A good question!

[EverLearning1055]

Since Peter, (and presumably James, John and the rest of the disciples) knew what Paul was preaching about the dispensation of grace...(1 Peter 3:15-16)

Since the letter to the Galatians (see 3:26-29) makes it clear that there is neither Jew nor Greek but all are one in Christ...also see 1 Corinthians 12:13,

WHY didn't Peter and the rest of the 12 along with all those saved in Acts become part of the Body of Christ?

Did the Kingdom message continue to be preached (during Paul's lifetime) since there was a "change in program" at the same time the disciples were alive?

Why did the "believing remnant" of Jews have to say, take one fork in the road (waiting for fulfillment of the prophetic program to resume) while those following Paul took the other fork in the road (the Grace program, the Body of Christ).

 

[Biblewriter]

Since Peter, (and presumably James, John and the rest of the disciples) knew what Paul was preaching about the dispensation of grace...(1 Peter 3:15-16)

Since the letter to the Galatians (see 3:26-29) makes it clear that there is neither Jew nor Greek but all are one in Christ...also see 1 Corinthians 12:13,

WHY didn't Peter and the rest of the 12 along with all those saved in Acts become part of the Body of Christ?

Did the Kingdom message continue to be preached (during Paul's lifetime) since there was a "change in program" at the same time the disciples were alive?

Why did the "believing remnant" of Jews have to say, take one fork in the road (waiting for fulfillment of the prophetic program to resume) while those following Paul took the other fork in the road (the Grace program, the Body of Christ).

Actually, this is a very bad question, because it is based on false premises. The different roads simply never existed. All who have ever trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as the olny hope for their salvation have immediately become part of the body of Christ.

 

[MWood]

Actually, this is a very bad question, because it is based on false premises. The different roads simply never existed. All who have ever trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as the olny hope for their salvation have immediately become part of the body of Christ.

Actually, all questions are good questions.
As for the different roads....? The Gospel that Jesus was preaching was the Gospel of the Kingdom. The Gospel that was revealed to Paul by Jesus was the Gospel of the grace of God. Different roads? Yes! Because God changed His way of dealing with His human creation. Thereby we have the Kingdom Church, and the Church the Body of Christ.

The Kingdom Church are the remnant that will be in the New Jerusalem when Jesus returns to reign as King for a thousand years.
The Church the Body of Christ will be the Saints that will return with Christ to defeat Satan and cast Him into the bottomless pit. And forever be with the Lord.

The Kingdom message was preached as long as there was a disciple alive.
Remember, Jesus gave His disciples a command and commission to preach all that He had taught them, in Jerusalem, Judea, Sumaria, and the uttermost part of the earth. They had to do this. So, yes they continued on until they all died.

 

[EverLearning1055]

1. There are no bad questions.
2. Are you a dispensationalist, BW?

 

[Biblewriter]

Actually, all questions are good questions.

1. There are no bad questions.
2. Are you a dispensationalist, BW?

This is quite incorrect. A question that is based on a false premise is a bad question.

 

[EverLearning1055]

The Kingdom message was preached as long as there was a disciple alive.
Remember, Jesus gave His disciples a command and commission to preach all that He had taught them, in Jerusalem, Judea, Sumaria, and the uttermost part of the earth. They had to do this. So, yes they continued on until they all died.

Ok, yes. I get that Peter and the rest had marching orders from the Lord per Matt. 28. But that doesn't quite address my entire query.

Maybe it will help if I break the question down into elements.
Starting with 2 Peter 3:

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So, since we see Peter and the believing remnant of Israel (call them the Little Flock or Kingdom believers or whatever) DID in fact READ Paul's letters, and since apparently Peter understood the Mystery and the changing of the Program from Kingdom to Grace within his lifetime:

Why didn't those following Peter become part of the Body of Christ, The One New Man, given that the middle wall of partition had been broken down and the new doctrine of "neither Jew nor Greek" was being taught during their lifetime?
Why did they (have to) continue to look forward to the Kingdom?
Why did they continue to identify as circumcision (Jews)?

[Side note: I'm working from the understanding that vs. 16 bolded above is, in essence, Peter explaining to the Jewish believers that if they had a hard time understanding why the Tribulation hadn't begun yet, why the Lord hadn't returned yet (and scoffers were arising saying "it ain't gonna happen, this is all just as it's always been), that what the delay showed was the long-suffering of God.]

 

[EverLearning1055]

This is quite incorrect. A question that is based on a false premise is a bad question.

Mr Morris,
If you're going to be rude and condescending, please feel free to ignore me.
OTOH, you didn't answer my question about whether or not you're a dispensationalist.

If you aren't, then of course you'll think my question is based on false premises.
And I will think your answers are based on false premises as well.
And we'll both be wasting our time, won't we?

I don't come here to argue as so many seem to. I come to learn and ask questions.

 

[Danoh]

Actually, this is a very bad question, because it is based on false premises. The different roads simply never existed. All who have ever trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as the olny hope for their salvation have immediately become part of the body of Christ.

No, BW, it is your having the Body exist before Acts 9 and how you arrive at that, that is the false premise. This is exactly why you have to resort to the Greek when you explain Revelation 3:10 - because the Greek lends itself to a "flexibility" as to intended sense that truly consistent Dispensationalism [Mid-Acts] will not allow.

Will have to respectfully have to disagree with you - the Twelve and they of the Curcumcision which believed prior to Israel's fall were not Body members: they were Kingdom of Heaven on Earth saints, thus their "kingdom come" prayer, the fact of their number - Twelve - Peter's Acts 3 return of Christ TO ISRAEL preaching, etc.

You have to look at them through THEIR Promises, not through the Body's.

What say you, you apologize to Everlearning, and we Dispys compare these things. I mean, we Dispy's have enough enemies, do we really need to be at enmity with one another? Can we not compare these things in agape, brother?

Here's hoping you make Him the issue, brother...

Sincerely...

 

[Danoh]

Since Peter, (and presumably James, John and the rest of the disciples) knew what Paul was preaching about the dispensation of grace...(1 Peter 3:15-16)

Since the letter to the Galatians (see 3:26-29) makes it clear that there is neither Jew nor Greek but all are one in Christ...also see 1 Corinthians 12:13,

WHY didn't Peter and the rest of the 12 along with all those saved in Acts become part of the Body of Christ?

Did the Kingdom message continue to be preached (during Paul's lifetime) since there was a "change in program" at the same time the disciples were alive?

Why did the "believing remnant" of Jews have to say, take one fork in the road (waiting for fulfillment of the prophetic program to resume) while those following Paul took the other fork in the road (the Grace program, the Body of Christ).

Because, per passages like Romans 16:20, neither had expected they would not see the fullness of either of Romans 11's two fulnesses in their lifetime...its the Hebrews 11 "all died in faith" principle that is the testimony of all saints throughout Scripture...

Peter relates what became of the promise of His coming preached by Peter many years earlier, at Acts 3 - he explains its delay near the very end of his life in 2 Peter.

Compare the "longsuffering" he relates there with Paul's in Romans 9 and in 1 Tim. 1...

Great question, sister!!!

 

[EverLearning1055]

Danoh,
Thanks for your reply and support.

So your understanding of why the remnant believing Jews did not "participate" or embrace the Grace message Paul was teaching is because they didn't think it would be long before the Lord returned?

As I consider this whole question, I'm putting myself in the place of a 34-60 AD Jewish believer: I know what the 12 have been teaching about looking forward to the Day when my sins will be blotted out, Jesus will return and the promises made to my people will all be fulfilled (per Jeremiah 31 among others).

Maybe I, as a Jew, am so content with the knowledge that my Messiah has come, died for my sins, and yes, I did repent and was water baptised as Peter taught us. Someday soon (as I'm being taught) He will return and made all things right - I feel no need to embrace Brother Paul's message of "the new creature in Christ" and "One new man" etc. I think for salvation to come to the Gentiles is great, but I view Paul's message as being for them, and not for me.

I have Jewish friends who are assisting in the work of the ministry with Paul, Barnabas and the rest, so it's not like we reject Paul or this "new message, this Mystery" he's been teaching. It's more like we don't feel the need to embrace it, because after all we are Chosen. And OUR Messiah has come. And now all we need do to obtain our promises is wait a little while.

This is, BTW the position my husband pretty much has come to. We've been wrassling with this for a couple weeks now, LOL. At first he was stumped but we've been studying it together. Yesterday after our meeting, I present the original question to our pastor. He admitted he's thought of this before and it's a bit of a head scratcher, but believes it has something to do with Rom 11:29 in that the gifts and calling of God are without repentence. That didn't quite get it for me, but I think it is a factor to consider.

I went so far as to email Richard Jordan for his thoughts. If I ever hear back from him, it will probably be a miracle.

 

[Biblewriter]

My contention that the question on the OP was not a good question was based on the fact that it presupposes the very facts that are in contention.

If the question had been about whether or not these pre-supposed facts are actual facts at all, then it would have been a good question.

I see this question in the class of a policeman asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife." any affirmation or denial of the question would amount to an admission that the suspect had indeed been beating his wife.

 

[MWood]

Since Peter, (and presumably James, John and the rest of the disciples) knew what Paul was preaching about the dispensation of grace...(1 Peter 3:15-16)

Since the letter to the Galatians (see 3:26-29) makes it clear that there is neither Jew nor Greek but all are one in Christ...also see 1 Corinthians 12:13,

WHY didn't Peter and the rest of the 12 along with all those saved in Acts become part of the Body of Christ?

Did the Kingdom message continue to be preached (during Paul's lifetime) since there was a "change in program" at the same time the disciples were alive?

Why did the "believing remnant" of Jews have to say, take one fork in the road (waiting for fulfillment of the prophetic program to resume) while those following Paul took the other fork in the road (the Grace program, the Body of Christ).

Let me start over.

There were two Kingdom Saints that I can think of that that did start following Paul. Barnabus and John Mark. And surely there were others of the followers of Jesus, and those that were saved on the day of Pentecost that heard Pauls' message and started following him.

We also find in one of the Timothy letters where Paul is telling him that they had all abandoned him indicating the approaching end of his ministry and life.

Richard Jordan is a good choice, with much info.
My choice would be Curt Crist, WelcometoGrace.com. An excellent teacher.

 

[MWood]

Let us know what you find out from them, please.

 

[Danoh]

Let me start over.

There were two Kingdom Saints that I can think of that that did start following Paul. Barnabus and John Mark. And surely there were others of the followers of Jesus, and those that were saved on the day of Pentecost that heard Pauls' message and started following him.

We also find in one of the Timothy letters where Paul is telling him that they had all abandoned him indicating the approaching end of his ministry and life.

Richard Jordan is a good choice, with much info.
My choice would be Curt Crist, WelcometoGrace.com. An excellent teacher.

Paul's Apostleship potentially posed distinct problems that, for example, many Jews today, including some Messianics, have a tough time reconciling.

Paul's teachings on Grace, for example, strongly appear to go against a passage like Isaiah 8:20, etc.

Given how often he is depicted having to defend both his Apostleship and its uniquness, it is obvious that problem questions as to why another Apostle - one of equal importance with the Twelve when Twelve was the number - have to be dealt with at some point or another.

If you study out both the introduction of Barnabus in Acts, as well as his introduction of Paul to the Twelve, after Paul's conversion, you begin to get a sense that Kingdom saints like Barbabus served as a bridge between Isaiah 8:20, and Romans 11:13, etc.

 

[Danoh]

I admire very few as to their true, consistent depth, but Richard Jordan is on a level in his understanding of things that few may ever reach...

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Since Peter, (and presumably James, John and the rest of the disciples) knew what Paul was preaching about the dispensation of grace...(1 Peter 3:15-16)

Since the letter to the Galatians (see 3:26-29) makes it clear that there is neither Jew nor Greek but all are one in Christ...also see 1 Corinthians 12:13,

WHY didn't Peter and the rest of the 12 along with all those saved in Acts become part of the Body of Christ?

Did the Kingdom message continue to be preached (during Paul's lifetime) since there was a "change in program" at the same time the disciples were alive?

Why did the "believing remnant" of Jews have to say, take one fork in the road (waiting for fulfillment of the prophetic program to resume) while those following Paul took the other fork in the road (the Grace program, the Body of Christ).

There is no fork. There is one path of grace for all of humanity.

It may have taken the apostles a little longer to get it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't always true:

Acts 15
7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

 

[Old Timer]

WHY didn't Peter and the rest of the 12 along with all those saved in Acts become part of the Body of Christ?

I think that it's just a matter of time, until the dispensation of the fulness of times mentioned in Eph 1:10.. And how that all things shall be gathered together in Christ, things in heaven and on earth..

That's the huge distinction..

The Israel of God is an EARTHLY entity with all their ordinances, including the Law and being responsible for the very oracles of God.. Huge..

The church of God is HEAVENLY isn't it.. We're to set our affections on the things which are above and not on the things on earth..

But again.. In the dispensation of the fulness of times all things in heaven and on earth are going to be gathered together in Him..

 

[Danoh]

My contention that the question on the OP was not a good question was based on the fact that it presupposes the very facts that are in contention.

If the question had been about whether or not these pre-supposed facts are actual facts at all, then it would have been a good question.

I see this question in the class of a policeman asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife." any affirmation or denial of the question would amount to an admission that the suspect had indeed been beating his wife.

It could be said that yours was the presuppositon that you understood her question.

Being it was asked from the Mid-Acts Perspective, I sincerely doubt you actually understood her question - Matthew 16/Acts Two Dispensationalism consistently demonstrates an inability to understand Mid-Acts. Acts 28 Dispensationalism suffers from the same problem.

I don't mean that as a put down, rather as an observation.

These issues are not solved for in the same way as going back and forth with others about the reasonings of book writers.

Rather, they're solved by "what saith the Scripture" in its proper context, once said context has itself been properly determined.

For example, the answer to Everlearning's question is in light of passages like Galatians 2 - they remained "of the circumcision," but, their program on hold, they "lived after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews," Gal. 2: 7-9, 14.

The complexity lies in the fact they - "the little flock" had been a rare bunch - their program interrupted by the Mystery of God's New Creature - not the Church, as some assert, but that Church which is His Body...

 

[MWood]

Paul's Apostleship potentially posed distinct problems that, for example, many Jews today, including some Messianics, have a tough time reconciling.

Paul's teachings on Grace, for example, strongly appear to go against a passage like Isaiah 8:20, etc.

Given how often he is depicted having to defend both his Apostleship and its uniquness, it is obvious that problem questions as to why another Apostle - one of equal importance with the Twelve when Twelve was the number - have to be dealt with at some point or another.

If you study out both the introduction of Barnabus in Acts, as well as his introduction of Paul to the Twelve, after Paul's conversion, you begin to get a sense that Kingdom saints like Barbabus served as a bridge between Isaiah 8:20, and Romans 11:13, etc.

I agree!

 

[MWood]

I admire very few as to their true, consistent depth, but Richard Jordan is on a level in his understanding of things that few may ever reach...

I agree here too!

In my early years of seeing the distinction between law/prophecy and grace, I found a web of his and sat through many hours of his "old" videos. These gave me a better understanding of the gospel of Paul than any thing else that I could have studied. Grace India I believe.

I would like for you, Danoh, to check out Welcometograce.com. This man is on the level of Richard, IMO.