Why is this not being taught in Church?

renniks said:

Yes, but it's important to know that even the moral law doesn't save.

Click to expand...

I've heard that preached in every church I've ever been in.

Monna said:

Pontus Pilate wrote: "This is Jesus, King of the Jews" and refused to change it to appease the Jewish religious rulers. Several things can be said about it.
1. It was a political statement in answer to the people who had demanded his execution:

a) THEY said "We have no King but Caesar" while at the same time looking for a Messiah who would expel the Romans - they were a very duplicitous bunch.
b) He was recomfirming the reality of the day - that Rome could do what it liked with anyone claiming to be a king - especially within a nation as notoriously rebellious as the Jews​

2. It was a snide political statement aimed at Herod - who was a puppet King over part of the Roman Empire, part of the area claimed by the Jews to be their land. It could be seen as a reminder to Herod that he (Herod) should not think he had any inherent right to be King.
3. More prophetically, and unknown to Pilate himself, the sign was a statement reminding the Jews, that their concept of a king (like Saul, David, Solomon, etc.) was hereby CRUCIFIED .... abolished. The Jews had rejected God as their King in the time of Samuel, (1 Sam 8:7-8) and demanded a king "like the kings in neighbouring nations" in spite of the very constituion of their land since Moses time was that God alone would be their king. "Jehovah will reign for ever and ever" (Ex 15:18); "Thus the Lord became King in Jeshurun [that is the upright people, Israel]" (Deut 33:5); "But the Lord is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King." (Jer. 10:10) See also Psalm 44:4, Psalm 99:1-4).

But the irony here was that it was if God, in granting their wish to have a human king like the neighbouring nations, was saying “They refuse to have Me as their heavenly King, and they want a man as a king ruling on earth? Very well. I shall become a man, an Israelite by birth, of the line of the kings, and I will be their king on earth.” (Greenhow, 1971. "What's the Difference?" pg 94) Jesus had more right to the throne than Herod - that's why his grandfather had tried to kill him when he was an infant.​

And today, Israel is a republic, not a monarchy! God is still not recognised as the highest authority in the land.
4. Gregory Boyd argues, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God, that the old concept of God as a tyrantically, warrior king figure, as displayed in the OT, was being crucified - replaced by the loving, self-sacrificing servant King. Here is the Spiritual significance of what Pilate wrote, Aussi Pete: Jesus, the Messiah, Immanuel (God with us), the Son of God, the promised king (see Jer 10:10 as above) is crucified for the salvation of the entire world - to ALL who believe in Him - not just the Jews or even some of them. (John 3:16 ++++)
5. If we put the emphasis on the word Jews - "King of the Jews" - this idea is also crucified, for Jesus Christ becomes the King of all creation - whether in heaven or on earth. (Daniel 7:14; Matt. 28:18; John 17:2; Eph. 2:20-22) - And this means all people everywhere - not just the Jews.

God used Nebuchadnezer, and every other foreign king, to do His will. And the hand of God is in the determination by Pilate not to change what he has written.

Click to expand...

Hard to agree with Point 4. when we see the coming King triumphant to judge the earth and the wicked hiding in caves from His presence.

RDKirk said:

I've heard that preached in every church I've ever been in.

Click to expand...

I can think of some that add works for salvation.

I still don't want to presume what's been asserted that churches - in general - aren't teaching.

This is a (fairly long) video discussion about the continuity AND discontinuity between Old Testament and New. I like how there are markers for the specific areas of discussion. Is this the sort of thing you're bringing up, Rhern?

The Relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament - DTS Voice

Another thing that doesn't seem to get highlighted too often is this timeline (and not all Christians agree on this - so maybe that's WHY it's not brought up):



Image from Christian Gedge

"king of the jews" was what the romans called Him as a mockery. so no point in teaching that.

rhern said:

In my own words: Jesus was bound by the The Law, so He came specifically to minister to the circumcision to finish the work promised to the fathers of the covenant. this was this promise. They had no idea He was going to die thereby defeating death. this was the mystery

The new mystery not revealed was that Paul was directly Chosen by Jesus Himself to suffer for His Name sake. At first He didn't know he had to turn his back to The Law. He tried His best to convince Jews about the Gospel of Grace but in Acts 21: James tells Paul there are thousand who are zealous for the Law. They determined Peter is for the circumcision but Paul is to teach the Gospel of Grace to the gentile.

As for the Christians, we belong to the body of Christ, Jesus is the head and co inheritors with Him.

to the Jews were the promises spelled out in the old testament. Our inheritance is in heaven.

The Jews(believers) never gave up the Law.

The Law nullifies grace. therefore you cannot follow the Law and be saved by grace.

Like you I want to learn and I teach what I have learned.

Thank you for asking. let me know if I am in error

Click to expand...

Hi rhern,

I think I understand what you are saying. The error being taught, I think, is that we, the Body of Christ are the only ones God has purposes for. When in fact God has purposes for the Body of Christ, for Israel and for the Nations.

People get a bit `me` focussed and don`t understand the bigger picture.

regards, Marilyn.

RDKirk said:

If you know what point rhern is making and agree with it, please explain it.

Click to expand...

If you have been teaching your congregation that Jesus words in red are always instructions directed to them, verses like Matthew 10:5 and Romans 15:8, will go against what you are teaching them correct?

Carl Emerson said:

You quote Matt 10:5 when the 12 were sent out. After Pentecost Paul and Peter were led to include the gentiles..

Click to expand...

Yet, when Jewish believers questioned him for eating with the gentiles in Acts 11, why didn't Peter mentioned the Great Commission in Matthew, specifically the "all nations"?

If it was true that the GC in Matthew authorized him to preach to the Gentiles, wouldn't using that be sufficient to convince them?

Guojing said:

Yet, when Jewish believers questioned him for eating with the gentiles in Acts 11, why didn't Peter mentioned the Great Commission in Matthew, specifically the "all nations"?

Click to expand...

"Acts 11 New International Version (NIV)

Peter Explains His Actions
11 The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

4 Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story"

yeshuaslavejeff said:

"Acts 11 New International Version (NIV)

Peter Explains His Actions
11 The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

4 Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story"

Click to expand...

The whole story started with the vision in Acts 10, but not what the resurrected Christ told them to preach to "all nations". Why not?

Guojing said:

The whole story started with the vision in Acts 10, but not what the resurrected Christ told them to preach to "all nations". Why not?

Click to expand...

The answer you are seeking, might not be found, or perhaps not understood... I'm not sure.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

The answer you are seeking, might not be found, or perhaps not understood... I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

How about this simple explanation:

The Great Commission was for the believing Jews to preach to non believing Jews.

Once the Jewish nation accept their Messiah, THEN, the Gentiles can be reached.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

"Acts 11 New International Version (NIV)

Peter Explains His Actions
11 The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

4 Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story"

Click to expand...

But notice, Peter had to be told by God in a vision subsequent to the great Commission.

I don't know that.
No problem though if that is true.
I'm not sure what that has to do with this topic at this point.

Marilyn C said:

But notice, Peter had to be told by God in a vision subsequent to the great Commission.

Click to expand...

Guojing said:

If you have been teaching your congregation that Jesus words in red are always instructions directed to them, verses like Matthew 10:5 and Romans 15:8, will go against what you are teaching them correct?

Click to expand...

I previously said of "red letter Christians:"

"Red letter Christians" are typically attempting to subvert or ignore most of the New Testament for various reasons. The are outside the normal pale of Christians, so his first accusation is unwarranted."

Click to expand...

So why would you think I'd teach what "red letter Christians" teach?

RDKirk said:

I previously said of "red letter Christians:"



So why would you think I'd teach what "red letter Christians" teach?

Click to expand...

My view of RLC are more of "They believe that whatever Jesus said in the 4 Gospels, is what we also follow.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

I don't know that.
No problem though if that is true.
I'm not sure what that has to do with this topic at this point.

Click to expand...

The OP's point is back to Matthew 10:5.

The idea that the GC at the end of Matthew negated the command in Matt 10:5, is contradicted by how Peter explained in Acts 11.

Guojing said:

How about this simple explanation:

The Great Commission was for the believing Jews to preach to non believing Jews.

Once the Jewish nation accept their Messiah, THEN, the Gentiles can be reached.

Click to expand...

If that were the case, gentiles would not have yet received the gospel because the Jewish nation has not yet accepted Jesus as their Messiah.

The better explanation is that Peter and the other apostles had not yet stepped out to fully obey the Great Commission. Their own prejudice kept them in place.

If you'll notice, the Holy Spirit had sprinted ahead of Peter and had already enabled Cornelius. Cornelius didn't even hear all of Peter's sermon. As Peter stated in the first part of his sermon, Cornelius already knew the ministry of Jesus up until His crucifixion. All he needed to hear was that Jesus had been resurrected. At that, Cornelius began speaking in tongues--just as the disciples had in the upper room--before Peter had even stopped talking.

Not even that event got the Hebraic apostles out of preaching only to Jews. The primary function of Saul's persecution was to chase the Hellenist Christians out of Jerusalem, and it was the Hellenists who carried the gospel to the Samaritans, to outcasts like eunuchs (see Isaiah 56), and to the gentiles. That's why the hub of evangelism moved away from Jerusalem to Antioch. If not for Saul, the gospel might have taken much longer to start spreading (notice that Saul, too, was a Hellenist).

The Hebraic Christians in Jerusalem never truly grokked the expanse of the Great Commission. Even when Peter visited Paul in Galatia, he still didn't quite get it.

Guojing said:

The OP's point is back to Matthew 10:5.

The idea that the GC at the end of Matthew negated the command in Matt 10:5, is contradicted by how Peter explained in Acts 11.

Click to expand...

That's not related to my post.

"I don't know that" meant I don't know that, that which I quoted.

Your post may be correct, yes or no, but if you type out the words instead of the reference when the reference is short anyway, that would help a great deal - the references do not render on my screen, nor on some of the cell phone screens....

RDKirk said:

If that were the case, gentiles would not have yet received the gospel because the Jewish nation has not yet accepted Jesus as their Messiah.

Click to expand...

Correct. I noticed that earlier, but couldn't believe that's what the poster meant....