Acts 3: a reoffer?

[Iosias]

Over the weekend I was away on a Bible study weekend in the Lake District. Anyway, I was thinking that J Dwight Pentecost may be correct in insisting that the supposed (re)offer of the kingdom in Acts 3 was neither in that the signs of the Oliviet discourse had not been fulfilled and so even if Israel repented there and then Christ could not have come back. What are your thoughts?

 

[BT]

My position, after study, has been that the Kingdom was not reofferred in Acts. There was no one who could (had the authority) offer the kingdom. I have used this very argument time and again (lately with my good friend @@Paul@@) that the kingdom could not have come back because these prophecies had not been fulfilled. There were too many prophecies that were dependent on time to usher in the kingdom during the book of Acts.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

(Had that happened in Acts 3? umm no)

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

(Acts 3? no)

Heck read the whole chapter...

 

[BT]

These prophecies are also relavent to my argument against the idea that the Gentiles were not included prior to Paul... (hence the church beginning at Acts 1)

 

[Iosias]

My position, after study, has been that the Kingdom was not reofferred in Acts. There was no one who could (had the authority) offer the kingdom. I have used this very argument time and again (lately with my good friend @@Paul@@) that the kingdom could not have come back because these prophecies had not been fulfilled. There were too many prophecies that were dependent on time to usher in the kingdom during the book of Acts.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

(Had that happened in Acts 3? umm no)

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

(Acts 3? no)

Heck read the whole chapter...

After a lot of Bible study I must say that I am in agreement with you (Makes a change eh? )

 

[Terral]

Hi AV:

AV >> I was thinking that J Dwight Pentecost may be correct in insisting that the supposed re-offer of the kingdom in Acts 3 was neither in that the signs of the Olivet Discourse had not been fulfilled and so even if Israel repented there and then Christ could not have come back. What are your thoughts?

Christ’s offering of the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 4:23, 9:35) was a ‘re-offer,’ as He followed John the Baptist preaching the same exact words. Matt. 3:2, 4:17. Peter and the Twelve offered the kingdom in Matthew 10:7 through this ministry of the Son of God. The Holy Spirit only began to offer the Kingdom at Pentecost (Acts 2:1+), as the Apostle Paul was ‘preaching the kingdom’ (Acts 20:25) also. The offering of the Kingdom through the Holy Spirit did not officially end, until Acts 28:28 in Scripture, or in 70 Ad. if you want to get technical about it. The flaw in your thinking is in the assumption that Christ was to sit on the throne of David in the first place. His kingdom is not of this world, and not even of this realm. John 18:36. Ezekiel (Eze. 34:22-24, 37:24-28) and Jeremiah (Jer. 30:9) both see David sitting on his own throne. Note that Philip is offering the ‘good news concerning the kingdom of God’ in Acts 8:12. That is ‘the gospel’ of the Four Gospels, Acts and the Kingdom Epistles of the NT. That is the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) that Peter was to take to the whole world, “and even to the remotest part of the earth.” Acts 1:8. Paul’s ‘my gospel’ was given to him (Gal. 1:11+12) in light of Israel’s transgression (Rom. 11:11+12) and rejection of the ‘gospel of the kingdom.’ This ‘re-offer’ language in your post seems a note sang off key, when the kingdom was being offered throughout Acts.

In Christ,

Terral

 

[Terral]

BT:

BT >> My position, after study, has been that the Kingdom was not reofferred in Acts. There was no one who could (had the authority) offer the kingdom.

We disagree. The ‘kingdom’ had been offered through the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 4:23, 9:35) from the beginning. What does Scripture say?

"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” Matt. 24:14.

“And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Mark 16:15+16.

“ . . . but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." Acts 1:8.

Philip is seen preaching the ‘good news concerning the kingdom of God,’ just like Paul also preached the kingdom:

"But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." Acts 8:12.

"And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face.” Acts 20:25.

BT >> I have used this very argument time and again (lately with my good friend @@Paul@@) that the kingdom could not have come back because these prophecies had not been fulfilled. There were too many prophecies that were dependent on time to usher in the kingdom during the book of Acts.

BT quotes >> Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

BT commentary >> (Had that happened in Acts 3? umm no)

Nothing in Matthew 24 proves the kingdom was not offered throughout Acts. It is your preconceived notion about what this means that is perhaps not being served. The disciples continued to gather members to the prophetic ‘bride’ (John 3:29) through the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ throughout Acts. Those believers who were ‘zealous for the Law’ (Acts 21:20) were counted among those kingdom disciples who received James’ Epistle as the ‘kingdom church.’ Paul met with the kingdom church in Acts 15, as he submitted the ‘gospel I preach among the Gentiles’ (Gal. 2:2). To say the kingdom was not being offered is to say that Christ sent the Twelve to gather nobody during Acts. The Biblical evidence speaks against you.

BT quotes >> Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

BT commentary >> (Acts 3? no) Heck read the whole chapter...

Read the whole Book of Acts and see the gospel of the kingdom being preached by most everyone. Every time you see multiple baptisms (Acts 2:38, 8:12-17, 19:1-6, etc.), then you are looking at the kingdom being preached to somebody. The fact that the ‘gospel of the grace of God’ (Acts 20:24) and the ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2) was coming to supersede the Kingdom dispensation only proves that the kingdom was being placed on the back burner during Acts. Of Israel and the Gospel of the Kingdom, Paul writes,

“What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened . . .I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!” Rom. 11:11+12.

God is fashioning the ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) first (Acts 15:14) and then He shall gather the ‘bride,’ when Elijah comes to restore all things. Matt. 17:10+11. Elijah is the ‘prophet’ of Acts 3:22-26 who restores all things, while heaven receives Christ (Acts 3:21). That is when the 'tabernacle of David' (Acts 15:16-18) is restored also. Christ then returns at the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3+) to deliver Israel and to Judge. Matt. 24:30+.

In Christ,

Terral

 

[BT]

Hiya Terral!

Sorry I don't have a lot of time tonight but I'll get to what I can. I can't sit for long periods of time... I have a broken tailbone. I'm just on looking over some sermon notes and such for tomorrow night. Anyway...

BT:

We disagree. The ‘kingdom’ had been offered through the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 4:23, 9:35) from the beginning. What does Scripture say?

First off, I didn't ever say that the kingdom wasn't offered in the Gospels. It was.

[/size][/font]
Philip is seen preaching the ‘good news concerning the kingdom of God,’ just like Paul also preached the kingdom:

Yes he was. But to whom? Gentiles (Samaritans) that's who. Which goes against the idea that Paul had a peculiar message to the gentiles. I've never really stated the position that I take on this concept so I'll give it now. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, Paul had a message to the gentiles. My disagreement is that Paul was the only one. The message (gospel) was given to all people in Acts 2. There were gentiles being saved. That much is clear. My argument is that Paul did not exclusively have the message to the gentiles. Rather he in particular had the focus of gentiles..

[/size][/font]
Nothing in Matthew 24 proves the kingdom was not offered throughout Acts. It is your preconceived notion about what this means that is perhaps not being served.

The position is that the kingdom as offerred to the Jews (exclusively) was not given throughout Acts. There is no preconceived notion here. Jesus Himself made the prophecies concerning what must come before the Kingdom. Therefore your argument is with Him and not me really. I put some of the eschatology of Jesus Himself in the other post where He explicitly states those things that will happen before "The coming of the Son of Man" (Mt. 24:27) and before "the end come" (Mt. 24:24).



Now it just dawned on me that you may be one of those who happen to believe that the rapture has happened (invisibly) etc. Post-trib I think is the term...

Otherwise if you study the eschatology of Christ in it's literal context you see that these things have yet to occur (to this day), and that the postponed kingdom will not be brought until these things come to pass. Most of the other things that you had quoted are a real mishmash of ideas and assertions that don't really fit. The position that I take is that the kingdom was postponed in the Gospels and will brought back in the end. There is still (through all the quotes and ideas you brought) no one in the book of Acts who could offer the kingdom to the Jews (with all its implications).

There is a very interesting intellectual exercise that goes like this:

What if the Jews had've accepted Christ and the Kingdom?

To which:

The kingdom would have been set-up (because the offer was sincere).
Yet Christ would have still died somehow (because this was God's plan for salvation to the world, as opposed to salvation to the Jews alone).

It's an interesting thing to get your mind going I find..

But thank you Terral for the compelling ideas. I will really look at everything you wrote when I can sit for more than 10 minutes at a time. I really appreciate your willingness to express what you believe, even if we disagree. Which, by my opinion, is ok to do.

BT

 

[Terral]

Hi BT:

BT >> Yes he was. But to whom? Gentiles (Samaritans) that's who. Which goes against the idea that Paul had a peculiar message to the gentiles.

There is no reason to bring up Paul in Acts 8, as he is not converted until the next chapter. Philip was preaching the ‘good news concerning the Kingdom of God’ (Acts 8:12), according to Christ’s commands in Acts 1:8:

“. . . but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." Acts 1:8.

BT >> I've never really stated the position that I take on this concept so I'll give it now. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, Paul had a message to the gentiles. My disagreement is that Paul was the only one. The message (gospel) was given to all people in Acts 2.

No sir. Peter is preaching repentance and baptism for the ‘forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 2:38) the same way that John the Baptist did from the beginning. Mark 1:4. Do not confuse Paul’s ‘my gospel’ (Rom. 16:25) with the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) being preached by Peter here in Acts 2. Water and Christ’s shed blood (Eph. 1:7) are NOT the same thing.

BT >> There were gentiles being saved. That much is clear. My argument is that Paul did not exclusively have the message to the gentiles. Rather he in particular had the focus of gentiles..

Perhaps that is your opinion, but there is no supported argument of that fact present here. The ‘gospel of the kingdom’ was going to half-Jews in Samaria in Acts 8, and would eventually go to ‘even the remotest part of the earth’ if Israel had accepted the Kingdom offering. Paul’s gospel is still revealed to him by Christ, according to Galatians 1:11+12, and submitted to Peter according to Gal. 2:1-9 (2).

Terral Original >> Nothing in Matthew 24 proves the kingdom was not offered throughout Acts. It is your preconceived notion about what this means that is perhaps not being served.

BT >> The position is that the kingdom as offerred to the Jews (exclusively) was not given throughout Acts. There is no preconceived notion here. Jesus Himself made the prophecies concerning what must come before the Kingdom.

“Before the kingdom . . .” what? Christ’s prophecy in Matthew 24 is what must happen before the ‘end will come.’ Matt. 24:14. You are superimposing your preconceived notions to change the context of His statement. Christ is describing the ‘end of the age’ in Matthew 24, and not the beginning of anything except THE END.

BT >> Therefore your argument is with Him and not me really.

No sir. My argument is with you and your interpretation of what Christ is saying and how that affects the offering of the Kingdom in Acts 3.

BT >> I put some of the eschatology of Jesus Himself in the other post where He explicitly states those things that will happen before "The coming of the Son of Man" (Mt. 24:27) and before "the end come" (Mt. 24:24).

The context of our original statements are about the preaching of the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ during the time of Acts 3. Was the kingdom being offered in Acts 3? Absolutely, and all the way through Acts 28, when Paul finally turns aside to go strictly to the Gentiles in verse 28. Christ is talking about the ‘end of the age’ in Matthew 24. That is a long way down the road from when the original offering of the Kingdom started in Acts 2, under the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

BT >> Now it just dawned on me that you may be one of those who happen to believe that the rapture has happened (invisibly) etc. Post-trib I think is the term...

Not by a long shot, partner. Our mystery (1Cor. 15:51-53) translation occurs, when the ‘day of Christ’ is ‘at hand.’ 2Thes. 2:2. That is the very start of the “Lord’s day.” Rev. 1:10.

BT >> . . . Most of the other things that you had quoted are a real mishmash of ideas and assertions that don't really fit. The position that I take is that the kingdom was postponed in the Gospels and will brought back in the end. There is still (through all the quotes and ideas you brought) no one in the book of Acts who could offer the kingdom to the Jews (with all its implications).

In other words, these are things you do not understand. The kingdom was not postponed in the Four Gospels, but the Holy Spirit just began offering the kingdom in Acts 2. My views remain standing above, whether you agree or not. I have shown Philip preaching the ‘good news concerning the kingdom of God’ in Acts 8:12. You saying that the kingdom is not being offered is just an unsupported opinion that contradicts the evidence. Did Peter stop preaching the kingdom to Cornelius? No. Does Paul lay hands for the disciples of Acts 19:1-6 to receive the Holy Spirit? Yes. Acts 19:6. The ‘gospel of the kingdom’ is continuing throughout Acts. Those who Paul went about ‘preaching the kingdom’ (Acts 20:25) were about to see his ‘face no more.’

BT >> There is a very interesting intellectual exercise that goes like this: What if the Jews had've accepted Christ and the Kingdom? To which: The kingdom would have been set-up (because the offer was sincere).

We disagree. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, or even of this realm (John 18:36). That is Christ’s own statement whether you agree with it or not. The kingdom was actually rejected, when Israel did not recognize John the Baptist as Elijah (Matt. 17:12). This is why Christ mentions His own rejection in the same verse.

BT >> Yet Christ would have still died somehow (because this was God's plan for salvation to the world, as opposed to salvation to the Jews alone). It's an interesting thing to get your mind going I find..

When you return from fantasy, let us concentrate upon what the Bible says about this topic. Paul was being raised up in Acts 9, because of Israel’s ‘transgression’ (Rom. 11:11+12). Those obedient to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ obtained salvation and the rest were hardened. Rom. 11:7. That was part of the ‘mishmash of ideas’ that flew over your head from the post above. If you feel that anything is taken out of context above, or is wrong, please feel free to ‘quote me >>’ and show everyone my errors using Scripture. That will prove more valuable to the third party reader than these fantasy exercises.

BT >> But thank you Terral for the compelling ideas. I will really look at everything you wrote when I can sit for more than 10 minutes at a time. I really appreciate your willingness to express what you believe, even if we disagree. Which, by my opinion, is ok to do.

Okie. This is how we hash out the differences; by building and presenting arguments using Scripture.

In Christ,

Terral

 

[Iosias]

Hi AV:

The Holy Spirit only began to offer the Kingdom at Pentecost (Acts 2:1+)... The offering of the Kingdom through the Holy Spirit did not officially end, until Acts 28:28 in Scripture, or in 70 Ad.
In Christ,

Terral

At the time of writing we have roadworks about 20 meters away so is this post makes little sence that is my excuse :

Can you prove these assertions from Scripture? In Matthew 24 Jesus gives us a number of signs that will occur before he returns again however by Acts 3 none had been fulfilled, ergo, Acts 3 could not have been a reoffer!

 

[Iosias]

If I may interject:


The beginning of the church is not when Paul was converted or when Paul turned to the Gentiles rather it began when the baptising work of the Holy Ghost began.

Acts 1
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

The "not many days" was fulfilled at Pentecost!

 

[Terral]

AV:

AV >> If I may interject: The beginning of the church is not when Paul was converted or when Paul turned to the Gentiles rather it began when the baptizing work of the Holy Ghost began. Acts 1 :5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. The "not many days" was fulfilled at Pentecost!

You speak of ‘the church’ as if there is only one! John the Baptist and Christ began gathering members of the Kingdom church three and four years prior to this Day of Pentecost. John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb. Luke 1:15. Christ received the Holy Spirit to begin His ministry in Matt. 3:16, and from the same John the Baptist. Neither of them was recognized by Israel. Matt. 17:12. The Twelve received the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost to continue building upon the same Prophetic ‘bride’ (John 3:29) church of Matt.16:16-19, 18:17. Why you wish to start the kingdom church in Acts 2 is beyond me. Our ‘body of Christ’ Mystery ‘church’ (Eph. 5:32) has NOTHING to do with the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 4:23) that Peter is preaching in Acts 2. Your interpretation is built upon fantasy and nothing written in Scripture. Philip is preaching the same ‘good news concerning the kingdom of God’ (Acts 8:12) to the Samarians in Acts 8. Peter and John go down to lay hands on them so that they can receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:17. By contrast, we receive the Spirit by ‘hearing with faith’ (Gal. 3:2) the moment we hear and believe Paul’s ‘my gospel.’ Eph. 1:13+14.

Our Gospel (Rom. 16:25) and our mystery church (Eph. 5:32) has NOTHING to do with Peter fulfilling Prophecy in Acts 2. Your quoting of Acts 1:5 is not a case for starting our mystery church there, and not by any stretch of the imagination. How did Paul become our father ‘in Christ through the Gospel’ (1Cor. 4:15) in Act 2? That is impossible, because he had yet to even be converted. Instead of reading Scripture for what it says, you have been blinded by reading the combined works of all these Dispensationalists who have it dead wrong. Trying to start our mystery church in Acts 2 shows that you are not rightly dividing the word of truth regarding the fulfillment of Prophecy (Acts 2) and our gospel, according to the 'revelation of the Mystery' (Rom. 16:25).

If our ‘body of Christ’ mystery church (Eph. 5:32) began with Peter in Acts 2, then just when did Peter hand over those keys to Paul? Would that be when Paul went up to submit our gospel to Peter in Galatians 2? Please . . . Peter says that this ‘wisdom given him’ (Paul; 2Pet. 3:15) is ‘hard to understand,’ and that many are distorting it to ‘their own destruction.’ 2Pet. 3:16. Peter did not even become aware of the ‘gospel I preach among the Gentiles’ (Gal. 2:2), until twenty years after Pentecost. You have Peter preaching the ‘gospel to the UNCIRCUMCISED’ (Gal. 2:7) to Jews only in Acts 2. Please ponder upon that to realize just how foolish it sounds.

In Christ,

Terral

 

[BT]

The Bride is the Church (Eph. 5:32).

I'm just kind of skimming here Terral, but I'm seeing some scary theology in this last post.

Tell me, what is it that you think the "gospel of the kingdom" aka the "good news of the kingdom" was?

 

[Terral]

BT:

BT >> The Bride is the Church (Eph. 5:32).

No sir. Our Mystery Church (Eph. 5:32) is the ‘body of Christ.’ Eph. 4:12. You must be kidding right? The Apostle Paul never uses the term ‘bride’ in any of his Epistles to the churches. The ‘bride’ (John 3:29) of Prophecy is the ‘church’ (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:17) being built by the disciples during the Four Gospels and Acts. Peter and the Twelve are called the ‘sons of the bridal chamber.’ Mark 2:19. Paul and the ‘body’ met with Peter and the ‘bride’ at the meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15 (Gal. 2). The ‘bride’ was seen by the prophets (Hosea 2:19+20), but the ‘body’ was seen by no OT Prophets. That is why this ‘mystery is great’ concerning Christ and His ‘body of Christ’ Church. Eph. 5:32. Here is how we can prove this point. I will give you verses where Paul calls us the ‘body,’ and you provide some that say we are the bride. GL.

“And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Eph. 1:22.

“. . . and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” Eph. 2:16.

“to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” Eph. 3:6.

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling.” Eph. 4:4.

“. . . for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” Eph. 4:12.

“. . . from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” Eph. 4:16.

“For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.” Eph. 5:23.

“. . . because we are members of His body.” Eph. 5:30.

BT >> I'm just kind of skimming here Terral, but I'm seeing some scary theology in this last post.

Very good. Then you have many things to bring up in our discussion, because we are going to disagree on many other things as well. Please forgive, but I am writing to a person who sees our Mystery church as the ‘bride’ of Christ, when Paul never even uses the term once. NASB. These Pauline references to our church being His body are only those to these Ephesians. How many more do you need to be convinced?

“But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.” 1Cor. 12:19.

“If they were all one member, where would the body be?” 1Cor. 12:19.

“But now there are many members, but one body.” 1Cor. 12:20

“Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.” 1Cor. 12:27.

BT >> Tell me, what is it that you think the "gospel of the kingdom" aka the "good news of the kingdom" was?

Was? The ‘gospel of the kingdom’ is the ‘good news’ gospel message of the Four gospels through which John the Baptist, Christ and the Twelve offered the Kingdom to Israel. This 'gospel of the kingdom' is the good news message to be preached during the coming restored Kingdom of Israel on the earth. It shall be preached to all the nations to the 'end of the age.' Matt. 24:3+14.

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. 3:2.

“From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. 4:17.

"And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Matt. 10:7.

Scripture calls this message the ‘gospel of the kingdom.’ Matt. 4:23, 9:35, 24:14, Acts 8:12. Mark describes Christ preaching the gospel of the kingdom here:

“Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

This is the good news message through which Christ and the ‘sons of the bridal chamber’ (Mark 2:19) gathered members of the prophetic ‘bride’ (John 3:29). This offering is to Israel only (Matt. 15:24), as Christ was fulfilling Old Testament Prophecy. Luke 24:44.

"He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. So this joy of mine has been made full. "He must increase, but I must decrease.” John 3:29+30.

John the Baptist is the ‘messenger’ of Prophecy (Isa. 40:3, Mal. 3:1) sent ahead of Christ to make straight His way. Prophecy sees the New Testament ‘bride’ under Peter, James and John. None of the OT Prophets see our mystery ‘gospel’ (Rom. 16:25), our mystery ‘church’ (Eph. 5:32), our mystery ‘translation’ (1Cor. 15:51-53) or anything else relating to ‘the Mystery’ (Eph. 3:3+4) revealed to Paul. Hebrews, James, Peter and John never use the term once in any of the Hebrew Epistles bearing their names. To say that our mystery church, under Paul’s ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2), is the prophetic ‘bride’ is to be mixing the fulfillment of Prophecy with the revelation of the Mystery in ignorance of what either means.

In Christ,

Terral

 

[Brethren]

The Bride is the Church (Eph. 5:32).

I disagree: The church is a part of the bridegroom and so we can hardly be His bride also! I believe that the teaching in these verses are simple: men and their wives being "one flesh", a man ought to love his wife, in as much as she is himself, as Jesus loves His own body, the church.

 

[Terral]

Brethren:

Brethren >> I disagree: The church is a part of the bridegroom and so we can hardly be His bride also! I believe that the teaching in these verses are simple: men and their wives being "one flesh", a man ought to love his wife, in as much as she is himself, as Jesus loves His own body, the church.

Very good, Brethren. How is it that you can see the bride being formed by Peter and the ‘sons of the bridal chamber’ (Mark 2:19), but fail to see that he is still building the bride in Acts 2?!!!! Peter is building the bride throughout the entire New Testament, and he considers the ‘wisdom given him’ (Paul) ‘hard to understand.’ 2Pet. 3:14-16. And yet, you have him gathering members to our mystery body of Christ in Acts 2, instead of building the bride he has been building for the past three years with Christ.

Are you beginning to sense some of my frustration with your testimony? Give the ‘bride’ (John 3:29) to Peter, and the ‘body’ (Eph. 5:30) to Paul. Do not start the mystery ‘body of Christ’ church ahead of the steward to which that dispensation (Eph. 3:2) was given! From this side of the discussion, these things appear far too easy to understand for you to be mixing it all together in Acts 2.


In Christ,

Terral

 

[BT]

No sir. Our Mystery Church (Eph. 5:32) is the ‘body of Christ.’ Eph. 4:12. You must be kidding right? The Apostle Paul never uses the term ‘bride’ in any of his Epistles to the churches. The ‘bride’ (John 3:29) of Prophecy is the ‘church’ (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:17) being built by the disciples during the Four Gospels and Acts. Peter and the Twelve are called the ‘sons of the bridal chamber.’ Mark 2:19. Paul and the ‘body’ met with Peter and the ‘bride’ at the meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15 (Gal. 2). The ‘bride’ was seen by the prophets (Hosea 2:19+20), but the ‘body’ was seen by no OT Prophets. That is why this ‘mystery is great’ concerning Christ and His ‘body of Christ’ Church. Eph. 5:32. Here is how we can prove this point. I will give you verses where Paul calls us the ‘body,’ and you provide some that say we are the bride.

Let's look at Ephesians 5.. It's really not that complicated to see

In the book of Ephesians the Apostle Paul outlines the correct behavior and attitudes in marriage of the husband and the wife. However in this, the fifth chapter, the Apostle speaks in allegory and thus reveals a powerful doctrine concerning the church. In this allegory the Apostle instructs married people how to act towards their spouses in accordance with the will of God. Yet at the end of the chapter he reveals that, Ephesians 5:32 "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." In this allegory Paul presents a husband and a wife. The husband is representative of Christ, and the wife is representative of the church. Through this chapter we find that the "Bride of Christ" is synonymous with "the church". In every instance throughout this chapter when Paul instructs "husband" then "wife" he follows with a synonym of "Christ" and "the church", likewise he maintains the allegory consistently where he addresses first "wife" and then "husband" and follows with the synonym of "the church" and then "Christ". Notice in the following charts:

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.

First mention - husband

Second mention - wife

First Synonym - Christ

Second Synonym - Church



Ephesians 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

First mention - Church

Second mention - Christ

First Synonym - wives

Second Synonym - husbands


Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

First mention - Husbands

Second mention - Wives

First Synonym - Christ

Second Synonym - Church



Christ is the bridegroom.. the Church is the bride. No gymnastics required

There is no reason to divide the Body (which is the Church) and the Bride (which is the church) into different churches and bodies. As if Christ is divided against Himself or within Himself or something... There were many mysteries in the "Church" one of the greatest (to the Jew) was the inclusion of the Gentiles. Yet another was the death of the Messiah. The incorporation of the grafted branch etc.

 

[Providence Chapel]

There is no reason to divide the Body (which is the Church) and the Bride (which is the church) into different churches and bodies.

Agreed but not 100% I agree with Bullinger that "men and their wives being 'one flesh', a man ought to love his wife, in as much as she is himself, as Jesus loves His own body, the church."

The Bride is the (future) remnant of Israel.

 

[Terral]

BT:

BT >> Let's look at Ephesians 5.. It's really not that complicated to see

It? What are you trying to prove, that the church today is the ‘bride of Christ?’ Please . . . And you are going to do that even though Paul never uses the term “bride” in any of his Epistles. Paul is not teaching that the church is the ‘bride of Christ’ in Ephesians 5. He is teaching ‘husbands and wives’ lessons about their relationship here on the earth. At the same time he is teaching that the ‘church’ is the ‘body’ of Christ.

BT >> Through this chapter we find that the "Bride of Christ" is synonymous with "the church".

No sir. That is your interpretation of what Paul is teaching about the church being the ‘body of Christ.’ Eph. 4:12. I gave you the Scripture references for Paul telling these same Ephesians that they were the ‘body’ in the post above. Instead of trying to discredit Paul and his OBVIOUS teaching that we are the body, you head off and begin forcing your square pegs into round holes. Here they are again:

“And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Eph. 1:22.

“. . . and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” Eph. 2:16.

“to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” Eph. 3:6.

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling.” Eph. 4:4.

“. . . for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” Eph. 4:12.

“. . . from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” Eph. 4:16.

“For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.” Eph. 5:23.

“. . . because we are members of His body.” Eph. 5:30.

BT >> In every instance throughout this chapter when Paul instructs "husband" then "wife" he follows with a synonym of "Christ" and "the church", likewise he maintains the allegory consistently where he addresses first "wife" and then "husband" and follows with the synonym of "the church" and then "Christ". Notice in the following charts:

Allegory my eye. Paul is teaching husbands and wives lessons about their relationships, while also teaching that the church is the ‘body.’ I asked you to find us examples of where Paul calls our church the ‘bride of Christ.’ Did you find any? No. Instead you dreamed up this ‘allegory by association’ fantasy. The Prophetic ‘bride’ is mentioned in John 3:29, and that has nothing to do with our Mystery church here in Ephesians 5. Your theory is someone’s dream. All one need do is just read the truth from Paul’s words without adding anything to it to see that we are the ‘body of Christ.’ Eph. 4:12.

The 'bride' (John 3:29) is part of Prophecy (Hosea 2:19+20), while the 'body' (Eph. 5:30) is part of the Mystery (Eph. 5:32). I am afraid you do not know the difference.

In Christ,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Providence:

Providence >> Agreed but not 100%. I agree with Bullinger that "men and their wives being 'one flesh', a man ought to love his wife, in as much as she is himself, as Jesus loves His own body, the church." The Bride is the (future) remnant of Israel.

Please elaborate upon what you are saying here, because you appear to have it right. We must remember, however, that the bride is being gathered according to the ‘early and late rains’ of James 5:7. Peter, John and James are ‘sons of the bridal chamber’ (Mark 2:19) who were gathering members to the ‘bride’ (John 3:29) during the early rains of the Kingdom. When Elijah comes to restore all things (Matt. 17:10+11), then the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ will once again be ‘the gospel’ of those days. He will prepare the bride for the coming of the Lord at the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3+) for their gathering in Matthew 24:31. Then they take part in the ‘marriage supper of the Lamb’ (Rev. 19:5-10) and the ‘betrothal’ of Hosea 2:19+20 is complete. The members of the ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) are inside the “Lamb” already.

We are ‘inside’ the Lamb throughout Revelation, while the bride shall serve the Lord as “helpmeet” priest, before the throne, for eternity. The bride is gradually ‘summed up’ into the Lamb throughout time. Some of the members enter Christ sooner, and others later on, depending upon their works and the brightness of their garments. This is where the ‘jealously’ aspect kicks into full gear. The members of the bride will work and work scrubbing their garments to then approach the throne for consideration of becoming a member of His body. They will look up and see the members of the ‘body of Christ’ who became members as a ‘free gift’ (Rom. 6:23) through obedience to Paul’s gospel. This ‘bride’ (works) versus ‘body’ (grace) lesson shall be observed by the “rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10) for the ‘ages to come.’ Eph. 2:7.

Those who believe the Mystery ‘body’ and the Prophecy ‘bride’ represent the ‘same body’ are oblivious to the truth of these things.

In Christ,

Terral