Discerning the difference.

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
What do you consider being given a new heart of flesh and removing the heart of stone-----this being done by God----is?

I call that being given a new heart...

Not turning the heart of stone into a pillow.
 

Arial

Active member
I call that
It is lovely that you give your input, and I don't mind in the least that you responded. However the question was addressed to someone else and because of that, related to things said in a conversation with them. I will explain as I go along I this affects the response you gave.
being given a new heart
This could mean any number of things within your thought processes, so I would need a more concise explanation.
Not turning
By turning I assume you mean, changing in some way?
the heart of stone
Oh right. Probably does. I should have kept reading.
into a pillow.
Scratching my head here. A pillow? I am not at all sure what you are attempting to say? I realize there were thoughts behind the remark, but I am unable to see inside your head in order to know what those thoughts are. So, as I said, this just leaves me scratching my head wondering. It almost seems like you thought at some point I was saying a soft heart is a pillow. But I have no recollection of having done so. And certainly it isn't something I think. Maybe it was some sort of passive aggressive remark?

In any case, I realize now that I could have just quoted your entire post as a unity, or at least in whole sentences at once, and come up with a shorter, less superfluous, rambling. Something on the line of "What do you mean exactly?" But this looks more like am an intellectual and a deeper thinker don't you agree?
 

Arial

Active member
Well, He gave Adam and Eve one commandment. Noah was told to build the ark. Oh, and Noah had his conscience with the laws of God written on his heart. So, if you're talking about our conscience when you say this, then I would agree. Otherwise, God is telling the Jews to keep His commandments.
I am not talking about our conscience, I am talking about the commandments of God. I see no basis for saying that Noah had the law of God written on his heart by his conscience---if that is what you are saying. There is much that the Bible doesn't tell us as to details, and we can certainly speculate as we do, about those things. But remember there was direct contact between God and Adam and Eve, and most certainly there were things handed down from them through the years, as well as whatever came directly from God in whatever way. So Noah might very well have been going by what he had heard and been told concerning God. And of course God is telling the Jews to keep the commandments, and I say that includes all the law He gave them contained within the covenant stipulations and regulations. He tells us to keep the commandments too, and He is not referring to all the law. I don't understand why to say those scriptures in Rev pertain only to Jews and that it refers to ceremonial law too. And maybe you don't. I only know that some dispensationalist do.
The Law is the commandments. The sacrifices and ceremonies were simply a temporary means of covering sins when the Law was broken.
The law is everything, including the commandments, that God included in the covenant requirements. For us means obedience to what He tells us in His word. The sacrifices and ceremonies were a temporary means of covering sins, but they were also worship.
To be honest, as I've been reading along, I see some people who are excited to share what they see in the word of God and, to be totally honest, I see it from you as well as them. It takes a lot of humbling for those who are excited about the Lord to discuss....especially when they first get together. Pray and see if I might be correct about that.
A person can be excited to share what they see in the word of God without using personal put downs and contempt for those who disagree with them. And I admit I jumped right on that bandwagon when it was done to me. I am simply saying that I heard the Spirit reminding me of what is said about that in the Bible, and submit to Him. And will not engage with those who won't stop doing it, because my spirit is strong but unfortunately it is an area where my flesh is weak.
 

Arial

Active member
But if you're that scared of long posts,
This is a put down, nothing more, nothing less. I never said I was "scared" of long posts. I said they were annoying, and they are. Maybe some like them, maybe some don't have any feeling about them at all. I do know some love posting them for whatever reason. But when someone asks you not to do that when posting to them, decency and respect are called for. A person can give all the content and passion and pleasure they get from the process (I love the process of thinking and articulating myself) by not feeling the need to put it all in one post. That is all I am saying. Those long posts put the readers focus a dozen different places all at once.
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.Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul,having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. - 1 Peter 2:4-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter2:4-12&version=NKJV
I do not see this the same way you do, though I do see why you see it that way.
Nation... His own special people... who once were not a people but are now the people of God... mercy... among the Gentiles...

None of these things have any significance to Gentiles or the Body of Christ, but they are ALL things that have to do with Israel.
Then what is the meaning of this: Romans 9:30-33; 10:1-4?
And this: Is 42:1-9
This? Romans 11:11-32. Jesus is true Israel. The Jew who kept all the law and commandments that physical Israel constantly broke. He is the true Vine. Israel in the OT is spoken of as being holy (separated for God and by God). The root. The olive shoot. Through faith in Jesus, true Israel, Gentiles are grafted into the root, the olive shoot and made holy. They do not replace Israel----they are grafted into Israel. Jesus speaks Himself of His being the Vine and those abiding in Him as the branches. Everything in the entire Bible has significance to the Gentiles who are a part of the Body of Christ as well as to Jews who are at the same time and in the same way, a part of the one body, the body of Christ. Through faith in Christ. Are some things specific to Israel? Absolutely. Is physical Israel of value and importance? Yes, because it is to God. Is it more important or important through a future different dispensation? That doesn't fit with scripture from my POV. Though again I can see how one could arrive at that view. But it is also possible to arrive at the view I and others have in a perfectly legitimate way.
 

Arial

Active member
Israel is a nation, God's chosen (special) people, who once were not a people (the nation of Israel didn't exist before God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (AKA Israel))
I am very aware of that!
2) Mercy is only relevant when there is a punishment that someone deserves, but the judge has decided to not punish them. It has everything to do with the people of the law, Israel. Grace isn't mentioned here in this passage, because grace has very little to do with laws, and it's for people who don't deserve anything to receive something as a free gift.
Well mercy is always extended because of grace. Bu that aside. It is as though you do not see all people of all time and place, all in the same boat. Dead in trespasses and sins and in need of a savior. You keep separating the two groups as Jew here, Gentile there, even though the Bible is clear that dividing wall was torn down by Jesus. All the same destitute and hopeless, helpless peoples who Jesus came to save in one way. Through faith in Him. Grace has everything to do with God's law---not the covenant law given to Israel as instruction and self revelation of Him. Israel broke the covenant God made with them, Jesus kept it for them and for all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues. No one deserves anything!
who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul,having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation

You don't talk to people who are Gentiles and say to them while they are on a pilgrimage, "while you are among the gentiles..."

What's more, I quoted Galatians 2:7-9 in my previous post to you for a reason, that reason being that Peter and the others agreed to only go to the circumcision (again, another term that describes Israel), while Paul agreed to go only to the Gentiles.
Here is another way of seeing the use of the word Gentile used here. You find it by what follows and by knowing what was going on in these Gentile places at the time. The very reason Peter was addressing this. The Christians of Peter's time were being charged among the non Christian Gentiles of disloyalty to the emperor, (John 19:12)propagation of unlawful customs (Acts 16:20-21,defamation of the gods (Acts 19:23-27, and general trouble making (Acts 17:6-7). That this is the case is indicated by the instructions that follow. 1 Peter 2:13-25.

Gal 2:7-9: You read too much into this scripture that just isn't there except through assumption. Here is what the scripture says including verse 6 NKJV But from those who seemed to be something----whatever they were it makes no difference to me for th; 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 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)--- It was Jesus who appointed the apostles, Jesus who worked effectively in them in the mission and assignment that He appointed them to. That is the subject. Not a separation being made between two groups of people.
By the way, something else to note: NOT ONCE IN ANY OF PAUL'S WRITINGS does he use the term priest or priesthood. If Peter and Paul are talking about the same group of people, then why wouldn't they use similar language? (Hint: They would use similar language.) Instead, Peter and Paul refer to the people they write to differently, and talk about Jews (in the case of Paul) and Gentiles (in the case of Peter, et al) as a group other than the one he considers himself a part of. In other words, there are two distinct groups of believers in the New Testament. Jews and proselytes (with a distinction between Jews and Gentiles), and believers in the Body of Christ (in which no distinction is made between Jew or Gentile).
That is really faulty reasoning, which surprises me coming from you. People use the language and terms according to their personality and style. And as well, they relate to the particular subject and purpose of what they are writing about---the message they are sending and the circumstances in which it is given. It goes without saying that there were two groups of people, Jew and Gentile, and they would be spoken to differently. That does not mean they are divided as believers. When you say things like there is a distinction (as it relates to the gospel) between Jew and Gentile and Jew and believers in the body of Christ, it sounds like believing Jews are one thing separate from the body of Christ. Maybe that is not what you mean. If not you need to find a clearer way of saying it.
Why would I read someone's opinions on what scripture says when I can just read the Bible plainly?

I'm not saying there wouldn't be any value in reading such things as you suggest, but if I want to understand the basics, let's start with scripture, not man's opinions about it.
Because it puts what you are about to read within its context historically and otherwise. A study Bible is not meant to be someone's opinions and a good one isn't. So maybe try a good one that isn't put out by a particular untrustworthy sect. A good one will give you in the introductions and in text notes, the various interpretations that circulate. A study Bible is not a Bible interpretation.
What verse 1 says is "pilgrims of the dispersion." It does not say "Christians." The authors of the Bible are very particular in how they word things. There's a reason for not calling them "Christians." The most likely reason (and the one that fits the rest of scripture the most) is that they were not members of the Body of Christ, but Jews who had gone on a pilgrimage throughout the world.
So Jews are not a part of the Body of Christ? That will need some explaining.

What persecution were members of the Body of Christ suffering that would cause them to scatter throughout the world?

On the other hand, do you think there might be historical evidence of Jews being scattered due to some reason?
Paul himself persecuted the church before his conversion. Jesus said His followers would be persecuted and they were certainly persecuted in various places, sporadic and carried out by local Roman magistrates.
Which is something that Gentiles of that time would likely have no understanding about. Why use a term that has no relation to anything to do with the people you're talking to?
You would have to ask Peter, or imagine you were inside his head and present that as fact.
A diaspora (/daɪˈæspərə/ dye-AS-pər-ə) is a scattered population whose origin lies in a separate geographic locale. Historically, the word diaspora was used to refer to the mass dispersion of a population from its indigenous territories, specifically the dispersion of Jews. Whilst the word was originally used to describe the forced displacement of certain peoples, "diasporas" is now generally used to describe those who identify with a "homeland", but live outside of it.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I am not talking about our conscience, I am talking about the commandments of God. I see no basis for saying that Noah had the law of God written on his heart by his conscience---if that is what you are saying.

Well, Noah was not a Jew and so he had no commandments. But, we know that men have a conscience. The Bible is pretty clear on that and Paul tells us in Romans 2 that even the Gentiles (non -Jew which would be Noah) did BY NATURE those things in the Law via their conscience.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,
There is much that the Bible doesn't tell us as to details, and we can certainly speculate as we do, about those things. But remember there was direct contact between God and Adam and Eve, and most certainly there were things handed down from them through the years, as well as whatever came directly from God in whatever way. So Noah might very well have been going by what he had heard and been told concerning God.
Yes, Adam and Eve had a conscience because they hid from God and realized they were naked. What I do know is that they didn't have the Law.

And of course God is telling the Jews to keep the commandments, and I say that includes all the law He gave them contained within the covenant stipulations and regulations. He tells us to keep the commandments too, and He is not referring to all the law. I don't understand why to say those scriptures in Rev pertain only to Jews and that it refers to ceremonial law too. And maybe you don't. I only know that some dispensationalist do.

The law is everything, including the commandments, that God included in the covenant requirements. For us means obedience to what He tells us in His word. The sacrifices and ceremonies were a temporary means of covering sins, but they were also worship.

There is a lot here that we don't agree on, but it's all worthy of discussion. What can be better than Bible Study?
A person can be excited to share what they see in the word of God without using personal put downs and contempt for those who disagree with them. And I admit I jumped right on that bandwagon when it was done to me. I am simply saying that I heard the Spirit reminding me of what is said about that in the Bible, and submit to Him. And will not engage with those who won't stop doing it, because my spirit is strong but unfortunately it is an area where my flesh is weak.
Yep, I've been known to jump right on the bandwagon myself if I sense a smart alec post, but we can always do better. Getting to know each other over the web is not really that easy. We can see the other person's facial expression, and that makes a lot of difference.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
What do you consider being given a new heart of flesh and removing the heart of stone-----this being done by God----to be?
Prophecy for the nation of Israel - God's physical people

Ezekiel 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

We are the spiritual people. We are the "epistle of Christ". Paul is showing the difference between the fleshly nation of Israel in the future kingdom to the church with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

2 Cor. 3:2-4

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.​

 

Arial

Active member
Prophecy for the nation of Israel - God's physical people

Ezekiel 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

We are the spiritual people. We are the "epistle of Christ". Paul is showing the difference between the fleshly nation of Israel in the future kingdom to the church with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

2 Cor. 3:2-4

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:​

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.​

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:​

13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:​

14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.​

15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.​

16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.​

Glory, I intend to respond to these posts. Everytime I sign on to do so I get sidetracked by JR posts to me and when I am done with even one or 1/3 of one of those, I am toast as to computer time. Be patient please?
 

Arial

Active member
We are the spiritual people. We are the "epistle of Christ". Paul is showing the difference between the fleshly nation of Israel in the future kingdom to the church with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

2 Cor. 3:2-4

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:​

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.​

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:​

13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:​

14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.​

15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.​

16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.​

I see what you are saying and why. And I agree to a point. What I don't understand is why you think that Paul is separating physical Israel in a future kingdom from the church. I have seen it said by others also, but I am unable to see where that comes from in scripture.

I see Paul here writing to all believers, Jew and Gentile, and comparing the old covenant to the new. It is superior, because the believer, through the righteousness of Christ, can now "go boldly before His throne of grace, to receive mercy in our time of need." Those remaining under the law, still have the tablets written on stone, not their hearts. When we come to Christ, that veil is removed, because the law has been fulfilled in Him and the Holy Spirit dwells in us writing the ways of God on our hearts. This scripture of Paul verifies to me that this is the very thing that is being spoken of in Ez. I see a unity, not a separation.
 

Arial

Active member
Well, Noah was not a Jew and so he had no commandments. But, we know that men have a conscience. The Bible is pretty clear on that and Paul tells us in Romans 2 that even the Gentiles (non -Jew which would be Noah) did BY NATURE those things in the Law via their conscience.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,
Everything God says is a command. And I do not disagree that God gave man a conscience----it is a great "general" mercy that we seldom think about or recognize. But a conscience will not save us from all our sins, or keep us from ever sinning. That Roman's passage is a bit confusing for me in that he says "they are a law unto themselves." I need to take the time soon to look into that.
Yes, Adam and Eve had a conscience because they hid from God and realized they were naked. What I do know is that they didn't have the Law.
The didn't have the law contained in the covenant with Israel. But the did have a commandment. I think that maybe we are going slightly off kilter here by having two differing perspectives on the meaning of "law" and "commandment."
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Everything God says is a command. And I do not disagree that God gave man a conscience----it is a great "general" mercy that we seldom think about or recognize. But a conscience will not save us from all our sins, or keep us from ever sinning. That Roman's passage is a bit confusing for me in that he says "they are a law unto themselves." I need to take the time soon to look into that.

I think it means that they listen to their own conscience....a law unto themselves.
The didn't have the law contained in the covenant with Israel. But the did have a commandment. I think that maybe we are going slightly off kilter here by having two differing perspectives on the meaning of "law" and "commandment."
On the one hand, God expected man to do works of obedience. Like don't eat the fruit. Like build an ark. Physical works.

However, for the church (the body of Christ) we need only believe in order to be filled with the Spirit and be saved. No physical works at all.

Therein the difference between dispensations.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I see what you are saying and why. And I agree to a point. What I don't understand is why you think that Paul is separating physical Israel in a future kingdom from the church. I have seen it said by others also, but I am unable to see where that comes from in scripture.

I see Paul here writing to all believers, Jew and Gentile, and comparing the old covenant to the new. It is superior, because the believer, through the righteousness of Christ, can now "go boldly before His throne of grace, to receive mercy in our time of need." Those remaining under the law, still have the tablets written on stone, not their hearts. When we come to Christ, that veil is removed, because the law has been fulfilled in Him and the Holy Spirit dwells in us writing the ways of God on our hearts. This scripture of Paul verifies to me that this is the very thing that is being spoken of in Ez. I see a unity, not a separation.
Of course in the body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. We are SPIRITUAL PEOPLE.

That doesn't mean we are the only people of God.

The physical Nation of Israel has always been and will always be His Covenant People. God deals differently with them in the past and in the future. They will finally turn to God and will witness for Him during the Tribulation. People will go back to faith and works....as it was in the beginning.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Glory, I intend to respond to these posts. Everytime I sign on to do so I get sidetracked by JR posts to me and when I am done with even one or 1/3 of one of those, I am toast as to computer time. Be patient please?
Don't give it a thought. I'm very patient, and I'm always getting sidetracked myself.

The Bible is so full. The older I get the more I want.
 

Arial

Active member
I think it means that they listen to their own conscience....a law unto themselves.
That makes sense. My wrestling with the expression a bit (or needing to) is a case of language and culture interfering with our understanding. When I hear the expression "He is a law unto himself," if conjures up a negative.
On the one hand, God expected man to do works of obedience. Like don't eat the fruit. Like build an ark. Physical works.

However, for the church (the body of Christ) we need only believe in order to be filled with the Spirit and be saved. No physical works at all.

Therein the difference between dispensations.
Works of obedience of course are obedience to commands. And those things that God requires of all mankind as having been created in His image and likeness, and to bring glory to Him, exist and remain steady even before it is revealed to us by God, whether one is saved or not saved. We are still responsible for, and bear the penalty of the sins that we commit against Him. There were people saved outside the covenant with Israel before the covenant was given. And not all in that covenant relationship were saved. It was even then a matter of faith---of the heart towards God. I.e. Abraham, Noah etc. etc.

To me, that there is a difference in dispensations (the dispensing of grace at different times, which I do not deny) it does not follow that God is dealing in different ways, or dispensing grace in a different way with physical Israel now or in the future, than He is with Gentiles. To me that has already been done.
 

Arial

Active member
Of course in the body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. We are SPIRITUAL PEOPLE.

That doesn't mean we are the only people of God.

The physical Nation of Israel has always been and will always be His Covenant People. God deals differently with them in the past and in the future. They will finally turn to God and will witness for Him during the Tribulation. People will go back to faith and works....as it was in the beginning
Here is where I get confused. It seems on the one hand it is asserted that Israel and the body of Christ are two different "things" and on the other hand that they aren't. But I think I a getting a bit closer to seeing what is being said. One can always hope right?

I am not saying that only Gentiles are the people of God---or the church is that is closer to what you mean. I am saying that all believers are the body of Christ no matter what their nation, tongue, tribe or peoples.

I think God dealing with Israel is what took place in the synoptic gospels during Jesus' lifetime. That is why Jesus came from the Jews and brought the news of the kingdom to and through them. They heard it first. Many believed, more did not. The beginning of the gathering of the remnant. I realize that in reading Revelation it is easy to see such things as the two witnesses and the 144,00 and the 1000 year reign and other things as pertaining to only Israel, but I have begun to see it another possible way. One that is in my opinion more consistent with the totality of the NT and OT prophecy and shadowing. It gets a bit complicated because it involves the Bible use of symbols, and almost a complete line by line analysis and look at OT references that are repeated in Rev. And a turning upside down of what most of us, including me, have been taught about that book. But one thing for sureis, with me, I do not see God as ever moving backwards in His plan of redemption, but always forward. Returning to faith and works seems backwards when Jesus already made the way of faith through His works.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Here is where I get confused. It seems on the one hand it is asserted that Israel and the body of Christ are two different "things" and on the other hand that they aren't. But I think I a getting a bit closer to seeing what is being said. One can always hope right?

I am not saying that only Gentiles are the people of God---or the church is that is closer to what you mean. I am saying that all believers are the body of Christ no matter what their nation, tongue, tribe or peoples.

I think God dealing with Israel is what took place in the synoptic gospels during Jesus' lifetime. That is why Jesus came from the Jews and brought the news of the kingdom to and through them. They heard it first. Many believed, more did not. The beginning of the gathering of the remnant. I realize that in reading Revelation it is easy to see such things as the two witnesses and the 144,00 and the 1000 year reign and other things as pertaining to only Israel, but I have begun to see it another possible way. One that is in my opinion more consistent with the totality of the NT and OT prophecy and shadowing. It gets a bit complicated because it involves the Bible use of symbols, and almost a complete line by line analysis and look at OT references that are repeated in Rev. And a turning upside down of what most of us, including me, have been taught about that book. But one thing for sureis, with me, I do not see God as ever moving backwards in His plan of redemption, but always forward. Returning to faith and works seems backwards when Jesus already made the way of faith through His works.
Good points all. After the body of Christ is raptured, I believe the difference is that the Lord Jesus Christ will rule on this earth with a physical people (the nation of Israel - Jews). During that time (1000 years) it will once again be a physical people so doing what Christ says will be required, and won't it be easy with Him sitting on the Throne? I think that's a step forward in the physical kingdom. Then there will be turning the other cheek, etc.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
That makes sense. My wrestling with the expression a bit (or needing to) is a case of language and culture interfering with our understanding. When I hear the expression "He is a law unto himself," if conjures up a negative.

Yeah, that's where the accusing or excusing part comes in. And there's this.

Romans 2:5-10
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Works of obedience of course are obedience to commands. And those things that God requires of all mankind as having been created in His image and likeness, and to bring glory to Him, exist and remain steady even before it is revealed to us by God, whether one is saved or not saved. We are still responsible for, and bear the penalty of the sins that we commit against Him. There were people saved outside the covenant with Israel before the covenant was given. And not all in that covenant relationship were saved. It was even then a matter of faith---of the heart towards God. I.e. Abraham, Noah etc. etc.

Yes, the difference being the Cross, the rejection by the Jews, and the Gospel of Grace being given to Paul by the Risen Lord.

To me, that there is a difference in dispensations (the dispensing of grace at different times, which I do not deny) it does not follow that God is dealing in different ways, or dispensing grace in a different way with physical Israel now or in the future, than He is with Gentiles. To me that has already been done.
Well, we know this. So, though there was grace shown in the OT, we can rest assured that the fulness of Grace didn't come until Jesus came to die on the cross.

John 1:17

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
 

Arial

Active member
Well, we know this. So, though there was grace shown in the OT, we can rest assured that the fulness of Grace didn't come until Jesus came to die on the cross.
So true. This fullness in Christ is what the OT was pointing to. What I find amazing ----and it is something that I didn't see as clearly until after battles on TF with those who deny the Trinity and I was forced to give it focused thought and study---is that that faith that saved OT people was faith in Jesus just as much then as it is now. The argument against the Trinity was often "Jewish monotheism". The claim was made that the Jew did not worship a triune God. But that is not true and it is a backwards argument. If God is triune, He has always been and always will be triune. The fact that Jesus had not yet been revealed to them---or better said the Son had not yet been revealed to them----does not mean that He was not there and active. They were saved through faith in God, to save, a condition of the heart such as we see in David. David may have sinned, but he never worshiped idols, and he broke over his sins, knew that everything he had came from God and put complete trust in Him. Jesus is God.

Jesus had not yet done the work of perfect covenant keeping, dying and being resurrected,and ascending back to the Father, so the Jews were still under covenant stipulations. Now we are not. Christ did that for us.
 
Top