Discerning the difference.

[Right Divider]

Here's the thing. I have considered both sides. First dispensationalism then covenant as a framework (not a doctrine) of how God relates in a personal way to humans, and His means of moving forward His plan of redemption.

There are both covenants and dispensations in the Bible. Neither one is really a "framework".
The dispensation of the grace of God is not a covenant. It was given to Paul for us. Eph 3:2

And of course it depends on how one is using the word dispensation, when they adhere to dispensationalism. And truthfully, I do not know. Is it being used as is described in the notes in the original Scofield Reference Bible? "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture." If so, does it recognize or consider the implication in relation to "age" or take into consideration basis or lack of basis of the scriptural revelation itself? In other words, does it consider what the revelation is in reference to which age it occurs, and is it consistent with the revelation itself and future revelation?

Scofield's definition of "dispensation" is incorrect. A dispensation is not an "age".
A dispensation is "house rules" or "house law" that God gives to someone. The dispensation of the grace of God was given to Paul. Eph 3:2

 

[Arial]

There are both covenants and dispensations in the Bible. Neither one is really a "framework".
The dispensation of the grace of God is not a covenant. It was given to Paul for us. Eph 3:2

They are both a lens if you will, through which comes interpretation of some scriptures. This is why two different interpretations are arrived at through the two different lenses. The dispensing of grace is through a covenant. The covenant of faith or redemption, whichever one chooses to word it. This is how I see it.

Scofield's definition of "dispensation" is incorrect. A dispensation is not an "age".
A dispensation is "house rules" or "house law" that God gives to someone. The dispensation of the grace of God was given to Paul. Eph 3:2

I realize that a dispensation is not an age. Scofield didn't say they were and neither did I. My understanding of what he said is that he was describing it as a period of time in which God deals in different ways with people. I see from your definition that it fits the actual meaning of the word translated as dispensation. However, it then seems that dispensations, according to dispensationalists, maintain the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile by two separate "salvations" . The same way of salvation pretty much, through faith in Christ, but at different times. If this is a mistaken understanding, I apologize and make it clear to me.

To me, the dispensation of grace, (salvation through faith in the person and work of Jesus, not by house rules or house law)but given and given by God Himself, is not a dispensation, nor was it given by Paul. It is an age. The age of grace. And Jesus provided it by keeping all the house rules and house law, dieing in the place of the believer, being raised from the dead, ascending back to the Father as our High Priest. Paul explained it. The age of grace is now, its complete fulfillment is the age to come. It is for Jew and Gentile believer, now. He has already made the two one, in Christ, who is true Israel. The covenant of redemption has been completed and ratified with His blood.

Scripture references:
It is seen in the book of Acts by the same Holy Spirit being given to both believing Jew and Gentile, alike. I do not wish to quote the entire book.
2 Cor 1;21-22
Eph 1:13-14. The Ephesian church was mostly Gentile but not entirely. In any case all the epistles were written to believers, whatever ethnic group they belonged to.
Eph 2:14-16; Eph 2:8-9 And much of the book of Romans.

 

[Right Divider]

They are both a lens if you will, through which comes interpretation of some scriptures. This is why two different interpretations are arrived at through the two different lenses. The dispensing of grace is through a covenant. The covenant of faith or redemption, whichever one chooses to word it. This is how I see it.

Again, they both exist in scripture and are NOT mutually exclusive.

I realize that a dispensation is not an age. Scofield didn't say they were and neither did I.

I'll double check my Scofield reference Bible (that I have not used in decades), but I'm pretty sure that he did.

My understanding of what he said is that he was describing it as a period of time in which God deals in different ways with people. I see from your definition that it fits the actual meaning of the word translated as dispensation. However, it then seems that dispensations, according to dispensationalists, maintain the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile by two separate "salvations" . The same way of salvation pretty much, through faith in Christ, but at different times. If this is a mistaken understanding, I apologize and make it clear to me.

There are many different "salvation's" in the Bible. So one must be very clear about which one they are talking about.

To me, the dispensation of grace, (salvation through faith in the person and work of Jesus, not by house rules or house law)but given and given by God Himself, is not a dispensation, nor was it given by Paul.

Stop blurring and confusing things. The word "dispensation" is translated from the single Greek conjunction:

G3622 οἰκονομία oikonomia (oi-ko-no-miy'-a) n.
1. administration (of a household or estate).
2. (specially) a (religious) “economy.”
[from G3623]
KJV: dispensation, stewardship
Root(s): G3623

Paul says that the dispensation of the grace of God was given to him. So your argument is with Paul and not me. I simply agree with what Paul says in the scripture.

It is an age. The age of grace. And Jesus provided it by keeping all the house rules and house law, dieing in the place of the believer, being raised from the dead, ascending back to the Father as our High Priest.

We, the body of Christ, have NO priesthood... we have NO "high priest". If we did, Paul would have told us about it. Paul NEVER (not even ONCE) uses the words PRIEST nor PRIESTHOOD in any of his thirteen epistles.

Paul explained it.

As well he should, since it was given to him for us.

The age of grace is now, its complete fulfillment is the age to come. It is for Jew and Gentile believer, now. He has already made the two one, in Christ, who is true Israel. The covenant of redemption has been completed and ratified with His blood.

Scripture references:
It is seen in the book of Acts by the same Holy Spirit being given to both believing Jew and Gentile, alike. I do not wish to quote the entire book.
2 Cor 1;21-22
Eph 1:13-14. The Ephesian church was mostly Gentile but not entirely. In any case all the epistles were written to believers, whatever ethnic group they belonged to.
Eph 2:14-16; Eph 2:8-9 And much of the book of Romans.

Israel has a future on the earth (i.e., the kingdom come [Matthew 6:10]).
The body of Christ has a position in heaven (things above [Col 3:2]).

Trying to mash it all together creates tremendous confusion.

 

[Arial]

Jeremiah 31:31-34:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

There are scriptures I could give off the top of my head that tell me that this must be speaking, while to Israel, may have a future meaning also, that entail application other than to geographic and ethnic Israel. Many things in the OT do, including the ceremonial law. And I will give scriptures. But because this passage so absolutely states covenant with Israel and Judah, and could be, with all integrity, taken as specific to geographic and ethnic Israel alone, I looked further into it a bit. And you may be correct. I cannot say with absolute certainty as I am not God. I can only go by what I see and apply in scripture.

In part, I believe it is worded the way it is because God was dealing directly and covenantly with geographic and ethnic Israel as His people. What was to come in the future and through Christ had not yet been revealed to them but only shadowed. In Hebrews 11: 1-38 we see the faith heroes of the OT. And then in verses 39 and 40 we read this: And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. (Salvation has always been through faith.) So I find the full meaning of this passage in Jeremiah through what has been revealed to us through Jesus Christ.

The new covenant stands in contrast to the old . The old covenant with Israel the nation, could be and was broken by the human sin. It was a bilateral or a suzerain-vassal type treaty or covenant, made by conquering king and the conquered. No negotiation. In biblical covenants God is the King, the Israelites the vassal. The law given by Him, the obedience required by them, with blessings and cursings attached. They were ratified by blood. In the new covenant it is a covenant of grace in which God binds Himself by solemn oath to fulfill the covenant. Unilateral. It is ratified by Christ's blood and God pledges Himself to our full redemption. That has been done. Complete. The new covenant is fully in effect, though not yet arrived at its fullness which is in the age to come. The restoration of all things. We see the fulfillment of the arrival of the new covenant and its being in effect and for all believers now, in 2 Cor 3:3; 1 Pet 2:5, which also shows the connection to Jeremiah 31:31-34. Eph 2: 11-18. From my view, that wall has been torn down now, was done so by the person and work of Jesus, once for all. God has made the way of salvation by grace and trough faith. I do not believe that God still deals with geographic and ethnic Israel and the rest of the nations in different ways when it comes to salvation. But then I have a more amillennial view of eschatology than do dispensationalist (in my understanding of it.)

 

[Idolater]

Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

"Of the same body" as whom?

What is "His promise"?

 

[JudgeRightly]

There are scriptures I could give off the top of my head that tell me that this must be speaking, while to Israel, may have a future meaning also, that entail application other than to geographic and ethnic Israel. Many things in the OT do, including the ceremonial law. And I will give scriptures. But because this passage so absolutely states covenant with Israel and Judah, and could be, with all integrity, taken as specific to geographic and ethnic Israel alone, I looked further into it a bit. And you may be correct. I cannot say with absolute certainty as I am not God. I can only go by what I see and apply in scripture.

Thank you for conceding the point.

In part, I believe it is worded the way it is because God was dealing directly and covenantly with geographic and ethnic Israel as His people. What was to come in the future and through Christ had not yet been revealed to them but only shadowed. In Hebrews 11: 1-38 we see the faith heroes of the OT. And then in verses 39 and 40 we read this: And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. (Salvation has always been through faith.) So I find the full meaning of this passage in Jeremiah through what has been revealed to us through Jesus Christ.

The new covenant stands in contrast to the old . The old covenant with Israel the nation, could be and was broken by the human sin. It was a bilateral or a suzerain-vassal type treaty or covenant, made by conquering king and the conquered. No negotiation. In biblical covenants God is the King, the Israelites the vassal. The law given by Him, the obedience required by them, with blessings and cursings attached. They were ratified by blood. In the new covenant it is a covenant of grace in which God binds Himself by solemn oath to fulfill the covenant. Unilateral. It is ratified by Christ's blood and God pledges Himself to our full redemption. That has been done. Complete. The new covenant is fully in effect, though not yet arrived at its fullness which is in the age to come. The restoration of all things. We see the fulfillment of the arrival of the new covenant and its being in effect and for all believers now, in 2 Cor 3:3; 1 Pet 2:5, which also shows the connection to Jeremiah 31:31-34. Eph 2: 11-18. From my view, that wall has been torn down now, was done so by the person and work of Jesus, once for all. God has made the way of salvation by grace and trough faith. I do not believe that God still deals with geographic and ethnic Israel and the rest of the nations in different ways when it comes to salvation. But then I have a more amillennial view of eschatology than do dispensationalist (in my understanding of it.)

If the New Covenant were not put on hold, then you might have a point. But it was, so most of what you said is moot. "Blindness in part has happened to Israel."

It will be reinstated when "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." (Romans 11:25)

 

[Arial]

Again, they both exist in scripture and are NOT mutually exclusive.

Not always and sometimes they are or there wouldn't be two camps, one believing this, the other that.

I'll double check my Scofield reference Bible (that I have not used in decades), but I'm pretty sure that he did.

I am not really concerned with what Schofield did or didn't say. I was only trying to figure out what dispensationalists mean when they use the word.

There are many different "salvation's" in the Bible. So one must be very clear about which one they are talking about.

Obviously salvation when used in the Bible is not always being used in the same way. But since it should be clear to you in what way I am using it, (saved from the wrath of God by Jesus paying the penalty for our sins) and eternal life in the household of God, are you simply looking for whatever sticking point you can find?

Paul says that the dispensation of the grace of God was given to him. So your argument is with Paul and not me. I simply agree with what Paul says in the scripture.

Here's an idea. Why don't you paraphrase whatever scripture you are referring to in your own words giving to it what you mean. There are many branches of dispensationalism, many usages and meaning applied to the word, and I have as yet not been able to discern exactly what you mean when you say the above.

We, the body of Christ, have NO priesthood... we have NO "high priest". If we did, Paul would have told us about it. Paul NEVER (not even ONCE) uses the words PRIEST nor PRIESTHOOD in any of his thirteen epistles.

On the priesthood of Christ: Heb 7:23-28; 9:11; 10:10-14
On the priesthood of the body of Christ: 1 Peter 2:5-9 It means we have access into the holy of holies to come boldly before the throne of grace to receive mercy in our time of need. (which is always.)

Israel has a future on the earth (i.e., the kingdom come [Matthew 6:10]).
The body of Christ has a position in heaven (things above [Col 3:2]).

Trying to mash it all together creates tremendous confusion.

The scripture is "Your kingdom come" not "the kingdom come." That will reach its consummation in the new heaven and the new earth. It is the same as John ending the book of Revelation with "come Lord Jesus, come" in a sense. In the meantime, His kingdom and will being done on earth as it is in heaven is true now in a limited sense. His kingdom is within every believer. Luke 17:20-21. It is within us through union with Jesus and the Holy Spirit indwelling us. And we are walking the earth, preaching the gospel.

Col 3: you have extended the meaning of that scripture beyond its bounds unless you can support your interpretation through other scriptures.

It is trying to divide what isn't divided that causes confusion.

 

[Right Divider]

Not always and sometimes they are or there wouldn't be two camps, one believing this, the other that.

Since each of the "two camps" are quite divided in many ways, I'd say that the division into two is an oversimplification.

I am not really concerned with what Schofield did or didn't say. I was only trying to figure out what dispensationalists mean when they use the word.

Again, here is the underlying Greek word. I just go by that:

G3622 οἰκονομία oikonomia (oi-ko-no-miy'-a) n.
1. administration (of a household or estate).
2. (specially) a (religious) “economy.”
[from G3623]
KJV: dispensation, stewardship
Root(s): G3623

Paul was given an "administration of a household or estate" (i.e., the household of God).

Obviously salvation when used in the Bible is not always being used in the same way. But since it should be clear to you in what way I am using it, (saved from the wrath of God by Jesus paying the penalty for our sins) and eternal life in the household of God, are you simply looking for whatever sticking point you can find?

Just making the clear that I don't "believe in multiple ways to eternal life". But God never made His grace freely available as He did starting with Paul and at the present time.

Here's an idea. Why don't you paraphrase whatever scripture you are referring to in your own words giving to it what you mean.

I stay away from "paraphrasing scripture". Paul was given a gospel to dispense. It's called the gospel of the grace of God. Paul calls it MY GOSPEL (three times).

There are many branches of dispensationalism, many usages and meaning applied to the word, and I have as yet not been able to discern exactly what you mean when you say the above.

See above.

On the priesthood of Christ: Heb 7:23-28; 9:11; 10:10-14

Indeed, the nation of Israel had a priesthood. The book to the HEBREWS is not directed at the body of Christ. I don't believe that Paul wrote it and nobody actually knows who did.

On the priesthood of the body of Christ: 1 Peter 2:5-9 It means we have access into the holy of holies to come boldly before the throne of grace to receive mercy in our time of need. (which is always.)

Peter was writing to the twelve tribes of Israel (i.e., the tribes that he is one of the twelve judges over). THEY certainly had a priesthood.

The "time of need" is related to their tribulation before entering their kingdom.

The scripture is "Your kingdom come" not "the kingdom come."

And you complained about me "simply looking for whatever sticking point you can find?"

"Your kingdom" refers to the kingdom that God promised to Israel with Christ as King. It's all over the scripture.

That will reach its consummation in the new heaven and the new earth. It is the same as John ending the book of Revelation with "come Lord Jesus, come" in a sense. In the meantime, His kingdom and will being done on earth as it is in heaven is true now in a limited sense. His kingdom is within every believer. Luke 17:20-21. It is within us through union with Jesus and the Holy Spirit indwelling us. And we are walking the earth, preaching the gospel.

Ah the "spiritual kingdom" stuff.... The Bible is far more specific about this future kingdom, the one that Christ taught them to pray for.
After Christ's resurrection, He taught them about this kingdom for FORTY DAYS and the first thing that they asked was: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"
They fully understood what that kingdom was.

Col 3: you have extended the meaning of that scripture beyond its bounds unless you can support your interpretation through other scriptures.

Perhaps you'd like to prove that.

It is trying to divide what isn't divided that causes confusion.

Nope.

 

[Arial]

Paul was given an "administration of a household or estate" (i.e., the household of God).

What do you mean by that? I say it simply means that he was appointed by Jesus to take the gospel to the Gentiles. That does not mean he was to preach the gospel only to the Gentiles, or that there was a separation between Jew and Gentile. In fact there were places where the two groups were still keeping themselves separate and Paul addressed this. Peter also preached the gospel to Jew and Gentile. If you think it means something different than that----what is it? And why are you making such a big deal out of it? There must be a reason. What is it?

Just making the clear that I don't "believe in multiple ways to eternal life". But God never made His grace freely available as He did starting with Paul and at the present time.

And I did not say that you or dispensationalists teach multiple ways to eternal like. I don't think that. That is why I don't think either view of what we are discussing and debating, affects salvation. Where we are differing really is in eschatological views. Yours comes out of dispensationalism, mine does not.

I stay away from "paraphrasing scripture". Paul was given a gospel to dispense. It's called the gospel of the grace of God. Paul calls it MY GOSPEL (three times).

If a person cannot clarify what they think a scripture is saying, in other words put the truth they see into their own words, it is usually because are unable to or don't know how to articulate it. To just refer to a scripture or quote it tells know one what you believe it says. True Christians acknowledge the truthfulness of scripture. That is not in question. And we cannot see into one another's heads to know what they think the scripture is teaching. Scripture should be used as support for what we assert, not stand alone.

Indeed, the nation of Israel had a priesthood. The book to the HEBREWS is not directed at the body of Christ. I don't believe that Paul wrote it and nobody actually knows who did.

On what do you base the statement that the book of Hebrews is not directed at the body of Christ? At the time it was written, its purpose may have been primarily to clarify to Jewish believers (I say this because it uses extensive references to the ceremonial law, showing how it points to Christ and is fulfilled in Christ.) But Christians today have both OT and NT--- and the NT reveals much of what was only shadowed in the OT. Therefore it is for the body of Christ. It was one of the most eye opening books I read as a new Christian, explaining and making the connection of the OT to the NT. As well as the purpose of what we read historically in the old testament.

I never said Paul wrote the book of Hebrews and I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Peter was writing to the twelve tribes of Israel (i.e., the tribes that he is one of the twelve judges over). THEY certainly had a priesthood.

The "time of need" is related to their tribulation before entering their kingdom.

Support?

And you complained about me "simply looking for whatever sticking point you can find?"

"Your kingdom" refers to the kingdom that God promised to Israel with Christ as King. It's all over the scripture.

Whether one says the kingdom or the kingdom of God makes a difference when a person is using that prayer to "prove" that Israel has the kingdom on earth and Gentiles in heaven. Jesus does not say " the kingdom You promised to Israel with me as King, come." He says "Your kingdom come, you will be done." Your interpretation of that prayer is coming from your presupposed beliefs about Israel, not from what the prayer actually says. Just as your interpretation of a literal 1000 years of Jews only on earth and Christ ruling as their king comes out of the lens you choose to look through. There are other ways to interpret Revelation than the dispensationalist way. And though you can legitimately have your beliefs, those that don't affect salvation, they are not automatically right simply because it is what you believe. And as an aside, there is scarcelyly a person now alive who has not had this view of the interpretation of Revelation almost exclusively taught to them. That started back in the 60's and 70's, when there was an intense focus on discerning the times and parsing Revelation. So let the rest of us have a bit of breathing room and grace extended to not believe as you do.

Ah the "spiritual kingdom" stuff.... The Bible is far more specific about this future kingdom, the one that Christ taught them to pray for.
After Christ's resurrection, He taught them about this kingdom for FORTY DAYS and the first thing that they asked was: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"
They fully understood what that kingdom was.

Are you absolutely positive that Jesus spent those 40 days teaching what you believe about the kingdom? What they understood, was the same thing you understood---or misunderstood as Jesus pointed out---and that is that the kingdom of God is an earthly kingdom, the nation Israel. It is the very thing they believed early one and still didn't get. It stems from a misunderstanding that existed in the OT of who the Messiah was and what He would do. They thought Messiah was a human king that would restore autonomy to geographic Israel. They thought only the descendents of Abraham were God's people. Jesus did not come to restore or save (deliver from enemies) only a geographic place and an ethic people. He came, and lived and died to save His people from all nations and tribes and languages. All those joined to Christ through faith are true Israel----God's people.

No they did not fully understand what the kingdom was. And since Jesus appointed the apostles to lay the foundations of His church and to take the gospel to the world, I am much more inclined to believe this is what He taught them-----everything we find in the epistles and the gospels.

Perhaps you'd like to prove that.

Well that wasn't the slightest bit helpful. You put the scripture forward as proof that Gentile believers kingdom is in heaven as opposed to Israel's being on earth. That if it does, unless it can be supported elsewhere in scripture, you are extending its meaning beyond its bounds. You are asking me to prove something in the negative,to an assertion you made that I do not believe.

Nope.

Yup.

 

[Arial]

Thank you for conceding the point.

I conceded nothing. I still believe as I do. I merely acknowledged that God knows more than I do.

If the New Covenant were not put on hold, then you might have a point. But it was, so most of what you said is moot. "Blindness in part has happened to Israel."

It will be reinstated when "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." (Romans 11:25)

It does not say the new covenant is put on hold. It is talking about a partial hardening of heart within Israel and tell us why. And when all the Gentiles who believe are brought in, then a remnant of Israel will also be saved. A remnant is, even now----those who believe. Before the"end of days" more will be. But when Paul says all Israel will be saved he cannot possible mean the entire nation of Israel because he has already said a remnant will be. And he cannot possible mean every ethnic Jew (and there are more in NYC right now than in Israel), because he has already said a remnant will be saved. I see him making it clear that God has not abandoned Israel and replaced them in His love with Gentiles. And why is he saying these things in the first place? It suggests that there was division within the church between Jews and Gentiles, some Jews not willing to tear down the wall of separation and some Gentiles lording it over them as though the were better and more loved by God.

 

[Right Divider]

What do you mean by that?

Paul was uniquely given a dispensation of the gospel. Paul calls it MY GOSPEL (which should mean something, but most people just ignore it).

I say it simply means that he was appointed by Jesus to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

Paul was appointed to take the gospel to all.

Acts 9:15 (AKJV/PCE)
(9:15) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

That does not mean he was to preach the gospel only to the Gentiles, or that there was a separation between Jew and Gentile.

Did someone say that?

In fact there were places where the two groups were still keeping themselves separate and Paul addressed this. Peter also preached the gospel to Jew and Gentile.

Not the same gospel. Look at Acts 10. You cannot find Peter preaching the gospel of the grace of God there.

If you think it means something different than that----what is it? And why are you making such a big deal out of it? There must be a reason. What is it?

Because there are many gospels in the Bible. And there is a commission that Christ gave the TWELVE that is different than the commission that Christ gave to the ONE, Paul.

And I did not say that you or dispensationalists teach multiple ways to eternal like. I don't think that.

Good.

That is why I don't think either view of what we are discussing and debating, affects salvation. Where we are differing really is in eschatological views. Yours comes out of dispensationalism, mine does not.

In the end, there is a city with twelve foundation and the names of the TWELVE apostles is there. These are the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel.

If a person cannot clarify what they think a scripture is saying, in other words put the truth they see into their own words, it is usually because are unable to or don't know how to articulate it. To just refer to a scripture or quote it tells know one what you believe it says. True Christians acknowledge the truthfulness of scripture. That is not in question. And we cannot see into one another's heads to know what they think the scripture is teaching. Scripture should be used as support for what we assert, not stand alone.

Israel: Kingdom on the earth with Christ as King.
Body of Christ: Place in heaven with Christ as Head.

On what do you base the statement that the book of Hebrews is not directed at the body of Christ?

• It is directed TO THE HEBREWS.
• It's doctrines are clearly associated with the nation of Israel.

At the time it was written, its purpose may have been primarily to clarify to Jewish believers (I say this because it uses extensive references to the ceremonial law, showing how it points to Christ and is fulfilled in Christ.) But Christians today have both OT and NT--- and the NT reveals much of what was only shadowed in the OT. Therefore it is for the body of Christ. It was one of the most eye opening books I read as a new Christian, explaining and making the connection of the OT to the NT. As well as the purpose of what we read historically in the old testament.

It is valuable to the body of Christ as long as the CONTEXT is understood. But most of Churchianity does NOT understand that and make a mess of doctrines because of it.

I never said Paul wrote the book of Hebrews and I don't know what that has to do with anything.

I said that Paul never used the words PRIEST nor PRIESTHOOD in any of his thirteen epistles; your response included quotes from Hebrews and Peter. What was I supposed to think you were getting at?

Support?

The book has much to do with supporting the Hebrews as the were kicked out of their land when they were told that the kingdom was at hand. It's a lot about "keeping the faith" for the believing nation of Israel.

Whether one says the kingdom or the kingdom of God makes a difference when a person is using that prayer to "prove" that Israel has the kingdom on earth and Gentiles in heaven.

Again it's NOT "Gentiles in heaven". You keep trying to get off track.

There are (technically) Jews and gentiles in both programs. Although, Paul says that in the body of Christ there is NEITHER. Gal 3:28

Jesus does not say " the kingdom You promised to Israel with me as King, come."

He didn't have to. They knew what He was talking about.

He says "Your kingdom come, you will be done." Your interpretation of that prayer is coming from your presupposed beliefs about Israel, not from what the prayer actually says. Just as your interpretation of a literal 1000 years of Jews only on earth and Christ ruling as their king comes out of the lens you choose to look through.

Your lens is foggy and opaque.

There are other ways to interpret Revelation than the dispensationalist way.

Sure there is. It doesn't make any of them correct.

And though you can legitimately have your beliefs, those that don't affect salvation, they are not automatically right simply because it is what you believe. And as an aside, there is scarcelyly a person now alive who has not had this view of the interpretation of Revelation almost exclusively taught to them. That started back in the 60's and 70's, when there was an intense focus on discerning the times and parsing Revelation. So let the rest of us have a bit of breathing room and grace extended to not believe as you do.

The book of Revelation is just completely dripping with Israelite language and doctrines as well. But I can see how your blinder to not allow you to see.

Are you absolutely positive that Jesus spent those 40 days teaching what you believe about the kingdom?

Yep.

What they understood, was the same thing you understood---or misunderstood as Jesus pointed out---and that is that the kingdom of God is an earthly kingdom, the nation Israel.

The ONLY thing that they misunderstood was the TIMING ... as Jesus pointed out.

It is the very thing they believed early one and still didn't get. It stems from a misunderstanding that existed in the OT of who the Messiah was and what He would do. They thought Messiah was a human king that would restore autonomy to geographic Israel.

They only thought that because that is what God said throughout the Bible.

They thought only the descendents of Abraham were God's people.

Abraham had many descendants that were not Israelite's.

Jesus did not come to restore or save (deliver from enemies) only a geographic place and an ethic people. He came, and lived and died to save His people from all nations and tribes and languages. All those joined to Christ through faith are true Israel----God's people.

Yes and no. I guess that you've torn many pages from your Bible to be able to believe that.

No they did not fully understand what the kingdom was.

FORTY DAYS of teaching from the RISEN LORD Jesus Christ. Was our LORD a bad teacher?

And since Jesus appointed the apostles to lay the foundations of His church and to take the gospel to the world, I am much more inclined to believe this is what He taught them-----everything we find in the epistles and the gospels.

And you think that I don't believe "everything we find in the epistles and the gospels"?

 

[Arial]

Paul was uniquely given a dispensation of the gospel. Paul's calls it MY GOSPEL (which should mean something, but most people must ignore it).

He was appointed as the apostle to the Gentiles. He carried the gospel outside Israel where they mostly were---thus his travels. That is not making a separation of any kind. Not in the gospel and not in Jew and Gentile. It is called my gospel because it is the gospel that he was given, that he believes, that he teaches. It is not another gospel. In fact he says if any preach a gospel different from the one he preaches that is a different gospel.

Did someone say that?

It sure sounded like it.

Not the same gospel. Look at Acts 10. You cannot find Peter preaching the gospel of the grace of God there.

Hmmmm. Acts 10:42-44 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that He who was ordained b God to be Judge of the living and the dead.43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. Sounds like he is preaching the gospel of the grace of God to me. (He was speaking to Gentiles btw). ANd something else to keep in mind, not exactly the same things were covered or in exactly the same way, everytime an apostles spoke or wrote. The truth remained the same but not all things were covered all at once all the time.

Because there are many gospels in the Bible. And there is a commission that Christ gave the TWELVE that is different that the commission that Christ gave to the ONE, Paul.

Many gospels? Maybe you should tell me what your definition of the gospel is. Paul said there was no other than the one he preached. Jesus gave them all the same commision. Lay the foundation (doctrine) of His church and spread the news to all nations. He sent Paul to other places than the twelve went, to establish believing communities---churches.

In the end, there is a city with twelve foundation and the name of the TWELVE apostles is there. These are the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel.

That is how you interpret it. I don't. It appears that you are mixing a book that is apocalyptic in its literary form---just as much in the prophets follow the same pattern---using symbols and images to convey a spiritual meaning; and trying to use some of these symbols as literal and some as symbols.

If we don't jump back and forth from literal to symbol, and therefore see the number 12 as representing what 12 represents in the Bible, we will have an entirely different perspective. It typically means the completeness of authority. 12 tribes, 12 apostles 12 thrones. It represents the totality of God's people. Same with the 144,000. 12x12=144 +1000. 1000 is 10 cubed represent unnumbered multitudes. It represents all the people of God.

 

[Arial]

• It is directed TO THE HEBREWS.
• It's doctrines are clearly associated with nation of Israel.

I did not see a dedication page in my Bible. It is given to everyone.

It is valuable to the body of Christ as long as the CONTEXT is understood. But most of Churchianity does NOT understand that and make a mess of doctrines because of it.

I just love it when people resort to phrases such as "most of churchianity" as a debate point when someone disagrees with their beliefs. As though finial word and authority of their rightness is in the fact that it is what they believe.

I said that Paul never used the words PRIEST nor PRIESTHOOD in any of his thirteen epistles; your response included quotes from Hebrews and Peter. What was I supposed to think you were getting at?

Obviously you missed my point.

The book has much to do with supporting the Hebrews as the were kicked out of their land when they were told that the kingdom was at hand. It's a lot about "keeping the faith" for the believing nation of Israel.

Not the way I see and read it.

Again it's NOT "Gentiles in heaven". You keep trying to get off track.

There are (technically) Jews and gentiles in both programs. Although, Paul says that in the body of Christ there is NEITHER. Gal 3:28

I say that because it sounds like what you are saying and if you aren't I still can't tell from this what you are saying.

He didn't have to. They knew what He was talking about.

So you were there and inside the minds of everyone?

Sure there is. It doesn't make any of them correct.

What makes your way correct? Rhetorical question. I already figured that out.

The book of Revelation is just completely dripping with Israelite language and doctrines are well. But I can see how your blinder to not allow you to see.

I have no idea why you think I don't know the connection with the language in Revelation and that of the OT particularlily the prophets. Can you tell me why it is? Can you even tell me the purpose of Revelation or tell me the message and glory of it? Can you tell me why this letter was given to the saints of all time? Probably not for you seem to have missed the message.

Yep.

Nope

Yes and no. I guess that you've torn many pages from your Bible to be able to believe that.

I have spent so much time in this nonsense that I no longer have a reference for this remark. But I have learned that once a "conversation" has been reduced to personal slights it is because there is nothing left to discuss and no reason to continue. I refuse to stay tangled in it any longer. Good bye.

 

[Right Divider]

He was appointed as the apostle to the Gentiles.

He is the apostle of the gentiles. Romans 11:13

He carried the gospel outside Israel where they mostly were---thus his travels. That is not making a separation of any kind.

Here's a separation.

Gal 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Not in the gospel and not in Jew and Gentile.

Which gospel?

It is called my gospel because it is the gospel that he was given, that he believes, that he teaches. It is not another gospel. In fact he says if any preach a gospel different from the one he preaches that is a different gospel.

Read the scripture more carefully, you're missing import details. https://theologyonline.com/threads/another-gospel-in-galatians-1.52439/

Many claim that Galatians 1 precludes multiple gospels. But it's simply them ignoring context as is too typical of many.

Gal 1:6-9 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (1:7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (1:9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

There is a specific audience involved here. Once you take that into account, there is no problem at all.

It sure sounded like it.

Then SHOW IT.

Hmmmm. Acts 10:42-44 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that He who was ordained b God to be Judge of the living and the dead.43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. Sounds like he is preaching the gospel of the grace of God to me. (He was speaking to Gentiles btw). ANd something else to keep in mind, not exactly the same things were covered or in exactly the same way, everytime an apostles spoke or wrote. The truth remained the same but not all things were covered all at once all the time.

NOWHERE in that passage can you find Peter letting them know that Christ died for their sins. NOTE that is DOES say... THROUGH HIS NAME. Through His name is NOT through HIS DEATH on the cross.

Many gospels? Maybe you should tell me what your definition of the gospel is.

Gospel simply means "good news" and there are many "good news'" in the Bible.

• The gospel of the kingdom
• The gospel of the grace of God.
• The gospel of Christ
• The gospel of God
• The gospel of peace
• The everlasting gospel

Paul said there was no other than the one he preached.

No, he did not. That you YOUR lens blinding you to the details of scripture.

Jesus gave them all the same commision.

No, he did not. That you YOUR lens blinding you to the details of scripture.

Lay the foundation (doctrine) of His church and spread the news to all nations. He sent Paul to other places than the twelve went, to establish believing communities---churches.

Why did God need ONE MORE apostle to do that when He had already commissioned TWELVE?

That is how you interpret it. I don't.

You interpret incorrectly.

It appears that you are mixing a book that is apocalyptic in its literary form---just as much in the prophets follow the same pattern---using symbols and images to convey a spiritual meaning; and trying to use some of these symbols as literal and some as symbols.

No, it is all of the DETAILS in the book.

Like this:

Rev 2:9 (KJV)
(2:9) I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.

I understand that this is well beyond your pay grade. But maybe you can work your way up to it.

If we don't jump back and forth from literal to symbol, and therefore see the number 12 as representing what 12 represents in the Bible, we will have an entirely different perspective. It typically means the completeness of authority. 12 tribes, 12 apostles 12 thrones. It represents the totality of God's people. Same with the 144,000. 12x12=144 +1000. 1000 is 10 cubed represent unnumbered multitudes. It represents all the people of God.

TWELVE represents ISRAEL because Israel had TWELVE sons. Genesis 35:22

Your numerology is fantasy.

 

[Right Divider]

I did not see a dedication page in my Bible. It is given to everyone.

For learning NOT for instruction.

I just love it when people resort to phrases such as "most of churchianity" as a debate point when someone disagrees with their beliefs. As though finial word and authority of their rightness is in the fact that it is what they believe.

Blah blah blah.

Obviously you missed my point.

That's because you're doing a terrible job of making it.

Not the way I see and read it.

So what?

 

[glorydaz]

Again, they both exist in scripture and are NOT mutually exclusive.

I'll double check my Scofield reference Bible (that I have not used in decades), but I'm pretty sure that he did.

There are many different "salvation's" in the Bible. So one must be very clear about which one they are talking about.

Stop blurring and confusing things. The word "dispensation" is translated from the single Greek conjunction:


Paul says that the dispensation of the grace of God was given to him. So your argument is with Paul and not me. I simply agree with what Paul says in the scripture.

We, the body of Christ, have NO priesthood... we have NO "high priest". If we did, Paul would have told us about it. Paul NEVER (not even ONCE) uses the words PRIEST nor PRIESTHOOD in any of his thirteen epistles.

As well he should, since it was given to him for us.

Israel has a future on the earth (i.e., the kingdom come [Matthew 6:10]).
The body of Christ has a position in heaven (things above [Col 3:2]).

Trying to mash it all together creates tremendous confusion.

Rightly dividing....you certainly earn your name, RD.

 

[glorydaz]

This is what I know. I read and studied the Bible for nearly nearly forty years, always amazed that I couldn't make the gospels and Paul's letters fit. I just put it up on a shelf, thinking someday I'd understand why there was such a difference. The day I read this verse, I realized I'd been missing something really important.

Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

It was then I began to understand that God has more than one plan. I LISTENED and learned about dispensations from Right Divider and others. I began to be able to make things fit that had never fit before. I still have a lot to learn, of course, about covenants and how they interact with dispensations.

I know that all of scripture is given by inspiration of God, which is why we search the scripture. If we aren't rightly dividing, we open ourselves up to confusion.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[glorydaz]

I do yes. And when I said we don't consider what is different than what we are attached to---I was including myself in that. I realized later that the way I said it sounded like I was considering myself right (and I do think I am otherwise I would believe something else ) and trying to sway others to my way of believing. I am actually simply discussing and responding to what is said and questions asked. But the post was responding to when I said that was of a "tone" in my perception, that is moving to a knock down drag out for the sake of it. May be wrong but experience and all.

So how has the way in which God has a personal interaction with humans changed over time and why? To me it has seemed that in our Bible, in the beginning and for a time, God spoke out loud to individuals. Adam and Eve of course and Cain and Abel, Noah and others including Abraham (sometimes through angels or theophanies) and Moses. He also made covenants with these people and I see the personal relationship as sealed and established through those covenants. They are for the most part bi-lateral, that is, stipulations and promises for stipulations kept, God's departing as their protector and provider if they are not kept. We then have the covenant He made with Israel with the law and worship stipulations, which is a land grant covenant. God gives them the land, destroys their enemies, provides for all their needs, teaches them His ways and who He is------provided they......keep the covenant. At that time He began to communicate with them through the law, particularly the Levites, (priests) and the prophets, and kings. And now through Jesus Christ as the Bible says. And we see all these "offices" in Jesus. Prophet, priest and king. But the relationship was through the covenant, as it is today----the covenant of faith (redemption). So I see all the previous covenants as God's chosen way of progressing forward towards the final and eternal covenant of redemption, teaching mankind and revealing Himself progressively. Although we still await the age to come, the redemption is accomplished. The believer, Jew and Gentile alike, are now in a covenant relationship with God and it is unilateral. By grace, through faith which is a gift of God. Jesus has done all the covenant work. That is how I see it.

I'm not really sure what to say to all this. This idea that God is progressively doing anything is so odd. I'm sure whatever God does is perfect for what He means to accomplish from the beginning.

Yes, in early times, lots of things were different. Miracles and God's means of interacting with His creation. And God chose a people for himself. A physical nation, and He made promises and covenants with them. His promises, though, were not contingent on certain conduct. His promises remain, do they not?

So let me ask you this. I see you said "provided they keep the covenant" and that seems to agree with this definition...

covenant Literally, a contract. In the Bible, an agreement between God and his people, in which God makes promises to his people and, usually, requires certain conduct from them.

Yet, our salvation is a gift. What then? God goes back to the law in Revelation while dealing with people which is what scripture says.



The Gospel of Grace doesn't fit that definition at all. No certain "conduct" is required from us. We need only BELIEVE Christ died for our sins.

 

[Arial]

I'm not really sure what to say to all this. This idea that God is progressively doing anything is so odd. I'm sure whatever God does is perfect for what He means to accomplish from the beginning.

You may be misunderstanding what I mean by progressively. We live in the realm of time. A beginning, a middle and and end. Though God is outside of time, and not bound by it, His interactions with us, the things He does that take place in the realm of time, have a beginning, a middle and an end. A past, a present, a future. So these things move forward step by step. (What to us look like genuine miracles, the sun standing still. the sun moving backwards, instant full restoration of a body that has been dead for four days or three, are times when God steps in "outside of time." They are not miracles to God.) That is what I mean (not the miracle thing, that was a rabbit trail) by progressive. Step by step is how it appears and plays out in our world, rather than all at once. The plan however with God is eternal, and does not change. The progress is the way in which it plays out in our world.

Yes, in early times, lots of things were different. Miracles and God's means of interacting with His creation. And God chose a people for himself. A physical nation, and He made promises and covenants with them. His promises, though, were not contingent on certain conduct. His promises remain, do they not?

The way in which God deals with His covenant people remains the same. Much of what we see in the Psalms shows us God's care of His covenant people, new covenant or old. David knew this and that is why He asked God for everything he needed. He knew God is the source. But some of the promises are specific to Israel the people, that concern the possession and productivity of the land, and are not a part of the new covenant. I think however that you are concerned here with the promised restoration of Israel in the sense that you see this occurring in the 1000 year reign. I do not read this the same way dispensationalists do. And therefore I do not see the fulfillment of that promise to Israel the same as you do. But that is a complicated thing to work through. It can't be isolated in a few sentences or a few quotations, but would take a complete work of interpretation of the entire book, simply because of the type of literature Revelation is.

covenant Literally, a contract. In the Bible, an agreement between God and his people, in which God makes promises to his people and, usually, requires certain conduct from them.

Yet, our salvation is a gift. What then? God goes back to the law in Revelation while dealing with people which is what scripture says.



The Gospel of Grace doesn't fit that definition at all. No certain "conduct" is required from us. We need only BELIEVE Christ died for our sins.

Covenant in the Bible is similar to a contract but differs in that there is no negotiation and agreement between the parties. It is more like a treaty a conquering king would make with those he conquered. The king would lay out all the things he would do and all the things they must do in order for the treaty to remain binding.

The covenant of redemption (grace, faith) is a different type of covenant, called unilateral. One party (God) makes promises to the other party (in this case believers, all those in Christ through faith) and binds Himself to keep the covenant, with no stipulations placed on those in the covenant.

When you say "God goes back to the law in Revelation while dealing with people" you will need to tell me exactly what scriptures you are referring to.

 

[Right Divider]

Covenant in the Bible is similar to a contract but differs in that there is no negotiation and agreement between the parties.

Israel agreed to keep the covenant of the law.

Exod 19:1-8 (KJV)
(19:1) In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they [into] the wilderness of Sinai. (19:2) For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come [to] the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount. (19:3) And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; (19:4) Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [how] I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. (19:5) Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine: (19:6) And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (19:7) And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. (19:8) And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

Some covenants are unilateral and some are bilateral.

Gen 9:8-17 (KJV)
(9:8) And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, (9:9) And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; (9:10) And with every living creature that [is] with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. (9:11) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. (9:12) And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations: (9:13) I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. (9:14) And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: (9:15) And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. (9:16) And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that [is] upon the earth. (9:17) And God said unto Noah, This [is] the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that [is] upon the earth.

The first quote is a bilateral covenant; the second is unilateral.

It is more like a treaty a conquering king would make with those he conquered. The king would lay out all the things he would do and all the things they must do in order for the treaty to remain binding.

The covenant of redemption (grace, faith) is a different type of covenant, called unilateral. One party (God) makes promises to the other party (in this case believers, all those in Christ through faith) and binds Himself to keep the covenant, with no stipulations placed on those in the covenant.

Reconciliation requires both parties agree to reconcile.

2Cor 5:16-21 (KJV)
(5:16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more. (5:17) Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (5:18) And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; (5:19) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (5:20) Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. (5:21) For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Grace must be received.

Very many simply reject God and will not accept the gift of grace.