"Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts
 

Aloha all,

I am starting a new Thread in regards to "rightly dividing" the Book of Acts because I believe the subject to be extremely import in understanding how to rightly divide the word of truth, and the Posts that were made in regards to this subject were "buried" in the Thread on "Water Baptism".

When studying the Scriptures it is always necessary for us to rightly divide “the word of truth”. That means that we must always keep in mind the distinction that the Scriptures make between the JEW; the GENTILE; and the CHURCH {where there is neither Jew nor Greek (i.e. Gentile) – Galatians 3:28& Colossians 3:11}.

In addition we must always keep in mind that the Bible is not only a Book about “Doctrine” and about “Spiritual” matters, it is also a Book about “History”; and in order to arrive at the “Truth” of Scripture we must always take the “historical context” into consideration when “rightly dividing the word of truth”.

That simply means that we cannot “project” what we “know” NOW (as Christians) back into the “historical setting”. We must accept the written record WHERE, WHEN and HOW we find it, and not make it “say” or “mean” something other than what it says in the “historical context”.

As you read - Ask yourself: WHO is speaking? And to WHOM is he speaking to?
In order to “set the stage” (so to speak), we have to be aware that what follows in Acts Chapters 2 through 7 is predicated upon the fact that, at the very beginning of the “preaching” of and about Jesus Christ, AFTER His Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, all those who were doing the “preaching” were Jews (ONLY), and, to begin with, ALL those to whom the “preaching” was directed were also Jews (ONLY) as I shall demonstrate as we go along.

As you read - Ask yourself: WHO is speaking? And to WHOM is he speaking to?

WHAT HAPPENED? Verses 16 through 18 obviously were “fulfilled” right then (on the day of Pentecost) – BUT WHAT HAPPENED to verses 19 & 20? There is NO Scriptural record of verses 19 & 20 ever having been fulfilled. Was the Prophet Joel MISTAKEN? Was the Apostle Peter MISTAKEN when he quoted ALL of Joel’s prophesy? Did the Holy Spirit lead Peter to say something that wasn’t true; or only “partially” true? {I’m speaking “facetiously” – of course!} ;)

I shall “expound” on WHY verses 19 & 20 were NOT fulfilled; and WHY they WILL be FULFILLED in the FUTURE {later on}
This “message” is DIRECTED to WHOM? WHY to - “Ye men of Israel”! If there were any Gentiles around that might of heard the “message”, they would have understood that the Apostle Peter was NOT speaking to them, but to the “men of Israel” ONLY!

Don’t forget – The Bible is not only a Book about “doctrine”, and “spiritual things”; it is also a Book on and about “history”. We must keep the “historical setting” in mind, if we are to “rightly divide” God’s words. Are we (Christians) “the house of Israel”? Peter is notifying “all the house of Israel” that the “same Jesus” that they CRUCIFIED - is both “LORD” and “CHRIST”! How can this “message” be the “same” as Paul’s “Gospel”? Peter is NOT talking about “Christ dying for our sins”; he is plainly saying that the “man” known as “Jesus of Nazareth”; whom the “men of Israel” slew, is “BOTH LORD & CHRIST”! This “message” is meant to convince the nation of Israel that Jesus Christ is the Lord from Heaven and their Messiah. WHAT HAPPENED to Matthew 28:18-20?
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Let me ask you: If you have been baptized (in water) – were you baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”? And did you receive the Holy Ghost AFTER you were baptized in water? This is what the “Cambellites” (“Church of Christ”) teach; is this “sound doctrine” for a Bible believing Christian?

When I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and received Him as my personal Saviour in October, 1958 I instantly received “the remission of (my) sins” – WITHOUT getting a toe wet! And I instantly received the “gift” of the Holy Spirit - WITHOUT water Baptism - just exactly like ALL Gentile believers have since the Apostle Peter “opened the door” to the Gentiles long ago [Acts 10:34-48]. It should be clear to most people reading these verses that “something else” is going on here; and that clearly the water “Baptism” practiced here is NOT the “SAME” as the water “Baptism” practiced by the Apostle Paul; and the “message” (“gospel”) that the Apostle Peter is preaching here is NOT the “SAME Gospel” that the Apostle Paul preached.
Now, just exactly WHAT were these people (Jews & Proselytes) required to believe and do (at this point in time)?

Were they told the Apostle Paul’s “Gospel”?
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Or were they told Peter’s “gospel”?
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Since the words spoken by the two Apostles are NOT the SAME, it is obvious that the two “Gospels” clearly are NOT the “SAME”. In order for anyone to get “saved” today they MUST BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and RECEIVE Him as their Saviour. In order for those Jews & Proselytes to get “saved” at Pentecost, they had to BELIEVE that “Jesus of Nazareth” was both their Lord & Messiah; and "REPENT" (for refusing to believe Christ (His words); for refusing to receive Christ as Lord and King; for delivering Him up; for denying Him; and for killing Him), and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And if they OBEYED Peter’s command they received “the gift of the Holy Ghost”.

A man’s Salvation (under any “covenant”) has always been dependent upon BELIEVING what God has said (at that time), and OBEYING (DOING) what he said.

If we will just believe what is written and where it is written, and keep in mind - WHO is speaking, and to WHOM he is speaking, much of Scripture becomes understandable.

Re: "Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts Part II
 

Aloha all,

This is the second in a series of studies on "Rightly Dividing the Book of Acts":

When studying the Scriptures it is always necessary for us to rightly divide “the word of truth”. That means that we must always keep in mind the distinction that the Scriptures make between the JEW; the GENTILE; and the CHURCH {where there is neither Jew nor Greek (i.e. Gentile) – Galatians 3:28& Colossians 3:11}.

In addition we must always keep in mind that the Bible is not only a Book about “Doctrine” and about “Spiritual” matters, it is also a Book about “History”; and in order to arrive at the “Truth” of Scripture we must always take the “historical context” into consideration when “rightly dividing the word of truth”.

That simply means that we cannot “project” what we “know” NOW (as Christians) back into the “historical setting”. We must accept the written record WHERE, WHEN and HOW we find it, and not make it “say” or “mean” something other than what it says in the “historical context”.

As you read - Ask yourself: WHO is speaking? And to WHOM is he speaking to?

In verse 19 the Apostle Peter calls for the nation of Israel (all of the Jews & their rulers) to “REPENT”? “REPENT” of WHAT?}

REPENT - of refusing to believe Christ (His words); REPENT: of refusing to receive Christ - as their Lord and King; REPENT: of delivering Him up; REPENT: of denying Him; and REPENT: of killing Him
In verse 20 Peter clearly says that “he (God) shall send Jesus Christ”. Did the Lord Jesus Christ come back at that time? Of course not! Then - WHAT HAPPENED?

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Christ’s return was predicated upon the nation of Israel’s “repentance”. IF they “REPENT” – God will send Christ back. IF they refused to “REPENT” and be “converted”, then God had “another plan”:

Acts 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, {Only Jews}
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: {Only Jews}
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. {Only Jews}
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. {The “turning point” – God turns His back on Israel (because of their UNBELIEF) and turns to the Gentiles. This is WHY every where’s that the Apostle Paul went in his 3 missionary journeys – he always went to the JEWS “FIRST” and then to the Gentiles [Romans 1:16, 2:10]}
At this point in time (“historical context”) God has “set up” things so that (had the nation of Israel accepted Peter’s “message” – i.e. the “gospel of the kingdom”), God the Father could have “sent Jesus Christ” back. The Lord Jesus Christ could have returned then - at the end of the “Tribulation” (which could have occurred without there ever having been a “church”). That’s WHY the “church of God” was a “MYSTERY”. God had to make a bona fide offer to the nation of Israel (one last time) BEFORE He could legitimately “turn” to the Gentiles so that they (the nation of Israel would be WITHOUT EXCUSE!)

When studying the Bible we must – “rightly divide the word of truth”. If Christians do not “rightly divide”, they will seek to “HARMONIZE” the Holy Scriptures; they will have NO CHOICE.

For the most part – the “lost” IGNORE the Bible, but sincere Christians must “study to shew themselves approved unto God”, and so basically they have two choices (i.e. “methodologies”) - either they can try to “HARMONIZE’ the Scriptures (i.e. try to make everything fit into ONE MOLD); or they can “RIGHTLY DIVIDE” the Scriptures and try to determine WHERE God wants things to “FIT”.

The Holy Bible instructs us HOW we are to study; [2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.] so there should be no question as to which “methodology” is Scripturally sound and correct.

RE: "Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts Part III
 

Aloha all,

This is the third in a series of studies on "Rightly Dividing the Book of Acts":

When studying the Scriptures it is always necessary for us to rightly divide “the word of truth”. That means that we must always keep in mind the distinction that the Scriptures make between the JEW; the GENTILE; and the CHURCH {where there is neither Jew nor Greek (i.e. Gentile) – Galatians 3:28& Colossians 3:11}.

In addition we must always keep in mind that the Bible is not only a Book about “Doctrine” and about “Spiritual” matters, it is also a Book about “History”; and in order to arrive at the “Truth” of Scripture we must always take the “historical context” into consideration when “rightly dividing the word of truth”.

That simply means that we cannot “project” what we “know” NOW (as Christians) back into the “historical setting”. We must accept the written record WHERE, WHEN and HOW we find it, and not make it “say” or “mean” something other than what it says in the “historical context”.

Here we are in the fourth Chapter of the Book of Acts and it should be obvious (at least to some) that what is taking place here (in the “historical context”) has NOTHING to do with individual salvation (for both Jew & Greek - as preached and taught by the Apostle Paul (i.e. MY “Gospel”), and everything to do with “all the people of Israel” (Jews/Hebrews/Israelites), that is specifically with the relationship between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Nation of Israel.

As you read - Ask yourself: WHO is speaking? And to WHOM is he speaking to?

How many more times must we read these “specific” addresses to: “the people of Israel”; “all the people of Israel”; “all the house of Israel”; “their rulers, and elders, and scribes”; “the chief priests and elders”;“the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees,”; “Ye men of Israel”; “the God of our fathers”; “Men and brethren”; “brethren”; “Ye are the children of the prophets”; “Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel”; before it finally “dawns” on us that the words spoken here are not in regards to the Apostle Paul’s “Gospel”, and certainly cannot be the SAME?

How many more times must we read these “specific” addresses (“to all the house of Israel”) before we realize that the words in the foregoing Chapters of Acts were ADDRESSED specifically BY JEWS and exclusively TO JEWS (“all the people of Israel” - i.e. the nation of Israel) and were in regards to the nation of Israel refusing to believe Christ (His words);refusing to receive Christ – as their Lord and King; and delivering Christ up to the Gentiles; and denying Him; and having Him murdered?

If I “address” a specific Post on this Forum to brother Parish, others may read it – but I “meant” it to be only for him. If I address a specific Post on this Forum to brother Tony, others may “THINK” that I am addressing them, or they may “THINK” I am talking about them - but the fact remains that if I addressed that Post to brother Tony, I meant it to be ONLY for him! If the Apostle Peter used all of these specific addresses (“to all the house of Israel”) all of these times, where do Christians get the idea that these things apply TO them?

With ALL of the SPECIFIC overtures, entreaties, pleas, and adjurations addressed exclusively to “all the house of Israel” by the Apostle Peter in Acts Chapters 2-4 it should be crystal clear to all, that those things spoken of by Peter, cannot possibly be the SAME, as that “Gospel” that the Apostle Paul received (by special “revelation” from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself) AFTER the nation of Israel had rejected Peter’s call (“to all the house of Israel”) to “REPENT” and be “CONVERTED”.

Understanding what took place in these few Chapters should be a simple matter of basic reading comprehension in the English language, WHY is it so difficult to accept exactly WHAT was written; WHERE it was written; and WHEN it was written?

Wow, Great stuff George. I am gonna hang on to this for teaching in the Bible college.

Your studies are such a blessing.

Re: "Rightly Dividing The Book of Acts"
 

Aloha brother Chette,

Here is a partial list of the different “terms” used by the Apostle Peter (in the first 5 Chapters of Acts) to address "the people”. Notice how only one of them (the last one) might be “ambiguous” – ALL of the others (14 out of 15) are clearly addressed to “all the people of Israel”.

Men and brethren = 3 Times

Ye men of Israel = 3 Times

the God of our fathers = 2 Times

Ye men of Judaea = 1 Time

Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel = 1 Time

Ye are the children of the prophets = 1 Time

all the people of Israel = 1 Time

all the house of Israel = 1 Time

unto you, and to your children = 1 Time

all ye that dwell at Jerusalem = 1 Time

It is incredible (to me) that Christian men (pastor/elders/teachers) do not understand the importance of WHO is speaking and to WHOM they are speaking - when "rightly dividing the word of truth".

you know that was one of the first things I was taught was to always ask who. who is speaking to whom is he speaking. It may be for us but it is not addressed to us. the basic Bible study method is Observation which includes asking who, what, where, when and why. How is also good at times. after those questions are answered then interpret the passage. then get an application if possible for today. Like you said to another person in another thread. there may be a spiritual application for the church but doctrinally it is not for the church.

I pray some of the other guys catch on to this method of Bible study because when they do lots of things fall into place with no conflict or problem. it doesn't put everything into a neat little box or answer all the questions but it makes everything a lot simpler.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? {Men and brethren = Only Jews}
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. {Only Jews}

Greetings Brother George. I see the division between the Apostle Peter's Gospel and the Apostle Paul's in Acts. That indeed is obvious when we simply examine the words and receive them as written. Something, by the way, I did not see the importance of doing until joining this Bible forum. Like many, I've always heard that Acts 2:38 means repent and then be baptized for [because] your sins have been remitted. I must confess, I have always been uneasy in my inner man with that explanation. Rightly dividing the book of Acts is, in my opinion, provides a better and clearer explanation.

But what was the significance of baptism in order for the [Jew, Hebrew, Israelite] to have their sins remitted? I understand receiving "the gift of the Holy Ghost" after repentance. But why was baptism significant in order for their sins to be remitted? I realize the simple answer is because that's what the word says. But is there a Biblical connection made elsewhere for repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins specifically for the Jew? :confused:

Re: ""Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts"
 

Dear brother Forrest,

I love you in the Lord - BUT you sure make it "hard" on a fellow brother in Christ! :rolleyes: ;) :D :p

WHY is it - that you ALWAYS ask the toughest questions? :confused: I've been "cogitating" on the very same thing that you have asked - WHAT is the "significance" in the differences in water Baptism (BEFORE the cross; AFTER the death, burial, and resurrection - but before the Nation of Israel's "rejection" of the Apostles & their "message"; and AFTER God's "rejection" of the nation of Israel and His turning to the Gentiles?) I believe that they are all "different", but the SIGNIFICANCE of that "difference" - that's another matter for another time, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I know the answer. But, since it is always a "challenge" to try to answer your most perceptive questions - I will attempt to answer these questions also, but NOT today.

I have been fighting a cold (or flu?) since Tuesday and need to store up some "energy" for my next challenge. :sick:

Brother, I'm sorry you've been ill. One day...this corruptible will put on incorruption. No hurry on this. God bless you and keep you!

It would seem that baptism for Israel is a work that proved their faith in the word the Apostles spoke of Jesus.

they hear the word and if they believe it then they are to repent, proof of thier repentance is to be baptized, when they get baptized they have the remission of sins (no baptism no remission of sins) then they receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost the promise of thefather.

it is all a work based slavation of the Kingdom

I have to agree with the stance that the phrase "for the remission of sins" doesn't mean "to get" the remission of sins, but "because of" the remission of sins.

Jesus didn't merely come to forgive sins, He came to take them away completely. Sins had been being forgiven since Genesis 4 by the blood of bulls and goats, but Jesus blood is the only blood that will redeem them, not merely remit them.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

This is the verse that really clears things up. Jesus is the sacrifice that appeased God, that will clear the sins that God had been putting up with for thousands of years. His righteousness could now be applied to the sins of the past that, through His forbearance, He had been forgiving. Notice verse 26, it has to do with a period of time not just the sins of a man's life.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Notice His blood is shed for the remission of sins. If it was just shed to get forgiveness, then it was no better than the blood of bulls and goats. It was shed to get redemption. It was shed to clear the guilty, which the blood of bulls and goats couldn't do. It was shed because of the sins that have been forgiven by the blood of bulls and goats.

The people of John's ministry were showing that they were repenting because their sins were forgiven. Notice in Isaiah 40:2 that their sins had been forgiven before John shows up. In Acts 2:38 they were repenting of crucifying Jesus Christ, being baptized to show they have repented, their sins had already been forgiven when they repented, and when they did that, they would receive the Holy Spirit.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Jesus did not come to remit sins, but to redeem them. This is clearly stated in Hebrews 9. He came because the sins of the past had only been forgiven. Yes, Col 1:14 says we can get forgiveness through Jesus blood. I believe that the people in Acts 2 had already been forgiven by Jesus blood, but the only way to get redemption is through the new birth.

Aloha, Bro. George!
Interesting thread that you started... I'll go back here when I have time.

Praying for your illness to heal George.

Looking forward to see your studies on Acts 5, 6 and 7

I didn't know that; I pray for you, Bro. George.

George, I am getting emails from friends in Washington state, one in North Carolina, and two down south who are coming down with identical forms of bronchitis as I have. If you have any soreness of the throat and chest with congestion, and brother, this thing strikes within less than one day, hit the doc like white on rice. Satan has his own rebuke and punishment reserved unto him; I wouldn't wish this bronchitis on the devil.

Grace and peace and keep an eye on it brother.

Tony

Bro George

Sorry to hear you are not feeling well, I hope you recover soon.

I read your study, and I think it is excellent, you are a very good teacher and since I have come to this forum I have utmost repect for you. But I do not completely agree with you (doesn't mean I am right).

Now, it's true that Peter addressed the Jews and the nation of Israel only. That is easy to see, and I already knew that long ago. But I do not believe Peter was teaching that if the Jews repented that Jesus would (or perhaps it is better to say could) return to restore the kingdom. I think this is shown in Acts 1.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

When the apostles asked Jesus directly if he would restore the kingdom to Israel at this time, Jesus neither answered them yes or no. Jesus told them it was not for them to know the times or seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

So, for Peter to go out after this and preach that the kingdom would be restored if Israel repented would be completely presumptuous. Think about it, if Jesus gave this answer to you, would you go out and promise that Jesus would return if they would only repent? I know I wouldn't.

And notice that Jesus also told them that they would be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

And this was part of Jesus's answer to the apostles concerning the question they had just asked him. So how could any of the apostles expect Jesus to restore the kindgom until they had witnessed to the uttermost part of the earth?

Do you see now why I do not see this gospel of the kingdom as being different from the gospel Paul preached?

And Jesus had earlier told the apostles that the Gentiles would be part of this kingdom.

Matt 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Matt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

Either way you look at it, kingdom of God, or kingdom or heaven, Jesus had told of the Gentiles being part of it.

And I don't agree that the Jews had to be baptized to receive the Holy Ghost. Yes, Acts 2:38 can easily be read to say that. But what about those who received the Holy Ghost earlier in this very chapter?

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

There is no mention of baptism here. Yet they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.

In chapter 3 Peter tells the Jews to repent that their sins may be blotted out.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

There is no mention of baptism in this chapter.

In vs. 26 Peter again mentions forgiveness of sins, not the restoration of the kingdom.

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

And I believe when Peter said "first" in Acts 3:26, he is showing that the gospel and salvation would also be offered to the Gentiles. I do agree that it was offered to the Jews first.

In chapter 5 Peter again speaks of forgiveness of sins, not the restoration of the kingdom.

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

No mention of baptism, but Peter says the Holy Ghost was given to those who obeyed God. What was the common command given in Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19? REPENT.

I have been reading the book of Acts over and over this week. I am no scholar like you and many others here. But I do read carefully, and I do consider who is being spoken to, and even the history. But I simply see things different from you, no disrespect whatsoever. Perhaps I am wrong and I will continue to study this matter.

Brother George, I hope that cold has not gotten worse and that you are feeling better. You and me got a few passages to discuss. I'm not going to be accused of "creeping" in while a man is sick, so when you get well and are back into 4th gear physically, you and me need to discuss Acts 2:38 in it's context of Mark 16, Matthew 28, Leviticus 8, and it's tied to The Great Commission No One Wants To Talk About, John 20.

Grace and peace and get well.

Tony

Just a little input

All these books fall under the dispensation of the Law for Israel and Acts is a transition to the Age of Grace. But Acts 2:38 is still a presentation to Israel so that the Kingdom can be established. Matthew is transitional from OT to NT of what some call the preparation for the Kingdom.

Have you read the book "One Book Rightly Divided"? I would not say that the dispenstional divisions that Staufer presents are not so cut and dry. Most tend to over lap. it is in the Sword Searcher.

Re: ""Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts"
 

Brother Winman said:
Aloha brother Winman,

I am pleased that you are studying the Book of Acts, but we may never come to an agreement on this issue. The reason that I say this is because of the difference in our approach to studying the Bible.

Now I mean no offense here, but if you go back over your statements concerning this issue, you tend to look for what the Scriptures "mean" (that is - what they "mean" to you); while I try to look to the Scriptures for what they "say" (because I can take them to "mean" anything I want them to "mean"). I want to know what God has to "say" about spiritual issues, I'm not interested in what He might "mean".

As Christians, there is a danger in "reading back into" the Scriptures our present understanding (i.e. the "Christian viewpoint") of a Biblical issue, when the events that were taking place and the people that were going through those events may not have been "connected" to us or the "church of God" in its present form.

For the record: I am not a "scholar". :confused: I have had no formal training in any "Christian" Bible School; College; or Seminary. From 1968 (when I first became a King James Bible believer) until today, what I have learned I have learned on my own, from reading numerous Christian authors and commentators, and many others (from 1968 - 1988 I probably read at least a book a week for all of those years); and for the last twenty years from reading and studying the Bible (without the commentators).

Instead of having my studies controlled and directed by teachers and professors, I have chosen my own course of studies and have controlled the direction those studies have taken me. At one time I had over 500 books in my Library, I am now down to about 50.

As I grow older I am less interested in what men have to say ABOUT God's Holy words, and more interested in WHAT God has to say about them. That is one of the reasons that I don't involve myself in many of the various "discussions" and "debates" that take place on the Forum.

This Forum has been very "instructive" for me, for it has demonstrated the chaotic state that the churches are in at this time. In the 50 years I have been a Christian I have observed the "deterioration" of so-called Christian "Fundamentalism" in America to the point where, by the testimony of many members of the Forum themselves, it is extremely difficult to find a genuine Bible believing church today.

It seems to me that the so-called "Evangelical" churches are embracing the "Emerging Church Movement" (ECM) and are swiftly sliding into apostasy; and on the other side of the aisle, many of the so-called "Fundamentalist" churches are embracing a form of "Christian Fascism", where the "pastor" has become a totalitarian dictator (every pastor = a "mini-pope").

There doesn't seem to be any "BALANCE". There doesn't seem to be any "MODERATION". In the early 1980's I despaired over these things and for a while I backslid because I didn't understand what was going on or the "tenor of our times" ("apostasy"). I believe we are living in the "latter times" or the "last days" [1 Timothy 4:1-16; 2 Timothy 3;1-17] and because we are, "the love of many shall wax cold"; and "some shall depart from the faith"; and "the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine".

The body of Christ is in the sorriest state I have ever seen it since I became a Christian. Chaos, anarchy, and rebellion rule the day and Christians are as "unstable", "untrustworthy", and "undependable" as their lost counterparts.

I believe that this Forum is a "microcosm" of what is taking place in "Christianity" as a whole. Look at the kooks, the crazies, and the crackpots who have come here in the last year and a half with some of their "hair-brained teachings"; look at the false teachers and hereticks who have tried to worm their way on to the Forum looking for disciples; look at the intellectual elites and Bible skeptics and correctors who constantly dog us with their insincere QUESTIONS - always QUESTIONS! Has the body of Christ ever been in such disarray?

The world (and the churches) are in exactly the same state of disarray as the nation of Israel was before the coming of the "king" - the problem is their first "king" was not the right "king", just like the "king" (anti-Christ) the world will choose will not be the right "king".

We Christians have got to start seeing things through God's eyes and not our own.
We have got to start understanding things according to God's words [Psalms 33;4; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4] and not the words of men.
We must beware of Satan and his "devices", and stick with the "simplicity that is in Christ".
We have got to seek out the Holy spirit for knowledge, for discernment, for understanding, and for wisdom, instead of relying on our own understanding.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Chette, the reason I have not so far commented in this thread is "for" the simple reason that neither Acts nor Matthew are a mystery to me and because I understand that Acts and Matthew are the two most dangerous books in the Scriptures to found a church, a theology, or a denomination in. I'm commenting at this time because I see a red flag and that red flag is in Acts 2:38, because I see a retranslation of the KJV and a redefinition of the English language in order to prove a denominational doctrine, not a sound doctrine.

I had two debates with two Church Of Christ "elders", both over a two-night span. In both debates of two hours each, I spent two minutes in Acts 2:38. I've seen denominational debaters with COC spend nearly the whole debate fighting over the Greek word "eis" ("for")in Acts 2:38. The simple reason that Acts 2:38 is not a point of contention between me and COC or anyone in opposition to COC is that without water baptism in Acts 2:38, there was no remission of sins, and this is found in The Great Commission No One Talks About:

Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

2Co 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

First place we go to prove the signs of an apostle, tongues and miracles are not for today is Mark 16. There is one sign no one speaks of, becasue the Catholioc Church has claimed it, and few want to "exposit" or even discuss it, but along with the signs of Mark 16 was given the apostolic sign to remit sins or retain them, and this is just what the apostles had, including Paul, which is why Paul felt he needed to baptize(wash) Crispus and Gaius and the other Jews at Corinth. Paul knew this, and in describing his own water baptism knew that he, Paul, a Jew, had no remission of sins without first being baptized in water:

Ac 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Tell me what is wrong with these two readings, these two denominational interpretations:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What's wrong with these two verses above, brother Chette? What's wrong is that like Eve, in the first reading the denominationaists add to the word of God("because of" rather than "for"). This leaves us with the second reading where the denominationalists takes from the word of God.

Do you see it? Do you see the key? The key is not in wresting the word "for" over into another definition, the key is the word "the"

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Without water baptism in Acts 2:38 there was no remission of sins. I know how to read English, I understand the word "for", and I understand the word "for" when used in the context of "the". i know and understand that the apostles, Paul included, had to power to remit and retain sin. I know that water baptism, tongues, signs, wonders, healings, and the power to remit and retain sins are all no longer operative today and ceased after Acts 28. I know this mostly because there are no apostles today, an apostle must be chosen personally by Jesus Christ, and the Lord don't put in personal appearances in this age, other than His Spirit living in all of us who believe.

Acts 2:38 is a mirror image of Exodus 29, Exodus 40, and Leviticus 8:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Le 8:6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.

First step is above, consecration by water washing to cleanse the "priest", which John the Baptist came to do, the fulfillment of "all righteousness" of Matt. 3 to make a kingdom of priests.

Le 8:12 And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.

Thus we see the converts at Pentecost:

Le 21:10 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;

In this age, Acts Chapter 29, we are washed in the Blood of Jesus Christ and in regeneration by the Spirit so that we may put un Christ, not priestly garments

Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

His indwelling Spirit has been more than poured "on" us, but He fills us:

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

I appreciate brother George's, as usual, expert understanding and commentary on the Scriptures, but if this thread bears a topic "buried" in the water baptism thread, then it needs to be discussed over there in the water baptism thread, because I see the purpose that this study is heading towards is to try and define there as being "different types" of water baptism. We are going to end up with two threads discussing the topic of water baptism, and that's redundant and a waste of all our time.

From Lev. 8 through to it's last mention in I Cor., it's all the same baptism.

Grace and peace friends

Tony

Tony, I don't want to start anything about baptism, or any arguments or fights or anything. I'm just a little confused. The pouring of the oil was for the high priest. His sons were only sprinkled. Are you saying that everyone that the Holy Spirit was poured on is a high priest the same as Jesus?

No fight here brother, what the Scriptures say is the consecration of Aaron(high priest) and his sons(normal priests)in the water baptismal washings and their sanctification of the pouring of the oil(a type of the Holy Spirit) was identical.

God promised Israel, before Aaron and his sons ever became priests, that He would make Israel a "kingdom of priests" in Exodus 19. Look at the performance system Israel was under as the Chosen Nation: God says, you do this, I will do that. Don't do this, I won't do that. If Israel is going to lead the world, then they needed a period of time to train in God's Law. In Exodus 29 and 40 He tells Moses how to set up this priesthood. In Leviticus 8 Moses does it:

Normal Priests:
1. Water baptismal washing(consecration to be clean to wear the garments of a priest)
2. Pouring out of oil(a Bible type of the Holy Spirit, this is the second step, sanctification)

High Priests:
1. Water baptismal washing(consecration to be clean to wear the garments of a priest)
2. Pouring out of oil(a Bible type of the Holy Spirit, this is the second step, sanctification)

Jesus Christ As Israel's Great High Priest:
1. Water baptismal washing under John the Baptist(Matt. 3)
2. The literal sanctification in the Holy Ghost by God the Father(Matt.3), not in the OT "type", but what the type was a figure of and pointed to, the Holy Spirit.

Believing Israel Under John the Baptist, Christ and His Apostles:
1. Water baptismal washing under John the Baptist, Christ and His Apostles.
2. These converts did not receive the second act, sanctification, until after Christ died and was resurrected, because Christ was the Sanctifier and did not pour out the Holy Ghost as sanctification until Acts 2 Did this unknown group have then to be "rebaptized" at Acts 2?

No.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.

These are the twelve men, one for each tribe, who then laid hands on the converts of John, Christ and His apostles that were not present at Pentecost in Acts 2 and gave them their second act of sanctification, the literal Holy Ghost and not the "type" of the Holy Ghost, oil. A question comes up: Who are these "lost converts" I am talking about here and why were not all of John and Christ's earthly converts present at Pentecost?

I don't know why they weren't present at Pentecost, I do know 12 of them shows up in Acts 19, because if these 12 had been at Pentecost, they would have already had the Holy Ghost and known who He was.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and [U]ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost./U]

Believing Israel In Acts 2, the "kingdom of priests":

1. Baptized in water, consecrated as priests in the water baptismal washing of Lev. 8 and Matt. 3.
2. Jesus Christ as the great High Priest pours out the sanctification, not in oil, but what the oil typified, the Holy Ghost of God.

Kevin, if I am hammering home anything in my messages and responses, it's consistency:

Water first, oil second.
Water first, Holy Ghost second.
Consecration(water), sanctification(oil, Holy Ghost).

What I am teaching is something that goes completely across the grain from what nearly all of you have had for church doctrine all your lives. I know I am frustrating in going against this belief of all of you on water baptism. If I have, am now, and will continue to give you a gift, it's this: I am consistent, I'm not confused about this, I don't change in the middle of a discussion. If I am a pain in the neck, at least give me that much credit.

Note these similutudes:

Israel needed a cleansing washing.
We need a cleansing washing.

Israel's washing was in water.
Our washing is in the Blood of Jesus Christ.

Israel's washing was in water to make them clean in order to put on their priestly garments.
Our washing is in the Blood of Jesus Christ to make us clean to put on Christ.

Kevin, there is no "fight", for one thing, I do not expect you to understand this in one reading instantly. I don't expect anyone to do anything except what God tells them to. As I told Brother Parrish, God uses us in whatever sect or denomination we may belong to. He uses most of you who are Baptists. He used Billy Sunday to massive effect, Billy Sunday was a Methodist.

I've apologized to brother Parrish for my part of his and my contention in the water baptism thread and in others. Let be men and discuss this thread like men and do the same in the water baptism thread until we move on to other topics and discussions.

1Co 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

Grace and peace Kevin

Tony

TBones,

I hope your reference to Acts 29 was just a typo as there is no Acts 29.

Interestingly enough at least you have divided the Baptism and limited to whom they were preaching the Jews. this may be the key as to why Paul never went into details to Gentiles about Baptism and it's purpose. the only thing he confronted was it was being used to cause division.

I do see that you are tying together of the Ministry of John the Baptist and the Priestly washing. however it is never said that that was part of his earthly ministry. As John told us plainly his ministry was to be the forerunner of Christ nothing more nothing less. His baptism as I see it was not for anointing the priests but if they had believed his message of the soon coming king and that the kingdom was at hand they were to be baptized as proof they believed his message. so they show their repentance by baptism and the result is remission of sins. Faith in the word John preached resulted in their work repentance and Baptismal obedience (works) which resulted in their sins being remitted (God's Grace).

And From what I understand from the scriptures is that it is the High Priest Job to anoint and wash the priests. Jesus will when he returns anoint Israel as a nation of priests. that doesn't take place until he establishes the Kingdom. John was in no way a high priest so he would be in violation of Exodus and Leviticus Rules and regulations. plus the Kingdom was not established so no need for the priest to be anointed until Christ is on the throne and then He as the Great High Priest will indeed do all that is required for the nation of Israel to fulfill its duty as a nation of priests. It is quite clear John was under Nazarite vow from Luke. anyone of the Nation of Israel could take this vow. But it would not make them a priest, nor give them the right to fulfill the role of one in anointing others for the priesthood.

Re: ""Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts"
 

Aloha all,

These Posts are not meant as teaching commentaries (i.e. a verse by verse exposition); if they were they would be much longer and far more detailed. The purpose of these Posts is to point out WHERE, in the early Chapters of the Book of Acts, the Holy Spirit was dealing exclusively with the nation of Israel (Jews and Proselyte Jews) and WHY He hadn’t turned to the Gentiles - yet.

As I have pointed out (over and over) in Acts Chapters 2 through 4, Peter and the rest of the Apostles continually confined their preaching and teaching to the nation of Israel, and they continued to do so in Acts Chapter 5. [Acts 5:31] They did not address the Gentiles - because God had NOT led them to do so - yet.

This is probably the only time in the history of the church of God where all of God’s people “were all with one accord” – Notice the PHYSICAL “signs” & “wonders” [1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:]. Is this “FAITH” ONLY? [Hebrews 11:1]} They said this, after having only recently said:

Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. {And it WAS! Under the Roman General Titus and the destruction of Jerusalem - 70 A.D.}

Religious “ELITES” have very short memories (no matter what century they live in). In other words – they are HYPOCRITES!
If this were the SAME “gospel” as Paul’s “Gospel” - shouldn’t Peter have said:

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Does God give the Holy Ghost to “them” that “OBEY” Him today or does He give the Holy Ghost to “them” who BELIEVE Him? Do you see the difference? It’s the “difference” between Jews (still under the Law) SEEING “signs” and “wonders”; and hearing that they killed their “Prince” and “Saviour” (the Lord Jesus Christ); and being convicted of their sins (rejection of, and killing the Lord) and OBEYING God by being Baptized in water in order that they might receive “the gift of the Holy Ghost” [Acts 2:38].

That is not the “order” of things when the centurion Cornelius (a Gentile) got saved [Acts 10:34-48]. Cornelius (and those that were with him in his house) received “the gift of the Holy Ghost” (BEFORE they were Baptized) by just simply hearing the word of God and BELIEVING it, [Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.] i.e. Paul’s “Gospel”.

WHAT was it that “ASTONISHED” Peter and the Jews that were with him? It was the fact that the gift of the Holy Ghost was not only given to the Gentiles, but that He was given WITHOUT water Baptism (or the “laying on the hands” of the Apostles [Acts 8:18])! WHY would Peter, and those Jews who were with him, be “ASTONISHED” - unless some thing EXTRAORDINARY had just occurred? Something that they did not expect, and would not have accepted, except for the fact that those Gentiles (who had just been saved by only “hearing” the word of God) were “speaking in tongues” – a “sign” [1 Corinthians 14:22] which the Jews “REQUIRED” in order to “believe” [1 Corinthians 1:22], and which (”signs” & “wonders”) God faithfully gave them from Abraham on down to Moses, and on down to the Lord Jesus Christ and then to His (ONLY - JEWS) Apostles.

There are a whole lot of “DOCTORS” out there in “Christendum” today, who are very much like “Gamaliel” (“had in reputation among all the people”); and just like Gamaliel (highly educated and knowledgeable) they are “AGNOSTIC” when it comes to BELIEVING in God’s Holy words. {Remind you of “anyone” here on the Forum?}
Lord willing, I will take this brief study to at least Acts Chapter 10 – in the hopes that some of the brethren here on the Forum might see WHY, and HOW, and WHERE, I attempt to “rightly divide the word of truth” (according to God’s commandment concerning the study of His word).

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Bro George

Thank you for your kind post #19. Perhaps that is the problem, perhaps I look at the scriptures differently than you, I will have to think about that awhile.

I will say this, I am sincere in my study of the Bible, I pray always that God would help me to understand the scriptures as He intended, not the interpretations of man, or my own personal interpretation.

And I have been around long enough to know that not all men come to the same understanding of the scriptures.

I will continue to study this subject.

But we are to be of the same mind or one accord when it comes to scriptures. only since 1890's have men become divided more and more over the word of God. until then very few Calvinism and Armeninism but neither one was centered on the Bible they were centered on their scholarship and opinions.

The RC and those of the reformation divided because of their Scholarship and private interpretations. you will find many Kingdom Doctrines being carried over into Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican and Puritan churches which makes them of a different mind to the word of God.

Someone asked why I wasn't Baptist. I replied if a person is a true Bible believer they will line up with the baptist. that should be qualified seeing there are a lot of Baptist today not teaching the word of God but the theologies of men's private interpretation (Calvinism), Opinions of Scholarship and purpose driven activities.

Yes Chette, there is a 29th Chapter to Acts. Look in the mirror, the 29th chapter of Acts is us, those who practice Roman's-Philemon, the church that Paul built, not Peter.

What's clear is John the Baptist was a Levite of a Levite priest father and a mother who was of the daughters of Aaron, that he knew when where and why and what he was doing in baptizing in water and what his baptism was, and that the line from Levite to Levite could not be broken as the Scriptures can not be broken. John was more than a Nazarite recorded is Luke, John was sanctified a Nazarite in his mother's womb. John came as Consecrator, Jesus Christ came as Sanctifier, and it a private interpretation to say John did not have the authority to make either the High Priest or the kingdom of priests under Him, and I waqnt to see Scripture that John couldn't.

In all my messages on Jewish OT water baptism I've given the Scripture with Scripture in context tp prove it Chette. I've been given the Baptist and other denominational teachings on it, and am yet to see one single exposition on or one single Scripture verse on what the promise of Exodus 19 really was, and no Scripture to prove John, Jesus's disciples, Peter's, Philip's, Pauls' or any other water baptisms as practiced and received we "different" baptisms.

Rather than show me in rebuttal:

1. The meaning and fulfillment of Exodus 19
2. How common Jewish priest and high priest are really consecrated and sanctified.

...most all I get is the Campbellite technique of trying to completely disconnect the ministry of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and His disciples, from the OT, to Israel, and then thrown over into being something for us. To speak in brother Greek Tim's language, I'm seeing the conflation of Classical Covenant theology over into practical, present day Pauline ecclesiology. The other response is to call me a cultist, a false teacher of false doctrine. If that's the case I can be removed from the forum if I'm Charles T. Russell or Joseph Smith.

Chette, you also missed the glaring and intentional doctrinal and Scriptural citation error I wrote into this message you are responding to which proves my messages are being gleaned, "read", but not STUDIED. There is no way I am going to be accurately or honestly "impeached" and "rebutted" without it. Henceforth any message in any thread on any topic by me is going to be shortened, it of no edification to me or any Christian who doesn't want to investigate a challenge to their denominational belief.

I've seen denominational private interpretation in opinion, I have not seen one single verse of Scripture that proves John was NOT performing the Levitical priestly function of consecration or that Jesus Christ was NOT performing His High Priestly function as sanctifier of the believing nation of Israel with the Holy Ghost, who the oil of sanctification pointed to. I've not seen one single verse of Scripture that says Gentiles are to receive water baptism for any reason or in any form. What I have seen in the other thread is the Campbellite attempt to make two baptisms into one baptism. I was born into and raised in COC, I know what I'm talking about.

Grace and peace brother, you'll get it if you study it through, you won;t see it in an instant.

Tony

The High priest is to do the functions you say John was performing if indeed they are priestly washings. Lev 8:6 where Moses washed Arron is not a single dip in water as John but a literal washing.

It is obvious by John's Baptism that those who followed it were doing so not to be cleansed priests but that they believed the words spoken by John. It is the high priest job to wash priests and to appoint them there duty.

it is not the washing of Moses that John did because there were no dressing of them for the priestly duties, no sacrifices for their sins, no 8 day period before they did sacrifices for the people as what took place in Lev 8.

There is absolutely no similarity between what Moses did and what John was doing. I have been reading it. the difference is I see John's baptism in context to what he was teaching and Moses washing in the context of priestly order and duties.

I can not use verse to support baptism of John from the Old Testament. it would seem to be a New thing. Luke 20:4 - 7The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. If John was doing the washings as given by both the command of God and the instructions and example of Moses as found in Lev 8 all these priests and scribes had to answer was that it was from the Law of Moses. These men obviously knew John was doing something totally unknown to them. plus John himself might have been of a priestly line but his duty was for that of incense only. his line was not that of the high priest. nor was John officially recognized as a priest. plus according to Moses only Levite's are to be washed and anointed.

He was only the one who was preparing for the coming of the Lord. The people response to his preaching was if they believed John's preaching was to repent, to be Baptized for the remission of sins. if they did not get baptized they were not showing their belief in what John preached and they were not repenting.

I have studied it and I do not see John's ministry in anyway similar to that of what Moses commanded the priest to do. I am not concerned about what COC teaches but what the Bible teaches. And the Bible does not teach John's Baptism is the washing of Levite Priests and that is a private interpretation.

Re: ""Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts"
 

Aloha brother Tony,

These comments are NOT meant to reprove or rebuke you. They are more in the nature of a declaration of concern.

I think that some of your comments on this Thread would more appropriate in the Thread on Water Baptism (i. e. some of your Posts – this Thread):

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...7&postcount=21
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...1&postcount=23
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...6&postcount=28

I am trying to make the point in this Thread about how God dealt exclusively with the nation of Israel in the first few Chapters of Acts and I think that another "discussion" on and about water baptism will only serve to distract from the subject at hand.

I have stated my position on water baptism (see the additional Links below) in AV1611 Bible forums > "Is water baptism for today” > Post #136:

George’s quote:
The following Links contain some of my comments concerning water baptism:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19702&postcount=136
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20567&postcount=188
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20663&postcount=196
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20701&postcount=199
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...&postcount=218

We are commanded to rightly divide the “word” of truth – If the English “words” (baptize & baptism) cannot be found in the Old Testament, any teaching about “baptism” in the Old Testament will be totally dependent upon the interpretation of English “words” (other than “baptize” or “baptism”) that supposedly “mean” the SAME as “baptize”. But I have, on many occasions, already expressed concerns over people seeking the “meaning” of the words of Scripture, rather than seeking what God says.

Brother Tony said:
To which I responded - George’s quote:
We are supposed to be “rightly dividing the word of truth”. I do not see a command for us to be “rightly dividing Paul” - into “Early Paul; Mid Paul; and Late Paul”. This kind of “teaching” is fraught with the danger of falling into “private interpretation”. The same goes for the dividing up of the Books of the Bible to the point where the only Books that apply to the Christian are Paul’s Epistles.

We are not told to:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Epistles of Paul.

OR:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Books of truth.

We are told to: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” [2 Timothy 2:15]

The Bible says:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Bible also says:
Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

There must be a balance to “Dispensationalism”. Although much of the Old Testament is NOT written TO the Christian, there is a whole lot in the Old Testament that is – “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”; although the Four Gospels are mainly about the Jews’ Messiah & King, there is much in the Gospels that is: “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”; and although the Books of Hebrews; James; I & II Peter; I, II, & III John; Jude; and Revelation may very well be “Tribulation Books”, they still can be: “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” – as long as we rightly divide the word of truth.

As Christians, our responsibility in “studying” the Scriptures is to rightly divide “the word of truth” – wherever it is found; and to be on guard against ALL: “theological formulations”; ALL“systems of biblical interpretation”; and ALL“biblical constructs”.

Maintaining balance (i.e. moderation) is not always easy, but if we don’t continue to pursue “the simplicity that is in Christ”, we can end up with doctrines that are so complicated, complex, and confusing, that the only people who can understand them are a small handful of intellectual “scholars” (or “book worms”) with IQ’s of 150 or higher.

The issue of water baptism will NOT be “settled” in this Forum. If you wish to pursue it further I believe the proper place would be under the Thread dealing with the subject. The main reason I started this Thread was because I could see that I was straying “off point” in the Thread on water baptism, so I thought it would be better to have a Thread dealing with the “transitory nature” of the first few Chapters of the Book of Acts, rather than add anymore confusion to the Thread on water baptism.

I believe that if a Christian can reach an understanding of what took place AFTER the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, but BEFORE God turned to the Gentiles; that this “understanding” will open up the Scriptures to an individual Christian so that they will be much more able to rightly divide the word of truth. Water baptism is only a part of the whole series of events that take place between Acts Chapter 1 and Acts Chapter 10. And if we divert our attention back to water baptism, the purpose of this Thread will be thwarted.

If you will recall way at the beginning of the Thread on water baptism, I wanted no part of it. I’ve already gone through it before, and I knew (ahead of time) that there would be NO PROFIT to be had in discussing (debating) the issue. I still feel the same way now. By now everybody knows (for the most part) what you believe about it, and you know (for the most part) what most of us believe. At this point, I see no point in pursuing it any further, unless it comes up in this Thread, and if it does I would try to keep it within the “context” of the Thread.

Grace and peace brother,

Re: "Rightly Dividing The Book of Acts"
 

Aloha all,

These Posts are not meant as teaching commentaries (i.e. a verse by verse exposition); if they were they would be much longer and far more detailed. The purpose of these Posts is to point out WHERE, in the early Chapters of the Book of Acts, the Holy Spirit was dealing exclusively with the nation of Israel (Jews and Proselyte Jews) and WHY He hadn’t turned to the Gentiles - yet.

As I have pointed out (over and over) in Acts Chapters 2 through 5, Peter and the rest of the Apostles have continually confined their preaching and teaching to the nation of Israel, and they continue to do so in Acts Chapter 6. They have yet to address the Gentiles – separately; because God has NOT led them to do so - yet. And WHY is that so? Because of the explicit instructions the Lord Jesus Christ spoke to His disciples AFTER His resurrection:
Did you get that? Do you remember back in Matthew 15:24 when the woman of Canaan (“The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation” – Mark 7:26) came to the Lord begging Him to heal her daughter? WHAT was it that the Lord Jesus Christ “answered” her? “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Now, she (being a “Greek” – a Gentile) understood exactly WHAT He was saying - even if Christians today don’t! She understood that the Lord meant WHAT he said, WHEN He said it: “I am NOT SENT but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” However, because of her “great faith” [Matthew 15:28] the Lord made an EXCEPTION and granted her request (without “going” to her house – remember, He wasn’t “sent” to her).

According to the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ: He was “NOT SENT but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And AFTER His resurrection and upon giving His disciples specific instructions about HOW (and to WHOM) He was “sending” them out, He said: “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” To WHOM was the Lord Jesus Christ SENT? - To NO ONE, “but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” To WHOM were the Lord Jesus Christ’s disciples SENT? - According to the Lord’s own words: “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” The disciples were sent to NO ONE (to begin with) “but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This is WHY they (the Apostles and Disciples) CONFINED their preaching to the Jews and Proselyte Jews ONLY in Acts Chapters 2 through 6.

Do you see that little word “AS”? It means in the “same manner” or “similar”. In the Bible, the words “AS” & “LIKE” can clear up a whole lot of man made “confusion” – IF people would only pay attention as to WHERE they are used.

When studying the Scriptures it is always necessary for us to rightly divide “the word of truth”. That means that we must always keep in mind the distinction that the Scriptures make between the JEW; the GENTILE; and the CHURCH {where there is neither Jew nor Greek (i.e. Gentile) – Galatians 3:28& Colossians 3:11}.

In addition we must always keep in mind that the Bible is not only a Book about “Doctrine” and about “Spiritual” matters, it is also a Book about “History”; and in order to arrive at the “Truth” of Scripture we must always take the “historical context” into consideration when “rightly dividing the word of truth”.

That simply means that we cannot “project” what we “know” NOW (as Christians) back into the “historical setting”. We must accept the written record WHERE, WHEN and HOW we find it, and not make it “say” or “mean” something other than what it says in the “historical context”.

As you read - Ask yourself: WHO is speaking? And to WHOM is he speaking to?
I have posted the first six (6) Chapters of the Book of Acts to demonstrate (from the Scriptures themselves) that Peter and the rest of the Apostles and Disciples had CONFINED their preaching and teaching to Jews and Proselyte Jews ONLY. The word “Gentile” (“Gentiles”) shows up only 2 times from Acts 1:1 through Acts 7:60 (and neither time was it an “address” directly TO Gentiles), while there are over 100 references exclusively to the nation of Israel!
{“apostles” = 17 times; “fathers” = 17 times; “brethren” = 13 times; “prophet” = 12 times; “priests” = 11 times; “council” = 7 times; “Abraham” = 7 times; David = 6 times; “sons” = 4 times; “disciples” = 4 times; “men of Israel” = 3 times; “house of Israel” = 2 times; “Jews” = 2 times; “Hebrews” = 1 time; and “daughters” = 1 time; for a total of 107 references.}

In Acts Chapters 1 through 7 – There are at least 107 references made exclusively TO the people of the nation of Israel and NONE made directly TO the Gentiles! WHAT MORE does someone “need” in order to understand that in the first 7 Chapters of the Book of Acts, the Lord God (through the guiding of the Holy Spirit) led the Apostles and Disciples to preach ONLY to Jews and Proselyte Jews, and DID NOT “extend” that preaching to the Gentiles until AFTER the stoning of Stephen (the rejection of the Holy Spirit by the nation of Israel - which is the turning point of the Book Of Acts!), whereupon the Lord began to turn unto the “Gentiles” – who are referenced 28 times from Acts 8 through Acts 28!

In the next Post (Stephen's address to the nation of Israel - "he, being full of the Holy Ghost" [Acts 7:55]) it will be abundantly clear that the entire "address" is meant exclusively for the Nation of Israel, and them ALONE!

Bro George

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I completely agree with you that the apostles were first sent to the Jews. 100%

Where I disagree, and perhaps I misunderstand you, is that from the beginning of Acts, the Lord had also determined the gospel would go to the Gentiles.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Here Jesus names the exact order that the apostles would witness to. They began in Jerusalem, then Judaea, then they went to Samaria, and then to the Gentiles.

So, I do not believe the apostles were sent to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected the gospel and stoned Stephen. The Jews had already rejected Jesus on Palm Sunday when he entered Jerusalem.

Luke 19:29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,
30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.
31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.
32 And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.
33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?
34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him.
35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
36 And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.
37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;
38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Prophesy had foretold that the promised King would be riding a colt

Zech 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

And Jesus said this was "thy day" and that the Jews "knewest not the time of thy visitation".

So, where we disagree is when Jesus was rejected by the Jews. I believe he was rejected the day he entered Jerusalem as King. Many did receive Jesus as King that day. But the Pharisees, chief priests, scribes, and chief of the people did not, and sought to destroy him.

In Luke 20 the Lord tells a parable that shows this rejection.

Luke 20:13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.
14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

So, here is the story of Jesus coming into Jerusalem as King. But he was rejected and killed. And because they killed his son (not Stephen) God says he will destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. So, I believe upon crucifying Jesus, God had determined to give the gospel to the Gentiles. And this is why the Lord included the Gentiles in Acts 1:8.

I do believe Stephen's stoning was very important. It was at this time that a great persecution rose against the church and many disciples fled. But this was to take the gospel to Judaea and Samaria, just as Jesus had said in Acts 1:8

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

And you see here, they went every where preaching the word. This was not the apostles, they remained in Jerusalem. But this was a partial fullfilling of Acts 1:8. The only region remaining to hear the gospel was;

"and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

I am not trying to be argumentive with you, I simply see things a little differently. I see the Lord Jesus already preparing to go to the Gentiles in Acts 1:8, not because of a rejection after Christ's crucifixion, or the stoning of Stephen. The stoning of Stephen and the persecution in Jerusalem was necessary to spread the gospel as the Lord said in Acts 1:8.

And I think I have supplied scripture to support my view.

Been Thinking
 

Sir, been thinking about the following verses:
John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Is the word "world" included the Gentiles? so that if they believe in Christ they shall not perish but everlasting life?

Thanks for the inspring study bro. George. I need to learn more...

Which Gospel was to go to the Gentiles?

OT scriptures tell us plainly God would add people who are not his people. so first the Gospel had to be that which used the Jews for it presentation, "for salvation comes from the Jew". so that Gospel would have been the Kingdom Gospel.

After the stoning of Stephan, a rejection of the message of Christ by the Sadducee's via the stoning. God changes his plan. But he doesn't halt his apostles and give them the Gospel of Grace. No he appoints a new Apostle one he will send to the Gentiles with the message that the cross was for the forgiveness of sins to individual men if they will only believe.

So today only the Gospel of Grace is preached to the Gentiles

Acts 1:8 should be read in the light of the following Scriptures:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 24:
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

It is clear then from above that:
1. They are to preach the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM to all nations.
2. They are to preach the gospel of the kingdom WITH SIGNS following.
3. They are to preach the gospel of the kingdom BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM.
Acts 1:8 should be read in this context.

Notice, under Grace:
1. We are to preach the GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD to all the world.
2. NO SIGNS are required to preach the gospel of the grace of God.
3. We can begin ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.

Hope this sheds some light.

Re: "Rightly Dividing The Book of Acts"
 

Aloha brother Winman,

This Post is in reply to your Post #32. Instead of repeating myself – here is what I have said before:

Re: "Who Will be Judged"? > 10-14-2008 > Post #119
The Jews REJECTION of Peter’s (and the rest of the Apostles’ and Disciples’) call for NATIONAL REPENTANCE was specifically a REJECTION of GOD the HOLY SPIRIT (Who was living IN the Apostles & Disciples)

The nation of Israel's (Jews/Hebrews) rejection of the LORD God of the Old Testament was a REJECTION of God the FATHER:

Psalms 103:13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

Psalms 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.
5 A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Jeremiah 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

Malachi 1:6 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

Matthew 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

The Jews (Hebrews) had an exclusive relationship with God:

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

The LORD God of Scripture was a FATHER to the Jews (Hebrews). When the nation of Israel rejected God (in the Old Testament) – they REJECTED God the FATHER.

I am not going to cite the verses (because we already agree), when the nation of Israel (Jews/Hebrews) rejected the Lord Jesus Christ – They REJECTED God the SON.

When the nation of Israel (Jews/Hebrews) rejected Peter and the rest of the Apostles and Disciples they REJECTED God the HOLY SPIRIT (for HE was living IN them and guiding them in what they said).

It was only AFTER the nation Israel had REJECTED the entire GODHEAD (Father, Son, & Spirit) did God TURN to the Gentiles.


Re: "Is water baptism for today?" > 05-25-2009 > Post #196
I think I have nearly exhausted every possible way in which I can convey to you WHY I believe WHAT I believe. It is now up to you to search the Scriptures to see (for yourself) whether the things that I have presented here are “true” or not. Remember:

Real genuine Bible study should not be just an academic exercise or a mere intellectual pursuit. Instead, true Bible study should be an honest and sincere search for the truth. “What saith the Scripture?”

Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Fred, the advantage we have for understanding this is we are looking back on these events. The disadvantage is not rightly dividing the Scriptures by putting Paul's message as the authoritative one. When we do, we see that as Paul said in Eph. 3 and Romans 11, that the Gentiles had no access to God or salvation without blessing Israel and obtaining proselyte status. Only through Israel and her rise would the Gentiles receive reconciliation with God. Many make the erroneous assumption and doctrinal error that Cornelius in Acts 10 is the pattern for "Gentile salvation". Cornelius was a Gentile proselyte to Judaism. The gospel message given to Paul of Eph. 2 had not been given to Peter or any of the other apostles.

So if we see Romans 11, Eph. 2 and 3, we see that the present Church, the age of Grace, is a parentheses in the five Commissions given to the 12 apostles. "The world" is the calling out of Jews worldwide, as the 144,000 will do in Revelation and would have taken place back then, because only through a risen israel could the gentiles receive anything. Today, "but now", salvation is available to all through the gospel of Christ crucified apart from israel, becasue she fell and has been set aside.

If we set the following verse, one of the most misquoted and misinterpreted Scriptures in the Bible, into it's correct context and can see Acts 2 as the beginning of what is following in this verse, it becomes easy to understand just what Christ meant when He spoke of "the world" and to whom the message would go to:

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Acts 2 was the beginning of this with the Jews from all over the world first coming to Jerusalem. George has put a lot of work into this and I'm interested in his study but I've already "rightly divided" the book of Acts:

Acts 1-7: "The Five Great Commissions"
Acts 8-15: "The Great Commission Of Paul(Acts 9:15), The Grafting Of The Mystery Body Into The Olive Tree"
Acts 16-28: "To The Jew First And Also The Greek"

If you understand and believe Paul primarily, we see the 12 knowing nothing of the revelation of the mystery of Eph. 3 until given to them by Paul in Acts 15, thus their message up to that timeand beyond was to Jews and Gentile proselytes.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

This is Peter preaching the return of Jesus to sit on the throne of David. We aren't looking for Jesus to sit on the throne of David, we are looking for Him in the clouds and listening for a shout.

You will notice a common theme in the preaching of Peter and the disciples, and that is the slain Son of God, whom the Jews had slain, not by their own hands, but by handing Him over to the Romans for execution. You may find the death, burial and ressurection in there, but not one time does Paul ever preach the repentance of slaying Jesus, the Holy child. Notice specifically that Peter commands them to repent and says that Jesus will be sent unto them if they do. That is not Church doctrine at all. In Acts 7, right before the entrance of Paul, is the stoning of Stephen who is the last man to preach the repentance for the slaying of the man Jesus, who was standing in wait to come back to bring in His kingdom, but was rejected. Then enters Paul, who is commissioned to the Gentiles, because the kingdom was rejected by the Jews who never repented of the slaying of the man Jesus. The preaching in Acts 1-7 is clear, and it is not for the present day Church.

I disagree. Paul did teach of the slaying of Jesus. But notice he teaches the repentance of sins to everlasting life, not the restoration of the kingdom.

Acts 11:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Notice Paul tells this group who is primarily Jewish, that through Jesus is preached the forgiveness of sins.

And this is before Paul says he will go to the Gentiles.

Acts 11:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles

Here, Paul does say that the gospel was first to be preached to the Jews. Notice Paul says they judged themselves unworthy of "everlasting life", not the restoration of the kingdom. Then, afterward, he says he will go to the Gentiles.

Where we disagree is that you believe Peter was preaching the restoration of the kingdom of Israel in Acts 2. I completely disagree. Peter was preaching the same message as Paul here, that upon believeing on Jesus Christ they would receive forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.

The only verse(s) that could remotely be understood in Acts to be the restoration of the kingdom is Acts 3:20. But the verse before and after show differently.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began

First, the restoration of the kingdom is not mentioned. In fact, the term "gospel of the kingdom" is not found in Acts anywhere, check and see for yourself. Yes, Peter did preach Jesus would return, but this is the same message we have today. Notice it says the heaven must receive Jesus until the "times" of restitution of all things, so Peter was obviously speaking of more than one age, and could not have been saying that Jesus would return upon repentance of killing Jesus. Note that in verse 10 Peter says repent that your sins may be blotted out, and does not mention the restoration of the kingdom.

Later in Acts, Peter confirms that the message to the Jews in the early chapters was for the forgiveness of sins upon believeing on Jesus and not this "kingdom gospel" you believe.

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Here Peter says these Gentiles received the Holy Ghost just as they did on Pentacost. Note that these Gentiles received the Holy Ghost by hearing only, not baptism. Then note how Peter says God has granted to these Gentiles ALSO repentance unto life.

I say to you that I do not believe Peter was preaching a different gospel to the Jews. It was the same salvation message that Paul preached to the Gentiles. You have not a single verse that absolutely says that the apostles were preaching the restoration of the kingdom of Israel if they repented of killing Jesus. Peter was preaching the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life upon believeing on Jesus.

The Bible clearly teaches that the gospel was opened to the Gentiles when Christ rose from the dead in Ephesians chapter 2

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

So, it was not in Acts when the Gentiles were grafted in, it was when Jesus went to the cross, died, and rose from the dead.

And Paul clearly said that he persecuted "the church".

1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Here Paul is preaching to Gentiles. He tells them he persecuted "the church" of God. This clearly shows that the Jews in the early chapters of Acts were the same church as Paul spoke to much later after going to the Gentiles.

Winman,

a few reasons I see you always disagreeing

1) you will not rightly divide the word of truth
2) preconceived Ideas as to what the scriptures teach
3) failure to properly study to show thy self approved