Did God put Israel's covenant on hold?

[Idolater]

It's an analogy and not to be taken literally.

Chapter and verse on that claim?

Thought so.

In describing Himself as the "bread of life", Jesus said this:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Your "Church" teaches that the body of Christ is the "new Israel".

Then it's too bad that you cannot understand it.

The "new covenant" is between the same TWO parties as the OLD covenant -- Israel and God.

And it is the "everlasting covenant" and it has not been "put on hold."

 

[Right Divider]

Chapter and verse on that claim?

I showed you and YET you ignored it.

Thought so.

And it is the "everlasting covenant" and it has not been "put on hold."

Eph 3:8-12 KJV Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; (9) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: (10) To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, (11) According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: (12) In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

Don't ignore this revelation given ONLY to Paul.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So where in the Bible is the everlasting covenant of Hebrews 13:20 put on hold.

At Paul's conversion, in Acts 9.

Where else? Because I've read the whole chapter. I don't detect the slightest mention of an everlasting covenant being put on hold, let alone such a thing being said explicitly and clearly and plainly in Acts 9.

Read Acts. Yes, the whole book. Note the three Ananiases (the only three Ananiases in scripture). They are a good indicator of the state of Israel.

The first shows the ungratefulness of Israel, as their wait on Christ's return grows longer.

The second shows the transfer of attention from Israel to Paul and the gentiles, where unbelieving Israel is cut off for their unbelief.

The third shows Israel in utter rebellion against God.



That's because it's not mentioned directly.

But that IS where it occurred.

Don't use an appeal to incredulity as your excuse for not recognizing truth.



You asked where it happened. That's where it happened, but that doesn't mean it's stated explicitly by God, "I'm putting my covenant with Israel on hold at this exact moment in time and this exact point in scripture."

Don't move the goalposts because you're blind and cannot see.

You all claim that the "everlasting covenant" that Christ dedicated with His own blood, was "put on hold",

The covenant was, in fact, put on hold. It wasn't canceled. It's still an everlasting covenant. It's simply not currently in effect.

even though you confess that such a momentous thing is never explicit in Scripture.

Being dishonest and/or willfully ignorant isn't helping your case, Idolater, nor is your using logical fallacies.

No one claimed "such a thing [was] said explicitly and clearly and plainly in Acts 9 [or anywhere else, for that matter]." I also said as much in my previous post.

That was simply you, Idolater, moving the goalposts.

 

[Idolater]

The covenant was, in fact, put on hold.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Put up.

It wasn't canceled.

No one said it was.

It's still an everlasting covenant. It's simply not currently in effect.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Put up.

Being dishonest and/or willfully ignorant isn't helping your case, Idolater, nor is your using logical fallacies.

I'm not doing any of those things, JudgeRightly.

No one claimed "such a thing [was] said explicitly and clearly and plainly in Acts 9 [or anywhere else, for that matter]." I also said as much in my previous post.

That was simply you, Idolater, moving the goalposts.

I'm not moving any goalposts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The everlasting covenant (Heb13:20) being 'put on hold' is an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence.

You all have none. That's where my request for something clear in Scripture that supports you all's claim came from, that was where the goalposts were and that's where they still are, because you all wish that you could move the goalposts to where all your extraordinary claim requires, is ordinary evidence instead of extraordinary evidence, but the goalposts have not moved.

. . .
You're probably now going to contend that it's an ordinary claim, that the everlasting covenant was put on hold, in order to defend your position against my request, to avoid having to supply the extraordinary evidence that extraordinary claims require, because you all have no extraordinary evidence. (Which would be satisfied by scripture stating such "explicitly and clearly and plainly", which you all admit, isn't in there. We know.)

 

[JudgeRightly]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Indeed.

Put up.

Romans 9-11. Read it.

No one said it was.

I was adding emphasis to my point.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Indeed.

Put up.

Again, Romans 9-11. Read it. Again, if you already did.

I'm not doing any of those things, JudgeRightly.

Yeah, you were, as I pointed them out in your post.

I'm not moving any goalposts.

Yes, you did.

The entire thread is still there for everyone to read, and I quoted what you originally said, and what you changed your question to after I answered it, which was more specific than what you originally asked. That's textbook goalpost moving.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The everlasting covenant (Heb13:20) being 'put on hold' is an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence.

It's not an extraordinary claim. It's completely in line with scripture, if you would take your paradigm's glasses off, you'd be able to see it too.

You all have none.

Supra.

That's where my request for something clear in Scripture that supports you all's claim came from,

Supra.

that was where the goalposts were and that's where they still are, because you all wish that you could move the goalposts to where all your extraordinary claim requires, is ordinary evidence instead of extraordinary evidence, but the goalposts have not moved.

You're the one trying to move the goalposts, Idolater. Not us.

. . .
You're probably now going to contend that it's an ordinary claim, that the everlasting covenant was put on hold, in order to defend your position against my request, to avoid having to supply the extraordinary evidence that extraordinary claims require, because you all have no extraordinary evidence.

Straw man.

Try steel man-ning your opponent's position instead. It's a far more honest method of discussion.

(Which would be satisfied by scripture stating such "explicitly and clearly and plainly", which you all admit, isn't in there. We know.)

I have already addressed this. Why do you insist that we provide something that we do not claim exists?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're probably now going to contend that it's an ordinary claim,

It is an ordinary claim, backed up by what scripture says.

that the everlasting covenant was put on hold, in order to defend your position against my request,

Wouldn't you defend your position against claims to the contrary?

to avoid having to supply

No one (other than you avoiding opening your eyes and just reading the text) is avoiding anything here.

the extraordinary evidence

The evidence is scripture, which I and RD have provided.

that extraordinary claims require,

It wasn't an extraordinary claim, therefore it doesn't require extraordinary evidence, and yet I still provided you with evidence.

Your attack fails on both of those fronts.

because you all have no extraordinary evidence.

And yet, we have repeatedly provided you with it.

Not sure how we can do that if we don't have any evidence...

(Which would be satisfied by scripture stating such "explicitly and clearly and plainly",

Only if we claimed (and we don't) that Scripture "explicitly and clearly and plainly" states that God put Israel's covenant on hold.

Since we don't, we do not have to satisfy that requirement.

And yet....

We HAVE satisfied the requirement for evidence for our claims. You refusing to examine our evidence presented does NOT count as us not providing the evidence.

In fact, here's more chapters to read that fulfill the "evidence" requirement. Luke 13 tells us that Jesus came for three years, but because Israel continued to reject Him the entire time, He wanted to cut them off, but the Holy Spirit said to wait another year. From Christ's DBR/ascension to Paul's conversion was about a year, during which Acts 1-8 occurred. Hence the cutting off of unbelieving Israel, and the grafting in of the Body of Christ, Romans 11.

Jeremiah 18 is applied (as I believe RD mentioned above) to Israel AT Acts 9.

Galatians 2 cements that fact by Paul and the Apostles deciding to go to their respective groups, Paul to the uncircumcised (Gentiles), and Peter, James, and John to the circumcised (Jews), and the latter never went to anyone other than the circumcised.

which you all admit, isn't in there. We know.)

As I said above... If you know that, then why are you demanding that of us?

 

[Clete]

You all claim that the "everlasting covenant" that Christ dedicated with His own blood, was "put on hold", even though you confess that such a momentous thing is never explicit in Scripture.

I just do not understand most of the people on TOL. It's as if they cannot read or that the 'gears between the ears' just refuse to turn.

I mean I JUST POSTED exactly that!

There's simply no other rational understanding of Romans 9 - 11. That whole section of the most important theological treatise in history is specifically and EXPLICITLY about Israel rejecting the gospel and, as a result, their covenant with God being cut off in accordance with God's own warning given in Jeremiah 18, and how that cutting off was not total (i.e. He didn't cut off those who had believed) and that it isn't permanent.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

Why would God simply 'walk away from' the then 1500 year old institution of the office of a bishop (cf. 1 Tim 3:1)? 1500 years straight without a hiccup (on the fixed institution, not to say there weren't many disputes along the way), but then God suddenly abandons this institution, established by the Apostles themselves? We have that recorded in the Bible. This requires something like a prophet, for God to turn away from His own institution, but there was no prophet, there was just Martin Luther. Do you think that he or John Calvin were prophets, such that you are 100% that God has in fact relegated His own established teaching office, to the dustbin? The trashcan? The dump?

This part was for @beloved57.

 

[Derf]

And on another topic, how does an "everlasting covenant" (Heb13:20), get put on hold? Nothing everlasting gets paused. That is pure fiction, and syntactically false as well.

[Heb 13:20-21 KJV] 20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[Heb 13:20-21 NIV] 20 Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, 21 equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

These two versions illustrate some differences in translation. The first allows for the emboldened phrase to be modifying either "that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus" or "make you perfect in every good work...". The second only allows for the first option.

But I question that option, because--How is it that any blood besides that of Jesus Himself could be used to bring anyone back from the dead? And His blood was not necessary to bring Himself back from the dead, as the blood is only necessary when there is sin needing to be forgiven, which we don't associate in any way with Jesus.

If, then, the blood is not associated with raising Jesus from the dead, but with the making of the Hebrews "perfect in every good work to do his will", when would such a covenant ever be put on hold? And if this is written to the Hebrews by anyone after Acts 9 (surely the date must be after Acts 9's date), how can it be expressed as a blessing that includes current activity, as in "working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight", since it would not be able to apply to the Hebrews generally during that time, but only those that were believers.

That makes me think that the continuance or abeyance of the covenant is not a factor at all, but that the covenant is just assumed by the author to be active when he writes it.

 

[Clete]

[Heb 13:20-21 KJV] 20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[Heb 13:20-21 NIV] 20 Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, 21 equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

These two versions illustrate some differences in translation. The first allows for the emboldened phrase to be modifying either "that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus" or "make you perfect in every good work...". The second only allows for the first option.

But I question that option, because--How is it that any blood besides that of Jesus Himself could be used to bring anyone back from the dead? And His blood was not necessary to bring Himself back from the dead, as the blood is only necessary when there is sin needing to be forgiven, which we don't associate in any way with Jesus.

If, then, the blood is not associated with raising Jesus from the dead, but with the making of the Hebrews "perfect in every good work to do his will", when would such a covenant ever be put on hold? And if this is written to the Hebrews by anyone after Acts 9 (surely the date must be after Acts 9's date), how can it be expressed as a blessing that includes current activity, as in "working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight", since it would not be able to apply to the Hebrews generally during that time, but only those that were believers.

That makes me think that the continuance or abeyance of the covenant is not a factor at all, but that the covenant is just assumed by the author to be active when he writes it.

There is a disconnect here somehow. Either I am missing your point or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what had been put on hold and what hadn't.

It doesn't matter when Hebrews was written. It doesn't matter when any of the books of the New Testament after Philemon (i.e. Hebrews through Revelation) were written. God had cut off the nation of Israel not believers in Christ. That is to say that He had discontinued the corporate relationship that the Jews had with God by virtue of their being Jews. Those who had believed were not cut off. God had not cut off the Peter, James, John, the author of Hebrews nor any of their followers nor Paul either for that matter (see Romans 11). Otherwise, there would have been nothing for Peter, James and John to minister to - per Galatians 2:7-9. Indeed, there would have been no need for the book of Hebrews if ALL of the Jews were cut off. It would never have been written at all. Same goes for all the other books of the New Testament that follow Hebrews, all of which were written to believing members of the Nation of Israel under the Kingdom Gospel as preached by Jesus and the Twelve.

Lastly, concerning the quote from the NIV, the NIV isn't completely worthless version of the bible. I grew up with it and was saved in a church that read and preached from it but, having given it that much credit, when it comes to serious study of the scriptures, the NIV is pretty terrible and the passage you cite is only one of several examples of why. It seems the translators wanted to figure out subtle ways to diminish Christ.

Clete

 

[Derf]

There is a disconnect here somehow. Either I am missing your point or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what had been put on hold and what hadn't.

It doesn't matter when Hebrews was written. It doesn't matter when any of the books of the New Testament after Philemon (i.e. Hebrews through Revelation) were written. God had cut off the nation of Israel not believers in Christ. That is to say that He had discontinued the corporate relationship that the Jews had with God by virtue of their being Jews. Those who had believed were not cut off. God had not cut off the Peter, James, John, the author of Hebrews nor any of their followers nor Paul either for that matter (see Romans 11). Otherwise, there would have been nothing for Peter, James and John to minister to - per Galatians 2:7-9. Indeed, there would have been no need for the book of Hebrews if ALL of the Jews were cut off. It would never have been written at all. Same goes for all the other books of the New Testament that follow Hebrews, all of which were written to believing members of the Nation of Israel under the Kingdom Gospel as preached by Jesus and the Twelve.

Lastly, concerning the quote from the NIV, the NIV isn't completely worthless version of the bible. I grew up with it and was saved in a church that read and preached from it but, having given it that much credit, when it comes to serious study of the scriptures, the NIV is pretty terrible and the passage you cite is only one of several examples of why. It seems the translators wanted to figure out subtle ways to diminish Christ.

Clete

I was mainly saying that verse couldn’t be used to show anything about a covenant that was put on hold. But it’s also an odd sentence structure the way NIV and sine others translated it.

I agree with you about the NIV.

 

[Idolater]

I was mainly saying that verse couldn’t be used to show anything about a covenant that was put on hold. But it’s also an odd sentence structure the way NIV and sine others translated it.

I agree with you about the NIV.

Full disclosure I grew up on the NIV, I wasn't born Catholic. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I agree that the passage you quoted from Hebrews does not sustain that the everlasting New Covenant was 'put on hold'.

Instead of repenting, turning, and celebrating the Church's liturgy (Acts 2:42) with the Apostles, Israel as a nation, people, or polity, continued Levi's liturgy at the temple, preferring the concrete evidence of the temple, to faith in Christ. That all came to a crashing end in AD 70 when Titus carried off the Ark of the (Old) Covenant and broke the temple in Jerusalem, ending the Levitical liturgy.

But the Great Commission from the start included the Gentiles, this was Christ ordering the Apostles to spread the New Covenant (baptize is 'NC'), and He's got all the Gentiles in there. KJV or NIV, either way.

 

[Right Divider]

Full disclosure I grew up on the NIV, I wasn't born Catholic. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Go YE therefore... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

Jesus commanded THEM many things, like keeping the law.

Mat 23:1-3 KJV Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

The term "Moses' seat" refers to the primary person to whom God gave the law.

The YE in that passage was eleven people.

Mat 28:16 KJV Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

This is NOT an instruction for members of the body of Christ. It was instructions for THEM.

But the Great Commission from the start included the Gentiles, this was Christ ordering the Apostles to spread the New Covenant (baptize is 'NC'), and He's got all the Gentiles in there. KJV or NIV, either way.

God always allowed gentiles to join with Israel, that was nothing new. And NO, baptize was NOT just NC... Israel had many, many water baptisms in the OC.

Exo 12:48-51 KJV And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (49) One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. (50) Thus did all the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. (51) And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

But, of course, those gentiles had to be circumcised.

In the body of Christ there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek. So that's a thing that differs.

 

[Clete]

Full disclosure I grew up on the NIV, I wasn't born Catholic. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I agree that the passage you quoted from Hebrews does not sustain that the everlasting New Covenant was 'put on hold'.

Instead of repenting, turning, and celebrating the Church's liturgy (Acts 2:42) with the Apostles, Israel as a nation, people, or polity, continued Levi's liturgy at the temple, preferring the concrete evidence of the temple, to faith in Christ. That all came to a crashing end in AD 70 when Titus carried off the Ark of the (Old) Covenant and broke the temple in Jerusalem, ending the Levitical liturgy.

But the Great Commission from the start included the Gentiles, this was Christ ordering the Apostles to spread the New Covenant (baptize is 'NC'), and He's got all the Gentiles in there. KJV or NIV, either way.

Catholics crack me up. They're like dirty modern day liberal politicians that despise America and its founding but when it suits their fancy they quote from both the founding fathers and the constitution.

You want to pin your argument on the word "all" in this passage to defend your covenant theology but ignore entire passages that directly contradict dogmas that define Catholicism itself. Passages like...

Matthew 12:46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.​

​

Matthew 13:55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?​

​

Matthew 23: 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.​

Etc...

Clete

 

[Derf]

Go YE therefore... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

Jesus commanded THEM many things, like keeping the law.
The term "Moses' seat" refers to the primary person to whom God gave the law.

The YE in that passage was eleven people.
This is NOT an instruction for members of the body of Christ. It was instructions for THEM.

That's not the only verse giving the great commission, just the most well known. Here's another:
[Act 1:8 KJV] 8 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.

It's still just the eleven, as far as I can tell, but it doesn't include baptism at all...Except three verses earlier:
[Act 1:5 KJV] 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

It doesn't say how they are to apply baptism, and neither does it say any more about their message except that they will be "witnesses" unto Him.


But the bigger thing regarding your first paragraph is the "all things whatsoever I have commanded you". There's a part not included that has to be inferred. It's either

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you to observe."
or
"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you to teach them"

The first would fit with your examples, but the second one doesn't. I believe the context favors the second one, based on (again) a few verses earlier in the Acts commission, which can possibly be applied to the Matthew commission:
[Act 1:3 KJV] 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Perhaps the Mark commission can sort it out:
[Mar 16:15-16 KJV] 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Of course "the gospel" might have different meanings to different people, but Vs 16 seems to spell it out--those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. Other commandments from the OT don't seem necessary for salvation, according to Jesus in this passage.

 

[Derf]

Full disclosure I grew up on the NIV, I wasn't born Catholic. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I agree that the passage you quoted from Hebrews does not sustain that the everlasting New Covenant was 'put on hold'.

Instead of repenting, turning, and celebrating the Church's liturgy (Acts 2:42) with the Apostles, Israel as a nation, people, or polity, continued Levi's liturgy at the temple, preferring the concrete evidence of the temple, to faith in Christ. That all came to a crashing end in AD 70 when Titus carried off the Ark of the (Old) Covenant and broke the temple in Jerusalem, ending the Levitical liturgy.

But the Great Commission from the start included the Gentiles, this was Christ ordering the Apostles to spread the New Covenant (baptize is 'NC'), and He's got all the Gentiles in there. KJV or NIV, either way.

I guess there's some question as to whether TItus carried off the ark, or just other temple accoutrements. But the temple was certainly destroyed, and with it the levitical sacrificial system stopped.

Though I question why you point to a liturgy in just 42 instead of the whole rest of the chapter:
[Act 2:44-46 KJV] 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

 

[Right Divider]

That's not the only verse giving the great commission, just the most well known.

The "great commission" is just another myth of Churchianity (not the commission itself, but its audience and scope). Christ gave a number of commissions and the one most pertinent to the body of Christ is the one that He gave to Paul (not Peter and the eleven that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel).

Here's another:
[Act 1:8 KJV] 8 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.

It's still just the eleven, as far as I can tell, but it doesn't include baptism at all...Except three verses earlier:
[Act 1:5 KJV] 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

It doesn't say how they are to apply baptism, and neither does it say any more about their message except that they will be "witnesses" unto Him.

Paul says that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ and it does NOT involve water.

Eph 4:4-6 KJV There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

THIS is the ONE baptism that Paul was referring to:

1Co 12:12-13 KJV For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

It is a SPIRIT baptism INTO the body of Christ.

But the bigger thing regarding your first paragraph is the "all things whatsoever I have commanded you". There's a part not included that has to be inferred. It's either

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you to observe."
or
"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you to teach them"

The first would fit with your examples, but the second one doesn't. I believe the context favors the second one, based on (again) a few verses earlier in the Acts commission, which can possibly be applied to the Matthew commission:
[Act 1:3 KJV] 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

So... after Christ teaching them for FORTY DAYS about the kingdom of God, what was their first question?

Act 1:6 KJV When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

So they clearly understood that the kingdom of God that Christ taught them about was the kingdom of ISRAEL.
Did Christ correct their understanding? NO, Christ simply told them that they were not to know the TIMING of the RESTORATION of the KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.

Perhaps the Mark commission can sort it out:
[Mar 16:15-16 KJV] 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Indeed, the mission of the Israelites included:

• Water baptism
• Law keeping
• A kingdom of Israel
• etc.

Of course "the gospel" might have different meanings to different people, but Vs 16 seems to spell it out--those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. Other commandments from the OT don't seem necessary for salvation, according to Jesus in this passage.

"Jesus in this passage" was speaking as one under the law (Gal 4:4). This passage and others like it do NOT refer to the body of Christ which Christ instituted LATER... AFTER Israel was (temporarily) set aside as a nation.

Many years later, the disciples (those that followed Christ during His earthly ministry to Israel) preached unto the Jews only. The Bible does NOT condemn them for doing so.

Act 11:19 KJV 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.

And they kept the law.

Act 21:17-20 KJV And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. (18) And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. (19) And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. (20) And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Again, they were Israelites continuing what Christ had told them to do. They were NOT the body of Christ which makes no distinction between Jew and Greek and is NOT under the law.

 

[Derf]

So they clearly understood that the kingdom of God that Christ taught them about was the kingdom of ISRAEL.

Did they? There question indicated that for 40 days Jesus didn’t teach than anything about the kingdom of Israel, but Christ had been teaching them about something that was the kingdom of God and not of Israel.

I don’t disagree that the apostles and other disciples were going to those of Israel first, just as Jesus did, just as Jesus told them to do, and just as Paul did.

I also see that there was conflict between what the eleven thought they were supposed to do and what they were really supposed to do, as shown by the episode with Cornelius.

"Jesus in this passage" was speaking as one under the law (Gal 4:4).

Was He? The verse merely talks about how Jesus was brought into the world, not at all how He was after the resurrection. The law had been fulfilled in Christ, and Jesus knew it better than anyone. The disciples had a hard time letting it go—but some, like Peter, were able to some of the time.

And they kept the law.

No, they didn’t. Ask Peter and Paul about their argument (in the same book, even)
Paul rebuked Peter for pretending to keep the law when other Jews were present, but not keeping it when they weren’t. Why? Not because he feared the Lord, which should be the case if he were still under the law, but “he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

And he wasn’t the only one. Barnabas and other Jews were implicated, too, in “their hypocrisy”.
Galatians 2:13 (NKJV) And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

Paul did not rebuke them all for not following the law, but because they were only following it when those from James were around.

And if there were others with Peter when he was NOT keeping the law, then he must have been teaching them they didn’t have to, with words (since even Barnabas, who was willing to part with Paul over a disagreement, was not disagreeing with Peter) most likely, but with his actions at the very least.

 

[Right Divider]

Did they?

Yes, they sure did!

There question indicated that for 40 days Jesus didn’t teach than anything about the kingdom of Israel, but Christ had been teaching them about something that was the kingdom of God and not of Israel.

You must think that the Lord Jesus Christ was a terrible teacher.

I don’t disagree that the apostles and other disciples were going to those of Israel first, just as Jesus did, just as Jesus told them to do, and just as Paul did.

Again, read the scripture.

Act 11:19 KJV 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.

I also see that there was conflict between what the eleven thought they were supposed to do and what they were really supposed to do, as shown by the episode with Cornelius.

The "episode with Cornelius" was clearly a SPECIAL CASE. God did not tell the twelve to go... He told PETER. And God had to tell Peter THREE TIMES. Note that this event occurred shortly after God had called the apostle of the GENTILES, Paul.

Was He? The verse merely talks about how Jesus was brought into the world, not at all how He was after the resurrection. The law had been fulfilled in Christ, and Jesus knew it better than anyone. The disciples had a hard time letting it go—but some, like Peter, were able to some of the time.

It's a myth that the "law was fulfilled in Christ".

Luk 24:44-45 KJV And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (45) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Note that the "all things MUST BE fulfilled" demonstrates that some things remain as yet (at that time) unfulfilled.

No, they didn’t.

Yes, they did.

Ask Peter and Paul about their argument (in the same book, even)
Paul rebuked Peter for pretending to keep the law when other Jews were present, but not keeping it when they weren’t. Why?

Please show where the LAW was at issue in that passage. It was not.

Not because he feared the Lord, which should be the case if he were still under the law, but “he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

And he wasn’t the only one. Barnabas and other Jews were implicated, too, in “their hypocrisy”.
Galatians 2:13 (NKJV) And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy had nothing to do with keeping or not keeping the law.

Gal 2:11-14 KJV But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

He was trying to get the gentiles (that did not have the law) to live AS DO THE JEWS.

Paul did not rebuke them all for not following the law, but because they were only following it when those from James were around.

Christ told them to keep the law, but you think that they ignored His instructions completely?

And if there were others with Peter when he was NOT keeping the law, then he must have been teaching them they didn’t have to, with words (since even Barnabas, who was willing to part with Paul over a disagreement, was not disagreeing with Peter) most likely, but with his actions at the very least.

Again, why this passage and no complaint from scripture about it?

Act 21:17-21 KJV And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. (18) And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. (19) And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. (20) And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: (21) And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Notice that Paul did NOT tell them that they were not under the law there. Instead Paul went WITH them and took a vow.

Like so many in Churchianity, you blur the mission of the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL with the mission of the ONE apostle of the gentiles for the ONE body of Christ.

 

[Bradley D]

Israel would not accept the Gentiles.

"They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Luke 21:24).

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25).