Dispensationalism

Curt · Apr 18, 2004

duster1az said:
Your Scripture quotations were anticipated and answered before you presented them.

As for the quote above, God, being who He is owes nothing to anyone. But He has taken it upon Himself to produce on Israel's behalf and it will certainly come to pass. You did hit upon something which is a critical distinction you might want to keep in mind. If any involved in the covenant relationship chooses not to walk before the Lord they will lose out on the benefits and blessings, but though sin and disobedience causes the loss of blessings it never cancels the covenant. The final fulfillment of all unconditional covenants depends on God alone.

In Christ,
Tracey

There is no such a thing as an unconditional covenant in The Bible, nor is there any dispensationalism in The Bible.

@@Paul@@ · Apr 19, 2004

Curt said:
There is no such a thing as an unconditional covenant in The Bible, nor is there any dispensationalism in The Bible.

(1Co 9:17 KJV) For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
(Eph 1:10 KJV) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
(Eph 3:2 KJV) If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
(Col 1:25 KJV) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

At least this word is in the Bible.... So what does the word dispensation mean?

G3622
oikonomia (dispensation)
oy-kon-om-ee'-ah
From G3623; administration (of a household or estate); specifically a (religious) economy: - dispensation, stewardship.

So it's safe to say that a "dispensation of God" is simply how He dispenses His administration or will. Has God always asked man over and over again to do the same thing?

Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

@@Paul@@ · Apr 19, 2004

That's taking it literally?

Lets see what God says:

So now, were is this division between God's people Israel (you would say Jews only) and Gentiles?
Doesn't making the "two" into "one body" which is called the "Church" makes Jews and Gentiles equal? If they are equal, then how can they at the same time be unequal. If the distinction is destroyed, why live as if there is a difference? You can't avoid this and many other passages like it if you take them literally.

Please bear with me on this long winded study of One NEW man, but I think its important:
Part ONE.

Eph 2:11-12
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Verse 11 starts off with a humble reminder of where we came from and that we were born outside of covenant relationship with God. Unlike Jews who were born into relationship with god, gentiles were born into this world separated from God, they had no covenants, no promises and no hope (Romans 9 say so). The only way a gentile nation was mentioned in the bible was if they touched the chosen nation of Israel. Do you think Asia just sprung up as a nation in the New Testament? I assure you, they had been there the entire time worshiping idols because God never knew them.

Ps 147:19-20
19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.
Amos 3:1-2
3:1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying,
2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth

Paul refers to the gentiles as being afar off and as strangers. A gentile did have a little hope, one could simply convert to Judaism and be blessed through Israel. Even then the common gentile was separated from God by a literal middle wall in the temple. This middle wall separated the Jew from the gentile; only under penalty of death could the gentile cross.
God did dwell in the temple part-time. Only the High Priest was allowed into Holy of Holy, even then he could only go in, at most, once a year.

Eph 2:13
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Paul is talking about two groups of people here: Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were near, the gentiles were afar off. Only NOW in Christ Jesus gentiles were brought closer by the blood of Christ. Now, this is where most people miss read this verse. It says we were made NIGH or brought NEAR. We did not replace Israel has Gods chosen nation on this earth. We were brought nearer at the cross but we were still in second place. Romans 9 remind us that everything still belonged to Israel and:

Rom 15:27
27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

reminds us that we are still not in covenant relationship with God, Israel Is. Even after the cross. We were made partakers of their spiritual things; we had not received our own YET. Let me ask you this: Do you minister to Israel in carnal things (financial donations) as the verse above describes? Why not?
Remember; whenever God is dealing on this earth with the nation of Israel, they will always be in first place.

Deut 28:13
13 And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:

This explains why the Jew was first and then also to the Gentile.

Amos 3:1-3
3:1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying,
2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.
3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

When God is in covenant relationship with someone, a lot of responsibility follows; Therefore I will punish you. God has never punished people today like he has done with Israel, NOR has He ever blessed anyone on this earth like the chosen nation of Israel. When we are in a covenant relationship with God, there is consequence for our sins, even after the cross Im afraid. Throughout the timeline during the book of acts, there was consequence for sin:
· Anannias and Sapphira were judged for their sins and fear came upon all the church Acts 5:1-10
· If you were unworthy and partook of the Lords Supper, you might be made weak, sick, or even worse, fall asleep. 1 Cor. 11:24-30. If you are unaware of what sleep is see John 11:11.
· If you commit fornication your body is to be handed over to Satan. 1 Cor. 5:1-5
Some try to spiritualize the judgment on fornication but death was certainly the sentence, just like Ananias and Saphirra.
I should say that if this ordinance were still in place, we would not have the population problem we do today.

Eph 2:14
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

He refers to Christ in verse 14. Christ is our peace who has made BOTH, those once afar off and those that were near, ONE. Were Jews and Gentiles one on all aspects during the acts period? Sadly no. The believers during that time were one group (or body) in Christ, but that was only referring to how one could approach Christ. In Christ, Jew and Gentile were one. But on this earth the Jew still had some advantages. It was the Jew first, Gentiles were partakers of their spiritual things, the Gospel always went to the Jew first; and when they rejected, Paul turned to the gentiles. Why? See Romans 11:11.
In the temple there was a literal middle wall which separated gentiles from the Jews. There was also a veil which separated the most Holy place from the common Jew; only the High Priest could pass through the veil. This veil was destroyed at the cross, when Christ took his place at the right hand of the father; He became High Priest. All nations on this earth now have redemption by his blood. You see, the only thing the cross changed for us Gentiles was that through His blood we have redemption and we can now go to the Father through Christ. Israel was the chosen nation before the cross, after and will be once again.
Now, verse 14b states: and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; This middle wall was not separating gentiles from God but it was separating Jews from gentiles. When Paul says between US he is not referring to Man and God (that would be absurd); but he was referring to those who he described early in the verse as both and earlier in the chapter as afar off and near. Not only is the symbolic wall now being broken down, but Paul continues to describe this wall in the verse to follow:

Eph 2:15
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

And hath broken down the middle wall of partition between US (colon); the first step was to abolish in his flesh the enmity. The word enmity is kind of an evil word; it gives the sense of hatred or hostility between two enemies. Were Jew and gentiles enemies?

Lev 26:38
38 And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.
Neh 5:9
9 Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies?

The second step was to abolish the law of commandment contained in ordinances; to make in Himself of twain (or two) one NEW man, so making peace. Was there peace before now?
Now, lets put on our thinking caps! For whatever reason, whether no one told them NOT to or tradition, or unbelief, all of the Jewish believers were keeping the entire Law of Moses during the acts period. The book of James makes it pretty clear that the Jew at that time is justified by works James 2:14, 21. And if you broke one point of the law, you broke them all James 2:10, 11. So they may have not been under the law, but they were keeping the law.

James 2:14
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
James 2:24
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

But yet in Ephesians Paul writes that salvation is by faith alone. Which is it? One thing we must understand is all scripture is given by inspiration of God and if the book of James implies that the Jews were saved by works + faith; you can bet they were. Ive read some peoples interpretation of these passages and its really sad. People try to say James was talking about good works and Paul was talking about the works of the law. Do a concordance search for good works and see who actually used that phrase.
Luckily thats not the law Paul was talking about. Christ Himself said He did not come to destroy the law.

Matt 5:17
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Pauls states, the law OF commandments contained IN ordinances. Paul was a Jew; he would never refer to the Law of Moses as the law of commandments, it would simply be the Law. Nor was the Law of Moses contained in ordinances. So what was Paul talking about?
Fist of let me say this; I believe the Jew was still in covenant relationship with God, thats why they were keeping the law. It was not so much for salvation as simply their duty, with great privileges comes great responsibility. At the end of Acts Paul quotes those terrible words from Isaiah 6:9 where God sends Isaiah to foretell the ruin of his people.

@@Paul@@ · Apr 19, 2004

Please bear with me on this long winded study of One NEW man, but I think its important:
Part TWO. (see part ONE above)

Acts 28:26-27
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Prior to this point in time, Israel had not actually been cast aside and for whatever reason (whether you believe me or not) they WERE keeping the law. And it was because if this, the Gentiles were asked to keep 4 points of the law, known as ordinances. We can ASSUME the gentiles were asked this burden to keep the peace with the Jews, but no one knows why. Lets look at those ordinances.

Acts 15:20
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:23
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner;
Acts 15:28-29
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 16:4
4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

Acts 21:25
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

We can see in the above passages that to keep the peace, the gentiles were asked to keep 4 ordinances (or decrees). They were asked first and foremost by the Holy Ghost Acts 15:28. You say, well that was just so save face, and to keep the peace, they didnt really have to do it. But the English word used in acts was decree, which means:

1. official order: an order with the power of legislation issued by a ruler or other person or group with authority
2. law court ruling: a ruling given by a court, especially a divorce, equity, or probate court
3. religion divine will: the will or purpose of God, interpreted through events considered to be Gods doing

It was Gods will that the Gentiles at that time keep these ordinances and decrees. Paul even reminded the Corinthian church to keep the ordinances, and if you want to know what happens to those who break these ordinances, see 1 Cor. 5:1-5.

1 Cor 11:2
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Now if Christ was our peace, who made both one, why didnt God simply tell the Jews to stop keeping the law? If they were to be blinded and cast aside anyway what would it matter? And why were Gentiles asked to only keep 4 points of the law? Why not all of it? Can you have peace if a group of people APPEAR to be more holy than another? I mean, if group A keeps 24 points of the law and group B only keeps 4, can there be peace between the two? Furthermore: would not the group keeping only 4 points begin to boast? See Romans 11. Or maybe the group keeping the 24 points be begin to be jealous (or prideful and blinded)?
I know that was a rather long-winded view into law of commandments and ordinances; so making peace. But I needed to make a point. There could not be peace between Jew and Gentile as long as God was dealing with the nation of Israel. It was not until Israel was cast aside (temporarily) that God would be not be their God nor would they be His people.

Hos 1:9
for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

Eph 2:15
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

So it was not until God had cast Israel aside that peace could be made. The ordinances and decrees set up during the acts period have now been abolished, Christ has made one NEW man. One that had bee kept secret in God. The word rendered make here is actually create. God does not put new wine in old bottles nor does He use an old garment to patch up a new one. He starts afresh; He created one NEW man and made peace.

Matt 9:16-17
16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Eph 2:16-17
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

The word reconcile has a few meanings. I think in this case it simply means make acceptable. Christ wanted to make acceptable both (those afar off and those near) unto God. It is important to see Gods timeline here. The word both is being used to describe one body. This is the same two people we have been talking about this entire chapter. This one body (by the cross) is the same one new man in verse 15. A new creation, so making peace.
Another thing to note: The term used is by the cross this new creation was made not AT the cross, it was BY the cross. This is stating HOW it was done, not when. During most of the Acts period God was still offering the heavenly kingdom to the Jews. And only because of the cross, through Christ do we now have access to the Father by one Spirit.
When did God cast His people aside and offer something NEW to the world?
These next verses are really important, so lets look at them one at a time.
Dont believe anything Im telling you without looking it up for yourself. But with out readiness of mind, God may not be able to tell you anything.
As if this epistle, we now have peace; one new man.

Eph 2:19
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Now therefore OR because of what we just talked about, ye [those who were afar off] are no more strangers and foreigners, but now we are fellowcitizens with the saints [those that were near] (see verse 1:1) AND belong to the household of God.

Eph 2:20
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

And are [still talking about those afar off] built upon the foundation of the apostles, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. When you build a house how many foundations do you lay down? God says here we are built upon THE foundation, so there is only one. A house has many rooms, many stories but only one foundation, this one is Jesus Christ. God has a plan for all the ages, and HE is bringing that plan together into ONE building.

Eph 2:21
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

In Christ all the building (Gods plan) is being fitly framed together and growing unto a holy temple in the Lord. The word fitly gives us just the definition we need to understand how God works, it means: in an appropriate way or place. It is being framed together in the appropriate way, because God in His foreknowledge knew just how to do it.

Eph 2:22
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Heres where it gets tricky.

Verse 21 states In Christ all the building groweth into a Holy Temple. In verse 22 we read in Christ ye ALSO are building together for a habitation [abode] of God through the Spirit. Its amazing that a simple word like also caused me to miss this glory the first few times I read it. Maybe I just wasnt ready.

also
1. in addition: used to indicate that something is true or is the case in addition
2. likewise or similarly: like or in the same way as somebody or something else
3. moreover: and in addition to that (used to modify a whole sentence or clause)

Note: Scripture only works like a one way street. Some saints are faithful but not all the faithful are saints.
Paul uses two verses here to describe two different things. He describes ALL the building as a Holy Temple and ALSO us (the one new man) as a habitation of God through the Spirit. All the building may contain US which are built together, but no way could this group of believers consist of ALL the building. Gods building consists of more than just us today.
So what does this mean? Well, we cannot say what Gods eternal purpose is for Israel or the guests at the wedding or even the gentiles born during the millennium. But we do know by verse 22 that the ONE NEW MAN is being built together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.

That's taking it literally?
So now, were is this division between God's people Israel (you would say Jews only) and Gentiles?

There is NO division NOW, but there will be again. During the tribulation AND the millennium. When God is dealing with Isreal, they will be in first place.

Doesn't making the "two" into "one body" which is called the "Church" makes Jews and Gentiles equal? If they are equal, then how can they at the same time be unequal.

A church is simply a called out group of people. So, the church (as you put it) could be made up of Jews, Gentiles or a combination of the two. There was A church in the old testament. There will be a church during the tribulation AND there is a church today. None of these are the same, so the churches are NOT equal. The important thing here is to understand when the church during acts became the church of the one NEW man.

If the distinction is destroyed, why live as if there is a difference? You can't avoid this and many other passages like it if you take them literally.

The distinction is made when we realize that when God created something NEW, He also gave NEW promises and blessings We today, are NOT Israel, nor is Israel a group of Gentiles. Today we have one NEW man, so making peace. We do NOT have an earthly calling, we have a heavenly calling.

duster1az · Apr 19, 2004

Curt said:
There is no such a thing as an unconditional covenant in The Bible, nor is there any dispensationalism in The Bible.

Due to respect, in which you're entitled if for no other reason than age, I'll respectfully disagree with your position and allow you to present your argument.

In Christ,
Tracey

Angelajt · May 10, 2004

Linda8 said:
How can one confirm whether he/she has not had a body that died before?

There is absolutely no means of knowing, since all memory is lost after death.

The spirit departs and goes back and knoweth not when it returns.

..

According to scripture, your memory is intact......as whe the rich man and lazrus died......you will still feel too, with your spiritual body.....thirst, etc.

Angelajt · May 10, 2004

I agree with interpreter..........the kingdom is now...within the believer.......every where you go you take the kingdom and the power to change history....and it just gets better

@@Paul@@ · May 11, 2004

Angelajt said:
I agree with interpreter..........the kingdom is now...within the believer.......every where you go you take the kingdom and the power to change history....and it just gets better

Which kingdom would you be referring to? The kingdom of Satan, the kingdom promised to Israel, some kingdom of man OR God's kingdom which encompasses all of the above?

All of the above noted kingdoms are "now" except for one.

Angelajt · May 11, 2004

@@Paul@@ said:
Which kingdom would you be referring to? The kingdom of Satan, the kingdom promised to Israel, some kingdom of man OR God's kingdom which encompasses all of the above?

All of the above noted kingdoms are "now" except for one.

The kingdom of God or Heaven, whatever you want to call it. That is the good news. not Jesus died for our sins, but that the kingdom of Heaven is within us.

No other kingdom matters.

@@Paul@@ · May 11, 2004

Angelajt said:
I agree with interpreter..........the kingdom is now...within the believer.......every where you go you take the kingdom and the power to change history....and it just gets better

Angelajt said:

The kingdom of God or Heaven, whatever you want to call it. That is the good news. not Jesus died for our sins, but that the kingdom of Heaven is within us.

No other kingdom matters.

Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree then.

Their is only one gospel for today and it's that Jesus died and rose again... we are sinners and are saved by grace... nothing else matters...

the kingdom of God is not the same as the kingdom of heaven... so i shall call them by the appropriate names..

Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Christ was talking to Pharisees here... I do not think they have the power to change history, and i'm not sure why you think that.

Anytime i hear "within you" or "power" in the same sentence i get chills (not the good kind).

Angelajt · May 11, 2004

@@Paul@@ said:
We will have to agree to disagree then. Their is only one gospel for today and it's that Jesus died and rose again... we are sinners and are saved by grace... nothing else matters...

the kingdom of God is not the same as the kingdom of heaven... so i shall call them by the appropriate names..

Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Christ was talking to Pharisees here... I do not think they have the power to change history, and i'm not sure why you think that.

Anytime i hear "within you" or "power" in the same sentence i get chills (not the good kind).

Well, good thing I don't go on chills. I go on the word of God. And the good news is not what you have been told by preachers all your life. The good news is not your a sinner saved by grace.

The good news is that Jesus came that we could have life and have it more abundantly. The good news is that we don't have to be a slave to fear, sin and sickness any more.

Your right, the kingdom isn't seen with your eyes. It is where ever I go because the Holy Spirit lives in me and has rule and reign in my life to do the will of the father. For instance today ,someone had been hospitalized this past week with intestinal problmes. Doctors ran test, can't find anything, still looking. Lady comes to see me, still in pain. I said let me pray for you because God wants to heal you. An hour and a half later, shes pain free and hugging me in tears. She said, I wanted to call you when I was in the hospital but couldn't find your number.

You know why she wanted to call me? Because I have prayed for her grandson and God miraculously cured him of step parlalysis in is joints. She knew the will of God, his kingdom was in me.

Jesus didn't say as you go preach salvation, sinners saved by grace. He said.
As you go, preach the kingdom of God and heal the sick. Luke 4:43

Mark 4:11 it is given to us to know the mysteries of the kingdom.

The kingdom is just the kings dominion, on earth as it is in heave. It may look like hell to the rest of the would, but to us who possess the kingdom, it is heaven on earth.

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it.

Since you quoted Luke 17:20, you should finish it with 17:21 we here Jesus explains, yes it's not over here or ther, the kingdom is within you.
See, that is the gospel that Jesus preached, the kingdom with signs following, sick healed, demons cast out, and the dead raised to name a few.

The gospel has not changed, only another gospel is being preached that is
really no gospel at all. It's the doctrin of demons, that has a form of godliness but denys the power. 2 Tim.3:5

Justme · May 11, 2004

Hi Paul,

You mentioned that the Kingdom of Heaven is not the same as the Kingdom of Heaven..........

Matthew 11:11
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 7:28
I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

You will notice that Mark never uses the term Kingdom of Heaven , yet Mark reports the same gospel as Matthew. So the two phrases mean the same thing.

Taken further, look at Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 and we see that the coming of the son and the kingdo of God are also the same thing.

I haven't read your thread so I don't want to derail it , I just wanted to point this out.

Justme

Laserman · May 11, 2004

Hello,

There is also the verse concerning the rich young ruler where Christ says Kingdom of God AND Kingdom of Heaven in the same sentence. What will you trust, Your own understanding or what Jesus said? They are the same thing.

Barry

@@Paul@@ · May 12, 2004

Justme said:
Hi Paul,

You mentioned that the Kingdom of Heaven is not the same as the Kingdom of Heaven..........

Matthew 11:11
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 7:28
I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

You will notice that Mark never uses the term Kingdom of Heaven , yet Mark reports the same gospel as Matthew. So the two phrases mean the same thing.

Taken further, look at Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 and we see that the coming of the son and the kingdo of God are also the same thing.

I haven't read your thread so I don't want to derail it , I just wanted to point this out.

Justme

Hi Justme...

I guess I see a difference between the earthly kingdom promised to Israel in the OT and the "kingdom of God". Certainly one could define any kingdom as being part of the kingdom of God.

Which kingdom is this referring to?

Mic 4:8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.

How about this one?

Rev 12:9-10 KJV
(9) And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(10) And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

According to Revelation, this event happens around the half-way point... So which kingdom is this?

In some cases (Mat., Mark, Luke) the same phrase is used to describe both of these kingdoms. There are many mysteries in scripture and this is one.

Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

As far as the differences between Mat. and Mark, each of the four gospels was written from a certain perspective. Thus each one has a slightly different point.

Eze 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.
Rev 4:7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.

In a sense these represent the four gospels. Mathew = King, Mark = calf (or OX), Luke = Man and John = Eagle.

Mathew being the "kingly gospel" is would make sense that it's main point was regarding the kingdom promised to Israel... Christ came as "King of the Jews" after all...

Whenever it says:

(Mat 11:15 KJV) He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(Mat 13:9 KJV) Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(Mat 13:43 KJV) Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

It's not going to be a simple study...

Justme · May 12, 2004

Hi Paul,

I see the kingdom of Heaven/kingdom of God to be established at the parousia. That is the beginning of the inheritance of the eternel life that was promised at the begining.

Justme

@@Paul@@ · May 13, 2004

Justme said:
Hi Paul,

I see the kingdom of Heaven/kingdom of God to be established at the parousia. That is the beginning of the inheritance of the eternel life that was promised at the begining.

Justme

I agree. But,, i'm just saying that God has a kingdom which it not an earthly kingdom that comes from heaven. AND Christ has an kingdom pertaining to the throne of David..
God's kingdom has always and will always encompase all of His creation. Light and darkness, those who are blinded by sin (living in the dark) cannot see the light... But whether they (those in the dark) know it or not,,, they are in God's kingdom.

inhimitrust · May 20, 2004

Angelajt said:
The kingdom of God or Heaven, whatever you want to call it. That is the good news. not Jesus died for our sins, but that the kingdom of Heaven is within us.

No other kingdom matters.

Very good angel! God does indeed dwell in those thru His Holy Spirit that believe unto Him thru Jesus, and since Pentecost, His spirit has been pouring since, just as God promised in the OT thru the prophets. The jews/Israelis have been waiting on their "messiah" and kingdom for almost 3000 yrs, but ours came to us already. If only they knew the joy they were missing out on

A Man In ROANOKE · Jun 4, 2004

Could someone please help with a few specific problems Im having with Mid-Acts and Acts 28 Dispensationalism?

In Romans 16:7, Paul sends his greetings to saints whom he declares were in Christ before me. If being in Christ means the same here as in Galations 3:28 (neither Jew nor Greek, etc.), then the church (body of Christ) must have begun prior to Pauls conversion. What else could he mean?

Another hint of the body of Christ existing before Pauls conversion is found in Acts 9:5, where the Lord says, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest. This implies that Jewish believers were already in Christ, because if you hurt the body, you are hurting the head. Doesnt this imagery correspond with what Paul wrote later about the body of Christ, and how if one member suffers, all suffer?

I am also having a problem with 2 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul says God has, made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant. Isnt Paul supposed to be a minister of reconciliation and the new creation body of Christ, rather than the new covenant? I simply cannot believe that Paul was speaking figuratively here.

First Corinthians 11:25 states how the Lord Himself revealed to Paul that, This cup is the new covenant in My Blood. Apparently, just like other mysteries, Jesus specifically gave this to Paul, instead of letting him get it from the 12 apostles to Israel. Receiving mysteries in such a manner is a major point that dispensationalists make to emphasize the revelations of Paul for the Gentiles. Why did the risen Lord take special care to make Paul aware of the new covenant in His Blood, if he were not to then share that with the Gentiles, just like the mystery regarding the administration of Grace? Either the new covenant in Jesus Blood is as important to His church body as it is to earthly millenial kingdom Israel or it isnt. Paul went into great detail regarding the Lords Supper, but never went back to correct the Gentiles telling them no longer to celebrate it. The prison epistles gave us no new instructions for assembling that excluded sharing the cup of the new covenant until Jesus returns. Does anyone else see what Im getting at here?

When searching for answers, I ran across the following: The Church's relation to the shed Blood of the Cross is based upon Hebrews 13:20: "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant." And what are the Church's benefits now and forever, from the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant? "But now in Christ Jesus ye who once were far off are made nigh by the Blood of Christ." "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Jesus" (Eph. 2:13; Heb. 10:19). That benefit of the Blood, Israel will never know, nor even approximate. What will Israel's benefit be from the Blood of her New Covenant? "I will forgive their iniquity," and "I will cleanse them" (Jer. 31:34; Ezek. 37:23). That is the total benefit of the Blood to future kingdom Israel, from their New Covenant. The same Blood was shed for both the Church and Israel, but not with the same results.

Now, I personally can almost accept this idea, except for the fact that Paul relates his own ministry in Corinthians to the new covenant (Israels benefit), instead of relating it to the everlasting covenant (Gentiles benefit). Again I ask, why is Paul even speaking of covenants (everlasting OR new) at all? Is it okay to say that a dispensation may be connected to an everlasting covenant, but that the new covenant cannot be connected to a dispensation of Grace? If it works in one direction, why not the other way? It seems that either the body of Christ really began back at Acts 2 Pentecost (Rom 16:7 those in Christ before Paul), or that maybe covenants and dispensations can exist at the same time. Maybe like a software engineer, God always has a mainframe Covenant disk drive running in the background, while opening and executing Dispensational files within the parent program as needed (or something like that).

Any and all comments would be appreciated.

Angelajt · Jun 4, 2004

A Man In ROANOKE said:
Could someone please help with a few specific problems Im having with Mid-Acts and Acts 28 Dispensationalism?

In Romans 16:7, Paul sends his greetings to saints whom he declares were in Christ before me. If being in Christ means the same here as in Galations 3:28 (neither Jew nor Greek, etc.), then the church (body of Christ) must have begun prior to Pauls conversion. What else could he mean?

A Man In ROANOKE said:

ok. these two Andronicus and Junia are reletives of Pauls and where noted disciples and followers of Jesus among the Apostles. I'm sure this info was kept from Saul the persecutor. that is the literal meeting. Also the bible states that those that are in Christ were in him before the foundation of the earth. Don't get technical with time because God is not limited by time. Jesus had followers and before he died. Even those that were followers such as Noah I believe are considered part of the body of Christ because there is only one body. Sometimes theology will try to get you to focus too much on one part instead of Chrsit as a whole.

A Man In ROANOKE said:

Another hint of the body of Christ existing before Pauls conversion is found in Acts 9:5, where the Lord says, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest. This implies that Jewish believers were already in Christ, because if you hurt the body, you are hurting the head. Doesnt this imagery correspond with what Paul wrote later about the body of Christ, and how if one member suffers, all suffer?

Click to expand...

A Man In ROANOKE said:

A Man In ROANOKE said:

The body did exist before Paul. Paul is not the starter of the church, Jesus is. Pauls had the privlige of being a part of the converstion to help it grow just like we do. If Paul never existed the church still would.

A Man In ROANOKE said:

I am also having a problem with 2 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul says God has, made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant. Isnt Paul supposed to be a minister of reconciliation and the new creation body of Christ, rather than the new covenant? I simply cannot believe that Paul was speaking figuratively here.

Click to expand...

A Man In ROANOKE said:

A Man In ROANOKE said:

You don't have to give Pauls ministsry a name. Take away the name and it is still similar to all ministries. To preach the kingdom of God, not only in word but power. Paul is to SHOW the new covenant by action not words. The covenant is not just telling people to get saved, it is showing them the power of God to change their circumstances. When you show and tell people the good news, they hear and see and believe. Paul didn't actually get training like the rest of the apostles, this gives us who did not have the same experience as the apostles a hope to be able to be even a more powerful ministry based on faith, not being there in body to behold.

A Man In ROANOKE said:

First Corinthians 11:25 states how the Lord Himself revealed to Paul that, This cup is the new covenant in My Blood. Apparently, just like other mysteries, Jesus specifically gave this to Paul, instead of letting him get it from the 12 apostles to Israel. Receiving mysteries in such a manner is a major point that dispensationalists make to emphasize the revelations of Paul for the Gentiles. Why did the risen Lord take special care to make Paul aware of the new covenant in His Blood, if he were not to then share that with the Gentiles, just like the mystery regarding the administration of Grace? Either the new covenant in Jesus Blood is as important to His church body as it is to earthly millenial kingdom Israel or it isnt. Paul went into great detail regarding the Lords Supper, but never went back to correct the Gentiles telling them no longer to celebrate it. The prison epistles gave us no new instructions for assembling that excluded sharing the cup of the new covenant until Jesus returns. Does anyone else see what Im getting at here?

Click to expand...

A Man In ROANOKE said:

A Man In ROANOKE said:

Jesus instructed us that when we eat and drink to do so in rememberance of him. Just like before Jesus ate he blessed the food. I don't believe that Jesus meant for communion to turn into some church tradition to do at church. But that every time we take food and drink into our mouth would should remember our savior who made it possible to be a part of him based on his blood sacrafice. Not that it's wrong to do communion, but it is wrong to turn it into a law of the church. Jesus came to set the body free from law and alive to grace. What ever you do weather you eat or abstain, it should be done to the glory of God in Christ.

A Man In ROANOKE said:

When searching for answers, I ran across the following:

Click to expand...

A Man In ROANOKE said:

The Church's relation to the shed Blood of the Cross is based upon Hebrews 13:20: "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant." And what are the Church's benefits now and forever, from the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant? "But now in Christ Jesus ye who once were far off are made nigh by the Blood of Christ." "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Jesus" (Eph. 2:13; Heb. 10:19). That benefit of the Blood, Israel will never know, nor even approximate. What will Israel's benefit be from the Blood of her New Covenant? "I will forgive their iniquity," and "I will cleanse them" (Jer. 31:34; Ezek. 37:23). That is the total benefit of the Blood to future kingdom Israel, from their New Covenant. The same Blood was shed for both the Church and Israel, but not with the same results.

Now, I personally can almost accept this idea, except for the fact that Paul relates his own ministry in Corinthians to the new covenant (Israels benefit), instead of relating it to the everlasting covenant (Gentiles benefit). Again I ask, why is Paul even speaking of covenants (everlasting OR new) at all? Is it okay to say that a dispensation may be connected to an everlasting covenant, but that the new covenant cannot be connected to a dispensation of Grace? If it works in one direction, why not the other way? It seems that either the body of Christ really began back at Acts 2 Pentecost (Rom 16:7 those in Christ before Paul), or that maybe covenants and dispensations can exist at the same time. Maybe like a software engineer, God always has a mainframe Covenant disk drive running in the background, while opening and executing Dispensational files within the parent program as needed (or something like that).

Any and all comments would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Ok I may be misunderstanding you here but I will attempt with the help of the Holy Spirit to answer this.

Isreal will be a part of the new covenant, after the Gentiles have come into the fullness of the kingdom.

Israel was the mediator

God took a pagan, made a nation that would be a mediator between God and the world. Through Israel all the world would be blessed. Ex 19:6 says that Israel would be a kingdom of priests. What is the role of the priest? He is the mediator between God and man.

Churchs Relation to Israel

And since all the promises are realized in the church. The Church is the new Israel.

Eph 2:11ff makes it clear that there is now one new man in the church, no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Gentiles didnt have the covenants of promise before. Now they do.

Gal 3:28-29 plainly states that the we in the church are the descendants of Abraham and heirs of the promise

Rom. 11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 11:26 And so ALL ISREAL WILL BE SAVED, as it is written: The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. 11:27 And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.

I hope this helps, if not I am sorry for misunderstanding and will check for your reply and pray about the answer.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Angelajt · Jun 4, 2004

A Man In ROANOKE said:
Could someone please help with a few specific problems Im having with Mid-Acts and Acts 28 Dispensationalism?

In Romans 16:7, Paul sends his greetings to saints whom he declares were in Christ before me. If being in Christ means the same here as in Galations 3:28 (neither Jew nor Greek, etc.), then the church (body of Christ) must have begun prior to Pauls conversion. What else could he mean?

Another hint of the body of Christ existing before Pauls conversion is found in Acts 9:5, where the Lord says, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest. This implies that Jewish believers were already in Christ, because if you hurt the body, you are hurting the head. Doesnt this imagery correspond with what Paul wrote later about the body of Christ, and how if one member suffers, all suffer?

[/QUOTE]I am also having a problem with 2 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul says God has, made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant. Isnt Paul supposed to be a minister of reconciliation and the new creation body of Christ, rather than the new covenant? I simply cannot believe that Paul was speaking figuratively here.

First Corinthians 11:25 states how the Lord Himself revealed to Paul that, This cup is the new covenant in My Blood. Apparently, just like other mysteries, Jesus specifically gave this to Paul, instead of letting him get it from the 12 apostles to Israel. Receiving mysteries in such a manner is a major point that dispensationalists make to emphasize the revelations of Paul for the Gentiles. Why did the risen Lord take special care to make Paul aware of the new covenant in His Blood, if he were not to then share that with the Gentiles, just like the mystery regarding the administration of Grace? Either the new covenant in Jesus Blood is as important to His church body as it is to earthly millenial kingdom Israel or it isnt. Paul went into great detail regarding the Lords Supper, but never went back to correct the Gentiles telling them no longer to celebrate it. The prison epistles gave us no new instructions for assembling that excluded sharing the cup of the new covenant until Jesus returns. Does anyone else see what Im getting at here?

When searching for answers, I ran across the following: The Church's relation to the shed Blood of the Cross is based upon Hebrews 13:20: "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant." And what are the Church's benefits now and forever, from the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant? "But now in Christ Jesus ye who once were far off are made nigh by the Blood of Christ." "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Jesus" (Eph. 2:13; Heb. 10:19). That benefit of the Blood, Israel will never know, nor even approximate. What will Israel's benefit be from the Blood of her New Covenant? "I will forgive their iniquity," and "I will cleanse them" (Jer. 31:34; Ezek. 37:23). That is the total benefit of the Blood to future kingdom Israel, from their New Covenant. The same Blood was shed for both the Church and Israel, but not with the same results.

Now, I personally can almost accept this idea, except for the fact that Paul relates his own ministry in Corinthians to the new covenant (Israels benefit), instead of relating it to the everlasting covenant (Gentiles benefit). Again I ask, why is Paul even speaking of covenants (everlasting OR new) at all? Is it okay to say that a dispensation may be connected to an everlasting covenant, but that the new covenant cannot be connected to a dispensation of Grace? If it works in one direction, why not the other way? It seems that either the body of Christ really began back at Acts 2 Pentecost (Rom 16:7 those in Christ before Paul), or that maybe covenants and dispensations can exist at the same time. Maybe like a software engineer, God always has a mainframe Covenant disk drive running in the background, while opening and executing Dispensational files within the parent program as needed (or something like that).

Any and all comments would be appreciated. [/QUOTE]

Dispensationalism

Curt

The Key that Fits:Acts 28

The Key that Fits:Acts 28

The Key that Fits:Acts 28

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

The Key that Fits:Acts 28

Active Member

The Key that Fits:Acts 28

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

The Key that Fits:Acts 28

Senior Veteran

The Key that Fits:Acts 28

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads