NEW COVENANT BELIEVERS ARE ISRAEL

[Davy]

let me also highlight
1 Chron 5:1-2
Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
Further more the Greek LXX says
1chr 5:1 The sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel (for he was firstborn; but because of his going up to his fathers couch his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph even the son of Isreal; and he was not reckoned as firstborn; for Judas was very mighty among his brethren and one to be a ruler out of him; but the blessing was Joseph's).

Seems to be a distinction between the birth right and the blessing.
Ge 27:36 And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

The seed promised Sarah is kings of people.

The Interlinear Bible included with my BibleSoft has Hebrew 'ben' (son) just prior to Joseph's name, pointing to Joseph's two sons, just like the KJV translates that I showed...

1 Chron 5:1
5 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
KJV

Furthermore, the transfer of the Birthright to Joseph's two sons is shown in the Genesis 48 Scripture.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Blood heritage has nothing to do with any of this, with the exception of Christ himself being made subject to the law of Moses. The Issue of genealogy was already shown to matter nothing. Not all that came out of Egypt were children of promise. It is not the natural seed but seed born of promise. This is about the promise made to ABRAHAM and God keeping that promise, due to an oath.

This is about the promise made to ABRAHAM and God keeping that promise, due to an oath.

Correct.

With Christ, the promised seed, coming on earth, the flesh no more profits anything with God, neither by birth nor circumcision.

Now the Spirit is poured out upon all flesh to draw to Christ, and so all nations are commanded to repent and believe the gospel.

At this time, the only promises of God are to His people by the faith of Jesus, birth of the spirit, and circumcision of Christ in the heart.

The natural born circumcision will not have any promise on earth, until after the Lord's return, where the promise of land on this earth will be fulfilled, and the inwardly and outwardly circumcised will be a natural born priesthood, serving Christ personally in Jerusalem, making intercession for all natural nations during the millennial reign.

At this time, all nations on earth are uncircumcised with God, except His holy nation and people: Christians. The Olive Tree Israel of God.

The children and people of Israel today on earth with promise of God by Abraham are now only Christians walking in natural bodies with promise of God by Christ: the body of Christ, the risen God of Israel, on earth: His own bone and flesh.

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 

[U.S. Grant]

You don't understand what the discussion is about. The law involved with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob concerns the law of faith, as distinct from the law of works.
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not a party to the law of Works, as they were not party to the Sinai covenant (kingdom of priests).
De 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Not only were they not subject to the law of the Sinai covenant, neither were the 12 Patriarchs.
Now I may not be correct about all of this, but I have presented plenty of evidence for it from the scriptures. But the two covenants made with Abraham are distinct IMO. The first covenant in Genesis 15 was not concerning any of his seed prior to the fourth generation.
Ge 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
This excludes Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and his brethren. Why Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel to take up his bones when God visited them. Two distinct covenants. No I am speaking of the law of Faith, vs the law of Moses which over four hundred years later. I don't know why it seems everyone makes those two covenants into one. Paul speaks of two covenants distinctly, and so does Hebrews. So too does the law itself.
Read it yourself. Note the bolded.
Gen 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
This says nothing About anybody coming to the land except the forth generation of his seed. In fact Abraham is specifically told he will die and be buried. Nothing about God being their (his seeds) God etc.
Gen 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
Where is God covenanting here to give the land to him? It is to the fourth generation it is given. Acts 7:5 Read it.
And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

Hebrews is even more thorough in this IMO.
Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
My take on this and Hebrews is The covenant made in Genesis 15 concerns his natural Seed. Genesis 17 concerns the Royal seed The kingdom promised Abraham.
But you are not seeing anything else in my posts but Moses law, and works.
I am not dispensationalist BTW.
The two inheritances only become one for the firstborn. Those which have both portions of inheritance

I agree with your distinction between the Covenant of Abraham with promise, that the law of Moses could not annul, and is now fulfilled in the New Covenant of Christ.

Abraham was also a keeper of God's law and commandments, and his children of faith did likewise with the law of Moses.

The difference here is not between who keeps the law and who does not outwardly, but who keeps the law from the heart with faith:

O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.

The difference therefore is between the law of works outwardly only vs the law of faith from the heart.

That is not a difference between the law of Moses and the law of faith, but rather is the difference between any law obeyed by works of the flesh only, and not by faith from the heart.

The law of work is a principle of outward obedience only, while the law of faith is the law of the Spirit: obedience by faith, without which it is impossible to please God, no matter how 'blamelessly' the law is kept.

The Jews failed in their seeking the righteousness of God, because they sought it not by faith. Saul of Tarsus was blameless in the law of Moses, and stumbled at the Rock of Christ, and was proved to be an unbeliever from the heart.

The law of works vs the law of faith is the difference between self-righteousness of man's works without faith from the heart, and doing the righteousness of God, which can only be by faith from the heart.

And so, while Saul was not an open sinner against the law of Moses, he was still judged disobedient to God without faith in the heart.

It is the error of doing works of righteousness as it were by law only (Rom 9:32): avoiding adultery, not because of any faith and love for God and His law, but only because of the punishment of transgression of the law.

I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.

The just who live by faith hate sinning against the law of God, because they love God and hate being disobedient to Him personally. Those that 'do right' and 'obey the law' outwardly only, do not hate sin and transgression itself, but rather only hate getting caught, which is sorrow of the world that only works death: them that only obey the law of works are only sorry for getting caught and pay the price of transgression of law with the death penalty.

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Godly sorrow from the heart works repentance and obedience from the heart, to love God with the heart and the body, and not obey a law with the body only.

Them that do the law as it were by works only, only fear the wrath of God, but them that do the law from the heart fear bringing sorrow to the Lord's heart:

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

With the body man only fears wrath of transgression, but with the heart man fears godly sorrow.

And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the LORD, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.

 

[ralliann]

Thanks for sharing your understanding of what he is saying in that complex paragraph.

So do you think that understanding addressed what I have asked him?

When you read Acts 21:18-25, do you understand it as James saying

1. All the Jews who believe in Jesus are to keep the law of Moses, and keep it zealously.
2. Gentiles who believe are to do NO SUCH THING, beyond those 4 requirements to keep the peace with the Jewish believers.

or do you have a different interpretation?

James as an apostle to the Jew's was speaking to Jews which were already keeping the law as Jew's. Acts tells us believing Jew's were all zealous for the law. So how could James be speaking of works of the the law? Keeping the same works as those that had no faith cannot be the works that showed their faith can they? If they are "doing" the same works as those that have no faith, their "doings could not possibly be what James calls showing his faith by what he does.

 

[U.S. Grant]

James as an apostle to the Jew's was speaking to Jews which were already keeping the law as Jew's. Acts tells us believing Jew's were all zealous for the law. So how could James be speaking of works of the the law? Keeping the same works as those that had no faith cannot be the works that showed their faith can they? If they are "doing" the same works as those that have no faith, their "doings could not possibly be what James calls showing his faith by what he does.

James was speaking to Christians and confirming the law of Moses is not for Christians to obey.

The law of Moses was of the Old Covenant to the children of Israel after the flesh.

The law of Christ is of the New Covenant for the children of Israel after the Spirit.

Christians obey the law of Christ only.

 

[ralliann]

James was speaking to Christians and confirming the law of Moses is not for Christians to obey.

The law of Moses was of the Old Covenant to the children of Israel after the flesh.

The law of Christ is of the New Covenant for the children of Israel after the Spirit.

Christians obey the law of Christ only.

Jewish Christians were obeying the law of Christ. Not defiling the temple was law regarding the temple. Thats why Paul didn't defile it. Nor would Paul cause any of his fellow Jew's to do so unwittingly. If that temple stood today the laws regarding it would apply. Once it was gone, those things were done with. Unbelieving Rabbinic Judaism came up with their own replacement theology. Prayers replaced sacrifices, "transferred" things of the temple to the synagogue, usurped the authority of the priests. They admit the synagogue is considered a diminished temple, and ritual purity was in connection to the temple.. They keep ritual purity laws to keep accostomed so as to not by mistake overlook them when the temple is rebuilt. Even they know those laws only apply to the temple.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Jewish Christians were obeying the law of Christ. Not defiling the temple was law regarding the temple. Thats why Paul didn't defile it. Nor would Paul cause any of his fellow Jew's to do so unwittingly. If that temple stood today the laws regarding it would apply. Once it was gone, those things were done with. Unbelieving Rabbinic Judaism came up with their own replacement theology. Prayers replaced sacrifices, "transferred" things of the temple to the synagogue, usurped the authority of the priests. They admit the synagogue is considered a diminished temple, and ritual purity was in connection to the temple.. They keep ritual purity laws to keep accostomed so as to not by mistake overlook them when the temple is rebuilt. Even they know those laws only apply to the temple.

Jewish Christians were obeying the law of Christ.

There are no Jewish Christians, except with Christians being Jews inwardly by circumcision of Christ. (Rom 2:29)

Christian is now the new name for the people of the risen God of Israel in the NT, which He prophesied would replace that of Jew from the OT. (Is 62:2)

Christians only obey the law of Christ for law of God. To obey any other law as it were law of Christ, is to fall from grace by keeping a law after the flesh, that cannot be obeyed from the heart with the faith of Jesus, since it is not the law of Christ being kept.

Keeping any other law than that of Christ, is as obeying another gospel than that of the cross of Jesus.

There is one rule, one doctrine, one law, one faith of Jesus Christ for His people to obey, even as there is one Lord and Saviour for all them that obey Him.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Jewish Christians were obeying the law of Christ. Not defiling the temple was law regarding the temple. Thats why Paul didn't defile it. Nor would Paul cause any of his fellow Jew's to do so unwittingly. If that temple stood today the laws regarding it would apply. Once it was gone, those things were done with. Unbelieving Rabbinic Judaism came up with their own replacement theology. Prayers replaced sacrifices, "transferred" things of the temple to the synagogue, usurped the authority of the priests. They admit the synagogue is considered a diminished temple, and ritual purity was in connection to the temple.. They keep ritual purity laws to keep accostomed so as to not by mistake overlook them when the temple is rebuilt. Even they know those laws only apply to the temple.

If that temple stood today the laws regarding it would apply. Once it was gone, those things were done with.

That temple was gone out of God's sight forever as He prophesied when they had His Son crucified. (1 Kings 9:7) He had both the first temple destroyed by Babylon, and the second temple ceased to be His at the cross.

The only temple of the Lord, before His return on earth, is His body the Lord pitches, not man.

God's temple ceased to be made with hands of men at the cross, which is why God tore the vail from top to bottom: the people, nation, temple, and circumcision of God is now in Christ Jesus only.

The first Christians, being Israel after the flesh, needed to be 'weaned' by doctrine of Christ from keeping the law of Moses in the Jews religion, and thus to cease separating themselves from the rest of the body of Christ by partiality and respect of persons.

Paul finally understood that in time, when he finally shook his garment at his kindred of the flesh in Acts 28, and then later rebuked Peter for failing to do so.

There is no problem with Christians retaining their cultural heritage, so long as it is not transgressing the law of Christ, nor is it kept for law of Christ: any man can be circumcised in the flesh, so long as it is not taught to do so as it were by law of Christ.

Likewise Christians ought not be purposely offending any cultures religious habits, as it were by not offending the weaker conscience. As a Christian, I would not have purposely entered into the Jews' temple, since they forbid it, no more than I would purposely trespass into another person's house.

The point being of course, that with the crucifixion and resurrection of the God of Israel, the law of Moses ceased to be law of God, even as the first covenant ceased to be with His people, and so the Jews religion, nation, temple, and circumcision were all their own to themselves and for themselves and had no more to do with the Son nor the Father:

If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

If they had let Him alone, the Romans would have done no such thing. The wicked leaders of the Jews wanted their own nation, their own temple, their own religion, their own law, and they were willing to keep it for themselves by having their Messiah and God crucified.

But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

The Romans destroyed the Jews' nation and temple, being zealously contrary to all men.

Any Christian trying to keep the law of Moses or any other law than that of Christ Jesus, as by faith of the Lord, is fallen from grace and is keeping a false law by a decieved faith.

The only works of law that justifies God's people, is obedience to the law of Christ by the faith of Jesus from the heart.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Jewish Christians were obeying the law of Christ. Not defiling the temple was law regarding the temple. Thats why Paul didn't defile it. Nor would Paul cause any of his fellow Jew's to do so unwittingly. If that temple stood today the laws regarding it would apply. Once it was gone, those things were done with. Unbelieving Rabbinic Judaism came up with their own replacement theology. Prayers replaced sacrifices, "transferred" things of the temple to the synagogue, usurped the authority of the priests. They admit the synagogue is considered a diminished temple, and ritual purity was in connection to the temple.. They keep ritual purity laws to keep accostomed so as to not by mistake overlook them when the temple is rebuilt. Even they know those laws only apply to the temple.

They keep ritual purity laws to keep accustomed so as to not by mistake overlook them when the temple is rebuilt. Even they know those laws only apply to the temple.

The temple in Rev 11 is God's temple, which in Rev 11 is seen when heaven is opened: the body of Christ who now see Jesus seated in heavenly places.

With the death of the God of Israel on the cross, Scripture would never ever call the temple of God by a temple made with wicked men's hands, who would crucify the Son afresh, if they had the chance.

The only temple of God on this earth in the future, other than the body of Christ, will be that which the Lord reigns from. If Israel after the flesh builds that temple themselves according to the exact pattern in Ezekiel 40-48, then it will not be the temple of God, until He returns to inhabit it Personally.

And He will destroy them that built it, along with the rest of them that gather together against Him in the great day of the Lord's battle on earth.

Only during His reign on earth with parts of the law of Moses be renewed for Israel after the flesh, including blood sacrifices for sins. They will be both outwardly and inwardly circumcised of Christ (Ezek 44:7) and will be His personal priesthood making intercession for all nations of earth under His rule.

Unbelieving Rabbinic Judaism came up with their own replacement theology.

They came up with their on replacement religion and chose it over their own Messiah, which false religion He was rebuking and seeking to confirm and restore to them the true religion and promises of the fathers in the law of Moses and first covenant.

Judaism became the Jews' false religion at the cross, and is till no more true religion of God than that of Mohammed, both of whom will be gathered together to fight against the Lord's return.

 

[ralliann]

Jewish Christians were obeying the law of Christ.

Yes. I am not going to go round and round with .

There are no Jewish Christians, except with Christians being Jews inwardly by circumcision of Christ. (Rom 2:29)

There were those commanded to preach the Gospel to the Jews. That was the apostles to the Jew's those whom they were to love as their enemy. And so they did without fault to those to whom they were called to preach and remain among. God's wrath was coming and they were doing all Christ had given unto them to save them from that wrath. They did not defile the temple, in gong there to preach the Gospel.

Christian is now the new name for the people of the risen God of Israel in the NT, which He prophesied would replace that of Jew from the OT. (Is 62:2)

And we are still called to love our enemy, which are members of our own households. So is true with the Apostles to the Jew's when that temple yet stood.

Christians only obey the law of Christ for law of God. To obey any other law as it were law of Christ, is to fall from grace by keeping a law after the flesh, that cannot be obeyed from the heart with the faith of Jesus, since it is not the law of Christ being kept.

Keeping any other law than that of Christ, is as obeying another gospel than that of the cross of Jesus.

There is one rule, one doctrine, one law, one faith of Jesus Christ for His people to obey, even as there is one Lord and Saviour for all them that obey Him.

The law of love to one's enemies has not been lifted, it remains. We are not to be an offence to any of them. God's wrath is what we are saving them from in love. Consider the importance of an oath. Peter being given the power to bind and loose, may have been voiding the oath to the Children of Israel.
This is the covenant made with Israel in Moab besides when they were ready to go in and possess the land.
Deut 5:10 Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,
11 Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water:
12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: {enter: Heb. pass }
13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;

To bind one soul to an oath is serious business indeed. Is this the power given to Peter and the apostles? To bind and to loose? Until these were loosed were they not indebted to keep the wholw law due to the oath here?

 

[U.S. Grant]

Yes. I am not going to go round and round with .

There were those commanded to preach the Gospel to the Jews. That was the apostles to the Jew's those whom they were to love as their enemy. And so they did without fault to those to whom they were called to preach and remain among. God's wrath was coming and they were doing all Christ had given unto them to save them from that wrath. They did not defile the temple, in gong there to preach the Gospel.

And we are still called to love our enemy, which are members of our own households. So is true with the Apostles to the Jew's when that temple yet stood.

The law of love to one's enemies has not been lifted, it remains. We are not to be an offence to any of them. God's wrath is what we are saving them from in love. Consider the importance of an oath. Peter being given the power to bind and loose, may have been voiding the oath to the Children of Israel.
This is the covenant made with Israel in Moab besides when they were ready to go in and possess the land.
Deut 5:10 Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,
11 Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water:
12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: {enter: Heb. pass }
13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;

To bind one soul to an oath is serious business indeed. Is this the power given to Peter and the apostles? To bind and to loose? Until these were loosed were they not indebted to keep the wholw law due to the oath here?

There were those commanded to preach the Gospel to the Jews.

They were commanded to preach the gospel beginning with the Jews, not to be stuck preaching only to the Jews, nor to any other particular people or nation on earth:

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The 'Jews' ceased to be the name of God's people at the cross, and is now that of Christian. They preached to the Jews first, being born of the Jews themselves, before learning they are no more Jews but Christians: ministers of Christ to all the nations and peoples of the earth, without respect of persons.

And we are still called to love our enemy, which are members of our own households. So is true with the Apostles to the Jew's when that temple yet stood.

Which household of faith was no longer of the Jews, but only of the resurrected Christ, whose household of Israel and of Judah became only that of Christians at His resurrection.

Are you not trying to confirm an ignorance of the apostles and first Christians, that they had yet to fully understand? They did not yet have all the Scripture of the NT given to them.

Was not the martyrdom of Stephen used of God to scatter them out of that dead temple and go on to fulfill His commission to the whole world?

Neither that law, nor covenant, nor temple had anything to do with the risen God of Israel, not from the beginning nor today. Jesus did not return to that temple to minister to any of His believers before His ascension.

Why not? Because they place was for the unbelieving dead only: Jesus went to His believers that were then scattered and in danger of death, as was He before the cross.

It could be winked at for a time, but now we see their errors, even as Paul would later compel Peter to see his own in dissimulating with the believing Jews and their dead law.

The problem in teaching the law of God, as with prophecy of God, is trying to do so without all the Scriptures of God unto the end of Revelation.

That temple yet stood physically, even as the law of Moses was yet written on paper, but both were already dead and gone from God's sight, one nailed to the cross, and the other with vail ripped in two.

They did not yet know that by revelation of God, but we do by Scripture revealed to them latter by God.

All things were wholly and completely changed in a moment with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and all such things of God became new in Christ, whether covenant, law, circumcision, temple, and religion.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Jesus's body died but without decay, while that whole old religion of the Jews has been dead and decaying ever since.

In the beginning, the apostles were unlearned in all Scriptures to come, which they would write in due time, and so were also carrying around some old baggage of dead covenant and law.

And with last Amen of Scripture in Revelation, God confirms it as such to us, who now have all Scriptures made available to read and to know the full difference between was is true ministry of Christ and what is not.

Any person now on earth trying to make that old religion and covenant and temple live again are trying to do so with a bag of bones that will not live again.

Until these were loosed were they not indebted to keep the whole law due to the oath here?

Indebted to what? A dead covenant and law, and temple of wicked men's hands despised of God?

And so we see that oath is of no more effect, even as that law and covenant, which was annulled when the oath Maker was killed on the cross.

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

The only thing that was in effect from the Old Covenant, law,and temple after the cross was one great and huge lesson learned: we can only be justified with God by believing and obeying His Scriptures, not by believing and obeying our own rules, religion temple, law, etc...as His law as it were by Scripture.

Neither the apostles nor the Christians in the beginning knew all things of the ministry of Christ and of His law, because God had not yet given all Scripture to His apostles to write for His church to read, believe, and obey, which includes Revelation:

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

[ralliann]

There were those commanded to preach the Gospel to the Jews.

They were commanded to preach the gospel beginning with the Jews, not to be stuck preaching only to the Jews, nor to any other particular people or nation on earth:

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Well the apostles and elders of the Church certainly did not understand that command that way. How many years before Cornelius. Quite a surprise to them.
Acts 2:1 ¶ And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Jew's devout men From all over the empire for the feast of weeks. One of the three annual feast days they commanded to appear every year.

5 ¶ And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
Of course you know Peter was very reluctant to do this.....
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
Ac 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

The others out preaching the gospel were preaching only to Jew's.......

Act 11:19 ¶ Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

Ga 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

 

[U.S. Grant]

Well the apostles and elders of the Church certainly did not understand that command that way. How many years before Cornelius. Quite a surprise to them.
Acts 2:1 ¶ And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Jew's devout men From all over the empire for the feast of weeks. One of the three annual feast days they commanded to appear every year.

5 ¶ And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
Of course you know Peter was very reluctant to do this.....
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
Ac 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

The others out preaching the gospel were preaching only to Jew's.......

Act 11:19 ¶ Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

Ga 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Well the apostles and elders of the Church certainly did not understand that command that way. How many years before Cornelius. Quite a surprise to them.

Neither did they understand that the Lord was not immediately returning after His ascension, so He had angels come and tell them to do what He just commanded them to do, which was to go back to Jerusalem.

Neither did they understand how Jesus does the choosing of His own apostles personally, and so went about casting lots for someone to take the place of Judas.

Neither did they understand that communism was not the way of God on earth, so that later Scripture rebuked any that would not work and so neither should eat.

Neither did Paul understand that Jesus really meant it, when He said He was to go to the Gentiles, because it took him many years of going to the Jews in their synagogues, before he finally shook his garment free of them in Rome.

And neither did any of the apostles do the work of the prophecies that the gentiles would trust int he Lord, until God saved filled with the Holy Ghost some as they were in front of Peter's own eyes.

The Scripture in Acts 1 is clear: they were to go to the uttermost parts of the earth and preach the gospel to all men. God now commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel of the cross. (Acts 17)

Christianity is not now and never was a 'Jewish' thing at all.

After His death on the cross, that nation was no longer a circumcised nation with God. Israel after the flesh was and still is just another uncircumcised nation on earth. No more nor less important to the risen God of Israel than any other uncircumcised nation.

For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.

This is not Scripture saying that god called Peter to the circumcision of flesh only. It simply confirms that God worked effectually through His apostle Peter, which Peter plainly kept among the Jews, until perhaps Paul had to rebuke him for his dissimulation with them apart from other Christians.

The only one chosen by Jesus to a certain people was Paul to the Gentiles. Why? Because the others weren't doing so to God's satisfaction.

Many good ministers can err in where God wants them to serve Him, and the apostles were no different.

Paul and Barnabas split company over a disagreement about with whom and where to minister, and Scripture does not say whether either of them was right or wrong.

Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are...

 

[ralliann]

Well the apostles and elders of the Church certainly did not understand that command that way. How many years before Cornelius. Quite a surprise to them.

Neither did they understand that the Lord was not immediately returning after His ascension, so He had angels come and tell them to do what He just commanded them to do, which was to go back to Jerusalem.

Neither did they understand how Jesus does the choosing of His own apostles personally, and so went about casting lots for someone to take the place of Judas.

Neither did they understand that communism was not the way of God on earth, so that later Scripture rebuked any that would not work and so neither should eat.

Hold on...
Lu 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Lu 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Jo 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Neither did Paul understand that Jesus really meant it, when He said He was to go to the Gentiles, because it took him many years of going to the Jews in their synagogues, before he finally shook his garment free of them in Rome.

And neither did any of the apostles do the work of the prophecies that the gentiles would trust int he Lord, until God saved filled with the Holy Ghost some as they were in front of Peter's own eyes.

The Scripture in Acts 1 is clear: they were to go to the uttermost parts of the earth and preach the gospel to all men. God now commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel of the cross. (Acts 17)

Christianity is not now and never was a 'Jewish' thing at all.

After His death on the cross, that nation was no longer a circumcised nation with God. Israel after the flesh was and still is just another uncircumcised nation on earth. No more nor less important to the risen God of Israel than any other uncircumcised nation.

For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.

This is not Scripture saying that god called Peter to the circumcision of flesh only. It simply confirms that God worked effectually through His apostle Peter, which Peter plainly kept among the Jews, until perhaps Paul had to rebuke him for his dissimulation with them apart from other Christians.

The only one chosen by Jesus to a certain people was Paul to the Gentiles. Why? Because the others weren't doing so to God's satisfaction.

Many good ministers can err in where God wants them to serve Him, and the apostles were no different.

Paul and Barnabas split company over a disagreement about with whom and where to minister, and Scripture does not say whether either of them was right or wrong.

Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are...

I disagree with you on this. Opening their eyes to understand, was according to his purpose and choice at each step.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Hold on...
Lu 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Lu 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Jo 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:




I disagree with you on this. Opening their eyes to understand, was according to his purpose and choice at each step.

I disagree with you on this.

On what? That the apostles and disciples stayed standing in place to await His return, when He had just commanded them to go to jerusalem and wait for the Holy Ghost baptism with fire??

Why was Peter so astonished at the salvation and justification of the Roman Cornelius? He obviously did not remember the Syro-Phonecian woman, whose daughter Jesus healed.

Why did he have to argue the case before the other apostles and disciples? Did they not remember the command to go into all the world? Or did they think that meant only to the scattered Jews abroad?

Opening their eyes to understand, was according to his purpose and choice at each step.

To understand what? All things at once?

No new babe in Christ is fully revealed with all knowledge of Scripture and calling of God at once in the beginning of their faith of Jesus, which includes all them to be called into ministry as apostles, prophets, teachers...

Upon hearing and believing the Word of God from the heart, we are born of the word, and our understanding eyes of the heart are opened to see Jesus is indeed the Christ, made of a woman, died on the cross, buried for three days, and rose again for our salvation and justification with God.

Our eyes continue to open to fuller revelation of the Spirit as we read, obey, and grow up in Him.

We all still see through a glass darkly.

As the apostle said of himself.

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

And so, it was with the apostles by the Spirit as promised, who would do so for sake of His ministry to the whole world, and not just to any certain uncircumcised nation on earth, still calling itself Israel after the flesh.

No one can deny this fact of Scripture in Acts 1. Yet, they did not obey it, until persecution arose to disperse them physically to begin do so.

And Paul did not obey his calling of apostleship pertaining to Gentiles, until he finally had enough of the unbelieving Jews in Rome: If any apostle was called specifically to any people, it was only Paul, where Scripture says he was plainly called to the Gentiles.

Why? Because none of the other apostles were doing so according to His commandment to do so fromt he beginning:

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

They were commanded to begin there, not to stay there.

The perfect God often must settle for imperfect service of His called saints:

And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice.

God does not call any preacher to the 'Jews' only, no more than He does to the 'Russians' only.

Neither did He do so in the beginning of building His church upon whosoever would believe Him from the heart.

At the cross the children's bread ceased to be for the lost sheep of Israel's only.

The children's Bread of Life is for all who would eat thereof.

Peter no doubt made himself an apostle to the circumcision, but Jesus didn't, no more than Jesus is Lord to the circumcision with flesh only.

In the end, the Lord needed Paul to rebuke him for it, who himself would not do so, until after he himself was freed from being an apostle to his kindred after the flesh.

 

[Guojing]

I disagree with you on this.

Why was Peter so astonished at the salvation and justification of the Roman Cornelius? He obviously did not remember the Syro-Phonecian woman, whose daughter Jesus healed.

Why did he have to argue the case before the other apostles and disciples? Did they not remember the command to go into all the world? Or did they think that meant only to the scattered Jews abroad?

Based on the prophetic timetable, Israel the nation are to be saved first, before the gentile nations can be reached by every Jew. Zechariah 8 is an example of that timetable.

That is why the 12 of them never left Israel (Acts 8:1).

That is why Peter was surprised at Cornelius receiving the Holy Ghost without circumcision nor water baptism.

As for the woman's daughter being healed by Jesus, she was granted that healing because she submitted to Israel, by acknowledging that, as a gentile dog, she could get the spillover blessings from the bread given to Jewish children.

 

[ralliann]

Based on the prophetic timetable, Israel the nation are to be saved first,

Prophetic timetable of who?
Testimony of two witnesses
1st came: John's ministry in baptism of repentance. The publicans and harlots repented. He gave testimony of Jesus Christ.
The messenger which prepared the way of escape from the wrath which was coming on the Jew.
Mt 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

2nd came Jesus Christ. A Prophet like Moses
doing works of God. His works testified of him.
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

before the gentile nations can be reached by every Jew. Zechariah 8 is an example of that timetable.

Before Any Jew could be reached They had to believe John, and Jesus works. The messenger which prepared the way, and the prophet like Moses.

That is why the 12 of them never left Israel (Acts 8:1).

That is why Peter was surprised at Cornelius receiving the Holy Ghost without circumcision nor water baptism.

They were surprised at cornelious in tht they were granted repentance for the remission of sins, without John's baptism. And given the holy spirit like they had. Making no difference between Jew and Gentile.

As for the woman's daughter being healed by Jesus, she was granted that healing because she submitted to Israel, by acknowledging that, as a gentile dog, she could get the spillover blessings from the bread given to Jewish children.

No, she was healed because she had faith, Just like a Jew. Christ healed as a testimony to Israel to fulfill his work as a prophet like Moses. And truly the Gospel to the nations is part of that.
A royal priesthood, and royal law, faith.

 

[Guojing]

No, she was healed because she had faith, Just like a Jew. Christ healed as a testimony to Israel to fulfill his work as a prophet like Moses. And truly the Gospel to the nations is part of that.
A royal priesthood, and royal law, faith.

Do you notice what Jesus said to that gentile lady in Mark 7:29?

She had faith of course, but she had to be willing to submit to the nation Israel, in order to receive the healing she required for her daughter.

If she just went to Jesus and said "I believe you can heal my daughter," even if she truly believed that, and during that time when Jesus went about healing whenever he went (Acts 10:38) it is not difficult for most people to believe that, that would still not have been sufficient for a gentile, who was cut off in time past (Ephesians 2:11-12)

Do you understand the difference between the above 2 paragraphs?

 

[ralliann]

Do you notice what Jesus said to that gentile lady in Mark 7:29?

She had faith of course, but she had to be willing to submit to the nation Israel, in order to receive the healing she required for her daughter.

If she just went to Jesus and said "I believe you can heal my daughter," even if she truly believed that, and during that time when Jesus went about healing whenever he went (Acts 10:38) it is not difficult for most people to believe that, that would still not have been sufficient for a gentile, who was cut off in time past (Ephesians 2:11-12)

Do you understand the difference between the above 2 paragraphs?

You are not making sense to me.
1. Submitting to the nation Israel
2. Gentiles cut off off in times past
I don't understand your terminology in these things.

As for Ephesians, Our names not appearing before God on the breastplate and two shoulders of the anointed high priest, of the order of Aaron. Only the twelve tribes appear there. But that does not mean we were "cut off". We were without citizenshp there yes. But I don't know how you use these terms.

 

[Guojing]

You are not making sense to me.
1. Submitting to the nation Israel
2. Gentiles cut off off in times past
I don't understand your terminology in these things.

Did you read the verses I refer to you?

The first example, when Jesus said in Mark 7:29

And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

Let me ask you a question: What did the woman say to Jesus in vs 28?

Tell me how you understand vs 28?