Mr. Juedes, I totally agree with you - it is grace. Abraham was made righteous without the law by his believing. Paul in Romans shows how grace and faith supersede the OT law, and that is why Israel is blinded today by trying to do the works of the law for their righteousness. But that's a whole 'nother thread.
I know people who are into covenant theology will disagree with what I wrote.
But too many Christians today do apply things for Israel to themselves - the church.
Paul does use the analogy in Ephesians of us as a bride, but he does not say we are the bride. It is an analogy.
Too many promises to Israel are not for us, and too many promises to the One body are not for Israel.
I see no problem with God having two groups - those on earth, and the new creation in heaven.
As I said, they were called in two different time periods, have different callings and different spheres.
If you really compare them, you have to do some twisting to make them fit as one group.
I know you are a trained theologan and I am not. So I cannot argue point by point and go up against your credentials.
From what I have read over the years, what I posted is what I think. If you read the OT and the prophecies - as the Bible is basically a book of prophecy - it is magnificent what God has in mind for Israel.
I do not believe the "one body," the "new creation," the "one new man in Christ," us who are the "fullness of Christ's body" is the same as the Bride.
1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Christ Jesus and I have the same Father. So, if we have the same Father then I can not be the wife. If I am................sicko!!!!!!!!!!!
Think about it you guys.
You should read the wonderful imagery in Song of Solomon...."my sister, my wife..." This was allowed physically because they had different mothers etc.
By the way, the converse of the "bad husband" image is the "bad wife." I don't think Christ wants us to treat him as little respect, love, kindness, etc, that many wives show their husbands. So even in the "wife" image of what we are supposed to be to Christ, we have to look at the ideal not the typical human version. (Another digression- women were reated much better, and had more rights, in jewish society in the first century than people commonly think today. One evidence of this was the Bar Kochba letters found in a cave by the Dead Sea.)
The image of wife is very, very common throughout the OT (eg- Hosea) and NT. It's a powerful image to teach mutual faithfulness, love, commitment. It's just as important as "head." The two images teach different, but equally valuable, things. I don't see any value in ranking them.
I guess that would depend on which Rabbi you were reading. Various readings from the First century world regarding the treatment and the general train of thought concerning women were not as great as apparently R. Kochba thought of them. :unsure:
Mr. Juedes, I totally agree with you - it is grace. Abraham was made righteous without the law by his believing. Paul in Romans shows how grace and faith supersede the OT law, and that is why Israel is blinded today by trying to do the works of the law for their righteousness. But that's a whole 'nother thread.
I know people who are into covenant theology will disagree with what I wrote.
But too many Christians today do apply things for Israel to themselves - the church.
Paul does use the analogy in Ephesians of us as a bride, but he does not say we are the bride. It is an analogy.
Too many promises to Israel are not for us, and too many promises to the One body are not for Israel.
I see no problem with God having two groups - those on earth, and the new creation in heaven.
As I said, they were called in two different time periods, have different callings and different spheres.
If you really compare them, you have to do some twisting to make them fit as one group.
I know you are a trained theologan and I am not. So I cannot argue point by point and go up against your credentials.
From what I have read over the years, what I posted is what I think. If you read the OT and the prophecies - as the Bible is basically a book of prophecy - it is magnificent what God has in mind for Israel.
I do not believe the "one body," the "new creation," the "one new man in Christ," us who are the "fullness of Christ's body" is the same as the Bride.
Hi Sunesis:
You really do not have to twist anything at all to make it fit. The Lord Jesus came to Israel to fulfill the prophecies concerning Him, which He did. I forget which post said it...that Israel was never called to evanagelize...that's not true...they were supposed to do it...they just never did. Well, some did. Israel was supposed to receive her Messiah...and if they had....they would as a whole have spread Christianity around the world faster than we have. The initial church was Jewish and then began to include the Gentiles, which was already prophesied as well in the OT that the Gentile nations would also hear the Gospel.
As far as being Body or Bride....I believe that when you get born again you become the body... as you mature and grow and enter into the Kingdom...I say enter into the kingdom after being born again (read the Gospels), which is why the Lord Jesus said that "few there be that find it..." and He was speaking to COVENANT PEOPLE! The Lord was not speaking to Gentiles when He said that. My personal take on it, is as you get deeper and deeper with the Lord, you step out so to speak and become the Bride. I do not personally believe that everyone in the body of Christ will be the Bride, but those "few there be that find it." If we look at the analogy that Christ is the second Adam, the first Adam's BRIDE was TAKEN OUT OF HIM. So I also believe that the the second Adam's BRIDE, will also be TAKEN OUT OF HIM, i.e. out of His Body.
Note also that the parable of the ten virgins, only five of them were ready...But they were all in "competition" for the Bridegroom. In 2 Cor 15 it speaks of an "out-resurrection" i.e. a resurrection of the resurrected if you will....this I believe will be the BRIDE and it will be the BRIDE that will rule with the Lord Jesus during His Millennial reign.
The whole OT is an age of grace.
The only difference between OT grace and NT grace is that the sacrifices of the OT (animal lambs) point toward fulfilment in Christ, while the NT points back to the finished work of Christ (the human Lamb).
When people think Israel is only those physical descendents of Abraham, and that Gentiles (those not physically descended from Abraham), they fall into the same trap that Jews do. They divide the world based on who your momma (and/or pappa) is. The Jews were sure that their birth was their ticket to glory.
Jesus hammered away at this idea. He said, "you are not Abraham's children" but they were instead sons of the devil. But how can anyone be a son of the devil, who is not a human and has no human body to reproduce with? Jesus was saying that faith in him made people sons of Abraham (Israel), not physical birth.
Paul described Jesus' point in even more detail. He said:
- Israel are those who believe, not those who are physical desendents of Jacob
- sons of Abraham are those who believe God's promsies as Abe did, not those desended from him
- the blessing of Abraham goes to all who believe- before and after pentecost, whether Jew or Gentile.
- what counts is faith in the Messiah, not physical birth (Jew or Gentile) nor time period you lived (before or after Pentecost.
In other words, the blessing, and who gets the blessing, is the same in every age and for all people-- faith in God's promises which come by grace. The "rules" are the same always, for all people.
There are not two blessings for two different peoples, at two different times. There is one blessing, to all who believe, in any time period. God always offers grace, and people always receive it by faith (or reject it).
"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:23) There is no difference. There is no difference. There is no difference.
"He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles thru Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:14). That the blessing given to Abe (not a different blessing) might come to us. The Same blessing.
"Understand, then, those those who believe are children of Abraham" (Gal 3:7) Those who beleive are children of Abe, not those who are geneologically related.
Ephesians says you WERE (past tense) "excluded from citizenship in Israel" but now you are "fellow citizens with God's people" (2:12,19) He plainly says that "Israel of the flesh" counts for nothing, only those who are Israel by faith.
There are promises for Israel (pre-Pentecost) in the future.....land being one of them. Promises in the future for the Body of Christ. The two not being the same.
On another note, I can not imagine throwing out everything I collected while in twi or any other "church", "ministry" or "organization." That would mean I would have to throw out the loved ones I still have to this day. Brethren. Way ministry or not they are still my brethren. Can't do it. Even the ones who say our relationship was not real because it was based on twi. Still brethren though they disavow (oxymoron). I don't apologize but I did learn some stuff from twi. But that is personal to me. Still learn to this day from others. Gotta seperate the wheat from the chafe...I read and listen to this and that. Glean.....glean.....glean.....no one "ministry" or "organization" has the all and everything. Christ, Being the Head, is not limited. I am still learning that.
There are promises for Israel (pre-Pentecost) in the future.....land being one of them. Promises in the future for the Body of Christ. The two not being the same.
That's what the ultra-dispensational doctrine of TWI taught, but does the Bible really say that? Where are the Scriptures that say that the promises for the Body of Christ are different from those for Israel?
On the contrary, Paul said that he preached the same hope of Israel.
Acts 24:
14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing
all things which are written in the law and in the prophets...
Acts 26:
6 And now I stand and am judged for
the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:
7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come.
For which hope’s sake
, king Agrippa,
I am accused of the Jews.
The message first preached to Abraham is the same message Paul wrote about in his epistles, with the extra revelation that Gentiles could also partake of the promises God made to Israel.
Galatians 3:
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,
preached before the gospel unto Abraham
, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Galatians 3:
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs
according to the promise
.
Ephesians 3:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
TWI taught (teaches?) that the Bride of Christ is the believers at and before the coming of Christ. The Jewish church, if you will. The Revelation scriptures refer to the bride as the (physical) city of Jerusalem.
I am eschatologically too clueless to get into much of an argument about this, but Meredith Kline maintains the New Jerusalem is the glorified church rather than a physical city, and is “imagery of the first level kingdom-city” that is utilized to portray the “glorified church.”
From Kline’s Kingdom Prologue:
According to Hebrews 12:22,23 the believers of premessianic times have, in the new covenant age, at last been made perfect (cf. 11:40) in that they are now, in Christ, in the true heavenly city. This passage also indicates that the Christian believers are united with them in common eschatological community and kingdom inheritance as fellow-citizens of the city of the living God. That kingdom-inheritance of the church of Christ is identified as “mount Zion.” What is thus designated is clearly not the first level mountain and city but “the heavenly Jerusalem.” This use of first level imagery for the second level reality demonstrates again that the relationship between the two levels of kingdom realization is one of typological unity, with a continuity of old succeeded by new. Of like import is the utilization of the imagery of the first level kingdom-city in the picturing of the glorified church, the bride of the Lamb, in its eternal inheritance as the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21:2 and 10. Of special interest for the typological unity of the old and new covenant kingdoms is the fact that combined in the architecture of the eternal city are the twelve gates bearing the names of the twelve tribes of Israel and twelve foundations having on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev 21:12-14).
Not analogy then but typology describes the relationship between the two levels of fulfillment of the kingdom-inheritance. They do not stand in parallel to one another but in a linear succession proceeding from the provisional and transient to the perfective and permanent stage of the kingdom. Kingdom level one is identified with the old covenant and level two with the new covenant, and the new covenant is continuous with the old in a successive manner that involves its replacing of the old.
Bride, I pretty much agree with everything you say.
Paul did preach to Jew and Gentile. But, it was Paul, and Paul alone, who received the revelation of the "mystery" from the risen Christ. Israel had the living earthy Messiah. Paul dealt with the Heavenly, risen Christ. Paul received this revelation when he was in prison. The prison epistles (which include Timothy) reveal the "mystery" - the new creation, and one body - his body.
But, you also have his other epistles, where he's seeing it, preaching what he knows to both Jew and Gentile (again, in II Cor. He tells them they will have a new celestial body), Romans was his foundation and it was built on, kind of preparing the Jews to accept the one body with the Gentiles, which he does in Galations, Hebrews and the non-prison epistles. Then you see the apex of the mystery revealed to him in Ephesians while imprisoned.
He talks about "my gospel." this was different from the gospel the apostles were preaching (the kingdom is at hand - repent). Because of "my gospel" he had to go to Jerusalem and explain it to the Apostles. There they gave him the right hand of fellowship and decided: they would continue to go to the jews, Paul to the gentiles. That is why Peter said, some of his teachings were hard to understand.
In the NT, you see Paul's understanding grow. Because of the "abundance of revelation" to Paul, there was a thorn in the flesh.
When we read the parables and prophecy given by Jesus in the Gospels, most were talking about the Kingdom, like the 10 virgins with oil. Since this age of grace, the age of this mystery was still a secret and not yet revealed, and since Jesus was sent to Israel, and was expounding to his Apostles, those are all to Israel. I believe the Jesus was talking about the end times when he returns from heaven and restores the Nation of Israel. There will be some who let their oil run out, when he returns it will be too late.
Yes, when Paul quotes the OT, there's plenty written to Israel to the descendents of Abraham. Those prophecies are fullfiled in Rev. when the Gentiles believe the preaching of the 144,000, and are martryred - the gentile "tribulation" saints. They enter into the Kingdom when it comes along with Israel, thus, are all nations blessed.
I see the Bible as prophecy which is all to and for Israel. But the NT - mystery, the new creation, jew and gentile one new body - is a parenthesis sandwiched in there. It doesn't take up much space. Then, the church is gathered, the holy spirit reverts back to working like it did in the OT - upon, not in. The church and Holy Spirit gone, the parenthesis is now ended and God picks up dealing with Jew and Gentile and the OT prophecies of the "end of days", Daniel, Ezekial, Isaiah, etc., Jesus telling Israel the signs to come, are now finalized and culminated in Revelation.
The NT believer is never told to look for times, seasons, moons, planets, blood red sun, abomination in the temple, etc. Those are end times for Israel. Israel will know, during the tribulation, when the Messiah will come, almost to the day.
Those of us in this parenthesis of the NT, the one body, are not told to look for signs. We are to look for Christ and his return. That's it. We look for him. His coming for us is different than his coming for Israel at the end.
Bride, I pretty much agree with everything you say.
Paul did preach to Jew and Gentile. But, it was Paul, and Paul alone, who received the revelation of the "mystery" from the risen Christ. Israel had the living earthy Messiah. Paul dealt with the Heavenly, risen Christ. Paul received this revelation when he was in prison. The prison epistles (which include Timothy) reveal the "mystery" - the new creation, and one body - his body.
Israel had the risen Christ too, after he arose. The revelation that Paul received added to, but did not change, the original message that Jesus preached.
But, you also have his other epistles, where he's seeing it, preaching what he knows to both Jew and Gentile (again, in II Cor. He tells them they will have a new celestial body), Romans was his foundation and it was built on, kind of preparing the Jews to accept the one body with the Gentiles, which he does in Galations, Hebrews and the non-prison epistles. Then you see the apex of the mystery revealed to him in Ephesians while imprisoned.
He talks about "my gospel." this was different from the gospel the apostles were preaching (the kingdom is at hand - repent). Because of "my gospel" he had to go to Jerusalem and explain it to the Apostles. There they gave him the right hand of fellowship and decided: they would continue to go to the jews, Paul to the gentiles. That is why Peter said, some of his teachings were hard to understand.
This is a common misconception among dispensationalists. There is no indication from the Bible that Paul's gospel was different from that which Jesus and the other apostles preached. The twelve were sent to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 10:7) and later the seventy were sent with the same mission (Luke 10:1,9). After his resurrection, Jesus continued to speak concerning the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:1-3). Philip went to Samaria preaching the Kingdom of God (Acts 8:12). Paul preached the Kingdom of God as well (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25). The book of Acts ends with Paul continuing to preach the kingdom of God (Acts 28:30,31). There is nothing to indicate that there was a change in the gospel message that the followers of Jesus were to preach.
It has been said that the gospel that Paul preached was not the same gospel that Jesus preached. We were taught that Paul's gospel was different, because Jesus spoke of the kingdom, but Paul preached "the gospel of grace."
Acts 20:
24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
However, the very next verse defines what the gospel of grace is.
Acts 20:
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
And in verse 27 he equates that Gospel of the Kingdom of God with the whole purpose, or counsel, of God.
Acts 20:
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
In the NT, you see Paul's understanding grow. Because of the "abundance of revelation" to Paul, there was a thorn in the flesh.
When we read the parables and prophecy given by Jesus in the Gospels, most were talking about the Kingdom, like the 10 virgins with oil. Since this age of grace, the age of this mystery was still a secret and not yet revealed, and since Jesus was sent to Israel, and was expounding to his Apostles, those are all to Israel. I believe the Jesus was talking about the end times when he returns from heaven and restores the Nation of Israel. There will be some who let their oil run out, when he returns it will be too late.
This is one of the great dangers of dispensationalism - it separates Jesus from his words. If the teachings of Jesus Christ were only addressed to his Israelite followers at the time, and would shortly be replaced by a whole new administration with a whole new plan, why were his words so carefully and diligently preserved in the four Gospels, which were written after the epistles and the revelation of the Mystery? Furthermore, if his words were to be replaced by a new revelation and become obsolete, why would he have made the following statement?
John 14:
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
all things
to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you
.
If the holy spirit would bring to remembrance whatsoever Jesus had said, surely his words are important to the Christian Church, and not just to Israel. Contrary to what many dispensationalists teach, the New Testament tells us that it is the words of Jesus Christ, as much as his deeds, which are to be the focus of Christianity. His words are the key to eternal life (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 3:34; John 6:63; John 12:47-48; John 14:23; John 15:7; I Timothy 6:3-4). He preached the gospel of the Kingdom and declared that it would continue to be preached until he returns (Matt. 24:14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.") In Matt. 28:20, he commission his disciples to make disciples of all nations, "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." The gospel which Jesus preached is not "held in abeyance" as we were taught. The same gospel is to be preached till his return.
The details Paul adds to the Gospel message do not change it, but add to it. It adds the idea of Gentiles partaking of the same Kingdom promises that were made to Israel, and being grafted onto the same tree of faith that Israel was on. There is therefore no separation between Jews and Gentiles as there had been. All may receive the promises originally made to Abraham.
Yes, when Paul quotes the OT, there's plenty written to Israel to the descendents of Abraham. Those prophecies are fullfiled in Rev. when the Gentiles believe the preaching of the 144,000, and are martryred - the gentile "tribulation" saints. They enter into the Kingdom when it comes along with Israel, thus, are all nations blessed.
I see the Bible as prophecy which is all to and for Israel. But the NT - mystery, the new creation, jew and gentile one new body - is a parenthesis sandwiched in there. It doesn't take up much space. Then, the church is gathered, the holy spirit reverts back to working like it did in the OT - upon, not in. The church and Holy Spirit gone, the parenthesis is now ended and God picks up dealing with Jew and Gentile and the OT prophecies of the "end of days", Daniel, Ezekial, Isaiah, etc., Jesus telling Israel the signs to come, are now finalized and culminated in Revelation.
The old distinction in TWI between "spirit in" and "spirit upon" is not Biblical. Joseph was called "a man in whom the spirit of God is" in Genesis 41:38, and Joshua was called that in Numbers 27:18. God's ministers were said to be filled with God's spirit in Exodus 28:3; 31:3; and 35:31. Isaiah 63:11 reads, "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" On the other hand, the outpouring of the holy spirit on Pentecost was associated with God's promise to "pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). And Peter specifically states in I Peter 4:14 that, "the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." There is no such distinction between "spirit in" and "spirit upon" in the Bible. They are interchangeable.
The NT believer is never told to look for times, seasons, moons, planets, blood red sun, abomination in the temple, etc. Those are end times for Israel. Israel will know, during the tribulation, when the Messiah will come, almost to the day.
Those of us in this parenthesis of the NT, the one body, are not told to look for signs. We are to look for Christ and his return. That's it. We look for him. His coming for us is different than his coming for Israel at the end.
There is nothing in the NT that indicates that his coming for us is different from his coming for Israel. The dead in Christ shall rise (Jew and Gentile) and we who are alive shall be caught up to meet him. This is called the day of the Lord in I Thess. 5:2, and happens at the last trumpet, according to I Thess. 4:16 (cp. Matt. 24:31; I Cor. 15:52; Rev. 10:7; 11:15). The whole idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is not found in the Bible. The signs in the heavens, the gathering of his elect, the sound of the last trumpet, and the appearing of the Lord, all happen after the tribulation, according to Matt. 24:29-31.
We are told to look for Christ's return, and the signs leading up to it are part of looking for it. Matthew 24 fits with all the references to the return in the epistles, when we don't approach them with preconceived dispensational views.
Mark, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. All the prophecies from the OT and gospels are for those who shall enter the Kingdom - the millenium - Israel, with the Gentiles partaking in the blessings of Israel also. As prophesised in the OT, 10 gentiles will hold the hem of a jewish person and say, let us go up with you, we have heard God is with you. This will come to pass. They will be grafted into the blessings for Israel. Christ came to Israel announcing the Kingdom at hand.
Christ gave the 12 apostles their great comissioning - to Israel. that's why Peter continually told Israel to "repent." Christ was alive, you, Israel killed him, but he was alive, they were witnesses, and he would come back if they repented. In order for Christ to return for Israel - ALL of Israel must repent. But, that did not happen.
The Church, the one body, are not told that we all must repent in order for Christ to gather us.
I agree, Paul in Acts 20 was preaching the "Kingdom." He had not yet received the full Revelation of the mystery at that point.
It is at the end of Acts, where he repeats the words of the prophet Jermiah - Isaiah (I don't have my Bible with my now), for the 3rd time, realizing Israel would not now repent, so thus, the Kingdom is not coming - and thus, in Acts 28 he says I now go to the Gentiles. Once the temple was torn down in 70 ad, the Kingdom was in abeyance.
The age of Grace is now ushered in.
Of course there were OT prophecies fulfilled in Christ, and Christ spoke of them to come. Paul does not dispute that, neither do I.
Remember when Christ sat in the temple, opened the scroll and preached and taught the verse in Isaiah then stopped. The second part, when he judges jew and gentile, when he comes back in glory is fulfilled in Revelation, NOT in this age of grace, this unprophesied age that was never written of in the OT nor foretold in the prophecies.
We were never mentioned - ever in the OT. The OT prophecies and Christ's prophecies of the end times, which were meant for Isreal, cannot be appropriated by the church.
They were not spoken to the Church. Our present age was never, ever prophesised in the OT or gospels. It was kept secret from before the foundation of the world.
If our age was not known, nor prophesised about, how can one the Church of today apply the prophecies to Israel to themselves? You cannot. And Paul did not.
We are one body. We will have a "celestial" body - not an earthly, eternal body that Israel will have. Our inheritence is in heaven, not on earth. We are never promised land or a city Jerusalem. We are a new creation. We fill up Christ's body. We are his body now and in eternity.
It is the Bride that looks for a new city, Jerusalemand dwells therein.
It is the Body, that is God's inheritence in the Heavenlies and dwells therein.
Thank you all for your thoughtful and courteous posts on this thread. There are clearly quite a number of different views and it is interesting how thinking has diverged from TWI teachings.
Like so many things: we know in part. Whatever we believe - what is already decreed will come to pass faultlessly, whether we are Bride or Body - or even something else - regardless of what we believe.
It is the Bride that looks for a new city, Jerusalem, and dwells therein.
It is the Body, that is God's inheritence in the Heavenlies and dwells therein.
Sunesis, this can't be right, surely. Is not the Lamb looking for the city, as it is to be his bride? No references to brides seeking cities, that I can recall.
Logic says that if the Bride and the Body are united and become one flesh (loads of Bible verses on that) then presumably the Bride and the Body will be together. Not one on the earth and one in the heavenlies?
With all due respect, I notice your post has no Scripture references. I am familiar with all of your arguments, as I embraced them at one time myself. But upon really looking into it I found there was really no Scriptural foundation to the idea that the Church represents a new plan of salvation and that the Kingdom Gospel which Jesus preached is held in abeyance for now. Jesus said the Gospel of the Kingdom would be preached throughout all the world and then the end would come (Matt. 24:14).
A couple of comments/questions:
"10 gentiles will hold the hem of a jewish person and say, let us go up with you, we have heard God is with you" - Where is the reference to this and what is the context?
"They will be grafted into the blessings for Israel" - The reference to Gentiles being "grafted in" is from Romans 9 - 11, which is not limited to future blessings, but speaks of their relationship and identity both now and in the future.
"Christ came to Israel announcing the Kingdom at hand" - Where is the instruction that his disciples were no longer to preach the Kingdom?
"Christ gave the 12 apostles their great comissioning - to Israel." - It doesn't say to Israel; it says "to all nations" (Matt. 28:19) and they were to teach "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" which includes the message of the Kingdom.
"...that's why Peter continually told Israel to 'repent.'" - Paul declared to the men of Athens in Acts 17:30-31, "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." This coming day of judgment is a big part of the Kingdom Gospel.
"In order for Christ to return for Israel - ALL of Israel must repent. But, that did not happen." - There is no Scripture that says this. As the above verse (as well as many others) shows, Christ's return does not depend on their repentance. He is going to return when the time is right, but whether they enter the Kingdom at that time depends on their repentance, and that is true for Jews and Gentiles alike.
"The Church, the one body, are not told that we all must repent in order for Christ to gather us." - The Church is not told to repent, because to be in the church, one must have already repented. And no one is told to repent in order for Christ to return.
"...thus, in Acts 28 he says I now go to the Gentiles. Once the temple was torn down in 70 ad, the Kingdom was in abeyance." - Actually, "I go now to the Gentiles" is from Acts 18, when the Jews in Corinth rejected Christ. As was his manner, he went to the Jews first in each city, and when they didn't listen he went to the Gentiles. This has nothing to do with changing to a different message.
In Acts 28, Paul is still preaching the Kingdom of God (vs. 23 & 31). There is no Scripture anywhere that says it would be held in abeyance and replaced by another gospel. In fact, not only did Jesus say the Gospel would be preached until the end came, but Paul warned the Corinthians and the Galatians not to follow after any other gospel (II Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6). On what authority, then, can we say that it was held in abeyance after 70AD?
"The age of Grace is now ushered in." - You may also be surprised to know that there is no such phrase, "age of grace" in the Bible. God's grace permeates all ages. The Kingdom of God, a coming reign of the Messiah on a renewed earth in perfect righteousness, was prophesied throughout the whole OT. And there were even references to the Gentiles being blessed in some way. But what was not known was that they would be fellow heirs and of the same body. That was the mystery. It was not that there was some better plan separate from the Kingdom of God on earth, reserved for the Church.
"We are one body. We will have a "celestial" body - not an earthly, eternal body that Israel will have. Our inheritence is in heaven, not on earth. We are never promised land or a city Jerusalem." - There is no Scripture that says this. The reference to "celestial" bodies is in I Cor. 15 and is talking about the source and origin of the bodies, not that they will be some kind of non-corporeal body. And no where in the Bible is heaven the destination of believers, nor is the hope of Israel an "earthly, eternal body." There is no such thing. The point of an "earthly" body, according to I Cor. 15, is that it is not eternal; it dies, in contrast to the heavenly one which does not. We have the same hope as Israel had, resurrection with new bodies in God's Kingdom on a renewed earth.
"It is the Bride that looks for a new city, Jerusalem and dwells therein. It is the Body, that is God's inheritence in the Heavenlies and dwells therein." - Once again, can you quote Scriptures that say this? The church being "seated in the heavenlies" (Eph. 2:6) is not referring to our permanent dwelling place, but rather our identification with Christ.
I understand where you are coming from, since I held these same opinions for many years. I could quote all the same arguments and it all seemed to make sense. But when I began trying to back up my views from the Scripture, I realized I couldn't. In order to avoid being deceived, we must always weigh our views and beliefs from the Scriptures. I exhort you to at least consider what I am saying, and weigh both views against the Scriptures. I think you'll be surprised.
Revelation 21 does not say that the bride will live IN the city.
It says that the bride IS the city:
"(the angel said) "come, I will show you the Bride, the Wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away.... and showed me the Holy City" (21:9)
It does not say, "he showed me the wife IN the city," but rather, ""I will show you the bride... he showed me the holy city." The bride and city are the same beings - those who believe in Jesus Christ.
The account further emphasizes that the city is people by saying that the gates had the names of the tribes of Israel and the foundations were the 12 apostles. It does not say that the tribes walked in the gates nor that the apostles built the foundations, but rather that they ARE those things. In other words, the city and the bride are the people of God of all eras- Jew and Gentile.
The image of a city is also used of God's people in Matthew 5:14-16- on a hill just as the city in Rev 21 is.
This is much like Ephesians, in which believers are descirbed as the bride/wife (5:22-33) AND as the building (2:19-22) We don't have trouble understanding that the bnuilding in Eph 2 is the people of God, nor should we have trouble understanding that the city in Rev. 21 is the people of God.
Revelation 21 does not say that the bride will live IN the city.
It says that the bride IS the city:
"(the angel said) "come, I will show you the Bride, the Wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away.... and showed me the Holy City" (21:9)
It does not say, "he showed me the wife IN the city," but rather, ""I will show you the bride... he showed me the holy city." The bride and city are the same beings - those who believe in Jesus Christ.
The account further emphasizes that the city is people by saying that the gates had the names of the tribes of Israel and the foundations were the 12 apostles. It does not say that the tribes walked in the gates nor that the apostles built the foundations, but rather that they ARE those things. In other words, the city and the bride are the people of God of all eras- Jew and Gentile.
The image of a city is also used of God's people in Matthew 5:14-16- on a hill just as the city in Rev 21 is.
This is much like Ephesians, in which believers are descirbed as the bride/wife (5:22-33) AND as the building (2:19-22) We don't have trouble understanding that the bnuilding in Eph 2 is the people of God, nor should we have trouble understanding that the city in Rev. 21 is the people of God.
Dr. Juedes,
Good post!
You have biblically supported your view quite well. Your view, in part at least, seems the same as Kline’s.
My tentative opinion is that Kline is pretty good on stuff like this, though he possibly goes over the edge at times (e.g. his “framework hypothesis” concerning the Genesis creation account).
Interestingly, Kline also maintains (perhaps somewhat speculatively, though I tend to think he is correct) that the spatial separation between Heaven and Earth will be done away with “at the dawning of the eternal Sabbath for humanity,” by which I assume he is referring to the eschatological establishment of the fully realized kingdom of God on Earth.
I agree that there are one people of God and one eschatological collective identity and destiny for that people.
Bride, I pretty much agree with everything you say.
Paul did preach to Jew and Gentile. But, it was Paul, and Paul alone, who received the revelation of the "mystery" from the risen Christ. Israel had the living earthy Messiah. Paul dealt with the Heavenly, risen Christ. Paul received this revelation when he was in prison. The prison epistles (which include Timothy) reveal the "mystery" - the new creation, and one body - his body.
But, you also have his other epistles, where he's seeing it, preaching what he knows to both Jew and Gentile (again, in II Cor. He tells them they will have a new celestial body), Romans was his foundation and it was built on, kind of preparing the Jews to accept the one body with the Gentiles, which he does in Galations, Hebrews and the non-prison epistles. Then you see the apex of the mystery revealed to him in Ephesians while imprisoned.
He talks about "my gospel." this was different from the gospel the apostles were preaching (the kingdom is at hand - repent). Because of "my gospel" he had to go to Jerusalem and explain it to the Apostles. There they gave him the right hand of fellowship and decided: they would continue to go to the jews, Paul to the gentiles. That is why Peter said, some of his teachings were hard to understand.
In the NT, you see Paul's understanding grow. Because of the "abundance of revelation" to Paul, there was a thorn in the flesh.
When we read the parables and prophecy given by Jesus in the Gospels, most were talking about the Kingdom, like the 10 virgins with oil. Since this age of grace, the age of this mystery was still a secret and not yet revealed, and since Jesus was sent to Israel, and was expounding to his Apostles, those are all to Israel. I believe the Jesus was talking about the end times when he returns from heaven and restores the Nation of Israel. There will be some who let their oil run out, when he returns it will be too late.
Yes, when Paul quotes the OT, there's plenty written to Israel to the descendents of Abraham. Those prophecies are fullfiled in Rev. when the Gentiles believe the preaching of the 144,000, and are martryred - the gentile "tribulation" saints. They enter into the Kingdom when it comes along with Israel, thus, are all nations blessed.
I see the Bible as prophecy which is all to and for Israel. But the NT - mystery, the new creation, jew and gentile one new body - is a parenthesis sandwiched in there. It doesn't take up much space. Then, the church is gathered, the holy spirit reverts back to working like it did in the OT - upon, not in. The church and Holy Spirit gone, the parenthesis is now ended and God picks up dealing with Jew and Gentile and the OT prophecies of the "end of days", Daniel, Ezekial, Isaiah, etc., Jesus telling Israel the signs to come, are now finalized and culminated in Revelation.
The NT believer is never told to look for times, seasons, moons, planets, blood red sun, abomination in the temple, etc. Those are end times for Israel. Israel will know, during the tribulation, when the Messiah will come, almost to the day.
Those of us in this parenthesis of the NT, the one body, are not told to look for signs. We are to look for Christ and his return. That's it. We look for him. His coming for us is different than his coming for Israel at the end.
Well, I'm not dispensationalist by far. I categorically believe that there isn't any separation between the Gospels and the church age. This was TWI doctrine and also to be found in the Scofield Bible, which I won't even buy a copy of because of their doctrinal notes. If there is a "parenthetical clause" that we are living in, well....parenthetical clauses and/or sentences can be easily removed from the whole and you would still have the context of the whole, with or without. I refuse to be pidgeonholed into a parentheses Plus, then why do we preach the Lord Jesus and His death and resurrection, if He only came to the Jews? Then He cannot be our Messiah if we separate such things. Dangerous indeed. For if He isn't my Messiah, then I'm not saved and neither are you, nor anyone else.
The Gospel that Paul was teaching was indeed the mystery that had been made clear to him that the Gentiles would also be included. However, this was also known in the OT, they knew that the Gentiles would see a great light, etc. However, they probably didn't forsee that the Gentiles would have the exact same calling as the Jews, but most likely thought that there would still be a difference between the two, with the Jews being closer to God. This is why they had a court of the Gentiles that was separate from the Jewish court.
The 12 apostles also saw the risen Christ and they watched as He ascended up into heaven and the Lord Jesus told the 12 apostles that He would be with them until the end. I see no difference at all. If you also recall, Paul made it very clear that the Gentiles were grafted into the natural olive tree. Furthermore, (truly scary) God could CUT US OUT if we didn't remain with Him. This is another reason that I do not believe in eternal security per se.
What scripture do you use to support that the Holy Spirit will revert back to "on and not "in", if there is one, could you please refresh my memory?
The parable of the 10 virgins is for us too, Sunesis. Oil is symbolic for the Holy Spirit. The aspect of it running out is because the believer's love grows cold and they cease to be close to the giver of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus is coming for those who believe on Him. For those that lived and died before His earthly ministry, they will be blessed with eternal life because they looked forward to His coming and so remained faithful. Those that remain faithful after His earthly ministry will receive eternal life based on their belief that He died and rose for them and His blood cleansed them of all of their iniquities, transgressions and sins.
I know you are pretty knowledgeable of the Scriptures, but I would also encourage you to look beyond the dispensationalist views, there's far more wealth of wisdom in the entire Christian story, rather than being satisfied with a parentheses.
Sunesis, Bride, Dr Juedes and others are having a very interesting well informed conversation--thanks Twinky--I am bumping this up because it is getting lost in the maze of all those other topics dominating the doctrinal forum.
It is an interesting discussion with a lot to think about and a lot of side issues being raised in the posts. Thank you all who are posting, for keeping to the main point. There are many others who are following this discussion who are not necessarily posting, but it is clearly food for thought.
I think I am prepared to take on board that whether Bride or Body, it is just another figure of speech to represent a type of relationship. Like sonship. BoJC's idea of the Bride being taken out of the Body is a new concept.
As to a current thought posted above that we might be "cut off" or "no eternal security", I can't quite see that alongside this thread. A Body doesn't usually cut bits of itself off unless horribly diseased or mutilated such that the rest of the body would be at mortal risk (gangrene, for example). Cutting off someone does not fit either with the concept of a Bride becoming one with the Body: for a husband is to love and cherish his wife in sickness and in health. In the OT even a wife who whored around and was a horrendous disgrace was still loved and her husband went after her to bring her back into his household (Hosea).
I think I am prepared to take on board that whether Bride or Body, it is just another figure of speech to represent a type of relationship. Like sonship. BoJC's idea of the Bride being taken out of the Body is a new concept.
As to a current thought posted above that we might be "cut off" or "no eternal security", I can't quite see that alongside this thread. A Body doesn't usually cut bits of itself off unless horribly diseased or mutilated such that the rest of the body would be at mortal risk (gangrene, for example). Cutting off someone does not fit either with the concept of a Bride becoming one with the Body: for a husband is to love and cherish his wife in sickness and in health. In the OT even a wife who whored around and was a horrendous disgrace was still loved and her husband went after her to bring her back into his household (Hosea).
It is a thought from Romans, Twinky. I didn't write it, but the HS through His revelation to Paul as he penned it. Scary isn't it? It won't be the body that cuts bits and pieces off of itself, but the judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ...it will be God who cuts out the pieces. Perhaps this will be how the body will finally be mature. I have often wondered how the body of Christ would ever be fully mature with so many so-called Christians content to remain sucking on bottles rather than craving the meat of the HS.
So it is most definitely a thought for prayer and meditation with the Lord Jesus Christ leading us.
It isn't surprising those who have difficulty accepting the permanence of salvation are likewise oblivious to the different biblical administrations. Afterall, what can one say about salvation? It is the greatest thing God has ever done to give man everlasting life and for you as a Christian to say, "I am going to live forever!" What an amazing thing, what a great truth! What a blessing it is to know that - and for you to know that from God's Word. Surely none of us deserve everlasting life, and yet that is the gift God says He has given to us and that He has promised to us in His Word.
The first thing one has to have is an administrational point of view to make the scriptures "fit together" and to make the scriptures work properly. It is unfortunate that to so many the bible is just a confusing book, it's full of contradictions and perplexities. God didn't write the bible with the attitude of - Hah - they'll never figure that one out! It says in Timothy that God wants us to come to a knowledge of the truth. Actually it says He wants us to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:4)
Now if one is going to do that, then it is important that one studies the scriptures, and in order for the scriptures to make sense then we have to get some postulates correct first. You have to get some axioms correct - some fundamental beliefs about the bible we need to have correct in order for the bible to make any sense. One of the things you have to get correct is that the way God (and God is God and He can do things the way He wants to) but the way that God relates to man has been through a series of administrations.
Now this is very important to understand what an administration actually is. An administration (or a dispensation if you want to call it that) is not just a time period in the bible. What an administration is, is an administring of God's rules or regulations or His justice, and because when God starts administrating and stops adminstrating - as there is a point where He starts and a point where He stops, then an adminstration occurs within a period of time. Although technically speaking an administration is NOT a set period of time, an administration is a way of God's serving, a way of God's ruling if you will, an administration is a way of God's doing this. But because it occurs within a period of time, then for us to look at it and examine it closely it is much easier for us to look at it as a starting point and a stopping point, so we have multiple different periods of time in the bible.
This becomes very, very important when we are talking about the subject of salvation and that we understand administrations in this way. When we talk about salvation within these administrations, then we see there are differences. Now in any one of these biblical administrations - anyone could be saved. But in the old Testament and the gospels, a person was only saved by being faithful to God throughout their life. However in the grace administration (which was a secret and hidden from the other administrations) God did something entirely brand new. In the grace administration, God made salvation a one time, permanent experience. He also let us know that because in the grace administration God calls our salvation "birth", and God doesn't call salvation "birth" in the old Testament or in any other administration.
Right now as we stand here as Christians our salvation is permanent. It is based on a one time experience of "birth" from God (one can't get reborn twice from God or any more times from God) and it is born into us just like our natural birth - only this time it is of incorruptible seed rather than corruptible. In fact (which is the truth) it is more permanent than your natural birth because your natural birth is corruptible seed and at some point in time that seed is going to die!! This incorruptible seed from God however will NEVER DIE, and that is why it is permanent and why our salvation in this administration of grace is likewise permanent.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
8
8
5
Popular Days
Oct 15
6
Oct 10
6
Oct 11
6
Oct 13
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Clarke 7 posts
Twinky 8 posts
johnj 8 posts
brideofjc 5 posts
Popular Days
Oct 15 2008
6 posts
Oct 10 2008
6 posts
Oct 11 2008
6 posts
Oct 13 2008
5 posts
Sunesis
Mr. Juedes, I totally agree with you - it is grace. Abraham was made righteous without the law by his believing. Paul in Romans shows how grace and faith supersede the OT law, and that is why Israel is blinded today by trying to do the works of the law for their righteousness. But that's a whole 'nother thread.
I know people who are into covenant theology will disagree with what I wrote.
But too many Christians today do apply things for Israel to themselves - the church.
Paul does use the analogy in Ephesians of us as a bride, but he does not say we are the bride. It is an analogy.
Too many promises to Israel are not for us, and too many promises to the One body are not for Israel.
I see no problem with God having two groups - those on earth, and the new creation in heaven.
As I said, they were called in two different time periods, have different callings and different spheres.
If you really compare them, you have to do some twisting to make them fit as one group.
I know you are a trained theologan and I am not. So I cannot argue point by point and go up against your credentials.
From what I have read over the years, what I posted is what I think. If you read the OT and the prophecies - as the Bible is basically a book of prophecy - it is magnificent what God has in mind for Israel.
I do not believe the "one body," the "new creation," the "one new man in Christ," us who are the "fullness of Christ's body" is the same as the Bride.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Romans 7
1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
I'd say they work separately together :)
who died
who was raised
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
You should read the wonderful imagery in Song of Solomon...."my sister, my wife..." This was allowed physically because they had different mothers etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I guess that would depend on which Rabbi you were reading. Various readings from the First century world regarding the treatment and the general train of thought concerning women were not as great as apparently R. Kochba thought of them. :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Hi Sunesis:
You really do not have to twist anything at all to make it fit. The Lord Jesus came to Israel to fulfill the prophecies concerning Him, which He did. I forget which post said it...that Israel was never called to evanagelize...that's not true...they were supposed to do it...they just never did. Well, some did. Israel was supposed to receive her Messiah...and if they had....they would as a whole have spread Christianity around the world faster than we have. The initial church was Jewish and then began to include the Gentiles, which was already prophesied as well in the OT that the Gentile nations would also hear the Gospel.
As far as being Body or Bride....I believe that when you get born again you become the body... as you mature and grow and enter into the Kingdom...I say enter into the kingdom after being born again (read the Gospels), which is why the Lord Jesus said that "few there be that find it..." and He was speaking to COVENANT PEOPLE! The Lord was not speaking to Gentiles when He said that. My personal take on it, is as you get deeper and deeper with the Lord, you step out so to speak and become the Bride. I do not personally believe that everyone in the body of Christ will be the Bride, but those "few there be that find it." If we look at the analogy that Christ is the second Adam, the first Adam's BRIDE was TAKEN OUT OF HIM. So I also believe that the the second Adam's BRIDE, will also be TAKEN OUT OF HIM, i.e. out of His Body.
Note also that the parable of the ten virgins, only five of them were ready...But they were all in "competition" for the Bridegroom. In 2 Cor 15 it speaks of an "out-resurrection" i.e. a resurrection of the resurrected if you will....this I believe will be the BRIDE and it will be the BRIDE that will rule with the Lord Jesus during His Millennial reign.
THANK YOU!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
When people think Israel is only those physical descendents of Abraham, and that Gentiles (those not physically descended from Abraham), they fall into the same trap that Jews do. They divide the world based on who your momma (and/or pappa) is. The Jews were sure that their birth was their ticket to glory.
Jesus hammered away at this idea. He said, "you are not Abraham's children" but they were instead sons of the devil. But how can anyone be a son of the devil, who is not a human and has no human body to reproduce with? Jesus was saying that faith in him made people sons of Abraham (Israel), not physical birth.
Paul described Jesus' point in even more detail. He said:
- Israel are those who believe, not those who are physical desendents of Jacob
- sons of Abraham are those who believe God's promsies as Abe did, not those desended from him
- the blessing of Abraham goes to all who believe- before and after pentecost, whether Jew or Gentile.
- what counts is faith in the Messiah, not physical birth (Jew or Gentile) nor time period you lived (before or after Pentecost.
In other words, the blessing, and who gets the blessing, is the same in every age and for all people-- faith in God's promises which come by grace. The "rules" are the same always, for all people.
There are not two blessings for two different peoples, at two different times. There is one blessing, to all who believe, in any time period. God always offers grace, and people always receive it by faith (or reject it).
"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:23) There is no difference. There is no difference. There is no difference.
"He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles thru Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:14). That the blessing given to Abe (not a different blessing) might come to us. The Same blessing.
"Understand, then, those those who believe are children of Abraham" (Gal 3:7) Those who beleive are children of Abe, not those who are geneologically related.
Ephesians says you WERE (past tense) "excluded from citizenship in Israel" but now you are "fellow citizens with God's people" (2:12,19) He plainly says that "Israel of the flesh" counts for nothing, only those who are Israel by faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I think the two being joined together becoming one flesh fits in here somehow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Adoption.........................................
There are promises for Israel (pre-Pentecost) in the future.....land being one of them. Promises in the future for the Body of Christ. The two not being the same.
On another note, I can not imagine throwing out everything I collected while in twi or any other "church", "ministry" or "organization." That would mean I would have to throw out the loved ones I still have to this day. Brethren. Way ministry or not they are still my brethren. Can't do it. Even the ones who say our relationship was not real because it was based on twi. Still brethren though they disavow (oxymoron). I don't apologize but I did learn some stuff from twi. But that is personal to me. Still learn to this day from others. Gotta seperate the wheat from the chafe...I read and listen to this and that. Glean.....glean.....glean.....no one "ministry" or "organization" has the all and everything. Christ, Being the Head, is not limited. I am still learning that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
That's what the ultra-dispensational doctrine of TWI taught, but does the Bible really say that? Where are the Scriptures that say that the promises for the Body of Christ are different from those for Israel?
On the contrary, Paul said that he preached the same hope of Israel.
The message first preached to Abraham is the same message Paul wrote about in his epistles, with the extra revelation that Gentiles could also partake of the promises God made to Israel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I am eschatologically too clueless to get into much of an argument about this, but Meredith Kline maintains the New Jerusalem is the glorified church rather than a physical city, and is “imagery of the first level kingdom-city” that is utilized to portray the “glorified church.”
From Kline’s Kingdom Prologue:
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Bride, I pretty much agree with everything you say.
Paul did preach to Jew and Gentile. But, it was Paul, and Paul alone, who received the revelation of the "mystery" from the risen Christ. Israel had the living earthy Messiah. Paul dealt with the Heavenly, risen Christ. Paul received this revelation when he was in prison. The prison epistles (which include Timothy) reveal the "mystery" - the new creation, and one body - his body.
But, you also have his other epistles, where he's seeing it, preaching what he knows to both Jew and Gentile (again, in II Cor. He tells them they will have a new celestial body), Romans was his foundation and it was built on, kind of preparing the Jews to accept the one body with the Gentiles, which he does in Galations, Hebrews and the non-prison epistles. Then you see the apex of the mystery revealed to him in Ephesians while imprisoned.
He talks about "my gospel." this was different from the gospel the apostles were preaching (the kingdom is at hand - repent). Because of "my gospel" he had to go to Jerusalem and explain it to the Apostles. There they gave him the right hand of fellowship and decided: they would continue to go to the jews, Paul to the gentiles. That is why Peter said, some of his teachings were hard to understand.
In the NT, you see Paul's understanding grow. Because of the "abundance of revelation" to Paul, there was a thorn in the flesh.
When we read the parables and prophecy given by Jesus in the Gospels, most were talking about the Kingdom, like the 10 virgins with oil. Since this age of grace, the age of this mystery was still a secret and not yet revealed, and since Jesus was sent to Israel, and was expounding to his Apostles, those are all to Israel. I believe the Jesus was talking about the end times when he returns from heaven and restores the Nation of Israel. There will be some who let their oil run out, when he returns it will be too late.
Yes, when Paul quotes the OT, there's plenty written to Israel to the descendents of Abraham. Those prophecies are fullfiled in Rev. when the Gentiles believe the preaching of the 144,000, and are martryred - the gentile "tribulation" saints. They enter into the Kingdom when it comes along with Israel, thus, are all nations blessed.
I see the Bible as prophecy which is all to and for Israel. But the NT - mystery, the new creation, jew and gentile one new body - is a parenthesis sandwiched in there. It doesn't take up much space. Then, the church is gathered, the holy spirit reverts back to working like it did in the OT - upon, not in. The church and Holy Spirit gone, the parenthesis is now ended and God picks up dealing with Jew and Gentile and the OT prophecies of the "end of days", Daniel, Ezekial, Isaiah, etc., Jesus telling Israel the signs to come, are now finalized and culminated in Revelation.
The NT believer is never told to look for times, seasons, moons, planets, blood red sun, abomination in the temple, etc. Those are end times for Israel. Israel will know, during the tribulation, when the Messiah will come, almost to the day.
Those of us in this parenthesis of the NT, the one body, are not told to look for signs. We are to look for Christ and his return. That's it. We look for him. His coming for us is different than his coming for Israel at the end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Israel had the risen Christ too, after he arose. The revelation that Paul received added to, but did not change, the original message that Jesus preached.
This is a common misconception among dispensationalists. There is no indication from the Bible that Paul's gospel was different from that which Jesus and the other apostles preached. The twelve were sent to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 10:7) and later the seventy were sent with the same mission (Luke 10:1,9). After his resurrection, Jesus continued to speak concerning the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:1-3). Philip went to Samaria preaching the Kingdom of God (Acts 8:12). Paul preached the Kingdom of God as well (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25). The book of Acts ends with Paul continuing to preach the kingdom of God (Acts 28:30,31). There is nothing to indicate that there was a change in the gospel message that the followers of Jesus were to preach.
It has been said that the gospel that Paul preached was not the same gospel that Jesus preached. We were taught that Paul's gospel was different, because Jesus spoke of the kingdom, but Paul preached "the gospel of grace."
However, the very next verse defines what the gospel of grace is.
And in verse 27 he equates that Gospel of the Kingdom of God with the whole purpose, or counsel, of God.
This is one of the great dangers of dispensationalism - it separates Jesus from his words. If the teachings of Jesus Christ were only addressed to his Israelite followers at the time, and would shortly be replaced by a whole new administration with a whole new plan, why were his words so carefully and diligently preserved in the four Gospels, which were written after the epistles and the revelation of the Mystery? Furthermore, if his words were to be replaced by a new revelation and become obsolete, why would he have made the following statement?
If the holy spirit would bring to remembrance whatsoever Jesus had said, surely his words are important to the Christian Church, and not just to Israel. Contrary to what many dispensationalists teach, the New Testament tells us that it is the words of Jesus Christ, as much as his deeds, which are to be the focus of Christianity. His words are the key to eternal life (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 3:34; John 6:63; John 12:47-48; John 14:23; John 15:7; I Timothy 6:3-4). He preached the gospel of the Kingdom and declared that it would continue to be preached until he returns (Matt. 24:14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.") In Matt. 28:20, he commission his disciples to make disciples of all nations, "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." The gospel which Jesus preached is not "held in abeyance" as we were taught. The same gospel is to be preached till his return.
The details Paul adds to the Gospel message do not change it, but add to it. It adds the idea of Gentiles partaking of the same Kingdom promises that were made to Israel, and being grafted onto the same tree of faith that Israel was on. There is therefore no separation between Jews and Gentiles as there had been. All may receive the promises originally made to Abraham.
The old distinction in TWI between "spirit in" and "spirit upon" is not Biblical. Joseph was called "a man in whom the spirit of God is" in Genesis 41:38, and Joshua was called that in Numbers 27:18. God's ministers were said to be filled with God's spirit in Exodus 28:3; 31:3; and 35:31. Isaiah 63:11 reads, "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" On the other hand, the outpouring of the holy spirit on Pentecost was associated with God's promise to "pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). And Peter specifically states in I Peter 4:14 that, "the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." There is no such distinction between "spirit in" and "spirit upon" in the Bible. They are interchangeable.
There is nothing in the NT that indicates that his coming for us is different from his coming for Israel. The dead in Christ shall rise (Jew and Gentile) and we who are alive shall be caught up to meet him. This is called the day of the Lord in I Thess. 5:2, and happens at the last trumpet, according to I Thess. 4:16 (cp. Matt. 24:31; I Cor. 15:52; Rev. 10:7; 11:15). The whole idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is not found in the Bible. The signs in the heavens, the gathering of his elect, the sound of the last trumpet, and the appearing of the Lord, all happen after the tribulation, according to Matt. 24:29-31.
We are told to look for Christ's return, and the signs leading up to it are part of looking for it. Matthew 24 fits with all the references to the return in the epistles, when we don't approach them with preconceived dispensational views.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Mark, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. All the prophecies from the OT and gospels are for those who shall enter the Kingdom - the millenium - Israel, with the Gentiles partaking in the blessings of Israel also. As prophesised in the OT, 10 gentiles will hold the hem of a jewish person and say, let us go up with you, we have heard God is with you. This will come to pass. They will be grafted into the blessings for Israel. Christ came to Israel announcing the Kingdom at hand.
Christ gave the 12 apostles their great comissioning - to Israel. that's why Peter continually told Israel to "repent." Christ was alive, you, Israel killed him, but he was alive, they were witnesses, and he would come back if they repented. In order for Christ to return for Israel - ALL of Israel must repent. But, that did not happen.
The Church, the one body, are not told that we all must repent in order for Christ to gather us.
I agree, Paul in Acts 20 was preaching the "Kingdom." He had not yet received the full Revelation of the mystery at that point.
It is at the end of Acts, where he repeats the words of the prophet Jermiah - Isaiah (I don't have my Bible with my now), for the 3rd time, realizing Israel would not now repent, so thus, the Kingdom is not coming - and thus, in Acts 28 he says I now go to the Gentiles. Once the temple was torn down in 70 ad, the Kingdom was in abeyance.
The age of Grace is now ushered in.
Of course there were OT prophecies fulfilled in Christ, and Christ spoke of them to come. Paul does not dispute that, neither do I.
Remember when Christ sat in the temple, opened the scroll and preached and taught the verse in Isaiah then stopped. The second part, when he judges jew and gentile, when he comes back in glory is fulfilled in Revelation, NOT in this age of grace, this unprophesied age that was never written of in the OT nor foretold in the prophecies.
We were never mentioned - ever in the OT. The OT prophecies and Christ's prophecies of the end times, which were meant for Isreal, cannot be appropriated by the church.
They were not spoken to the Church. Our present age was never, ever prophesised in the OT or gospels. It was kept secret from before the foundation of the world.
If our age was not known, nor prophesised about, how can one the Church of today apply the prophecies to Israel to themselves? You cannot. And Paul did not.
We are one body. We will have a "celestial" body - not an earthly, eternal body that Israel will have. Our inheritence is in heaven, not on earth. We are never promised land or a city Jerusalem. We are a new creation. We fill up Christ's body. We are his body now and in eternity.
It is the Bride that looks for a new city, Jerusalemand dwells therein.
It is the Body, that is God's inheritence in the Heavenlies and dwells therein.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Thank you all for your thoughtful and courteous posts on this thread. There are clearly quite a number of different views and it is interesting how thinking has diverged from TWI teachings.
Like so many things: we know in part. Whatever we believe - what is already decreed will come to pass faultlessly, whether we are Bride or Body - or even something else - regardless of what we believe.
Sunesis, this can't be right, surely. Is not the Lamb looking for the city, as it is to be his bride? No references to brides seeking cities, that I can recall.
Logic says that if the Bride and the Body are united and become one flesh (loads of Bible verses on that) then presumably the Bride and the Body will be together. Not one on the earth and one in the heavenlies?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Sunesis,
With all due respect, I notice your post has no Scripture references. I am familiar with all of your arguments, as I embraced them at one time myself. But upon really looking into it I found there was really no Scriptural foundation to the idea that the Church represents a new plan of salvation and that the Kingdom Gospel which Jesus preached is held in abeyance for now. Jesus said the Gospel of the Kingdom would be preached throughout all the world and then the end would come (Matt. 24:14).
A couple of comments/questions:
"10 gentiles will hold the hem of a jewish person and say, let us go up with you, we have heard God is with you" - Where is the reference to this and what is the context?
"They will be grafted into the blessings for Israel" - The reference to Gentiles being "grafted in" is from Romans 9 - 11, which is not limited to future blessings, but speaks of their relationship and identity both now and in the future.
"Christ came to Israel announcing the Kingdom at hand" - Where is the instruction that his disciples were no longer to preach the Kingdom?
"Christ gave the 12 apostles their great comissioning - to Israel." - It doesn't say to Israel; it says "to all nations" (Matt. 28:19) and they were to teach "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" which includes the message of the Kingdom.
"...that's why Peter continually told Israel to 'repent.'" - Paul declared to the men of Athens in Acts 17:30-31, "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." This coming day of judgment is a big part of the Kingdom Gospel.
"In order for Christ to return for Israel - ALL of Israel must repent. But, that did not happen." - There is no Scripture that says this. As the above verse (as well as many others) shows, Christ's return does not depend on their repentance. He is going to return when the time is right, but whether they enter the Kingdom at that time depends on their repentance, and that is true for Jews and Gentiles alike.
"The Church, the one body, are not told that we all must repent in order for Christ to gather us." - The Church is not told to repent, because to be in the church, one must have already repented. And no one is told to repent in order for Christ to return.
"...thus, in Acts 28 he says I now go to the Gentiles. Once the temple was torn down in 70 ad, the Kingdom was in abeyance." - Actually, "I go now to the Gentiles" is from Acts 18, when the Jews in Corinth rejected Christ. As was his manner, he went to the Jews first in each city, and when they didn't listen he went to the Gentiles. This has nothing to do with changing to a different message.
In Acts 28, Paul is still preaching the Kingdom of God (vs. 23 & 31). There is no Scripture anywhere that says it would be held in abeyance and replaced by another gospel. In fact, not only did Jesus say the Gospel would be preached until the end came, but Paul warned the Corinthians and the Galatians not to follow after any other gospel (II Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6). On what authority, then, can we say that it was held in abeyance after 70AD?
"The age of Grace is now ushered in." - You may also be surprised to know that there is no such phrase, "age of grace" in the Bible. God's grace permeates all ages. The Kingdom of God, a coming reign of the Messiah on a renewed earth in perfect righteousness, was prophesied throughout the whole OT. And there were even references to the Gentiles being blessed in some way. But what was not known was that they would be fellow heirs and of the same body. That was the mystery. It was not that there was some better plan separate from the Kingdom of God on earth, reserved for the Church.
"We are one body. We will have a "celestial" body - not an earthly, eternal body that Israel will have. Our inheritence is in heaven, not on earth. We are never promised land or a city Jerusalem." - There is no Scripture that says this. The reference to "celestial" bodies is in I Cor. 15 and is talking about the source and origin of the bodies, not that they will be some kind of non-corporeal body. And no where in the Bible is heaven the destination of believers, nor is the hope of Israel an "earthly, eternal body." There is no such thing. The point of an "earthly" body, according to I Cor. 15, is that it is not eternal; it dies, in contrast to the heavenly one which does not. We have the same hope as Israel had, resurrection with new bodies in God's Kingdom on a renewed earth.
"It is the Bride that looks for a new city, Jerusalem and dwells therein. It is the Body, that is God's inheritence in the Heavenlies and dwells therein." - Once again, can you quote Scriptures that say this? The church being "seated in the heavenlies" (Eph. 2:6) is not referring to our permanent dwelling place, but rather our identification with Christ.
I understand where you are coming from, since I held these same opinions for many years. I could quote all the same arguments and it all seemed to make sense. But when I began trying to back up my views from the Scripture, I realized I couldn't. In order to avoid being deceived, we must always weigh our views and beliefs from the Scriptures. I exhort you to at least consider what I am saying, and weigh both views against the Scriptures. I think you'll be surprised.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
Revelation 21 does not say that the bride will live IN the city.
It says that the bride IS the city:
"(the angel said) "come, I will show you the Bride, the Wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away.... and showed me the Holy City" (21:9)
It does not say, "he showed me the wife IN the city," but rather, ""I will show you the bride... he showed me the holy city." The bride and city are the same beings - those who believe in Jesus Christ.
The account further emphasizes that the city is people by saying that the gates had the names of the tribes of Israel and the foundations were the 12 apostles. It does not say that the tribes walked in the gates nor that the apostles built the foundations, but rather that they ARE those things. In other words, the city and the bride are the people of God of all eras- Jew and Gentile.
The image of a city is also used of God's people in Matthew 5:14-16- on a hill just as the city in Rev 21 is.
This is much like Ephesians, in which believers are descirbed as the bride/wife (5:22-33) AND as the building (2:19-22) We don't have trouble understanding that the bnuilding in Eph 2 is the people of God, nor should we have trouble understanding that the city in Rev. 21 is the people of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Hm.
I think I just added another important piece to my understanding of the post-Apocalypse timeframe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Dr. Juedes,
Good post!
You have biblically supported your view quite well. Your view, in part at least, seems the same as Kline’s.
My tentative opinion is that Kline is pretty good on stuff like this, though he possibly goes over the edge at times (e.g. his “framework hypothesis” concerning the Genesis creation account).
Interestingly, Kline also maintains (perhaps somewhat speculatively, though I tend to think he is correct) that the spatial separation between Heaven and Earth will be done away with “at the dawning of the eternal Sabbath for humanity,” by which I assume he is referring to the eschatological establishment of the fully realized kingdom of God on Earth.
I agree that there are one people of God and one eschatological collective identity and destiny for that people.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Well, I'm not dispensationalist by far. I categorically believe that there isn't any separation between the Gospels and the church age. This was TWI doctrine and also to be found in the Scofield Bible, which I won't even buy a copy of because of their doctrinal notes. If there is a "parenthetical clause" that we are living in, well....parenthetical clauses and/or sentences can be easily removed from the whole and you would still have the context of the whole, with or without. I refuse to be pidgeonholed into a parentheses
Plus, then why do we preach the Lord Jesus and His death and resurrection, if He only came to the Jews? Then He cannot be our Messiah if we separate such things. Dangerous indeed. For if He isn't my Messiah, then I'm not saved and neither are you, nor anyone else.
The Gospel that Paul was teaching was indeed the mystery that had been made clear to him that the Gentiles would also be included. However, this was also known in the OT, they knew that the Gentiles would see a great light, etc. However, they probably didn't forsee that the Gentiles would have the exact same calling as the Jews, but most likely thought that there would still be a difference between the two, with the Jews being closer to God. This is why they had a court of the Gentiles that was separate from the Jewish court.
The 12 apostles also saw the risen Christ and they watched as He ascended up into heaven and the Lord Jesus told the 12 apostles that He would be with them until the end. I see no difference at all. If you also recall, Paul made it very clear that the Gentiles were grafted into the natural olive tree. Furthermore, (truly scary) God could CUT US OUT if we didn't remain with Him. This is another reason that I do not believe in eternal security per se.
What scripture do you use to support that the Holy Spirit will revert back to "on and not "in", if there is one, could you please refresh my memory?
The parable of the 10 virgins is for us too, Sunesis. Oil is symbolic for the Holy Spirit. The aspect of it running out is because the believer's love grows cold and they cease to be close to the giver of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus is coming for those who believe on Him. For those that lived and died before His earthly ministry, they will be blessed with eternal life because they looked forward to His coming and so remained faithful. Those that remain faithful after His earthly ministry will receive eternal life based on their belief that He died and rose for them and His blood cleansed them of all of their iniquities, transgressions and sins.
I know you are pretty knowledgeable of the Scriptures, but I would also encourage you to look beyond the dispensationalist views, there's far more wealth of wisdom in the entire Christian story, rather than being satisfied with a parentheses.
Blessings!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Sunesis, Bride, Dr Juedes and others are having a very interesting well informed conversation--thanks Twinky--I am bumping this up because it is getting lost in the maze of all those other topics dominating the doctrinal forum.
Bump-Bump-Bump!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Thanks, Geisha.
It is an interesting discussion with a lot to think about and a lot of side issues being raised in the posts. Thank you all who are posting, for keeping to the main point. There are many others who are following this discussion who are not necessarily posting, but it is clearly food for thought.
I think I am prepared to take on board that whether Bride or Body, it is just another figure of speech to represent a type of relationship. Like sonship. BoJC's idea of the Bride being taken out of the Body is a new concept.
As to a current thought posted above that we might be "cut off" or "no eternal security", I can't quite see that alongside this thread. A Body doesn't usually cut bits of itself off unless horribly diseased or mutilated such that the rest of the body would be at mortal risk (gangrene, for example). Cutting off someone does not fit either with the concept of a Bride becoming one with the Body: for a husband is to love and cherish his wife in sickness and in health. In the OT even a wife who whored around and was a horrendous disgrace was still loved and her husband went after her to bring her back into his household (Hosea).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
It is a thought from Romans, Twinky. I didn't write it, but the HS through His revelation to Paul as he penned it. Scary isn't it? It won't be the body that cuts bits and pieces off of itself, but the judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ...it will be God who cuts out the pieces. Perhaps this will be how the body will finally be mature. I have often wondered how the body of Christ would ever be fully mature with so many so-called Christians content to remain sucking on bottles rather than craving the meat of the HS.
So it is most definitely a thought for prayer and meditation with the Lord Jesus Christ leading us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
It isn't surprising those who have difficulty accepting the permanence of salvation are likewise oblivious to the different biblical administrations. Afterall, what can one say about salvation? It is the greatest thing God has ever done to give man everlasting life and for you as a Christian to say, "I am going to live forever!" What an amazing thing, what a great truth! What a blessing it is to know that - and for you to know that from God's Word. Surely none of us deserve everlasting life, and yet that is the gift God says He has given to us and that He has promised to us in His Word.
The first thing one has to have is an administrational point of view to make the scriptures "fit together" and to make the scriptures work properly. It is unfortunate that to so many the bible is just a confusing book, it's full of contradictions and perplexities. God didn't write the bible with the attitude of - Hah - they'll never figure that one out! It says in Timothy that God wants us to come to a knowledge of the truth. Actually it says He wants us to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:4)
Now if one is going to do that, then it is important that one studies the scriptures, and in order for the scriptures to make sense then we have to get some postulates correct first. You have to get some axioms correct - some fundamental beliefs about the bible we need to have correct in order for the bible to make any sense. One of the things you have to get correct is that the way God (and God is God and He can do things the way He wants to) but the way that God relates to man has been through a series of administrations.
Now this is very important to understand what an administration actually is. An administration (or a dispensation if you want to call it that) is not just a time period in the bible. What an administration is, is an administring of God's rules or regulations or His justice, and because when God starts administrating and stops adminstrating - as there is a point where He starts and a point where He stops, then an adminstration occurs within a period of time. Although technically speaking an administration is NOT a set period of time, an administration is a way of God's serving, a way of God's ruling if you will, an administration is a way of God's doing this. But because it occurs within a period of time, then for us to look at it and examine it closely it is much easier for us to look at it as a starting point and a stopping point, so we have multiple different periods of time in the bible.
This becomes very, very important when we are talking about the subject of salvation and that we understand administrations in this way. When we talk about salvation within these administrations, then we see there are differences. Now in any one of these biblical administrations - anyone could be saved. But in the old Testament and the gospels, a person was only saved by being faithful to God throughout their life. However in the grace administration (which was a secret and hidden from the other administrations) God did something entirely brand new. In the grace administration, God made salvation a one time, permanent experience. He also let us know that because in the grace administration God calls our salvation "birth", and God doesn't call salvation "birth" in the old Testament or in any other administration.
Right now as we stand here as Christians our salvation is permanent. It is based on a one time experience of "birth" from God (one can't get reborn twice from God or any more times from God) and it is born into us just like our natural birth - only this time it is of incorruptible seed rather than corruptible. In fact (which is the truth) it is more permanent than your natural birth because your natural birth is corruptible seed and at some point in time that seed is going to die!! This incorruptible seed from God however will NEVER DIE, and that is why it is permanent and why our salvation in this administration of grace is likewise permanent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.