Introduction
Most Christian churches spend the majority of their time in the Gospels. I would venture to say that 90% of the churches spend 90% of their time in these four books. While Christians should study all of the Scriptures (Romans 15.4; 1 Corinthians 10.11; 2 Timothy 3.16-17), the Gospels contain no Christianity. This may be shocking but it is true. Not one word of Christianity exists in the Gospels. The Gospels are all Jewish. They contain only Judaism–Jewish theology.
The Old Testament
What Christians call the Old Testament (Old Covenant) began with Genesis and ended with the book of Malachi. God called Abraham from Ur about 2,000 B.C. Moses received the Law about 1,500 B.C.1 and Malachi prophesied around 400 B.C. From the time of Malachi until John the Baptist appeared, Israel had no prophet and no received prophecy. God allowed a period of prophetic silence for 400 years.
Malachi ended his prophecy with a prediction of the coming again of Elijah. He recorded God’s words to the nation:
4 “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 5 “He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse” (Malachi 4.4-5).
The last word of prophecy God gave the nation of Israel was that Elijah would appear to them.
Jewish Theology
Psalm 2 contains all Jewish theology. Everything else is detail. Two key concepts are present in Jewish theology: the Wrath of God and the Kingdom of God. This is outlined briefly by the following chart:
| Jewish Theology (Psalm 2) | |
| The Wrath of God on the Earth (The Day of the Lord: The Tribulation) | The Kingdom of God on the Earth (Messianic Kingdom: Christ Rules as King) |
| Isaiah 2.20-21; 24.19-23, 34.1-3, Jeremiah 30.5-7; Zephaniah 1; Joel 2.1-11, 30-31; Zechariah 14.1-7 | Isaiah 2.2-5; 9.6-7, 11.1-16; Jeremiah 23.3-8; 30.8-24; Ezekiel 36.21-38; 37.1-28; Zechariah 14.8-11 |
Woven within these events was the coming of the Messiah. The primary revelation of the Messiah that the prophets disclosed was His reign as King as David’s Greater Son in the kingdom of God on earth (Zechariah 14.9). In this rule, God would fulfill His covenant promises and elevate Israel as the premier nation on earth (Deuteronomy 28.1, 13). More vague were prophecies regarding the Messiah’s suffering. Especially cryptic was how He would deal with the problem of sin. Only one passage dealt with this aspect of His work: Isaiah 53. The Jews had no understanding of the significance of this passage. For them, the animal sacrifices offered by the priesthood of Israel were not shadows but reality. They had no idea of a greater truth beyond them.
Elijah
The coming of Elijah before the Day of the Lord (God’s wrath) to restore the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers was God’s last word to the Jews. This is where the Gospel writers pick up the story. Luke introduced Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth. Elizabeth, like Abraham’s wife, Sarah, was unable to have children and was past the age of child-bearing. Zechariah was a priest, a Levite. While performing his scheduled rotation in the Temple, an angel appeared to him at the altar of incense. Luke recorded:
12 Zacharias was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him. 13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. 14 You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God. 17 It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1.12-17).
While the angel terrified Zechariah, he gave him a joyful message of hope. He told Zechariah their prayers for a child were answered and that Elizabeth would have a son. He would not be just any son–he would be a great man of God. Indeed, he would be Elijah.
The Lord confirmed John the Baptist was Elijah–but with a catch. Jesus declared:
7 As these men were going away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John, “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 8 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ palaces! 9 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and one who is more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way before You.’ 11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come. 15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 11.7-15).
John’s being Elijah was conditional. He was Elijah, “if you are willing to accept it.” In other words, Jesus told the nation that John could fulfill the prophecy of Malachi if they would accept him as Elijah. This meant accepting his message of repentance (Matthew 3.1-3). They refused.
While on the mountain where Jesus was transfigured and revealed His glory, Peter, James, and John asked Him about John. Matthew recorded:
10 And His disciples asked Him, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11 And He answered and said, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist (Matthew 17.10-13).
Jesus’ further clarified John’s role as Elijah. John could have fulfilled Malachi’s prophecy of Elijah if the Jews had accepted him and his message. Since the nation refused to repent, John could not fulfill the prophecy. Therefore, Elijah will have to return.2
The Gospels
What we call by convention the Old Testament ends with a prophecy of the coming of Elijah. As seen above, the Gospels pick up with this prophecy (Luke 1.12-17). What is the significance? We should be alerted to one simple fact: the Gospels are Old Testament. They are as much Old Testament as Genesis, Deuteronomy, or Isaiah. Everything in them is Jewish and pertains to the nation of Israel, the covenant promises, and the coming of the prophesied earthly kingdom of God.
If John’s appearance as Elijah is not sufficient proof the Gospels are Judaism and not Christianity the Scriptures provide additional evidence of this fact.
- The environment of the Gospels is the Mosaic Law. Jesus ministered under the Mosaic Law as did the Twelve (Matthew 22.34-40; Mark 10.2-9; 17-22; Luke 5.12-14, 17.11-14, 18.18-22). Paul, however, wrote that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law; we are under the administration of Grace (Romans 6.14). These are two vastly different operating environments.3
- Jesus ministered only to Jews.4 Jesus also ordered his disciples not to go to Gentiles but to go to Jews alone (Matthew 10.5-6). In Christianity, Paul went to the Gentiles as the Apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11.13; 1 Timothy 2.7; 2 Timothy 1.11).
- The Church, the body of Christ, is that entity in which Jew and Gentile are equal in Christ. No evidence exists of equality of Jew and Gentiles in the ministry of Jesus or the Twelve. The body of Christ was a new revelation the ascended (as opposed to the earthly) Lord revealed to the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 2.11-22, 3.1-7). Jesus did not reveal this truth in His earthly ministry. Paul alone wrote about the Church, the body of Christ; Paul alone wrote to Gentiles.
- No one was known as a Christian inside the borders of Israel during the ministry of Jesus or before the salvation of Paul. Those who believed the gospel of the kingdom, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, were known as followers of the Way (Acts 9.2, 19.9, 23, 22.4, 24.14, 22). They were not Christians. Christianity did not begin within the borders of Israel; it began outside its borders. Paul was saved outside Israel on his way to Damascus (Acts 9.3-6). Believers first became known as Christians in Antioch, not Jerusalem (Acts 11.25-26).
- Paul declared he was the founder of Christianity (1 Corinthians 3.10-11; 1 Timothy 1.15-16). He stated he received the doctrines of Christianity from the ascended, glorified Lord.5 Paul called these doctrines “secrets” (μυστήριον) for they were unrevealed in the Lord’s earthly ministry and unknown to the Twelve. The Twelve learned of them later from Paul but continued to confine their ministry to Jews (Galatians 2.7-9). No Biblical record exists of any of the Twelve ministering to Gentiles.
Conclusion
The Gospels are Old Testament. They snap onto Malachi as easily as two lego blocks. After 400 years of silence, God moved suddenly and miraculously with the birth of John, the birth of Jesus, and the proclamation of the long-awaited kingdom of God. Indeed, even after 2,000 years, Jews understand Elijah must come before the Messiah. This is why they leave a chair vacant for him when they celebrate their Passover Seder.
Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus spoke and taught chiefly about one thing: the kingdom of God. Every parable He taught was about the kingdom of God. When His disciples asked Him how to pray, He told them to pray, “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6.10). This was the earthly kingdom God had revealed to the prophets. In it, the wolf will dwell with the lamb and the leopard will lie down with the kid (Isaiah 11.6). War will end (Isaiah 11.9). The Lord Himself will rule as King (Zechariah 14.9). Nothing in Jewish theology proclaimed a heavenly kingdom and the Jews had no hope of dying and going to heaven. They certainly had no concept of a kingdom in the hearts of men. Their hope was earthly. The idea of a heavenly kingdom or a kingdom in the hearts of men are but fanciful creations of those who do not know their Bibles. They are projections forced upon the text.
Jesus also taught the other great subject of the Old Testament: the wrath of God. He warned of the deception that would come in the person of the Antichrist (Matthew 24.4-5, 11, 14) and warned the Jews of this terrible time which He called the Tribulation and what Jeremiah called “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30.7). He specifically warned and commanded them to flee to the mountains when they saw the abomination of desolation revealed by Daniel (Daniel 11.31, 12.11; Matthew 24.15-21).
1 The technical beginning of the “Old Testament” or “Old Covenant” is the advent of the Mosaic Law (Exodus 20).
2 See the author’s studies, John the Baptist as Elijah and The Two Witnesses.
3 See the author’s study, Paul and the Law.
4 Jesus made a couple of exceptions to His rule. See the author’s study, Two Remarkable Healings.
5 See the author’s studies, Paul: Chief of Sinners? and Paul’s Mystery.
©2014 Don Samdahl. Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it, but it may not be sold.
Dear Bro. Samdahl, all of your articles are outstanding and greatly needed. We love all your articles, God bless You
Courtney,
Thank you for you kind words and encouragement. May the Lord bless you also.
If the apostles were clueless to the gospel being preached to the gentiles, then why did Jesus tell them to go into all nations and preach the gospel to every creature? He also told them to do that until the end of the present age. Did Jesus change his mind or suspend that command with the rejection of Israel and the saving and calling of Paul? My pastor (who is a Pauline dispensationalist as well) teaches that the kingdom was to go through Israel then branch out to the other areas, but when the Jews rejected it, then God commissioned Paul. However it seems Israel already rejected Jesus and He chose his twelve to start his church based on Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they rejected their king. Any help you can give is great, as I am trying to understand this whole version of dispensationalism.
Matt,
See Acts 1.8 and compare it with Acts 8.1. Jesus gave the apostles an order of evangelism. Jerusalem had to come first and that we why we find the Twelve there in Acts 8.1. Israel was supposed to be the channel of blessing to Gentiles but they refused this role in rejecting the Messiah. Israel will succeed in this role in the future (see Matthew 24.14). Peter appealed to the nation (Acts 2-3) to repent but they did not. After Stephen was stoned it was clear they would not respond. In grace, God saved Paul to go to Gentiles.
AMEN and AMEN .
You didn’t address the end of Matthew where Jesus gives the great commission to the whole world. I think this passage was added later – Jesus would not have given the trinitarian baptismal formula. But, you insist on an inerrant bible, I think, so you are stuck with Mat 28:18-20 which undermines your theology.
Frank,
Jesus addressed 11 apostles of Israel. This “great commission” was based upon Israel’s acceptance of the Messiah in which the nation would be the channel of salvation and blessing to Gentiles according to the Abrahamic Covenant (Micah 4.2; Zechariah 8.20-23). The Church’s “great commission” is 2 Corinthians 5.18-21, not Matthew 28. I do not understand your comment about an inerrant Bible. Do you believe that a Bible exists without textual variants in the manuscripts?
Don,
Great article. Thank you. When I read the Gospels in the light of this understanding, it makes better sense.
So the command to preach the kingdom to the whole world actually meant the whole world? But before they could do that, Israel had to first receive the good news and believe, repent, and be baptized?
But if the preaching of the kingdom of God and the promise of the restored kingdom of God “on earth” was only for the Jews, why was there the command to also preach that message to Gentiles (the whole world) whose destiny was heavenly and not earthly?
Still a little foggy on that.
John
John,
Thank you. Yes, they were to preach to the whole world after Israel had received it and repented. This was the Old Testament kingdom program. Gentiles were to be blessed through Israel. God had not revealed the Church, the body of Christ, its heavenly destiny, etc. God revealed all this to Paul after it became clear Israel would not repent and could not be the source of salvation and blessing of Gentiles. See Zechariah 8.20-23. This will be fulfilled in the Messianic kingdom and Gentiles will be blessed by Israel in a future day. The Church, however, will have other, heavenly blessings. Our citizenship is heavenly, not earthly (Philippians 3.20).
Awesome articles. These articles are great teachings of the gospel of grace.
It has opened my eyes and desire to read and gain understanding
I did on post on rightly dividing the books of the New Testament, showing where the Gospels, General Epistles (Hebrews-Jude), and Revelation are all doctrinally speaking to the Jews about prophetic truth in the tribulation and Kingdom while the Pauline epistles are written to Gentiles that are “under grace”.
Are there any NT books not written TO us?
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/are-there-any-nt-books-not-written-to-us.html
By the way, some folks believe that because Christ told the 12 apostles to go to “all nations” and “every creature” that He must have been giving out truth of the present dispensation of grace, however, the Jewish “gospel of the kingdom” was to go to “all nations” as well (Matt. 24:13-14).
Matthew 24:
[13] But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
The key verses in understanding Christ’s doctrine/audience during the Gospels would be John 1:11, Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:22-26, and Romans 15:8….
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Matthew 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:22-26 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Great post, –bro. Eli “Hoss” Caldwell
Thanks Hoss.
Hi.When a commentors name is in blue and clickable,does it mean that u acknowledges it as a sound place to study the Bible?
Thank u SO much for this amazing website.
Eddie
Eddie,
Not necessarily. These may be because of pingbacks and trackbacks which I think are turned on. May need to take a look at this. If I approve a comment with a link in it is usually ok but does not mean I necessarily endorse it.
I understand your comment except I am having trouble understanding the “gospel of the kingdom” when there are mentions of “the Kingdom of Heaven” and “the Kingdom of God.” How do you reconcile the “gospel of the kingdom” knowing that the Kingdom of heaven and the Kingdom of God are two different things?
Kingdom of Heaven:
Matthew 11:12 – And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Kingdom of God:
Luke 17:20 – And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 – Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Thanks!
Bob,
Please see my article, The Kingdom of God. The expressions, “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” mean the same in the context of God’s prophetic program. The expression “kingdom of heaven” is misunderstood in the sense that it is located in heaven. But it means its source is heaven, not its location, which is earth.
What are your thoughts on how the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force? (Matthew 11:12)
Bob,
The kingdom of heaven here means the earth. Why did Jesus say “from the days of John the Baptist?” The battle for control of earth ramped up with the advent of John, the first prophet in 400 years, and the advent of the Christ. Satan now controls earth and wishes to retain control. The violent are those under the control of Satan. Jesus said John was Elijah if the people accepted him as such. He was saying the battle was on and that God’s prophetic program could be fulfilled if the Jews accepted their Messiah.
“No Biblical record exists of any of the Twelve ministering to Gentiles”
What of Peter & Cornelius?
“Paul alone wrote about the Church, the body of Christ; Paul alone wrote to Gentiles.”
What about Mt 16:18 and 18:17?
“…the Gospels contain no Christianity. This may be shocking but it is true. Not one word of Christianity exists in the Gospels. The Gospels are all Jewish. They contain only Judaism–Jewish theology”.
Surely you cannot say this about the Gospel of John!
Calvin,
Peter’s visit to Cornelius was not a ministry. It was a one-time event. We have no record of the Twelve going to Gentiles. According to the agreement at the Council of Jerusalem, the 12 ceded Gentile ministry to Paul (Galatians 2.7-9). The word translated “church” is ἐκκλησία which means a group of people. Its particular sense is determined by context. For example, Luke used the term in Acts 19.32 for a mob. Jesus’ words in Matthew 18.17 are not words that refer to the Church, the body of Christ, in which Jew and Gentile are equal in Christ. In that passage Jesus stated that if the sinning brother did not respond he should be treated as a Gentile. No equality here! What verses in John do you think are Christian?
Thank you for your response. It has brought me to a new, deeper understanding of the Gospels.
One verse that comes to mind immediately in John’s Gospel is 14:6. This verse and the “two covenant theology” would seem to be more Christian than Jewish.
Just a thought.
Thank again.
Calvin,
Thank you. There is no “two covenant theology.” The only way one can be saved is through Paul’s gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-4) until God restores the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 24.14) after He removes the Church. All are saved by the same Lord. The content of the gospel changes depending on the time and circumstances of God’s program.
Dear Bro. Don, Thank you so much your articles are so greatly appreciated, i would like to ask you in your opinion after the gospels what are the remaining book order and possible dates they were written? I know this is a
lot but really needed thank you again and may the Lord Christ Jesus bless you and all your house
Courtney,
Thank you. I have not studied this as much as I would like so I am not prepared to give an answer. What I have learned is that chronologers do not agree! I respect Matthew McGee’s work in this area and would refer you to http://www.matthewmcgee.org/paultime.html.
Check out The Original Bible Restored, and The Temples Jerusalem Forgot by Dr. E.L. Martin at ASKELM.com
Philip,
Thank you. I’ve read.
On Matthew McGee’s site he states “At the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, God placed that dispensation (Kingdom) in abeyance in 70 AD, to be resumed in the future tribulation.”
If one take the suspension of the kingdom dispensation at the destruction of the 2nd temple; would that not imply that the 3rd temple needs to be in place before resuming that dispensation? Since all dispensations have some overlap – would that not imply the ending of the Grace Dispensation (rapture of church) need to occur, only when the kingdom dispensation is ready to resume?
KJ,
There is room for overlap which is what we find in Acts. I think 70 A.D. was the absolute termination of the kingdom program. It had been in decline since the stoning of Stephen. The gospel of the kingdom ended at the Jerusalem Council. Going forward, I do not think any Scriptural necessity exists that requires the Tribulation to begin immediately following the Rapture of the Church. A period of time may exist for the Beast to become known and established to make the 7 year treaty.
Agree… I believe trib will occur near the end of the thousand-year, Day of the Lord, which begins at our rapture and it can only commence after all the events described in Matthew, starting at Matthew 24:3.
Brian,
Do you mean before the kingdom? 1. Rapture 2. Tribulation 3. Kingdom.
Off topic…I would like to use your sites as a basis of bible studies series at church.
1. Do you mind us using your work as a basis of study?
2. In what order would you recommend we do so (there will be 8 classes)
Thanks for everything you do.
CIG,
Thank you.
1. I do not mind at all.
2. You know your own situation so adapt my materials to meet your needs. The only general comment I would make is that until one sees that Paul’s ministry was unique–completely different from the 12, one cannot comprehend his theology. In my latest piece, A Conversation With Paul, I try to “package” Paul’s ministry in a way for one to see Paul not as the 13th apostle or an extension of the 12 but one through whom God gave special revelation unknown by the 12.
Excellent! It is interesting to note that in all of Paul’s writings to the Gentile churches in which he was an apostle. He does not write or speak at all about Jesus Earthly ministry except to say that “Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:” Rom 15:8. Only three direct things does he bring up about Jesus ministry to the Jews. His Betrayal 1 Cor 11:23, The Lords Supper 1 Cor 11:24,25 and Jesus before Pilate 1 Tim 6:13.
Thanks for you great work here! I have learned so much from your scholarship of the Bible.
William,
Thank you for your kind words.
Hello Doctrine.org
All I can say is Wow and ‘Thank You’. I never realized the truth between the 12 and Paul. Six weeks ago my father suffered a major heart attack and went home to be with the Lord. Some of the last words my father shared with me a week before his passing were…”Son..you need to rightly divide the Word…promise me you will at least look into it and see what Paul has to say to us”. I didn’t think much about it at the time but have been deep in study over the last month regarding your doctrine.org website. My life is forever changed. Thank you soooo much.
Marc,
Thank you. Comments such as yours make everything I do worthwhile. Your father gave you a great gift while dying and am I sure you have pleased him immensely. Grace and peace.
Many times Amen to that!
12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.
What violence is Jesus referring to?
CIG,
I take this to mean the resistance of the professional theologians to the gospel of the kingdom and Jesus’ teachings. Note the context of v.6 and the rejection of John the Baptist.
Don,
The fact that most of so-called Christiandom doesn’t understand the scriptures obviously tells us that they are not only deceived, most likely they don’t know God. Those who know Christ can through careful study, prayer and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit rightly divide and comprehend the word of God.
Why Christianity wants to be “quasi-Jewish” is obviously a satanic plot to snuff out the Gospel truth. The scriptures are clear that the Jews failed miserably to obey God, his commandments and bring his truths to a lost world and suffered the consequences for it. Yet, when God handed the baton of Grace to his church to do what Israel could not do, the so-called church dropped it out of the starting gate.
It’s so pertinent in these last days to get out the true Gospel to this lost and dying world as well as the apostate church. It’s an uphill battle at this point but nothing is impossible with God. I’m very grateful for your incredible insights into God’s word and your determined willingness to share them freely with us all.
May God Bless you richly in all of your endeavors.
Bruce,
Thanks as always for your kind words. You are exactly right.
Hello Bruce,
My Husband and I have only just recently discovered the truth but were saved under the Charasmatic Movement some 40 years ago. God in his Mercy rescued us and we are so very very grateful to God. Now that we see and understand the word soooo much more clearer we have sadly discovered that we are unable to share this with others as they will not listen. We are now really alone and have found no church to fellowship with. When I say we have no fellowship with others its the absolute truth. Its just me and my Husband and the Holy Spirit and Don and Stams Books and a few other sites on Google. We have downloaded most of Les Feldicks sermons. Should the internet go down we will then only have our printed articles. All of our ex friends have become Hebrew Roots. They went from Charasmatics straight into Hebew Roots and we are but just a very small country in Africa compared to the States and others so you get an idea of how small the true church really is. Take care.
I know you posted this in 2015 however if you are still looking for a very good preacher / teacher log onto grace ambassadors.com. The teaching is rightly divided and a good source of Biblical teaching.
Hi can you please explain the gospel of God in 1 peter ch 4? Is this the gospel of the grace of God?
Georgw,
No. In 1 Peter 4.6, Peter wrote to Jews (1 Peter 1.1) about Jews who had died believing the gospel of the Old Testament or the gospel of the kingdom.
hi bro Don, can you please explain to me Romans 2:16. How could Pauls gospel of grace judge and cross over to men outside the gospel of grace? This scripture is also used by the bereans to justify that all men will be judged by grace through faith only, and works never are mixed with the grace gospel thus eliminating gospel of kingdom works requirements, what is your take on this? ps. Bereans who believe only in grace through faith beginning at genesis and ending in revelation, will also state that Peter said that following the mosaic law was a yoke they ” Israel ” could never bare and that they ” Israel” were saved as the Gentiles by grace through faith! Some grace pastors say works cannot be mixed with grace, but can work be mixed with faith for salvation?
George,
I think what Paul meant by this is that his gospel emphasized the work of Christ. It was Christ’s death on the cross and His resurrection that solved the problem of man’s sin and satisfied the justice of God. The OT Jews had to keep the Law and exercise faith. But the animal sacrifices could not solve the sin problem. The gospel of the kingdom focused upon Christ’s identity, not His work. So, ultimately, all will be judge by Paul’s gospel
I would encourage a careful reading of Galatians. Paul was having a real problem with the disciples of the 12 apostles following along behind him and telling his converts that they had to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses to truly be saved. This is affirmed by Acts chapter 15. In Galatians 5:2, Paul says “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised(law), Christ shall profit you nothing”. Verse 4 says, “Christ is become of no effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace”. Translation: you have given up grace.
Thanks for clearing that up, it makes logic sense the way you put it. But what a out romans 3:20-28, how would you reconcile that passage between the kingdom and grace gospels? In other words does grace in the ot eliminate the requirement of works. Was Abraham eternally secure when he believed Gods promise and the works that followed were just a product of that faith, or was Abrahams faith dependent upon him doing the work that followed. That of sacrificing his son?
George,
God has always operated on the basis of grace. But it achieves an enhanced operational status under God’s revelations to Paul. Abraham seems to have been an exception. Abraham was justified when he believed God, not later. We do not find justification by faith alone in the OT or gospels. Salvation includes two components: a manward side and a Godward side. The manward side is to believe what God has revealed. The Godward side is the work of Christ. God was satisfied with the work of His Son. God is satisfied with man’s obedience–to believe and/or do what He has said. If God told you that you could be saved by doing three jumping jacks, faith would respond by doing three jumping jacks.
“We do not find justification by faith alone in the OT or gospels.”
Abraham and the thief on the cross come to mind. You can’t throw away Abraham has an “exception.”
“Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’ So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” Galatians 3:7-9
Clayton,
Salvation has always required faith but you simply do not find “faith alone.” Abraham was an exception and obviously the thief was. There was no way he could keep the law or be baptized. You have to look at the whole context of Scripture. If faith alone was the norm why do we not find it in the OT, in the gospels, in Peter’s address at Pentecost, etc.?
Don, the Bible says that the 2 thieves hanging next to Jesus had their legs broken to speed up their deaths, but when they turned to do the same to Jesus He was already dead. Could this be why the one thief was saved because he died after Jesus and thus the New Covenant had begun?
Craig,
The thief was saved because he believed Jesus was the Christ.
Interesting.
Concerning Matthew 11:7-15, there is no “catch.”
Jesus said clearly John WAS Elias of the Malachi prophecy.
“For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”
“For this is he of whom it is written.”
When Jesus says “IF you will receive it, this is Elias…”, He had already established John WAS Elias of the prophecy. IF the Jews would receive John as Elias, they would also receive Jesus as Messiah.
They did not receive either John or Jesus.
Jesus was not a conditional Messiah: He was the Christ of the prophecies regardless of whether the Jews acknowledged Him or not.
Likewise, John was Elijah of the prophecy regardless of whether the Jews acknowledged him as so or not.
Again, very interesting piece.
Jeremiah,
John’s fulfillment of Elijah’s ministry was conditional as Jesus stated (Matthew 11.14). Please see also, John the Baptist as Elijah.
I like the article. Books of Christian traditions and Apocryphas show that Apostle Thomas die in India, Apostle Jude die in Armenia, Apostle Marc die in Egypt, Apostle Barnabas in Malta, Apostle Philip in Bulgaria, Apostle Peter and Paul in Rome….etc. It is not only Apostle Paul who went to gentiles. All these books, you reject in consideration of Bible alone. Ok, I agree with you, let us go into the Bible : Acts 15 : 7. Apostle Peter in front of Paul and all others put it clear that:” God chose him and from his mouth the gentiles received the words of God.” This single verse break all Protestants claim that Apostle Paul alone converted the gentiles. Please I expect more clarification from you.
Walumbing-Samuel,
The Biblical record is Peter went to one Gentile, Cornelius, and his family (Acts 10-11). That visit was under protest and did not constitute a ministry to Gentiles. We have no record of Peter evangelizing Gentiles again. See Galatians 2.7-9.
Dear Sir, Biblical record about Peter to gentiles is overwhelming. Let me quote them:-1/ Acts15:7, 2/ Acts 10:25-27, Peter in Babylon establishing church over there: 3/ 1 Peter 5:12-13, the most blatant is the vision about foods :4/ Acts10: 10-16. These are more than enough to show that Peter, the Elder and the Apostle organized, sent and went himself to preach the gentiles.
Walumbinga-Samuael,
The verses you cite are one event–Peter going to the house of Cornelius. A visit to one Gentile family does not indicate a ministry. Peter wrote to Jews in 1 Peter (see 1 Peter 1.1). The text does not state Peter went to Babylon. He may have but it does not say so. He wrote that the believers there greeted Peter’s readers. It is likely Peter never left the borders of Israel. Even if he did go to Babylon, he went to minister to Jews, not Gentiles. Jews taken there after Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion remained. The Scriptures explicitly declare that Peter and the Twelve ministered to Jews only (see also Galatians 2.7-9). No Scripture supports the idea Peter had a ministry to Gentiles.
Using that same logic, how can you say that the book of Romans is written to anybody besides the citizens of Rome in the first century? Just because the book was written to believers in Rome doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to Christians everywhere.
Also, your use of Galatians 2:7-9 is a translation error. The NIV says “On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.”
The difference between “of” and “to” is huge. Either the gospel is the same but the audience is different, or both the gospel and the audience is different. I would argue the first.
Consider, “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the [singular] gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?'” Galatians 2:14
How could he deviate from the gospel if Peter had his own gospel? Did he deviate from his own gospel?
Clayton,
Paul was “the apostle of the Gentiles.” Romans, as all Paul’s epistles, was written to a particular audience but circulated throughout the churches. The text of Galatians 2.7-9 reveals two gospels: the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gentiles) given to Paul and the gospel of the circumcision (Jews) committed to Peter. The Twelve did not understand Paul’s gospel. That is why Paul wrote in Galatians 2.2 that he communicated (ἀνατίθημι) it to them. The word ἀνατίθημι means to explain or disclose something. So, obviously, they could not proclaim something they did not know or understand. Paul wrote that his gospel was a secret (Ephesians 6.19; Romans 16.25). No one knew of it until the risen Christ revealed it to him (Galatians 1.11-12). My articles, The Gospel, The Gospel of the Kingdom, and The Great Hinge explain all this.
Romans was circulated through the churches, yes, but you cannot assume the others were not circulated throughout the churches as well. You have no evidence to support this. The contrary is more likely since they’ve always been canon and have never been questioned until 1800 years after they were written.
It does not reveal two gospels, just the King James Version does. Look at every other translation. It’s saying what you want it to say.
You don’t need to show me the greek word to make your argument more sound… He went to disclose the gospel he received to make sure it did not contradict the church’s gospel message. That’s why he says he wanted to be sure he was not running in vain (κενὸν). Why would he be running in vain if he had his own message? He wanted to make sure he was not some lone ranger contradicting the church with his own message. The mystery was Jew and Greek being one in the Body of Christ; not justification by faith alone. Salvation has always been the same, brother. Romans 4 is explicit.
“And he [Abraham] received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.” Romans 4:11
Clay,
You have it exactly wrong. Paul wrote his gospel was a secret. It’s not the KJV translation, it is what the Greek text reads, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς—gospel of the circumcision, gospel of the uncircumcision. Or, in other words, the gospel of the kingdom vs. the gospel of the grace of God. Paul’s statement of “running in vain” wasn’t that he was “checking in” with the Twelve to see he had it right. Such a thought is absurd for anyone who has read Paul. Paul received his gospel directely from the risen Lord. He didn’t need anyone second-guessing the risen Lord. This is why he “communicated” or “explained” (ἀνατίθημι) his gospel to the Twelve. His statement “running in vain” meant he met with the Jerusalem leaders privately to reveal his gospel to them. Why? Because they did not understand it. Paul met with them privately to spare them embarrassment and also so he could bring his concerns to them of those who were hindering his ministry by telling his believers they could not be saved apart from circumcision and keeping the Mosaic Law. Luke’s account in Acts 15 makes it clear they did not understand Paul’s gospel. Finally, Peter came around and declared, Paul’s right, we’re wrong. That is what Acts 15.11 is all about. Furthermore, Paul wrote the Jerusalem leaders “added nothing to him” (Galatians 2.6). Paul knew far more than all of them put together. If you think there was but one gospel, what did the Twelve believe to be saved? How was Peter saved? What did he believe?
Clay,
In Luke 18 (speaking to the 12) it says the coming crucifixion ‘was hidden’ from them . (which was just days away). Hadn’t they been professing the Gospel of the Kingdom?…Yes, they had. Luke 9.
Paul teaches the gospel is believing in the death, burial and resurrection– I Cor. 15:1-4.
We have to ask what the gospel was the 12 were teaching if they didn’t know about the death, burial and resurrection.
Dear Clay,
Your argument makes sense to me: the gospel was the same but the audience was different. If you get there by receiving “the gospel of the Kingdom” or believing in “the gospel of grace” you still get there. I think Jesus (through Paul) was just making it simpler for Gentiles to be saved who had never had the benefit of an understanding of God through the Law or the prophets. – Sister Pam
Pam,
The gospel of the kingdom required one to believe Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. The gospel of grace requires one to believe Christ died for one’s sins and rose from the dead. The first focuses upon Christ’s identity, the second on His work. These were entirely different gospels.
I’m amazed that this site has the TRUTH that the Gospels are OLD Covenant ! !
Thank you for your articles, they are very helpful. I agree with what you have stated, although I never have understood if Christ’s was the “gospel of the Kingdom” how can Jn 3;16 be refering to his death, burial and res. for all mankind? Please give as detailed of answer as possible. Thank you.
Mark,
The gospels only contain the “gospel of the kingdom.” John 3.16 was that gospel. The “Son of man being lifted up” was not understood as His crucifixion until afterwards. The significance of Christ’s death on the cross was not revealed until the risen Lord revealed it to Paul who revealed it to all. Had the Twelve understood it, Peter would have proclaimed it at Pentecost. John 3.16 is meaningless for salvation today unless one interprets it in light of Paul’s gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-4).
Thank you for your response but I’m still confused about John 3.16. “….that He gave His only begotten Son”….”that whosoever believeth in him”….I realize that believing He was the promised Messiah, the Son of God was all that was required then, versus our belief now that He is the Son of God that died for our sins and rose from the dead. But, “that He gave His only begotten Son” still refers to the Cross, doesn’t it? How does this fit with the gospel of the kingdom? Also, John 1.29…” Behold the Lamb of God which taketh way the sin of the world” Thank you so much for your time. Mark
Mark,
It refers to the cross but was not understood when Jesus spoke the words to Nicodemus. Only through Paul was the significance of Christ’s death on the cross revealed. Jesus said things that were not understood (cf. Luke 18.31-34). His “whoever believes in Him” was believing who He was, the Messiah. That was what was required for salvation faith according to the gospel of the kingdom. As for John 1.29, see my article, The Christian Myth.
Interesting discussion. One question: in the Kingdom message, wasn’t following the Law also required? Jesus was Torah observant and expected his followers to be as well. In Matthew 19:1-3 he told his disciples to reverently follow what the Pharisees taught (but not to behave as they do). As I understand the discussion in this forum, that seems to be the difference between the Kingdom message and Paul’s religion.
A related note, I was encouraged to read James again, this time substituting “the Law” for “works” (as a number of Greek exegetes contend). Reading “works” as “the Law’ seems to put James’ and Paul’s differences at extreme odds. James certainly saw Paul as a false teacher, wouldn’t you agree?
And, yes, I did read the article on Paul and James.
Roger,
Yes, under the kingdom message Law observance was required. James did not see Paul as a false teacher. Had he, we would have a record in Acts 15 and later in Acts 21. James agreed to Paul’s gospel. What James could not understand was that the Law was over. He probably never grasped Paul’s doctrines,i.e., “secrets.”
You are saying a lot to say that James never understood Paul. Perhaps too much. James clearly understands that we’ve been brought forth from God, Ja1:18.
Jesse H,
James was a legalist. He did not understand Paul. Read Acts 21.17-25. James wrote to Jews and never had a ministry to Gentiles. Peter, even at the end of his life, wrote that Paul was difficult to understand. What Paul taught was completely unknown by the prophets. There is no Church in the OT. No blinding of Israel, no Rapture, etc. Everything Paul taught was new revelation. See my articles, Why Paul? and Paul’s “Mystery”.
Here’s what I’m trying to understand. If the teachings and parable were TO the Jews and FOR the Jews, what value should they have in a Christian’s life? By that I mean, Paul cared little about the life, teachings, miracles and virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It logically follows, then, that if we are to follow Paul’s gospel, then we, too, ought not to pay much attention to the teachings and miracles of Jesus, right? In fact, why read the gospels at all? Paul didn’t seem to care about the historical Jesus, so why should we?
I struggle with these things, as does “most of Christendom” (as you wrote previously). Why do *you* read the gospels? Why not just read Paul’s letters? If the teachings and parables of Jesus are not *for* us, then why read them? For example, since all of the teachings are related to the Kingdom program, then they have no relevance for Christians today. If you believe that we should still read the teachings and parables of Jesus (perhaps to find “nuggets of moral truth” that can help us get through this life), well, none of those teachings are unique to Jesus of Nazareth so why not read them from the source(s) from which they derive? Paul never refers to them (not even the virgin birth), so why should Christians care about these things today? See the dilemma? And why be called Christians and not Paulinites? Are Christians followers of Christ or followers of Paul?
Yes, I understand you believe that Paul’s gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) is the only “real” way to salvation and that the teachings of Jesus about the Kingdom are no longer relevant (and that “most of Christendom” has got it wrong — i.e.doomed to hell), so why pay attention to this Jesus of Nazareth at all (except that he lived died and was resurrected)?
Thank you for helping me with this.
Roger,
The answer is Romans 15.4 and 1 Corinthians 10.11. The gospels are Old Testament. They concern God’s program for Israel which is what James and Peter continued. Christians follow Christ through Paul even as Jews followed God through Moses (1 Corinthians 11.1). Paul received revelation from the risen Christ. This is what Christians should focus upon. The earthly ministry of Christ is helpful in the same way as reading Jeremiah or Isaiah, etc. See 2 Corinthians 5.16.
Hi bro Don, why did Our ressurected Jesus tell Paul to continue the tradition of the Lords supper, which was instituted with the apostles in Jesus’s earthly ministry. Is this case the exeption to the rule?
George,
The Lord’s work on the cross solved the problem of sin and death. That work transcended all God’s programs. Hence, it is to be remembered and celebrated by believers in anticipation of His return. While most in Christendom teach that water baptism and the Lord’s supper are sacraments, they have nothing in common. Water baptism ended as a Scriptural Christian practice by the time Paul wrote Ephesians. Paul received special revelation about keeping the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11.23-26) and he received special revelation from the Lord that water baptism had ended (1 Corinthians 1.17; Ephesians 4.5).
Thanks, so the Lord’s supper which is not the passover meal, but an another late night meal, commerorating jesus’s sacrifice for the jews with bread and juice and was not to be repeated until Jesus would come back at his 2nd coming for them, whereas for paul and the body of christ, this meal which transformed into a potluck communion meal and not one of just bread and juice, would be commemorating the unity of the body of christ because of our saviour’s sacrifice on the cross for our sins, we would do this as often as we would like right up until the rapture, is this statement true and would do you agree with this assessment ?
George,
The Lord’s supper transcends God’s program to Israel and His program to Gentiles, specifically, the Church, the body of Christ. Jews (in Judaism) do not partake in the Lord’s supper because they do not recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. But they will. When the Church is removed, the Lord’s supper will be instituted for them. In the meantime, it is practiced by Jew and Gentiles as members of the body of Christ. The “return” of Christ for the Church is the Rapture. The “return” of Christ for nation Israel is His 2nd coming (at the end of the Tribulation).
George uses the word ‘juice’.
does ‘wine’ mean juice or wine?
Paul, I believe, tells Timothy that teachers should not be ‘given to wine’ . Preachers/teachers can’t drink grape juice?
Joe,
There was no unfermented juice in the ancient world. Not until refrigeration and pasteurization was this possible.
John MacArthur has done a great sermon on “Christians and Alcohol” and explains in detail that in Jesus’ time grape juice was boiled down to a syrup to preserve it and it was mixed with water. It had next to no alcohol content. It still retained its health benifits though. Paul instructed Timothy to take a little wine I.e. ‘Grape juice syrup’ for his stomach. This would not have been helpful for his stomach if it had been neat alcohol wine. This has been my understanding. Thank you for your great site from which I have learnt so much.
Lynn,
While people of Jesus’ day may have boiled down grape juice to preserve it, this is not the “wine” found in the NT. John MacArther is simply wrong on this subject. The Greek word for wine is οἶνος. It was fermented, alcoholic drink. This is clear from passages such as Matthew 9.17 (unfermented juice will not split wine skins), Mark 15.23 (given to dull the pain), Luke 1.15 (wine and strong drink are associated together), Luke 10.34 (the medicinal benefit was alcohol). The wine Jesus made at the wedding of Cana was οἶνος, i.e., alcoholic wine. Christians are free to drink alcoholic beverages. They are not free to be drunk for that is sin. Hence, Paul’s warning was not to be drunk with wine since drunkenness was always prohibited by God (Ephesians 5.18), church leaders are not to drink excessively (1 Timothy 3.8), older women are admonished not to drink to excess (Titus 2.3), and believers are counseled to avoid certain foods or wine if it will offend those who are immature in the faith (Roman 14.21). This most likely related to foods or drinks offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8.4). There is a lot of misunderstanding on this subject but the Biblical record is simple and clear.
Hello,
If the Gospels are Old Testament (Old Covenant), which I do agree with and understand, what would be considered New Testament outside of Paul’s Epistles?
Thank you for helping so many people understand our Gospel. You do a great service and I learn as much from the comments as I do from the articles.
Brian,
The designations OT and NT are in some ways unfortunate conventions. Technically, the OT does begin until Exodus 20. So what should we call what comes before? The definition of the OT is the Mosaic Law; the NT is the New Covenant. This nomenclature is not particularly helpful in terms of categorizing the writings. The New Covenant was inaugurated at the last supper and the Church participates in its blessings, for those blessings come as a result of Christ’s death and resurrection. But the New Covenant will not be fulfilled until the Messianic kingdom, when the Lord reigns upon the earth, because the prophets made it clear the NC was made with Israel.
So well stated! Thank you!
When I studied ‘history of the word ‘church’ I learned a few things that clarified some issues.
The Jews had called themselves the congregation of the Lord, assembly of God, etc, for centuries. The word ecclesia, which meant assembly or congregation, continued to be used by them in writings. They never changed what they called themselves and did not come up with a new word, church. They did, however, add ‘congregation of Christ and the Lord’ in one passage. What Jesus said was ‘upon this rock I will build my assembly’. The Greeks also used the word ecclesia for assembly and congregation at that time. The word ‘church’ evolved over 1400 yrs from kuriokon, found elsewhere in scripture. It had evolved first, to mean building, then those in the building. You can google kuriokon. King James commanded translators to insert it where ecclesia was found, as a political move to appeased the Protestants, who preferred it. Some have tried to link late latin, but that was 100-300AD, way before the evolution of church from kuriokon. Translations can be found that still do not use the word church. The Jews also never renamed themselves as christian. They always knew they were the congregation of God and had no reason to change that, they simply recognized and followed the messiah. Our modern bibles insert church and christian everywhere, and most of us do not realize it was not the intent of the authors. Practice saying congregation where you read church, and saints, believers, brothers, etc where you see christian. You will become aware of the cohesive timeline.
Nicola,
Context determines meaning. The word ἐκκλησία means a group of people. What that group is is determined by its context. In Acts 19, it was a mob and a court. How ἐκκλησία is translated and understood is determined by its historical context, i.e., what Jesus, Paul, Stephen, Luke, etc. meant when they used the word. For example, Paul’s “church” is the body of Christ which is wholly different from the Jewish assembly of Matthew 16 and Acts 15.
I understand ecclesia means assembly, congregation, called out, and the type of assembly is either provided as well, or as in many instances it is understood (ex congregation at Corinth we know refers to congregation of believers).
Aside from this, ‘church’ evolved from kuriokon, not ecclesia, and was not in common use til 1400’s.
Also, the term ‘christian’ is found 3 times in scripture, by others,
never by the authors in reference to themselves or other believers
Nicola,
I fail to see your point. Since kuriokon does not occur in the Bible, are you saying churches do not exist or this is an illegitimate term? The primary point is that the ἐκκλησία Paul taught was the body of Christ, wholly different than the ἐκκλησία of the gospels and Peter. Paul said the ἐκκλησία he taught was a secret, unknown before it was revealed to him by the risen Lord. As for “Christian,” believers were not called this until after Paul was saved. They were first called this in Antioch, outside the borders of Israel. Thus, it was primarily associated with believers of Paul’s gospel and then began to be expanded. Peter used the term much later, probably about 65 A.D. (1 Peter 4.6). Those who believed Jesus was the Messiah under the gospel of the kingdom were known as followers of “the way,” not Christians.
Mr. Samdahl, after telling a friend recently of my belief in mid-acts right division he told me this… “to say that the 4 gospels were for the Jews is devoid of reality. They were a staple in every church’s teaching, including all of the ones whom received letters from Paul, Timothy and Titus. It is a theological view that contradicts reality.”
Is he correct in saying that they were a staple in every church’s teaching? How would you respond to this statement? I don’t necessarily intend to continue this discussion with him as he seems unwilling to even consider the possibility he could be wrong, but I was hoping to get your take on his statement for my own edification. Thanks.
David,
To not recognize the Gospels are Jewish is blindness. No Gentile ministry exists in the Gospels with a couple exceptions (see my article, Two Remarkable Healings). Furthermore, no Gentile ministry existed among the 12, even after the Lord’s resurrection. Having said this, your friend is correct in stating the gospels were a staple in every church’s teaching. What is meant by this? Did Gentile churches teach from the gospels? Of course they did. Paul wrote all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable. This includes the OT which was a staple also. The problem is to recognize what is Church doctrine and what is not. Paul was the founder of Christianity. All Scripture is profitable and for the Church, but not all Scripture is to the Church. The apostasy began in Paul’s day. Paul, though he expended a huge amount of effort in Asia, lost it (2 Timothy 1.15). This means he lost the Galatian, Ephesian, and Colossian churches. He lost them to a syncretism of Pauline truth and legalism. Paul wrote the Galatians to try and turn them from this poison. Whatever their immediate response, they ended up turning from Paul and grace. That is largely the situation that exists today in Christendom. Today, 90% of churches spend 90% of their time in the Gospels. Paul is hardly taught. Yet Paul is the founder of the Church. But most people are clueless about this. Christendom has stolen what pertains to Israel and incorporated into Church doctrine. That is why so much confusion exists.
Hi Don,
I knew it! I knew it! I loved this article! For years I was taught (by my dad) that the bible contained a different message for Jews than “the Church” and stressed that we must always ‘rightly divide’ scripture and not apply what belongs to the Jew to the Church, etc. However, after his passing, I had to learn on my own so I yearned to find a place of fellowship and for help with scriptures. I’ve yet to find one that doesn’t make jumbled mess out the bible, Currently, I attend a church that believes/teaches that the Lord’s death, which resulted in the veil being torn, has joined the “Old and the New” into one as well as the Jew to the Gentile, hence, the OT and NT is ‘for’ and ‘to’ “the Church.” Naturally, this means that all scripture can now be overlapped and intertwined and administered to church goers. (I can see how this practice lead Christendom to come up with all sorts of crazy doctrine that has resulted in mass confusion and conflicting views).
Since our Lord’s death joined Jew and Gentile aren’t all Jewish observances applicable to the Church (i.e., circumcision, water baptism, etc.)? I don’t believe this to be true but would like to hear your thoughts.
Also, is the “new man” in Eph 2:15 referring to the God Man Jesus who reconciled humankind to God as he is both man and spirit or does it pertain to the joining of Jew and Gentile in the body of one new man, Jesus? I think it’s Jesus the God Man but the pulpit teaches the latter at our church. (I once questioned the differences between Jesus’ and Pauline messages but the pastor told me to study Ephesians and encouraged me not to separate the messages when studying scripture; what God has joined let no man tear asunder . . . or words to that effect.).
Also, what’s the difference between the ‘kingdom of heaven’ and ‘kingdom of God?’ The ‘kingdom of heaven’ is only mentioned in Matthew and my dad taught it was for Israel, but I don’t remember what he said it was different from the kingdom of God.
Your articles are greatly appreciated. I am so blessed to have found your website.
Becky
Becky,
Jewish observances were under the Mosaic Law. Paul taught we are not under Law but under grace. See my article, Paul and the Law. The new man is the body of Christ in which God has removed the distinctions between Jew and Gentile. On the kingdom question, see my article, The Kingdom of God.
A good example of Les Feldick’s blender analogy.
Lawrence,
Yes. God’ prophetic program get mixed together with His Church program. Only confusion results.
Fantastic article , it has only been a couple of years or so that the light came on and I began to understand rightly dividing the word of truth and realized the Gospels were primarily for the Jews . For instance the latter half of the sermon on the mount is the Mosaic law on steroids given by Jesus in hope of bringing the legalists and Pharisees to futility and accepting the grace and salvation that would soon be revealed at His death , burial and resurrection , also it was given to them in order to deny them any wiggle room in thinking that they had actually kept the law .
John,
Thank you. Everything in the gospels concerns the kingdom of God on earth which God promised the Jews (cf. Matthew 6.10). The Sermon on the Mount is a description of kingdom life–what life will be like when Christ reigns.
Good evening
Once the Church is removed (raptured) how are people to be saved that are left behind? Is it by believing Pauls gospel, Christ’s death, burial and res., or believing that Christ was the promised Messiah and the Son of God (Peter’s confession)?
Thank you sincerely for your ministry.
Mark
Mark,
A time overlap existed when both the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God were valid: from Paul’s receipt of his gospel until the Council of Jerusalem. See The Great Hinge. When the Church is removed there may be another overlap. A lot depends on whether there will be a gap of time before the 7 years begins and the revelation of the Beast. I deal with this in When Will the Lord Return? If there is a gap, Paul’s gospel will fade off the scene and be replaced by the gospel of the kingdom. That gospel will be in place when the Lord returns (Matthew 24.14).
I have a question. If the Jews had not rejected their messiah, would all of us now be under Mosaic law?
Joyce,
If the Jews had accepted the Messiah the kingdom would have come and the Mosaic Law would have been instituted to govern Israel under the power of the New Covenant. It was never God’s intent to bring Gentiles under the Mosaic Law. He gave it to Israel, not to Gentiles (Romans 9.4; Ephesians 2.12).
Hello Bro Don, you are one of a kind when answering all types of online Bible questions! Here is another, if you don’t mind, in the great comission in Matthew the apostles are told to go to all nations, that obviously includes gentile nations, were the apostles only to preach to Jews only, in those other nations, it seems so as Peter way after in Acts 10 kept on insisting it was not lawful for a Jew to be with a gentile, in yout mind how do you reconcile This seemingly contradiction between Jesus’s instructions and Peter’s unwillingness to follow through?
George,
The Lord issued the “Great Commission” under the presumption Israel would repent. Had they, the kingdom would have come and the prophetic plan concerning Israel’s role to Gentiles would have been fulfilled, i.e., Zechariah 8.20-23. Peter did not want to go the Cornelius’ house because he understood Israel still needed to repent.
Don, does this mean “The Great Commission” command is not valid?
William,
The Lord gave “The Great Commission” to the Twelve and the gospel of that commission was the gospel of the kingdom—that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. This gospel has been supplanted temporarily by Paul’s gospel due to Israel’s unbelief. It will return during the Tribulation (Matthew 24.14). The “great commission” of the Church, the body of Christ, is based on Paul’s gospel, that Christ died for our sins and rose for our justification. Paul wrote of it in 2 Corinthians 5.18-21.
I’m still confused.
When Christ died, He fulfilled all the OC rituals, ceremonies, such as feast days, Sabbath, animal sacrifices, etc, since He is the substance and these were only shadows.
So if the Jews had accepted Him as Messiah would the Jews still keep these rituals, ceremonies, sacrifices since they were part of the mosaic law, or would they also be under grace? If Christs death ended the mosaic law then why would a converted Jew be expected to keep it?. IOW would a converted Jew be under grace, or faith plus law.
Joyce,
Israel in the kingdom will celebrate its feasts, festivals, keep the Law, offer animal sacrifices, etc. These things will look backward rather than forward and will be commemorative.
Hi.I started truly believing in LORD Jesus just recently and since I havent been able to find either a real Bible nor a biblical ministry here in Norway I have to get my preaching and Bible-reading in english online!I`m sure u can imagine how confusing and disorienting that can be…
But when I “stumbled”(with Gods will,I`m sure…)upon one of ur articles it just resonated very well,even though it was contradictory to much of what I already thought to be true!
All this is SO much to take in that I would like u to boil it down for me,-am I,as a gentile supposed to care equally for the whole Bible or focus more on everything Paul wrote?
I`m sure u already have said something about this but its a lot to take in all at once.
U see,I havent read through the whole Bible yet and I want to concentrate on the most important(I know the whole Book is very important!) parts first,before reading all of it.
-if that makes sense?
I`m am looking forward to ur response and thanks for doing all that u r doing for people to find the true God Almighty.
God bless us all.
Eddie M.
Eddie,
Thank you for your wonderful testimony. All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for us (2 Timothy 3.16; 1 Corinthians 10.11; Romans 10.4). But Paul’s letters contain the doctrine to the Church, the body of Christ. Others have expressed this as “all Scripture is for us but not all Scripture is to us. It is critical that believers know not only what the Bible says but what it does not say. The root of confusion in Christendom is the confusion of God’s prophetic program with His program known as the Church. Keep these programs separate and contradictions and confusion end. You might enjoy my articles, Jesus vs. Paul, A Conversation With Paul. I lay out the structure of God’s revelation in Framework of Scripture. The article, The Theology of the Old Testament, analyzes God’s program concerning Israel and the nations. The article, Paul’s “Mystery” reveals the doctrines the risen Lord revealed to Paul alone which are the foundation of Church doctrine. May the Lord continue to bless and reveal His truth to you (Ephesians 1.15-23).
God bless u,sir!
I am so glad that u have done all this great work.
I have already started reading conversation with Paul and I look forward to the rest of ur beautiful website.
I have read some of the comments and answers above and it makes so much sense!!!
Again,thank u and God bless u.
Hello,
A lot of people like to hearken to the early church fathers for answers such as Polycarp or Justin Martyr etc.
Your teaching isn’t visible in any of these writings as far as can remember but they seem to be very Jewish oriented I guess you could say.
I do not hold to any of these teachers but could you tell me when, outside of the time of Paul, was your particular teaching adhered to or can you show any writings where these ideas that appeared in any other time in church history ? Thanks
Jeffrey,
Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 1.15 that everyone in Asia had abandoned him. The loss of Pauline doctrine as Church doctrine began in Paul’s lifetime. The book of Galatians graphically demonstrates what was happening. The Galatians were leaving Paul’s doctrines of grace for the Jewish doctrines of the Law. This continued throughout the early Church and explains why there was so much emphasis on baptism, the Mosaic law, etc. The root was nearly 2,000 years ago and its fruit can be seen in almost every church and denomination in Christendom. The evidence is everywhere. Probably 90% of churches spend 90% of their time in the gospels, rather than Paul. The gospels are OT and concern God’s program with Israel. This is the great tragedy of Christendom. It is the reason there is so much confusion.
It seems many don’t think the situation described in Galatians and 2 Tim. 1:15 is still present in Christianity. Thanks for all you do for the gospel Don!
Marty thank you for bringing that issue up which has been heavy on my heart of late.
Don may I ask you, what was it that they turned away from. Paul states “Me”. Did he mean his teachings and if so then were they ever saved. Thank you.
Vanessa,
The book of Galatians is a case study of the problem. They abandoned Paul’s doctrine of grace for the Mosaic Law. They were saved but became legalists. The Galatians were in Asia, so this is what Paul had reference to. Apparently, the Ephesians, Colossians, Laodiceans, the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch Psidia, etc. all abandoned Paul’s doctrines of grace. This must have been a heartbreak for Paul since he had spent so much time and effort there. This is why we see the “Church Fathers” writing about the Law and spending all their time in the gospels. Paul was abandoned. Same as today.
Don, you wrote that the Galatians were saved but became legalists. Isn’t this how one falls from grace by going back under the law? So could they have lost their salvation?
Craig,
They didn’t lose their salvation; they lost their freedom.
The enemy has been working very hard over the last 2000 years. Now I understand why they were accursed. I find it remarkable that we have today so called born again Jews bringing many back under the law and the people lap it up. Sid Roth and Jonathan Cahn. The enemy is cunning by using these men to attract the people. Most Christains find anything Jewish appealing because of the connection to Christ. I am not anti Jewish. Now Avi Lipkin has also joined the ranks and he admits he is not saved but the people buy his books regardless by the thousands and they have him on so many talk radio stations. If you are Jewish and you get saved its a “Wow Factor.” for the Gentiles but in Pauls days if you were a Gentile and you got saved the Jews had the “Wow Factor.” Mirror image. But on a more serious note I pray I never become like them and ask God to keep me from falling. Stay humble and dont get puffed up Vanessa. Take care.
The Gospels are transitional, that’s true, but many have recognized that we have a Matthean Jewish, a Markan Roman, and a Lukan Greek inclination. This doesn’t mean that the Jewish background doesn’t predominate the Synoptics, but it does mean that the Gospels are not OT additions. And John’s gospel is stated to be to the world, not just Jews. John stating that his gospel contains what is necessary to believe for eternal life MUST mean that it contains gospel truth. John 3:16 doesn’t need to be understood in light of 1Cor15, it can stand on its own. Why? Because that’s what John’s gospel says it can do.
Jesse H,
The gospels were not transitional. Read Romans 15.8. There is nothing in the gospels not in the prophets and covenants. John 3.16 says nothing about Christ’s death or resurrection for salvation. Salvation during the gospels was based upon believing Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God.
Jesse,
To me, the COMMANDMENT by the Lord in Matthew(chapter 10) to the 12 to go ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and in Chapter 15 to the Canaanite woman (gentile) that his ministry was only to Israel….is not transitional. …maybe I’m wrong.
I have done a deep dive into the bible the last five years because of your teaching and lesfeldick.org , and one thing I have discovered is that over and over in the prophets, it says that only a remnant of Israel will go into the kingdom. I believe Christ reaffirms this when he spoke of the narrow road to eternal life and few find it, and the wide road to destruction and many go thereon. Also, if I’m correct that only a third of Israel during the tribulation will go into the kingdom.I believe it is the same with the church age with all the confusing sects and blending of the 2 gospels. Les says that the rapture of the church may not be that big a deal to the world, and they probably will be glad us “heretics” are gone…
Brad,
Yes. Most of the estimates of the numbers who will be raptured are vastly inflated. The world will notice we are gone but whatever shock it may initially have will be short-lived and explained away. We see this every day in our current media narratives. Who knows, Christians may be in concentration camps, isolated from general society, forgotten.
Hello bro Don, when the woman was caught in adultery, Jesus forgave her and told her to sin no more, this in any dispensation all program is impossible to do, what did Jesus exactly mean, was she to follow the law and the sacrifices?, trust Jesus as messiah and wait for the filling of the Holy Spirit ? Obviously it wasn’t the gospel of Paul? Please shed some light, thank you
George,
God always admonishes and encourages His people not to sin. For salvation, during Christ’s earthly ministry, people were to believe Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. As such, they were to keep the Law.
Hi Don,
I’ve been learning and studying from Les Feldick for over 10 years now, and also from you for about a year. I have yet to hear him or anyone talk about something that jumped out at me during my bible study in the gospel of Mark, specifically 3:20-31.
I noticed that whenever Jesus went into a house, the scripture tells who’s house it is, except here in Mark it states”a house”, without specifics. It says the crowd was responsible for He and the disciples not being able to eat. It also adds that the teachers of the law came down from Jerusalem. Mark 3:21 (NIV): “When His family heard about this they went to take charge of Him, for they said ‘He is out of his mind.’ I understand Jesus’ brothers didn’t immediately embrace Him as Messiah, but it continues the scene in verse 31: “Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call Him.”
The first question hitting me was, how and/or why could a crowd keep a person from eating? No elbow room? The second, and most important question was why would Mary, who totally knew who He was by her own history and treasured these things in her heart, suddenly think He was out of His mind, just because He went in to dine with His disciples in this house? Well, both of those questions can easily be answered if the house they entered was a gentile house. Hence the uproar, (much like Peter’s experience later with the house of Cornelius), and also why Mary would be concerned, for her knowledge and experience were Messiah had come for Israel. So her dilemma was: Why would Jesus do what had been commanded not to do for 2,000 years? I firmly believe Jesus’ earthly ministry was Jewish, but just like the Canaanite woman’s faith moved Him, could He not have found a household of faithful Gentiles also? It sure seems to answer the begging questions I mentioned. Any thoughts?
Randy,
It’s a difficult passage to see what’s going on. It may have been the pressures of ministry kept the Lord from eating regularly. See also see Matthew 10.36. I do not think we have evidence to support Jesus went into a Gentile’s house. He ministered to Gentiles on a few occasions but did not enter one’s house.
Matthew 28:19-20
Do this includes gentiles, (all nations)).
Pertaining to baptism.
Michael,
Yes. Had Israel repented and accepted Jesus as the Messiah, the prophetic program would have continued and the Twelve and other believing Jews would have evangelized Gentiles. That was God’s plan according to the program He had revealed through the prophets. But this plan assumed an obedient Israel. God had no revealed plan to bless Gentiles apart from Israel. God had cemented this program with the Abrahamic covenant. But God, being merciful, created a new program, i.e., Paul’s commission as the apostle of the Gentiles, to bless Gentiles. It is known as the Church.
Thank you for your well laid out study on this doctrine. I was introduced to it a couple months ago and had some trouble grasping it. But I prayed that God would give me the understanding and not let me be deceived.
It’s amazing how rightly dividing the ministry of Jesus to the Jews and His revelation of grace to Paul toward the Gentiles (and believing Jews) puts everything in perspective. I was especially taken with your Scripture reference from Matthew 6:10. That verse never really made sense to me as a Christian, until you explained how it refers to the Millenial kingdom. Now that makes sense.
Thank you for your website. I am so blessed to finally, after 39 years as a born again believer, understand how to rightly divide the Scriptures in this area.
One more thing. I have never, ever been one to listen to date setters for the rapture. But knowing how God is a God of order, and puts great emphasis on the Feasts, I’ve heard some very good teachings on how the Feast of Pentecost refers only to the Church and is the perfect Feast for the rapture. Especially in 2018. It’s at least worth examining.
Blessings, brother!
Janine
Janine,
Thank you. May the Lord continue to increase your understanding. Israel’s feasts and the Church are separate programs. The Rapture concerns the Church, not Israel. The Church did not begin at Pentecost as most of Christendom teaches but began with Paul. The Church was a secret God revealed to Paul alone. See my article, Paul: Chief of Sinners? You might also enjoy my new book, God’s Programs, which explains many of these things. Grace and peace to you.
Hi Don,
I’m in agreement with most everything you’re teaching. But I do have a thought about what you said regarding the timing of the birth of the Church.
As I was reading in Acts (the events leading up to and including Pentecost), I couldn’t help but see that when the Holy Spirit of promise descended on the 120 disciples, this was the beginning of a new dispensation. The dispensation of grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. All believers from that point on, Jews and Gentiles alike, were also indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
Could it be that Jesus simply handled the knowledge of what His death and resurrection now meant in different ways with the Jews and Gentiles? I guess what I’m saying is that because the Jews (who were the trustees, if you will, of the Holy Scriptures and God’s promises through the prophets) rejected Him as their Messiah, then God appointed the ministry of the apostles to the Jews in order to convince and convict them of their grievous sin in not recognizing their Messiah and, thus, crucifying Him. This way, every Jew would have heard the truth and had the opportunity to repent of their sin of unbelief. For those who did not repent and continued to deny Jesus as their Messiah, then they would have no excuse for their rejection because the apostles would have been going throughout Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8) as witnesses of Jesus Christ, their long awaited Messiah.
And because Jesus entrusted the ministry of the apostles to the Jews, the majority of whom would not receive the truth, then Jesus called Paul to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles and reveal the mysteries of this new birth and dispensation of grace to him.
The Jews and Gentiles at that time had very different levels of understanding, which would explain how it took so long for the original apostles to grasp this new mystery. The Gentiles knew little to nothing about the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection, so Paul’s ministry took on a different approach with them.
As far as the feasts being strictly for the Jews, I would agree with you. But as believers, we are now, as wild olives, grafted in to the good olive tree. And being that the feasts are past and prophetic observances, why would the Church not be a part of those feasts?
The feast of Pentecost has incredible prophetic significance and symbolism, even as it is observed by Jews today as Shavuot. And it’s also interesting how the candle in the Menorah (which would signify this feast) is in an elevated and centrally focused position.
There are some excellent videos and website ministries that make a strong case for a rapture at Pentecost. But I’m not making any line in the sand predictions. Just suggesting a look into this possibility, as it is an interesting study. After all, that day should not overtake us as a thief in the night, because as brethren, we are not in darkness (1 Thes. 5:4). ?
Hopefully, I explained this well enough for you to understand what I’m saying. I really do appreciate your ministry and am blessed by your insights.
Janine,
Please see my articles, What was Pentecost and The Church (the Body of Christ). The indwelling of the Holy Spirit was not new. It had been prophesied by Joel, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. Those indweldt at Pentecost were Jewish believers. Peter and the others knew nothing of the Church, the body of Christ, in which Jew and Gentile were equal in Christ, indweldt by the Holy Spirit. They had no ministry to Gentiles—ever. Peter went to Cornelius’ house in Acts 10 but we have no record of him having a ministry to Gentiles or of any of the Twelve ever having such a ministry. See also my article, Paul: Chief of Sinners? It is clear from what Paul wrote that the Church began with him, not at Pentecost. God began an entirely new program with Paul which He had kept secret and which had nothing to do with His program with Israel. Paul made it clear that members of the Church are to have nothing to do with the Mosaic Law, with Israel’s feasts, etc. (Galatians 4.9-11; Colossians 2.16-17). My new book, God’s Programs, explains all this.
Dear brother don, forgive me for being so late in this thread. I’ve been reading your site and read your recent book. I’ve been brought up in dispensationalism but not hyper dispensationalism (sorry for the label ). Much of this is new to me. I’ve had a hard time accepting peter and John epistles have no application for the church. It seems there are areas where paul would have been likely to make this division such as when he warned the Corinthians about divisions in the church…1Cor 3:22…whether Paul, or Apollos or Cephas, or the world, or life or death or things to come; all are yours. v23 and ye are Christ’s and Christ is God’s.
And later…..for I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death….
Why would he include Cephas and the apostles with him if they had no truth to offer the church?
Further, peter refers to Paul as our beloved brother in 2 Peter 3:15….even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things in which some things hard to be understood which they who are unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction. Why would Peter reference Paul epistles if they had no message to a Jewish believer?
John in his epistles speaks church language…..2john 1:3 grace be with you, mercy and peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father in truth and love.
And in 3 John he speaks of the church and the need to be fellow helpers with the Gentiles v 8.
I have always prayed along with Peter to grow in grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. If I’m understanding your position rightly these epistles are Jewish only yet I don’t see the divisions. Can you elaborate on this?
Also somewhere you referenced Martha as only believing in the name of Jesus for salvation in John 11 however she believed in the resurrection….John 11:24 Martha switch unto Him I know that he shall rise again in the rescurrection at the last day. V25 and Jesus said unto her I am the rescurrection and the life He that believeth on me though he were dead yet shall be live.” So she actually believed in the resurrected Christ.
The twelve all came to understand and believe in the Risen Christ in Acts.
Finally I’ve been confused about why in Matthew 1:21…and she shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call his Name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins.” The name Jesus means Jehovah is salvation. So they were believing more than just the name, they believed in God’s saving power and from their sins. I’ve been taught Israel only knew of the Messiah establishing of the kingdom but here it seems they knew about the rescurrection and saving from sin.
Thank you.
Jen b,
God began a new program with Paul: the Church, the body of Christ. This is why Paul referred to the revelations he received as secrets. What Paul warned the Corinthians about was division in the body of Christ. Peter, James, John, and Jude wrote to Jewish believers, those who had believed the gospel of the kingdom (1 Peter 1.1; James 1.1). The language is totally different than that of Paul. John spoke of keeping the commandments, confession of sin, of denying that Jesus is the Christ, of believing on the name of Jesus. This is not Church language. It is totally different from what Paul wrote. Paul wrote we are to believe Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead for salvation. You will not find such language in John or others. Paul talks about being under grace, not Law, of being controlled by the Holy Spirit, of the believer’s identification in Christ’s death and resurrection, etc. This is absent in the letters of John, Peter, James, Jude. Believing Jews believed in the resurrection. That was their hope. Their hope was to live in the kingdom on the earth in resurrected bodies. They had no hope of going to heaven. It is only Paul who wrote about believers going to heaven. Peter did not tell the Jews on the day of Pentecost to believe Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead. He told them to repent and be baptized. Peter knew nothing of the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection with regard to sin. For Peter, and for Israel, Christ’s resurrection meant He was alive and could return and establish His kingdom. See my article, Jesus vs. Paul for more distinctions.
How did you come to such clarity and the ability to respond so articulately to any question? I just recently came upon your site while attempting to create such a document myself, and you have done it already. My guess your answer will be that it came from your experience in answering the questions. You are doing a fine job my brother!
Lawrence,
Thank you. God has been gracious and good to me and I appreciate those whom God directs to doctrine.org.
Thank you for the reply. I have read your Jesus vs Paul. There are still verses that make this difficult for me to grasp:
IN Acts 15 Peter affirms that he indeed preached the gospel to gentiles and that he preached the Gospel of Grace.
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
vs 11 “No! we believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are”.
what am I missing here? Peter makes no distinction here between the Gospel having now more understanding of God’s plans an purposes wrought in Christ. Would we not see here that Peter has come more of an understanding?
I agree that until this point, Peter and the 12 and other jewish believers were still living under the law (Old Covenant) because they didn’t understand YET that Christ is the end of the law for those that believe. Your position they were saved under the Gospel of the Kingdom seems focus more on timing rather than the person of Christ in Whom they believed. They couldn’t believe in Paul’s Gospel of Grace yet because it had not yet been fulfilled and the OT had not yet been done away with..or at least that was not completely formalized until the council of jerusalem. They still believed in Messiah by faith and received more illumination as it was given.
If Paul as the founder of the church is not associated with Peter, James, John, in the church, than why does Peter refer to Paul as our “beloved brother”? And, when Peter refers to believers as being “born again not unto perishable seed but unto the living enduring word of God”…you believe this means a resurrection into the kingdom promised throughout OT vs the born again status of a church believer?
Even though Peter and the 12 were ministering primarily to jewish believers as Paul ministered to the gentiles, do you believe there were overlaps and that there are trans-dispensational truths and applications a gentile believer can apply for today from the hebrew epistles and vice versa?
Would I assume that you do not see the Lord’s Supper as for the church since it’s presented to a jewish audience in the Gospels. If I am wrong in that assumption please correct my thinking. If I am correct, Why do you believe Paul affirms the Lord’s supper and in 1st Corinthians 11 he recounts our Lord Jesus setting forth the Lord’s Supper straight from the Gospels? If the Gospels are not for us, than why would Paul not address this for us?
Finally, I am confused about the promises as relating to hebrew belivers today…I would assume we agree they are “faithful remnant”? and if so, does that place them as a faithful remnant in the body of Christ under the Gospel of Grace as they only means of salvation today? Do they lose their hebrew promises if they are in the church? Are they tied to the land as descendants of Jacob or are they as part of the church age, a heavenly people.
Thank you again for your response. I may not yet fully understand the scriptures relating to the church as you do, but I appreciate your careful study and love for the Word.
Jen,
If Peter’s declaration in verse 11 had been understood there would have been no need for a council. The Twelve were proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom. It required faith and works for salvation–keeping the Law, water baptism, forgiving one another, etc. Paul proclaimed faith alone in the death and resurrection of Christ. That’s why there was a problem. These believing Jews did not accept Paul’s Gentiles as true believers. Peter finally came around in the council when he remembered his experience with Cornelius that he was saved by faith without works. But he did not understand this. Read Acts 10. It says they were astonished. They couldn’t believe Gentiles were saved without repentance, baptism, keeping the Law, etc. Peter referred to Paul’s as a beloved brother because 1) they were both Jews and 2) they were both saints. The 12 were not ministering primarily to Jewish believers. They were ministering only to Jewish believers. The Scriptures give not evidence the 12 had a Gentile ministry. Jesus affirmed the Lord’s Supper as for us, the Church, in His communication with Paul about the subject. The Lord’s Supper speaks of the work of Christ which is for all believers in all programs. Paul taught that there were 3 kinds of people: Jews, Gentiles, and Church (1 Corinthians 10.32). When a person believes Paul’s gospel he is no longer Jew or Gentile. He is Church, a member of the body of Christ. Jews are just as much of the body of Christ as Gentiles and have heavenly promises. God is only dealing with the Church today. When the Church is complete, He will again deal with the Jews and fulfill His promises. In the earlier post what Peter had reference to was Paul’s letter to the Jews–Hebrews.
In Acts ch11, Peter had to explain himself to the jewish assembly on his return from visiting the house of Cornelius as they were very upset that he went to gentiles. Read the whole chapter. Acts 11:19- Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch: preaching the word to NONE BUT UNTO THE JEWS ONLY. Even after seemingly accepting that gentiles could be saved, they refused to preach to gentiles (just as Christ and the 12 had commanded them.
This clears up quite a bit, for instance I have never embraced the gentile church as a “priesthood” though I was taught this and hear this so much from church members who have no idea what it really means. I agree that the church should get out of the Sermon on the mount and more focused on the Pauline writings, Grace alone through faith; sanctification as the will of God. Every church we’ve tried to attend is obsessed with the sermon on the mount and they pretty much ignore Paul. I can see the jewish focus of the writings of the 12. Back to your response on 1st John, you have to know that from the time I first heard the Word this was taught to me as a book for the family, the church ONLY. And, when I read the first 2 chapters I can’t see how/why that wouldn’t be for me as it sets forth the eternality of Christ and the forgiveness of sins. So, when he speaks of our fellowship being with the Father and His Son and the blood of Jesus cleansing us from all sin…that is not for the believer today?
Regarding the commandments, I thought that as opposed to that referencing the 10 commandments that instead it was a new commandment..commandments of our Lord while on earth..John 13:34….A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another.
Do those writings of the 12 then, in your thinking, have any authority today for a believer? I guess I’m still not clear on what value you would place on the jewish epistles today.
I guess I have always perceived that the book of ACTS as demonstrating a transitional time during which believers (OT) were gaining more understanding of the entire redemptive work of Christ after His ascension. You say Peter had no idea what it meant (Acts 10) yet why do you think in Matthew 1 where we read…”He will save their people from their sins”…what did they think this meant?
I’m relieved as it seems you assert that saints are for all ages of believers across all dispensations.
So I guess all of this leads me to ask what in your view is the primary focus of the Church today on the earth? We are taught over and over the Great Commission Recently a dispensational teacher offered up the primary purpose of the Church is to 1)Glorify God; 2)edify the saints 3) fulfill the great commission. Can you offer what you think scripture shows us in this regard? And, do you think attending a “church” every Sunday is a scriptural commandment? We are told Hebrews 10:25, but I don’t see the connection there between the traditional american church model.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully to my questions.
Jen,
John wrote to Jewish believers but here’s the principle: All Scripture is FOR us but not all Scripture is TO us. Certainly, the blood of Christ cleanses us and we have forgiveness of sins. Paul taught this also. Jesus’ statement of a “new commandment” was a special emphasis. The summary of the Mosaic Law was to love God and love your neighbor. This did not abrogate the keeping of the other commandments. There are things in the writings of the 12 we can apply just as we can apply things from the prophets in the OT. Regarding the Matthew 1 passage where the angel of the Lord said Jesus would save his people from their sins: 1) “his people” referred to Jews. Gentiles were not in view. 2) how this was to be done was completely unknown. The “Great Commission” of Matthew 28 is impossible for the Church to fulfill. See my article on it. To fulfill it means water baptism and placing people under the Mosaic Law—“teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Paul taught water baptism was over (Ephesians 4.5) and that we are not under Law but under grace (Romans 6.14). This shows how different were the instructions the risen Lord gave Paul from those He gave the Twelve. Our “great commission” is 2 Corinthians 5.18-21. That is the commission we are commanded to obey and which we can fulfill. Being under grace means we can “have church” whenever we choose.
Don, were all OT prophecies to Israel fulfilled in Christ or are there some yet to be fulfilled in the future? I know that the catholic church believes they were all fulfilled in the Gospel.
Craig,
Most of the OT prophecies and promises to Israel have not been fulfilled. None of the covenants have been fulfilled completely. God promised Israel that it would become a nation of priests. That is unfulfilled. The promised kingdom of God on earth in which Israel will be preeminent among the nations is unfulfilled. The Jews do do yet have their King, the Messiah. “All Israel” is not saved. God’s wrath upon Israel—“time of Jacob’s trouble” has not yet come. Lots yet to happen regarding national Israel.
Thank you again for the reply. I will continue to study this, read and pray for discernment,
Jen,
You’re welcome. You might want to read my book. Also, C. R. Stam’s commentary on Acts is a great read. Highly recommend.
The Article is missing the point about the GOSPEL OF GOD. The Gospel of GOD encompasses the Coming Kingdom of GOD, the Grace of GOD, and the Gospel of Christ. Very simplistic, Paul did not Create a New Gospel there is ONLY ONE Gospel very simplistic.
Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Luke 4:43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.
Paul did not base his teaching off of anything new but what Jesus himself taught about the Coming Kingdom of GOD.
Acts 1:3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
(Jesus Alive Still teaching the Kingdom of GOD)
Acts 1:6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (the Kingdom to Israel a real tangible Kingdom which is going to be restored at Jesus Parousia) The Meek will inherit the earth – Jesus will rule as The King in which GOD himself appointed.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
Acts 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.”
Acts 19:8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
PAUL speaking about the Coming Kingdom of GOD.
Acts 20:24 King James Version (KJV)
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. (Grace of GOD and the Kingdom of GOD is the Same Gospel)
Acts 20:25 “And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face.
Acts 28:23 When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening.
Acts 28:31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness and unhindered.
Galatians 3:8 Galatians 3:8 King James Version (KJV)
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.
So the simple Question is how is ALL THE NATIONS blessed? Very simplistic, the GOSPEL OF GOD which means we are partakers in the Coming Kingdom of GOD, through the Gospel of GOD which consist of the Coming Kingdom of GOD, the Grace of GOD, the Grace of Christ which was completed by the blood covenant. For it is by the the blood of Christ in which we enter into the Kingdom but one must certainly listen to the Saving Gospel in which GOD first spoke unto Abraham, and Jesus spoke unto the Israelite which through Israel ALL NATIONS will be blessed. Revelation 1:6 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 5:10 King James Version (KJV)
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
The Gospel of GOD is one Gospel and Paul did not start anything new. Acts 20:24-25 Acts 28:31 show Paul was teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Micahel,
Here are questions you need to answer to support your assertion:
1. What is your definition of the gospel?
2. How doe you think a person is saved today?
3. If there is only one gospel, why did Paul have to explain his gospel to the leaders at Jerusalem?
4. Why did the gospel of the kingdom require faith and works but Paul’s gospel requires faith alone?
5. Why did Peter not tell the Jews on the day of Pentecost to believe Christ died for them and rose from the dead for forgiveness of sins?
Hello, I have been checking back for a few days to my response. Will this be posted? Thank You.
Michael,
I wrote several questions you need to answer to support your view but you seem unwilling to answer these questions.
I did send a response to those Questions.
Michael,
Your response did not answer any of the 5 questions I posed.
Jesus preached the Gospel for
several years, without saying, at that stage, a single
word about his death and resurrection. Not only this,
he sent out the disciples to preach the Gospel, before they
understood or believed that he was going to die for the
sins of the world and be raised.
1. This saving Gospel — “the Message about the
Kingdom” which Jesus stated is necessary for salvation
(see Matt. 13:19; Luke 8:12; Acts 8:12) — was the
central core of all biblical preaching. It is the Message
which Satan hates (Luke 8:12; Matt. 13:19).
2 and 3 Answered:“Repent and believe in the Gospel about
the Kingdom of God” (Mark 1:14-15; cp. Acts 19:8; Acts 20:24-5
Acts 28:23, 31) (THE SAME GOSPEL in which PAUL HEARD from Jesus HE WAS Teaching the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD)
4.Paul did not create anything knew, Jesus is the Original Sower of the Seed for He states Clearly that he must Preach the coming Kingdom of GOD to the other cities this is why I was sent. Luke 4:43 and Mark 1:14-15. Paul is teaching the coming Kingdom of GOD.
5. Acts 1:1-6 King James Version (KJV)
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Therefore Paul understood that the GOSPEL of GOD was taught beforehand to Abraham Galatians 3:8 ALL NATIONS will be BLESSED by the seed of Abraham. How are ALL Nations blessed by the blood of Jesus Christ Jew and Gentile alike have been adopted into the the Kingdom of GOD See Revelation 1:5-7. This is nothing knew GOD knew what was to be done, Jesus knew what was to be done, Paul heard and understood what had been said and done.
A Break down of Events:
Luke 4:43 Jesus said, “I must preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God…because that is why I was sent.”
Luke 9:1-2 Jesus called the Twelve together…and sent them out to preach the Kingdom of God.
Acts 1:3 Jesus appeared to them over a period of 40 days and spoke to them about the Kingdom of God.
Acts 8:12 “When they believed Philip as he preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and the name of
Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, both men and women.”
Acts 20:25 [Paul went about] preaching the Kingdom.
Acts 28:31 Paul “boldly and without hindrance preached the Kingdom of God and taught about the
lord Jesus Christ.”
Matt. 24:14 “This Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations,
and then the end will come.”
Galatians 3:8 – ALL NATIONS beforehand to Abraham. Therefore the Gospel of GOD encompasses the Coming Kingdom of GOD, Gospel of Grace, Gospel of Christ.
This is what I posted early but I decided to break it down so perhaps it could be more comprehensible. Thank you I will hope to see a response. God Bless my friend.
Michael,
None of these answer the questions.
1. Your answer simply is that the good news is the kingdom, nothing about the gospel being about personal salvation.
2 and 3. Your answer is that one is saved by repenting and believing in the coming kingdom. Again, no mention of salvation from sin and death. You completely ignore what Paul had to explain his gospel. If Paul was preaching the same thing why did Paul need to explain his gospel and why did the rulers in Jerusalem maintain that Paul’s converts were not saved?
4. Again, not answered. Paul called his gospel, “my gospel.” He proclaimed salvation by faith alone in the death and resurrection of Christ. He did proclaim repentance, the necessity of water baptism, the need for forgiving another’s sins, the need to obey the Mosaic Law, and the kingdom of God. In other words, Paul’s gospel was completely different from anything Jesus taught in His earthly ministry and anything the Twelve proclaimed.
5. This was not answered. Peter made no mention of salvation by believing in Christ’s death and resurrection. This was the only gospel Paul proclaimed.
When Paul preached the kingdom of God he proclaimed it as God’s overall rule and God’s program related to Israel. He never proclaimed it in terms of a salvation message. Paul’s ministry was primarily to Gentiles. The Twelve had no ministry to Gentiles. Paul taught that one who believed his gospel became a member of the Church, the body of Christ. Peter and the others knew nothing of this.
Nothing to do with Personal Salvation? How must one repent and believe the Gospel if one only believes Part of the GOSPEL? Jesus says clearly repent and believe the GOSPEL what did GOD say unto Abraham ALL NATIONS will be blessed by your seed. Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world Revelation 13:8 GOD knew the atonement for SIN was through the blood of Jesus Christ, but one most certainly must hear the Gospel Believe the Gospel and Repent. You can believe that Jesus died for your sins but if you do not adhere to the teaching of Jesus then you are not a Follower of Christ.
Peter Most Certainly taught the about the death of Jesus Please Read
Peter did not Mention nothing at Pentecost? Please see Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, (J)a man attested to you by God (K)with (L)mighty works and wonders and signs that (M)God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus,[b] (N)delivered up according to (O)the definite plan and (P)foreknowledge of God, (Q)you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 (R)God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because (S)it was not possible for him to be held by it. 25 For David says concerning him,
By the Foreknowledge of GOD what Knowledge that Knowledge in which GOD states unto Abraham Galatians 3:8. One must have the Faith of Abraham not only Faith in that Jesus died and GOD raised him but the Faith that Jesus is the Christ the Messiah and he will be ruling the Nations of this world for GOD has appointed his King on Mt. Zion.
Paul taught the coming of the Kingdom to all who would listen Acts 28:28-31. Jesus said HIS MESSAGE would be taught to the end of the world what Message did Jesus teach that about his death and resurrection ONLY? 30 Chapters in Matthew Mark and Luke Jesus mentions Nothing about his death and resurrection. Jesus is very clear even after his resurrection Acts 1:1-6 he was preaching the Kingdom the disciples knew of a literal Kingdom by their proposed question.
I will wait for a response God Bless.
Michael,
Jesus said those words to Israel in His earthly ministry. He communicated an entirely different message to Paul regarding the Church, the body of Christ. One must interpret passages according to their context to understand the Bible. Everything in the Gospels related to Israel. Read Peter’s statement again. Peter told the Jews Christ’s death was a crime to be repented of. He did not tell them Christ died for their sins. Peter’s statement about Christ’s resurrection was that He was alive and if they repented He would return and establish His kingdom on earth. Paul taught that members of the Church, the body of Christ, have heavenly citizenship. Jesus in His earthly ministry never taught this. The Twelve never told Jewish believers they had heavenly citizenship. The hope of believing Jews was the earthly kingdom, not the heavenly kingdom. Unless you keep Israel and the Church separate confusion is the result.
Galatians 1:12
King James Version
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
If Paul’s Gospel was the same as the Gospel of Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry, why did He reveal it to Paul? Shouldn’t Paul have already known it?
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Rom. 2:16, KJV)
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel. (2nd Tim. 2:8, KJV)
Why does Paul differentiate with the use of “my gospel”?
Also, the offer of the literal Kingdom was still valid up until the the stoning of Stephen and the calling of Paul to be the Apostle to the gentiles. At that time, the Gospel of the Kingdom was put aside temporarily.
Romans 11:25-26
King James Version
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
I would correct myself. There was a period of overlap between the Gospel of the Kingdom and Paul’s gospel of Grace.
Galatians 2:9 KJV
and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
The Gospel of the Kingdom more than likely would have faded away completely when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, because without the temple, it would not have been possible for believing Jews to follow to the law.
So your belief is that the Heavenly realm is that of Heaven and that there is no literal Kingdom of GOD that will be coming to earth? So your belief systematically removes the teaching of Jesus and what Jesus purpose will be at his Parousia. Have you not read that Jesus states that the Meek will inherit the earth Matthew 5:5 and that Jesus will be the ruling King of Kings and GOD has put his King on Mt Zion? That Daniel Prophecy of the coming Kingdom has not happened yet. Daniel 7:27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’
Jesus dying is only part of the Gospel it is not the entire Gospel for when will Jesus rule Israel as the Disciples asked in Acts 1:1-6? They are still expecting a real tangible Kingdom to arrive. One must listen to Jesus message about the Kingdom in order to believe and enter into the Kingdom. Has Abraham received his promised land? This will be question you will need to answer if one believes that I am confused about the Coming Kingdom of GOD.
When will Jesus rule Nations?
Has Abraham received the promise land?
Is Jesus the Seed of Abraham which will bring in the actual Kingdom in which GOD Promised that ALL NATIONS will be blessed through the seed of Abraham THE GOSPEL OF GOD which Paul Spoke about which was taught before hand.
If you removed the teaching of Jesus or Pit Paul against Jesus in any manner then one is not a follower of Christ but that of PAUL. Do you not know that PAUL himself benefited from hearing the ENTIRE GOSPEL believing repenting and the Blood Covenant which GOD knew before hand would signify the entire Gospel of the Kingdom? FOR ALL NATIONS will benefit GOD will provide the Sacrifice.
Mark 1:14-15 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
Luke 4:43 But he said, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.”
Mark 8:31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
Now I ask of you where is Jesus at this moment? Does not heaven retain him for a little while until the restoration of things to come in the new age? Acts 3:21
Thanks I will wait for a response! God Bless my friend.
Michael,
I do not think you are reading what I write carefully. Throughout all my articles I state that a literal, earthly kingdom will come. This was promised throughout the prophets and this is what the gospels are all about, i.e., Repent for the kingdom of God is near. In this kingdom, Israel will be preeminent among the nations (Deuteronomy 28.1, 13). But this kingdom was promised to Israel, not the Church, the body of Christ. Paul wrote that members of the Church have heavenly citizenship and will rule angels. God never gave this promise to Israel. Israel and the Church are two entirely separate programs that consititue the household of God. Unless you separate Christ’s earthly ministry from His heavenly ministry (the revelations He gave Paul) confusion is the result.
I believe the bible itself begins with a clue…..”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. …….not…In the beginning God created the universe. very subtle but very profound. There are/will be heavenly people and there are earthly people.
Joe,
Yes, this the way the Bible begins and the way it ends (Revelation 21). Heaven and earth are eternal, distinct realms.
Please post my other response along with this one.
Matthew 16:13-20 the church in which you speak starts with Peter for Jesus himself said on this ROCK I will build my church.
God Bless my friend.
Michael,
Again, you have to interpret by context. The word “church” Jesus used in this passage certainly does not mean the Church, the body of Christ. The word “church” is ἐκκλησία and means a group of people. It is used only twice in the gospels. In this context, Jesus was talking about believing Jews, those who believed He was the Messiah. The Church, the body of Christ, did not exist at this point. It was a later revelation. See my articles, The Church (the Body of Christ) and Paul’s “Mystery”.
Would you have in mind a time, prior to his death, that Jesus realizes that the kingdom promise will not be fulfilled due to Israels rejection of him as Messiah? In other words is plan B for the gentiles coming into focus prior to the crusifixion? i.e. Luke 13:34-35
David,
Jesus knew all along that Israel would not repent and accept Him. He knew that the kingdom would not coming in His first coming. When Jesus spoke in John 10.16 of “other sheep” these were the Jews of a future generation who will believe He is the Messiah. God always gives place to human will. Israel had a free-will choice. They could have had the kingdom. They could have accepted Him. We should not think of the Church as “plan B” any more than God’s calling of Abraham as “plan B” or God’s giving the Law as “plan B.” Human will is the means by which God will solve the problem of evil and resolve the angelic conflict. Without the freedom of human will, love for God cannot exist.
Thanks for your reply. In retrospect, Plan B was a poor choice – “a reordering of things which could have been” may have better conveyed the meaning. Regardless, I understand your answer regarding free will and omniscience.
As C.S. Lewis wrote: “… free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata – of creatures that worked like machines – would hardly be worth creating.” (‘Mere Christianity,’ pg. 48)
Brian,
Yes. Lewis had a keen understanding of these basic theological principles. The Biblical doctrine of man’s free-will crushes covenant theology.
David, I’ve always thought this was a good example of God’s sovereignty and man’s freewill. David had a choice and God knew the result of either of David’s choices. 1 Sam 23.
10 Then David said, “O Lord God of Israel, Your servant has certainly heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah to destroy the city for my sake. 11 Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as Your servant has heard? O Lord God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.”
And the Lord said, “He will come down.”
12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah [b]deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?”
And the Lord said, “They will deliver you.”
13 So David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah and went wherever they could go. Then it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah; so he halted the expedition.
Don, when Jesus said to the apostles that there are many mansions in his Father’s house, where and what are these mansions? Are they for Jews in the earthly kingdom only?
Craig,
Yes. It is the same thought as when Jesus told them to lay up treasures in heaven where moth and rust does not corrupt. Heaven is the place of safekeeping until the King returns to reign.
Are they actual mansions, single rooms or something else entirely?
Craig,
Unknown but I take most things literally. Whatever the case, it will be deluxe!
Don, I heard a guy say that when we have a moral issue, we should run to the sermon on the mount. I know this was Jesus speaking to Israel. Is this guy wrong or can we use it?
Craig,
All Church doctrine comes from Paul. The rest of the Scripture is for us and can be applied in certain instances. I wonder why he didn’t cite the 10 commandants. That’s a pretty good moral touchstone and Paul repeated all of the commandments except the Sabbath.
Hi Don, In Acts 2:10-11 I read: “Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” Were any of these Gentiles? In either case, If they had believed Christ was the Messiah (or even in the Gospels for that matter) IF ANY Gentile heard and believed Jesus was the Messiah, what would occur for them, in terms of a relationship with the true God?
John,
These are identified in verse 5 as Jews except for a few proselytes. Gentile evangelism, despite what most teach, did not occur (Acts 11.19). The Scriptures do not say what a Gentile was supposed to do if he believed the gospel of the kingdom. Read the account of Jesus and the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15), the Roman centurion (Matthew 8), and Peter’s visit with Cornelius (Acts 10).
Don,
Can you recommend an article or book that help me understand Peters letters. I’m trying to understand his writing to Jewish people with so much about the gospel of the grace of God.
“If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves din fear during the time of your stay on earth; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared 1in these last times for the sake of you 21 who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.” 1 Peter 1.17-21
Don, please tell me what is going on here.
And here:
“For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you can example for you to follow in His steps, 22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; 23 1and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to 3sin and live to righteousness; for by His 4wounds you were healed. 25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the bShepherd and 1Guardian of your souls.” 1 Peter 2.21-25
Thank you
John,
Peter was writing to Jewish believers, those who had believed the gospel of the kingdom. The letter was written fairly late, after the Councile of Jerusalem and not long before Peter’s death. So in the first passage he talks about Christ’s redemptive death and resurrection. It sounds a lot like Paul and this is because Paul revealed the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection. Same thing is true in the second passage. Remember, the issue of the gospel was settled at the Council of Jersalem. Only Paul’s gospel remained and that gospel was that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead.
Peter would have been writing to those who were at Pentecost and since the twelve were to stay in Jerusalem, those who had heard the message of the Messiah in tongues when Peter was preaching, had been scattered and returned to their towns. Then some time later Peter sends them his letters, but it would have been after he had met Paul and after the council. correct??
John,
Yes, but it probably also included Jews who had believed Jesus was the Messiah who were scattered due to Gentile conquests—Babylon, Medellin-Persia, Greek, Rome.
Don, I have been reading on a site called Early Christian Writings. They say that Matthew was not written by the apostle based upon statements of Papias and Irenaeus. Also, the gospel of Matthew was dependent upon Mark’s gospel and this Mark was not even an apostle. Thoughts?
Craig,
The value of what the “early Church Fathers” wrote is historical, not theological. Their theology is highly unreliable because Christendom had already become greatly corrupted by heresies (cf. 2 Timothy 1.15). As for the gospels, this is the beginning of what is known among scholars as “the synoptic problem.” See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels for a discussion. Many theories of gospel priority, dependence, and composition exist. What they all have in common, however, is that they address the issue from a purely human perspective. They do not account for the supernatural (cf. 2 Timothy 3.16; 2 Peter 1.20-21). Luke 1.1-4 is the only Scriptural evidence of “sources.” Mark was “John Mark” who was associated with both Paul’s ministry and Peter’s ministry.
Don, was John Mark’s/Peter’s Greek really that bad? As compared to Luke’s and Paul’s. I’ve often heard/read from many esteemed scholars that this was close to or being the case.
Brian,
I take these “good Greek, bad Greek” statements with a grain of salt. Each writer has his own style and Mark’s is very action oriented with many uses of εὐθύς and imperfect tenses. With regard to Peter, see https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2003b_01_Jobes_Syntax1Peter.pdf. Such studies, while “analytical” are always subjective.
Don, your link wouldn’t work. I have always heard that Peter was illiterate as were most Galileans fishermen.
Craig,
It doesn’t matter. One can author a letter without writing it. Peter could have dictated his letters.
Don, I know you know this, as this pertained to Paul: “We know that Paul used an amanuensis at times – a scribe who wrote down his letters as he dictated them – and he often lists a co-author at the beginning of his epistles. The amanuensis who wrote Romans identifies himself in Romans 16:22: “I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord.” – http://www.adamhamilton.com. So as you wrote, this technique could have been employed by others as well.
Brian,
Yes, and Paul wrote when he himself wrote something “with my own hand.”
Don, I heard someone try to use Luke 18, the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector to say that Jesus taught faith alone because the tax collector begged for mercy and was justified. I know faith alone was Paul’s gospel, but how do I respond to this person?
Craig,
Well, I wonder what he would say about what Jesus told the rich young ruler? And what he told the 12 in the “Lord’s Prayer”?
Don, what did Jesus mean when he told the apostles they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel? (Matt 19:28) Will they be ruling over these tribes in the millennium? Dose judge here mean the same thing as rule over?
Craig,
Yes, in this context, judge means rule. They will rule in the Kingdom. Cf. the book of Judges. They were rulers.
Have been studying the gospels lately and found a commentary that stated that the book of Mark was written in Greek, so must have been directed to Roman gentiles? Why would Mark write his gospel in Greek? Also, I know that Mark traveled with Paul for awhile but ended up leaving him for some unknown reason. Did Mark write his gospel after spending time with Paul? If so I would assume he was familiar with Paul’s faith alone message. Thanks for all you do.
Mike,
Thank you. The NT was written in Greek because Greek was the language of communication during the time of Jesus. It was like English today. Greek language and culture permeated the age. Jews regularly took Greek names: Paul, Apollos, Stephen, etc. The Gospels were written to Jews, not Gentiles. Mark knew of Paul’s faith alone message but the gospels were written to prove Jesus was the Christ. Acts was written to Jews to show why the kingdom of God did not come.
Don, I am in a conversation with a Catholic. She says that the apostles used only the Septuagint and that Paul quoted from the wisdom of Solomon. She is trying to make a case that the catholic bible is correct and that protestants changed the bible. How do I respond?
Craig,
The Roman Catholic Bible uses the Vulgate and Douay-Reims version in which the OT is based on the LXX. The OT in Protestant Bibles is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Most of the quotations in the NT come from the LXX. But this is a matter for textual criticism. Both the MT and LXX are important and supplement one another. It is not “one is right” and “one is wrong.”
This Catholic I am talking with is trying to make the case that Paul quoted from the apocrypha and therefore, protestant Bibles are wrong to say such books are not inspired.
Craig,
See http://justforcatholics.org/a63.htm. Even if Paul did quote from the Apocrypha, it would not follow the book was inspired. See Titus 1.12.
Hi, Don
I wrote a question in August 2018, concerning Mark 3:20-31 and the facts surrounding this event. I was hoping you had a chance to do a little more research into the Greek, because your initial response was of little value, which was “it is a difficult passage to understand, but there is no evidence showing Jesus entered a Gentile home.” It would seem, with just what is given in the passage itself, that Mary was one concerned with what Jesus was doing( she thought he was “beside himself’). Any more thoughts?
Randy,
This is what I think the text is saying. The crowd was so large and demanding they could not get to food or take time to eat. When his friends and/or family heard about the crowd, they went to rescue Him for they heard that they, that is, others, were saying He was crazy. Then the scribes came down from Jerusalem and said He was possessed by Beelzebub, etc. After Jesus addressed them, His family arrived but they could not reach Him because of the crowd. Finally, the crowd told Him His family was there and Jesus said that His family is those who do the will of God.
I understand and appreciate your thinking. I wrestle with the way you attribute the article “they” to others. Strong’s concordance shows the article used for “they” throughout this particular text in Mark is the same. Unfortunately, it does not have explanations of the context for each article in the Bible,(which, I realize, would make the concordance to heavy to lift!) Do you know of any text that has such information available? Thanks so much for your time. I praise God, whenever it comes to mind, for fellow “Bereans” such as yourself. Sometimes it gets lonely here in the deep south for fellow dispensation believing christians who consistently and rightly divide the word of Truth.
Randy,
I’m translating the NT and adding notes. What I have noted with this passage is the following:
The crowd made is so they could not go get food or take time to eat. The text reads, “the ones with Him.” Whether this referred to His family, friends, or followers has been debated. They “heard” about the large crowd. The text is ambiguous, but the likely sense is when Jesus’ friends heard about the large crowd, they also heard about those saying, not that “he was out of His mind” but that He was using sorcery. Thus, they went to “lay hold,” i.e., rescue Him from the crowd and from those saying this. It is highly doubtful “the ones with Him” thought He was using sorcery. Those who “kept saying” (ἔλεγον) He was using sorcery and those who “kept saying” (ἔλεγον) He was possessed by Beelzebul (verse 22) were the same. Mark linked the two verses with imperfect tenses. Support for the sense that Jesus was being accused of “using sorcery” ἐξέστη, is Acts 8.9, 11 where Luke used this word of Simon the sorcerer who had bewitched the people with sorceries.
Will someone comment please on the easy fact that the Gospel of the Kingdom is exactly the same as the Gospel of the grace of God Acts 20:24, 25.
Thus Paul was always a preacher of the gospel of the Kingdom, following Jesus model in Luke 4:43 etc
Anthony,
Such an idea is contrary to the Scriptures, an error that has created great confusion in Christendom. Many articles on this site provide Scriptural evidence that this idea is not Biblical but a heresy. I urge you read the articles and come to a Biblical understanding of the gospel.
Anthony, what you have written is what most denominational churches teach. These pastors do not rightly divide. They mix Israel with the Church and Paul with Peter. Can’t do that.
I recently visited a church while traveling and listened to a sermon touting the Bible as the Word of God and emphasizing the 10 commandments. Well enough. At the close of the service the minister asked if anyone wanted to “make a commitment” and be water-baptized. Commitment to what? Keeping the 10 commandments! That is his view of what it means to follow Christ. This is incredibly sad.
That fits right in with the gospel of the Kingdom, but is completely contrary to the gospel as preached by Paul – the gospel of the grace of God.
Thank you God for sending Paul.
Don, when Peter was quoting Joel about God pouring out his Spirit on all flesh, is this during the tribulation or in the millennial kingdom? Who are the “all flesh” all Jews?
Craig,
The essential question of this verse is when will it be fulfilled. It began to be fulfilled at Pentecost. But it will not reach its finality until the New Heavens and New Earth.
Don, I have been conversing with a lady about this passage of Joel and God’s Spirit being poured out on all flesh. I told her it will not reach its finality until the new heavens and new earth. This was her response to me:
“this what you speak is not in the bible so you honestly have no idea of what or when this will happen this is your assumptions and I cannot listen to a human it is what you believe but not from the bible. It is like these people giving a date to when Jesus will return and that date passed and they give a different date but see God sees and remembers all this that people speak and He writes it down in the books to open it up in the judgement to ask why you speak of things that are. not true. So I do not listen to humans because I too have to stand before God and HE will say why did you listen to humans and not believe my Word.”
Do you have anything I can give to her in response?
Craig,
No, I have no answer to this. I do not know what she means about “not in the Bible.”
Are you a MAD ie Mid Acts Dispensationalist?
Ravi,
I believe the Church, the body of Christ, began with Paul.
Don, in Mark 7:19 does the word “draught” literally mean bathroom/privy?
Craig,
It’s a curious translation by the KJV. The Greek word is ἀφεδρών and means a latrine or toilet.
Don, I know that Jesus’ parables were for Israel. Concerning the wheat and tares, are the tares fake Jews? Those who converted to Judaism and are not part of any tribe? Is this what Jesus meant in Rev when he mentions the synagogue of satan?
Can fake christians be referred to as tares, those who sit in church but never get saved? Just trying to better understand this parable.
Craig,
The tares represent unbelieving Jews.
Don, a Christian lady I know prefers to use the gospel of John when witnessing to JWs about the deity of Christ, especially John 1:1
What are your thoughts on this?
Craig,
Sure. Many verses show His deity. How about Titus 2.13?
Don and Craig, from personal experience, a verse that jehovah’s witnesses, mormons, or other non-Trinitarians/arians have difficulty trying to refute is Hebrews 1:8. At least in my experience interacting with them, more so than John 1:1 and other scriptures. They seem prepared to try to refute John 1:1 and other scriptures, but Hebrews 1:8 seems to be a curve ball for them.
Brian,
Thanks. Good verse.
That helps me greatly to understand the passages regarding Elijah.
1. “No Biblical record exists of any of the Twelve ministering to Gentiles.“ What about Philip to the Ethiopian? A one-time occurrence, not a ministry?
2. Matt 28:19 – how does this fit then?
3. Regarding evangelism: I’ve encouraged inquiring unbelievers to read the book of John. So, what should I encourage them to read?
Jane,
1. The Ethiopian eunuch was a Jew. A Gentile would not go to Jerusalem to worship and be reading Isaiah (Acts 8.27-28).
2. The Twelve were to go to Gentiles but according to the Lord’s instruction, they were to follow the order in Acts 1.8. After the Jewish nation repented they were to go to Gentiles. But the nation did not repent. Hence, the Twelve never went to Gentiles. But God commissioned Paul to be the apostle of the Gentiles (Acts 9.15; Romans 11.13) go to Gentiles.
3. John was written to Jews to convince them Jesus was the Christ. The gospel for today is found in Paul’s letters. Romans 1, 3 are were we should go and 1 Corinthians 15.1-4 is the clearest definition of the gospel by which one is saved.
“The Ethiopian eunuch was a Jew.”
Exactly.
He was reading from the book of Isaiah. The Jews were entrusted with the word of God (Romans 3:2 (NKJV)). But, apparently, a lot of folks believe that Gentiles were walking around reading their own version. The Ethiopian Eunuch was a Jew who traveled to Jerusalem to worship God.
Acts 8:27 (NKJV)….
And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, was returning.
Acts 2:1, 5 (NKJV)……
When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place……And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
Don, was it Mary or Joseph who is in the line of David?
Craig,
Both. Line of Solomon, line of Nathan.
Don, in Matthew 27:50-53 where it talks about after Jesus died the graves were opened and OT saints came out and went to the holy city and were seen by many. What happened to them, were they taken up to heaven soon afterwards? If so, then why did Jesus go to paradise to take the OT saints to heaven with him?
Craig,
Assume the Lord took them with Him, maybe the same time He took believers from Paradise. Ask Him when we see Him.
I disagree, respectfully. I am a devout supporter of the two gospels teaching and how Paul, and Paul alone, is the minister of the gospel of the grace of God. However, I think that the four gospels are, indeed, Christian, but not under Paul’s ministry, but Peter’s. What would Jews who followed Christ before Paul be called if not Christians, although they were first called Christians in Antioch after Paul was raised up as an apostle? Maybe not Christians under Paul’s ministry, but certainly Christians as set apart Jews. If there are two gospels of Christ, aren’t both gospels concerning Christians of a sort? Technically, it may not be correct, but… you know?
Kevin,
Thank you. The article’s title is deliberately provocative, chosen to challenge people to think. The main point is that the Gospels are Old Testament, not the Church, the body of Christ.
Don, what did Jesus mean when he told the apostles to sell their cloak and buy a sword? Cant be a literal sword?
Craig,
Yes, literal sword. The next event on the prophetic timetable was the Tribulation. Believers will need weapons for protection.
Don, what is baptism by fire? Is it punishment for the unbeliever? I’ve heard Pentecostal preachers mention Holy Ghost fire. Are they talking about the same thing?
Craig,
It is God’s wrath, the Tribulation.
Don, in Luke 18:8 when Jesus asked of the Son of man will find faith on the earth when he comes, was Jesus referring to his 2nd Coming?
Craig,
Yes.
Don, I’m having a little trouble wrapping my head around John 5:28 about the dead coming out of their graves. Since this is written to Israel when does it take place?
Craig,
See my article The Resurrection.
Don. Have you ever heard this interpretation
before
” The parable of the ten virgins represents the church and Israel. The wise ones with oil in their lamps is the church. They are prepared and ready to go when he comes. Not so with the five foolish virgins. They were totally unprepared. So when the bridegroom came, the five wise ones went in with him and the door was shut. The church age is over and the kingdom age begins. The foolish virgins were instructed to go and find oil, which they will do during the kingdom age…. (Tribulation)”
Craig,
Yes. The problem is the Church was an unrevealed secret during the Lord’s earthly ministry. Nothing of the Church is in the Gospels.
So the foolish virgins represents Israel?
Craig,
The five wise and five foolish virgins are Jews. Jesus spoke to Jews. He rarely spoke with a Gentile and the Church did not exist.
Don, didnt know where to ask this, but it’s about Luke 16. Someone said that it has to be a parable because when one dies the body remains in the grave, yet the rich man mentions wanting Lazarus to take his finger and cool his (rich man) tongue. His point is that body parts are mentioned. Thoughts?
Craig,
Parables do not have names of individuals so it’s not a parable. If it were a parable, what is the lesson? What if this account is forward-looking, that what the Lord means by “hell” is the Lake of Fire? In that case the lost have been resurrected.
What I was asking is how do deceased spirits such as the rich man and Lazarus retain body parts such as the finger and tongue since our body remains in the grave at death.
Craig,
If he is in the Lake of Fire he has been resurrected and has a body.
I thought the resurrection of the wicked and the lake of fire was in the future
Craig,
Correct. That is why I wrote that perhaps this account was forward-looking. There are only two possibilities: they have resurrection bodies or that have a “memory” body, like those who lose a body part but still “feel” it. Seems the first is more likely.
Don, a friend of mine posted this in a FB group. Would love your thoughts on it.
“Last week i watched a TV show where a panel of 5 pastors, narrated by a pastor, answer write in and call in bible questions. A caller said his wife went to Heaven a year ago and asked if they would be married when he joins her. Each pastor said the bible says in Heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage. I’ve heard this misquoted many times, but never by a group of pastors. The bible does not say that. The Sadducees don’t believe in the resurrection, angels or spirits Acts 23:8.. So they asked Jesus a trick or gotcha question by saying, the Law says if a man dies with a wife and he is childless, his brother is to marry her and bare children for his brother. So a man dies and and his brother marries her and he dies along with 5 other brothers. So in the resurrection whose wife will she be since all 7 married her? Jesus said, in the RESURRECTION,(not Heaven) they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Luke 20:35-36. Heaven is a place, the resurrection is an event. Judgments #4 and #5 imply, if not tell us who will marry and procreate. As to the caller’s question and being married to our spouse’s, or marring someone or marriage period for Christians, from all of my studies for years on this matter……..The bible is silent!!”
Craig,
Correct. The Scriptures are silent.
Don, there’s a pastor who says that Matthew wrote to Jews but John wrote to Gentiles. What can I say to show him he’s in error?
Craig,
What evidence does he supply to support this idea? When does he think John wrote his gospel, letters, Revelation?
Hi Don, new to your site and it’s bringing so much clarity. Question, not sure if there’s an answer but if the Jews had recognized Jesus as the Messiah, you had said that they would have preach to the nations and reached the gentiles and fulfilled their great commission etc… if this had happened and Adam’s nature and death destroyed and the new man raised up at the death and resurrection of Christ, do you think that the gospel Paul would have preached and the church would have been realized organically (for lack of a better word) and preached by the Apostles?
Donna,
Glad the articles are helpful. If the Jews had recognized Jesus as the Messiah the Church would never have come into existence. The prophetic plan would have continued and fulfilled. Gentiles would have been blessed through an obedient Israel according to the Abrahamic covenant. Jewish disobedience showed was just how great God is. Despite their rejection, God found a way to bless Gentiles and create even greater glory than what His prophetic plan revealed. God’s grace and love is greater than sin.
Don, would the death and resurrection of Jesus that destroyed the Ademic nature and rose up the “new man” ie this new revelation have manifested its’ way into the Gospel of the Kingdom based on Jer 31 and His Word written in their hearts?
Donna,
Christ’s death and resurrection were the key to God’s solving the problem of sin and death. This is why Paul wrote that God will judge mankind through Christ on the basis of his gospel (Romans 2.16). This is all in accord with God’s prophetic plan and the foundation for the new covenant, the indwelling Spirit and forgiveness of sins.
Greetings Don,
This may be a bit out of the ordinary but is it not true that the only reference to “Christians” is found in Acts 11:26 where, “And the ‘disciples’ were first called Christians in Antioch.” and we know that those were Jews from Acts 11:19 (as well as it was still Saul.) Next, the only 2 references to “Christian,” Acts 26:28 and 1 Pet. 4:16 – both, of which, are concerning the Jewish people. In fact, never in all of Paul’s writing does he refer to the Members of the Body of Christ as Christians. If what I read in Scripture is true (and I believe it is) then wouldn’t the followers of Christ during His earthly ministry as He was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, be considered “Christians” as they were in Acts, prior to the revelation of the Mystery? If so, then the Gospels are uniquely Christian but not for the Body of Christ. Just a thought.
Director Townley,
It seems that after Barnabas brought Paul to Antioch that most in this congregation were then saved by believing Paul’s gospel and acquired the name Christian. Later, Peter called Jews who had believed the gospel of the kingdom, Christian (formerly known as followers of the way). It seems “Christian” became a general term describing all who had trusted in Christ.
Don, I know the Sermon on the Mount pertains to Israel during the millennium. Jesus mentions the kingdom a few times. The Church has no kingdom. I mentioned this to a Christian lady and she said I was talking nonsense and that the devil has many of us deceived in these last days. What’s the best way to respond to this lady?
Craig,
One needs to know what she thinks the kingdom is—earthly or heavenly. Jesus addressed Jews in the sermon on the mount. The only kingdom the Jews knew about was earthly. Jesus will reign on earth (Isaiah 2, 11; Zechariah 14.9). Many do not understand this.
Don, in the parable of the lost sheep, was the sheep who had wandered away from the 99 actually the only one who was saved since the Shephard (Christ) did not return it to the flock of 99, but brought it home with Him?
Craig,
The parable’s point is one was lost and knew it, the ninety-nine were lost and did not know it.
Your opening statement –
Most Christian churches spend the majority of their time in the Gospels. I would venture to say that 90% of the churches spend 90% of their time in these four books.
When these churches preach the Gospel, will Salvation occur on the basis of the Gospels and inferences from the O.T books?
Robert,
All salvation today is through Paul’s gospel, 1 Corinthians 15.1-4. The gospel of the kingdom is presently set aside. See Acts 15.11. See my article, The Great Hinge.
Did the followers of the way continue to be followers of the way Acts 22. Did they continue to minister to those saved under the gospel of kingdom as Nasarenes? Or did they start preaching Paul’s gospel?
I say this because my understanding is that after the rapture, the 144k will begin preaching the gospel of the kingdom (since church is gone) and use the Gospels and Apostles Epistels as they fulfill the Great Commission.
Cigmd,
Those saved under the gospel of the kingdom continued to live under the Mosaic Law. See my article The Great Hinge.