Blog or Article?
Blogs often focus on personal opinion, experiences, views, anecdotes or advice. Blogs tend to have a relaxed and conversational feel, such as in storytelling and are generally 300-500 words.
Articles aim to deliver well-researched, informative content with solid evidence to back up the points made. Articles are usually more formal, organized and frequently range 500-1000 words.
Comments
Not in traditions, for traditions are the chains by which man is enslaved.
Not in institutions or denominations, for they are not seated at the right hand of God.
Not by man, for all his glory is as grass, and with the touch of the sun he doth fade.
But in a walk under the shadow of his grace, showing forth for all to see
The promise of the Father
The same spirit that was in Peter, in you,
The same spirit that was in Paul, in me
All one in Christ, all showing the same victory
No worries, this will be my last post to you also, we are not going to agree for sure so there is no point in continuing, I believe it's the right thing to do. I think perhaps face to face we may have a more pleasant fellowship and exchange of ideas. It is very hard in a forum to say all that you want to say and especially so after having committed something to writing which perhaps could have been communicated much clearer in a face to face discussion.
I will not take you to task on your points because as you have already discovered my short version would not be very short and the tone of the forum has made it very difficult to discuss objectively, but I just want you to know that I have considered 1 Corinthians and the references to the one body there as well as Galatians, many times. These scriptures have not escaped my notice, but careful examination of them will reveal differences with the one body of Ephesians. As does the mystery of Romans 16:25 referring to not "some other mystery", but the one found Romans 11:25, which was since the world began (a period of time always associated with Israel and the kingdom), whereas in Ephesians we are talking about "before the foundation of the world".
In Phillipians 1:10, we are exhorted to "approve things that are excellent," the margin reads, "try the things that differ". A close look at the differences between some of these things speaks volumes.
God bless also
Cheers
Karl
God bless you.
You have criticized me repeatedly for not being nice enough with my only previous comment, and yet you admit that you intended a portion of your post to be a jab. You meant it to be insulting, and I said that it was. If you do not want tough criticism, then I suggest that you not post confrontational and even mocking (“…and the fact that they have never managed to heal even a headache never seems to deter them”) material. It wasn’t necessary. You are accusing me of starting a fight by hitting you back.
I commended Emil “for his effort,” not for everything about him. I don’t know Emil. You wrongly divided God’s Word on what you posted, and I was glad to see someone say so. Could he have been nicer about it? Yes, of course. He didn’t need to say you are ignorant. Then again, you didn’t need to call other believers delusional. You set the tone.
I read all the way through your comments. Glad you gave us the short version. :-) I don’t want to be in a fight so this will be relatively short, and it will be my last post on this topic. You will say whatever you want to later, but I am not going to continue a back and forth. You have the last word.
(1) Dismissing Romans 16:25 by saying it must be talking about some other mystery that was kept secret since the world began is really quite the stretch.
(2) You asserted that during the Acts period, the Christian Jews were in a superior position, and the Christian Gentiles were in a secondary position. They could get saved, but needed to recognize their place. You also asserted (and rightfully so) that Galatians was written during the Acts period. Galatians 3:28 & 29 doesn’t leave room for all these assertions to be true.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(3) You said “…there was no difference between the Jew and the gentile concerning salvation, but the Jew was still first.” I agree that there is (was) no difference between the Jew and Gentile concerning salvation. Also, the gospel of Christ was, as per Romans 1:16, to the Jew first and to the Gentiles. It was Israelites who were present on the day of Pentecost. They got first shot at accepting the word of Christ and being saved. Paul commonly (though not always) went into the synogogues first before addressing the Gentiles. This does not, however, show that the Jews had greater status than the Gentiles after being saved (or for that matter, even before. Romans shows that both were in the same boat).
Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference [no difference between Jew and gentile]:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
(4) It is your position that the manifestation of the spirit referenced in Corinthians was evidenced during the Acts period, but the one body was not yet a reality. The one body first came into being after Acts and at that time the manifestation of the spirit was no more (right?). Yet, it is in the context of the discussion concerning the manifestation of the spirit that Corinthians (written during the Acts period) asserts, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles….”
1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 13 is clear about when the manifestation of the spirit will cease. “When that which is perfect is come” can only be referring to the time of the return of Jesus Christ. Only then will we see face to face and know even as we are known.
1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then [when that which is perfect is come] face to face: now I know in part; but then [when that which is perfect is come] shall I know even as also I am known.
Karl, I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you. But do I think you are dead wrong? Of course I do. I have quoted some very clear scriptures here. There are others. And on a practical level, for anyone who believes the manifestation of the spirit is a thing of the past, Sangat Bains’ website, “Power Filled Ministering,” (www.powerfilledministering.com) should make for some perplexing reading.
Bless,
Ken
As far as Pentecost being part of the Old Testament, that is correct, but do you mean, old Testament law under Moses. There's one of the great rub points of peoples doctrinal beliefs. Both passover and Pentecost belong to the time of the patriarch, and this cannot be considered, as exclusive in nature to the Gentile, or those of the Nations.
Hebrews 11 says By Faith Moses kept the passover. Law would not be given until Pentecost (on Mount) that years. Point is, that neither the passover nor Pentecost is and was only to Israel
Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and I will curse them that curse thee: and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed.
Significant, to Abraham, singular in importance is the bread and the wind. Brought forth in Genesis 14:18, and this disappears from scripture until the night the Lord is betrayed. The law does not cover it, record, nor demand allegiance to it, yet there it is, as if it appears from nowhere. And it has to be the conclusion to, and achievement of Psalm 110. The LORD said to my Lord.
As the prince of this world, gained authority, from the outright rebellion of Adam, and stood accuser most notably mentioned in the book of Job, so it was the death burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The number of references to the right hand of God, are far too many to list, suffice it to say, that from the resurrection on, something new, as sons of God by birth became available.
There is not a whit, or hint to suggest a change in Acts 28:28, as nothing in ability is added too, nor changed or limited. Quite frankly, the Acts 28:28 theory makes the best sense for those who do not manifest power from on high. It gives them the pigeon hole they seek, much like Israel had consistently sought righteousness by the works of the law, and the result was they stumbled at the stumbling stone. It was and always has been about the coming one who was to bear the sin for the whole world, the one who was born of the seed of the woman.
Ken Petty, a Corps grad has done some excellent work on the subject of the Lord Jesus Christ, in his work about our Identification, and some spectacular conclusions in his work on the Epistle of Romans. Walter Cummings in his Scripture Consulting has set forth some great insight as to the date and writing of the later Epistles. I for one think, that in no recovered manuscript, the seven church Epistle's ever appearing in any other order, speaks loudly to a pre-Acts 28:28 date.
Added to that, we have Acts 10, and Acts 11, first called Christians (Christ in). Then we have the whole of the Jerusalem counsel. We have the address of the book of Romans which is FOR THE OBEDIANCE TO THE FAITH AMONG ALL NATIONS, FOR HIS NAME. And of course I Thessalonians which emphatically states that to stay on the Jew, Gentile course was to stay on course with the wrath of God IThess 2:16
In conclusion. Jesus Christ had stated their house was already desolate before his death. That any prescription sought from Passover or Pentecost as being only to Israel is not true. That the mention of the bread and wine in Genesis 14 is one of the great hidden realities of the new birth, for all nations. And Paul from his earliest writings to his latest, exhibit the great hallmark of the new testament, whether its understood in the terms behold I send the promise of my Father, or breathe you in the holy spirit,, or you shall be endued with power from on high, or you shall be witnesses, or what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the law, but after the Spirit.
The middle wall of partition was broken down, when?
Ken,
Now dealing with your scriptural analysis of my post in which I hope to get you to reconsider your view, because as Michael quite rightly that is the point of debating on any kind of forum. :-)
You began…
Quote:
“Let me see if I’ve got this straight. The mystery was neither known nor in place until Paul wrote the book of Ephesians. That is when God first revealed it to him, and it first took effect, and the book was not written until after the time of the book of Acts.”
No not quite straight, close though, but I hope to straighten it a bit more for you.
I have summarised you post into the following points, please correct me if I get it wrong or am missing your point.
1. The dating of Ephesians is ambiguous
2. The mystery was revealed to Paul prior to Ephesians because, Paul was made a minister of the mystery sometime before penning it and the administration of grace was already in existence and the mystery was revealed in Romans 16
3. Paul preached a gospel that was according to the mystery during the Acts period.
4. Righteousness does not come by the law
With this position you maintain that because the mystery was known before Ephesians was actually penned, it was known all through the book of Acts and therefore because the mystery was known since the day of Pentecost the one body was known and you and I are members of that same one body so therefore there is no difference between the believers during the book of Acts and us, consequently we are able (or should be able) to do the same works they did during the book of Acts.
Is this a fair conclusion?
Now before I begin, I think it is necessary to establish a premise concerning the mystery. I must admit that I had forgotten the definition of the mystery that I learned in the Way until I came to this site and heard people talking about “Christ in You” as being the mystery. Which, of course, it is not, yes, it is the riches of the glory of the mystery, but it is not the mystery. The mystery which was revealed to Paul is Ephesians 3:6 is:
“That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel”
This is indisputable and if we are to disagree on this point then there is no point in continuing any kind of discussion regarding the mystery.
Point No. 1 The dating of Ephesians is ambiguous
I agree, and yes scholars do disagree also, but scholars disagree on everything, the majority view is that it was written from his house imprisonment in Rome in the two years between Acts 28:28 and 28:31, however when it was written is not as important in its dating as its content.
Point No. 2 The mystery was revealed to Paul prior to the writing of Ephesians because, Paul was made a minister of the mystery sometime before penning it and the administration of grace was already in existence, plus Romans which is an Acts period epistle in 16:25 tells us that the mystery was revealed.
Again, I agree with some of what you said, I am not saying that it was not known until the actual quill hit the scroll, I am saying it was not known until after Acts 28:28, this makes room for much of what you said concerning the “right now at this moment.” Yes the administration of grace was in existence but the addition of the mystery was new information that changed God’s relationship with Israel.
Also, I will go on record as saying that I do not believe the mystery mentioned in Romans 16:25 is the same mystery as Ephesians 3:6.
Point No. 3 Paul preached a gospel that was according to the mystery during the Acts period.
I think this is really where we disagree, you believe that the mystery was known and in operation throughout the book of Acts, I believe it wasn’t, so it comes down to when the mystery of Ephesians 3:6 was revealed, I say after Acts 28:28, you say Acts 2, if I am right then it changes many things about what you believe, if I am wrong then I am wrong and I need to reassess.
Point No. 4 Righteousness does not come by the law
Again to this I agree, because I did not say what you are implying I said, i.e. that righteousness came by the law. I said they were still under the law and there is ample evidence of this in the Acts.
My Framework
I will attempt to lay out my “Biblical Research” below and take some of the points above into further consideration, so that you will be able to understand my position a little better before shooting it down so thoughtlessly. Of course there is never ample room in forum like this to get too technical and I’m sure you don’t want to read 10 or 12 pages so I will try to be as concise as possible.
Consider the creationist and the evolutionist, both are looking at the same set of data, but they both interpret them according to their worldview or framework of their belief system, in many ways it is similar with Christians, the evidence is exactly the same but the interpretation is according to an accepted view and anything that goes outside the accepted view is suspect. Even the act of considering another view is handled according to the accepted worldview. For instance Jehovah’s Witnesses are not even allowed to read unapproved material. I suppose I have the advantage because I am more familiar with your worldview than you are with mine, but I am asking you to step outside of your boundaries and consider some things from a different viewpoint.
Most Christians begin their Christian journey in the Gospels, seeing themselves as the subject of Christ’s teachings while others see themselves everywhere in the pages of the Old Testament, considering themselves no different from Gods special people whom He had specifically chosen. These are the two most common perceptions of whom the Bible is addressed to, this we both know and I’m sure we agree on it.
Going further, most Pentecostal based churches see the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 as the beginning of Gods dealing with all people as “the church which is His body”, apart from Israel, while others see Cornelius in Acts 10 as the beginning of gentile inclusion. Yet still some others think that Acts 13:46, 47 was the turning point when Paul, who was the minister to the gentiles turned to the gentiles and even still others consider Acts 28:28 as the dispensational boundary, which category of course I am in. All views have their arguments; all views have some good points that will give proponents of the other views a run for their money, but in my opinion none of these views are 100% watertight, the glass is still dark.
What I believe now may change with the addition on new information but at present the Acts 28:28 view makes the most sense to me. And a quick overview of why I see it that way begins with God and Abraham. God made three unconditional covenants in the Old Testament, one with Noah concerning the earth, one with Abraham concerning the land and one with David concerning the throne. The covenant made with Noah was not for Noah’s benefit only, but for all of his descendants and every living creature that was with him on the earth, that includes you and me. However Abraham's covenant was quite specifically for his descendants only. The promise was reiterated to Isaac (Genesis 26:3-6), eliminating Ishmael from the line and again to Jacob (Gen 28:14, 15), eliminating Esau, narrowing the lineage to Jacobs offspring, i.e. the twelve tribes of Israel. I think we would agree that at this point the lineage of Jacob does not include either you or me. The third unconditional covenant was with David, a direct descendant and therefore also a recipient of the covenant made with Abraham.
1Ch 17:11-14 And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.
Although there are obvious implications in this prophecy regarding Solomon, the one whose throne will be established forever is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jer 33:20, 21 "Thus says the LORD: 'If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne...
Psalms 89:35 - 37 Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David: His seed shall endure forever, And his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, Even like the faithful witness in the sky."
God declares that His covenant with David concerning the throne is as sure as His covenant with day and night and the sun and the moon. The kingdom and the kingly line of David will be established culminating in the everlasting kingdom under the kingship of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the unconditional nature of these covenants and an understanding of the people to whom these covenants concern that provides the key to understanding what was happening on the day of Pentecost. Pentecost did not happen in a vaacum.
Ezekiel writing of the time when God will eventually bring Israel into the land that was promised to them in preparation for the kingdom highlights the pouring out of the spirit that will take place.
Ezek 36:24-28 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.
The spirit within them will enable them to keep the law causing them to walk in Gods statutes, something they were never able to do themselves under the conditional Mosaic covenant, which was given in Exodus.
Exod 19:5, 6 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation...
There was an “if” then and they failed to keep the statues, but after the spirit is poured out on them they shall have a new “heart” and new spirit, which will enable them to keep the law and they will be a holy nation and a kingdom of priests, dwelling in the land God gave to their fathers. Isaiah also speaks about this time.
Isa 44:3-5 …I will pour My Spirit on your descendants, And My blessing on your offspring; … One will say, 'I am the LORD's'; Another will call himself by the name of Jacob; Another will write with his hand, 'The LORD's,' And name himself by the name of Israel.
And if there is any doubt as to whose descendants verse three is referring to, Verse one clearly tells us that it is Jacob's descendants, the nation of Israel. Joel chapter two, referenced by Peter on the day of Pentecost shows some of the signs that will be evident amongst Jacob’s descendants when the spirit is poured out on them.
Joel 2:28,29 And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
The book of Joel is clearly written to the nation of Israel and concerns the day of the Lord and the restoration to come, the pouring out of the spirit is for them at the time when the kingdom will be established, to put us into these verses makes no sense in the context of all of the Old Testament prophecies regarding the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Christ’s earthly ministry was focused solely on Israel, He was their minister and He witnessed to them with signs and wonders to confirm the covenants made with their fathers, i.e. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.
He preached repentance in preparation for the promised kingdom to Israel only and healed them only to prepare them for their role as a kingdom of priests and the channel of blessing to the rest of the nations. Thousands of people were healed; instantaneous, evidential miracles were taking place on a day by day basis among them, a taste of the age to come. In fact there are only two incidents in the gospels where the Lord healed non-Jews, the Roman centurion’s servant in Luke 7 and the Canaanite woman in Matt 15, where the Lord described the healing as “the children’s bread”, they were meant only for those who would be a member of the kingdom of priests and a blemished priest could not carry out all the priestly duties (Lev. 21:21). The King was here, the kingdom was coming and the power of the kingdom was in evidence.
While sending out disciples we can clearly see that Israel was the Lord’s primary concern.
Matt 10:5- 8 Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.
The instruction was to go only to Jews, at this point only they were required to repent and only they were to receive healing. Although these signs were unprecedented, they were not unexpected. The Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah foretold such things and those who knew the scriptures expected the Messiah to do such things. While John the Baptist was in prison, he sent two of his disciples to ask the Lord if he was the Christ (Luke 7:18-22). John, the fore runner had first declared that the kingdom of heaven was at hand; perhaps he was a little anxious because he might have expected by now to be in the Kings kingdom and not in a king’s dungeon. When John’s disciples asked the question to the Lord His answer was to have them witness signs and miracles and then to report back to John that “the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them”. John would have immediately recognised Isaiah 35 amongst other scriptures.
Isa 35:3-6 Strengthen the weak hands, And make firm the feeble knees. Say to those who are fearful-hearted, "Be strong, do not fear! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God; He will come and save you." Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb sing...
The signs were enough for John to recognise that the King was here and the kingdom, for which he was born to declare, was at hand. The signs were enough to authenticate Jesus as the Christ the Messiah the one who had come to save them. The signs fulfilled the scriptures concerning the promises made to the descendants of Jacob and the signs were given to them afterwards to carry on the witness that the Lord had begun.
Heb 2:3, 4 ...which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
Acts chapter 1 begins with the descendants of Jacob being told to wait for the pouring out of the promised spirit, the same pouring that every Jew who knew the scriptures anticipated; they begin preparing for the kingdom to come, they ordained the 12th apostle to sit on the 12th throne of Israel judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt 19).
When Pentecost came only the descendants of Jacob received the gift and Peter addressed only them:
Acts 2:14 …men of Judea…
Acts 2:22 …men of Israel…
Acts 3:12 …men of Israel…
Acts 3:13 …the God of our fathers…
Acts 3:17…brethren…
Acts 3:22 …the fathers…
Acts 3:25 …You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant…
Who is the audience for these verses? Not me, not you, Peter also tells them in that if they repent they will receive the promise of the restoration of the kingdom (Acts 3:19-21), the same message that was preached in the gospels by John the Baptist, the Lord, and the disciples “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. This offer of the kingdom in the gospels was rejected by Israel as a nation, but is here being offered a second time with the same condition of repentance. Accompanying the offer in the gospels was evidential signs and miracles and accompanying the offer in the book of Acts are also evidential signs and miracles, carried out by the “those who believe” in Mark chapter 16.
To say that Pentecost was something completely new is to disregard everything that went before, to disregard the promised kingdom to the descendants of Jacob, the heralding forth for the preparation of the kingdom in the gospels and the kingdom offer made by Peter. Pentecost was not the beginning of something new, rather it was the confirmation of something old, as old as Genesis 12:3.
Bearing in mind that the mystery is that the gentiles should be fellowheirs and of the same body, I ask the question, where is the mystery revealed in Acts 2? There were no gentiles born again on the day of Pentecost, this again is undisputable, the first gentiles came in at Acts 10 five to eight years after Pentecost. Also bearing in mind the dominance of Israel in the plans of God to this point, we can see that with the bringing in of the gentiles in Acts 10 was still not the mystery of Ephesians 3:6. This introduction of the gentiles rocked the Jewish world, they were amazed because the Old Testament expectancy was that all Israel would repent, be saved and know God (from the greatest of them to the least), have the law written in their hearts and be filled with the spirit taking up their rightful place as the channel of blessing to the nations, and all this before the gentiles were to be allowed any part in the kingdom. God changed His plan and Romans 11 clearly explains this move, gentiles were brought in to provoke Israel to jealousy.
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? Romans 11:12
To put it more plainly, when Israel became as one of the nations, or if you prefer, when the gentiles had access to God independently of Israel, when the Jew was not first anymore is when the mystery came into effect. Otherwise to say that the mystery was revealed at a time when Israel still had superiority ignores the very proclaimation of the mystery.
Simply put ...mystery revealed all nations equal, mystery still hidden Israel superior.
Did this happen at Acts 2? Of course not
So what about Acts 10? was the mystery revealed then? Let the record speak for itself, they still continued teaching the word to Jews only in Acts 11:19. However it would be wrong to say that this was not the beginning of gentiles being brought into the church because it was and we see this happening gradually between now and Acts 13 but were these gentiles on an equal footing with Israel, did the Jew lose the favoured position at this point? Again the record speaks, in Acts 13:46, much later than Acts 10 Paul says “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you”. Why was it necessary? Because the Jew was still first, there was not yet equality as per the mystery of Ephesians 3:6.
So now that Paul has emphatically declared the turn to the gentiles in verse 47? Does it change, is there now equality? No, this is just a local turning away, one more Jewish branch cut off the olive tree and one gentile branch grafted in. Why can I say that? Well the very next place Paul goes, he goes to the synagogue first, Acts 14:1. The Jew was still first.
On to Acts 15 the Jerusalem council, surely by now there was there equality? The Pharisees who believed, thought it good to impose circumcision on the gentiles who believed and Paul went to Jerusalem to sort the issue. In the final decision, Acts 15:28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us”... that the gentiles only had to keep four laws… Yes... they had to keep laws, but only four unlike the Jewish Christians (Acts 21:20). Paul kept the law, he kept the feasts, always went to the synagogue and took a number of vows.
I believe it was right for them to keep the law, not for righteousness, that no law could give them that, but because the witness in the book of Acts was primarily for Israel to repent in the hope of restoring the kingdom. No non-Christian Jew would listen to a Christian Jew who had forsaken the Law of Moses and the only reason these four laws were put on the gentile Christians was so that they would not be unclean and Christian Jews could go in and out of their houses and eat with them.
I could go on but suffice it to say that even as late as Acts 28:20 Paul considered himself bound for “the hope of Israel” what was the hope of Israel? Ask any orthodox Jew, even today, they will tell you it is the restoration of the kingdom. Before Pauls final meeting with the Jews of Rome he was was still anticipating a Jewish repentance in the hope of ushering in the kingdom.
So yes Ken, I am willing to go on record saying that the mystery was not revealed in Romans. It is a typical case of the “difficult verse must be interpreted in the light of the clear verses. To say that the mystery mentioned in Romans 16:25 is the mystery of Ephesians 3:6 flies in the face of everything that Paul writes in the book of Romans.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 2:9,10 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 3:1,2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
This is the expected position of Israel in the kingdom to come; it hadn’t changed in the epistle to the Romans, or in any Acts period epistle, the Jew was still first. Putting this together with Romans 11 clearly shows that the status of the gentiles here is the opposite of Ephesians 3:6. This section of Romans fills in many holes in our understanding as to what was happening in the book of Acts and without it some things would not make sense, simply saying it’s a parenthesis does not mean we can ignore it. The mystery of Romans 16:25 must be kept in line with the mystery revealed in Romans 11:25, “that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the gentiles be come in”. The mystery of Ephesians 3:6 is not made know unto all nations for the obedience of faith as in Romans, it was hid in God reveled at the time He chose, nothing to do with obedience to faith.
From Genesis 12:3 Israel was God’s plan of salvation for the world and when Romans was penned that plan was still in view, the Jew still had superiority, so the mystery cannot have been revealed. When you consider that the Acts period epistles were written to churches comprised of either only Jewish Christians still keeping the law (1 & 2 Peter, James, 1,2 & 3 John, Hebrews and Jude), or mixes of Jewish Christians and gentile Christians (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians. An interesting side note is Paul that often addresses portions of those epistels to Jews or Christians, see. 1 Cor 10:1 and 1 Cor 12:1), who were all waiting for the imminent return of the King and the restoration of the kingdom, which will be comprised of the nation of kings and priests and gentiles who were saved by grace, but knew their place in the kingdom. Then a lot of hard to understand things in these epistles just disappear.
The hope of the church of the body is not the earthly physical kingdom anticipated during the Acts, but a heavenly church whose calling is described as seated in the heavenlies in Ephesians, a calling vastly different from that of the earthly people who anticipate and earthly kingdom.
So in summary of the areas of where we disagreed, I still believe the mystery was not revealed before Acts 28:28. I also think you would find it hard to prove that Paul’s gospel during the book of Acts taught equality to the point of Ephesians 3:6. Yes there was no difference between the Jew and the gentile concerning salvation, but the Jew was still first.
So Ken, if you are still reading and you want to discuss any of the points I raised in a cordial manner then I am still more than happy to do so. If not then… no worries,
God Bless
Karl
Hi Ken
As I said two posts, this one to address the personal issues you raised and another to address the scriptural. I must say I enjoyed your scriptural rebuttal, for as much as you addressed, it was nice to have what began as an actual discussion and you made some good points according to your” worldview” for want of a better word.
However in my opinion it would have been much better if you minimised your personal attack. There are a few things I would like to mention about it that I think were wrong, misunderstood or just plain vindictive. I’ll go through it point by point, responding to your words. I will not be making any counter personal judgments, just a questioning your logic and integrity using your own words, which I have surrounded by quotes.
Starting with…
Quote:
“I found your post to be not only full of holes and departures from sound reasoning”
This of course is a departure from “your” reasoning the assumption is that your reasoning is sound; therefore any departure from your reasoning is unsound. I find your reasoning to be unsound, you see, I can say it to, but saying it is not enough you have to make a case for it, which, I will admit you did in part, however what seems sound to you, does so only because of what you already believe and that would seem unsound to a Muslim or a Jehovah’s witness because of what they also already believe this is why we need to try and understand what each one believes first.
Quote:
“… but also inflammatory and insulting. Those of us who believe in present day miracles are “delusional”? You can’t make such a statement and credibly claim that your offering was merely a matter of rational discourse. It wasn’t. It was a jab.”
I don’t quite know what to say about this, I will admit you did make me examine my motives, in one way you are right, maybe “delusional” was a bad word to use, but I also really wanted to use it. Yes, it was a jab, but not necessarily aimed at Way believers, because no one I knew in the Way ever did a miracle, so I wouldn’t have expected anyone who had never done a miracle to be offended at being called delusional for thinking they were doing miracles, if you know what I mean. You are the first person I ever heard of in the Way to claim an evidential miracle, from what you say that might surprise you, but it’s true.
I was however, really referring to what goes on in the Pentecostal churches of the world. In my 11 years of Way life I saw nothing other than the “easy manifestations”, oh yes, some people did think they were getting revelation including me and the odd “bad back” got better for a while, but overall “Way days manifestations” were a mere blip in comparison to the world of Christian miracle workers who think they are prophesying and healing in the name of the holy spirit resulting in personal misery for thousands and more often that you might think, in physical death. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535861,00.html. This mayhem is really what I had in mind.
Quote:
“Emil did not throw the first stone. You did.” And “you and have demonized Emil”
I have to put these two together, this is where, in my opinion, you let yourself down; it is just so strange to me that you should say such a thing. I can’t imagine why you would. I can only conclude two things, one you have just not read the posts properly or two, you decided to lie to show some kind of camaraderie with Emil to gain his approval. I want to believe the former but truly it baffles me. I have tried to extend the hand of friendship to Emil which can be seen clearly in my posts and I would like nothing more than to have an upfront friendly conversation with him even though we disagree, but he would rather write about me every opportunity he gets to everyone he can, than discuss with me post to post. It’s his choice, but what amazes me is your conclusion that I demonized him. To anyone who can read, it is the other way around.
Quote:
“You said, “…others live in hope that someday they will be able to ‘hear clearly’ from God and perform a miracle….” I feel sad that you have never heard clearly from God. I have and so have many many others.”
Ken, I stand by this, you can feel sorry for me but I don’t, so don’t sweat it. When you live in an environment where you are supposed to be hearing from God and others are hearing from God, you’ll soon start hearing from God, that’s just the way it works. Sorry I just don’t believe it.
Quote:
“I agree with your objection to those who are inclined to instruct others based on what is likely not legitimate revelation. I’ve seen that happen, but it does not show that no such thing as legitimate revelation exists.”
So who decides what legitimate revelation is and what is not? Is it you Ken, are you the decider? I’m sure the others think their revelation is legitimate, what makes yours right and theirs wrong. You see my point; it just goes on and on until people are in the cycle of abuse listening to the revelation receivers and making life decisions based on their whims. I lived with the master ‘revelation receiver’ in Gartmore, I’ve seen my fair share of “legitimate revelation” and its results…, I say again... no thanks.
Quote:
“Just because you have never witnessed a miracle, does not mean no one has. “
This is true and you may be surprised when I say I actually do believe in healing, God can do what HE likes and sometimes HE will, but I don’t believe that YOU can, you can pray for someone and they may or may not be healed, it’s not up to YOU. Healing today is not after the pattern of the book of Acts, which incidentally is the subject of my post.
Quote:
“Am I delusional because I remember the deaf man we ministered to who instantly regained his hearing? He had been deaf for about 15 years. The look of joy on his face as he danced around the room listening to his watch was unforgettable.”
Answered under the point above
Quote:
“This is just one example. I have witnessed and participated in a number of other such miracles, but even one example is enough to blow your thesis out of the water.”
If you knew my thesis you would not make that remark.
Quote:
“You might simply choose to not believe me, because it doesn’t agree with your template, but if so, then you do so to your own harm. I was there. You weren’t. I’m not lying to you. Miracles still happen.”
Actually Ken, you credibility has suffered a little in my eyes with you “demonized Emil” remark and you don’t really know “my template” because you didn’t enquire any further, you just launched a defensive attack. But as you have asked the question…, Yes, I have seen many believers embellish details of incidents to make them more miracle like, they sort of want to help God along, usually with good intentions, but fabricated out of the ball park. And there are those who believe anything they hear…, spouting limbs… pigs raised from the dead. If only more people would follow the Lords example in Luke 17 of sending the healed lepers to the priest to validate the healing, there would be less false and claims which only server to bring Christianity into disrepute.
Quote:
“You have impugned those of us who believe in actual answers to prayer”
My post had nothing to do with “answers to prayer”, this remark and it's implications are mute.
Quote:
“What is the greater sin, denying the power of God or not being nice enough to those who do? I vote for the former.”
Ken, this is a straw dog. The real question is, “Am I denying the power of God or am I denying that we can manifest the power of God, like the believers in the book of Acts.” I vote the latter.
You wrote to John…
Quote:
“John— Being nice, however, is not the ultimate single criterion for what is and what is not appropriate. Some things are worth standing up for.”
This of course is true, but being rude and abusive is not axiomatic with standing up for something either.
Quote:
“An accusation that believers who trust in the power of God are delusional is worth getting down right PO’d.”
Again, it’s a subtle twist of words here Ken. The accusation is that believers who think they are performing miracles when they are not, are delusional, who think they are speaking for God when they are not, are delusional, who believe they are carrying out healing when they are not are delusional. (And in this I think delusional is the correct word).
I never said believers who trust in the power of God are delusional, I trust in the power of God for salvation, the same power that raised Christ from the dead will someday raise me also.
Quote:
“I appreciate that Karl had the freedom to post his Biblical “research,” but what he posted is a mess. What a sad day it would have been if no one had shown his disapproval, and I commend Emil for his effort.”
It’s an odd thing that you appreciate freedom of speech while commending the comments of someone who supresses free speech, there’s an irony in there somewhere.
Cheers
Karl
no worries
Cheers
Karl
Quite right, that is the whole idea...
Cheers
Karl
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next