One on One: Hilston and Tetelestai - Questions the Mid-Acts View Cannot Answer?

[Hilston]

Issues that TOL MADists have been unable to answer.

Tetelestai has challenged me to address some issues that certain Mid-Acts dispensationalists on TOL have not been able to answer.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should state upfront that the Mid-Acts view I espouse is vastly different in significant ways from that of most TOL Mid-Acts proponents, particularly in areas concerning the exhaustive foreknowledge of God, His inexorable decrees, the non-optional necessity of the Mid-Acts view, the non-ceremonial/non-holiday nature of the Body of Christ, and the extent of the Atonement. In sum, I defend a non-optional Mid-Acts view that affirms a settled and exhaustively known future. Furthermore, I think the issues Tetelestai has raised (and will likely raise) will expose those differences, as well as the errors of other Mid-Acts views expressed on this forum. My aim is to demonstrate why the Mid-Acts Settled View is not merely as good as other theological frameworks, or even slightly better than other doctrinal views, but is indeed the only view of, and approach to Scripture that is consistent, rational and can account for any and all theological problems or difficulties proferred by opposing views.

I believe that the “end of times” for Israel happened in 70AD.

I believe the problem with this view lies in the misinterpretation of various prophecies. For example, one that I touched on briefly in the thread from which this one was spawned, Jesus was specific and emphatic concerning the utter destruction of the entire temple compound in Mt. 24:1,2. He was not referring only to the Holy Place (the naos), but rather to the full aggregate of buildings that comprised the temple (the 'ieron): the holy place, the holy of holies, the balconies, porticoes and courts. And when He spoke of its destruction, He used a double emphatic negation, ou me, saying that absolutely not one stone, by no means, that shall be left upon another; there will abolutely not be a single stone that will not be thrown down. The very existence of undisturbed portions of the temple compound of Jesus' day, still standing with many stones upon another, proves that Jesus was referring to a time that is yet future.

... Therefore, all the scripture that says “forever”, “perpetual”, etc; ended in 70AD.

The difference between the Old and New Covenants is not the content of the promises, but rather that upon which the promises depended, and to whom they were directed. In the Old Covenant, the promises depended upon man's faithful obedience to God, and they were directed to the entire nation of Israel, regardless of whether a particular Israelite was elect. Whereas in the New Covenant, the promises depend upon God's faithfulness alone, and is intended for True Israel, the elect of the Nation. Thus, the former could be broken unilaterally by sinful man, which Jeremiah described in contrast to the New Covenant in his prophecy (Jer. 31:32). It was, in a word, conditional. Whereas the New Covenant is unconditional because its promises depend on God's faithfulness alone and not that of man. All of the promises to New Covenant Israel, which includes the Land promise, the temple sacrifices, and the perfect keeping of Mosaic Law, are unconditional for New Covenant Israel, which Jeremiah also describes (Jer. 31:33). Of course, this is all reiterated by the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 8:8-12).

Assuming Christ died in 30AD, 40 years is the amount of time from the cross till the temple was destroyed in 70AD. 40 years is also the exact amount of time that the Exodus generation had to wait to enter the Promised Land after they received the OC.

So, I believe there was some sort of parallel with the Exodus generation and the OC, and the first century believers and the NC. I also believe there was some sort of “overlap” between the OC and the NC from 30AD to 70AD (Heb 8:13)

I agree with you completely. But we probably disagree on exactly what the parallels are. The destruction of the temple, in my view, had (at least) a two-fold significance: Rather than being symbolic of the end of God's promises to elect Israel, the temple's demise was (1) a public indictment against the Old Covenant nation of Israel for rejecting their Messiah, and (2) physical evidence that God's dealings with mankind through the nation of Israel was in temporary abeyance, and that His dealings with mankind would henceforth be through the nation-less, non-ethnic, non-ceremonial, non-sacerdotal, and non-ritualistic Body of Christ. It marked, through poignantly visual means, the waning of Israel's program, i.e., the Mosaic, Kingdom gospel (the circumcision gospel) and the burgeoning of the Pauline, Body gospel (the uncircumcision gospel).

First off, the Bible is silent about what happened to the Jews that returned to Jerusalem from roughly 515BC to John the Baptist. We have other sources such as Maccabees, Josephus, etc that tell us many things, but none of these sources are the inspired word of God.

I agree.

Secondly, many of the prophecies such as Ezekiel 40-48 never happened because the Jews that returned to Jerusalem didn’t keep God’s commandments.

I believe this is an unsupported assumption, especially given the perpetual nature of God's promises to Israel (elect Israel, particularly) and that affirmation repeated throughout Scripture, Jeremiah's description of the New Covenant nation, and the Hebrews writer's reiteration of same.

Last, many of the prophecies were fulfilled spiritually.

I agree, but many were not fulfilled in any sense, and some that were fulfilled spiritually remain to be fulfilled completely, i.e., physically.

Jew and Gentile are now one.

I see nothing in the NT that says Jew and Gentile will one day be separate again.

The Scriptures do not say that Jew and Gentile are one as such, but rather, that the wall of partition, the laws and ordinances that distinguished the old covenant kingdom constituents, that which separated Jew and Gentile, has been broken down, effectively removing ethnic distinction entirely. Jews and Gentiles do not remain Jews and Gentiles in one group of ethnic constituents, but rather become nation-less in the One Body, before God, thereby creating a third and altogether distinct group of God's elect (the other two being New Covenant Israelites, such as Peter and the Eleven, and New Covenant Gentiles, such as those described in Acts 15). When Paul says that Christ has slain the enmity, having abolished it in His flesh (Eph 2: 15,16), blotting out the handwriting of ordinances against us and nailing it to His execution stake (Col. 2:14), that only pertains to the Jew-less/Gentile-less Body of Christ. For New Covenant Israel and New Covenant Gentiles, the death of Christ fulfills and establishes the Mosaic and Noachian Laws, respectively. Multiple evidences of the continued observance of Mosaic and Noachian Law after the death of Christ suffice to prove this.

In Ephesians 3, Paul describes the members of the Body of Christ as fellowheirs and partakers of the same promise, calling this a Mystery, held in absolute silence, and not made known in other ages. Paul could not be merely referring to Israelite and Gentile salvation, or co-participation in the kingdom promises, because these things had been revealed in other ages. Whatever the Mystery refers to, it could not be found anywhere prior to Paul's conversion. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." No other proposition fits than the Body of Christ and its distinctive non-ethnic, non-ceremonial, non-sacerdotal, non-ritualistic, and non-angelic character.

The yet-unfulfilled prophecies concerning New Covenant Israel's future kingdom suffices to establish the future distinctions between elect Israel and the elect of the nations.

During the Incarnation the OC was in place. The NC was not implemented until the cross.

Hebrews was written somewhere between 30AD and 70AD. Again I refer to Heb 8:13. The writer tells us “what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear”

Yes, and that which is obselete and outdated refers not to an outdated content of the Old Covenant, but rather to the outdated terms upon which the Old Covenant promises were based and the Old Covenant nation to whom it was directed. In other words, the writer of Hebrews was affirming exactly what Paul said in Romans 9:6, that all Israel (that is, Old Covenant Israel) is not Israel (that is, New Covenant Israel).

If I understand you correctly are you claiming that Matthew was referring to the same place when he used KOH and KOG, but yet you still believe that “kingdom” believers spend eternity on a new earth, while Body believers spend eternity in Heaven?

To be completely frank, I don't know what to make of Matthew's usages of KOH and KOG. But I can say without hesitation that he could not have been referring to the Mystery or the future Body of Christ in any way whatsoever. If we believe the Scriptures are without error, then Paul's claim that the Mystery (the uncircumcision gospel, the Body of Christ and its attending laws) was held in utter silence from the foundation of the world until Paul's conversion means that Matthew could not have uttered a single syllable concerning the Body of Christ and the Mystery.

Most dispy’s claim “Kingdom of God” is Heavenly, and that the “Kingdom of Heaven” (earthly) is a “subset” of the KOG.

Can you clarify your position?

While I see nothing offensive or illogical about that claim in general, it cannot refer in any way to the Mystery or any details thereof.

And, how do you come up with this kingdom being on earth?

Throughout the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, Israel and the elect nations are promised an everlasting kingdom on earth. Nowhere is this contradicted by Jesus or any non-Pauline writer. John affirms the earthly situation of the holy city as coming down to earth from out of heaven, where it was prepared for elect Israel (Rev. 3:12, 20:9, 21:2,10).

Here is what Jesus said:

(John 14:2-4)

My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”

In the above, Jesus tells the Disciples that He is going to a place that he calls "My Father's house".

Jesus is not describing a heavenly abode for elect Israel. That would be entirely contrary to everything they had learned about Israel's everlasting kingdom in the Land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Rather, He is describing the holy city that would eventually descend to the earth. When disciples asked Jesus when He would restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6), note that He didn't rebuke them for not apprehending a "spiritualized" version of the kingdom. Rather, He simply said, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." He then went on to tell them what would happen next (the empowerment of the Holy Spirit at the feast of Pentecost).

Jesus makes it clear that He will come back and take the Disciples to this place, and He tells them that He is going to prepare a place for them at this place.

Yes, and that place will be on the earth, after it descends to earth from heaven.

So, how do the Disciples end up back on planet earth in your "earthly" kingdom?

The Christians never leave the earth. The place that Jesus prepares for them is heavenly in origin, but earthly in destination. That is, it comes down to earth out of heaven (see references above).

Thank you for your questions. I look forward to further correspondence.

Hilston

 

[tetelestai]

In the interest of full disclosure, I should state upfront that the Mid-Acts view I espouse is vastly different in significant ways from that of most TOL Mid-Acts proponents, particularly in areas concerning the exhaustive foreknowledge of God, His inexorable decrees, the non-optional necessity of the Mid-Acts view, the non-ceremonial/non-holiday nature of the Body of Christ, and the extent of the Atonement. In sum, I defend a non-optional Mid-Acts view that affirms a settled and exhaustively known future. Furthermore, I think the issues Tetelestai has raised (and will likely raise) will expose those differences, as well as the errors of other Mid-Acts views expressed on this forum. My aim is to demonstrate why the Mid-Acts Settled View is not merely as good as other theological frameworks, or even slightly better than other doctrinal views, but is indeed the only view of, and approach to Scripture that is consistent, rational and can account for any and all theological problems or difficulties proferred by opposing views.

Hi James:

Thank you for starting this thread. I look forward to our discussion.

First off, I am not an open theist, but not a Calvinist; I am a compatabilist. We would probably be in agreement with God exhaustively knowing the settled future, but in disagreement with free volition.

Therefore, in the interest of keeping this thread focused on MAD, I have no desire in discussing predestination, election, foreknowledge, determinism, soft-determinism, exhaustive foreknowledge, partial foreknowledge, time, duration, foreordainment, fate, compatabilism, free will, volition, destiny, hindsight, continuums, Platonism, Augustinism, PBS (Pinnock, Boyd, & Sanders), or anything else that pertains to the heresy that is called “open theism”.

I understand that you will be using terms such as “Elect-Israel” or “reprobate”, which is fine; I will understand what you mean. If you feel you must discuss election, reprobates, free will, etc to make a point; please do, but at the same time can we not go down the settled view/open view road?

First off:

I would say the biggest problem I have with TOL MADists is their insistence that all Israelites are Jews, and their complete failure to recognize the difference between the two houses (House of Israel & House of Judah).

The New Covenant (NC) was to be made with the House of Israel (HOI) and the House of Judah (HOJ). MADists claim that believers in the BOC are of neither house, therefore not part of the NC. Some MADists claim that BOC believers today live in the “spirit” of the NC, but not in the actual NC.

So, could you explain your position on “all Israelites are Jews”, the NC, and the two houses?

Thanks,
Craig

 

[Hilston]

First off, I am not an open theist, but not a Calvinist; I am a compatabilist. We would probably be in agreement with God exhaustively knowing the settled future, but in disagreement with free volition.

I understand.

Therefore, in the interest of keeping this thread focused on MAD, I have no desire in discussing predestination, election, foreknowledge, determinism, soft-determinism, exhaustive foreknowledge, partial foreknowledge, time, duration, foreordainment, fate, compatabilism, free will, volition, destiny, hindsight, continuums, Platonism, Augustinism, PBS (Pinnock, Boyd, & Sanders), or anything else that pertains to the heresy that is called “open theism”.

While I believe it's difficult to discuss theological systems without touching upon these and other topics, I do agree that it's best to avoid anything that would distract from the primary focus of this thread.

I understand that you will be using terms such as “Elect-Israel” or “reprobate”, which is fine; I will understand what you mean. If you feel you must discuss election, reprobates, free will, etc to make a point; please do, but at the same time can we not go down the settled view/open view road?

While I have no desire to engage Unsettled Theists in this thread, the topics we do discuss may necessitate explaining why most Mid-Acts proponents on this forum have been heretofore unable to answer your challenges, which may involve touching upon these issues. Notwithstanding, I will avoid the settled-vs-open-view topic as much as possible.

First off:

I would say the biggest problem I have with TOL MADists is their insistence that all Israelites are Jews, and their complete failure to recognize the difference between the two houses (House of Israel & House of Judah).

Would you kindly explain why that distinction is important to your theology, and what bearing it should have upon the Mid-Acts framework?

The New Covenant (NC) was to be made with the House of Israel (HOI) and the House of Judah (HOJ).

I agree, as Jesus notes in John 10:16.

MADists claim that believers in the BOC are of neither house, therefore not part of the NC.

That is correct, since there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the Body of Christ.

... Some MADists claim that BOC believers today live in the “spirit” of the NC, but not in the actual NC.

I'd have to understand what is meant by "in the 'spirit' of the NC" before agreeing.

So, could you explain your position on “all Israelites are Jews”, ...

I've never said the phrase "all Israelites are Jews." I only use the terms Israelite or Jew in contrast to Gentiles and/or members of the Body of Christ (being neither Jew nor Gentile). Each household of God (i.e., dispensation) is defined by its distinctive law. There is the Law of Moses (for the houses of Israel and of Judah), there is the Law of Noah (for the houses of the Gentile nations), and there is the Law of Paul (for the Body of Christ).

... the NC, ...

I've already stated my position on the New Covenant. Feel free to ask specific questions if anything is not clear.

... and the two houses?

My position on the two houses is that the New Covenant reunites them, which warrants the question asked of Jesus by the disciples in Acts 1:6: "... Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" As I've stated earlier, I do not believe the content of the New Covenant differs significantly from the Old Covenant. It is rather the basis of each covenant that differs, namely, that the promises of the New Covenant are not dependent upon man's obedience, as it was with the Old Covenant.

At the crucifixion Jesus joined the stick of Joseph with the stick of Judah to form ONE stick.

MADists will deny this because it proves their belief system wrong.

I do not deny this. My affirmation of the New Covenant nation does not disprove the Mid-Acts system.

A New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

I agree.

The stick of Judah was joined with the stick of Joseph

I agree.

Jesus had sheep from another fold besides the Jews.

I agree.

No matter how you look at it, the two houses were divided.

I agree.

House of Israel = stick of Joseph= other fold

I agree.

House of Judah = stick of Judah = Jewish fold

I agree.

Dispy's do their best to either ignore these passages, or make up stuff like the other fold are some people that blessed Jews.

Not only do I NOT ignore these passages, but I agree completely with each of your statements, and they fit perfectly into the Mid-Acts system. In fact, the rebirth of New Covenant Israel is exactly what Jesus refers to in John 3, when He chides Nicodemus for not getting it. When Jesus says, "Marvel not that I say unto thee (thee = Nicodemus, singular pronoun), 'Ye (Ye = the united nation, plural pronoun) must (all) be born again." This united New Covenant nation is the kosmos that John is referring to in John 3:16,17.

(Col 2:16-17) 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Why would anyone observe something that was a shadow before Christ?

The Body of Christ would not and ought not, which is precisely why Paul prohibits ceremonial and ritualistic observances in the Colossians epistle. But the New Covenant nation will indeed observe the symbolisms in the ceremonies and rituals of the Mosaic Law as both a means of worship, and as a means by which the angels minister to them and mediate for them, carrying their worship and prayers to God from the earth to heaven.

Hilston

 

[tetelestai]

Would you kindly explain why that distinction is important to your theology, and what bearing it should have upon the Mid-Acts framework?

It is important because I don’t believe that the BOC is a secret parenthetical “dispensation” that was inserted in between the history of Israel.

IMO, by showing that the House of Israel were people that were not Jews and that they were Gentiles, it can then be shown that God is done completely with fleshly Israel. Therefore, there is no “secret rapture”, 7 year trib, or some guy called the “antichrist”.

I'd have to understand what is meant by "in the 'spirit' of the NC" before agreeing.

Different dispy’s have a hard time with this. Most TOL MADists claim the NC was put on “hold”, and this secret parenthetical dispensation that we live in today is not under the NC, but at the same time they claim we partake of some of the things of the NC. (aka the “spirit” of)

A2D’s like Godrulz claim that the NC was for both Israel and the church. They will claim that the church right now is under the NC, but then in the future the church will be raptured away, and then Israel will continue under the NC.

I've never said the phrase "all Israelites are Jews." I only use the terms Israelite or Jew in contrast to Gentiles and/or members of the Body of Christ (being neither Jew nor Gentile). Each household of God (i.e., dispensation) is defined by its distinctive law. There is the Law of Moses (for the houses of Israel and of Judah), there is the Law of Noah (for the houses of the Gentile nations), and there is the Law of Paul (for the Body of Christ).

Since you agree that the NC was in fact implemented between the House of Israel and the House of Judah, then I have to ask you who made up the House of Israel when this covenant was implemented?

If you believe that the NC was put on hold, then how was Paul a minister of the NC?

I've already stated my position on the New Covenant. Feel free to ask specific questions if anything is not clear.

Are you under the NC today?

My position on the two houses is that the New Covenant reunites them, which warrants the question asked of Jesus by the disciples in Acts 1:6: "... Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" As I've stated earlier, I do not believe the content of the New Covenant differs significantly from the Old Covenant. It is rather the basis of each covenant that differs, namely, that the promises of the New Covenant are not dependent upon man's obedience, as it was with the Old Covenant.

Again, who made up the House of Israel when they were reunited?

I do not deny this. My affirmation of the New Covenant nation does not disprove the Mid-Acts system.

What do you mean by "nation"?

I see the New Covenant Israel as a spiritual nation, not a physical nation.

The Body of Christ would not and ought not, which is precisely why Paul prohibits ceremonial and ritualistic observances in the Colossians epistle. But the New Covenant nation will indeed observe the symbolisms in the ceremonies and rituals of the Mosaic Law as both a means of worship, and as a means by which the angels minister to them and mediate for them, carrying their worship and prayers to God from the earth to heaven.

We are in agreement that holidays, observances, feasts, sabbaths, etc are done with. I claim they are done with forever, but you have them coming back again.

The only way you can support your claim is to take OT passages written by Jewish men that were in exile in Babylon. There is nothing in the NT that supports future animal sacrifices, a third temple, or anything else that has to do with the Mosaic Law.


Thanks

tetelestai

 

[Hilston]

Would you kindly explain why that distinction is important to your theology, and what bearing it should have upon the Mid-Acts framework?

It is important because I don’t believe that the BOC is a secret parenthetical “dispensation” that was inserted in between the history of Israel.

If it was not a secret, then what in your view is the held-in-silence Mystery that Paul reveals and describes in his epistles?

IMO, by showing that the House of Israel were people that were not Jews and that they were Gentiles, it can then be shown that God is done completely with fleshly Israel.

In order to prove that God is completely done with fleshly Israel, you would have to prove that Peter et al were asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6; that the Hebrews writer was up a tree for not even hinting at the removal of, let alone denouncing the Mosaic practices of his day; that Jesus did not command His disciples to observe and teach everything whatsoever He commanded them, which included every detail of the Law of Moses, that the angels still appear and minister to believers (the NC "House of Israel" in your view) in this day and age (where are the angels?),

I'd have to understand what is meant by "in the 'spirit' of the NC" before agreeing.

Different dispy’s have a hard time with this. Most TOL MADists claim the NC was put on “hold”, and this secret parenthetical dispensation that we live in today is not under the NC, but at the same time they claim we partake of some of the things of the NC. (aka the “spirit” of)

It's still not clear or precise enough. The only similarities between the Body of Christ and the New Covenant Kingdom are as follow:

i. One's salvation and future Hope, regardless of dispensation, is secured solely by the blood of Christ.
ii. The entire order is regenerated, whether New Covenant Israel, or the elect nations, or the Body of Christ.

And those similarities do not warrant the application of the term "new covenant" to the Body of Christ, in any way, shape, manner or form.

A2D’s like Godrulz claim that the NC was for both Israel and the church. They will claim that the church right now is under the NC, but then in the future the church will be raptured away, and then Israel will continue under the NC.

I disagree with all of that, even the use of the term "church" to distinguish the Body of Christ from Israel. N.B.: Israel in the wilderness was called a church as well (Acts 7:38). There is nothing sacred or biblically distinctive about the term.

I've never said the phrase "all Israelites are Jews." I only use the terms Israelite or Jew in contrast to Gentiles and/or members of the Body of Christ (being neither Jew nor Gentile). Each household of God (i.e., dispensation) is defined by its distinctive law. There is the Law of Moses (for the houses of Israel and of Judah), there is the Law of Noah (for the houses of the Gentile nations), and there is the Law of Paul (for the Body of Christ).

Since you agree that the NC was in fact implemented between the House of Israel and the House of Judah, then I have to ask you who made up the House of Israel when this covenant was implemented?

The New Covenant House of Israel comprised elect Israelites, Jews and Proselytes of righteousness. The New Covenant believers of the nations comprised elect Gentiles and Proselytes of the Gate. The Body of Christ, the nation-less among the nations, have no part in the New Covenant.

If you believe that the NC was put on hold, then how was Paul a minister of the NC?

Paul had a dual ministry, one to the elect of the Kingdom (Israelites and Gentiles), and one to the Body of Christ. Context clearly delineates which ministry is active in every case. Throughout Acts we see Paul ministering to the elect of Israel and the Gentile proselytes. Throughout Paul's epistles we see his ministry directly to the Body, and indirectly to believing Israelites and proselytes amid Body assemblies.

I've already stated my position on the New Covenant. Feel free to ask specific questions if anything is not clear.

Are you under the NC today?

No, not in any sense whatsoever. For the Body of Christ, there was no "old covenant," so even the term itself is non sequitur where the Body of Christ is concerned.

My position on the two houses is that the New Covenant reunites them, which warrants the question asked of Jesus by the disciples in Acts 1:6: "... Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" As I've stated earlier, I do not believe the content of the New Covenant differs significantly from the Old Covenant. It is rather the basis of each covenant that differs, namely, that the promises of the New Covenant are not dependent upon man's obedience, as it was with the Old Covenant.

Again, who made up the House of Israel when they were reunited?

The post-cross, New Covenant House of Israel was made up of only elect Israelites, elect Jews, and elect Gentile proselytes of righteousness.

I do not deny this. My affirmation of the New Covenant nation does not disprove the Mid-Acts system.

What do you mean by "nation"?

In this case, I refer to the descendants of Abraham's bloodline for whom Christ died, plus any proselytes of righteousness for whom Christ died. As with many biblical words and ideas, the scope of the term varies, depending on context.

I see the New Covenant Israel as a spiritual nation, not a physical nation.

I realize that; I used to have the same view. But this notion contradicts the perpetual ordinances and promises that were presented via the Old Covenant and secured for the elect via the New.

The Body of Christ would not and ought not, which is precisely why Paul prohibits ceremonial and ritualistic observances in the Colossians epistle. But the New Covenant nation will indeed observe the symbolisms in the ceremonies and rituals of the Mosaic Law as both a means of worship, and as a means by which the angels minister to them and mediate for them, carrying their worship and prayers to God from the earth to heaven.

We are in agreement that holidays, observances, feasts, sabbaths, etc are done with. I claim they are done with forever, but you have them coming back again.

Correct. The Mosaic observances come back when God restores again the Kingdom to Israel, described in detail in the latter chapters of Ezekiel, affirmed as being in practice, post-cross, in Acts and in the Hebrews epistle.

The only way you can support your claim is to take OT passages written by Jewish men that were in exile in Babylon.

On the contrary, my view is supported by the entirety of the Hebrew canon (with its promises of perpetual ordinances and land borders) and the affirmations and teachings of Jesus and others in the Greek canon (with its continued observance of the aforementioned ordinances and sought-after land borders).

There is nothing in the NT that supports future animal sacrifices, a third temple, or anything else that has to do with the Mosaic Law.

This is, at best, an argument from silence. If it is understood that the Greek Scriptures are a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a more relevant observation is that nowhere in Scriptures anywhere is the command to abrogate the blood offerings of Mosaic Law. Moreover, we see the lawful and proper continuation of sacrifices after the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah. In Acts 3:1, Peter and John go to the temple at the ninth hour, which is the hour of the daily sacrifice. In Acts 21:6, Paul lawfully and properly attended the ritual cleansing of some men, purifying himself in the process. Blood sacrifices were part of this process. Acts 24:18 recounts this episode as well. Ezekiel's prophecy underscores the future millennial kingdom and the blood sacrifices that will be offered therein. It is most noteworthy that Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Ezekiel, an undoubtedly anti-dispensational work, begrudgingly affirms the literal language and context of Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the blood sacrifices.

The claim that the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 never happened as a result of the disobedience of Jews that returned to Jerusalem is an untenable assumption, nowhere found in Scripture. If there were any merit to this claim, certainly Keil and Delitzsch would have seized upon it. However, to their credit, they flatly admitted that

"... we cannot find any conclusive argument against the literal and in favor of the figurative interpretation of the vision in question [in Ezekiel xl-xlviii]" (Keil and Delitzsch, Vol. IX, p.388 {emphases added})"​

Also, the claim that the prophecies were fulfilled spiritually does not abrogate their physical fulfillment. One glaring example (in addition to many others) is the fact that the prophecy of Jesus' resurrection was "spiritually" fulfilled in the individual regenerations of the many elect who preceded the incarnation, and these spiritual fulfillments in no way supplanted the physical fulfillment that would come in the future.

You are correct, but fail to see what happened.

God said He would make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. This was said about 600 years before Christ was born.

In hindsight, this promise of a New Covenant was not just to the people of Israel as the Old Covenant was, but was in fact to the whole world.

I disagree on two points: First, the New Covenant was promised to the elect of the whole world, minus the elect of the Body of Christ. Second, it is not something understood in hindsight only. It was clear from Genesis forward that the promises included others besides the people of Israel.

Because the 10 tribes were divorced from God, they were scattered throughout the world, and became Gentiles from every nation.

Therefore the New Covenant between the two houses does in fact go to every nation and race of people because the Israelites from the 10 tribes became every nation and race of people.

Joseph wore a coat of MANY colors. Joseph is synonymous to the House of Israel.

The above does not negate or contradict the Mid-Acts view. The New Covenant going to every nation and race of people cannot apply to the nation-less, race-less Body of Christ in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

The Jews that were scattered kept the Mosaic Law, they kept their identity, they were a people, and God had mercy on them.

In sharp contrast the Israelites from the 10 tribes did not keep the Mosaic Law, lost their identity, were told they were not a people, and God said He would not have mercy on them.

Remember, most of the 10 tribes had turned to idolatry, and were not keeping the Mosaic Law before the Assyrians even showed up. IOW, they were acting just like pagan Gentiles while they were still in their Northern nation.

Most Jews that were scattered would journey to Jerusalem to keep the fests that required them to be at the temple in Jerusalem. (Probably why God picked the Day of Pentecost to send the Holy Spirit)

Of course. All of the above aligns perfectly with the Mid-Acts view, and in no way negates or contradicts it. Tet, I'm interested in points that you claim are unanswerable by most TOL Mid-Acts proponents. So far, you haven't presented anything as insurmountable as you seemed to intimate earlier.

Hilston

 

[tetelestai]

If it was not a secret, then what in your view is the held-in-silence Mystery that Paul reveals and describes in his epistles?

That the Gentiles are now part of one Body with the Israelites and heirs to the promises.

In order to prove that God is completely done with fleshly Israel, you would have to prove that Peter et al were asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6; that the Hebrews writer was up a tree for not even hinting at the removal of, let alone denouncing the Mosaic practices of his day; that Jesus did not command His disciples to observe and teach everything whatsoever He commanded them, which included every detail of the Law of Moses, that the angels still appear and minister to believers (the NC "House of Israel" in your view) in this day and age (where are the angels?),

Jesus did not uphold the Sabbath command

In Matthew 12 Jesus clearly breaks the commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy. He even gives an example of when David broke the Sabbath command.

Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath. The Lord of the Sabbath can't be under a law to keep the Sabbath Day Holy.

where are the angels?

They are out there:

(Heb 13:2) Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

It's still not clear or precise enough. The only similarities between the Body of Christ and the New Covenant Kingdom are as follow:

i. One's salvation and future Hope, regardless of dispensation, is secured solely by the blood of Christ.
ii. The entire order is regenerated, whether New Covenant Israel, or the elect nations, or the Body of Christ.

And those similarities do not warrant the application of the term "new covenant" to the Body of Christ, in any way, shape, manner or form.

I don't know what you mean by "New Covenant Kingdom", this phrase isn't in the Bible.

There is only one kingdom of God.

Christ implemented the New Covenant at the cross. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it was put on hold, or that a secret parenthetical dispensation was inserted until the NC is reinstated.

This belief is the teachings of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson, Stam, and other men.

None of the early church fathers taught this theory, its only about 150 years old.

Israel in the wilderness was called a church as well (Acts 7:38). There is nothing sacred or biblically distinctive about the term.

Which proves there is one Body

The New Covenant House of Israel comprised elect Israelites, Jews and Proselytes of righteousness. The New Covenant believers of the nations comprised elect Gentiles and Proselytes of the Gate. The Body of Christ, the nation-less among the nations, have no part in the New Covenant.

In Christ there is no difference between Jew or Gentile, but is also says there is no difference between male or female.

The key word is "in". Before a believer is "in" Christ there is definitely a difference between male and female. Heck, even after being "in" Christ the difference can be distinguished between male and female.

The reason Paul says this is because when we are "in" Christ, it is spiritual. Spiritually speaking there is no difference between Jew and Gentile or male and female. However, physically speaking there is a big difference between male and female, and in the first century there was a big difference between Jew and Gentile (there still is but its not as evident)

This is why there are no marriages in Heaven, in Heaven spiritually speaking, there is no difference between male and female. Nowhere in the Bible will you find an angel with a female name, they all have male names.

The Body of Christ is spiritual, therefore there is no distinctions amongst believers period.

Because there is only one Body of believers, Paul made it clear that there were many "in" Christ before he was despite most MADists claiming that Paul was "Body believer" #1

(Rom 16:7) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

It's the same reason why Jesus asked Saul of Tarsus why Saul was persecuting "ME". The MADists will claim that Stephen was a "kingdom" believer and not in the BOC even though Jesus referred to Stephen and the other early Christians that Saul of Tarsus was persecuting as "ME"

Paul had a dual ministry, one to the elect of the Kingdom (Israelites and Gentiles), and one to the Body of Christ. Context clearly delineates which ministry is active in every case. Throughout Acts we see Paul ministering to the elect of Israel and the Gentile proselytes. Throughout Paul's epistles we see his ministry directly to the Body, and indirectly to believing Israelites and proselytes amid Body assemblies.

I don't believe any of this.

To whom does the "context clearly delineate" Paul speaking to when Paul said the following:

(Eph 3:6) This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

No, not in any sense whatsoever. For the Body of Christ, there was no "old covenant," so even the term itself is non sequitur where the Body of Christ is concerned.

Do you mean "new covenant" here?

If not, I'm not sure what the OC has to do with whether or not the BOC is under the NC?

The post-cross, New Covenant House of Israel was made up of only elect Israelites, elect Jews, and elect Gentile proselytes of righteousness.

You keep using the term "elect Israelites". The new covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

You are making no distinction between the two houses. You are assuming that the "elect" from each house make up what you call "elect Israelites"

Most of the OT makes a distinction between the two houses. Don't you think there is a reason for the distinction?

Originally posted by tetelestai previously:
What do you mean by "nation"?

In this case, I refer to the descendants of Abraham's bloodline for whom Christ died, plus any proselytes of righteousness for whom Christ died. As with many biblical words and ideas, the scope of the term varies, depending on context.

(Gen 48:19) But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He too will become a people, and he too will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his descendants will become a group of nations

Can you tell us what nations the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh became?

Remember, these people would be descendants of Jacob, therefore they were Israelites. Can you tell us what great nations of Israelites have existed in history to date?

Correct. The Mosaic observances come back when God restores again the Kingdom to Israel, described in detail in the latter chapters of Ezekiel, affirmed as being in practice, post-cross, in Acts and in the Hebrews epistle.

You do understand that under Mosaic Law the High Priest has to come from the tribe of Levi, from the family of Aaron?

How is Christ Jesus going to be the High Priest in your future temple during these animal sacrifices if He comes from the tribe of Judah, which has nothing to do with the family of Aaron or the tribe of Levi?

For Christ to be a High Priest, there is no way the Mosaic Law can be in place; because having a High Priest from the tribe of Judah is a violation of the Mosaic Law.

You MADists have a problem with Christ as a High Priest in your future earthly kingdom.

The writer of Hebrews tells us that when the priesthood changes, the law has to change

(Heb 7:12) For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

On the contrary, my view is supported by the entirety of the Hebrew canon (with its promises of perpetual ordinances and land borders) and the affirmations and teachings of Jesus and others in the Greek canon (with its continued observance of the aforementioned ordinances and sought-after land borders).

Can you show us just one passage from the NT that speaks of a future earthly kingdom?

This is, at best, an argument from silence. If it is understood that the Greek Scriptures are a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a more relevant observation is that nowhere in Scriptures anywhere is the command to abrogate the blood offerings of Mosaic Law. Moreover, we see the lawful and proper continuation of sacrifices after the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah. In Acts 3:1, Peter and John go to the temple at the ninth hour, which is the hour of the daily sacrifice. In Acts 21:6, Paul lawfully and properly attended the ritual cleansing of some men, purifying himself in the process. Blood sacrifices were part of this process. Acts 24:18 recounts this episode as well. Ezekiel's prophecy underscores the future millennial kingdom and the blood sacrifices that will be offered therein. It is most noteworthy that Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Ezekiel, an undoubtedly anti-dispensational work, begrudgingly affirms the literal language and context of Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the blood sacrifices.

There was an overlap of the covenants.

(Heb 8:13) By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Just like the Exodus generation didn't enter the promised land until 40 years after Moses was given the OC, one generation of Jews were given 40 years before the OC was fully done away with. The final moment being was the destruction of the temple 40 years after the implementation of the NC.

The claim that the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 never happened as a result of the disobedience of Jews that returned to Jerusalem is an untenable assumption, nowhere found in Scripture. If there were any merit to this claim, certainly Keil and Delitzsch would have seized upon it. However, to their credit, they flatly admitted that

"... we cannot find any conclusive argument against the literal and in favor of the figurative interpretation of the vision in question [in Ezekiel xl-xlviii]" (Keil and Delitzsch, Vol. IX, p.388 {emphases added})"​

Ezekiel saw a bronze man measuring a temple in a vision.

Zechariah saw a flying scroll that was 20 X 10 cubits. (Zech 5:2)

Why do you guys think that the temple that Ezekiel saw in a vision has to physically exist at some point in time.

The flying scroll is said to have entered into the home of a thief. How could a flying scroll that large fit through the front door?

God told Ezekiel to tell all the Jews about what he saw. When Ezra started to build the second temple, he told the Jews to do as God had commanded them.

Can you show us in the Bible where God gives commands, visions, dimensions, etc for the Jews to build the second temple when they returned from Babylon to Jerusalem?

Somehow you MADists want to believe that God gave Ezekiel dimensions for a temple while they were captive in Babylon, but that these dimensions were for a temple some 2,500+ years and counting future third temple, and that God didn't give the Jews in Babylon any information at all about rebuilding the second temple for when they returned from Babylon.

Also, the claim that the prophecies were fulfilled spiritually does not abrogate their physical fulfillment. One glaring example (in addition to many others) is the fact that the prophecy of Jesus' resurrection was "spiritually" fulfilled in the individual regenerations of the many elect who preceded the incarnation, and these spiritual fulfillments in no way supplanted the physical fulfillment that would come in the future.

Agree

I disagree on two points: First, the New Covenant was promised to the elect of the whole world, minus the elect of the Body of Christ. Second, it is not something understood in hindsight only. It was clear from Genesis forward that the promises included others besides the people of Israel.

I don't agree that the BOC started at Paul's conversion

I will give you what I consider the "Deathblow" to MAD's theory that the BOC was a mystery only revealed to Paul, and didn't begin until Paul

(John 2:19-21) Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

Here is the first time we see the BOC mentioned in the New Testament. This saying by Jesus is easily tied into many of Paul's teachings:

(1 Cor 3:16) Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

(2 Cor 6:16) And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God;

(Eph 2:21-22) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

(1 Cor 6:19) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
Not to mention Peter:

(1 Peter 2:5) you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Finally:

(Acts 17:24) “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.

A future temple built of physical stones for God to dwell in would be a slap in the face to the risen Body of Christ.

Thanks,
tetelestai

 

[Hilston]

Quick question of clarification:

Tetelestai, in another thread, someone stated that your "doctrine states" that "the Messiah is ruling from [the Dome of the Rock], right now." I'm guessing that is an inaccurate, if not a flat-out libelous mischaracterization of your view.

Is that your view?

Hilston

 

[tetelestai]

Quick question of clarification:

Tetelestai, in another thread, someone stated that your "doctrine states" that "the Messiah is ruling from [the Dome of the Rock], right now." I'm guessing that is an inaccurate, if not a flat-out libelous mischaracterization of your view.

Is that your view?

Hilston

It is not my view.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is ruling His kingdom right now from Heaven at the right side of God the Father.

 

[Hilston]

If it was not a secret, then what in your view is the held-in-silence Mystery that Paul reveals and describes in his epistles?

That the Gentiles are now part of one Body with the Israelites and heirs to the promises.

When do you believe this held-in-silence Mystery was first revealed?

In order to prove that God is completely done with fleshly Israel, you would have to prove that Peter et al were asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6; that the Hebrews writer was up a tree for not even hinting at the removal of, let alone denouncing the Mosaic practices of his day; that Jesus did not command His disciples to observe and teach everything whatsoever He commanded them, which included every detail of the Law of Moses, that the angels still appear and minister to believers (the NC "House of Israel" in your view) in this day and age (where are the angels?),

Jesus did not uphold the Sabbath command

In Matthew 12 Jesus clearly breaks the commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy. He even gives an example of when David broke the Sabbath command.

Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath. The Lord of the Sabbath can't be under a law to keep the Sabbath Day Holy.

Several questions on this point: How then was David, who was under the law, able to break the Sabbath? Was David's breaking of the Sabbath indicating that God was completely done with fleshly Israel? Do you believe Peter was asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6? What do you make of Jesus commanding His disciples to observe and teach everything in the Mosaic Law (Matthew 28:19,20)?

where are the angels?

They are out there:

(Heb 13:2) Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

The Hebrew epistle was written to Hebrews, who were under the angelic ministry. Upon the conversion of Saul of Tarsus and the establishment of the Body of Christ, the angelic ministry to elect Israel began to wane and eventually disappeared entirely. The biblical evidence for this is found throughout Paul's epistles, in which he describes the Body of Christ as being seated with Christ, above the angelic realm, an unprecedented proposition (Eph 1:20, 2:6).

Heretofore (until the Mystery was revealed to Paul), men understood that heaven was the abode of God and the elect angels. They never surmised that men would ever occupy heaven, let alone have authority over and judge angels (1Co 6:1-3). Search and see. Nowhere in the Hebrew canon, or anywhere in Scripture outside of Paul's epistles, is the notion that the elect of God would live in heaven. The ancient and perpetual promise to the non-Body elect was also to dwell in their respective lands forever.

The administrative position of the elect of the Body of Christ over the angels was entirely new with the revelation of the Mystery to Paul. The presence of the Body of Christ in the world since that time, and the abeyance of the Kingdom program, all but removes the angelic realm from the equation. It should be of little wonder that there is no obvious angelic intervention or activity in the world today, as they have no role in the ministry or worship of the elect today. Not only that, but we no longer see disease and calamity as a result of demonic activity, as it is described throughout the non-Pauline canon.

It's still not clear or precise enough. The only similarities between the Body of Christ and the New Covenant Kingdom are as follow:

i. One's salvation and future Hope, regardless of dispensation, is secured solely by the blood of Christ.
ii. The entire order is regenerated, whether New Covenant Israel, or the elect nations, or the Body of Christ.

And those similarities do not warrant the application of the term "new covenant" to the Body of Christ, in any way, shape, manner or form.

I don't know what you mean by "New Covenant Kingdom", this phrase isn't in the Bible.

Neither is the term, Trinity, but we infer its verity from the Scripture. The New Covenant Kingdom is the Israel that Jeremiah and the Hebrews writer describe, and would include the elect Gentile nations under the blessing and governance of elect Israel.

As an aside, may I ask, do you have an aversion to terms not found in the Bible?

There is only one kingdom of God.

There was an Old Covenant Kingdom, which was conditional, the terms of which depended on Israel's obedience. There will yet be a New Covenant Kingdom that will be peopled by the elect only, which depends solely and unilaterally on the faithfulness of their Messiah.

Christ implemented the New Covenant at the cross. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it was put on hold, or that a secret parenthetical dispensation was inserted until the NC is reinstated.

The Pauline scriptures provide ample evidence that the New Covenant Kingdom was put on hold. The revelation of the Mystery to Paul, and salvation apart from the theretofore necessary ceremonial observances, suffices to demonstrate this. Prior to the revelation of the Mystery, obedience to Moses, submission to and the ministry of angels in the rituals and feasts, requisite ceremonial observances, designated ritual spaces, implements and clothing, etc., were all required practice. One who refused or disrespected these were to be cut off from one's people. In the Mystery, we have the shunning of all of these practices, having been nailed to Christ's execution stake (Col. 2:14).

This belief is the teachings of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson, Stam, and other men.

How is this relevant to what the Scriptures teach.

None of the early church fathers taught this theory, its only about 150 years old.

All of the so-called "early church fathers" taught things contrary to Scripture. Their antiquity is irrelevant to what the Scriptures teach. To measure the verity of one's doctrine according to the teachings of fallible men, whoever they may be, and however long ago they lived, is folly, according to the Scriptures. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Israel in the wilderness was called a church as well (Acts 7:38). There is nothing sacred or biblically distinctive about the term.

Which proves there is one Body.

Not at all. The same term used for "church" (ekklesia) was also used of a mob in Acts 19:32. If anything, this proves that you cannot assume one monolithic body of elect based its usage.

The New Covenant House of Israel comprised elect Israelites, Jews and Proselytes of righteousness. The New Covenant believers of the nations comprised elect Gentiles and Proselytes of the Gate. The Body of Christ, the nation-less among the nations, have no part in the New Covenant.

In Christ there is no difference between Jew or Gentile, but is also says there is no difference between male or female.

Right. This is only true for the Body of Christ, not for the elect of Israel and of the nations.

The key word is "in". Before a believer is "in" Christ there is definitely a difference between male and female. Heck, even after being "in" Christ the difference can be distinguished between male and female.

The reason Paul says this is because when we are "in" Christ, it is spiritual.

Agreed, and this is true only for the members of the Body of Christ; not so for NC Israel and the elect nations.

Spiritually speaking there is no difference between Jew and Gentile or male and female.

In the New Covenant, there is indeed a spiritual, even essential, difference between Jew and Gentile. The roles of Israel and of the nations are spiritually and essentially distinct in the New Covenant Kingdom.

However, physically speaking there is a big difference between male and female, and in the first century there was a big difference between Jew and Gentile ...

Indeed, spiritually speaking as well. Ethnicity was (and will again be) an essential component in the salvation and service of the elect in the New Covenant Kingdom before God. Whereas, for the Body of Christ, ethnicity is neither essential nor even recognized in the salvation and service of its members before God. For elect of the New Covenant Kingdom, their land borders are included in their Hope, and for Israel that means sitting on the Son's throne upon the earth. For the Body of Christ, our Hope is above the earth, above all principalities and powers (i.e., the angelic realm), to be seated with Christ on the Father's throne.

This is why there are no marriages in Heaven, in Heaven spiritually speaking, there is no difference between male and female. ...

To be clear, Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 are not speaking of heaven; the idea of being in heaven would have been absolutely incongruous to people of that time. Jesus is speaking of the resurrection into the earthly kingdom.

The Body of Christ is spiritual, therefore there is no distinctions amongst believers period.

Because there is only one Body of believers, Paul made it clear that there were many "in" Christ before he was despite most MADists claiming that Paul was "Body believer" #1

(Rom 16:7) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

I do not claim that "in Christ" is synonymous to being a member of the Body of Christ, no more than is "being saved," "being redeemed," etc. There is no rebuttal against the Mid-Acts view on this point.

It's the same reason why Jesus asked Saul of Tarsus why Saul was persecuting "ME". The MADists will claim that Stephen was a "kingdom" believer and not in the BOC even though Jesus referred to Stephen and the other early Christians that Saul of Tarsus was persecuting as "ME"

Again, I do not claim that the members of the Body of Christ own exclusive rights to the identity of Jesus, who Himself said that whatsoever the Gentile nations had done unto the least of His brethren they had done unto Him.

Paul had a dual ministry, one to the elect of the Kingdom (Israelites and Gentiles), and one to the Body of Christ. Context clearly delineates which ministry is active in every case. Throughout Acts we see Paul ministering to the elect of Israel and the Gentile proselytes. Throughout Paul's epistles we see his ministry directly to the Body, and indirectly to believing Israelites and proselytes amid Body assemblies.

I don't believe any of this.

To whom does the "context clearly delineate" Paul speaking to when Paul said the following:

(Eph 3:6) This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

That's not what the verse says. The NIV plays fast and loose with the Greek text. One does not need to be a linguist to translate this verse for themselves. In the Greek, the verse says:

Einai ta ethnE sunklEronoma kai sunsOma kai sunmetocha tEs epaggelias en ChristO Iesou dia tou euaggeliou​

Translating word-for-word, using a Greek grammar and an interlinear, the verse actually says:

to-be the-ones [of the] nations, joint-heirs and jointly-bodied and joint-participants of-the promise, in the-anointed-One Jesus, through the good-message.​

The subject of "Israel" is nowhere in the verse, or the immediate context. Paul is addressing believers who are not of the line of Jacob.

The context is as follows: Paul refers to the Mystery that was revealed to him (Eph 3:2,3), unprecedented in that it was not revealed to men in other ages (which would have been by the mediation of angels (Acts 7:53, Gal 3:19, Heb 2:2), but by the Holy Spirit directly to the prophetic sent-ones of the Body of Christ (Eph 3:5, 2Cor 12:2, Gal 2:15-18). Specifically, that the Gentiles would be joint-heirs and jointly-bodied and joint-participants of the Mystery promise in Christ by the Uncircumcision Gospel (Eph 3:6, Gal 2:7). He declares his intention to make all manner of men to see the dispensation of the Mystery, which had been held-in-silence and hidden in God from the beginning of the kosmos (Eph 3:9, Rom 16:25, 1Cor 2:7, Col 1:26,27), to the intent that, now (never before, unprecedented) the angels (principalities and powers) might know the manifold wisdom of God via the Body of Christ (Eph 3:10)

The post-cross, New Covenant House of Israel was made up of only elect Israelites, elect Jews, and elect Gentile proselytes of righteousness.

You keep using the term "elect Israelites". The new covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

You are making no distinction between the two houses. You are assuming that the "elect" from each house make up what you call "elect Israelites"

What term would you prefer that I use in reference to the elect progeny of Jacob?

Most of the OT makes a distinction between the two houses. Don't you think there is a reason for the distinction?

Of course. Yes, I do believe there are important reasons for the distinction, and the distinctions need to be noted whenever discussing the significance of the existence of the two houses. But the point being made in a discussion about the distinctions between dispensations does not require that I delineate between the Houses of Israel and of Judah. What matters in this discussion is that they were descendents of Jacob. If you wish to argue the relevance of the two houses to this discussion, I am happy to consider it.

What do you mean by "nation"?

In this case, I refer to the descendants of Abraham's bloodline for whom Christ died, plus any proselytes of righteousness for whom Christ died. As with many biblical words and ideas, the scope of the term varies, depending on context.

(Gen 48:19) But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He too will become a people, and he too will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his descendants will become a group of nations

Can you tell us what nations the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh became?

Remember, these people would be descendants of Jacob, therefore they were Israelites. Can you tell us what great nations of Israelites have existed in history to date?

Before I spend time answering these questions, may I ask what is the relevance of your questions concerning the Mid-Acts view?

The Mosaic observances come back when God restores again the Kingdom to Israel, described in detail in the latter chapters of Ezekiel, affirmed as being in practice, post-cross, in Acts and in the Hebrews epistle.

You do understand that under Mosaic Law the High Priest has to come from the tribe of Levi, from the family of Aaron?

How is Christ Jesus going to be the High Priest in your future temple during these animal sacrifices if He comes from the tribe of Judah, which has nothing to do with the family of Aaron or the tribe of Levi?

I never claimed that Christ was going to be the High Priest in the future temple.

For Christ to be a High Priest, there is no way the Mosaic Law can be in place; because having a High Priest from the tribe of Judah is a violation of the Mosaic Law.

You MADists have a problem with Christ as a High Priest in your future earthly kingdom.

Be careful not to lump me in with the rest of the "MADists." That's the point of this thread, namely, answering the questions that the rest of the "MADists" have not been able to answer.

The writer of Hebrews tells us that when the priesthood changes, the law has to change

Sure, but this is a reference to a change in the Law, not a negation of it. A change doesn't abrogate the Law nor negate the perpetuity of Kingdom ordinances.

On the contrary, my view is supported by the entirety of the Hebrew canon (with its promises of perpetual ordinances and land borders) and the affirmations and teachings of Jesus and others in the Greek canon (with its continued observance of the aforementioned ordinances and sought-after land borders).

Can you show us just one passage from the NT that speaks of a future earthly kingdom?

Why do you re-ask this question, when I've already answered it (re-referenced immediately below).

This is, at best, an argument from silence. If it is understood that the Greek Scriptures are a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a more relevant observation is that nowhere in Scriptures anywhere is the command to abrogate the blood offerings of Mosaic Law. Moreover, we see the lawful and proper continuation of sacrifices after the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah. In Acts 3:1, Peter and John go to the temple at the ninth hour, which is the hour of the daily sacrifice. In Acts 21:6, Paul lawfully and properly attended the ritual cleansing of some men, purifying himself in the process. Blood sacrifices were part of this process. Acts 24:18 recounts this episode as well. Ezekiel's prophecy underscores the future millennial kingdom and the blood sacrifices that will be offered therein. It is most noteworthy that Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Ezekiel, an undoubtedly anti-dispensational work, begrudgingly affirms the literal language and context of Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the blood sacrifices.

There was an overlap of the covenants.

(Heb 8:13) By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Just like the Exodus generation didn't enter the promised land until 40 years after Moses was given the OC, one generation of Jews were given 40 years before the OC was fully done away with. The final moment being was the destruction of the temple 40 years after the implementation of the NC.

For the sake of our discussion, you have to understand that, in my view, the doing away with the Old Covenant is not an abrogation of the Mosaic Law. The New Covenant has the same content as the Old Covenant, the only difference lies is the terms of its satisfaction, namely, that it was fulfilled by Christ and was henceforth no longer dependent on man, but on the faithfulness of Christ.

The claim that the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 never happened as a result of the disobedience of Jews that returned to Jerusalem is an untenable assumption, nowhere found in Scripture. If there were any merit to this claim, certainly Keil and Delitzsch would have seized upon it. However, to their credit, they flatly admitted that

"... we cannot find any conclusive argument against the literal and in favor of the figurative interpretation of the vision in question [in Ezekiel xl-xlviii]" (Keil and Delitzsch, Vol. IX, p.388 {emphases added})"​

Ezekiel saw a bronze man measuring a temple in a vision.

Zechariah saw a flying scroll that was 20 X 10 cubits. (Zech 5:2)

Why do you guys think that the temple that Ezekiel saw in a vision has to physically exist at some point in time.

The flying scroll is said to have entered into the home of a thief. How could a flying scroll that large fit through the front door?

Why do you guys think that the temple that Ezekiel saw must be symbolic? As K&D admit, there is no conclusive argument against the literal view. There is no conclusive argument in favor of your view.

God told Ezekiel to tell all the Jews about what he saw. When Ezra started to build the second temple, he told the Jews to do as God had commanded them.

Can you show us in the Bible where God gives commands, visions, dimensions, etc for the Jews to build the second temple when they returned from Babylon to Jerusalem?

Somehow you MADists want to believe that God gave Ezekiel dimensions for a temple while they were captive in Babylon, but that these dimensions were for a temple some 2,500+ years and counting future third temple, and that God didn't give the Jews in Babylon any information at all about rebuilding the second temple for when they returned from Babylon.

What is your point here? Are you suggesting that the notion of some missing temple plans disproves the Mid-Acts view? How so?

I disagree on two points: First, the New Covenant was promised to the elect of the whole world, minus the elect of the Body of Christ. Second, it is not something understood in hindsight only. It was clear from Genesis forward that the promises included others besides the people of Israel.

I don't agree that the BOC started at Paul's conversion

I will give you what I consider the "Deathblow" to MAD's theory that the BOC was a mystery only revealed to Paul, and didn't begin until Paul

(John 2:19-21) Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

Here is the first time we see the BOC mentioned in the New Testament.

Speaking of the literal Body of Christ, yes. But this is not the Mystery, nor does it have anything to do with the content of the Mystery revealed to Paul. For one thing, though Jesus' body was indeed the temple, in every sense, figuratively and literally, and in an unprecedented way, this was not hidden, as the Mystery was. Nothing about Jesus was hidden or, as Paul says, "kept secret since the world began" (Rom 16:25), "hid in God" (Eph. 3:9), "hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col 1:26). In fact, the opposite is true. The death of Messiah and His resurrection was well known to student of Scripture of Jesus' day.

This saying by Jesus is easily tied into many of Paul's teachings:

All without warrant. To wit:

(1 Cor 3:16) Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

(2 Cor 6:16) And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God;​

This is true of the members of the Body of Christ, but not of Kingdom saints. The indwelling of God's Spirit is unprecedented, and exclusive to the members of the Body of Christ.

(Eph 2:21-22) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

(1 Cor 6:19) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost​

Again, these cannot apply to the Kingdom elect. This only applies to the members of the Body of Christ.

Not to mention Peter:

(1 Peter 2:5) you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Note the fact that Peter's audience, the Kingdom elect of the diaspora, are collectively described as comprising a spiritual house. Whereas for the Body of Christ, each member is himself indwelt by the Holy Spirit, each is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and each can thereby communicate with God, without ritual, without angelic mediation. This cannot be said of the Kingdom saint.

Finally:

(Acts 17:24) “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.

This verse does not serve your argument at all, since Paul was speaking to pagans mired in idolatry. Paul was contrasting the finite gods with the Infinite God.

A future temple built of physical stones for God to dwell in would be a slap in the face to the risen Body of Christ.

You seem to misunderstand the premise of the temple/tabernacle. The thoughtful Israelite understood that God was not contained in temples built with hands. At the dedication of King Solomon's temple, he said, "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?" (1 Kings 8:27). It was not a slap in God's face back then, and it certainly isn't a slap in God's face now in discussing the literal reality of Ezekiel's future temple.

Thank you for this dialogue. I look forward to your reply.

Hilston

 

[tetelestai]

When do you believe this held-in-silence Mystery was first revealed?

First I want to add, that I also believe that the "mystery" reveals that the kingdom is not a physical kingdom, but a spiritual kingdom.

I would also add that part of the "mystery" is that believers in the spiritual kingdom are filled with the Holy Spirit, "in Christ, are made alive in Christ, etc.

Most dispies believe that there were two mysteries; one hidden in the scriptures, and the other hidden outside of scriptures. The dispies believe that the second mystery (hidden outside of scripture) is the one that was revealed to Paul. Moreover, the dispies believe that the mystery is the secret parenthetical dispensation made up of church age believers that are separate from Israel.

There is no doubt that most of the spiritual aspects of the kingdom where revealed to the Apostle Paul.

However, since the "mystery" IMO cannot be defined with one definition, I don't believe that Paul was the only one that it was revealed to.

Several questions on this point: How then was David, who was under the law, able to break the Sabbath? Was David's breaking of the Sabbath indicating that God was completely done with fleshly Israel? Do you believe Peter was asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6? What do you make of Jesus commanding His disciples to observe and teach everything in the Mosaic Law (Matthew 28:19,20)?

I believe David was some sort of typology of Christ.

Since Christ was the Lord of the Sabbath, in some way David must have been Lord of the Sabbath. Therefore, David also could not break the Sabbath.

What does "Keep the Sabbath Holy" even mean?

IMO, this command was included in the 10 commandments because it is the only one that is impossible to not break.

By the time the first century came along, the Pharisees had added so many inclusions to the Sabbath command, that it was almost impossible to keep them.

I have no idea how a human being is supposed to keep a day Holy for 24 hours.

The Hebrew epistle was written to Hebrews, who were under the angelic ministry.

Was Abraham's brother Haran a Hebrew?

Was Abraham's nephew Lot, the son of Haran a Hebrew?

Were Lot's sons Moab and Ben-Ammi Hebrews?

Or should I assume that you believe Hebrews = Israelites and/or Jews?

Upon the conversion of Saul of Tarsus and the establishment of the Body of Christ, the angelic ministry to elect Israel began to wane and eventually disappeared entirely. The biblical evidence for this is found throughout Paul's epistles, in which he describes the Body of Christ as being seated with Christ, above the angelic realm, an unprecedented proposition (Eph 1:20, 2:6).

First off, I believe the angelic ministry to physical Israel ceased at the cross. Can you show where the angelic ministry continued after the cross?

I'm not sure the angelic ministry can be seen anywhere after the birth of Christ.

So, I agree that the angelic ministry ceased. However, God the Father has ceased giving people visions (i.e. Peter's sheet vision), taking people to Paradise (Paul), and having Jesus appear in some capacity to people (Paul & John)

IMO, this is because the law and the prophets has been fulfilled in Christ, and because we have the completed canon of scripture.

Heretofore (until the Mystery was revealed to Paul), men understood that heaven was the abode of God and the elect angels. They never surmised that men would ever occupy heaven, let alone have authority over and judge angels (1Co 6:1-3). Search and see. Nowhere in the Hebrew canon, or anywhere in Scripture outside of Paul's epistles, is the notion that the elect of God would live in heaven. The ancient and perpetual promise to the non-Body elect was also to dwell in their respective lands forever.

That's because they, like you, think the kingdom is an earthly kingdom.

Again, that's part of the mystery. The kingdom is not an earthly kingdom, it is a spiritual kingdom.

Jesus touched on it when the Pharisees thought they could trap him with the "seven brothers" question in Luke 20:

(Luke 20:35-36) But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

Notice Jesus says "the age to come". He then goes on to say that those who are resurrected will be like the angels, meaning they won't marry and that they will not die.

Dispies have people being born in their future 1,000 year kingdom on planet earth. If so, then they would all be bastard children if marriage will not exist.

"The age to come" that Jesus spoke of was not a future kingdom on planet earth. It's easy to see that now, but unfortunately dispies still don't see it.

The administrative position of the elect of the Body of Christ over the angels was entirely new with the revelation of the Mystery to Paul. The presence of the Body of Christ in the world since that time, and the abeyance of the Kingdom program, all but removes the angelic realm from the equation. It should be of little wonder that there is no obvious angelic intervention or activity in the world today, as they have no role in the ministry or worship of the elect today. Not only that, but we no longer see disease and calamity as a result of demonic activity, as it is described throughout the non-Pauline canon.

Depends what "mystery" you are talking about

We find the following in Psalm 8:5:

(Psalm 8:5) You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.

Now we see the following in Hebrews:

(Heb 2:9) But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

This couldn't be the secret mystery hidden from scriptures and only revealed to Paul since it is found in scriptures and was revealed by the writer of Hebrews.

Again, I agree that the ministry of angels is over, but so is the visions, and revelations of Jesus.

This doesn't mean that angels are not watching over us, or protecting us, or ministering to us in a different way. The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that if you are nice to a fellow human being, you may have been nice to an angel.

Neither is the term, Trinity, but we infer its verity from the Scripture. The New Covenant Kingdom is the Israel that Jeremiah and the Hebrews writer describe, and would include the elect Gentile nations under the blessing and governance of elect Israel.

What I meant was I don't agree with your definition of "New Covenant Kingdom". If we both use the term "New Covenant Kingdom" and have different definitions for it, then we will have to clarify our definitions each time.

"New Covenant Kingdom" to me means the "spiritual kingdom", the "Israel of God", the "Body of Christ", etc. You see it as an earthly future kingdom consisting of a certain group of believers under Mosaic Law.

As an aside, may I ask, do you have an aversion to terms not found in the Bible?

No, not at all.

There was an Old Covenant Kingdom, which was conditional, the terms of which depended on Israel's obedience. There will yet be a New Covenant Kingdom that will be peopled by the elect only, which depends solely and unilaterally on the faithfulness of their Messiah.

Again, I see the OC kingdom as a fleshly shadow of the spiritual NC kingdom that we now live in.

T

he Pauline scriptures provide ample evidence that the New Covenant Kingdom was put on hold. The revelation of the Mystery to Paul, and salvation apart from the theretofore necessary ceremonial observances, suffices to demonstrate this. Prior to the revelation of the Mystery, obedience to Moses, submission to and the ministry of angels in the rituals and feasts, requisite ceremonial observances, designated ritual spaces, implements and clothing, etc., were all required practice. One who refused or disrespected these were to be cut off from one's people. In the Mystery, we have the shunning of all of these practices, having been nailed to Christ's execution stake (Col. 2:14).

The Pauline epistles were written between the 30AD - 70AD time period. During this period the OC was "waxing" and soon to be obsolete. Paul was mostly giving us direction for how to live after 70AD in the NC spiritual kingdom, which would be "the Israel of God".

Most of what Peter and the 12 preached were for those who lived in the 30AD - 70AD time period. The teachings are warnings, and tell about enduring till the end (70AD), these people most likely lived near or around Jerusalem. Most of Paul's audience didn't have to worry about the Romans coming because they were far away in other countries.

Jesus also warns the people about what was going to happen to Jerusalem. He tells them to run to the hills so they can escape what was going to come.

This doesn't mean there were two gospels.

Paul was preaching the gospel far away from Jerusalem. There was no need to warn his audience about the tribulation that was soon to come to Jerusalem.

Peter and the 12 needed to warn those in and near Jerusalem.

How is this relevant to what the Scriptures teach.

Chilaism has been around since the first century. It is the belief that there will be a future 1,000 year kingdom on planet earth with Christ as King.

The belief that Paul preached a different gospel has also been around since the first century.

What wasn't taught for 1,800 years was a secret rapture and 7 year tribulation with an antichrist, followed by Christ coming for the third time.

Darby took chilaism, added Margaret McDonalds vision to it, told Sir Robert Anderson about it, Anderson came up with the 7 year trib by applying Daniel chp 9 to Darby's theory. Scofield brought it to the USA, Chafer founded a seminary, and the rest is history.

None of these teachings were ever taught before Darby.

Nowhere in the Bible does God tell Paul that He is going to keep all the really important stuff hidden for 1,800 years.

You will claim that I am basing my argument on silence. However, you are making your argument on speculation.

I can prove I read a book, but I can't prove I didn't read a book. You want me to prove that these teachings didn't exist. No one can prove a negative.

All of the so-called "early church fathers" taught things contrary to Scripture. Their antiquity is irrelevant to what the Scriptures teach. To measure the verity of one's doctrine according to the teachings of fallible men, whoever they may be, and however long ago they lived, is folly, according to the Scriptures. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

God tells us that pastor teachers will be gifted with the Holy Spirit to teach. That means that even though many false teachers have come and gone throughout history, the truth has been passed down by some pastor - teachers.

Which means that some of the men had to teach the truth, which means that an absence of the truth for 1,800 years cannot have happened.


I will reply to the rest of your post as soon as I can.

Thanks

 

[Hilston]

When do you believe this held-in-silence Mystery was first revealed?

It's curious that you did not answer this question.

First I want to add, that I also believe that the "mystery" reveals that the kingdom is not a physical kingdom, but a spiritual kingdom.

I understand your position; I used to hold that view myself. But the Biblical text does not support this conjecture, not when it's taken as a whole, and the germane portions understood historically and grammatically. Sure, individual passages can be used to support the notion, but not without contradicting other passages and ultimately rendering the Scriptures unintelligible.

I would also add that part of the "mystery" is that believers in the spiritual kingdom are filled with the Holy Spirit, "in Christ, are made alive in Christ, etc.

The "filling of the (Person of the) Holy Spirit" does not apply to Kingdom believers and is nowhere to be found outside of Paul's epistles. And for good reason: the Kingdom believers were under the angelic ministry. Kingdom believers were under the "gods many" and "lords many" (1Cor 8:5), to wit, many mediators. For the Body of Christ, there is One Mediator and One Spirit.

Consider the oft invoked text of Acts 2 concerning the "filling of the Holy Spirit." Many misunderstand Pentecost to mark a great "filling of the Holy Spirit" in the early church. Examination of the grammar, however -- in particular, the absence of the definite article in reference to "spirit" -- indicates not that the Person of the Holy Spirit indwelled the believers there, but rather the empowerment of God's Spirit, via the agency of angels, as is always the case with Kingdom believers. The appearance of fire upon the believers were angelic manifestations, indicative of the angelic presence and indwelling.

There is no doubt that most of the spiritual aspects of the kingdom where revealed to the Apostle Paul.

Really? Is the administrative authority of the Body of Christ over the angels a "spiritual aspect" of the kingdom, which was administratively inferior to the angels? Is the single baptism (Eph 4:5) of the Body of Christ by the One Spirit a "spiritual aspects" of the kingdom, which had many baptisms (Heb 6:2) and many spirits? These are contradictory aspects of two entirely different gospels, not "spiritual aspects" revealed of the same gospel.

However, since the "mystery" IMO cannot be defined with one definition, I don't believe that Paul was the only one that it was revealed to.

How does that follow? Multiple definitions requires more than one recipient? It's not even logical. Where are you getting this?

Several questions on this point: How then was David, who was under the law, able to break the Sabbath? Was David's breaking of the Sabbath indicating that God was completely done with fleshly Israel? Do you believe Peter was asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6? What do you make of Jesus commanding His disciples to observe and teach everything in the Mosaic Law (Matthew 28:19,20)?

I believe David was some sort of typology of Christ.

Since Christ was the Lord of the Sabbath, in some way David must have been Lord of the Sabbath. Therefore, David also could not break the Sabbath.

I'm confused. First, you point to Jesus breaking the Sabbath. Next, you say that David was the antetype of Christ. Then, you say that David also could not break the Sabbath. But, Jesus did break the Sabbath, so how is it that David "also" could not break the Sabbath? Please explain.

What does "Keep the Sabbath Holy" even mean?

Is that a rhetorical question? A Socratic irony? Holiness is defined as setting apart. To "keep holy" is to set apart for special use or purpose. The word "Sabbath" comes from "shabat," which means to "stop doing," to cease from previous activity. Many mistakenly think that God actually "rested" after six days of creation, as if He were tired or need to recuperate. It actually means that He ceased from His previous activity, namely, from creating the universe. So literally, the phrase "keep the Sabbath holy" means "to set apart the 'stop-doing' for its special purpose."

IMO, this command was included in the 10 commandments because it is the only one that is impossible to not break.

Where did you get this notion? Do you believe keeping the Sabbath is more difficult to obey than to abstain from coveting? Paul didn't think so. In fact, Paul claims to have kept the law blamelessly ...

Philippians 3:4 "If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: ..." Php 3:6 "Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless."​

Except for that commandment not to covet:

Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment (not to covet), deceived me, and by it slew me.​

By the time the first century came along, the Pharisees had added so many inclusions to the Sabbath command, that it was almost impossible to keep them.

How is that relevant? Regardless of what was added later, your claim is that it was included in the decalogue because it was "the only one that is impossible to not break."

I have no idea how a human being is supposed to keep a day Holy for 24 hours.

In light of even a cursory study of the word meanings, context and usage, it isn't difficult to understand the intent of the commandment: Just don't work. Cease from the activities of the rest of the week.

The Hebrew epistle was written to Hebrews, who were under the angelic ministry.

Was Abraham's brother Haran a Hebrew? ... Was Abraham's nephew Lot, the son of Haran a Hebrew? ... Were Lot's sons Moab and Ben-Ammi Hebrews? ... Or should I assume that you believe Hebrews = Israelites and/or Jews?

My claim is that the Hebrews epistle was written to people under the angelic ministry, not that the Hebrews were the only people under the angelic ministry. So how are your questions germane to the topic of this discussion?

Upon the conversion of Saul of Tarsus and the establishment of the Body of Christ, the angelic ministry to elect Israel began to wane and eventually disappeared entirely. The biblical evidence for this is found throughout Paul's epistles, in which he describes the Body of Christ as being seated with Christ, above the angelic realm, an unprecedented proposition (Eph 1:20, 2:6).

First off, I believe the angelic ministry to physical Israel ceased at the cross. Can you show where the angelic ministry continued after the cross?

In Acts 5:19, an angel releases apostles from prison. In Acts 8:26, an angel gives directions to Philip. In Acts 10, an angel comes to Cornelius. There are many more examples. Surely, you're aware of these?

I'm not sure the angelic ministry can be seen anywhere after the birth of Christ.

Perhaps you have a strange definition of "angelic ministry." I mean, don't you remember all the angelic activity throughout Acts?

... However, God the Father has ceased giving people visions (i.e. Peter's sheet vision), taking people to Paradise (Paul), and having Jesus appear in some capacity to people (Paul & John)

IMO, this is because the law and the prophets has been fulfilled in Christ, and because we have the completed canon of scripture.

Do you believe the angels were active between the fulfillment of the law and the completed canon of scripture?

Heretofore (until the Mystery was revealed to Paul), men understood that heaven was the abode of God and the elect angels. They never surmised that men would ever occupy heaven, let alone have authority over and judge angels (1Co 6:1-3). Search and see. Nowhere in the Hebrew canon, or anywhere in Scripture outside of Paul's epistles, is the notion that the elect of God would live in heaven. The ancient and perpetual promise to the non-Body elect was also to dwell in their respective lands forever.

That's because they, like you, think the kingdom is an earthly kingdom.

The Scriptures unequivocally state that the Kingdom is to be in the Land, upon the earth. The dismissal of scores of verses as misunderstood "spiritual aspects" is not only unwarranted and not supported by the grammar and context of the passages, but it is illogical and undermines the perspicuity of God's Word.

Again, that's part of the mystery. The kingdom is not an earthly kingdom, it is a spiritual kingdom.

This is a false dichotomy, as if it must be one or the other.

Jesus touched on it when the Pharisees thought they could trap him with the "seven brothers" question in Luke 20:

(Luke 20:35-36) But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

Notice Jesus says "the age to come". He then goes on to say that those who are resurrected will be like the angels, meaning they won't marry and that they will not die.

Dispies have people being born in their future 1,000 year kingdom on planet earth. If so, then they would all be bastard children if marriage will not exist.

If this objection could be answered logically, would you then consider a literal interpretation? Or will you search for other reasons to dismiss a literal earthly millennial Kingdom?

"The age to come" that Jesus spoke of was not a future kingdom on planet earth. It's easy to see that now, but unfortunately dispies still don't see it.

Do you believe Peter was asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6?

The administrative position of the elect of the Body of Christ over the angels was entirely new with the revelation of the Mystery to Paul. The presence of the Body of Christ in the world since that time, and the abeyance of the Kingdom program, all but removes the angelic realm from the equation. It should be of little wonder that there is no obvious angelic intervention or activity in the world today, as they have no role in the ministry or worship of the elect today. Not only that, but we no longer see disease and calamity as a result of demonic activity, as it is described throughout the non-Pauline canon.

Depends what "mystery" you are talking about

We find the following in Psalm 8:5:

(Psalm 8:5) You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.

Now we see the following in Hebrews:

(Heb 2:9) But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

This couldn't be the secret mystery hidden from scriptures and only revealed to Paul since it is found in scriptures and was revealed by the writer of Hebrews.

I agree. The raising of Messiah above the angels, as well as Messiah's abode in the heavens, were not the Mystery. It is the raising of elect human beings above the angels and their abode in heaven that were unprecedented, never before revealed to man. Search and see. Nowhere outside of Paul's epistles do we see a reference to people living in heaven with God.

Again, I agree that the ministry of angels is over, but so is the visions, and revelations of Jesus.

This doesn't mean that angels are not watching over us, or protecting us, or ministering to us in a different way.

Yes, it does. To say the ministry of angels is over, and then to describe them as ministering to us, is a contradiction.

The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that if you are nice to a fellow human being, you may have been nice to an angel.

That's only true of Kingdom believers at the time of the writing of Hebrews. There is no angelic activity today, in this present dispensation.

... I don't agree with your definition of "New Covenant Kingdom". If we both use the term "New Covenant Kingdom" and have different definitions for it, then we will have to clarify our definitions each time.

There's no need for you to clarify. I know what you mean by it. And you know what I mean by it. There is no impediment to our communication as long as we both understand that.

There was an Old Covenant Kingdom, which was conditional, the terms of which depended on Israel's obedience. There will yet be a New Covenant Kingdom that will be peopled by the elect only, which depends solely and unilaterally on the faithfulness of their Messiah.

Again, I see the OC kingdom as a fleshly shadow of the spiritual NC kingdom that we now live in.

I realize that. I used to hold that view myself. Your view doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of Scripture, which is why I abandoned it. Read Jeremiah 31:31ff again. The description of the New Covenant in contrast to the Old Covenant has nothing to do with its content, application or practice. Rather, it has everything to do with the terms and ramifications of it. The New Covenant is not about the cessation of ritual sacrifice, but rather about the fact that New Covenant believers are secured in their regeneration and salvation, not by their faithful observance of the Mosaic Law, but by the finished work of Messiah in their behalf. Their continued observance of the Mosaic Law is then seen, not as meeting requirements that uphold their side of a bilateral covenant, but rather as worshipful expression of their commitment and devotion to the God who, through His Servant, unilaterally fulfilled the terms of the covenant. Your view undermines the perpetual promises of God to the nation of Israel, and imposes false premises upon the nature and practice of the New Covenant Mosaic Law.

This thread is about the questions you claimed were insurmountable by the Mid-Acts view. I appreciate your telling me how you see the OC kingdom, etc., but for every point you've raised thus far, the Mid-Acts view is shown to be more Biblically and logically consistent than your own. Your inability to deal with and process the terms of the decalogue is but one example. Your neologism of multiple definitions requiring more than one recipient is another. And your conception of the angelic ministry is yet another. Can you answer whether Peter was asking a foolish question in Acts 1:6?

The Pauline scriptures provide ample evidence that the New Covenant Kingdom was put on hold. The revelation of the Mystery to Paul, and salvation apart from the theretofore necessary ceremonial observances, suffices to demonstrate this. Prior to the revelation of the Mystery, obedience to Moses, submission to and the ministry of angels in the rituals and feasts, requisite ceremonial observances, designated ritual spaces, implements and clothing, etc., were all required practice. One who refused or disrespected these were to be cut off from one's people. In the Mystery, we have the shunning of all of these practices, having been nailed to Christ's execution stake (Col. 2:14).

The Pauline epistles were written between the 30AD - 70AD time period. During this period the OC was "waxing" and soon to be obsolete. Paul was mostly giving us direction for how to live after 70AD in the NC spiritual kingdom, which would be "the Israel of God".

Not true. Search and see. Paul does not give any instruction whatsoever pertaining to the New Covenant, and for good reason: it has no application to the Body of Christ. Paul's only mention of it is found in his description (not prescription) of the Last Passover in the Corinthian epistle, and he is in no way telling the Corinthian saints to begin observing Passover, let alone the New Covenant.

Most of what Peter and the 12 preached were for those who lived in the 30AD - 70AD time period. The teachings are warnings, and tell about enduring till the end (70AD), these people most likely lived near or around Jerusalem. Most of Paul's audience didn't have to worry about the Romans coming because they were far away in other countries.

This doesn't even come close to explaining the differences between the circumcision gospel Peter preached and the uncircumcision gospel preached by Paul. The differences between Peter's warnings and Paul's teachings go beyond the circumstances of their writing; it involves the very content of their faith and practice. Consider the following differences:

One Body. For the Body of Christ, there is but one Body of believers, who stand before God apart from their ethnic identities (Gal 3:28 6:15 Eph 2:16 3:6). Whereas for Kingdom, there were many bodies of believers, who stand before God according to their ethnic identities (Israel: Is 2:1-3 14:1-4 60:1-16 Joel 3:1 Amos 9:9-12 Zech 8:3,13,22,23 14:16-19 Ro 11:24-26; Gentile nations: Amos 9:12 Zech 8:22,23 Mt. 25:32-34).

One Spirit. For the Body of Christ, there is but One Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead. Whereas for the Kingdom, there were "gods many" and "lords many," the angels who ministered to them and were the conduit of communication from God (Ex 3:2 Ac 7:53 Ga 3:19 Ez 2:2 He 2:2 cf. 1Jn 4:1-3). There is no angelic ministry to the Body of Christ because of their superior position, seated in the third heaven with Christ, above all principalities and powers.

One Hope. The Body of Christ has one and only one Hope, which is to be co-seated with Christ on the Father’s throne, righteously governing and blessing the angelic host. Israel’s kingdom was (and will again be) characterized by many distinct ethnic hopes, each elect nation looking forward to and longing for the fulfillment of their distinctive Hope. For elect Israel, their Hope is to dwell in the Land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, righteously governing and blessing the elect gentile nations. For the elect nations in Israel’s kingdom, their hope is to dwell in their respective lands, and to serve Israel, and thereby to worship the Lord via the mediatory function of the priestly nation (i.e., Israel).

One Lord. As mentioned above, for Kingdom believers there were "lords many. For Israel’s kingdom there were (will again be) many lords administrating over Israel and the nations, namely, the angelic host. For the Body of Christ, there is but One Lord, Jesus Christ who is exalted as Head of the Body.

One Faith. For the Body of Christ, there is one and only One faith (= body of doctrine), namely, that content of belief which is expressed according to the uncircumcision gospel. In Israel’s kingdom, there are many faiths (= bodies of doctrine), i.e., doctrines distinctive in content and application for each elect nation, according to their respective belief systems, and all by God’s decree. The distinct ethnic Hopes, mentioned above, are inextricably interwoven with these distinct ethnic faiths. The elect of the Nation of Israel expressed their faith through the Mosaic rituals and ceremonies and by blessing the Gentile nations. The elect Gentile Nations expressed their respective faiths by serving Israel and coming to the Feast of Tabernacles annually. The Body of Christ is entirely non-ethnic and nonceremonial by nature and practice (more on this below).

One Baptism (i.e., the shunning of religious rituals and ceremonies) For the Body of Christ, there is one and only one baptism, namely, that of the Spirit without water. For Kingdom believers, there were many baptisms, i.e., ceremonial washings. The significance of baptism may be described as an event intended to experientially identify two things in some respect or that which ceremonially celebrates that identification, namely the water rite. For the Body of Christ, it represents the avoidance of all religiously ceremonial observances for the Body of Christ (e.g. there is one circumcision, that of the heart).

One God and Father of All (literally, one truly-Fatherly God of all). For the Body of Christ, there is but One God, whereas for Kingdom believers, there were the "gods many," already mentioned above. Furthermore, the Body of Christ has a uniquely direct relationship with the One truly-Fatherly God. While Israel viewed the Father in a distinctive sense, and no less significantly, as their “Father which is in heaven”, and had a mediated relationship with Him via the agency of the many gods, i.e., angels. They also practiced and observed a patriarchal hierarchy and succession throughout their belief system, in which fathers presided as priests over their families, and passed their authority on to male successors. For the Body of Christ, there is no such hierarchy or patriarchal system.

By the way, I have copious references to support each of these points. After the first couple, I got lazy. I can add the verses if you wish to see them.

Tetelestai, your view either ignores these glaring distinctions, or it works very hard at coming up with fanciful conjectures in the attempt to explain them away. That's what I see whenever you type "IMO" or something similar, viz., mere confabulations and ad hoc theories.

Jesus also warns the people about what was going to happen to Jerusalem. He tells them to run to the hills so they can escape what was going to come.

This doesn't mean there were two gospels.

See above. See the otherwise irreconcilable differences in their content. In Peter's gospel, keeping the Law of Moses was never questioned, rather, it was re-inforced. Christ fulfilled the ordinances that were for the Kingdom believers and gave deeper and richer meaning to their continued practice of the Mosaic Law. In Paul's gospel, those ordinances were against us (not for us), and they were nailed to the cross. Therefore, we do not practice the Law of Moses. In Peter's gospel, angels must be acknowledged and not disrespected. In Paul's gospel, the Body of Christ is seated above them, will judge them. Paul goes as far as pronouncing a curse upon any angel that imposes Peter's gospel on Body believers, in direct opposition to Peter's warnings not to do so (2Peter 2:10)

Paul was preaching the gospel far away from Jerusalem. There was no need to warn his audience about the tribulation that was soon to come to Jerusalem. ...Peter and the 12 needed to warn those in and near Jerusalem.

Again, this explanation does not even come close to addressing even the small sample of glaring contrasts I outlined above.

This belief is the teachings of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson, Stam, and other men.

How is this relevant to what the Scriptures teach.

None of these teachings were ever taught before Darby.

Regardless of what we're talking about -- whether it's a future tribulation or Calvinism -- it doesn't matter who taught what and when, as long as it is taught in Scripture.

Nowhere in the Bible does God tell Paul that He is going to keep all the really important stuff hidden for 1,800 years.

It is your assumption that it has been hidden. I don't believe it has, but it's irrelevant. If the Scriptures teach it, that suffices.

You will claim that I am basing my argument on silence. However, you are making your argument on speculation.

The difference is, it's not my argument. I'm merely showing how absurd your argument is. If the Bible teaches it, that is sufficient, regardless of whether you can find some flawed, fallible, partisan human being to corroborate it or not. You are a respecter of men and of flawed human consensus, as is evidenced by your desire to defer to some extra-biblical authority to tell you what to believe. It isn't rationally sound, it underestimates human fallibility, and commits a logical fallacy.

I can prove I read a book, but I can't prove I didn't read a book. You want me to prove that these teachings didn't exist. No one can prove a negative.

On the contrary, I want you to see the absurdity of your argument. I want you to see and acknowledge that Calvin faced the same charges that you are launching at me. They were not relevant then, and they're not relevant now. Anyone who embraces Calvin's anti-papist teachings on the basis of consensus is dishonoring the very spirit of Calvin's opposition to the papists.

All of the so-called "early church fathers" taught things contrary to Scripture. Their antiquity is irrelevant to what the Scriptures teach. To measure the verity of one's doctrine according to the teachings of fallible men, whoever they may be, and however long ago they lived, is folly, according to the Scriptures. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And you can't love and cuddle the bathwater with the baby, which is what you're doing by granting so much authority to your so-called "fathers."

God tells us that pastor teachers will be gifted with the Holy Spirit to teach. That means that even though many false teachers have come and gone throughout history, the truth has been passed down by some pastor - teachers.

What you've basically said here is that the Scriptures are insufficient in and of themselves. When Paul describes the giving of gifted men to the church, he is not saying that we should blindly follow them or defer to their consensus opinion. He is merely describing the way the Body of Christ operates, in contrast to the patriarchal and sacerdotal hierarchy taught in the circumcision gospel. The final arbiter of whom should be considered a pastor-teacher, evangelist, etc. is the Word of God, not the consensus of men.

Which means that some of the men had to teach the truth, which means that an absence of the truth for 1,800 years cannot have happened.

That's what the papists said to Calvin. Here is what Calvin wrote in the introduction to The Institutes:

Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracle it has been confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of so many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church, or that the Church must have been without life during the many centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. ... in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 8).​

Don't you see? You're making the same argument that was laid against Calvin, 475 years after Calvin originally first penned it. At the time, Calvin was up against 1,500 years of church history. Why was it not okay for the papists to challenge Calvin with 1,500 years of church history, yet it's okay for you to challenge me with 1,800 years of church history?

Hilston

 

[Hilston]

 

[tetelestai]

In Peter's gospel, keeping the Law of Moses was never questioned, rather, it was re-inforced.

(Acts 15:16) The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,

When James spoke about David's tent he was referring to the time period of the church from 30AD to 70AD

David's tent stood at the same time that Moses' tabernacle stood. Yet, the Ark of the Covenant was in David's tent, not Moses' tabernacle.

At the same time that the Ark was in David's tent, the animal sacrifices, burnt offerings and other requirements adhered to by the High Priest took place at Moses' tabernacle.

Therefore, I will show that the David's tent spoken of by Amos and James was what you call the "kingdom church" of the first century.

 

[Hilston]

In Peter's gospel, keeping the Law of Moses was never questioned, rather, it was reinforced.

(Acts 15:16) The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent.Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, ..."

When James spoke about David's tent he was referring to the time period of the church from 30AD to 70AD.

David's tent stood at the same time that Moses' tabernacle stood. Yet, the Ark of the Covenant was in David's tent, not Moses' tabernacle.

At the same time that the Ark was in David's tent, the animal sacrifices, burnt offerings and other requirements adhered to by the High Priest took place at Moses' tabernacle.

Therefore, I will show that the David's tent spoken of by Amos and James was what you call the "kingdom church" of the first century.

Please explain how that is relevant to whether or not the Mid-Acts view is correct?

Hilston

 

[tetelestai]

Please explain how that is relevant to whether or not the Mid-Acts view is correct?

Hilston

MAD claims that there were two gospels between 30AD and 70AD. MAD claims that after the cross Peter and the 12 preached a "kingdom" gospel before a secret gospel was given to Paul years later.

One of MAD's so called "proofs" of this is the claim by MADists that the kingdom believers adhered to the Mosaic Law after the cross. Acts 3:1, along with Paul's vow are considered proof texts by MADists that these kingdom believers kept the law despite the belief by most of Christendom that Christ fulfilled the law on the cross, and that the church started on Pentecost with the giving of the Holy Spirit.

My point about David's tent was to show that there was only one time in all of the history of the OC where God dwelt in one place (David's tent), while the High Priest carried out all the requirements of the Mosaic Law at another place (Moses' Tabernacle)

This unusual event occurred for only 44 years. James quoted Joel's prophecy about rebuilding David's tent in Acts 15:16. James quoted Joel to show that Joel's prophecy was being fulfilled right there and then.

We know there wasn't a literal tent during these 40 years. So, the question becomes: Where or what was David's tent in the first century?

I assume you will disagree with this because MADists believe that the restoring of David's tent is a future event.

However, a further study into what occurred in David's tent during the reign of King David shows that Joel's prophecy of the rebuilt tent of David did in fact take place from 30AD to 70AD.

This explains why Peter and John went to the temple in Acts 3:1, but at the same time shows that Peter and John were saved believers in the BOC just like Paul was.

 

[Hilston]

MAD claims that there were two gospels between 30AD and 70AD. MAD claims that after the cross Peter and the 12 preached a "kingdom" gospel before a secret gospel was given to Paul years later.

One of MAD's so called "proofs" of this is the claim by MADists that the kingdom believers adhered to the Mosaic Law after the cross. Acts 3:1, along with Paul's vow are considered proof texts by MADists that these kingdom believers kept the law despite the belief by most of Christendom that Christ fulfilled the law on the cross, and that the church started on Pentecost with the giving of the Holy Spirit.

I disagree with this characterization. First, it is an eisegetic assumption that Christ's fulfillment of the law equals the cessation or abrogation of the law. There is no logical or scriptural proof for this. Quite the opposite: The Mosaic Law continued to be taught and followed long after Christ's fulfillment of it (Acts 15:21, Acts 24:18, Hebrews 8:3).

Furthermore, it is a historical assumption that "most of Christendumb" believed that Christ fulfilled the law on the cross to the intent of abrogating its practice, and that "most of Christendumb" believed that the church started on Pentecost. Paul, and his apostles, and the audiences to whom he wrote certainly didn't agree with any of that. They all understood that Pentecost was the fulfillment of Israel's Scriptures concerning the angelic empowerment they (elect Israel) would receive from the Holy Spirit. They all understood that Mosaic Law was never abrogated, and that Jesus, after His resurrection, commanded His disciples (elect Israel) to obey everything whatsoever He commanded them (Mt. 28:19,20). What did Jesus command them? To follow Moses (Mt 8:4 Luke 5:14). To do everything the scribes and Pharisees (who wield Moses' authority) commanded them to do (Mt 23:2,3).

My point about David's tent was to show that there was only one time in all of the history of the OC where God dwelt in one place (David's tent), while the High Priest carried out all the requirements of the Mosaic Law at another place (Moses' Tabernacle)

This unusual event occurred for only 44 years. James quoted Joel's prophecy about rebuilding David's tent in Acts 15:16. James quoted Joel to show that Joel's prophecy was being fulfilled right there and then.

We know there wasn't a literal tent during these 40 years. So, the question becomes: Where or what was David's tent in the first century?

I assume you will disagree with this because MADists believe that the restoring of David's tent is a future event.

However, a further study into what occurred in David's tent during the reign of King David shows that Joel's prophecy of the rebuilt tent of David did in fact take place from 30AD to 70AD.

Let's assume this is correct, for argument's sake. Why would this negate the Mid-Acts view?

This explains why Peter and John went to the temple in Acts 3:1, ...

How so? How does this explain Peter and John in Acts 3:1?

Does it also explain Paul's animal sacrifices in Acts 24:18? How does it explain the Hebrews writer speaking of animal sacrifices in the present tense? And how does it explain Ezekiel's descriptions of future animal sacrifices in the Millennium? How does it explain the food restrictions imposed on the believing kingdom Gentile proselytes in Acts 15?

... but at the same time shows that Peter and John were saved believers in the BOC just like Paul was.

How does it show that? Please elaborate.

Hilston

 

[tetelestai]

I disagree with this characterization. First, it is an eisegetic assumption that Christ's fulfillment of the law equals the cessation or abrogation of the law.

What does "fulfillment of the law" mean?

If the law hasn't been fulfilled, then you are in big trouble since you haven't been keeping the feasts, tithing, keeping Sabbath, etc.

Jesus said unless the Heavens and earth have passed away the law is still in place (Matt 5:18)

There is no logical or scriptural proof for this. Quite the opposite: The Mosaic Law continued to be taught and followed long after Christ's fulfillment of it (Acts 15:21, Acts 24:18, Hebrews 8:3).

The only people teaching and following the ceremonial and civil parts of the Mosaic Law after the cross were Jews who rejected Christ and adhered to Judaism.

There were many initial converts to Christianity who still observed the Mosaic Law after the cross because they had not yet understood that they didn't have to keep following the Mosaic Law.

The verses you give as your proof that the Mosaic Law was still being taught and followed do not show what you claim.

Peter, Paul, and others did things that look like they were observing the Mosaic Law, but they were only doing this to not upset the Jews they were tying to convert to Christ.

Example: I once worked on an Islamic Mosque. We had to take our shoes off when we went inside. Using your logic, if I were to go into a Mosque to witness about Christ, but took my shoes off before I went in, then I was following and teaching the Koran and Islam.

Furthermore, it is a historical assumption that "most of Christendumb" believed that Christ fulfilled the law on the cross to the intent of abrogating its practice, and that "most of Christendumb" believed that the church started on Pentecost.

This is in fact what the vast majority of Christendom believes, and has believed.

Paul, and his apostles, and the audiences to whom he wrote certainly didn't agree with any of that.

Here is what Paul said:

(Rom 16:7) Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

As we see above, Paul said that there were people "In Christ" before he was. This could only mean that the believers (who you call kingdom believers) were in the one Body before Paul was.

They all understood that Pentecost was the fulfillment of Israel's Scriptures concerning the angelic empowerment they (elect Israel) would receive from the Holy Spirit.

Where in the OT is there a prophecy about "angelic empowerment"?

They all understood that Mosaic Law was never abrogated, and that Jesus, after His resurrection, commanded His disciples (elect Israel) to obey everything whatsoever He commanded them (Mt. 28:19,20).

The law was given for sinners.

It was given as a schoolmaster (Gal 3:24)

It is a law of sin and death

Here is what Jesus said about the law:

(Matt 22:40) All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

What did Jesus command them? To follow Moses (Mt 8:4 Luke 5:14). To do everything the scribes and Pharisees (who wield Moses' authority) commanded them to do (Mt 23:2,3).

All of your above passages are from before the cross.

Let's assume this is correct, for argument's sake. Why would this negate the Mid-Acts view?

It negates MAD on two fronts.

First, it negates MAD's "two gospel - two people" theory that MAD claims happened in the first century.

Secondly, it throws a big monkey wrench into the eschatology of MAD.

Let's look at the latter:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but MAD claims there is going to be a "rapture" that takes all the "Body" believers away, followed by a 7 year tribulation period that has 3.5 years of peace and 3.5 years of great tribulation which concludes with Jesus coming a third time with the "Body" believers and defeating some guy called the anti-christ who has 666 on his forehead or something.

Then satan is bound and chained and thrown into prison, Christ and God get in the DeLorean set the date for 33AD, go to Jerusalem, rebuild a third temple (unless it was built during the trib), bring all the OT saints and "kingdom" believers up from out of the center of the earth, set up a throne for Christ, and the millennial reign lasts exactly 1,000 years.

Here's the problem for you:

(Acts 9:11) “In that day
“I will restore David’s fallen shelter—
I will repair its broken walls
and restore its ruins—
and will rebuild it as it used to be,

James quotes the above in Acts 15.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but MAD teaches that the restoration/rebuilding of David's tent is a yet future event?

As I said in my previous post, David's tent existed for only 44 years.

Here's the question for you:

When is David's tent restored according to your's and MAD's eschatology?

Most MADists claim that the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 is the future 3rd temple that will be built in either your future 7 year trib, or your future 1,000 year millennium.

There are drastic differences between the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 and the tent of David that stood during the days of David.

For example, the only piece of furniture or object that was in David's tent was the Ark of the Covenant (minus the manna and Aaron's rod). Ezekiel's temple has all kinds of stuff in it; tables, utensils, hooks, carved cherubims, palm trees, garments, a great alter, lottery box, blood gutters, kitchens, sleeping rooms, gates, doors, windows, etc.

There are lots of animal sacrifices and offerings that go on in Ezekiel's temple. In 44 years at David's tent there was never an animal sacrifice (except the first day), or any burnt offerings.

People have to be circumcised to enter Ezekiel's temple (Ezk 44:9), anyone could enter David's tent 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Isaiah also spoke of David's tent being restored in the future:

(Isaiah 16:5) And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.

So when does David's tabernacle happen James?

And how does it explain Ezekiel's descriptions of future animal sacrifices in the Millennium?

Ezekiel's future is not our future.

Ezekiel wrote about a future temple while captive in Babylon. Ezekiel's prophecy was for when the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, NOT for a third temple to be built 3,000 years later.

In the past you have claimed that the supposed future animal sacrifices as described in Ezekiel will be for "memorial" purposes, correct?

If so, then one verse destroys that theory:

(Ezk 45:15) And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord GOD.

Animal sacrifices can't be for reconciliation and for a memorial at the same time.

For now, you have a bigger problem explaining how MAD can explain where and when David's tent is reconstructed.

thanks,

 

[Hilston]

What does "fulfillment of the law" mean?

”Fulfillment of the law” means to fill-to-the-full the requirements of the law, or of a particular law; to bring the law, i.e., execute the law to completion; to bring prophecy to pass as expressed in law, to bring into realization that which was prophesied, as expressed in law.

If the law hasn't been fulfilled, then you are in big trouble since you haven't been keeping the feasts, tithing, keeping Sabbath, etc.

First, you’re continuing to assert premises that you haven’t proven and with which I do not agree. Namely, that fulfillment somehow equals cessation. It does NOT. Just because a law is fulfilled, doesn’t mean the law is abnegated, abrogated, nullified, or removed. This is abundantly proven throughout Scripture. For example, Jesus said that certain things would happen in order to fulfil the prophecy that He would be hated without cause (John 15:25). Those things happened, yet Christ continues to be hated without cause. Paul wrote that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Rom. 8:4). That righteousness was fulfilled, yet believers continue to walk after the spirit. Paul told the Galatians that they are to bear one another’s burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). Believers do continue to bear one another’s burdens, even though they’ve fulfilled the law of Christ in so doing. Jesus told John the baptizer that His baptism by John would fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15). Yet baptisms continued after that fulfillment.

So whence comes the idea that fulfillment equals cessation?

Second, you seem to forget whom you’re debating. It is my claim that Paul’s gospel for the Body of Christ perfectly explains the reason why religious ceremonies, rituals, symbols, holy days, etc. are not to be observed and practiced by the members thereof: to wit, because the Body of Christ has not an earthly Hope, but a heavenly one, seated administratively above the angelic realm, which is to say, the Body of Christ is not under the angelic ministry, and therefore not subject to the laws and ordinances delivered and administered by them.

Jesus said unless the Heavens and earth have passed away the law is still in place (Matt 5:18)

Exactly! Do you see how your view makes the Scriptures contradict itself? Jesus said the law is still in place, and commissioned the disciples to teach obedience to everything whatsoever He taught them, which was the observance and practice of the Mosaic Law which spoke of Him (Mt. 28:20, Luke 24:44). How can Jesus say, after the cross, that the law of Moses was still in place, while Paul says it was blotted out, taken out of the way and nailed to Christ’ execution pole (Col. 2:14), having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments (Eph 2:15). The answer is in the words that follow: “... for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” (Eph 2:15,16). The “one new man” is the Body of Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile. For the Body of Christ, the enmity (the law of Moses) has been slain. This is why Paul said that his apostleship did not require him to baptize members of the Body of Christ, which directly contradicts the apostleship of the Twelve (Mt. 28:19,20).

Only the mid-Acts view makes sense of these apparent contradictions without assaulting language and logic. Your view, taken to its logical conclusion, means either Jesus was wrong (or lying), or Paul was wrong (or lying). The mid-Acts view, however, perfectly reconciles these differences.

The only people teaching and following the ceremonial and civil parts of the Mosaic Law after the cross were Jews who rejected Christ and adhered to Judaism.

That’s not true. Paul himself observes the sacrifices and ceremonies required by Moses, and is described in Scripture as bringing his alms and offerings, and being found “purified in the Temple” (Acts 24:17,18), which meant that he had offered the proper sacrifices. Had he been merely placating the Jewish leaders, he would have been contradicting himself, having said In Gal. 1:10, “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”

There were many initial converts to Christianity who still observed the Mosaic Law after the cross because they had not yet understood that they didn't have to keep following the Mosaic Law.

Paul explained that Kingdom converts were required to keep Moses as long as their consciences required it (“One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Romans 14:5). Romans 14 does not apply today because there are no living Kingdom believers today. Romans 14 stopped being applicable the moment the last Kingdom believer died.

The verses you give as your proof that the Mosaic Law was still being taught and followed do not show what you claim.

Peter, Paul, and others did things that look like they were observing the Mosaic Law, but they were only doing this to not upset the Jews they were tying to convert to Christ.

I understand that this is a common view. But as I noted above, this contradicts Paul’s own words in 1 Thess 2:4, where he says, “We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.”

Example: I once worked on an Islamic Mosque. We had to take our shoes off when we went inside. Using your logic, if I were to go into a Mosque to witness about Christ, but took my shoes off before I went in, then I was following and teaching the Koran and Islam.

That’s not my logic at all. The Bible provides a better example than yours. When Naaman assisted with the king of Syria in bowing to his idol in the House of Rimmon -- and bowed with him before the idol -- Naaman, in so doing, was not guilty of idolatry, according to Elisha’s pronouncement (2 Kings 5:18,19).

Your faulty logic is further belied by the fact that nowhere does the Infinite God ever say to follow Muhammad or the Qur’an. But He did command the believing Israelites to follow Moses, and He never repealed that command. I’ve looked. It’s not there, anywhere in Scripture. Moreover, Christ Himself reaffirmed the keeping of the Mosaic Law after the cross (Mt. 28:19,20 cf. Mt. 23:1-3, 23:23). It seems most noteworthy, in my opinion, that one of the most important things in the life of a believing Israelite -- the Law of Moses -- could be presumably altered, yet without a single word to that effect by Christ or anyone else in Scripture.

This is in fact what the vast majority of Christendom believes, and has believed.

Do you realize that, if believers had followed your logic 476 years ago, we might all be papists? Here is what Calvin wrote in the introduction to The Institutes:

Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracle it has been confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of so many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church, or that the Church must have been without life during the many centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. ... in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty.​

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 8).​

Don't you see that you're making the same argument that was laid against Calvin more than 4 centuries ago. At that time, Calvin was up against 1,500 years of church history. Why was it not okay for the papists to challenge Calvin with 15 centuries of church history, yet it's okay for you to challenge me with less than 5 centuries of church history?

I don’t intend this to be as harsh as it may sound, but your words indicate that you are a respecter of men over God. You should Google this phrase: “Three men make a tiger.” Consensus is an unbiblical way to approach the pursuit of truth. It is illogical as well (argumentum ad populum fallacy). As I cited above, in Gal. 1:10, Paul writes, “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” In 1 Thess 2:4, Paul says, “We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.” Furthermore, in Acts 4:19, Peter said, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge you.” And later in Acts 5:29, Peter declared, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

As noted earlier, Calvin faced the same charges from the papists that you are launching at me, namely, that “the vast majority of Christendom” disagrees with me. The point was not relevant then, and it’s not relevant now. Anyone who embraces Calvin's anti-papist teachings on the basis of consensus is dishonoring the very spirit of Calvin's opposition to the papists, not to mention the teaching of Scripture and sound logic. And such an approach is exactly what you’re suggesting.

Seriously, what if my response were instead: “You’re telling me that the vast majority of Christendom doesn’t agree with my current view. Then, by all means, tell me what they believe, because I prefer to side with the majority.” Who was considered to be of more noble character? The ones who accepted Paul’s words uncritically, or those who examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true? (Acts 17:11)

Here is what Paul said:

(Rom 16:7) Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

As we see above, Paul said that there were people "In Christ" before he was. This could only mean that the believers (who you call kingdom believers) were in the one Body before Paul was.

Where do you get the notion that being “in Christ” is reserved for members of the Body? Anyone who is regenerated, whether Kingdom believer or Body of Christ member is “in Christ.” Everyone “in Christ” (i.e., regenerated) prior to Paul conversion was a Kingdom believer.

They all understood that Pentecost was the fulfillment of Israel's Scriptures concerning the angelic empowerment they (elect Israel) would receive from the Holy Spirit.

Where in the OT is there a prophecy about "angelic empowerment"?

Joel 2:28-32.

They all understood that Mosaic Law was never abrogated, and that Jesus, after His resurrection, commanded His disciples (elect Israel) to obey everything whatsoever He commanded them (Mt. 28:19,20).

The law was given for sinners.

It was given as a schoolmaster (Gal 3:24)

It is a law of sin and death

Here is what Jesus said about the law:

(Matt 22:40) All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Agreed. What point are you making?

What did Jesus command them? To follow Moses (Mt 8:4 Luke 5:14). To do everything the scribes and Pharisees (who wield Moses' authority) commanded them to do (Mt 23:2,3).

All of your above passages are from before the cross.

Not the command in Mt. 28:19,20, which is what I’m describing and which included the Law of Moses (everything whatsoever I have commanded you) in Jesus’ commission to the apostles. Jesus’ sacrifice did not abnegate everything He taught about the Law prior to His death. If that’s your claim, let’s see the proof.

Let's assume [your point about David’s tabernacle] is correct, for argument's sake. Why would this negate the Mid-Acts view?

It negates MAD on two fronts.

First, it negates MAD's "two gospel - two people" theory that MAD claims happened in the first century.

Actually, there are three gospels (the Mosaic, the Noahide and the Mystery), and three divisions of God’s elect (elect Israel, the elect of the nations, and the Body of Christ). But how does that negate the mid-Acts view? If I grant that James’ citation of Joel affirms the establishment of David’s tabernacle, that does not preclude the existence of a distinct Body of Christ and the Mystery. It only means that Christ’s establishment of the Kingdom coexisted with Christ’s establishment of the Body of Christ.

Secondly, it throws a big monkey wrench into the eschatology of MAD.

Let's look at the latter:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but MAD claims there is going to be a "rapture" that takes all the "Body" believers away, followed by a 7 year tribulation period that has 3.5 years of peace and 3.5 years of great tribulation which concludes with Jesus coming a third time with the "Body" believers and defeating some guy called the anti-christ who has 666 on his forehead or something.

Then satan is bound and chained and thrown into prison, Christ and God get in the DeLorean set the date for 33AD, go to Jerusalem, rebuild a third temple (unless it was built during the trib), bring all the OT saints and "kingdom" believers up from out of the center of the earth, set up a throne for Christ, and the millennial reign lasts exactly 1,000 years.

Why the condescension? I’m trying to have a respectful and clear discussion with you, and you’ve chosen to pepper your comments with ridicule and derision. If you want to go down that path, I’m happy to oblige you. But you might first want to have a look at what’s happened to others who have previously walked through that gate.

Here's the problem for you:

(Acts 9:11) [sic; should be Amos 9:11]
“In that day
“I will restore David’s fallen shelter—
I will repair its broken walls
and restore its ruins—
and will rebuild it as it used to be,

James quotes the above in Acts 15.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but MAD teaches that the restoration/rebuilding of David's tent is a yet future event?

Sure; “In that day” (yet future) is the operative phrase. James was describing the partial fulfillment of Amos 9 at the time of the Acts.

As I said in my previous post, David's tent existed for only 44 years.

Here's the question for you:

When is David's tent restored according to your's and MAD's eschatology?

Most MADists claim that the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 is the future 3rd temple that will be built in either your future 7 year trib, or your future 1,000 year millennium.

Right. Let’s go with that.

There are drastic differences between the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 and the tent of David that stood during the days of David.

Are you saying that Ezekiel’s temple must be identical to David’s tabernacle in order for Ezekiel’s prophecy to be a literal temple in the Millennium? Why? Please cite the source of this principle.

For example, the only piece of furniture or object that was in David's tent was the Ark of the Covenant (minus the manna and Aaron's rod). Ezekiel's temple has all kinds of stuff in it; tables, utensils, hooks, carved cherubims, palm trees, garments, a great alter, lottery box, blood gutters, kitchens, sleeping rooms, gates, doors, windows, etc.

Again, are you saying that the furnishings must be identical in order for Ezekiel’s temple to be yet future? Again, I’d like to see your sources for this thesis.

There are lots of animal sacrifices and offerings that go on in Ezekiel's temple. In 44 years at David's tent there was never an animal sacrifice (except the first day), or any burnt offerings.

Do you have a reference that indicates that no animal sacrifices or burnt offerings were made after the tabernacle’s dedication?

People have to be circumcised to enter Ezekiel's temple (Ezk 44:9), anyone could enter David's tent 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

That seems to line up with Joel 3:17 “So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.” Also, I’m pretty sure Ezekiel was referring to the Holy Place, and not entire temple compound.

Isaiah also spoke of David's tent being restored in the future:

(Isaiah 16:5) And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.

So when does David's tabernacle happen James?

In the Millennium, as answered above.

Ezekiel's future is not our future.

Of course not. Have you again forgotten whom you are debating? I don’t believe the Body of Christ will dwell on earth after the Rapture (i.e., the “Crapture,” as preterists like to call it). Ezekiel’s temple is an earthly temple, and only Kingdom people will have access to it.

Ezekiel wrote about a future temple while captive in Babylon. Ezekiel's prophecy was for when the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, NOT for a third temple to be built 3,000 years later.

I’m familiar with that assumption. But it is impossible, given the language and details of the prophecy, which even anti-dispensational commentators reluctantly admit.

In the past you have claimed that the supposed future animal sacrifices as described in Ezekiel will be for "memorial" purposes, correct?

Yes, just as they were throughout Israel’s history (they were, in a sense, “pre-memorial”).

If so, then one verse destroys that theory:

(Ezk 45:15) And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord GOD.

Animal sacrifices can't be for reconciliation and for a memorial at the same time.

Why not?

For now, you have a bigger problem explaining how MAD can explain where and when David's tent is reconstructed.

Where: In Jerusalem. When: In the Millennium. That really wasn’t that hard. It seems to me that you have much bigger problem(s), judging by your lack of understanding of the view you’re attempting to disprove.

Hilston

 

[tetelestai]

First, you’re continuing to assert premises that you haven’t proven and with which I do not agree. Namely, that fulfillment somehow equals cessation. It does NOT. Just because a law is fulfilled, doesn’t mean the law is abnegated, abrogated, nullified, or removed.

You guys (MADists) claim that the law has been put on hold. I believe that the law has been done away with forever. It is you that is asserting premises that you have not and cannot prove. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about the law being put on hold, or the OC being put on hold, or the NC being put on hold.

Nowhere does the Apostle Paul tell us that one day in the future the Mosaic Law will be put in place again. In fact, Paul says the complete opposite (Eph 2:15, Gal 3:23-25)

For example, Jesus said that certain things would happen in order to fulfil the prophecy that He would be hated without cause (John 15:25). Those things happened, yet Christ continues to be hated without cause.

A prophecy can only be fulfilled once.

The prophecy from Psalm 35 that Jesus spoke about in John 15:25 was fulfilled during the Incarnation of Christ.

The prophecy was specific to the life of Christ in the first century.

Paul wrote that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Rom. 8:4). That righteousness was fulfilled, yet believers continue to walk after the spirit. Paul told the Galatians that they are to bear one another’s burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). Believers do continue to bear one another’s burdens, even though they’ve fulfilled the law of Christ in so doing. Jesus told John the baptizer that His baptism by John would fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15). Yet baptisms continued after that fulfillment.

There are two laws, the Mosaic Law and the law of the Spirit filled life in Christ Jesus.

(Rom 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Because of the cross we are no longer under the law of sin and death (Mosaic Law), we are now under the law of the Spirit filled life in Christ Jesus.

So whence comes the idea that fulfillment equals cessation?

See above, there can't be two laws.

Second, you seem to forget whom you’re debating. It is my claim that Paul’s gospel for the Body of Christ perfectly explains the reason why religious ceremonies, rituals, symbols, holy days, etc. are not to be observed and practiced by the members thereof: to wit, because the Body of Christ has not an earthly Hope, but a heavenly one, seated administratively above the angelic realm, which is to say, the Body of Christ is not under the angelic ministry, and therefore not subject to the laws and ordinances delivered and administered by them.

We are in agreement with how the Mosaic law applies to believers today. Where we disagree is your theory that one day the Mosaic Law will be put in place again, along with your earthly kingdom.

Do you see how your view makes the Scriptures contradict itself? Jesus said the law is still in place, and commissioned the disciples to teach obedience to everything whatsoever He taught them, which was the observance and practice of the Mosaic Law which spoke of Him (Mt. 28:20, Luke 24:44). How can Jesus say, after the cross, that the law of Moses was still in place, while Paul says it was blotted out, taken out of the way and nailed to Christ’ execution pole (Col. 2:14), having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments (Eph 2:15). The answer is in the words that follow: “... for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” (Eph 2:15,16). The “one new man” is the Body of Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile. For the Body of Christ, the enmity (the law of Moses) has been slain. This is why Paul said that his apostleship did not require him to baptize members of the Body of Christ, which directly contradicts the apostleship of the Twelve (Mt. 28:19,20).

No contradiction.

The law and prophets did not fully end until 70AD. It is why the writer of Hebrews stated that the OC was fading away, and soon to be obsolete because the NC was in place.

Only the mid-Acts view makes sense of these apparent contradictions without assaulting language and logic. Your view, taken to its logical conclusion, means either Jesus was wrong (or lying), or Paul was wrong (or lying). The mid-Acts view, however, perfectly reconciles these differences.

I understand what MAD tries to do. However, MAD falls apart when MAD's two gospel, two peoples, two places in eternity, etc are more closely examined.

That’s not true. Paul himself observes the sacrifices and ceremonies required by Moses, and is described in Scripture as bringing his alms and offerings, and being found “purified in the Temple” (Acts 24:17,18), which meant that he had offered the proper sacrifices. Had he been merely placating the Jewish leaders, he would have been contradicting himself, having said In Gal. 1:10, “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”

I disagree.

You're trying to claim something that just isn't there. Paul states that he brought gifts to "my people". Again, this is no different than me not taking my shoes off to enter a Mosque.

(Act 24:17) “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings.

Paul explained that Kingdom converts were required to keep Moses as long as their consciences required it (“One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Romans 14:5). Romans 14 does not apply today because there are no living Kingdom believers today. Romans 14 stopped being applicable the moment the last Kingdom believer died.

Huh?

Romans 14 is a contrast between weak and strong believers.

Are you claiming that Romans 14 is addressing "kingdom believers"?

I understand that this is a common view. But as I noted above, this contradicts Paul’s own words in 1 Thess 2:4, where he says, “We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.”

If Paul observed the ceremonial part of the Mosaic Law in order to witness to the Jews, it does not mean that Paul was trying to please men. It means that Paul knew he wouldn't get very far by offending the Jews.

The Bible provides a better example than yours. When Naaman assisted with the king of Syria in bowing to his idol in the House of Rimmon -- and bowed with him before the idol -- Naaman, in so doing, was not guilty of idolatry, according to Elisha’s pronouncement (2 Kings 5:18,19).

Ok, this shows that Paul was not observing the Mosaic Law.

But He did command the believing Israelites to follow Moses, and He never repealed that command. I’ve looked. It’s not there, anywhere in Scripture.

God told Peter to go to Cornelius' house.

(Acts 10:28) He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

Moreover, Christ Himself reaffirmed the keeping of the Mosaic Law after the cross (Mt. 28:19,20 cf. Mt. 23:1-3, 23:23). It seems most noteworthy, in my opinion, that one of the most important things in the life of a believing Israelite -- the Law of Moses -- could be presumably altered, yet without a single word to that effect by Christ or anyone else in Scripture.

See above

I don’t intend this to be as harsh as it may sound, but your words indicate that you are a respecter of men over God. You should Google this phrase: “Three men make a tiger.” Consensus is an unbiblical way to approach the pursuit of truth. It is illogical as well (argumentum ad populum fallacy). As I cited above, in Gal. 1:10, Paul writes, “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” In 1 Thess 2:4, Paul says, “We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.” Furthermore, in Acts 4:19, Peter said, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge you.” And later in Acts 5:29, Peter declared, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

As noted earlier, Calvin faced the same charges from the papists that you are launching at me, namely, that “the vast majority of Christendom” disagrees with me. The point was not relevant then, and it’s not relevant now. Anyone who embraces Calvin's anti-papist teachings on the basis of consensus is dishonoring the very spirit of Calvin's opposition to the papists, not to mention the teaching of Scripture and sound logic. And such an approach is exactly what you’re suggesting.

Seriously, what if my response were instead: “You’re telling me that the vast majority of Christendom doesn’t agree with my current view. Then, by all means, tell me what they believe, because I prefer to side with the majority.” Who was considered to be of more noble character? The ones who accepted Paul’s words uncritically, or those who examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true? (Acts 17:11)

Um....I was agreeing with you.

Where do you get the notion that being “in Christ” is reserved for members of the Body? Anyone who is regenerated, whether Kingdom believer or Body of Christ member is “in Christ.” Everyone “in Christ” (i.e., regenerated) prior to Paul conversion was a Kingdom believer.

Paul says there were others "In Christ" before he was.

Paul also tells us what it means to be "In Christ":

(2 Cor 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Does the above sound like a description for a "kingdom" believer?

Answer: NO

You want us to believe that Paul would throw around the term "In Christ" sometimes to the BOC and sometimes to the "kingdom" believers.

Since Paul makes it clear that other believers were "In Christ" before he was, and tells us what it means to be "in Christ", it is just one of the many huge problems for MAD.

Joel 2:28-32.

C'mon James.

This is prophecy about the Holy Spirit, not angels.

Not the command in Mt. 28:19,20, which is what I’m describing and which included the Law of Moses (everything whatsoever I have commanded you) in Jesus’ commission to the apostles. Jesus’ sacrifice did not abnegate everything He taught about the Law prior to His death. If that’s your claim, let’s see the proof.

Jesus didn't teach them the Mosaic Law, they already knew it before He came.

But how does that negate the mid-Acts view? If I grant that James’ citation of Joel affirms the establishment of David’s tabernacle, that does not preclude the existence of a distinct Body of Christ and the Mystery. It only means that Christ’s establishment of the Kingdom coexisted with Christ’s establishment of the Body of Christ.

Because the existence of David's tabernacle explains the apparent contradictions that occurred between 30AD - 70AD, and shows that MAD is not the answer to the "apparent contradictions"

Why the condescension? I’m trying to have a respectful and clear discussion with you, and you’ve chosen to pepper your comments with ridicule and derision. If you want to go down that path, I’m happy to oblige you. But you might first want to have a look at what’s happened to others who have previously walked through that gate.

Because sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry when people claim there are going to be animal sacrifices in the future.

I know you sincerely believe this, it's just hard for me to imagine how people can believe it.

Sure; “In that day” (yet future) is the operative phrase. James was describing the partial fulfillment of Amos 9 at the time of the Acts.

"Partial fulfillment"?

How can a prophecy be "partially fulfilled"?

Right. Let’s go with that.

You didn't answer the question.

I asked when David's tent is going to be restored?

Are you saying that Ezekiel’s temple must be identical to David’s tabernacle in order for Ezekiel’s prophecy to be a literal temple in the Millennium? Why? Please cite the source of this principle.

My point is that Ezekiel's temple and David's tent are two very different things.

Yet, dispensationalism conflates the two, and claims that both will exist in the future, all the while not realizing how different the two are.

Again, are you saying that the furnishings must be identical in order for Ezekiel’s temple to be yet future? Again, I’d like to see your sources for this thesis.

Dispensationalists use OT passages to justify their theory of a future temple with animal sacrifices. Ezekiel 40-48 is used by most dispies to justify the future temple and future animal sacrifices.

Again, my point is the stark contrast between David's tent and Ezekiel's temple.

Do you have a reference that indicates that no animal sacrifices or burnt offerings were made after the tabernacle’s dedication?

1 Chronicles 16:37-42 shows that David sent the priests to Moses' tabernacle on Mt. Gibeon to make sacrifices there, and not at his tent.

The following is a commentary from Matthew Henry (bold my emphases)

"The worship of God ought to be the work of every day. David put it into order. At Jerusalem, where the ark was, Asaph and his brethren were to minister before the ark continually, with songs of praise. No sacrifices were offered there, nor incense burnt, because the altars were not there; but David's prayers were directed as incense, and the lifting up of his hands as the evening sacrifice. So early did spiritual worship take place of ceremonial. Yet the ceremonial worship, being of Divine institution, must by no means be omitted; therefore at Gibeon, at the altars, the priests attended; for their work was to sacrifice and burn incense; and that they did continually, morning and evening, according to the law of Moses. - Commentary Volume One, pg. 443

Again, since dispies claim that David's tent is yet future, and that Ezekiel's temple is yet future, how do you explain the contrast of the tent and the temple?

That seems to line up with Joel 3:17 “So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.” Also, I’m pretty sure Ezekiel was referring to the Holy Place, and not entire temple compound.

Which proves my point that David's tent was rebuilt in the first century right after the cross just like James said.

In the Millennium, as answered above.

Before, during, or after your third temple?

Of course not. Have you again forgotten whom you are debating? I don’t believe the Body of Christ will dwell on earth after the Rapture (i.e., the “Crapture,” as preterists like to call it). Ezekiel’s temple is an earthly temple, and only Kingdom people will have access to it.

Again, if Ezekiel's temple is an earthly temple as you claim, then when and where is David's tent restored?

I’m familiar with that assumption. But it is impossible, given the language and details of the prophecy, which even anti-dispensational commentators reluctantly admit.

Think about what you are saying James.

You want us to believe that while Ezekiel and the Jews were captive in Babylon, that Ezekiel would prophecy about a rebuilt temple, but not about the rebuilt temple the Jews built when they left Babylon and actually rebuilt the temple.

And, not once in any Jewish writings from 516BC to 70AD (almost 600 years), is there any mention of this third temple someday being built.

Yes, just as they were throughout Israel’s history (they were, in a sense, “pre-memorial”).

The animal sacrifices only took place until Christ made the one time sacrifice.

There is NOTHING in the Bible about "memorial" sacrifices.

Why not?

Because you contradict yourself.

You can't say the animal sacrifices are for reconciliation and at the same time say they are for "memorial" purposes.

Where: In Jerusalem. When: In the Millennium. That really wasn’t that hard. It seems to me that you have much bigger problem(s), judging by your lack of understanding of the view you’re attempting to disprove.

Again, before, during, or after Ezekiel's temple.

 

[Hilston]

First, you’re continuing to assert premises that you haven’t proven and with which I do not agree. Namely, that fulfillment somehow equals cessation. It does NOT. Just because a law is fulfilled, doesn’t mean the law is abnegated, abrogated, nullified, or removed.

You guys (MADists) claim that the law has been put on hold.

Perhaps you should be asking more questions, because you continue to make statements about my view that are untrue. I do NOT believe or claim that the law has been put on hold. Unlike the so-called MADists, the mid-Acts view I espouse recognizes three sets of laws ordained by God: 1) The Noahide Laws for the nations, 2) the Mosaic Laws for Israel, and 3) the Paulline Laws for the Body of Christ. Since the Kingdom program (i.e., Israel and the nations) is currently in abeyance, then, by extension, their laws have been put on hold, but not the law as it pertains to the Body of Christ. Pauline Law is presently the only law ordained by God that obtains today and ever since the death of the last Kingdom believer because the Body of Christ is the only people of God currently in existence.

I believe that the law has been done away with forever.

What does that mean? Do you mean the law no longer applies? Or do you mean there is no longer a standard of righteousness? What exactly do you mean by “the law has been done away with forever”?

It is you that is asserting premises that you have not and cannot prove.

Why are you so quick to assert what I “cannot prove”? This discussion isn’t over, yet you’ve already decided that there is nothing you can learn from me. Where does this intransigence and arrogance come from? I came into this discussion with a desire to learn. I recognize that your view differs from others I’ve already encountered on this site and I’m genuinely interested in learning from you. My hope and goal coming into this was that, in the course of defending my view and answering your allegedly unanswerable questions, I would learn a few things. What is your goal, Tetelestai? To find a reason to dismiss me? To insult and ridicule me? It seems to me that you’ve been unduly influenced by the less charitable personalities on TOL. You won’t get that kind of treatment from me. I respect the people who respect the debate and hold the process of apologetics in high regard. Some of your remarks are causing me to question whether you are that type of person.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about the law being put on hold, or the OC being put on hold, or the NC being put on hold.

Of course not; that’s because Kingdom believers were still living at the time the Greek scriptures were being written. In fact, we see quite the opposite in Scripture: the affirmation and continuation of Mosaic practices after the death of Christ.

Nowhere does the Apostle Paul tell us that one day in the future the Mosaic Law will be put in place again. …

Why is it up to Paul to affirm Israel’s future kingdom and law? The Hebrew scriptures and the non-Pauline writings do this just fine.

In fact, Paul says the complete opposite (Eph 2:15, Gal 3:23-25)

Ephesian 2:15 is a reference to the Mosaic law as it pertains to the Body of Christ. In the Colossian epistle, Paul is even more explicit, affirming that the Mosaic Law was contrary to the Body of Christ and that Christ took it out of the way, nailing it to his execution pole (Col 2:14). He even goes on to say that the removal of the Mosaic Law with respect to the Body of Christ also removed the angelic/demonic power over humanity that existed in the pre-Body period (“... having spoiled the principalities and powers …”), which is why Paul says that the Body of Christ will govern the angels (1Cor. 6:3). And from that, it logically follows that Paul would exhort them to abstain from religious dietary restrictions, holydays, new moon observances and sabbaths, all of which involved the angelic program. Only for the Body of Christ is the wall of partition, the wall that separated Israelite from Gentile, broken down. Only in the Body of Christ do Israelites and Gentiles lose their ethnicity and become one new man (i.e., one body).

The context of the Galatians reference you cited regards the letter of the law in general, not the Mosaic Law specifically. For the non-Kingdom reader, particularly a Gentile, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to say that the Mosaic Law was a schoolmaster that brought them to Christ. Rather, it is a general observation that laws of morality expose and reveal one’s guilt and need for the Savior. When it is realized that one’s sins have been paid for, one is no longer under the weight of guilt that comes from the letter of the law, and can then obey the law in the spirit of the law.

For example, Jesus said that certain things would happen in order to fulfil the prophecy that He would be hated without cause (John 15:25). Those things happened, yet Christ continues to be hated without cause.

A prophecy can only be fulfilled once.

You’re missing the point, which is that fulfillment does not equal cessation. Just because a prophecy is fulfilled, doesn’t mean that behavior related to that prophecy must cease.

The prophecy from Psalm 35 that Jesus spoke about in John 15:25 was fulfilled during the Incarnation of Christ.

The prophecy was specific to the life of Christ in the first century.

Right, just as part of the Joel prophecy was fulfilled concerning the empowerment of the Holy Spirit via the angels in Acts 2. Yet they continued to experience that empowerment even after the partial fulfillment of that prophecy.

I gave further examples of fulfillment that did not result in cessation:

Paul wrote that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Rom. 8:4). That righteousness was fulfilled, yet believers continue to walk after the spirit. Paul told the Galatians that they are to bear one another’s burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). Believers do continue to bear one another’s burdens, even though they’ve fulfilled the law of Christ in so doing. Jesus told John the baptizer that His baptism by John would fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15). Yet baptisms continued after that fulfillment.

Remember, these are examples showing that fulfillment does not equal cessation. But instead of addressing the point I am making, you change the subject:[/quote]

There are two laws, the Mosaic Law and the law of the Spirit filled life in Christ Jesus.

Why did you do that, Tetelestai? Why did you change the subject and not address the argument?

We are in agreement with how the Mosaic law applies to believers today.

We are? Do you repudiate religious holy days? Do you eschew water baptism? Do you reject tithing to the church instead of deacons and bishops providing for their own ministries? How do you see us as agreeing regarding the Mosaic law?

Where we disagree is your theory that one day the Mosaic Law will be put in place again, along with your earthly kingdom.

It’s not my kingdom. It’s that of Israel and the elect nations. The prophecies are numerous.

For example, as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:37ff). This is a reference to the Nephilim, the hybrid race spawned by the copulation of humans (the daughters of men) and angels (the sons of God, Gen. 6:1ff). This cannot happen while the Body of Christ is on earth because of the superiority of the Body of Christ over angels that I referenced above. Only Israel and the nations, apart from the Body program were (and will again be) vulnerable to such an angelic incursion. After the Body of Christ is removed, the Kingdom program will begin again, and at some point all the trouble that began in Genesis 6 will reoccur.

Another example: Isaiah prophecsies that the House of Israel will someday possess the Gentiles, who will subject themselves to Israel as servants and handmaids. He says that Israel will rule over their oppressors (Isa 14:2) and that the Gentiles will build Israel’s wall and the kings of the Gentiles will minister to Israel. The nations and kingdoms that do not serve Israel will perish and be utterly wasted (Isa 60:9-12). These prophecies have not been fulfilled and are yet future.

The hierarchy of angels over humanity and of Israel over the nations only makes sense in the context of the Kingdom program, with the Mosaic Law in place for Israel, and the Noahide Law in place for the nations. There are plenty of other examples, Tetelestai, but a pattern is emerging of you ignoring my examples and changing the subject.

Do you see how your view makes the Scriptures contradict itself? Jesus said the law is still in place, and commissioned the disciples to teach obedience to everything whatsoever He taught them, which was the observance and practice of the Mosaic Law which spoke of Him (Mt. 28:20, Luke 24:44). How can Jesus say, after the cross, that the law of Moses was still in place, while Paul says it was blotted out, taken out of the way and nailed to Christ’ execution pole (Col. 2:14), having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments (Eph 2:15). The answer is in the words that follow: “... for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” (Eph 2:15,16). The “one new man” is the Body of Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile. For the Body of Christ, the enmity (the law of Moses) has been slain. This is why Paul said that his apostleship did not require him to baptize members of the Body of Christ, which directly contradicts the apostleship of the Twelve (Mt. 28:19,20).

No contradiction.

There is no contradiction for the Mid-Acts view, because an entirely different group of God’s elect is in view, one that is not subject to the laws of Moses. When Paul says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel,” what do you take that to mean?

The law and prophets did not fully end until 70AD. It is why the writer of Hebrews stated that the OC was fading away, and soon to be obsolete because the NC was in place.

You continue to make this assertion without biblical support and without answering the argument I’ve put to you concerning this. As I’ve demonstrated previously, there is no difference in content between the old covenant and the new covenant. The difference lies in the terms of it. The old covenant was bilateral, and depended upon the obedience of man, men honoring the covenant between man and God. The new covenant is unilateral, depending only on the faithfulness of Messiah. That is what Jeremiah prophesied (Jer 31:31ff, cf. Heb 8:8ff), not the removal of Mosaic Law, but the righteous fulfillment of the Mosaic Law by Messiah in behalf of the elect of Israel. It does not apply to the Body of Christ.

Only the mid-Acts view makes sense of these apparent contradictions without assaulting language and logic. Your view, taken to its logical conclusion, means either Jesus was wrong (or lying), or Paul was wrong (or lying). The mid-Acts view, however, perfectly reconciles these differences.

I understand what MAD tries to do. However, MAD falls apart when MAD's two gospel, two peoples, two places in eternity, etc are more closely examined.

Bald assertion. You not only have thus far failed to prove this Biblically or logically, but the more closely we examine my view against yours, the more my view aligns with the logic and language of Scripture, and the more your view appears inane and unsupported. I’m not dismissively claiming that your view is without support, just that you have not yet presented a logical case that aligns with Scripture.

Paul himself observes the sacrifices and ceremonies required by Moses, and is described in Scripture as bringing his alms and offerings, and being found “purified in the Temple” (Acts 24:17,18), which meant that he had offered the proper sacrifices. Had he been merely placating the Jewish leaders, he would have been contradicting himself, having said In Gal. 1:10, “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”

I disagree.

You're trying to claim something that just isn't there. Paul states that he brought gifts to "my people". Again, this is no different than me not taking my shoes off to enter a Mosque.

It would only be “no different” if God actually had commanded Muslims to remove their shoes to enter a mosque. Since God never gave that command to Muslims, your example is irrelevant.

(Act 24:17) “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings.

As I’ve explained repeatedly, Paul had a dual ministry -- one to the Body of Christ, and one to the Kingdom believers of Israel and of the nations -- during the period of transition between the Kingdom and Body programs. Paul still recognized his roots and heritage as an Israelite, and he ministered to them as such, as “my people.” Paul also had a ministry to the proselytes of the nations, to which he was commissioned in Acts 15. And of course, Paul’s primary purpose was his ministry to the Body of Christ.

Paul explained that Kingdom converts were required to keep Moses as long as their consciences required it (“One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Romans 14:5). Romans 14 does not apply today because there are no living Kingdom believers today. Romans 14 stopped being applicable the moment the last Kingdom believer died.

Huh?

Romans 14 is a contrast between weak and strong believers.

No, the context and cognate passages demonstrate that those who had difficulty with the freedom of Body believers were the Kingdom believers. Some were able to adapt to the liberties of the Body assemblies, some were not. Some Israelites were still very sensitive to the idea of eating ceremonially unclean meat (Rom 14:2,3 1Cor 8) and not observing holy days and sabbaths (Rom 14:5,6). The Roman and Corinthian assemblies had significant contingents of Kingdom believers and it was a very sensitive issue that Paul had to address.

Are you claiming that Romans 14 is addressing "kingdom believers"?

Yes.

I understand that this is a common view. But as I noted above, this contradicts Paul’s own words in 1 Thess 2:4, where he says, “We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.”

If Paul observed the ceremonial part of the Mosaic Law in order to witness to the Jews, it does not mean that Paul was trying to please men.

If the Mosaic Law was no longer valid, then Paul was disobeying his own teaching (to wit, not to observe religious holy days and rituals), making Paul into a man pleaser. But if Paul was duly observing that which Mosaic Law still required, then he was rightfully honoring Kingdom law in its proper Kingdom context.

It means that Paul knew he wouldn't get very far by offending the Jews.

By your logic, Paul should have visited pagan-temple prostitutes in order to witness to the pagans without offending them.

The Bible provides a better example than yours. When Naaman assisted with the king of Syria in bowing to his idol in the House of Rimmon -- and bowed with him before the idol -- Naaman, in so doing, was not guilty of idolatry, according to Elisha’s pronouncement (2 Kings 5:18,19).

Ok, this shows that Paul was not observing the Mosaic Law.

No, it only shows that you have biblical support for taking your shoes off in a mosque. Paul was not merely attending a circumcision; he made provision for it, sponsored and participated in the ritual, and even fulfilled the Mosaic sacrifices for ritual purification for himself. Naaman was concerned that he would be guilty of sin for what he did. Paul had no cause for concern, because the Mosaic Law still applied to Kingdom believers. Just as the Noahide Law still applied to Gentile proselytes in Acts 15.

But He did command the believing Israelites to follow Moses, and He never repealed that command. I’ve looked. It’s not there, anywhere in Scripture.

God told Peter to go to Cornelius' house.

(Acts 10:28) He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

There’s a better example in Matthew 8, well before Christ’s death. Jesus not only heals a leper, but He touches him (Mt. 8:1-4), and later, He offers to come to the house of a gentile in order to heal his servant (Mt. 8:5-13). So one of three things must be true: (1) The Mosaic Law was repealed prior to the events of Matthew 8, which is absurd; (2) Jesus sinned against the Mosaic Law, which is equally absurd; or (3) the Mosaic Law concerning gentiles was not rightly applied by those who sat in Moses’ seat, the pharisees, who went beyond recognizing the dispensational distinctions between Israel and the nations, and instead saw it as an opportunity to shun gentiles entirely.

Peter had a deep-seated prejudice that God had to specially address. It was not the Mosaic Law that was being repealed or mitigated in Acts 10, but rather Peter’s prejudices against gentiles.

Moreover, Christ Himself reaffirmed the keeping of the Mosaic Law after the cross (Mt. 28:19,20 cf. Mt. 23:1-3, 23:23). It seems most noteworthy, in my opinion, that one of the most important things in the life of a believing Israelite -- the Law of Moses -- could be presumably altered, yet without a single word to that effect by Christ or anyone else in Scripture.

See above

As we saw above, your proof-text does not prove your case. Again, think about it. You’re saying that one of the most important components of the Hebrew scriptures, namely, the Law of Moses, was actually repealed without any explicit statement to that effect. So far, the best you’ve given me is a passage out of Acts that neither states, nor proves, nor supports this claim. It is quite remarkable.

Where do you get the notion that being “in Christ” is reserved for members of the Body? Anyone who is regenerated, whether Kingdom believer or Body of Christ member is “in Christ.” Everyone “in Christ” (i.e., regenerated) prior to Paul conversion was a Kingdom believer.

Paul says there were others "In Christ" before he was.

Paul also tells us what it means to be "In Christ":

(2 Cor 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Does the above sound like a description for a "kingdom" believer?

Answer: NO

You’re really reaching here, Tetelestai. Christ Himself described believers as being “in Him.”

John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. … 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

Why are you insisting on a distinction that I do not espouse and one that doesn’t even fit your own position?

You want us to believe that Paul would throw around the term "In Christ" sometimes to the BOC and sometimes to the "kingdom" believers.

Of course. Just as Paul “throws around” a lot of other terms that are not dispensationally exclusive (like “salvation” and “kingdom” and “obey”).

Since Paul makes it clear that other believers were "In Christ" before he was, and tells us what it means to be "in Christ", it is just one of the many huge problems for MAD.

I just proved to you that it wasn’t. You seem desperate to insist that this is some chink in the Mid-Acts armor. For that to be the case, you have to prove to me something that you do not even agree with, that “in Christ” refers only to the Body of Christ.

Where in the OT is there a prophecy about "angelic empowerment"?

Joel 2:28-32.

C'mon James. This is prophecy about the Holy Spirit, not angels.

Throughout the Hebrew scriptures, God’s describes His spirit, and even His own presence in various cases, when He is actually referring to the angelic host. God’s “foot,” for example, is actually the angelic host, the cloud of glory, the Shekinah, which was a cloud of angels, a manifestation of God's presence, and Israel understood this. We are told that God’s word, prior to the Body of Christ, was given through the mediation of angels (which would include the giving of the law to Moses). See Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, The affirmation of this is found in the events and descriptions in Acts 2 that refer back to Joel’s prophecy. The Spirit of God was manifested via the empowerment of angels, evidenced by the supernatural flames that sat upon the believers (see Hebrews 1:7).

Not the command in Mt. 28:19,20, which is what I’m describing and which included the Law of Moses (everything whatsoever I have commanded you) in Jesus’ commission to the apostles.

Jesus didn't teach them the Mosaic Law, they already knew it before He came.

Oh brother. Really? Is this how you want to play? Ok. Jesus didn’t teach them the Mosaic Law. Now, getting back to the original point: Jesus’ sacrifice did not abnegate everything He affirmed about the Law prior to His death. If that’s your claim, let’s see the proof.

I’m wondering what you’ll pick on next in order to avoid answering the question.

If I grant that James’ citation of Joel affirms the establishment of David’s tabernacle, that does not preclude the existence of a distinct Body of Christ and the Mystery. It only means that Christ’s establishment of the Kingdom coexisted with Christ’s establishment of the Body of Christ.

Because the existence of David's tabernacle explains the apparent contradictions that occurred between 30AD - 70AD, and shows that MAD is not the answer to the "apparent contradictions"

Do I understand you correctly? The existence of David’s tabernacle means that the Mosaic Law was repealed? Is that your argument?

Why the condescension? I’m trying to have a respectful and clear discussion with you, and you’ve chosen to pepper your comments with ridicule and derision. If you want to go down that path, I’m happy to oblige you. But you might first want to have a look at what’s happened to others who have previously walked through that gate.

Because sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry when people claim there are going to be animal sacrifices in the future.

I know you sincerely believe this, it's just hard for me to imagine how people can believe it.

Why is it so difficult and emotional for you?

Sure; “In that day” (yet future) is the operative phrase. James was describing the partial fulfillment of Amos 9 at the time of the Acts.

"Partial fulfillment"?

How can a prophecy be "partially fulfilled"?

Let’s say we have a prophecy. It contains parts A, B and C. Part A is fulfilled, but parts B and C are not, and remain to be fulfilled at some later time.

I asked when David's tent is going to be restored?

In the Millennium.

Are you saying that Ezekiel’s temple must be identical to David’s tabernacle in order for Ezekiel’s prophecy to be a literal temple in the Millennium? Why? Please cite the source of this principle.

My point is that Ezekiel's temple and David's tent are two very different things.

My view is that David’s tabernacle is a synecdoche for Israel’s earthly kingdom and rule over the nations. It’s similar to referring to David’s “crown” or David’s “sceptre.” It refers to the rule of Christ in the Millennial Kingdom.

Yet, dispensationalism conflates the two, and claims that both will exist in the future, all the while not realizing how different the two are.

It isn’t a conflation. Ezekiel’s temple is described in meticulous detail. It is the physical temple. David’s tabernacle refers to the theocratic rule of Israel over the nations.

Again, are you saying that the furnishings must be identical in order for Ezekiel’s temple to be yet future? Again, I’d like to see your sources for this thesis.

Dispensationalists use OT passages to justify their theory of a future temple with animal sacrifices. Ezekiel 40-48 is used by most dispies to justify the future temple and future animal sacrifices.

Agreed. Especially with the word “justify.” The mid-Acts view is justified on the basis of those prophecies.

Again, my point is the stark contrast between David's tent and Ezekiel's temple. … Again, since dispies claim that David's tent is yet future, and that Ezekiel's temple is yet future, how do you explain the contrast of the tent and the temple? … Before, during, or after your third temple? … Again, if Ezekiel's temple is an earthly temple as you claim, then when and where is David's tent restored? … Again, before, during, or after Ezekiel's temple.

Ezekiel’s temple refers to the physical millennial temple, and David’s Tabernacle is a synecdoche that refers to Christ’s future earthly Kingdom. It’s like the difference between the White House and the Obama Administration. One refers to the physical location and edifice; the other refers to the administrative office. Of course “the White House” can also be used as a synecdoche, as journalists often do, as anything really can. That’s the utility of the figure, and why context is so important.

Think about what you are saying James.

You want us to believe that while Ezekiel and the Jews were captive in Babylon, that Ezekiel would prophecy about a rebuilt temple, but not about the rebuilt temple the Jews built when they left Babylon and actually rebuilt the temple.

Right. Lots of prophecies are that way.

And, not once in any Jewish writings from 516BC to 70AD (almost 600 years), is there any mention of this third temple someday being built.

Why should this be a problem for my view?

The animal sacrifices only took place until Christ made the one time sacrifice.

This is the second time (at least) that you’ve claimed this, and you’ve yet to refute to proofs I’ve offered. Nowhere in Scriptures anywhere is the command to abrogate the blood offerings of Mosaic Law. In fact, we see the lawful and proper continuation of sacrifices after the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah:

In Acts 3:1, Peter and John go to the temple at the ninth hour, which is the hour of the daily sacrifice.

In Acts 21:6, Paul lawfully and properly attended the ritual cleansing of some men, purifying himself in the process. Blood sacrifices were part of this process.

Acts 24:18 recounts this episode as well.

Ezekiel's prophecy underscores the future millennial kingdom and the blood sacrifices that will be offered therein. It is most noteworthy that Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Ezekiel, an undoubtedly anti-dispensational work, begrudgingly affirms the literal language and context of Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the blood sacrifices.

The claim that the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 never happened as a result of the disobedience of Jews that returned to Jerusalem is an untenable assumption, nowhere found in Scripture. If there were any merit to this claim, certainly Keil and Delitzsch would have seized upon it. However, to their credit, they flatly admitted that

"... we cannot find any conclusive argument against the literal and in favor of the figurative interpretation of the vision in question [in Ezekiel xl-xlviii]"(Keil and Delitzsch, Vol. IX, p.388 {emphases added})"​

You can't say the animal sacrifices are for reconciliation and at the same time say they are for "memorial" purposes.

Why not?

Hilston