Superstitious Christians

Would you explain your meaning in these statements?

As for Matthias, they had to have a 12th because they were expecting the Kingdom to come to Israel because Christ taught it would. Peter preached the immediate return of Christ to Israel in Acts 2-3. The twelve (apostles to the Circumcision) were commissioned ONLY to Israel and preached to "Jews only" (save once, when Peter opened the Kingdom -not heaven- to the Gentiles in order to make Israel jealous.)

As for Christ's ministry, He came to Israel alone (His words and confirmed by Paul). If you truly want to try and obey all His commands directly, you're going to have a heckuva time.

After our Lord's resurrection, he gathered the eleven and "opened their understanding." He then taught them for 40 days "the things concerning the Kingdom," these enlightened and well-taught men asked one question, "will you, at this time, RESTORE the Kingdom to Israel." They were not rebuked only told that they couldn't know the exact time.

Remember, they were promised to "sit on TWELVE thrones, judging the twelve tribes" when the Lord comes into His kingdom. Expecting the Kingdom if Israel repented, they needed TWELVE to sit on twelve thrones. The requirement was that they all were "with him from the ministry of John the Baptist." That meant it could not be Paul.

The Lord told the Gentile woman that he was "sent to none but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." He commanded his disciples to go only to Israel ("not into the way the gentiles") to preach "the gospel of the Kingdom." Paul confirms this ministry "to the circumcision" in Rom 15:8 (written during the Acts age).

At Pentecost, Peter preached to JEWS ONLY (and proselytes who are thus Jews) and promised them "if ye repent... he will send Christ" to restore the kingdom. The 12 were sent to ISRAEL ONLY and even after Acts 10 (Cornelius) we are told they were "astonished" that a gentile was given gifts (NOT that he was saved, they'd seen that and it was prophesied) and went out and preached "to Jews only" (Acts 11).

Paul always went to Jews first. In Acts 15, the Jew was still separate from the Gentile (and still "first" in the Kingdom plan). We do not live in that age. We live in "the dispensation of the grace of God." Hope that helps.

Thank you for answering. Are you open to some probing questions?

For example, for whom is the Sermon on the Mount intended and what say you of the OT prophets who take up the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant that Messiah shall be a blessing to all nations?

Are you saying that the New Covenant church is not prophesied in the OT and is not the fulfillment of all the OT types and shadows given in OT Israel?

The Sermon on the Mount is directed at whom the scripture says its directed ("His disciples" v.1). They were commissioned to Israel alone (Matt 10). The Sermon deals with the promised Kingdom to Israel in the Old Covenant. Matthew is directed wholly to Israel. We can take application, but we must not interpret it any other way.

Certainly God promised that through Abraham "all nations would be blessed." Gentile blessing was very clear in the OT, but it was always going to be through the channel, Israel. The Old Covenant is not given "to the nations" but ONLY to the children of Israel (Ex 19:5-6). In the Lord's ministry, he commends the faith of two gentiles, but salvation by grace is very different from the Covenant with Israel (also note, the Lord heals two gentiles he never sees or touches, all Israelites he heals are in the presence of the King). The prophets clearly prophesied gentiles coming to God THROUGH ISRAEL. Again, the apostles were not astonished at Cornelius' faith, but at the "gifts" he was given.

The New Covenant is SOLELY for Israel as well (Jer 31:31; Heb 8). It was given to a people who (a) had an Old Covenant and (b) were taken out of the land of Egypt. It clearly reads "with the house of Israel." There are several churches (Gk: Eklesia) in the Bible. These are the "families" (plural) of God that will all come together in eternity.

Salvation is, was, and shall ever-be by grace, but that does not mean that all hopes and promises and rewards are the same. There are earthly blessings for Israel and heavenly blessings for the Church which is His Body. Even among Israel there are different rewards: the land and "a city whose builder and maker is God."

The temple had a "Court of the gentiles." Gentiles were free to live among Israel, but could not participate in Feasts unless they became proselytes. Adam was not an Israelite, neither Noah, etc. Abraham was blessed "in un-circumcision." The Old Covenant never dealt with salvation.

The Feasts were shadows of Israel's history. Christ is the lamb of Passover, Christ is the Unleavened Bread (the "Last Supper" is clearly stated to be the "Passover Meal" by our Lord), Christ and Israel are the First Fruits. Pentecost (weeks) was Peter's call for Israel to repent and he promised that if they did Christ would return and restore the Kingdom Can we preach that today? This was the time of harvest for Israel.

After Pentecost Israel looked for The Feast of Trumpets. This is the hope all through the Acts age. The Feasts are kept through the Acts age (by Jewish believers only). Peter and Paul write openly about the expected trumpet and the soon return of the Lord during that age.

After trumpets comes The Atonement. This is the time of "Jacob's Trouble" and Paul warns that it must come before the Kingdom comes in ("with much tribulation"). This is why they lived communally and why the Lord told them to pray "give us this day our daily bread." This is why Paul tells widows NOT to marry (in the Acts age) and that they SHOULD marry after the Acts. Paul commands men to "live as though you have no wife." Do we preach that today? Of course not.

The last Feast is tabernacles when the Lord comes to dwell with his people, Israel. This is what was prophesied. Gentiles would come to Israel as her priests. The temporary "grafting in" of gentiles was only meant "to make Israel jealous" but even those Gentiles were second in the Kingdom plan (Rom 11).

I mentioned that the Old Covenant had nothing to do with salvation (resurrection life), so in the same way, neither does the New Covenant. If you read the specifics of the NC in Jeremiah, you will note it is for virgin Israel. One of the conditions of that age will be (yet future) that "no man will have need to tell his neighbor about God for knowledge of God will be everywhere." We can hardly say that is true today!

This will be the time, as Zechariah prophesied, that Gentiles will "grab the hem of a Jew and ask him to bring him to God." That is yet future. It could have happened had Israel repented in the Acts age (an age of miracles for Israel), but it did not. In Acts 28, Israel is (temporarily) set aside. Paul uses the phrase "our fathers" to Israel until the last group of Jewish leaders (in Rome) do not embrace the gospel. At that point, they become "your fathers." Paul identifies with gentiles. He is no longer "in chains for the hope of Israel" (Acts) but rather "in chains for you gentiles" (Ephesians).

The question must be asked of the OC's promise that Israel would be a "kingdom of priests"... priests for whom? Obviously, for the nations (believing gentiles). So the OC did not deal with salvation (new life) but rather with a promised priesthood. Adam and the patriarchs knew nothing of the Covenant of Sinai, yet they have resurrection life awaiting them.

Peter writes "to the dispersion" and James writes "to the twelve tribes scattered" because they were "apostles to the circumcision" who preached "the gospel [good news] of the circumcision" The "grafted in" gentiles of the Acts would be priests and this is what initially shocked the Jewish believers (as noted, it was meant to make Israel jealous).

Bleechers…Thank you for answering. How would you answer if I were to ask you about these things?

In the letter to the Ephesians Paul labors to communicate the good news that the wall of separation is torn down in Christ. There now is one people of God joined together by faith in Christ ‘in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord’...

‘For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation…’ [Ephesians 2:11-22].

In Galatians he is very bold…

‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’ [Galatians 3:28-29].

Paul is addressing the NC church made up of both Jew and Gentile. Is this not the fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham; that is, the everlasting covenant?

Paul declares himself a minister of the New Covenant [2 Corinthians 3:6]. The cup is offered to the church as the ‘new covenant in My blood’ says the Lord [1 Corinthians 11:25].

How can you say that ‘the New Covenant is SOLELY for Israel as well (Jer 31:31; Heb 8)’? What is your definition of Israel?

Notice that I stated that the epistles of Paul (7) written during the Acts age, reflect the conditions of the Acts (as in the repeated statements concerning the Lord's imminent return). That is why Paul writes in 2 Cor 3 of the New Covenant. The NC was in expectation. This is highlighted in my example of 1 Cor and widows and marriage in general.

But that does not explain Gal vs. Eph. In Ephesians Paul in addressing the post-Acts church. This was a new revelation, NEVER revealed before Paul revealed it (Eph 3:1-10). It was at that time that the "middle wall" (a picture of the wall in the Temple separating Jew and Gentile) came down. This is reflected in Paul's explanation of "but now."

The Church which is His Body is said to be from "BEFORE the foundation of the world." The church of the Acts was said to be from "SINCE the foundation of the world." In Gal 3:8 Paul clearly states that the blessings of the Gentiles was OPENLY seen by the prophets. In Eph 3, he said that the "one body" was NOT SEEN by the prophets.

The Body in the Acts had its own head, it was female in picture, it had miraculous gifts, the Jew came first, Gentiles had separate rules, blessings on the earth (or in the New Jerusalem) and it had three baptisms (water, spirit, into His death). The post-Acts church (hidden from the prophets) has its head in Christ, male in picture, no wall between Jew and Gentile, blessings "in the heavenlies," no miraculous gifts, and only "one baptism" (not water).

The passage in Galatians is in regard to eternal life. Certainly we would never use that passage to say that God no longer recognizes men or women! Of course there is still a difference in terms of roles and expectations, but not in eternal life. The same is true of Jew and Greek. As noted, Gal speaks of things seen by the prophets ("foreseen by the scriptures") concerning a church created "SINCE the foundation of the world."

In Paul's post-Acts epistles (7) he speaks of a church "which in other ages was NOT MADE KNOWN unto the sons of men" and which is from "BEFORE the foundation of the world." It was a Mystery. It is separate from the Covenants.

When Paul witnessed in Acts he said he taught "NOTHING except that which was spoken of by Moses and the Prophets." Yet, as we see in Ephesians, he revealed something that had been hid in God.

This is why the church in th Acts is so different from anything we see today. Israel did not repent. AT Paul's final meeting in Rome, he "turns to the gentiles" and the Mystery of God was revealed by Paul. That mystery is the calling out of the church of this age ("the dispensation of the grace of God") which knows no Jew or Greek. Acts 15 clearly shows that the Acts-age church knew Jew from Greek (as does Paul's ministry all through the Acts). Gentiles were merely "grafted in" to Israel and could be "cut off" (Rom 11:22) from Israel (not lose their salvation, but lose blessings). Do we preach such a warning to Gentiles today? No. Hope this helps!

Thanks again for answering. Let's try another one.

Regarding the Parable of the Wicked Vine Dressers: in Matthew’s account he adds this statement to the conclusion…

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” [Matthew 21:43].

Now, what nation is represented by the wicked vinedressers and who is the new nation to whom the kingdom of God is given?

Well, let me quickly refer to some of what I've been pointing to. It could not be that all national Israel is being referenced in Matt 21. At Pentecost, ONLY is addressed ("Ye men of Israel"); the return of Christ is promised to Israel if Israel repented; the RESTORATION of the Kingdom in Israel was preached (as taught by the risen Christ).

The Acts age is the result of the Lord's prayer on the cross that "God forgive THEM" (i.e. Israel). But that does not negate the judgment against the Jewish leadership in Matthew 21. The coming Kingdom to Israel is expressed in the prophets. One particular picture is in Isaiah 66.

Is 66:7-14 is a picture of a reborn Israel. Paul notes "not all Israel is Israel" AND "all Israel shall be saved." There is a remnant of believing Jews who shall be reborn as "faithful Israel." In the New Covenant they are referred to as "virgin Israel" (this is the Bride of the Acts and the Revelation).

Isaiah 66 also speaks of the conditions in the Kingdom. Our Lord references these conditions to Israel in His ministry "to none but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Verse 24 is almost universally overlooked. There we are told that which is the place where "the worm dies not and the fire is not quenched" are "carcases" (dead bodies).

The "church" of this age (the dispensation of the grace of God) is not a "nation." We know from Matthew 24-25 that at the return of the King "nations" will be gathered before him for judgment. This the judgment seen in Joel (and why Peter states at Pentecost "this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel as those things were set to come to pass if Israel repented as Peter commanded).

The "nations" are judged by how they treated "the least of these [His] brethren." That is not "all men of all time" it is clearly the Jewish people who are his "brethren according to the flesh;" and the judgment is a very specific one which deals with His "return" (Mt 24:1-3). The judgment ends with an entrance into a Kingdom. As noted, the Kingdom involves Israel as the priests for the believing Gentile nations (who will grab the hem of the skirt of a Jew and ask to be taken to God - Zech).

If the church of this hour started at Pentecost, the book of Acts, the apostles, the epistles all have gross error in them. This cannot be. The answer is understanding the calling of Israel (since the foundation of the world) and the calling of the church which is His body (before the foundation of the world).

If Christians would understand that no one was ever saved by the Law (given not to "the nations" but ONLY to "the children of Israel" Ex 19:5-6) because it never had anything to do with resurrection life, the New Covenant with Israel would make sense. The parables were given as a judgment for unbelief (not "nice stories" like some teach). They are hard to understand and must be interpreted in light of the prophets.

On Proselytes... A gentile who believed was saved at the moment of faith (e.g. Rahab, the centurion, etc). BUT a gentile was forbidden to partake of the Passover or participate in the Feasts unless he became a proselyte (this becoming a Jew by identification). The temple had a "court of the gentiles" and they could come and worship, but only outside the holy place.

Gentile believers were not "lost" people until they became Jews. Becoming a proselyte brought them under the covenant of priesthood, but it NEVER gave life (Gal 3:21; etc.). In Acts 10 God allowed a believer (v1-4; 36), Cornelius, to get the gifts of Pentecost WITHOUT becoming a proselyte. This astonished the Jewish believers. They went out and continued their ministry "to Jews only." This change was made "to make Israel jealous" (Paul OPENLY acknowledges Israel as a nation before God in the Acts and Acts epistles).

In Acts 15, the Jewish believers asked why the gentiles did not keep the Law. These men were not told that NOBODY was to keep the law, but that GENTILES didn't have to keep it. There were TWO sets of rules given, one for each group (cp. Rom 11). This decision was approved by Peter, by Paul and by the Holy Spirit (v.28). In verse 9 Peter states what Paul taught in Gal 3, "no distinction" between Jew and Greek in blessings, BUT he goes on to acknowledge a difference in every other way. There is STILL a distinction in other ways between Jew and Greek until Acts 28.

Would you allow your church to have two different sets of rules? Would you allow some to preach to "Whites only?" Would you threaten ONLY gentiles that they could be "cut off" from a non-existent (sic) Israel? All these are understood if we understand the Covenants, God's plan and the call of this hour.

The NT gives us the identity of the new nation. You can see from the context of this passage who it is…

‘But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.’ [1 Peter 2:9-10]

Do you recognize that the language Peter is using was originally given to describe OT Israel?

“And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation…” [Exodus 19:6].

Now the temple of this new nation must be in the same realm as the nation…

‘Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ’ [1 Peter 2:4-5].

Thanks for visiting my blog and taking time to comment. As a lover of the Scriptures you are welcome any time. Best Regards to you.

I fear you are not quite understanding what I've been arguing. Peter was an "apostle to the circumcision."

He wrote to Jews during the Acts age and reflects the hope of the Acts age.

His epistle is not addressed to us, it is addressed "to the dispersion" (1 Pet 1:1), that's Jews. The promises of a "royal priesthood" was very relevant in the Acts age. That which was not revealed before Paul revealed it after the Acts, is not in view in Peter.

Remember, Peter's words in 1 Pet 1:1 and James' words in Jas 1:1 are inspired by the Holy Spirit. These men were sent to Jews only and ministered the "gospel of the circumcision." ALL salvation is based on what Christ accomplished from Calvary to the grave to resurrection, but not all "good news" emanating from that is the same.

Peter said things at Pentecost (to Jews only) that you would NEVER preach at your church today. He said things in Acts 15 you'd NEVER preach in your church today. He was not sent to us. Paul is our apostle and Paul tells us in Eph 3 that he is revealing something new (post-Acts).

The Jews in the Acts (even Paul) kept parts of Law while gentiles had a separate set of rules. All through the Acts (and the Acts epistles, Rom, Gal, 1-2 Cor, 1-2 Thes, Heb, 1-2 Pet, 1-2-3 John, James, Rev) Israel is clearly seen. The "Holy nation" of 1 Pet is the Bride, the "virgin Israel" of the New Covenant (Jer 31; Is 66:7-14).