Covenant and New Covenant theology
- Thread starter Douggg
- Start date
Show me where that *covenant* was called a Gospel. It certainly wasn't "good news" to eunuchs.
The events recorded in Acts 21 occurred during the transitional period between covenants, when the corrupt religious leaders still had earthly authority. In 70 AD, however, that power was stripped from them as Jesus told them it would be:
Matthew 21
43Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.l”45When the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they knew that Jesus was speaking about them
Image originally shared on Adam Maarschalk's blog.
43Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.l”45When the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they knew that Jesus was speaking about them
Image originally shared on Adam Maarschalk's blog.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Guojing
Well-Known Member
while Paul calls the gospel of grace my gospel three times in scripture, Peter never called the gospel of the kingdom my gospel.
So there is a difference there. And as you can see in acts 15, Peter tried to insert a new item Iin the agenda in v11, that Jews are also to be saved under this.
James would have none of that, but it turned out to be prophetic, given that Israel has fallen, but none of them knew it then
Upvote
0
That's not something to build an entire doctrine on. There're plenty of other things recorded by one Bible author that another didn't say - that doesn't make them in opposition to each other.
I think Paul focused so much on grace, because he considered himself to be the worst sinner....the chief sinner....and especially appreciated God's grace. Peter spoke of grace as well, though, in Acts 2.
Upvote
0
ISTM this belief is putting division between all three disciples and leaders of the early church.
Upvote
0
I'm referring to this:
You are identifying the Mosaic Covenant as a gospel and contrasting it to the New Covenant gospel (but seeming to exclude the Gentiles and ancient Jewish eunuchs from the New Covenant).
Show me where the Mosaic Covenant is called a gospel. As I said....strict adherence to the rules of circumcision weren't good news to those who were made eunuchs (a common practice in ancient times).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Guojing
Well-Known Member
The good news was that their promised king is finally here in the flesh, to usher the nation Israel into their promised kingdom. Moses himself prophesied that this great prophet was coming and they must listen to him (Deut 18).
As for the law of Moses, Jesus even after he resurrected, never told the 11 that the law of Moses has been nailed to the cross. It was always part of the gospel of the kingdom (Matt 5:17-19)
that was why Peter response not to associate with the gentiles in acts 10 was legitimate. He could not have known then that the nation Israel had already fell.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I agree.....but Jesus ushered in the New Covenant. This was a very pivotal time.
I agree. The Law had become obsolete for those in Christ....but we read that the Law was the tutor to bring people to Christ. The apostate religious leaders still had political power and were using it to attempt to wipe out Jesus's followers. In 70 AD....the power struggle came to an end with biblical Mosaic Judaism ended (and Jesus's movement spreading).
There is no mention of "nation of Israel ". And ancient Jerusalem hadn't fallen then. Acts 10 takes place at the end of the 490 years set apart for Daniel's people. Peter (and the rest of the ancient Jews) had grown up with the idea that Gentiles were heathens to avoid. But in 34 AD (3.5 years after the Cross)....both Peter and Paul were converted to believe God wanted them to "go out to all the nations ". Right on time....the Gentiles were included in the Good News (eunuchs and Samaritans as well).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Guojing
Well-Known Member
The new covenant could not have begun until he died on the cross (Hebrews 9:16).
Your points in the 2nd paragraph, you could understand them fully, because you had the benefit of being born after Paul completed the scriptures.
But if you are willing to place yourself in the shoes of Peter and the others during the time of Acts and understand how they understood, all those truths were unknown to them. That is why I mentioned Acts 10, it is easy for us to understand that Peter was silly to struggle with going to Cornelius, but we are not putting ourselves in his shoes.
The nation of Israel was given a one year extension after the cross, to accept him as the Messiah (Luke 13:6-9). Peter was so anxious to persuade the nation to repent (Acts 2:40)
That one year extension expired about the time Stephen was stoned.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to Israel for about 7 years, before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles.
.
Upvote
0
Guojing
Well-Known Member
Jesus earthly ministry was agreed by most to have lasted 3 years.
You disagree that Stephen was stoned around 1 year after the cross?
Paul was saved by Christ after the nation has fallen with Stephen stoning. As I have explained elsewhere, I believe he was the first to be saved in the Body of Christ.
Upvote
0
Jesus wasn't interested...
John 6
14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
Because...
John 18
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Upvote
0
Guojing
Well-Known Member
Around the middle of the 3 years, yes, Jesus stopped offering the kingdom to Israel and started to teach in parables, which puzzled the 12 (Matthew 13:10).
Matthew documented that change.
But do you remember the last question the apostles asked Jesus before he ascended into heaven, in acts 1?
If Jesus was not serious about the 1 year extension Israel had, he would not have replied as he did. The nation Israel had to make a choice during that 1 year.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Acts 1
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Scriptural exegesis:
Jesus' response to the disciples' question is instructive. He refers to times and seasons.
Exegetically, times and seasons are associated with the day of the Lord, which is the final end of all things temporal.
Paul clarifies it.
1 Thessalonians 5
1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
Peter completes it.
2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
There is not the slightest hint of a restored carnal Israelitic kingdom, and any reference thereafter to a "kingdom of Israel" never again appears in Scripture.
Jesus had made it clear that Israel was stripped of its kingdom, and under impending judgment and destruction. (Matthew 21:33-45)
That judgment and destruction fell upon it in 70 AD.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Guojing
Well-Known Member
Again, you fail to put yourself in Peter's shoes. If Peter understood as you did, he would not have preached to Israel with the same urgency in Acts 2 and 3, and to resist going to the gentiles at Acts 10.
The point is, you had the benefit of hindsight, you knew that the Sanhedrin killed Stephen, whom the Holy Spirit was speaking to directly.
However, in acts 1, that outcome was still unknown. Israel was not predestined to commit the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit at Acts 7.
Upvote
0
Guojing
Well-Known Member
I don't know what you meant by of Israel, but in Acts 1:6, the kingdom is to Israel.
Remember what Jesus promised the 12 apostles at the end, that they will be judging the 12 tribes, when he returns for Israel?
Why do you think Peter only addressed Jews, pleading with them, and resisted going to Cornelius?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You are ignoring the New Covenant in an effort to make your Two Peoples of God doctrine work.
The Gentiles are included in the New Covenant, based on the passage found below.
2Co 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2Co 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,
2Co 3:8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.
You are ignoring what Paul said in Romans 9. It was not a "mystery" to Hosea that the Gentiles would be included in the people of God.
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
You are ignoring the fact that Paul called himself an "Israelite", even after his conversion in Romans 11:1-5.
You are ignoring the fact that James addressed his letter to "the twelve tribes" who were his "brethren" in the "faith" in James 1:1-3.
The only way to make the Two Peoples of God doctrine work is by ignoring certain passages of scripture.
At one time my wife and I attended a Dispensational Bible Church. We were there for about five years.
During that entire time we never heard a Sunday School lesson, or a sermon on the New Covenant.
Now I know why.
.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
