writing of the Ephesians epistle) they have.
Nope, still nothing there about them being re-adjusted due to the apostasy of Israel or for any other reason. The translation of the term as “re-adjustment” is completely arbitrary to fit a scheme presumably derived elsewhere; the translation “adjustment” as in “training” works entirely well with the context, which is in fact also how the CLV happens to translate it. “Adjusting” or more literally “down-equipping”. Not “re-adjusting”.
So once again I have to ask, where are you getting that translation, and what (if any is provided) is the rationale of the translator? Because the local context has EXACTLY NOTHING to say about this being done because the Jews are set aside or the kingdom isn’t being proclaimed or anything at all like that.
You’re welcome to start talking about the “something else that happened” any time, using actual evidence from Ephesians as the context. Until then, my answer remains where it is: Paul is talking about people with different gifts training up the body of Christ in different ways. Nothing extra has to be added conceptually.
Ephesians 2:7 speaks of the “ages to come”. It’s definitely plural.
The scriptures speak of many ages to come—indeed “ages of ages” (Ephesians 3:21). And that’s not the only place.
I don’t know the origin of the idea that there is only one age in the future. Could it be the AV mistranslation of “into the ages of ages” as “world without end”?
Hey Jason
Thanks for your very challenging reply. I will try to respond to this article before I go on my holidays. I should clarify that before your response was posted, I made mention today, that I will stop debating and putting forward my own point of view. (At least for a substantial time) This is not to duck the issue.
I am thankful for this present challenge, as all of this helps me to see my weak, and strong points and to understand the perspective of others. I realize my views can be frustrating, but so can UR be frustrating to your average Christian.
I will also note, that my failure to agree with mainstream Christianity isn’t due to me being unlistening or arrogant.
I will respond to Jason, with two different articles. Lest I lose all my work.
So you don’t have a problem with adapt or attune in these verses? I don’t follow.
The word re-adjust was used in an older version. There was nothing more to it than that.
I am satisfied with the words ‘re-adjust’ or ‘adjust’ but even if another term were to be used such as ‘repair’‘mend’ ‘arrange’ ‘to fit out’ ‘adapt’ it would still need to be understood in relation to the eons. I would think you at least agree with that?
I don’t think this argument is tenable. First they were doing this activity in their boat. Don’t you think Loudy made a good point previously? (I think so)
Secondly most nets are probably somewhat old, but God’s eonian purpose has been around even longer.
I wouldn’t say I am that big into commentaries. I am certain most translations hide the age purpose.
*By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. NIV
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. KJV*
*By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. ESV
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. NASB*
I feel verse 3 fits in nicely with what follows in the chapter. We see the listing of believers that died in faith, not as having seen the things promised (13) I believe this chapter is directly applicable to those Hebrews who have seen the kingdom offer withdrawn, and the eons adjusted accordingly.
Christ’s response had nothing to do with whether they asked a correct question. His response to them was “Not yours is it to know times or eras which the Father placed in His own jurisdiction. But you shall be obtaining power at the coming of the holy spirit on you, and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in entire Judea and Samaria, and as far as the limits of the earth” Acts. 1:7
The reason Christ doesn’t answer the question is because a renewed offer of the Kingdom to Israel needed to be legitimate.They were to take the offer as far as the limits of the land. I really do not understand your words “*Besides which, based on their prior expectations they were asking whether Israel would finally become its own kingdom under a Davidic king once again, out from under Roman rule, and I’m pretty sure that’s not what you’re talking about at all.”
*
I like the words of Welch on this,
The question concerning the restoration again of the kingdom to Israel arose out of the forty days’ opening of the Scriptures, and this is not only indicated by the use of the word “therefore” in Acts 1:6, but necessitated by what is said in Luke 24:45:
“Then OPENED He their understanding, that they might UNDERSTAND the scriptures.”
Even we, with all our confessed limitations, would feel that something was amiss, if after forty days’ exposition of the Scriptures, the first question our hearers put to us was completely wide of the mark. How then is it possible, in view of the specific statement of Luke 24:45, even to suggest that the question of Acts 1:6 originated in Jewish bias?..
Let us examine this question with some measure of reverent care: “Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”
The Lord had opened up the Scriptures “concerning” Himself and as a consequence, the apostles looked to Him as the Restorer of the kingdom. This we judge is not a matter in dispute, and so pass on to the remainder of the question. The question is entirely a matter of time “when”. The apostles did not and could not ask “Will the kingdom ever be restored again to Israel?” Neither did they envisage something entirely new. To them, “Israel” could only mean the 12 tribes so named. The kingdom up to that time had no ecclesiastical meaning, it could not by any possibility have meant “the church” as understood and revealed in the epistles. They assumed that a literal kingdom was to be “restored”. By no system of legitimate interpretation can these words “restore again” be made to refer to “The Church” as it is found in the epistles. The substantive form of the word translated “restore again” is found in Acts 3:21-24, “The times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began . . . all the prophets . . . foretold of these days.” The Saviour Himself assured His hearers that “Elias truly shall first come, and RESTORE all things” (Matt. 17:11).
Charles Welch Dispensational Frontier
This is what I said in an other article,
*
If Israel was not set aside at Acts 28 then when did it occur? The Prophet Hosiah makes it clear that Israel will become la-ammi “not my people” He further says that"The children of Israel shall abide many days without a KING, and without a PRINCE and without a SACRIFICE, and without an IMAGE, and without an EPHOD, and without TERAPHIM."
*
This is how Jason responds,
I want to point out that Jason says la-ammi “was fulfilled again after the fall of Jerusalem until now.”
However somewhere else he says,
Well if “not all Israel but only those who reject Jesus” then this doesn’t compute with Israel being la-ammi for the last 2000 years. I feel this is an obvious contradiction.
Now shortly afterwards he states,
So “If Israel per se was set aside by God” he thinks it would have happened when Jesus departed the Temple until His enemies welcome Him in the name of the Lord. Presumably not from the fall of Jerusalem?
Yet in another place he says
So now he seems to suggest la-ammi would have happened sometime during the Acts period.
He says to me,
Yet Jason seems contradictory, without even realizing it.
He suggests that if the gospel has been preached to the Jews for centuries that the Jews can’t really be set aside. This explains such comments as
So we are still proclaiming the kingdom now? I assume this is the proclamation of Israel’s kingdom? Then let’s follow Christ’s advice to the twelve disciples, for they are also our Apostles are they not?
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."Matt. 10: 5-6
And I suppose we should be proclaiming the kingdom of the heavens?
"As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ " Matt. 10:7
And raise the dead at funerals, and be casting out demons?
"Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give."
Truthfully I can’t work out your position, Jason. I know you did say “tacitly if not explicitly” Do you simply believe in a figurative Israel? (Commonly called a spiritual Israel) You simply transfer the teachings of Christ to Israel and make them ours? Yes, It sounds like a spiritual thing to do.
I am sure if you and I approached Christ like the Canaanite women, there would be no problem at all. We would explain to him that we are spiritual Israel, and that we love him so much, and that we are all a joint body in Christ. So we of course would address him as Lord, son of David.
Have you actually worked out a position, or do you really not care about distinctions? (you must at times) If I was to try to explain what you believe, I would say you believe God has never divorced Israel, and that Israel of the Old testament somehow morphed into the Church. Exactly when and how this occurred is certainly beyond me. Am I wrong? Really what is your exact position? Were Jew and gentile always equal? Or just not in the Old Testament. Did they become equal with the coming of Christ?
Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.”
But He answered her not a word.
And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.”
But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”
But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”
And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”
Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. Matt. 15: 21-28
There was no equality between Jew and Gentile while Christ walked the earth. We are the little dogs. When she referred to Christ as the the “son of David” she got nothing. It was only when she made the dispensational distinction and called him her Lord. Christ was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near”
Do we not see the distinctions between Israel and the Gentiles? How can we make this spiritual Israel, when the nations are specifically mentioned as being separate?
You keep asking me for contextual proof for passages, but the fact is if clear passages like these are ignored, and the calling of Israel beginning in Genesis 12, is arbitrarily mushed into a figurative multi national church, what can I really do? Some teachings in scripture, especially the writings of Paul require a strong strategic grasp of scripture before you ever approach them.
As long as Israel was not set aside we could not be on an equal footing with Israel. The apostle Paul makes very clear in Ephesians of a time when these believers were as the little dogs. Yes, I know he doesn’t use the term “little dogs” but what he does say is quite clear.
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. Eph. 11:13
Notice with Paul’s next words that the believers are both Jew and Gentile, but instead of being a figurative Israel they were created into something new. Please remember that this could not take place until Israel as a nation was set aside, because the gentiles were excluded from citizenship in Israel. This should already be understood from previous scriptures in the bible.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. Eph. 2:14-22
First, when I used the words final time, I did not mean that the kingdom message would never be proclaimed again. I am simply using these words from the context of what actually does transpire.
My presupposition is that God choose one man Abraham, and that the promises given to him, and to Isaac, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and to Daniel, and to Joel, and to all Israel will be fulfilled, and that the O.T and N.T. is an artificial dividing line, seeing that Jesus was the promised Messiah, who only went to the lost Sheep of the house of Israel, and that there is no indication the nation became la-ammi when we enter the Acts period, and certainly the Apostles didn’t think they had been set aside by God either, and since they knew the scriptures better than we do, and were further taught by Christ for 40 days, I believe the Nation Israel entered the Acts period, and not some gobbledygook teaching that it is only figurative Israel. Here are some passages in Acts.
Clearly Stephen still considered Israel to be a people before God. In his speech he goes from Abraham and the promise God gave him, through Issac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Christ, and then I think within the context of his speech, includes himself. All of these men held to the expectation of Israel. They didn’t talk about a joint body of Jews and Gentiles.
In conclusion, I feel we need to be reverent towards Israel’s expectation. We must admit that we are not figurative Israel, and we the nations will be subserviant to them, in the future. The twelve Apostles were specifically told by Christ that “I assure you: In the Messianic Age, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel.”
So I guess that makes the present Church the twelve tribes?
I wonder what tribe I belong to?
So Christ was mistaken, and didn’t know that the promises would be sideswiped.
The problem is that Christians can make figurative almost anything to do with Israel. When Paul says he is bound for the hope of Israel, they can say he is bound for the hope of spiritual Israel. Even with an obvious context to these words *“And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our ancestors that I am on trial today. This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night.” *
Puddy
i need to think
Accepting some of the implications of the acts 28 boundary line, can lead to a dramatic change in biblical outlook. It is like learning the Sun is the center of our solar system and not the Earth. Therefore it can be a difficult proposition for Christians. We must unlearn much of what we thought we knew about the Bible.
Children do not rightly divide the word of truth, but see the Bible as one big story book. As children grow older they tend to still not think much more about it. Then as adults they teach the children.So generation after generation we see a build up of tradition.
My proposal to you, is to try and get a general overview of scripture from Genesis 12 to Acts 28. I think it is simple and clear. It is the Israel channel from start to finish. Keep that as your foundational truth and build up from there, to higher scriptural ground. It takes some “rightly dividing the word of truth” but it is vitally important.
In the real world we make distinctions all the time. Companies place workers into different roles and duties. One part of a manufacturing plant will be given a very distinctive function from another part of the plant. In the military, it deals with three broad realms. Air, land, Sea. Someone serving in a submarine, will be in an entirely different calling than someone serving in the Air force. Same flag, same President, but still a completely different calling.
I am going to give a very basic overview of Israel’s history from Abraham to king David, upon whose throne Christ will sit. This will help turn our minds to a foundational truth of scripture. That Israel is a literal nation before God. So when we turn to the New Testament, it will not seem so strange to us, that Israel still remains a nation before God in the Gospels, and Acts period. If you read anything {scroll down} to my brief commentary on the book of Acts.
[size=150]HISTORY OF ISRAEL[/size]
Around 2000 BC God choose one man from the nations, and made a promise to him
This promise was re-affirmed with his son Isaac
and then to Isaac’s son Jacob
Interestingly Jacob was given the new name Israel, and so Israel are his descendants.
Later Jacob had 12 sons. Close to death we read “Jacob called for his sons and said: “Gather around so I can tell you what will happen to you in days to come.“Assemble and listen, sons of Jacob; listen to your father Israel.” Gen. 49:1-2
Here one son is separated from all the rest with this promise
**“The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations shall be his.” Gen. 49:10
**
The messiah will come through the line of Judah.
*Deut.7:6 For you are a people holy to Yahweh your Elohim; Yahweh your Elohim has chosen you to become His, a special people from all the peoples who are on the surface of the ground.
Lev.20:24,26 Yet I said to you: You shall tenant their ground, and I Myself shall give it to you to tenant it, a land gushing with milk and honey. I, Yahweh, am your Elohim, Who separates you from the peoples…. So you will become holy to Me, for I, Yahweh, am holy, and I am separating you from the peoples to become Mine.
Deut.10:14,15 Behold, to Yahweh your Elohim belong the heavens and the heavens of the heavens, the earth and all that is in it. But Yahweh was attached to your fathers to love them so that He chooses their seed after them, you, out of all the peoples, as it is this day.
Psalm 33:12 Happy is the nation that has Yahweh as its Elohim, The people He chooses as an allotment for Himself.*
Still Israel goes into slavery for hundreds of years in Egypt, but is lead out of bondage through Moses. This should have wielded Israel’s heart to God. Since they will hold the ruler’s staff over the nations, it is beneficial for them and us for them to have endured slavery.
Deut.4:32-35 For ask now about the former days which came before you, from the day that Elohim created humanity on the earth, and from one end of the heavens unto the other end of the heavens: Has there occurred anything like this great thing, or has anything been heard like it? Has a people ever heard the voice of the living Elohim speaking from the midst of the fire just as you heard it, and lived? Or has an elohim ever tried to come and take for himself a nation from among another nation by trials, by signs and by miracles, by war, by a steadfast hand and by an outstretched arm and by great fear-inspiring deeds, such as all that Yahweh your Elohim did for you in Egypt before your eyes? You were shown this to know that Yahweh, He is the only Elohim. There is no one else aside from Him.
Lev.25:55 For to Me the sons of Israel are servants; they are My servants whom I brought forth from the land of Egypt: I, Yahweh, am your Elohim.
2Sam.7:23,24 It was not because your multitude was more than all the other peoples that Yahweh was attached to you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all the peoples. But it was because of the love of Yahweh for you and because of His keeping the oath that He had sworn to your fathers that Yahweh brought you forth with a steadfast hand and ransomed you from the house of servants, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
After Moses leads Israel out of Egypt, they are given the law of Moses. They will be blessed if they obey the law, and cursed if they disobey
Psalm 147:19,20 He is telling His words to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not done so for any other nation, And His ordinances, they do not know them at all. Praise Yah.
Deut.26:18,19 As for Yahweh, He affirms today that you are to be for Him a special people, just as He promised to you, and that you are to observe all His instructions; then He promises to give you supremacy over all the nations which He has made, for praise, for a name and for beauty, and for you to be a people holy to Yahweh your Elohim just as He has promised.
Ex.19:3-6 …Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and tell to the sons of Israel, …. if you shall hearken, yea hearken to My voice and observe My covenant then you will become Mine, a special possession, above all the peoples, for Mine is all the earth. … you shall become Mine, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the sons of Israel.
Now we also learn that they will be a kingdom of priests.
Isa.61:5-6 And aliens will stand and graze your flocks, and sons of foreigners will be your farmers and your vineyardists. And you, priests of Yahweh shall be called, “Ministers of our Elohim…”
Rev.5:10 Thou dost also make them a kingdom and a priesthood for our God, And they shall be reigning on the earth.
1Pet.2:9,10 Yet you are a chosen race, a “royal priesthood,” a “holy nation,” a procured people, so that you should be recounting the virtues of Him Who calls you out of darkness into His marvelous light,
Forty years later, they enter the land promised to Abraham through the leadership of Joshua. Initially Israel doesn’t have a King, and they are ruled by a least 12 different Judges. Othniel was the first judge after the death of Joshua, (Judges 3:7-11)
Samuel was the final Judge before King Saul.
King Saul was replaced by King David, who was the most significant King of Israel.
King David received a very significant promise from God through the prophet Nathan. It is known as the Davidic covenant.
Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. 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.He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.2 Samuel 7:7-10
[size=150]THE DOOR INTO THE KINGDOM REPEATEDLY CLOSED
[/size]
by David Mann
FOR well nigh four hundred years God had kept silent, as far as any message to His people Israel was concerned, till one day one who declared himself to be a voice imploring, is heard in the wilderness, calling to Israel to get ready for the coming of the Lord.
From John the Baptist’s message to repent and believe the evangel, because the long looked-for kingdom was NOW NEAR, it is very evident that up until that time no entrance into this kingdom had been possible. Isaiah had closed the door when he uttered the words found in chapter six of his prophecy.
As we open that chapter, we find the prophet calling to the heavens to hear, and the earth to give ear to what Jehovah had to say concerning Judah and Jerusalem. “Nation of sin,” “People heavy with depravity,” “Seed of evil doers,” “Sons of corrupters,” “They forsake Jehovah, spurn the Holy one of Israel.”
From the above description of the condition of heart the people were in, is it any wonder that we find them at last in exile according to Ezekiel and Daniel?
Coming back to chapter six of Isaiah, we find the prophet telling that he hears the voice of Jehovah saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go to this nation?” Jehovah has something to say to this people, and Isaiah volunteers to go with the message, which we find in verses nine and ten:
And He is saying, “Go and say to this people: Hear ye to hear, Yet you may not understand. And see ye to see, And you may not know, For stoutened is the heart of this people, And with their ears, heavily they hear, And with their eyes they squint. Lest at some time they should see with their eyes, And with their ears they should be hearing, And with their heart may be understanding, And should be turning about, and I shall be healing them.”
From the above statements it is very evident that Judah, along with the ten tribes, were far away in heart from God, so much so that Jehovah sends the prophet with a message that will close their eyes, and stop their ears, until such time as He sees fit to offer them repentance and change of heart.
A fitting picture of Israel’s condition is seen in the parable of Matt.21:33-40. God had planted a vineyard and leased it to Israel, expecting to harvest the fruit in due season.
He had sent His servants, the prophets, to them, whom they stoned and killed, and now Isaiah with his message of chapter 6, verses 9,10 takes away for the time being, any expectation of Israel becoming the priestly kingdom for which she had been chosen. In other words, Isaiah closes the door through which the nation would have become God’s administrators on this earth.
About one hundred and fifty years after Isaiah’s day, we find Judah in exile in Babylon (the ten tribes having been carried away to Assyria earlier), and while there, God tells them through Daniel when to expect that glorious time to which all the prophets pointed. Daniel almost set the day when God would unlock the door which Isaiah had closed, and Israel would once more be invited through the open door of repentance, into the kingdom.
Surely Israel has learned the lesson that God longs for heart-obedience, and not mere lip service, which their prophets have been denouncing those many years since Isaiah’s day. That long period of suffering during the days of the Maccabees, should have brought them to their knees before God, and prepared them for the one who was about to make His appearance in their midst, as foretold by the last prophet of the Old Testament, Malachi.
The next voice we hear is that of John the Baptist, who came in the spirit and power of Elijah.
And now that long looked for moment has come, the arrival of the promised Messiah is imminent, and His forerunner is sent ahead of Him to open the long closed door into the kingdom. When the King comes on the scene He finds the door unlocked and, like His forerunner, He calls upon Israel to repent and believe the evangel, because the era was fulfilled and the kingdom was NEAR.
These are the circumstances we find as we open our so-called New Testament. That Jesus was God’s Anointed is demonstrated by the signs and powerful deeds that were present during His ministry as He heralded the kingdom to Israel. These things belonged to that impending eon (Matt.4:23; Heb.6:4,5).
As we read on in the account of our Lord’s ministry, we find Him selecting twelve to be with Him in this heralding of the kingdom. These twelve are sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel only. They are given the credentials which equip them for the task for which they had been chosen (Matt.10:5-42).
In Matthew, chapters five, six and seven, we find our Lord laying down, what might be called the kingdom constitution.
To the unbiased mind there can be no difficulty in seeing that the grace as later preached by Paul is conspicuous here by its absence. A place in the kingdom depended on how the hearers obeyed the instructions in the so-called “sermon on the mount.”
Failure to put them into practice was likened to the acts of a man who built a house on a foundation of sand, which would not stand when the testing time came. A place in the kingdom will depend largely on conduct, or works. It was this message that brought our Lord into conflict with the religious leaders of that day.
The scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ seat. They were the law enforcers, though they themselves gave more heed to their own traditions than to Moses’ law.
But now the one of whom Moses wrote is here, and in His fundamentals He goes deeper than the precepts which Moses got at Sinai.
In the sermon on the mount He touches the very motives that are behind the acts, the thought and the look, that first grips the soul or senses.
This was too much for these self-righteous leaders, and they hated Him because He exposed their outward show.
The heralding of the open door into the kingdom by our Lord begins in Matt.4:17: "Henceforth begins Jesus to be heralding and saying, “Repent! for near is the kingdom of the heavens,” and ends in chapter 16:20, where He cautions the disciples that they may be saying to no one that He is the Christ. In verse 21, we find again the words, “Henceforth begins Jesus,” but now He tells of His suffering and death at the hands of the leaders in Israel, the elders, chief priests and scribes.
They were ever on His trail, and the crisis is reached in chapter 12 of Matthew, verse 14, where we have the Pharisees holding a consultation against Him so that they should be destroying Him. The leaders who ought to have been the first in the nation to welcome the open door, were the very ones who refused to enter themselves and sought to hinder those who would, with the result that the door is again closed, and He begins to speak in parables to them in order that Isa. 6 might be fulfilled in them once again, as of yore.
Instead of acknowledging our Lord as God’s Anointed, because of the signs which He did in their midst, they said He was doing them by the power of Beezeboul, the chief of the demons. That which was a foretaste of the kingdom to them, they accredited to Satan. They failed to see the open door, which, though wide enough to let all enter, was a cramped gate and narrow way for those who desired to enjoy life in that kingdom.
That cramped gate and narrow way, as described by our Lord, in the sermon on the mount, was more than the leaders bargained for, and as He is about to quote Isaiah six, and close the door once more, He denounces them as a progeny of vipers, which recalls what Isaiah had to say in chapter 1:4. They were worse than ever.
Israel was still calloused in heart. Now that the kingdom door has been closed again by our Lord, quoting Isaiah six, it is no longer heralded as NEAR, but, by the language of the secret parables, is moved into the uncertain future.
From now on He tells of His sufferings and death at the hand of the leaders of the nation, His resurrection and coming again, all of which could have taken place during the lifetime of that generation.
As we follow on in the accounts of our Lord’s life, we find Israel committing the greatest sin of their history, the murder of their Messiah. Now we know that, for the present, the kingdom door is closed. A dead Messiah! What will God do now? Is this the end of that nation?
If the tomb can hold its Victim, all future hope of the kingdom is gone, and this seems to have been the conclusion the disciples had come to, as we listen to that conversation which took place between our Lord and the two on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-17). The cross had blasted their hopes, their expectation was now a thing of the past, the kingdom, will it ever come?
© Concordant Publishing Concern
[size=150]ACTS OF THE APOSTLES[/size]
[size=150]CHAPTER 1[/size]
Either they were correct to ask this question, or they were incorrect. It doesn’t say Peter asked the question. It was all those that had gathered around Christ. Also after Christ responded, “he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.” Acts 1:9
So they would have misunderstood a major detail, moments before His ascension.
It is clear from this question that the renewed offer of the kingdom was going to go out to Israel.
[size=150]
It will be noted, that this was a concerted action ‘when they were come together’, it was a logical consequence of the forty days’ Bible teaching received from the Lord, ‘When therefore’. It was recognized by the Lord as a legitimate inquiry; He did not say, ‘O fools and slow of heart to believe’ or rebuke them for not speaking about the Church, He only told them that the ‘time’ could not be made known. It will be further observed that the apostles were concerned, not with something new, but with something old, ‘wilt Thou restore again’… Seeing that the Saviour began at Moses and the Prophets and expounded these Scriptures to the disciples during the last forty days, He must have dealt with such passages as Isaiah 40:1,2; 43:5,6; Jeremiah 1:12; 31:28,35,36; 33:14-26; Daniel 12:1. Small wonder that the apostles were eager to know whether the time of Israel’s restoration had come, small wonder that the ‘Church’ as we know it never entered into their calculations. -C.H. welch
[/size]
Those failing to recognize Paul’s distinct apostleship sometimes will attempt to force out Matthias and put in Paul. Apparently the apostles made two early mistakes.
First, in misunderstanding something so basic, and secondly, in ignorantly picking Matthias as the twelfth apostle.
Luke was a missionary companion of Paul. If Paul was really the twelfth apostle, Luke likely would not be writing about this incident, or at least not to lend it credence. Also, Paul never challenges the apostleship of Matthias.
Why did there need to be twelve apostles? Well {for starters} Israel has twelve tribes, and Christ told His disciples
**“I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matt. 19.28
**
[size=150]CHAPTER 2[/size]
Gentiles are never referred to in Peter’s speech. His audience is “God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.” Acts 2:5-6
“But **this is that **which has been declared through the prophet Joel:” Acts. 2:16
The Church cannot be put into Joel, so if this (Joel) is that (Pentecost), we see the church beginning at Pentecost has no real scriptural support.
It was the day of Pentecost. Peter specifically addresses the crowd as “Men! Israelites!” “Men! Brethren!” He finishes his speech with the words “Let all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God makes Him Lord as well as Christ–this Jesus Whom you crucify!” Acts. 2:36
The fact that the earthly kingdom was prominent in the message, as well as in the minds of the believers (Acts 1:6), is shown by an early, almost immediate, reference to the throne covenant with David (Acts 2:30).
Fredrick Homer Robison
“If the ‘restoration’ of the kingdom to Israel be the true burden of Acts 1 and 3, the Church in which there is neither Jew nor Greek could not have come into existence in Acts 2.” C.H. Welch
[size=150]CHAPTER 3[/size]
This healing of the lame man is called a sign by the sanhedran in Chapter 4:16. Just as God could heal the lame man, he could heal Israel. It is “Fellow Israelites” that are being addressed.
“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Luke 23:34
This is not some new revelation Peter is sharing with the Jewish crowd. Israel is being told to repent and turn to God. When they did this, times of refreshing would arrive (Messianic kingdom) He says the prophets foretold of these days. (that is obvious). Also when the kingdom arrives it will be a tremendous blessing to all the world.
It must have been exciting for the people to realize that upon Israel’s repentance, the messiah would return. So where is the Church in the first three chapters of Acts? When it has been about Israel since Genesis 12, are we really the one’s needing to supply the ‘proof texts’?
Peter went on to say, “And He will send Jesus Christ, which was preached unto you,” but notice what is almost always overlooked; “Whom the heaven must receive [or retain] until…” We have seen no Commentary that comments on the fact that the heaven must retain Christ until something takes place. The silence is deafening. Christendom teaches that when Christ comes at His Second Advent, He ushers in the “times of refreshing.” But, this is not what Peter said. Let us not be guilty of putting words into Peter’s mouth. Keep in mind that every word Peter spoke were the words God gave him to speak (Matt. 10:19-20, 1 Thess. 3:13. 2 Cor.13:3). The Apostle Peter was the authority, and he said in plainer words; "If you repent and be converted, your sins will be blotted out when the times of refreshing comes from the face of the Lord. And yes, He will send Jesus Christ, Whom the heaven must receive or retain until…” Christ remains there until … something is accomplished. Tom Ballinger
Church tradition says, the Church began in Acts 2. Yet Acts 1-3 is as thoroughly Jewish as the Old Testament.
[size=150]CHAPTER 4[/size]
No Jew would need to be told, that just as the feast of Pentecost with its emphasis upon the word fifty' was a recurring annual reminder of the day of Jubilee, so the final prophetic fulfilment of all that Pentecost stood for would be the real, great Jubilee toward which all prophecy pointed. Believing therefore theapostles’ doctrine’, these believers put their faith into practice. If the Jubilee was near, all would receive their own inheritance, all forfeitures would be cancelled, all buying and selling of land and possessions would come to nought; consequently, although no one could sell or buy his inheritance, he could sell whatever else he had purchased, and use the proceeds for the common good, while awaiting the Lord from heaven. The caseof Barnabas is specially mentioned. He was a Levite, and `having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet’ (Acts 4:37). In Jeremiah 32:6-14 we have the caseof Jeremiah (who, like Barnabas, was of the priestly tribe). He bought land to demonstrate his faith in the Lord’s promised restoration (Jer. 32:15), and Barnabas sold land to demonstrate the same conviction. C.H. Welch - From Pentecost To Prison
[size=150]CHAPTER 5[/size]
The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people.
These were associated with the powers of the coming age.
With the death Ananias and Sapphira, we can see the coming righteousness of the kingdom
These mighty miracles during the acts period pointed towards the coming kingdom. The healing of the lame man, and other miracles and wonders lead Israelites to believe, Jesus was the promised messiah.
“Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.” 14
The mighty works continue until we cross the Acts 28 boundary line. Then they cease.
“Don’t drink only water. You ought to drink a little wine for the sake of your stomach because you are sick so often.”
1Tim. 5:23
"Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow. Ph. 2:27
Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus. Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus.
2 Timothy 4:19-20
Before acts 28, Paul could heal strangers effortlessly “so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.” Acts. 19:12
Now he tells Timothy (his son in the faith) to take a little wine, because he is sick so often, and he personally leaves Trophimus sick in Miletus.
[size=150]CHAPTER 6[/size]
Both were Israelites. The Hebraic Jews were more for the traditions, and lived more in the land.
The Hellenistic Jews tended to live outside the land, and were less for the traditions.
The convert to Judaism would have been a circumcised proselyte. Equal in standing with the natural born Israelites.
Ya, like we see that nowadays!
[size=150]CHAPTER 7[/size]
Nothing at all about the Church in this passage. Still all Israel.
There is not much that is good about Jerusalem. Now they murder Stephen. Jerusalem is rejecting the messiah.
Keep this in mind when we come to Acts 28.
The kingdom will have already been rejected by Israelites.
[size=150]CHAPTER 8[/size]
It is obvious that Jerusalem has rejected the risen Christ. Judea and Samaria are also part of Christ’s commission. Acts. 1:7
Positive news in Samaria. Could Philip be turning things around? When the crowd saw the signs, they paid close attention to him.
It would seem the Samaritans needed to learn that Israel was the administrative capital. These Samaritans were a circumcised mixed race of Jewish origin. This type of occurrence has no place in Paul’s gospel of grace.
Man, I would love to see a modern day faith healer do this trick. Poof, and then vanish out of thin air!
He is like Enoch and Elijah.
This eunuch was probably a proselyte of righteousness, since he came all the way from Ethiopia to Judea and Jerusalem.
So after eight chapters where is the Church? Where are the gentile believers?
The question by the apostles "are you at this time going to restore the kingdom,? is starting to be answered.
[size=150]CHAPTER 9[/size]
In the midst of the calling of the nation of Israel to repentance, God begins a new work in preparation for a heavenly calling. paul will have a two fold ministry. To proclaim his name to the gentiles, and to the people of Israel.
Saul was called outside the land. It seems that the further he went from Jerusalem, the greater his revelations for the gentiles. At his greatest distance, he revealed to us the secret that had been hid in God. The administration of the secret.
Paul’s ministry went from glory to glory 2 Cor. 3:18. During the Acts period his ministry was in transition.
The omissions in the historical record we call the Acts of the Apostles are most significant. Far more of their acts are overlooked than are recorded. Ever since its true subject was lost there has been a tendency to inject these into the narrative… The church’s rule has been, “If it is in Acts it is for us.” It should have been, “If it is in Acts, it is not for us.” On the other hand, we may be quite sure that revelations coming through the apostle Paul at this time, which are not in Acts, most certainly are preparatory for present truth. Acts gives us quite an extended account of Paul’s visit to Thessalonica. It gives us a summary of his argument in dealing with the Jews (Acts 17:2-4). But there is not the slightest hint of the momentous revelation which is contained in his epistle to them, nor of his writing that epistle.
A.E. Knoch -From the Levite to the Slave
[size=150]CHAPTER 10[/size]
It seems Cornelius was a proselyte of the gate. He would have been uncircumcised,
“Proselytes of the Gate were Gentiles who recognized their place in subordination to the Nation of Israel, and desired to worship God via the mediatorial agency of Israel.” -James Hilston
"…while believing Gentiles, either before or after the present dispensation, are to have an entrance into the kingdom (Matt.25:34-36), they will always be subject to the Jews. On the earth the Gentile is always subject, feeding the flocks, plowing the fields, and tending the vineyards which will flourish on the Jewish allotments, that the Jewish people may be given wholly to the work of priesthood (Isa. 61:5,6).
Peter’s statement that “God is not a respecter of persons” must not be made to say more than it does say. There was no respect of persons in the matter of acceptability. There are distinctions in the matter of destiny. The very fact that Cornelius, godly man that he was, had to wait for a Jew to come and minister to him before he was given the special favors of the time is in itself a proof that he was subservient to Israel. Cornelius was already cleansed, as shown by the vision to Peter (Acts 10:15). Fredrik Homer robison
The call of Cornelius occurred after the conversion of Paul. It is quite probable that part of the reason Peter was told to go to Cornelius was to help open the way for Paul’s ministry to the nations. Acts 15:6-11
[size=150]CHAPTER 11[/size]
Peter, as an apostle of Jesus Christ, was not subject to the brethren at Jerusalem; yet when they heard that he had eaten with Gentiles they took him sorely to task (Acts 11:2,3). Thus they paved the way for their own apostasy and proceeded to tread it assiduously. Even the believers in Israel—most of them—became apostate. They called Jesus Lord, Lord; but did not the things which he said. They were unwilling to accept the divine leadings and become the channel of blessing to the Gentiles unless those Gentiles first became Mosaists and afterward Messiah-ites. They made void the commandments of God by their traditions; for there was no Mosaic law forbidding social intercourse between Jew and Gentile.
Fredrik Homer Robison
We have in the first verses of this chapter a very startling truth. The church in Acts has been completely Jewish, and so by extension during Christ’s earthly ministry.
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” Matthew 15:24
“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel” Matthew 10:5-6
“Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:” Romans 15:8. KJV
Should probably read “Hellenists” not Greeks.
[size=150]CHAPTER 12[/size]
We should not connect this church with what we have today. The word simply means ekklesia, and can be used for various gatherings. Called-called people, coming together for a specific intention. Such as Acts 19:32
This chapter brings to conclusion the record of the apostles witness to the ends of the land. {first three mentioned by Christ, and part of the fourth}. Paul now continues the message of the kingdom outside of the land.
It is possible these are the five brothers of Luke 16
[size=150]1) Jerusalem 2) Judea 3) Samaria 4) limit of the land 5) dispersion outside the land.[/size]
The first four seem to have rejected the testimony of the twelve. They never did have the support of the religious authorities, and King Herod had James, the brother of John killed, (the Jews liked that) and Peter thrown into prison.
When Peter was miraculously freed from prison, he told the saints
“Tell James and the other brothers and sisters about this,” he said, and then he left for another place."
James, was not even an apostle. It seems Jerusalem is no longer under the leadership of the apostles.
The kingdom offer has been refused in the land.
[size=150]FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY 13:1-14:28[/size]
Paul and a new set of apostles now become the focus of the book of acts. These apostles were given by the ascended Christ, (Eph. 4:7-11) while Peter and the other apostles were associated with Christ’s earthly ministry. When they picked Matthias as one of two, to potentially replace Judas, Peter states,
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” Acts 1:21-22
Paul states *“He was seen of the twelve after that he was seen of all the apostles . And last of all He was seen of me also” (1 Cor.15:5,7,8) So we see Paul included Matthias as already one of the twelve before Christ’s ascension.
We see that the turning to gentiles was a local turning in this case. Since at the start of chapter 14, Paul and Barnabas go as usual into the Jewish synagogue. When the Jews withstood Paul and Barnabas, in chapter 13, they answer that “we had to speak the word of God to you first”
This seems to have been a pattern for Paul. The synagogues among the dispersion apparently had a large number of proselytes, and these seemed more receptive to Paul’s message. Outside of these two groups, Paul reached the gentiles without any leanings toward Israel. They are the ‘body of Christ’
Sergius Paulus, is the first recorded {non proselyte} to receive Paul’s gospel. It was a Jewish person that withstood the message of Paul. The sorcerer is blinded for a time, just as Israel is now blinded, but will someday see the light of the sun.
As Paul’s first missionary Journey comes to a close, we see that the dispersion of Israel is now refusing the kingdom.
*Usually, the name Paul is taken to mean, in Latin, as “little one”. There are very good reasons for this. In the first place, Paul was by birth a Roman citizen (Acts 22:28), so it’s obvious that he also had a Latin name. In the second place, in the book of Acts, Saul becomes Paul, precisely when he comes into contact with the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paul (Acts 13:7). It has been suggested that Saul, as a Roman Jew, from the time of his birth had a double name: Saul (Sha’ul) was his Jewish name and Paul his Roman name. That Saul, from the time of Acts 13:9, consistently is called Paul, underlines the fact that from that moment his Jewish identity disappears into the background.
With this, not everything is adequately considered. There are good reasons to connect the name Paul also with the Greek language. For in addition that Paul was a Roman citizen, he also was a Greek-speaking individual. When we follow this line, then we see that the name is associated with the root PAU, which means “cease” or “stop”. Our word “pause” is, via the Latin, derived from this Greek word. It should certainly not escape us that the change of name, from Saul to Paul in Acts 13:9, is directly followed by the correct use of the verb ‘pauo. Paul says to the Jewish magician: “… enemy of all righteousness, will you not CEASE perverting the straight ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10), whereupon the Jew, indeed, became blind for a time. So Paul made this man to stop (to cease). And with this the name PAULOS, in the Greek sense of the word, receives its perfect meaning, because the masculine ending-LOS, means someone who causes a stop (stopper).
How illustrative, in this way, becomes the picture in Acts 13! Saul explains to a non-Jew the Evangel, but is thwarted by a Jewish magician, who is smitten with blindness and is thus brought to a stop (pau). Does this not beautifully picture the current interruption (pause) in the history of salvation?! “Through their fall, salvation is come to the Gentiles …” (Rom.11:11). Indeed, for a time and with an “until” (Rom.11:25).
It is pre-eminently the name Paul which stands for this temporary setting-aside of the Jewish people.
In summary, I see no reason to choose between Paul as a Roman or as a Greek name. The name, Paul, is undoubtedly of Latin origin (think of Sergius Paul) but the Greek associations of the name force themselves naturally upon us, within the typical context of Acts 13.
———————————
Translation: Peter Feddema
© André Piet - goedbericht.nl*
[size=150]JERUSALEM COUNCIL 15: 1-35[/size]
Acts chapter 15 sheds much light for us.
It becomes clear that Israel has not yet been set aside, and that Paul had been teaching Justification by faith during his first missionary journey.
We know Paul was teaching justification by faith during his first missionary journey, because in Galatians, he tells the believers about his visit to Jerusalem, and that he “presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.” It is clear that the gospel Paul is referring to in his letter to the Galations is justification by faith.
*“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified." Gal. 2:15-16
“Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.”
Gal. 3:8-9
So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. Gal. 3:24*
Paul makes clear that justification by faith is apart from law,
“Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God”
*“by the works of the law no one will be justified.”
"for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
“For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse”*
The law includes circumcision
*“Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.” 5:3
“Not even those who are circumcised keep the law” 6:13*
Paul did not teach circumcision
*“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.”
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.”
“Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted”*
Others came teaching circumcision
*“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?”
“You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth?”
“The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty.”
“As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves”
*
So we see that law and justification stand at odds to each other, and that circumcision is part of the law, and that Paul did not teach circumcision, and that Paul was not pleased others came who taught circumcision.
Returning to Acts 15 we read,
“Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.” 1-2
So Paul went up to Jerusalem concerning circumcision.
We also read that he and Barnabas came into sharp dispute and debate with the circumcision. So we know Paul went up to Jerusalem to defend his gospel. This is further confirmed for us from his letter to the Galatians.
This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preseved for you. Gal.2:4-5
If Peter and the apostles were teaching the same gospel then they would be teaching justification by faith, but if that is what they were teaching, then they would not be teaching circumcision and the law, and If they were not teaching circumcision, then they would be under even greater attack from the judiazers.
Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “
[size=150]Question:[/size] Why did they need to consider the matter, and why much dispute, if the apostles and elders were teaching the same gospel as Paul? (justification by faith)
"Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God," Acts 15:19
"The Ryrie study Bible says this, The clear verdict of James, as president of the council, was that Gentile converts need not be circumcised."
[size=150]Question:[/size] If they were teaching the same gospel of Paul, why did they need a verdict?
**"Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” Acts 15:24
**
Question: If the apostles were not teaching circumcision and the law, then who would have went out from them. Such individuals would not have been part of them in the first place, but would have been against the apostles teachings.
[size=150]2 Problems suggested by our detractors.
****[/size]
I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. Gal. 2:2
It is little wonder that Paul went privately to the leading brethren. Here is what Jim Coram says concerning the matter “Paul was well aware that Peter and James were by no means free from the influences of the circumcisionist party, those who sought to impose the law on the believers of the nations. So Paul constrains these “pillars” to express a definite opinion on this question to him privately, before any further influence from such zealots could be brought to bear upon them. Then, when gathered in assembly together with the circumcisionists, they freely affirmed in public what they had already assured Paul of privately, that they agreed that the law was not to be imposed on the nations (Acts 15:10; 15:19-21)”. Pg. 120 Unsearchable Riches, volume 87, number 3, May, 1996
Also when Paul said “I wanted to be sure I was running and had not been running my race in vain” he was saying nothing different than in Galatians 4:10, 1 Thess. 3:5 Here are the two passages in the CLV
*“yet privately to those of repute, lest somehow I should be racing or ran for naught.”
“Days are you scrutinizing, and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, lest somehow I have toiled for you feignedly.”
1 Thess. 3:5
“Therefore, when I also could by no means longer refrain, I send to know of your faith, lest somehow the Trier tries you and our toil may be coming to be for naught.” 1Thess. 3:5*
"Now from those reputed to be somewhat–what kind they once were is of no consequence to me (God is not taking up the human aspect)–for to me those of repute submitted nothing.But, on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations) Gal. 2:6-8
Basically Paul had been entrusted with the gospel of justification by faith, and when going to see those of repute (such as Peter) they submitted nothing to him. Paul did not go to ask advice, but to defend the gospel he was preaching to the nations.
[size=150]SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY 15:36-18:22[/size]
There is nothing in the second journey of Paul to suggest that the expectation of Israel has been set aside.
The word joined, is translated as allotted in the CLV. Many proselytes were persuaded by Paul’s message.
“But other Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city.” 17:5
“But when the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, some of them went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up.” 17:13
"When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. 6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”18:5-6
"While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment. “This man,” they charged, “is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.”18:12-13
[size=150]THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY 18:23-20:38[/size]
Paul has continued to bring the gospel of the kingdom of God to Israel. Yet we have seen only a Luke warm response.
(at best) He considers them to be in apostasy.
“God gives them a spirit of stupor, Eyes not to be observing, Ears not to be hearing, Till this very day” (Rom.11:8).
We seem to have reached a crises, in Paul’s ministry. His epistles written around this time, start dealing with the casting away of Israel, and the conciliation of the world.
“For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may pass for prudent among yourselves, that Israel, in part, has become calloused until the full complement of the nations may be entering” (Rom.11:25,26).
“…their casting away is the conciliation of the world” (Rom. 11:15).
“Yet all is of God, Who conciliates us to Himself through Christ, and is giving us the dispensation of the conciliation, how that, in Christ, God was conciliating the world to Himself, not reckoning their offenses to them, and placing in us the word of the conciliation.”
“Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the proclamation of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now,…being made known to all nations for the obedience of faith …” (Rom.16:25-27).—note, this secret of the evangel, is not the same as the secret administration reaveled in ephesians.
Christ as the Son of David and consequent heir to the throne, as preached in Acts 13, has given place to Christ as the Son of Abraham and heir of the land, as set forth in Romans and Galatians. That friendship teaching in turn gives place to Christ as the Supplanter of Adam and heir of the unlimited dominion of the earth and member of God’s family.
Fredrik Homer Robison
"But when Paul went to the synagogues among the dispersion, his purpose in going to them was quite different from that of the other apostles. They heralded the kingdom with a view to the salvation of the whole nation. He began a different ministry, seeking to rouse them to jealousy, no longer with the nation in view, but to save some of them. It was based on the salvation of some outside of Israel, and was in line with the conciliation of the world, to which it led.
Gradually, during the period when they rejected God’s testimony as recorded in the book of Acts, Israel lost their religious supremacy. It was no longer necessary to approach God through them. God was conciliated to the world.
A.e. Knoch -National or Individual
In Acts the only plain declaration of the great change in his ministry is contained in the enigmatic words “as these things were fulfilled” (Acts 19:21). There is no hint of the fact that Paul no longer would know Christ according to the flesh (2 Cor.5:16), that those under his ministry were justified and reconciled, that they were the “body” of Christ, that further light had been given concerning the secret of the resurrection, of which he had spoken to the Thessalonians. We should not expect to find these things in a treatise on the kingdom. Paul’s ministry to the dispersion must fail, even as did that of the twelve in the land. His message for the nations must change, to accord with the defection of the favored people.
A.E. Knoch -From the Levite to the Slave
It appears Israel has lost her priestly linens. Shortly the nation will lose all it’s clothing.
[size=150]JERUSALEM 21:23-22:30[/size]
What we see here is a place so dead, you couldn’t bounce a ball in it.
[size=150]IMPRISONMENT AT CAESAREA 23:23-26-32[/size]
Israel is dead man walking. It is really only a matter of time. They were offered the kingdom in 1) Jerusalem 2)Judea
3)Samaria 4) limits of the land 5) dispersion outside the land. What is the result? Well the two verses above. {for starters}
The only indication of a Church of Jew and gentile (body of Christ) in the book of Acts is associated with the apostle Paul. There is not one instance of the twelve apostles going to a non proselyte. Paul took his gospel to idolaters.
The red words above show Israel has not yet been set aside (except for priestly functions)
[size=150]ROME 27:1-28:31[/size]
Israel’s apostasy takes tangible form in the chains which bind him. During all this period, until he finds himself in Rome, there is no further progress in the truth. The final revelation cannot come until Israel’s political place is taken from her, and this must be done in Rome, not in Jerusalem or in the land of Israel. Therefore, he is certain that he shall see the city of the Caesars. Nothing can hinder that. When he might have been released, he appeals his case. The final act of the kingdom tragedy must be staged at the imperial capital. A.E. Knoch -From the Levite to the Slave.
Tradition can place our minds under lock and key. We have always been told the Church began at Pentecost, and so our view of the Acts period is the beginning and growth of the Church. The thought that it might really be more about the apostles question in acts 1:6 "Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” Never really crosses our minds.
Have you ever wondered why the Book of Acts ends as it does? The book has been following the Apostle Paul’s life through all sorts of dangers and challenges. He ends up in Rome under house arrest – he preaches in Rome and has some success, although some Jews are not convinced. And then we read:
Acts 28:30-1 He lived there two whole years at his own expense and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance. THE END
Prof Paul Trebilco
The book ends the way it does, because it is THE END of Israel. {not forever}
The answer to the Apostles question is a resounding NO! {The kingdom will not be restored}
"
The word “they departed” is the word ‘dismissed’ in the CLV. It is the Greek word ‘Apoluo’ and is used concerning divorce in Matthew 1:19 and 5:31-32. In the scriptures Israel is given a marriage relationship with God.
It is Paul which dismissed them.
Paul seals the divorce with quoting Isaiah 6.
In the O.T. it symbolizes their rejection of Jehovah,
in the Gospels of Christ,
and now in the Acts period of the spirit.
It is holiday’s for me tomorrow. I am not sure If I will be back on this system. I want to thank Jason for the opportunity of a challenge. God Bless!
Puddy*