Is John 3:7 for today ?

Derf

Well-known member
I recommend you look at what is actually being said, since even (part of) what you just said agrees with what RD just said, since "a" is an indefinite article. "A man" is referring not to one specific man (Nicodemus), but includes by definition ANYONE without any limit.

View attachment 9780

"Truly truly I say to you (singular), if not anyone (indefinite) be born from above..."

What RD said is correct.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

"You" refers to Nicodemus.
"One" could be anyone.
I agree. But neither refers to "Israel" as an entity.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I agree. But neither refers to "Israel" as an entity.

Context matters.

You have been given the context of Jesus' words at least twice now, and twice you have ignored it.

Here it is again:

But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
 

Derf

Well-known member
Context matters.

You have been given the context of Jesus' words at least twice now, and twice you have ignored it.

Here it is again:

But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
But that's not context, that's pretext. Throwing it out there as if it somehow means Peter wasn't supposed to go to the Gentiles is directly contradicted by the story of Cornelius. Jesus wasn't sent to the Gentiles, we both agree. But He was sent FOR all men, whosoever believes on Him. You believe that, right? That Jesus was sent FOR all people?
 

Right Divider

Body part
But that's not context, that's pretext. Throwing it out there as if it somehow means Peter wasn't supposed to go to the Gentiles is directly contradicted by the story of Cornelius.
You are truly a HOOT!

You are probably the blindest person on TOL.

Yes, Peter was sent to a specific gentile AFTER Paul was called. Peter was given a SPECIAL revelation from God and had to be told THREE times to do it. This was NOT a normal part of his mission. According to YOU, Peter was already sent to Jews and gentiles... so why the need for this special vision?
Jesus wasn't sent to the Gentiles, we both agree. But He was sent FOR all men, whosoever believes on Him. You believe that, right? That Jesus was sent FOR all people?
There was a overt mission (to Israel) and the covert mission (to die for the sins of the whole world). Israel had a chance to receive their messiah and kingdom... they rejected (at the stoning of Stephen) and THEN God revealed a (up to that time) SECRET that had been HID IN GOD.

Eph 3:9 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:9) 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:​

Why won't you believe this clear truth so obviously documented in scripture?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
But that's not context, that's pretext.

We were talking about Nicodemus, no?

Can you concede that the context of Jesus telling Nicodemus, "anyone who is not born from above shall not see the kingdom" is "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Throwing it out there as if it somehow means Peter wasn't supposed to go to the Gentiles is directly contradicted by the story of Cornelius.

OR, what Jesus told Peter to do AFTER revealing a plan kept secret from the foundation of the world did in fact contradict everything Peter had been taught up until that point, and shows that there was a change in focus, away from Israel, and onto the Body of Christ, from working with Israel alone, to working with the Gentiles, all as a result of Israel rejecting Her Messiah, and ultimately, her God.

That's literally what scripture says happened. Cornelius came AFTER Paul's conversion, not before, during the transitional phase away from Israel.

Jesus wasn't sent to the Gentiles, we both agree. But He was sent FOR all men, whosoever believes on Him. You believe that, right? That Jesus was sent FOR all people?

Answered by RD above.
 

DAN P

Well-known member
Context matters.

You have been given the context of Jesus' words at least twice now, and twice you have ignored it.

Here it is again:

But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
I am just enforceing what JudgeRighly said to you !!

It reads , I am // apostello is an aoist tense , spoken in past time , passive voice , means Jesus is the one that is causing the action ,

not // ou is a disjuncative particle negative , meaning , that he was sent to only one group of people .

sent // apostello , in the aorist tense , meaning during his ministry ,

but // me , and is also a disjuncative particle negative and means , but only sent to the nation of Israel , period

The Greek words are all in context and are not a pretext !!

dan p
 

Derf

Well-known member
I am just enforceing what JudgeRighly said to you !!

It reads , I am // apostello is an aoist tense , spoken in past time , passive voice , means Jesus is the one that is causing the action ,

not // ou is a disjuncative particle negative , meaning , that he was sent to only one group of people .

sent // apostello , in the aorist tense , meaning during his ministry ,

but // me , and is also a disjuncative particle negative and means , but only sent to the nation of Israel , period

The Greek words are all in context and are not a pretext !!

dan p
I don't disagree that Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. The question was whether the 12 apostles were only supposed to go to Israel.
 

Derf

Well-known member
OR, what Jesus told Peter to do AFTER revealing a plan kept secret from the foundation of the world did in fact contradict everything Peter had been taught up until that point, and shows that there was a change in focus, away from Israel, and onto the Body of Christ, from working with Israel alone, to working with the Gentiles, all as a result of Israel rejecting Her Messiah, and ultimately, her God.
So now you're saying Peter should have been reaching out to Gentiles after the Cornelius episode, because there was a change in focus? Then we are in agreement.
That's literally what scripture says happened. Cornelius came AFTER Paul's conversion, not before, during the transitional phase away from Israel.
Paul's conversion? I thought you guys were "mid" Acts dispensationalists. So why do you point out that Paul says "now I turn to the Gentiles"?
Answered by RD above.
Here?
There was a overt mission (to Israel) and the covert mission (to die for the sins of the whole world). Israel had a chance to receive their messiah and kingdom... they rejected (at the stoning of Stephen) and THEN God revealed a (up to that time) SECRET that had been HID IN GOD.

Eph 3:9 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:9) 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:​

Why won't you believe this clear truth so obviously documented in scripture?
So, if this secret was hid in God from the beginning of the world, then it wasn't a "plan B", was it? It might have been covert, but it was the original plan, they just didn't know it. Which means they needed to be introduced to the original plan, which was wildly different from what they thought was the plan.

There was another plan they thought was the original plan that wasnt really the original plan--that Jesus would be accepted as king and not have to die. Could it be they were wrong about two plans?
 

Right Divider

Body part
So now you're saying Peter should have been reaching out to Gentiles after the Cornelius episode, because there was a change in focus? Then we are in agreement.
Peter (and James and John) agreed to let Paul go to the heathen and they to the circumcision. The Bible gives no indication that this was wrong.
Paul's conversion? I thought you guys were "mid" Acts dispensationalists.
We are. Paul's calling was in the "mid-Acts" time-frame. That's why it's called mid-Acts (duh).
So why do you point out that Paul says "now I turn to the Gentiles"?
Because that's what the Bible says.
So, if this secret was hid in God from the beginning of the world, then it wasn't a "plan B", was it?
Where do you get the strange Idea that we claim that the dispensation of grace of God was "plan B". Sounds like you're beating up another straw-man. You've probably been reading some anti-Pauline authors that have led you astray.
It might have been covert, but it was the original plan, they just didn't know it.
Nobody knew it until God revealed it to Paul.
Which means they needed to be introduced to the original plan, which was wildly different from what they thought was the plan.
They were given the mission that was appropriate at the time. Then, they needed to learn the plan that they were not given information about. It's really not complicated.
There was another plan they thought was the original plan that wasnt really the original plan--that Jesus would be accepted as king and not have to die. Could it be they were wrong about two plans?
Why do you call God's plans into question? The Bible is quite clear, but you refuse to accept what it plainly teaches.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I don't disagree that Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. The question was whether the 12 apostles were only supposed to go to Israel.

What does Scripture say? Specifically, what were Jesus' words on the matter?

When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

And (speaking of John the Beloved):

Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what to you? You follow Me.”

And (the Great Commission):

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Amen.

The "end of the age" is the end of the (at that point, already well under way) Tribulation, where Jesus would return before they were able to make it throughout all the cities in Israel, that John would potentially be allowed to survive.

So now you're saying Peter should have been reaching out to Gentiles after the Cornelius episode, because there was a change in focus? Then we are in agreement.

The point of God telling Peter to go to Cornelius was to show the change in focus from working directly and only with Israel as God's chosen nation to working with the world as a whole with no special nation. Gentiles had always been welcome to participate in Israel's covenant with God, all it takes is circumcision and following the law.

After the martyr of Stephen, and then the conversion of Paul, Gentiles at that point had direct access to God without the need of a covenant and all that it entailed, they could come directly to Him and have a personal relationship with Him (as opposed to a corporate/national relationship as with Israel).

So how does this relate to Peter post Acts 9?

What was Peter (and the rest of the Twelve) supposed to do with the Gentiles?

That's what the Jerusalem Council resolved in Acts 15, 17 years after Paul's conversion.

Paul's conversion?

Yes.

I thought you guys were "mid" Acts dispensationalists.

Correct.

So why do you point out that Paul says "now I turn to the Gentiles"?

Because our Lord Jesus Himself tells us why He chose Paul in Acts 9:

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

The original plan was for Paul to go to the Gentiles.

That's completely separate from God telling His disciples from going out into all the world, starting in Jerusalem, where they wouldn't make it throughout all the cities in Israel before His return, which, while it was supposed to happen, never did because of Israel's rejection of her Messiah, which left the Twelve and their converts swinging in the wind waiting for something that, as history shows, would not happen in their lifetimes, contrary to what Jesus said.

The New Covenant was still in effect for some time after Paul's conversion, as there were certainly people being added to it, but access to it was cut off by AD 70, if not with the fall of Jerusalem.

In the meantime, there were plenty of doctrinal conflicts between the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel and Paul's gospel that had to be resolved, and were with the Jerusalem Council.


Yes.

So, if this secret was hid in God from the beginning of the world, then it wasn't a "plan B", was it? It might have been covert, but it was the original plan, they just didn't know it. Which means they needed to be introduced to the original plan, which was wildly different from what they thought was the plan.

No.

God had found that sending one person to convince the world wasn't very effective or efficient. So His original plan was to send a multitude of people, a nation of His own, a "spokes-nation," if you will, out into the world to preach of Him, and bring mankind back to Him, showing the nations that if they turned back to Him, they could have what Israel had, a righteous and prosperous nation.

Twelve men going to the twelve tribes, who would, in turn, go to the four corners of the earth, spreading the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel to the world.

Except the Jews rejected their Messiah, and God was not able to do that which He said He would do, exactly what He said He said in the warning He gave Israel back in Jeremiah 18.

The dispensation of Paul's gospel was the backup plan if Israel rejected her Messiah.

There was another plan they thought was the original plan that wasn't really the original plan--that Jesus would be accepted as king and not have to die. Could it be they were wrong about two plans?

Israel was not aware of a second plan. They only knew about the one. The backup plan was kept secret from before the foundation of the world. Only God knew of it (and perhaps the angels, debatably). Paul was the first one to be made aware of this second plan.

Jesus was ALWAYS going to die on a tree, because without that, there could be no undergirding of grace, nor the implementation of the New Covenant (cf. Hebrews 9:16-17; Jeremiah 31:31-34). The New Covenant did not come into effect until Jesus' death, but the official shift away from God working with Israel came a year later (cf. Luke 13:6-9) following the martyrdom of Stephen, at which point unbelieving Israel was cut off, and God started working with the Gentiles directly under his backup plan, where they could be saved by grace through faith apart from works (remember, the New Covenant was still a covenant, ie, a law, where both parties had to do something in order to remain in that covenant).
 

Derf

Well-known member
What does Scripture say? Specifically, what were Jesus' words on the matter?

When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Before the Son of Man comes to do what? He was there with them, and sent them out, expecting to see them again fairly soon. So He could mean "before the Son of Man comes in His glory", or He could mean "before the Son of Man comes to die in Jerusalem. He might mean "before the Son of Man come in judgment", which happened in 70 AD, some would say.

Either way, the expression allows for cities to reject the apostles and then later receive them, and then again later to reject them again. Which means that some cities will be visited by 2 apostles, then by 2 others, then by 2 others, perhaps. I just don't see how this verse says what you think it says.
And (speaking of John the Beloved):

Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what to you? You follow Me.”
Eh? What does this have to do with the conversation? John explains that He didn't say He willed that John would remain until He came.
And (the Great Commission):

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Amen.

The "end of the age" is the end of the (at that point, already well under way) Tribulation,
Are you saying the Tribulation was underway when Jesus was speaking? I hadn't heard that before.
Or are you saying the Tribulation was underway when the gospel of Matthew was written?
where Jesus would return before they were able to make it throughout all the cities in Israel, that John would potentially be allowed to survive.
Again, just because they go through the cities once, doesn't mean they don't need to go through them more than once, even to this day. And John's survival was not at issue, according to John.

The point of God telling Peter to go to Cornelius was to show the change in focus from working directly and only with Israel as God's chosen nation to working with the world as a whole with no special nation. Gentiles had always been welcome to participate in Israel's covenant with God, all it takes is circumcision and following the law.

After the martyr of Stephen, and then the conversion of Paul, Gentiles at that point had direct access to God without the need of a covenant and all that it entailed, they could come directly to Him and have a personal relationship with Him (as opposed to a corporate/national relationship as with Israel).
That was already on the table, but the apostles didn't understand it. See Naaman with Elisha.
[2Ki 5:17-18 KJV] 17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD. 18 In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, [that] when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.

Naaman began a relationship with God, but without the covenant (circumcision).

Nebuchadnezzar is another example.
So how does this relate to Peter post Acts 9?

What was Peter (and the rest of the Twelve) supposed to do with the Gentiles?

That's what the Jerusalem Council resolved in Acts 15, 17 years after Paul's conversion.
I'm not sure it was 17 years, but why is that relevant, since Peter's experience with the sheets was not 17 years after. The Gentiles were not unclean even that early, yet the church was treating them as unclean until they were circumcised.
Yes.



Correct.



Because our Lord Jesus Himself tells us why He chose Paul in Acts 9:

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
Right. "and the children of Israel", i.e., "the circumcision".
The original plan was for Paul to go to the Gentiles.
And the children of Israel.
That's completely separate from God telling His disciples from going out into all the world, starting in Jerusalem, where they wouldn't make it throughout all the cities in Israel before His return, which, while it was supposed to happen, never did because of Israel's rejection of her Messiah, which left the Twelve and their converts swinging in the wind waiting for something that, as history shows, would not happen in their lifetimes, contrary to what Jesus said.

The New Covenant was still in effect for some time after Paul's conversion, as there were certainly people being added to it, but access to it was cut off by AD 70, if not with the fall of Jerusalem.
Many people would say it is still in effect, and not related to the existence of the old Jerusalem.
In the meantime, there were plenty of doctrinal conflicts between the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel and Paul's gospel that had to be resolved, and were with the Jerusalem Council.
They weren't "resolved" if they were still preaching different gospels in Jesus' church.
Yes.



No.

God had found that sending one person to convince the world wasn't very effective or efficient. So His original plan was to send a multitude of people, a nation of His own, a "spokes-nation," if you will, out into the world to preach of Him, and bring mankind back to Him, showing the nations that if they turned back to Him, they could have what Israel had, a righteous and prosperous nation.

Twelve men going to the twelve tribes, who would, in turn, go to the four corners of the earth, spreading the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel to the world.

Except the Jews rejected their Messiah, and God was not able to do that which He said He would do, exactly what He said He said in the warning He gave Israel back in Jeremiah 18.

The dispensation of Paul's gospel was the backup plan if Israel rejected her Messiah.
Meaning that the original plan and the backup plan both were to include the Gentiles, but it was hid from the Jews. The original plan was for many Jews to go to the Gentiles. The backup plan was for a single Jew to go to the Gentiles. That sounds like a different "dispensation" (dispensing of the gospel) of the same plan to save the Gentiles.
Israel was not aware of a second plan. They only knew about the one.
and they didn't like it.
The backup plan was kept secret from before the foundation of the world. Only God knew of it (and perhaps the angels, debatably). Paul was the first one to be made aware of this second plan.

Jesus was ALWAYS going to die on a tree, because without that, there could be no undergirding of grace, nor the implementation of the New Covenant (cf. Hebrews 9:16-17; Jeremiah 31:31-34). The New Covenant did not come into effect until Jesus' death, but the official shift away from God working with Israel came a year later (cf. Luke 13:6-9) following the martyrdom of Stephen, at which point unbelieving Israel was cut off, and God started working with the Gentiles directly under his backup plan, where they could be saved by grace
Just like the Jews.
[Act 11:18 KJV] 18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
[Act 15:1, 9, 11 KJV] 1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. ... 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. ... 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

The Jews were to be saved the same way as the Gentiles...by faith through grace.
through faith apart from works (remember, the New Covenant was still a covenant, ie, a law, where both parties had to do something in order to remain in that covenant).
Or maybe the backup plan was merely that they would hear about the one gospel through Paul, rather than through myriad Jews...because the myriad of Jews refused to go--they didn't like Gentiles (or a Messiah that has to die to win the war). Gentiles were unclean, as was a messiah that hung on a tree.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Please note, I had a proper response typed up for this, and then I lost it, so my answers will be somewhat shorter, as I don't feel like typing it all again.

Before the Son of Man comes to do what?

To establish His Kingdom on earth.

He was there with them, and sent them out, expecting to see them again fairly soon.

Correct.

So He could mean "before the Son of Man comes in His glory",

Correct. Christ was planning on returning in all His glory as King of Israel.

or He could mean "before the Son of Man comes to die in Jerusalem.

No.

He might mean "before the Son of Man come in judgment",

Correct. Christ was planning on returning to judge the world.

which happened in 70 AD,

No, it did not.

some would say.

Wrongly.

Either way, the expression allows for cities to reject the apostles and then later receive them, and then again later to reject them again. Which means that some cities will be visited by 2 apostles, then by 2 others, then by 2 others, perhaps. I just don't see how this verse says what you think it says.

What are you even talking about?

They were to go out into the world, only to stay in a city until they were rejected.

Where do you get that they would go out "two by two"?

Eh? What does this have to do with the conversation? John explains that He didn't say He willed that John would remain until He came.

The only way Christ's COULD will for John to stay alive is if Christ returned within His lifespan, no?

The point is that Christ fully planned to return within their lifetimes, yet that's not what happened.

Are you saying the Tribulation was underway when Jesus was speaking? I hadn't heard that before.
Or are you saying the Tribulation was underway when the gospel of Matthew was written?

Are you not familiar with Daniel's prophecy of 70 weeks?


The final week began at Pentecost in Acts 2, but God put everything on hold one year in (Acts 9), due to Israel's rebellion and rejection of Him.

Again, just because they go through the cities once, doesn't mean they don't need to go through them more than once, even to this day. And John's survival was not at issue, according to John.

Again, the point was that Jesus was planning on returning within their lifetimes, not after 2000+ years.

That was already on the table, but the apostles didn't understand it. See Naaman with Elisha.
[2Ki 5:17-18 KJV] 17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD. 18 In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, [that] when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.

Naaman began a relationship with God, but without the covenant (circumcision).

Nebuchadnezzar is another example.

Exceptions that prove the existence of the rule.

I'm not sure it was 17 years,

Are you not familiar with Galatians 1-2?

Paul tells us in Galatians 1 that it was three years after his conversion on the road to Damascus before he visited Peter, and he only did so in secret: the only other person he met was James, the Lord's brother.

Then in Galatians 2, he tells us it was another 14 years after that, that he visited the apostles again, this time for the Jerusalem council (Acts 15).

3+14=17

but why is that relevant, since Peter's experience with the sheets was not 17 years after.

Because God didn't immediately reveal everything about the mystery to Paul, but gradually over time. 17 years is a long time to learn a doctrine.

Acts 10 was right after Paul's conversion, so obviously, not everything would have been revealed yet.

Also, the changeover was gradual, from the focus on Israel, to the focus on the Body of Christ. The beginning of the Body of Christ was Acts 9, with Paul being the first. But the shift in focus wasn't as immediate.

God showing Peter that it was okay to interact with the Gentiles was the beginning of that process.

The Gentiles were not unclean even that early, yet the church was treating them as unclean until they were circumcised.

What?

Did you bother to read what Jesus told Peter in Acts 10?

And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

Right. "and the children of Israel", i.e., "the circumcision".

And the children of Israel.

Yes, at first, Paul went to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

And then 17 years later, He agreed to go only to the uncircumcised, and Peter, et al, agreed to go only to the circumcision.

Note that he was rarely in Israel, however.

His ministry did not overlap that of the Twelve.

Many people would say it is still in effect, and not related to the existence of the old Jerusalem.

So what?

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

What does Scripture say?

It says that "blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."

It says that "through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles," and "if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

It says, "because of unbelief they were broken off," and "if they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in [again]."

Remember, Scripture states, clearly and unequivocally, that the New Covenant is made between God and Israel, jus like the Old Covenant.

They weren't "resolved" if they were still preaching different gospels in Jesus' church.

You say that because you assume, wrongly, that there is only one church.

There are two.

The church of Israel.
The church of the Body of Christ.

And thus, two dispensations, one for Israel, one for the Body of Christ.

The differences were resolved by recognizing the differences between the two churches, and their house rules.

Go read Acts 15 and tell me that there was no disputes that were resolved by recognizing that Paul's ministry was different.

Meaning that the original plan and the backup plan both were to include the Gentiles, but it was hid from the Jews.

NO.

The backup plan was hidden from EVERYONE, the entire world.

NO ONE BUT GOD knew of it.

The original plan was for many Jews to go to the Gentiles. The backup plan was for a single Jew to go to the Gentiles. That sounds like a different "dispensation" (dispensing of the gospel) of the same plan to save the Gentiles.

Because you've oversimplified it.

Israel is known as the people of the law. Their covenant with God required them to keep the law. That covenant was built on circumcision (which is itself a symbol of the law). In order for someone to enter into a relationship with God, under BOTH Covenants, they had to circumcise and keep the law.

That is the message Israel was to take to the world.

Paul's dispensation, however, was that of grace alone, through faith alone, not of works of the law. He taught that one did not have to be circumcised in order to have a relationship with God.

That is the message Paul was to take to the world.

"You must circumcise" is diametrically opposed to "do not circumcise."

The ENTIRE REASON for the Jerusalem council, was to resolve the dispute over whether the Gentiles (specifically, Paul's converts, and not those who entered into a relationship through Israel's covenant) had to circumcise. Under the New Covenant, they would have had to. But it was decided that Paul's dispensation of Grace was not the New Covenant, and therefore they did not have to circumcise!

and they didn't like it.

Because of their rebellion against God.

Just like the Jews.
[Act 11:18 KJV] 18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
[Act 15:1, 9, 11 KJV] 1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. ... 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. ... 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

I've mentioned it before, but I'll say it again here:

The Mosaic Law was undergirded by grace.

Without grace, no one would have been able to keep the law.

In order for Israel to achieve salvation, they HAD TO keep the law, and not only that, it had to be done faithfully, with the right attitude. Faith was part of the law.

The Body of Christ, on the other hand, does not and SHOULD NOT place themselves under the law. For we are "justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."

With that out of the way...

The Jews were to be saved the same way as the Gentiles...by faith through grace.

No.

The Jews were to achieve salvation in the same manner as the Body of Christ:

since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Both parties, Israel and the Body of Christ, shall be saved by grace.

But Israel will be justified BY faith (keeping the law faithfully), and the Body of Christ will be justified THROUGH faith (placing their trust in God). Grace is key for both parties. But that does not mean that they were the same party.

Or maybe the backup plan was merely that they would hear about the one gospel through Paul, rather than through myriad Jews...because the myriad of Jews refused to go--they didn't like Gentiles (or a Messiah that has to die to win the war).

What are you even talking about?

Gentiles were unclean,

Only under the Old and New Covenants.

But what did Paul say:

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

as was a messiah that hung on a tree.

Wut?

Jesus was not unclean.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Please note, I had a proper response typed up for this, and then I lost it, so my answers will be somewhat shorter, as I don't feel like typing it all again.
Been there, done that. Thanks for persevering on this.
To establish His Kingdom on earth.



Correct.



Correct. Christ was planning on returning in all His glory as King of Israel.



No.



Correct. Christ was planning on returning to judge the world.



No, it did not.



Wrongly.



What are you even talking about?

They were to go out into the world, only to stay in a city until they were rejected.

Where do you get that they would go out "two by two"?
Jesus sent them out two by two,
[Mar 6:7 KJV] And he called [unto him] the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
It's the parallel passage to the one are talking about.
The only way Christ's COULD will for John to stay alive is if Christ returned within His lifespan, no?
Yes, but He could accomplish it by extending John's life however long He saw the need. That's where the legendary nature of it was heading, that the author had to refute.
The point is that Christ fully planned to return within their lifetimes, yet that's not what happened.
I don't think He planned to return within all of their lifetimes, because He told them some would think they were doing God's work by killing them.
Are you not familiar with Daniel's prophecy of 70 weeks?
Sure, but there are plenty of differing interpretations.

The final week began at Pentecost in Acts 2, but God put everything on hold one year in (Acts 9), due to Israel's rebellion and rejection of Him.



Again, the point was that Jesus was planning on returning within their lifetimes, not after 2000+ years.
Or He was planning on establishing His kingdom within their lifetimes, even at the expense of their lives.
Exceptions that prove the existence of the rule.
That kind of exception disproves the rule.
Are you not familiar with Galatians 1-2?

Paul tells us in Galatians 1 that it was three years after his conversion on the road to Damascus before he visited Peter, and he only did so in secret: the only other person he met was James, the Lord's brother.

Then in Galatians 2, he tells us it was another 14 years after that, that he visited the apostles again, this time for the Jerusalem council (Acts 15).

3+14=17
Ok, I see that. Thanks.
Sidenote:
It's a little confusing, because Acts says he went to Jerusalem before he met Barnabas. Barnabas met him there and brought him to "the apostles", which must include Peter and others (not just Peter).
[Act 9:26 KJV] And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
[Act 9:27 KJV] But Barnabas took him, and brought [him] to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
[Act 9:28 KJV] And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
Which sounds different than:
[Gal 1:17 KJV] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Yet Paul's first visit to Jerusalem must have been within a few months of his conversion, and Galations 1 must be talking about his 2nd visit after his conversion.
End sidenote.

Because God didn't immediately reveal everything about the mystery to Paul, but gradually over time. 17 years is a long time to learn a doctrine.
If Paul was instructed personally by Jesus between his conversion and his visit with Peter 3 years later, did he need the additional 14 years to understand that he was to go to the Gentiles without any of the law's shackles? No, because Peter must have confirmed it for him, comparing notes on Paul's call and Peter's vision. So when the Jerusalem crew sent Barnabas to Antioch, he knew where to find help in reaching the Gentiles.
Acts 10 was right after Paul's conversion, so obviously, not everything would have been revealed yet.

Also, the changeover was gradual, from the focus on Israel, to the focus on the Body of Christ. The beginning of the Body of Christ was Acts 9, with Paul being the first. But the shift in focus wasn't as immediate.
I agree with the "focus" language. But "focus" is hardly "gospel". "Focus" works well with the agreement between the Twelve and Paul, but "gospel" doesn't.
God showing Peter that it was okay to interact with the Gentiles was the beginning of that process.
Yes, I agree.
What?

Did you bother to read what Jesus told Peter in Acts 10?

And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”



Yes, at first, Paul went to both the Jews and the Gentiles.
Not just at first, but everywhere he went, he first went to the synagogue, if he was able to. After the Jews rejected the gospel (the same gospel as he was preaching to the Gentiles. Even when he was under house arrest in Rome at the end of Acts, he was still reaching out to Jews.
And then 17 years later, He agreed to go only to the uncircumcised, and Peter, et al, agreed to go only to the circumcision.
Yet he continued to go to the synagogue first.
Before the agreement in Acts 15:
[Act 13:14 KJV] But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
[Act 13:16 KJV] Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with [his] hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.
[Act 13:46 KJV] Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

And
[Act 14:1 KJV] And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

After the agreement in Acts 15:
[Act 18:4 KJV] And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

and
[Act 28:17 KJV] And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men [and] brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.



Note that he was rarely in Israel, however.
Are you saying "the circumcision" means only those in Israel? And by default, all area outside Israel's territory. is "the uncircumcision"? This sounds different than "Jews" vs "Gentiles". If that's what you mean, then I think I'm on board with it.
His ministry did not overlap that of the Twelve.
If "the circumcision" means all Jews, then his ministry certainly overlapped that of the Twelve, as shown above. But if "the circumcision" only includes those within the territory of Israel, then when Peter and Paul were both in Antioch, what was going on? perhaps you are saying that Antioch, being part of "the uncircumcision" was Paul's territory, and so Peter was either "just visiting", or he was interloping. (Or, if Antioch is Peter's territory, then those options apply to Paul.)
So what?

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

What does Scripture say?

It says that "blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."

It says that "through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles," and "if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

It says, "because of unbelief they were broken off," and "if they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in [again]."

Remember, Scripture states, clearly and unequivocally, that the New Covenant is made between God and Israel, jus like the Old Covenant.
Yes, and when those who had no access to those promises suddenly have access to them?

[Eph 2:12 KJV] That at that time ye {you Gentiles} were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, {defined as:} having no hope, and without God in the world:
[Eph 2:13 KJV] But now {in contrast, meaning that the above conditions no longer apply} in Christ Jesus ye {you Gentiles} who sometimes were far off are made nigh {to the commonwealth of Israel AND no longer strangers to the covenants of promise} by the blood of Christ.
[Eph 2:14 KJV] For he is our peace, who hath made both {those that had the covenants of promise and those who were strangers to the covenants of promise} one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
[Eph 2:19 KJV] Now therefore ye {you Gentiles} are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
[Eph 2:20 KJV] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets {not just on the foundation of Paul}, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
You say that because you assume, wrongly, that there is only one church.

There are two.

The church of Israel.
The church of the Body of Christ.
This is what Paul spoke about so vociferously...that Gentiles were brought into the same commonwealth/covenants of promise as the Jews already had. How, if
1. Paul's gospel was not the same as the Apostle's, and
2. The church of Israel was not the same as the church of Jesus Christ
? What was "the commonwealth of Israel"?
And thus, two dispensations, one for Israel, one for the Body of Christ.
What is a dispensation? Isn't a "pouring out", or "dispensing"? Of what? Paul was given a pouring out of the gospel to the Gentiles. Peter started with a pouring out of the gospel to the Jews, moving toward including the Gentiles. The pouring mechanism might have changed, but the material being poured did not.
The differences were resolved by recognizing the differences between the two churches, and their house rules.

Go read Acts 15 and tell me that there was no disputes that were resolved by recognizing that Paul's ministry was different.
I don't see any disputes between the Twelve and Paul.
NO.

The backup plan was hidden from EVERYONE, the entire world.

NO ONE BUT GOD knew of it.



Because you've oversimplified it.

Israel is known as the people of the law. Their covenant with God required them to keep the law. That covenant was built on circumcision (which is itself a symbol of the law). In order for someone to enter into a relationship with God, under BOTH Covenants, they had to circumcise and keep the law.
not if Paul is correct that the strangers to the covenants of promise are no longer strangers to those covenants.
That is the message Israel was to take to the world.
This is where you are mistaken. No doubt Israel THOUGHT this was their message, but if the "focus", as you called it, was changing to the Gentiles, the message didn't change.

Tell me, why do you think God chose circumcision in the first place?
Paul's dispensation, however, was that of grace alone, through faith alone, not of works of the law. He taught that one did not have to be circumcised in order to have a relationship with God.

That is the message Paul was to take to the world.

"You must circumcise" is diametrically opposed to "do not circumcise."
So that couldn't have been the message that Israel was to take to the world after the apostles took the gospel to Israel.
The ENTIRE REASON for the Jerusalem council, was to resolve the dispute over whether the Gentiles (specifically, Paul's converts, and not those who entered into a relationship through Israel's covenant) had to circumcise. Under the New Covenant, they would have had to. But it was decided that Paul's dispensation of Grace was not the New Covenant,
I never read that there. I don't believe that's what they decided, because that wasn't the question. The question was whether Gentiles that were already recognized as being accepted into the church of Jesus Christ had to circumcise and keep the laws of the Old covenant. This Old Covenant stuff was what those that went to Antioch were trying to enforce, not New Covenant stuff. We can tell that because it is called "of Moses":
[Act 15:1 KJV] And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
[Act 15:5 KJV] But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

I agree that Paul's dispensation wasn't equal to the New Covenant, but that doesn't mean Gentiles can't become "no longer strangers to" the New Covenant.
and therefore they did not have to circumcise!
Because they weren't Jews, not because they weren't of the same Church.
Because of their rebellion against God.



I've mentioned it before, but I'll say it again here:

The Mosaic Law was undergirded by grace.
Yes, but it was still faulty, which required a NEW covenant.
Without grace, no one would have been able to keep the law.
Grace is what one needs AFTER he finds out he can't keep the law.
In order for Israel to achieve salvation, they HAD TO keep the law, and not only that, it had to be done faithfully, with the right attitude. Faith was part of the law.
Part of the law was what to do when one broke the law. Maybe that's what you mean by the grace needed to keep the law. And yes, faith is required to obey the law or obey the gospel.
[Heb 11:6 KJV] But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


The Body of Christ, on the other hand, does not and SHOULD NOT place themselves under the law. For we are "justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."
Not meaning, of course, that murder is suddenly ok, nor homsexuality, nor disobedience to parents, etc.
With that out of the way...



No.

The Jews were to achieve salvation in the same manner as the Body of Christ:

since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Both parties, Israel and the Body of Christ, shall be saved by grace.
Good.
But Israel will be justified BY faith (keeping the law faithfully), and the Body of Christ will be justified THROUGH faith (placing their trust in God).
I'll have to think about this distinction some more.
Grace is key for both parties. But that does not mean that they were the same party.
No, not necessarily, but with the other scriptures, especially Eph 2, they are of the same party.
What are you even talking about?



Only under the Old and New Covenants.
Where does the bible say Gentiles are unclean under the new covenant?
But what did Paul say:

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
And this applied to the Jews as much as the Gentiles, just as Jesus declared (and referred to later in Peter's vision):
[Mar 7:19 NKJV] "because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods?"
Wut?

Jesus was not unclean.
Then why did God forsake Him on the cross? Wasn't it because He became sin for us? Isn't "uncleanness" about sin? In that sense, Jesus became unclean on the cross.

Paul recognized that sin was associated with uncleanness, but stopped being so:
[Gal 2:15 KJV] We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
 

DAN P

Well-known member
So now you're saying Peter should have been reaching out to Gentiles after the Cornelius episode, because there was a change in focus? Then we are in agreement.

Paul's conversion? I thought you guys were "mid" Acts dispensationalists. So why do you point out that Paul says "now I turn to the Gentiles"?

Here?legomai

So, if this secret was hid in God from the beginning of the world, then it wasn't a "plan B", was it? It might have been covert, but it was the original plan, they just didn't know it. Which means they needed to be introduced to the original plan, which was wildly different from what they thought was the plan.

There was another plan they thought was the original plan that wasnt really the original plan--that Jesus would be accepted as king and not have to die. Could it be they were wrong about two plans?
And the Mystery as hidden in God as written in Eph 1:4 .

# 1 he has chosen // eklegomai is in the aorist tense , means it has already happened , in the and is in the singular and that means it has happened one time only and in the accusative case and means limited to those chosen

#2 us // hemas is a personal possessive pronoun in the plural , means to all those chosen .

#3 Him // autos , is also a personal possessive pronoun in the dative case points to a point of reference

#4 before // pro , means before He made anything else .

#5 the foundation // katabole is in the genitive case , means description

#6 of the world // komas is in the genitive case

#7 should be // einai , is in the present tense , speaks of before the world as created to no , period .

#8 holy // agios is in the accusative case and it means limited to those chosen

#9 with out blame // amamos is in tthe accusative case , in the plural

# 10 Him // autos , is a personal possesstive pronoun , in the genitive case , in the slingular

#11 love // agage in the dative case in the slingular .

and only Paul preached that message , period !!

also in Rom 16:25 and 26 says that to be obbedience , to the message Paul , to be in the faith , period !!

dan p
 

Derf

Well-known member
And the Mystery as hidden in God as written in Eph 1:4 .
I don't see "mystery" in Eph 1:4. I do see it several verses later:
[Eph 1:9 KJV] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
[Eph 1:10 KJV] That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

The part I bolded seems to be the mystery: "that he might gather together in one all things in Christ".

So, if the mystery is revealed in vs 10, why are you talking about vs 4?
# 1 he has chosen // eklegomai is in the aorist tense , means it has already happened , in the and is in the singular and that means it has happened one time only and in the accusative case and means limited to those chosen

#2 us // hemas is a personal possessive pronoun in the plural , means to all those chosen .

#3 Him // autos , is also a personal possessive pronoun in the dative case points to a point of reference

#4 before // pro , means before He made anything else .

#5 the foundation // katabole is in the genitive case , means description

#6 of the world // komas is in the genitive case

#7 should be // einai , is in the present tense , speaks of before the world as created to no , period .

#8 holy // agios is in the accusative case and it means limited to those chosen

#9 with out blame // amamos is in tthe accusative case , in the plural

# 10 Him // autos , is a personal possesstive pronoun , in the genitive case , in the slingular

#11 love // agage in the dative case in the slingular .

and only Paul preached that message , period !!

also in Rom 16:25 and 26 says that to be obbedience , to the message Paul , to be in the faith , period !!

dan p
I don't see what you're trying to say in all of that.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I don't see "mystery" in Eph 1:4. I do see it several verses later:
[Eph 1:9 KJV] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
[Eph 1:10 KJV] That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

The part I bolded seems to be the mystery: "that he might gather together in one all things in Christ".

So, if the mystery is revealed in vs 10, why are you talking about vs 4?
You are just amazingly stubborn.
 

DAN P

Well-known member
I agree. But neither refers to "Israel" as an entity.
In Gal 2:7 reads , but on the other hand , having seen that i have been entrusted with the gospel of the
(uncircumcision ) and see Eph 2:11 , just as Peter was of the " circumcision .

so e see that Peter as a law keeper .

then in Gal 2:13 and 14 that Peter was a hypocrite in verse 12 .

In verse 14 that Peter as b trying to compel the Gentiles to adopt Jewish custom and rites .

dan p
 

Derf

Well-known member
In Gal 2:7 reads , but on the other hand , having seen that i have been entrusted with the gospel of the
(uncircumcision ) and see Eph 2:11 , just as Peter was of the " circumcision .
Ok, so you see "circumcision" as applying to Israel, right?
so e see that Peter as a law keeper .

then in Gal 2:13 and 14 that Peter was a hypocrite in verse 12 .

In verse 14 that Peter as b trying to compel the Gentiles to adopt Jewish custom and rites .

dan p
So which was Peter called a hypocrite for?
1. For not keeping the law himself, or
2. For saying he was going to the circumcision only, but then he went to the Gentiles in Gal 2:14?
 

DAN P

Well-known member
But that's not context, that's pretext. Throwing it out there as if it somehow means Peter wasn't supposed to go to the Gentiles is directly contradicted by the story of Cornelius. Jesus wasn't sent to the Gentiles, we both agree. But He was sent FOR all men, whosoever believes on Him. You believe that, right? That Jesus was sent FOR all people?
In Acts 10:35 reads , but in every nation // ethnos , the one revering Him is working righteousness is acceptable to Him !!@

and that includes Cornelius !!

dan p
 
Top