pilgrim49

Peter's preaching to the household of Cornelius was not a unique exception. The NT shows that the epistles were circulated among the churches and applied to all the churches. There is no dichotomy in the NT between epistles to Christian Gentiles and epistles to Christian Jews. Peter's letters were addressed to Jewish and Gentile Christians scattered thoughout Asia minor, and he was very familiar with all Paul's epistles to the Gentiles. 2 Pe 3:15-16 - "Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters (Peter was familiar with them all), speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures (Peter equates Paul's letters with Scripture), to their own destruction." John's letters were addressed to no one in particular because they were circular letters. Nor do Jude's letters given any indication they were to Jewish Christians only. There is no warrant in the Word of God for a dichotomy of the epistles. They all belong to all Christians, Jew and Gentile alike. Nowhere in the Word of God do we find "dispensation of grace." What we find is Paul showing in Gal 3:6-8 that salvation has been by faith (grace) since Abraham (Ge 15:6). It all belongs to all believers in Christ Jesus. We have no Biblical warrrant for such a dichotomy in the Word of God. And the kingdom Jesus offered was not physical, but spiritual. The kingdom of God is within you. It is invisible. (Lk 17:20-21) Jesus rejected the earthly kingdom of their hopes (Jn 6:15). The apostles did not offer an earthly kingdom. They offered the same kingdom Jesus offered, a spiritual kingdom, invisible and within you. So much of what is here has no warrant in the Word of God. Did you get this from the Word of God, or from somewhere else? P.S. I have also responded to you here. I always get my belief's from the Word or God and if you noticed, I always quote from it. Hi Eleanor. “The Church is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom promised to Israel. -- how does Ac 15:13-18 fit in?” I don’t know how anything could be plainer. God is at present through the church taking out from among the Gentiles a people for His name. Afterwards He will rebuild David’s kingdom of Israel promised by all the prophets from the beginning of the world (Acts 3:21, 24). The same thing is seen in Rom. 11:25. “The incorrect division of the Old and New Covenants. -- what do you think of bolded part of this on the relation of the Sinaitic covenant to the New Covenant? The New Covenant (Testament) began with the Lord’s birth and earthly ministry. -- would that not be with his sacrifice?” The Lord’s birth had nothing to do with the beginning of the New Covenant. It was only hours before the Lord’s death before the New Covenant was ever mentioned during His ministry. When He passed the cup the Lord said to His disciples: Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:27 28). The same is repeated in Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20 and in both cases He speaks of that which is still future, i.e., His death. In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul said: ...how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the New Covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives (Heb. 9:14 17). Surely it is evident from all the above, without exception; all those who were living during and under the first covenant of the law was redeemed by His death. It included John the Baptist and the Lord’s disciples during His ministry, which until His death were yet under the Old Covenant of which time the Memoirs recorded. Not only were the Jews sins covered, but all sins forward from Adam, … The Lord revealed the present Church during His earthly ministry. -- where do Jn 10:16, and the future building of Mt 16:18 fit it? Your passage from John doesn’t tell us who He is speaking of. But He calls them sheep which He several times applies to Israel. Whereas, Paul says the church is the bride of Christ; quite a difference. As to Matt. 16:18 being the church, we have been deceived for two millennia by the translation of the Greek “ekkleaia” to church. All the Greek word means is “assembly”. An assembly of anything; it’s a common word without any religious connotations. The Lord immediately identified the assembly he would build in v. 19 when He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven that they had been offering for 3 years. He simply was telling the disciples that though they would kill Him he would yet build the kingdom of David that they were offering because He would rise from the dead. Peter used those keys in opening the doors to the kingdom of heaven in acts 2 and 3 to Israel, and in ch. 10 to the Gentiles. The claim that Peter and a successor to open the doors to anyone beyond the above. Shall we not believe Paul, to whom the present church and dispensation of grace was given and established, that the present assembly of Christ was a hidden mystery, unknown at the time the Lord spoke those words? Or shall we believe the church scholars past and present with whom these problems originated, and are still being defended? In Matthew the Greek “ekklesia” is used 3 times. In Acts and the entire New Testament documents it is found 112 times for a grand total of 115. In Acts 19:32, 39, 41 the same word “ekklesia” that everywhere else is translated “church,” is here correctly translated “assembly.” In Acts 19 It is used three times to describe a mob of rioting Ephesian Gentiles who were afraid the preaching of Christ was going to destroy the lucrative silversmith business of making images for the worship of the goddess Diana. In opposition to Paul, Demetrius, a silversmith, called together an “ekklesia” (church), in an effort to stem the tide of defections to Paul’s teaching about Christ. To show the nonsense of their translation, most if asked what the word church means, explain that it has a meaning of “called out ones” But how could that be a proper rendering of ekklesia? If the word church, simply means the “called out ones,” then the word ekklesia, translated “church” is just as appropriate when applied to the Ephesian idol worshiping mob who would have killed Paul, as when it is used to identify the present assembly of Christ. Would we say the idol worshipers were the “called out ones?” It is a clear example of the absurdity that we have been taught by those referred to as scholars. Therefore, the word in context and the teaching from other Scriptures must decide the issue. The use of the word “assembly,” translated “church” in Matthew chapters 16 and 18 cannot be other than the kingdom of heaven assembly which they had just offered to Israel that was so named 33 times by Matthew. The Gospel of the Kingdom is the same as Paul’s Gospel of Grace. -- where does Lk 17:21 fit in? The Lord’s words “the kingdom of God is within you” (Lk. 17:21), is often quoted as supposed proof that the kingdom promised to Israel is some kind of spiritual kingdom established on earth in the hearts of Christians. But that completely ignores the rest of the Lord’s statement, which shows exactly the opposite. When He said (v. 22) His disciples would “desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.” it was from the Messianic Kingdom passage in Dan. 7:13 14 where the title “Son of Man” originated: I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed. Neither do the spiritualizers explain how the kingdom could be in the Pharisee’s who were trying to kill Him, and who the Lord called hypocrites and condemned as those who were fit for eternal damnation. The kingdom was already in their midst (among them) in the person of the king, but in their blindness they knew it not. When the King does return with the kingdom, it will be as sudden as lightening. “For a the lightening flashes our of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will be in His day (Lk. 17:24).” There is no reasonable way to evade the truth that the Lord was speaking here of the Messianic Kingdom of David coming to earth from heaven at a future time when He spoke of “the days of the Son of Man.” After the Lord’s rejection and only hours before His crucifixion, the Lord told the high priest (Matt. 26:64) that the kingdom of the Son of Man that Daniel spoke of in Dan. 7:13 14, though not then established, was yet to be realized on earth: I say to you, that hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Eleanor, you say the church is David’s kingdom. Did anyone see the Lord’s coming when Peter offered the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3? Did every eye see Him (Rev. 1:7)? The Lord told John: Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. We have just seen some 70 years in communist Russia who’s official state proclamation was: “there is no God.” Some kingdom. The 11 apostles of the Lord with Peter established the present church. -- Christ established (empowered) the NT church in Ac 2:1-11 for the purpose of his command in Mt 28:18-20. You cannot prove that. The 12 apostles had nothing directly to do with the present church including its beginning. On the contrary, when Peter did visit a Gentile church, Paul had to reprimand him publicly for his inconsistent behavior (Gal. 2:11-14). The reason for Paul becoming an apostle to begin with was the 12’s ministry was offering the Davidic kingdom to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles (Matt. 28:19) as proselytes since that was the Jewish kingdom they had lost. But Paul’s ministry was to the Gentiles where he offered salvation only in his gospel. Nowhere can it be shown that the Gospel of the Kingdom the Lord and the twelve preached was changed. The preaching of the 12 to the Gentiles (Matt. 28:19-20) would have been to make them proselytes (Ex. 12:48-49) but never progressed that far because of Israel’s rejection of the kingdom offer by Peter in Acts 2 and 3. The Jews will preach to the Gentiles after the rapture (Matt. 22:8-10; 24:14). The preaching to the Gentiles will probably by the 144.000 Jews in Rev. 7. In spite of the claims of Rome, and Constantinople, Peter and the other original apostles were the apostles to the Jews (Gal. 2:7). That is not saying that the twelve did not ever preach forgiveness of sins to any Gentiles. But nowhere did any of the 12 establish a Gentile church, or write an epistle to one. As shown above, the Lord’s command for them was to go to all nations as witnesses to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins (Lk. 24:47-48. But their primary message was the good news and offer of the kingdom to the Jews first, and eventually the making of Gentile proselytes who would be admitted into the commonwealth of Israel (Matt.16:19; 28:19-20), but the kingdom message or any other was to the Jew first (Acts 3:26). The reason God called Paul years after the original apostles was, the second rejection of the kingdom offer by the Jews was a certainty which introduced through Paul a new mystery program commonly called “the dispensation of grace” (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2), to take out of the Gentiles a “people for His name” (Acts 15:14), and a bride for Christ (2 Cor. 11:2). Salvation in Christ started in Acts 2 in approximately 33 AD and the present church in AD 46-47 and Paul’s first missionary journey. The Church began with the preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost. -- where does Ac 1:4-8 fit in? In Matthew Chap.10 and 22 and Acts 1 and 3 it can easily be seen that Peter and the other disciples also preached the same Gospel of the Kingdom after the cross that they and Lord preached before the cross. The present church did not as we have been universally taught begin with Peter’s preaching on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. After the cross the disciples were still expecting the establishment of the kingdom of Israel that they and the Lord had been offering for 3 years before the cross. That is seen in Acts 1:3 when after teaching the disciples for 40 days about things concerning the kingdom they asked the Lord if He would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel. In verse 6 He did not correct them, but simply told them, it was not for them to know when. If they were confused, that was the appropriate time to correct them, but we find no such thing. The Church is the last dispensation ending with the final judgment and end of the world. --where does 2Th 1:6-10 fit in, where Paul locates the rapture (v.7) with the coming of Jesus in judgment (v.8)? The judgments of the world begins just after the rapture. It is Daniel’s 70th. Week or the beginning of the Tribulation where all mankind will be sifted to determine who will be admitted into the kingdom as in the parables of the wheat and tares and sheep and goats. There is no need for the church to be in the tribulation. We have already been judged in the Lord’s death that was in our place. Nowhere did Paul mention any judgment of the church in connected with the rapture? Our works will be judged in heaven to determine out position and reward in the kingdom where we will reign with him (1Cor. 6:2-3). When the Lord comes at the Second Advent to judge the world Peter and Paul says: In approximately AD 63 Peter wrote his first epistle in which he said to the remnant of Jews: …gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1Pet.1:13). Peter is not speaking of us being caught up to meet the Lord in the air, but of the Lord being revealed to the world when He comes in judgment to establish the kingdom. Paul speaking of the same time tells Timothy that Christ will at His Second Advent, judge the living and dead on earth at “His appearing and His kingdom” (2 Tim. 4:1). But when speaking of Christ’s second coming (appearing) to earth to establish the kingdom that Peter spoke of, Paul told the Colossians: “When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3:4; Italic’s added). That is one of the reasons Paul was careful to explain Christ’s coming for the church and calling them up to meet Him in the air; it’s altogether different event. Here Paul makes it very clear that if we are with Him “when” Christ appears on earth, the rapture has already occurred. Moreover, Paul speaks of Christ judging the living and dead at His appearing and kingdom, but we are already judged in Christ when He was sacrificed in our place and we have been baptized into him who is alive forevermore. Dear Eleanor, I hope I have answered your questions and shown the blessedness of being in Christ where no judgment can come because Paul says we have already been judged in Christ who is alive forevermore. Completely contrary to Rome’s teaching of the necessity of being saved by our faith plus works, Paul says “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). We on God’s books are counted as dead and buried with Christ and raised with Him to eternal life because we are in Him. May the Lord give you the grace to see the perfect salvation in Christ completely apart from the Commandments. Paul says the commandments were a ministry of condemnation and death (2Cor. 3). Grace to you pilgrim

samd I agree with many of the things you said, but I do disagree with you on this comment. I have seen an entire false doctrine built on the notion that Jesus taught about the gospel of the Kingdom, and Paul taught the gospel of grace. That is absolutely false, and easy to refute. In Acts 28:30,31, it says of the Apostle Paul, And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus, Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. Paul spoke of the Kingdom repeatedly. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. 1 Corinthians 4:20 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? 1 Corinthians 6:9 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:10 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:24 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:21 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Ephesians 5:5 Who hath delievered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Colossians 1:13 And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellow workers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me. Colossians 4:11 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. 1 Thessalonians 2:12 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hebrews 1:8 The only reason I am going to the trouble of posting all of these scriptures, and taking on this one comment is because I have heard a heretical teaching that tries to separate Jesus' Kingdom teachings from what Paul taught in order to create a weird eternal security spin off doctrine. This doctrine says that all the Word is for you, but not to you. While there is some degree of truth to this statement, they take it too far. These people claim that Paul is the Apostle to the gentiles, and we are only to give heed to his teachings. According to this doctrine, NT books written by James, Peter and John, are to Jewish believers, and only apply to them. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Hi Butero I think you are a mite confused about the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God usually speaks of God's universal kingdom, whereas the kingdom of heaven normally speaks of the kingdom of God coming to earth from heaven. Both are the kingdom of God. In Acts 1:3 it is spoken of aa the kingdom of God, and immediately the desciples asked the Lord if He would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel. They knew the what the Lord meant. After all He had just spent 40 days teaching them about it. The context determines which is meant; the universal or the Davidic kingdom that the disciples were asking about was the same as when it was preached "the kingdom of heaven is at hand."ds As to your remarks about the different gospels, Paul's gospel was different than that of the twelve's gospel of the kingdom as shown in Gal. 2:2-9. Almost without exception people refuse or completely ignore Paul's statement three times that his gospel was a mystery until he was sent to Jerusalem as above and explained it to the other apostles who were still preaching the same gospel of the kingdom that they did before the cross. And no, I am not saying there are two ways of being saved. Do you believe Paul's claim that his gospel was a mystery? I will include one where that claim was made. Paul says the mystery of his gospel in this dispensation was: “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Eph. 3:6). Another mystery was that the Gentiles would be accepted in the same body of believers as co-equals of the Jews and that, completely apart from the Jewish ceremonial religion, the temple, and the kingdom message; a new dispensation (Eph. 3:2). No less than three times Paul spoke of that “mystery,” as, “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:8), which means the present body and bride of Christ, a mixture of both Jews and Gentiles with equal access to God was unknown before being unveiled to him. By the very fact that Paul boldly spoke of the message he preached as “his gospel” to the unbiased, should separate his gospel as different from all those who preceded him. The other apostles never spoke of the gospel they preached as their gospel. That explains why the apostles before him were ignorant about the present assembly of Christ, and especially so by the whole episode between Peter and Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. When Peter came to the house of Cornelius, one of the first things he said was, as a Jew he was not supposed to be in the company of a Gentile (Acts 10:28). Cornelius even had to explain to him why he was there (Acts 10: 29). After Cornelius explained his vision, Peter said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.” That sounds strange for someone who had supposedly just established a church to be made up of people without distinction from all nations on the Day of Pentecost. The apostle Paul speaking of the church said: “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” (Gal. 3:28). Furthermore, The disciples as the Lord said (Matt. 13:11, 16; Mk. 4:11; Lk. 8:10), understood the things concerning the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but didn’t know anything about the present church as indicated in at least the first twelve chapters of the book of Acts. If that is correct, as well as what Paul stated about the church being a mystery, then the obvious truth is that there was no knowledge of the present church such as Paul describe it (Eph. 3:2-6; Gal. 3:28), nor did it exist, until it was revealed to, and founded by him. In truth, the only apostle in this dispensation who was rightly entitled to say “my gospel,” was the apostle Paul. When Paul spoke of “my gospel,” it is understood that “his gospel” was received directly from the Lord and in some way different from anything previous. “For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12). In his benediction (Rom. 16:25), Paul said, “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began.” In Paul’s words, three things are mentioned together in context to form an incontrovertible statement of fact. 1. He says, “my gospel.” 2. “a revelation.” 3. “a mystery kept secret since the world began.” When Paul says “my gospel” was what was hidden since the world began, he did not include the apostles before him and say, “our gospel,” or “the gospel.” He further identifies it as a different gospel than the original apostles in Gal. 2:2 when he was sent up to Jerusalem by revelation and communicated to them “that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” He clearly distinguished his gospel to the Gentiles as something they were ignorant of, and being different from that which he and they were preaching to the Jews. That was the second offer of the kingdom from Matt. 10:16-18; 22:4-7 and was precisely what Peter was given the keys to open in Matt. 16:19 which he used in Acts 2:14-39, and especially so in 3:19-24. Besides the above passage from Romans, in Eph. 3:4-5 Paul explicitly speaks of, ...my knowledge in the mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, but has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophet. And that revelation to the holy apostles and prophets was approximately 14 years after his conversion (Gal. 1:17-19; 2:1-2) when he was sent through revelation by Holy Spirit to explain his gospel to them (Gal. 2:2). He did not speak of our knowledge, but my knowledge, which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men. Why would God send Paul on a special journey to Jerusalem to explain to the apostles something they already knew? Paul wasn’t sent because any deficiency in his understanding (Gal. 2:6). It was their understanding of his gospel that the Lord had personally revealed to him that needed to be brought up to date. Grace to you Butero pilgrim

How do you come to the conclusion that Peter wrote to Jews? In chapter 2 of 1 Peter we find this description of those he was writing to: 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. Clearly the Jews were a people and the people of God already. They had obtained mercy but now these, whom Peter is addressing, are just now obtaining mercy. Grace and Peace unto you always! Gary gdemoss asks: "How do you come to the conclusion that Peter wrote to Jews?" In AD 50 Paul was sent by Devine revelation to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the twelve before him which plainly shows that they were not aware of the contents of Paul’s gospel. “And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain…" (Gal. 2:2). But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed [to be something] added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, … (Gal. 2:6-9). Here we plainly see that Paul’s gospel was different than that of Peter and the others. Paul’s gospel was for the Gentiles, which matches Paul’s plain statement three times that his gospel was a mystery until given to him by the Lord and taught by him and the gospel for the circumcised… “…as [the gospel] for the circumcised [was] to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), … Here is your answer Gdemoss as to who Peter and the other apostles ministered to. But to add to the above, in my original post I showed where Peter 1Pet. 2 reminded his readers that they were a chosen generation, royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people. That was quoted from Ex. 19:5-6 as who Peter was writing to were the people of Israel. The same people are identified in Rev. 5:9-10. The say as Rome claims, that Peter started the present church is a fabrication. To say the Lord appointed Peter in Matt. 16:18 as the head of the Gentile church is anything but true. but that is another subject that I will cover later. Peter opens his first epistle with “to the pilgrims of the dispersion…” In chap. 2:12 he says of the same people: Dearly beloved, I beseech [you] as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. The apostles who ministered to the Jew’s recognized Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles which had been a mystery as legitimate and the matter was settled. Here is the apostles own confirmation that their ministry was to the Jews and Paul’s was to the Gentiles. Paul’s gospel was salvation only, but the twelve was preaching the gospel (offering of the Davidic kingdom) of the kingdom to Israel which also contained salvation through the same Savior. and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we [should go] to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:6-9). Therefore, to say Peter’s message to Israel on the Day of Pentecost was to the present church is nonsense. The Roman and protestant Amillennial Christians have promoted and deceived the church for two millennia. In chapter 2 of 1 Peter we find this description of those he was writing to: 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. Clearly the Jews were a people and the people of God already. They had obtained mercy but now these, whom Peter is addressing, are just now obtaining mercy. As to who Peter preached to in the opening chapters of Acts, he said in Acts 2:36: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Here it is plain who he was preaching to; the house of Israel. To settle the matter as to what began with Peters preaching is a simple matter. Rome and the Amillennial Protestants say the kingdom of heaven. The Dispensationalists say the present church. The are both wrong! Peter said in Acts 3:19-21 that if Israel would repent, God would send Jesus back from heaven for the times of refreshing and restoration of all things that Adam and Israel both lost. Israel’s kingdom was not re-established and the present church did not begin. The proof is, The Lord did not return. So whatever was offered was never realized. The say as some do that the Lord returned when the Holy Spirit came, or in AD 70 is not even worth answering. You say: Clearly the Jews were a people and the people of God already. They had obtained mercy but now these, whom Peter is addressing, are just now obtaining mercy. Peter was addressing the saved remnant only and the nation as a whole had already been rejected by God. Anyhow Gdemoss, thanks for your question and I hope I answered it to your satisfaction. In His grace pilgrim

A most informative and good post, Pilgrim. That's a lot of material for one post. I would like to point out that "spiritual interpretation" is not to be lumped with "allegorical" or "parabolic" interpretation, because they are not the same. And I also want to point out that I will not be engaging the views of the rcc here, but of the Scriptures. So that we all have the same understanding of the terms we are using here, I would like to point out that the author of Scripture often spiritualized the OT texts. For example: 1) 1Co 10:1-4 - where Paul says that Israel was baptized in the cloud, the manna was spiritual food, the water from the rock was spiritual drink, and the rock itself was Christ. Paul is spiritualizing the OT texts of Ex 14:22, 16:4, 17:6. 2) Ac 15:13-18 - where James says the promise to rebuild David's tent (Am 9:11-12) is fulfilled in God taking to himself a people from the Gentiles. James is spiritualizing the OT text of Am 9:11-12. 3) Gal 3:16, 29 - where Paul says only those in Christ are Abraham's seed who inherit the promises, that the natural descendants of Abraham are not his seed who inherit the promises. Paul is spiritualizing the OT texts of Ge 12:7, 13:1, 24:7. 4) Gal 4:27 - where Paul says that the promise to Israel (Is 54:1) is a promise to the NT Church. Paul is spiritualizing the OT text of Is 54:1. 5) Heb 8:6-13, 10:15-18 - where the author says the promise to Israel of a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34) is fulfilled in the Gentile church. The author of Heb is spiritualizing the OT text of Jer 31:31-34. 6) Dt 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4, 9:25-26 - where Moses says the circumcision of Ge 17:10-14 must be of the heart. Moses is spiritualizing the OT text of Ge 17:10-14. 7) Ro 2:26-29 - where Paul says only those circumcised in heart are true Jews, that those circumcised only outwardly are not true Jews. Paul is likewise spiritualizing the OT text of Ge 17:10-14. 8) Heb 3:7--4:11 - where the author says the promised rest in Canaan (Dt 12:10, 25:19) is completed in the rest, through faith, in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The author of Heb is spiritualizing the OT texts of Dt 12:10, 25:19; Nu 14:30; Ps 95:7-11. 9) R 9:25-26 - where Paul says that Israel is not the people of God (Hoos 1:9), and that the promise to make them his people again (Hos 2:23) is fulfilled in the Gentiles. Paul is spiritualizing the OT text of Hos 2:23. 10) 1Pe 2:10 - where Peter also says that the promise spoken to Israel (Hos 2:23) applies to the Gentiles. Peter is also spiritualizing Hos 2:23. 11) 1Co 9:8-14; 1Tim 5:1718 - where Pau says the command not to muzzle the ox when it is treading out the grain (Dt 25:4) is a command that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the Gospel. Paul is spiritualizing the OT text of Dt 25:4. So my point is that spiritualizing of Biblical texts did not originate in ancient history, nor with Clement (Php 4:3) or Origen, spiritualizing of Biblical texts originated with the author of Scripture, therefore, spiritualizing of Biblical texts must not be dismissed as foolishness or a stumbling block in interpreting the Word of God. P.S. In addition to spiritualizing, there is also some allegorizing by the author of Scripture: 1) 1Co 5:7-8 - where Paul allegorizes the Passover Festival of Ex 12:12-20. 2) Gal 4:21-31 - where Paul allegorizes the birth of Abraham's sons, Ishmael and Isaac in Ge 16:3-4, 21:1-3. 3) Heb 11:9 - where the author allegorizes the provision of the substitute ram as the resurrection of Isaac in Ge 22:13. Eleanor73 says: “A most informative and good post, Pilgrim. That's a lot of material for one post.” Thanks Eleanor for your comments. To make my case at times it takes a lot of material and I asked administration views to use whatever number of words to do so. I will take your remarks one at a time since for the benefit of the reader and yourself they deserve answering. “I would like to point out that "spiritual interpretation" is not to be lumped with "allegorical" or "parabolic" interpretation, because they are not the same.” They are when used to deny a statement of fact is said to have a meaning other than what the writer said, and say you have to give it a spiritual interpretation which is no more or less than a denial of what the writer said in preference for their imagination. If I understand Spiritual interpretation as you see it, you are saying that one has Devine guidance by the Holy Spirit to understand what the Scriptures actually mean. I notice your spelling of spiritual you used a small s. If that is intentional, than you are speaking of ones own spirit giving you understanding of Scripture rather than Devine guidance which gets back to my original premise. Everyone likes to think they have Devine guidance and no doubt some do, but if their conclusions differ with the Scriptures, then their spirits imagination that is doing the guiding and that is a fair description of the so-called spiritual or allegorical interpretation. When I use the term “spiritual,” or allegorical, I am saying of the person using that method that they claim to understand by the Holy Spirit that a passage has a higher or more Devine meaning other than what the writer actually said. Most of the Amillennialists use what is called allegorical interpretation and deny what is literally said in preference for something out of their imagination and say what the writer said was not what he meant but only those who have spiritual understanding can understand those mysteries Divinely hidden from the common layman. J. K. Grider, gives a description of an allegory: ...it means, literally, to speak in a way that is other than what is meant. J. K. Grider, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of The Bible, Zondervan Pub., 1976, Vol. 1, p. 104. Almost always when a discussion of the meaning of Scriptures arises we hear the remark: “but that’s your interpretation.” That is practically a statement that no Scriptures can be taken at face value. As if no Scriptures can be read and understood as normal statements of historical fact or words of instruction and guidance. Of Moses’ writing the account of creation. Philo a contemporary of Christ allegorically said: …since it was necessary to mould beforehand the dispositions of those who were to use his Laws he (Moses) invent(ed) fables himself or adopt(ed) those which had been invented by others (clarification added). The Works of Philo, Hendrickson Pub., 1993, chap. I. p. 3. The allegorists often point to Gal. 4:21 31 as proof of the legitimate use of allegorical teaching. When Paul uses the literal historical record of Sarah and Hagar to show a secondary allegorical meaning to teach things concerning law and grace, he uses a legitimate means of teaching used by everyone. However, a secondary allegorical meaning beyond the literal statement of fact is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is taking a normal statement for instructions or of historical fact, and saying that isn’t what the writer intended. It should be understood with any amount of reason that if whatever the writer said isn’t what he meant, then the only other thing left is the imagination of the ones who deny what the Scriptures say. The pagan approach to teaching was not an explanation of the God breathed Scriptures, but a substitution of man’s fantasies, which for the most part were not even rational, much less an explanation of anything. To this day the Catholic Church still uses the allegorical method of teaching the Scriptures. That is completely understandable; that is the foundation on which it exists. They are a standing example of where pagan philosophy leads when the Word of God is abandoned for delusions of the imagination that most call “spiritual or allegorical interpretation”. “And I also want to point out that I will not be coming from any views in the church prior to the Protestant Reformation.” But as I have pointed out the spiritual or allegorical teachings of the early church prior to the reformation is still held by the Church of Rome whose teachings were founded on the early church theologian’s method of teaching normally spoken of a “allegorical”. The World English Dictionary describes a allegory: a poem, play, picture, etc, in which the apparent meaning of the characters and events is used to symbolize a deeper moral or spiritual meaning “So that we all have the same understanding of the terms we are using here, I would like to point out that the author of Scripture often spiritualized the OT texts. For example: 1) 1Co 10:1-4 - where Paul says that Israel was baptized in the cloud, the manna was spiritual food, the water from the rock was spiritual drink, and the rock itself was Christ. Paul is spiritualizing the OT texts of Ex 14:22, 16:4, 17:6.” Whether using the word spiritual or allegorical we constantly find they still have the same meaning. To interpret Scripture, if the statement made is of a symbolic nature, such as Rev. 14:1, “Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Sion,” we know the Lamb speaks of Christ. When a statement of fact is made of a historical event, or a literal statement of an event that is to happen in the future, many often deny that the original statement meant what it said; that is, that the event actually happened, therefore, it must be given a “spiritual interpretation.” What they perceive as truth according to their method is not an interpretation, but a substitution of their worldly wisdom (1 Cor. 1:3:18-20) in place of what is recorded in Scripture. That was precisely the problem Paul addressed to the Corinthians when he denied the very thing the spiritualizers claim. He said of his epistles (2 Cor. 1:13): You don’t have to read between the lines of my letters; you can understand them (Moffatt. Translation). ...our dealings with you, have been absolutely aboveboard and sincere before God. They have not been marked by any worldly wisdom, but by the grace of God. Our letters to you have no double meaning-they mean just what you understand them to mean when you read them (Phillips translation). And we mean by our letters nothing else than what you read in them and understand us to mean (Knox translation). What should be understood is, a plain statement of fact using ordinary words needs no interpretation, but should be accepted as what the writer intended and applied to the ones spoken to in the context of the subject being discussed. Interpretation is applied to figurative statements such as parables, and that is where commonsense and nonsense is divided. When a statement of intentions, or historical fact is made, no one can be honest in their handling of Scripture and say that is not what the writer intended. To do otherwise is the equivalent of saying God actually falsified Scripture. That is in fact what almost everyone believed in the primitive church and is the parent of the present theological confusion in the body of Christ. Examples of the claim that God at times falsified Scripture were common in the early church writings. It is often and especially seen in the writings of Origen (AD 185 254), one of the most prolific writers of the post apostolic times. Speaking of the writers of the Scriptures he said: They proposed to speak the truth where it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood. Commentary on John, Anti Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Pub., 1994. Vol. 9, p. 383. If that is the way we are to approach the written Word, then who is to lead us, since we have already rejected what God has said as being what He intended. We are at loss as to which Scriptures to believe or whether any are believable. With that approach, the whole of Scripture is called into question as to whether it is a valid record or not. It never ceases to be an amazement how men with such brilliant minds as some have demonstrated can follow and advocate such utter foolishness. Because of the literacy of people other than scholars, today such bold accusations are not as common as when Origen made the statement. Yet the same identical methods more or less are constantly used by most who insist that much of the Scriptures is not to be taken literally, but must be given a “spiritual interpretation.” As a prime example of that, many say the whole book of the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” is only a parabolic picture of light overcoming darkness, or, good overcoming evil, and none of it is to be taken literally. If God does mean other than what He says, then where can be found a means of understanding what His intentions are? If indeed He intended some higher or deeper meaning, surely He would have given us a key to unlock those supposed deeper truths, but for that we would look in vain. Since we as individuals are accountable for our own decisions before God, why would He hide the truth from some and reveal it to a select few? Though we do not hear that so boldly stated today as in the early centuries of the church, nevertheless, that seems to be the thinking of all too many of their present offspring who refer to themselves as scholars. In the case of the Pharisees of the Lord’s day, because they had already rejected and refused to believe much of what the prophets had literally written about the coming of the son of David, there was a judgment of blindness imposed on them (Matt. 13:9 11; Mk. 4:11 12; Jo. 12:39 40). Once persuaded that there is a question as to the basic intent or validity of a normal and literal statement of Scripture, restraints are removed, desires are free to run rampant, and the only limitation is the imagination. Their problem is that they have cast their lot with the false seers of old, “They speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jer. 23:16). The proof of their deceiving themselves and others is evidenced by the fact of the constant confusion everywhere in biblical theology where their methods are used, and in particular in the scriptural teaching of the Messianic Kingdom of David and the whole field of biblical eschatology. John D. Pentecost has well stated the case. It would seem that the purpose of the allegorical method is not to interpret Scripture, but to pervert the true meaning of Scripture, albeit under the guise of seeking a deeper or more spiritual meaning...a second great danger in the allegorical method: the basic authority in interpretation ceases to be the Scriptures, but the mind of the interpreter. The interpretation may then be twisted by the interpreter’s doctrinal positions, the authority of the church to which the interpreter adheres, his social or educational background, of a host of other factors. John D. Pentecost, Things To Come, Zondervan Pub., 1994, p. 5. “2) Ac 15:13-18 - where James says the promise to rebuild David's tent (Am 9:11-12) is fulfilled in God taking to himself a people from the Gentiles. James is spiritualizing the OT text of Am 9:11-12.” You have just made my case. May I say with kindness, you have with a spiritual interpretation completely twisted the words of James to say just the opposite of what was actually said. I don’t know where you got that notion or Scripture that the rebuilding of David’s kingdom is fulfilled in the present taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name. After being brought up to date by Peter and Paul it is explicitly without contradiction stated by James: Simon (Peter) has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. “And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: ‘After this I will return and rebuild the tabernacle (household or kingdom) of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord. Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the ‘Lord who does all these things.’ “Known to God from eternity are all His works (Acts 15:14-1). In Acts 15:16 James says after the taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name, He will begin the rebuilding of David’s kingdom which is synonymous with the tribulation period. Paul in Rom. 11:25 says the same thing; when the fullness of the Gentiles (the church) has come in all Israel will be saved. The tribulation or rebuilding of David’s kingdom is the same when the Lord said in Matt. 24:14 that the gospel of the kingdom would be preached to the entire world and then the end of the age (tribulation) would come. That is the same as Matt. 22:8-10 which is the third offer of the kingdom that will result in the establishment of the kingdom of Israel. “3) Gal 3:16, 29 - where Paul says only those in Christ are Abraham's seed who inherit the promises, that the natural descendants of Abraham are not his seed who inherit the promises. Paul is spiritualizing the OT texts of Ge 12:7, 13:1, 24:7.” Paul did not say that Israel was not the seed of Abraham. There was a problem in the churches when the legalistic Jews demanded that Paul’s Gentile converts be circumcised and keep the commandments to be saved. There was a council of all the apostles to settle the matter and Peter in Acts 15:10-11 said to the Jews concerning the Gentiles that they and the Jews would be saved just like Paul’s Gentile converts: "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." The complete mission of Paul was to preach salvation in Christ to the Gentile world in this dispensation of grace. The problem with the Galatians church was, some of the Jews were saying they as Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law to be saved. Abraham was used as an example of the fact that it was through like faith of Abraham, that we are saved from wrath; “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3; 5:22) and their salvation had nothing to do with keeping the Law. Salvation through the righteousness of faith from the penalty of sin was what they inherited, not the covenants, not the promises, not the land, and certainly not Israel’s kingdom. “4) Gal 4:27 - where Paul says that the promise to Israel (Is 54:1) is a promise to the NT Church. Paul is spiritualizing the OT text of Is 54:1.” May I say that Paul is giving a allegorical secondary meaning to what he quoted from Isa. which you say is not the same as spiritual interpretation. “5) Heb 8:6-13, 10:15-18 - where the author says the promise to Israel of a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34) is fulfilled in the Gentile church. The author of Heb is spiritualizing the OT text of Jer 31:31-34.” I think you have misunderstood who Paul was writing to. It was “The Epistle to the Hebrews”. “6) Dt 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4, 9:25-26 - where Moses says the circumcision of Ge 17:10-14 must be of the heart. Moses is spiritualizing the OT text of Ge 17:10-14.” May I kindly say: Spiritualizing and allegorizing? And may I point out that Jews can also have a circumcision of the heart. “7) Ro 2:26-29 - where Paul says only those circumcised in heart are true Jews, that those circumcised only outwardly are not true Jews. Paul is likewise spiritualizing the OT text of Ge 17:10-14.” Here Paul is simply saying that if the Jews who had the Law but didn’t keep it and the Gentiles kept it’s righteousness requirements, would they not be counted and accepted as God’s people? Paul speaks of Israel’s redemption in chapter ll:25-28 when they will receive their Messiah. In Rom. 10:5 Paul speaking of an elect remnant of the Jews; himself being one. And in conclusion to the matter says that the saved Jews at present are only a remnant, but the time is coming when all Israel will be saved after the present dispensation of grace. “For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Concerning the gospel [they are] enemies for your sake, but concerning the election [they are] beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God [are] irrevocable” (Rom. 11:25-29). “9) R 9:25-26 - where Paul says that Israel is not the people of God (Hoos 1:9), and that the promise to make them his people again (Hos 2:23) is fulfilled in the Gentiles. Paul is spiritualizing the text of Hos2:23.” Honest to goodness Elenor73, as in your quote in #2 you have completely spiritualized and twisted things around to make the Scriptures to say just the opposite of what is actually said. You quote Paul who quoted Hos. 1:9 where it is said that Israel for a time would not be God’s people: “For you [are] not My people, And I will not be your [God].” But in vv. 9-11 God says: "Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, 'You [are] not My people,' [There] it shall be said to them, '[You are] sons of the living God.' Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel Shall be gathered together, And appoint for themselves one head; And they shall come up out of the land, For great [will be] the day of Jezreel! Where can you find in the church children of Judah and the children of Israel? It should be simple to see above that the same passage speaking of Israel presently as “not my people”, will again be called “Sons of the living God.” Then in 2:23 God says of same Israel above: Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on [her who had] not obtained mercy; Then I will say to [those who were] not My people, 'You [are] My people!' And they shall say, '[You are] my God!' " Again, you are using the above as speaking of the church but it applies to Israel in the latter day when God redeems them. Consider the following Scriptures and recognize that a time is coming when the Jews will return and yes, “seek the LORD their God and David their king.” If the church is the kingdom of David their king, please show the readers where David the king is found in the church? “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or [sacred] pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days” (Hos. 3:4-5). “10) 1Pe 2:10 - where Peter also says that the promise spoken to Israel (Hos 2:23) applies to the Gentiles. Peter is also spiritualizing Hos 2:23.” In 1Pet. 2:8 he says of the unbelieving Jews: They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. Then speaking to the believing Jews to whom his epistle was written he says of Israel who had crucified their king but as Paul in Rom. 11:5 says: a remnant had been saved and quotes from Ex. 19:6: where it is said: 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” (2Pet. 2:910). “So my point is that • spiritualizing of Biblical texts did not originate in ancient history, or with Clement (Php 4:3) or Origen, • spiritualizing of Biblical texts originated with the author of Scripture, • therefore, spiritualizing of Biblical texts must not be dismissed as a stumbling block in interpreting the Word of God.” Spiritualizing or allegorizing as used in all theological circles most certainly originated in ancient history with the Greeks and passed into Judaism and then was passed into the early Jewish church and then into the Gentile church. When the Lord instructed His disciples to pray: “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” He was only repeating what Isa. 62:6 had already said. “You who make mention of the Lord, do not keep silent, and give Him no rest till He establishes and till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth.” Has Rome become the New Jerusalem? Will the Lord not hear the prayers of His people? Will He not yet redeem Israel? Would He instruct His disciples to pray for a kingdom already established, or one that He knew would never come? Just as the prophet spoke, even most of Israel today no longer looks for their Messiah: But Zion said, “The Lord has forsaken Me, and my Lord has forgotten me.” “Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you. See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; your walls are continually before Me (Isa. 49:14 16). Behold, I will bring it (Jerusalem) health and healing; I will heal them and reveal to them the abundance of peace and truth. ‘And I will cause the captives of Judah and the captives of Israel to return, and will rebuild those places as at the first. ‘I will cleanse them from all their iniquity by which they have sinned against Me, and I will pardon all their iniquities by which they have sinned and by which they have transgressed against Me. ‘Then it shall be to me a name of joy, a name of praise, and an honor before all nations of the earth, who shall hear all the good that I do to them; they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and all the prosperity that I provide for it’ (Jer. 33:6 9, clarification added). Thus says the Lord: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, ‘then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. ‘As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.” ‘Moreover the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, “have you not considered what these people (The Amillennialists) have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the Lord has chosen, He has also cast them off’? Thus they have despised My people, as if they should no more be a nation before them. “Thus says the Lord: ‘If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, ‘then I will cast away the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendants to be rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will cause their captives to return, and will have mercy on them (Jer. 33:20 26). (my own description as Amillennialists added). Thanks again Deborah for your sincere answer to my post. Please do not be offended by any of my remarks. Grace to you Pilgrim49

That is the work of the Holy Spirit, is it not? Thanks OneLight for the note. As to getting back to the apostles teaching, that depends. The twelve were yet offering the restoration of Israel's Davidic Kingdom. With the exception of Peter's opening the doors to the kingdom of heaven to the household of Corneilus, (Matt. 16:19) the twelve's ministry was to the Jews only (Gal. 2:2-9). As their ministry being to the Jews only, they wrote no epistles to the Gentiles. That was Paul's ministry as shown in Galatians above. Paul said 3 times that his gospel was a mystery in past ages before being revealed to and preached by him to the Gentiles. The apostle distinctly states that the gospel he preached was given to him by special revelation and unknown before by anyone (Eph. 3:2 3), including the other apostles, who were yet preaching the gospel (offering) of the kingdom started by John the Baptist, the Lord, than the twelve. In v. 4, he identifies that gospel as “my knowledge.” For that reason he named it three times as “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 2 Tim. 2:8), and in Rom. 16:25 he identifies “his gospel,” as “a mystery kept secret since the world began.” Paul was sent by revelation (Gal. 2:2) to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the apostles before him. This whole dispensation of grace commonly known as the church was a mystery, completely hidden in past ages and generations (Rom. 16:25 26; Eph. 3:5,9; Col. 1:26). I am not saying the twelve taught nothing usable by the present church, only when reading their epistles we must apply what belongs to us and what belongs to Israel and the earthly kingdom they were offering. In His grace pilgrim1

Thanks Brother for taking care of me; I need a lot of that TLC.

Yes it began much earlier; about 600 BC with the Greek poets who passed it on to the Jews who passed it on to the Church and too many of the theologians are passing it on to us. Grace to you Brother pilgrim1

Why are there upwards of 300 different Christian denominations in America coming from the same textbook; the bible? With permission form the administration I in coming days would like to point out in proper order some basic theological reasons for all the confusion and suggest some correctional answers. I will begin with what I see as the basic problem from which all heresy in the ancient church began and is still very much with us today. In ordinary Christian conversation about understanding different passages of Scripture one often hears the term “spiritual interpretation,” without realizing that it is not happenstance or a natural progression of thought, but is a derivative of more nefarious things that most are not acquainted with. To get to the roots of the problem, as with so many things it helps to understand its origin. The terms “allegorical,” “parabolical,” or the more common expression in layman terms, “spiritual,” have their roots in ancient history and are by their very geneses a stumbling block to, and in direct opposition to understanding Divine revelation. The Oxford Classical Dictionary states: Allegorical reading of works of literature-above all the mythological poems of Homer and Hesiod, decoded as accounts of the physical world or the truths of morality-seems to begin as early as the 6th cent, BC and to be an established (if controversial) practice by the end of the 5th. According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, the intent of those who originally advocated the allegorical method was to discover what was seen as hidden mysteries in the writing of the poets. However, it was believed: ...in the second cent. AD and subsequently, that the philosophical tradition produced strongly ‘positive’ allegorical readings, presenting the poets themselves (Homer above all) as the first and greatest philosophers. …Homer by this stage was being built up, as a figure of authority to resist the rival claims of Moses and Christ on behalf of pagan Greek culture. To state it simply, it was said that those who had the enlightened teaching of Homer were saying that Homer knew more about morality and man’s place in the cosmos than Moses and Christ. Nevertheless, that was the identical pagan method first introduced into Judaism and then into the primitive church by those who claimed the “gnosis,” and authority to use the same as a vehicle not to understand the poets, but to discover the supposed hidden mysteries in the Sacred Scriptures. Webster’s dictionary explains the definition of the modern word “allegorical” when used in connection with the Scriptures: ...having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text. It is almost inconceivable that rational people would or could approach the Scriptures with such foolishness in mind, yet that is precisely what those who use that method do. It should be axiomatic, if a normal literal statement doesn’t mean what is said, then it has no meaning. If God indeed meant other than what is written, the entirely reasonable question could be asked concerning the misuse of Scripture, “How could God find fault with anyone, if He himself doesn’t mean what He says? From the heathen mystery religions came the belief that not only did almost every passage have a secret, mysterious and higher meaning, but that God had at times actually falsified even historical events and dates as Philo, an Alexandrian Jew (20 BC AD 50) a contemporary of Christ claimed. This was commonly taught by Philo, Barnabas, and later by Clement of Alexandria, who passed it on to his star pupil, Origen (185 254), who in AD 203 at the age of eighteen became head of the catechetical school of theology at Alexandria Egypt, which was at that time the world’s foremost Christian school. From there, that belief was established by the church leadership as the correct and legitimate method of teaching that would determine the course of church history and to some extent world history for the next thirteen centuries; until the Reformation. And even until the present, the same disastrous method is used more or less by most of Christendom. The disastrous result of the method is witnessed to by the heresy, confusion, and disastrous results everywhere it is used. That method is in fact what almost everyone believed in the primitive church and is the parent of the present theological confusion in the body of Christ. Examples of the claim that God at times falsified Scripture were common in the early church writings. It is often and especially seen in the writings of Origen (AD 185 254), one of the most prolific writers of the post apostolic times. Speaking of the writers of the Scriptures he said: They proposed to speak the truth where it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood. (Origen, Commentary on John, Anti Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Pub., 1994. Vol. 9, p. 383.) Following are listed in loose order the basic theological mistakes and heresies created from the allegorical method of teaching from which came the total fracturing of Christianity. The Christian Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people. That God has forever abandoned ethnic Israel as his chosen people. The Church is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom promised to Israel. The incorrect division of the Old and New Covenants. The New Covenant (Testament) began with the Lord’s birth and earthly ministry. The Lord revealed the present Church during His earthly ministry. The Gospel of the Kingdom is the same as the Paul’s Gospel of Grace. The 11 apostles of the Lord with Peter established the present church. The Church began with the preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost. The Church is the last dispensation ending with the final judgment and end of the world. The above is a listing as I see it of the root problems that causes so many schisms in the Body of Christ. I understand that they will have to be addressed separately and under different names but listed are the basic problems. I also realize the above conclusions will be met by most as the ramblings of an unsettled mind. If so, then challenge me. Show me where I am wrong and we will have from the Scriptures a serious in depth discussion of any or all the above and related things. In His Grace pilgrim49

All excellent points. There is another very large problem with post-trib doctrine that you will never hear it's adherents talk about. It's their reasoning as to why the church has to go through the Tribulation. It is not logical, nor is it doctrinally sound. Not only is it not logical, nor doctrinally sound, but Scripturally impossible. I will be posting explanations later. In His grace pilgrim

Many of the opponents of the teaching of the rapture claim it is a new thing, a new invention by the Dispensationalists beginning in the 19th century. That it was not taught by anyone in the early church or by any of the established churches since then. Without realizing it they are making the point emphasized in this post, we do not make our doctrine from church teaching. That is where all the confusion began, and among others the same problem is still is still with us today in the arapture position. If the rapture teaching began yesterday because someone found it in the Scriptures, does that mean it’s not believable or untrue? The trouble with most church doctrine comes from following the mistakes of the early church. Yet we are to believe that because the rapture is not found in their writing that is proof that it is not taught in the bible. As to when the teaching came to be understood in the later times in the church, in the book of Daniel it is said: But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase (Dan. 12:4). Almost without exception, commentators explain the increase of knowledge as applying to scientific knowledge. But that is to completely divorce it from the context of what was being revealed to Daniel. Gabriel was speaking of knowledge being increased in the latter days concerning his people Israel because of a searching back and forth in the prophecies concerning the very things he had revealed to Daniel. And that was what Darby's teaching laid a foundation for. It was no less than simply believing the literal words of Scripture concerning the rapture and related things. The same phrase is found in Jer. 5:1 when God says of those who need understanding. RUN to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem; See now and know; And seek in her open places If you can find a man, If there is anyone who executes judgment, Who seeks the truth, … With the exception of who the person of Christ was, hardly anything can be found in the early church writings in the way of sound doctrine. So far as systematic theology is concerned, and especially eschatology, it was practically non-existent. That was because of their method of teaching, and is still the method used today by most of what is called Christendom, and especially those who deny the rapture. They follow precisely the same method of teaching of those who couldn’t tell the difference between the rapture and the Second Advent judgments, and then complain that the early church didn’t teach it. To turn that around, the early church didn’t teach the rapture because they use the same method of teaching that today’s Arapturists' use. With the allegorical method of refusing to accept the words of the prophets as literal but as parabolic, and the fact that the present assembly of Christ was the next established, it was easy to believe the church somehow had become the recipient of the promises made to Israel. The Gentiles had accepted the same Savior that most of the Jews had rejected and murdered. Add to that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple without which the Jewish religion with sacrifices could be offered, and indeed the outward indications were that God had abandoned Israel as His people. If that was true, then human logic would lead us to the inevitable conclusion that the church was some kind of “new Israel.” But since it was not a nation in the ordinary sense, then it must be a new spiritual Israel. As Barnabas, Justin, Irenaeus, and those afterwards taught, the nations (the church from all nations) as the new Israel had beaten their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks (Isa. 2:4; Mic. 4:3). Once their allegorizing had taken root, there was no end to where their fantasies would lead. Consequently, if the church was Israel, then the church would have to go through the tribulation just as the prophets said. If that was true then there could be no rapture beforehand. Of course, they only believed the prophets when it fit their scheme. If they really believed them, they would not have said that the church had become the new Israel in the first place. Whenever a passage didn’t suit their program, it was said to be a parable, then they could and did invent whatever explanation they desired. It was a common practice of Philo, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and most all those early leaders to say the God actually falsified Scriptures to hide the truth from the simple minded layman. The belief that the Scriptures were to be taken literally was looked upon as being crass and carnal and beneath the Divine, and remained so until the Reformation and is still very much with us today. Beginning in the third century and the union of church and state under Constantine, it was soon the teaching that the church was the kingdom of God established on earth; especially through the teaching of Augustine (AD 354-430). Yet as in most things there are some exceptions. Even before then there were some who began to re-examine and search the Scriptures independently; such as the Latin leader Tertullian, who pleaded for religious liberty. Chrysostom (345-407) was deposed and banished in AD 403 for his lack of conformity. For a time nonconformity was corrected by persuasion or punished by excommunication. However, with their newfound power of the state at their disposal, it was only a matter of time until more drastic measures were instituted to contain those they considered to be heretics, and a threat to their counterfeit adulterated kingdom. At first it was confiscation of property, floggings, and then executions. It was dangerous to teach anything other than what the church sanctioned, and with the soul searching especially of the Reformation many martyrs paid with their lives in some of the most horrible torments imaginable, and that in the name of God. Peter’s successors supposedly had the keys to the kingdom and power to shut out anyone from heaven and consign them to eternal hell fire if they disagreed with the church. With such claims it can hardly be expected that they would teach the rapture of the church. They were quite comfortable with their manmade kingdom with the worldly riches and power it afforded the elite. As to no rapture teaching in the ancient church, the discovery of what is plainly a reference to the rapture. Grant Jeffrey of Grant Jeffrey Ministries discovered the teaching about the pretriblulation rapture. It was found in the writings of what is said to be written in 393 AD by a Syrian church leader named Ephraem in a document called “Sermon by Pseudo Ephraem,” entitled “On the last times, the Anti-Christ and the end of the World.” The statement by Ephraem that Grant Jeffery in particular brings attention to is as follows. For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. Of course the Arapture and Post-Tribulation people immediately came up with all kinds of denials of how it was some writer other than Ephraem, or written long after his time. And that it was only the belief of one man rather than a church doctrine. But it is a fact that he was one of the more notable church leaders of his day, having written many books and articles on a variety of things. Even if it was not written by Ephraem, it is still a clear testimony of the belief in the biblical teaching of the rapture, and that, many centuries before the teaching of Darby in the 19th century. Because of their method of teaching and power of the state to enforce their edicts, it all but shut out any teaching of the Scriptures as having a literal meaning, especially if it concerned prophecy and was contrary to their doctrines. And it remained so until the Reformation when the reformers began a return to reason and the belief that perhaps they should re-examine the Scriptures, and understand them more literally. Even though Luther and other reformers restored salvation through faith alone, and clarified many other things, still, because of the wholesale perversion of Scriptural truth for centuries, with the persecutions and just trying to stay alive, it was just too much to restore all that was so corrupted. Consequently, after the persecutions, there was a settling down with what had been accomplished and other truths would wait for another reformation. That reformation was the return to even more literal understanding of Scriptures and the return to a serious study of prophecy. Eschatology in particular began to be seriously studied in the eighteenth century and is still in a state of refinement for the better. In truth it might be said that a second reformation began with such as John Nelson Darby and Dispensationalism in general. It could also perhaps be said in spite of some serious mistakes that Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is the beginning of a third reformation. Of them it is reportedly said to presently include over 300 congregations in America. The conclusions in this book is with a few notable exceptions very similar. They who deny the rapture complain that it comes from a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. In so stating, they have shown themselves incapable of debating the issue. If a statement using normal words is not accepted as meaning what the writer said, then the only thing left is the inventions of those who deny what God has said. They have cast aside the only standard by which all conclusions must be decided which is the Holy Scriptures. If they ever read it they would do well to remember Paul’s statement to the Corinthians about his teaching (2 Cor. 1:13). "...our dealings with you, have been absolutely aboveboard and sincere before God. They have not been marked by any worldly wisdom, but by the grace of God. Our letters to you have no double meaning-they mean just what you understand them to mean when you read them (Phillips translation). …we mean by our letters nothing else than what you read in them and understand us to mean (Knox translation). You don’t have to read between the lines of my letters; you can understand them (Moffatt. Translation). How much more simple things would be if they would just listen to Paul, who said: …I do not want you to be ignorant brethren,… For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words (1 Thess. 4:13-18). Dispensationalism and the rapture taught by John Nelson Darby has gained adherents ever since. All that was needed was someone to step out of the confines of church restrictions and search the Scriptures for themselves and follow their conscience and the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Institutional restrictions and the parabolical method of teaching was the primary problem with the church and is still the foremost impediment to the teaching of the rapture and sound biblical theology today. In all the Scriptures that have any bearing on the end-time judgments, there is nothing that remotely suggests a judgment taking place in connection with the two passages in 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 before the church saints are taken to heaven. That is one of the reasons the rapture was a mystery and completely separate from the Judgments at the Second Advent. Apart from Enoch and Elijah the church rapture is the only event ever mentioned where living people are changed and taken to heaven. There are different resurrections where the Lord’s own are taken, but nothing resembling the rapture event. It is conspicuous that Paul is the only apostle or writer who mentions the rapture. The reason is simple, just like his gospel, the rapture, and this whole dispensation of grace, Paul said they were mysteries until reveiled to and taught by him and he said the others knew nothing about his gospel until he was sent to Jerusalem and explained it to them (Gal. 2:2, 7-8). In His grace pilgrim49

Is the Bride the restrainer of the Man of Sin? Although most think the church is the restrainer but as already noted the church is female “feminine,” the Bride of Christ. Whereas, the Restrainer is “He;” male (2 Thess. 2:7). Besides, the church cannot even restrain herself. It is said that over 50% of what is called evangelical Christians denies that Christ is the only way to heaven. For me conclusive evidence is Jo. 16:8 where the Lord said of the Holy Spirit: "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: …” Without that conviction in the hearts of men, the floodgates of evil in mankind will overflow and all restraint will be removed. Also, after the rapture the Holy Spirit is absent and all reverts back to where each one will be judged by their works rather than the new birth by the Holy Spirit. That is clearly seen in the Lords teaching on judgment when the He comes and establishes the kingdom. Those are judged by their works. Now we can promise the immediate indwelling of the Holy Spirit to everyone who comes to Christ. But after the Holy Spirit leaves with the rapture, those who preach the Gospel of the Kingdom can make no such promise. Those who pass the judgments of their works and are admitted into the kingdom will afterwards receive the Holy Spirit. The prophet Joel had spoken of when the kingdom of Israel is re-established the Holy Spirit would be poured out on all flesh which certainly cannot be speaking of this dispensation and most certainly not the tribulation. To those who claim that the present church is the kingdom, as with so many things, they have no explanation. It is common knowledge that the Holy Spirit would be given to those who would enter the kingdom (Jo. 3:3, 5; Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ez. 36:27; 37:14; Zech. 12:10; Joel 2:28 29 and Acts 2:17-18). It is certain evidence from the above that the Holy Spirit is not indwelling those in the tribulation if He is to indwell them after they enter the kingdom. And that is in harmony with Paul’s statement that the “the Restrainer” who would be the Holy Spirit (He) will be removed with the church before the tribulation begins. It is also seen in the letters to the seven Jewish assemblies in the tribulation. In Rev. 2 and 3 it is clearly seen that all seven assemblies will be judged according to their works (he that overcomes) because they have not the indwelling Holy Spirit as believers do today. Their judgments await the coming of the Lord when He will establish the kingdom and then will receive the Holy Spirit as mentioned earlier. However, we in the present church have already overcome in Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of our redemption (Eph. 1:13-14). The same judgment of works is seen in the Lord’s teaching in the parables of when He comes to establish the kingdom. In Matt. 10:7; and in v. 22 the Lord says the same of those who survive the tribulation where it is said of those entering the kingdom “…he who endures to the end….” But we who in this dispensation of grace are already have a citizenship in heaven. May the Lord bless In His grace Pilgrim49