Why We Cannot Enter the Heavenly Places Yet

Arguably the most common prayer in Christendom is what men call "The Lord's Prayer." When I was in Catholic School we would repeat it daily and we knew it as the "Our Father." When I was in my very conservative parish in the very conservative Archdiocese of Philadelphia under the auspices of the very conservative Cardinal Krol, I'm fairly certain every penance I was ever assigned included the repetition of some number of "Our Father" prayers. For the sins of an 8 year old (at least how I framed them) would get me assigned something like "ten Our Fathers and twenty Hail Marys." 

Later, when I was part of a very liberal parish under the liberal Paulist Order of priests I would get a penance of "go home and hug your father." I'd rather be assigned a Novena and a trip to the Vatican than that! I'm kidding. My father was a very good dad, he just wasn't the hugging type. But the "Our Father" was still very much part of daily RC life. In our youth program, we used the prayer set to contemporary music at youth meetings.

All that said, it is not only Catholics who have wedded themselves to "The Lord's Prayer." Many "Protestant" congregations use it as a congregational prayer weekly. Catholic music artist Matt Maher had a hit on contemporary Christian radio with his version of the prayer.

Pulling the lens back, as we have covered previously, almost all of Christendom can't find its way out of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, where the prayer is found, despite the very words spoken there that seemingly contradict the gospel we preach. There is no contradiction if you rightly divide (understand the context and hope and plan in view). As I see it, men seemingly just explain it all away or reinterpret clear words to fit preconceived beliefs when they come to what should be troubling verses.

Here is the prayer the Lord gives to Israel (with his additional statement at the end):

Our Father who is in heaven,
hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come;
Your will be done
on earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

For if you forgive men for their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men for their sins, neither will your Father forgive your sins.

-Matthew 6:9-15

I post the entire prayer for context, but we will focus on only a couple aspects of the passage.

The prayer pleads for God to send his Kingdom to earth. This should seem odd to people who generally believe that (a) the church is somehow already the Kingdom or (b) they are destined for a heavenly home. I won't break that down any further. I note it because it is the immediate context of the next request in the prayer. But we should pause and think of the implications of all of our stated beliefs.

Some may ask me, why would we not want the Father's will to be done on earth as it is done in heaven? First let's note that millions upon millions (including Catholic "saints") have been praying this prayer, every day, for 2000 years. That's trillions of repetitions. Yet God's will on earth is no closer to being fulfilled here than it was in the second century. Some might argue the earth is filled with more violence, more wickedness, and more sin than ever.

So when they had come together, they asked Him, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

-Acts 1:6

In the first century, when the Apostles were looking for, and expecting the return of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom in Israel (Matthew is a gospel to Israel alone, cp. Matthew 15:24, etc.), they were much closer to that reality. This is the hope of Acts 1, Acts 3, and all through the Acts and Acts age epistles. Since the end of the Acts age, we are NOT looking for an earthly Kingdom (while we note it is still going to come in an age to come). 2000 years removed from that hope, Christendom is still begging God to have his will done on earth.

The greater point, however, is that the Kingdom can't come until Israel accepts their Messiah: "For I tell you [Israel], you shall not see Me again until you [Israel] say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.’" (Matthew 23:39; Psalm 118:26). We see the offer of the return of Christ and the restoration of the Kingdom in Israel in Acts 3 from Peter, but we have covered that elsewhere. Suffice to say, the Kingdom will not come even if over a billion people are praying Matthew 6 daily (as they do).

The problem today is not Israel's unbelief (temporarily set aside as Paul revealed the heavenly hope in Ephesians). The problem is that God's will is not being done in heaven. It's helpful to be honest and realize we are not going to beat Satan. We resist him (cp. Jude 1:9, James 4:7). We recognize him and his wily ways. Satan deceived the first century believers by standing in pulpits and his angels by posing as prophets and teachers and calling themselves apostles (2 Cor 11:13-15). Today we see the same from a false Christendom.

Why do we resist Satan? Why are we called to "put on the whole armor of God?" We do this because the heavenly places are currently poisoned. The Lord will one day cleanse both the earth and the heavenly places of the evil principalities and powers, but until then we put on the armor of God. God's will is not being done in the heavenly places.  

Put on the whole armor of God that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

-Ephesians 6:11-13

Satan is cast out of the heavenly places during Israel's tribulation. When we look at Revelation 12 we see Israel being persecuted and fleeing into the wilderness. It is during this future time that the cleansing of the heavens begins.

And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

-Revelation 12:7-9

The future destiny found in the resurrection out from the rest of the dead of the believer who steps into the promise is blessings in the heavenly places. Those who achieve it (not resurrection itself as Life is free gift) will sit with Christ in the cleansed heaven places, but not before. As we've seen previously, resurrection is also a future hope. 

When [in the future] this corruptible will have put on incorruption, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then the saying that is written shall come to pass: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

-1 Corinthians 15:54

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.

-Ephesians 1:3

He raised us up and seated us together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages [future] He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

-Ephesians 2:6-7

It is in an age yet to come that the heavenly places are cleansed and prepared. It is only then that any thought of God's will being done on earth can be contemplated. That cleansing begins with the casting out of Satan to the earth during Israel's tribulation. Trillions of prayers can go up begging God to have his will be done on earth now as it is being done in heaven. But God's will is not being done in heaven now. 

So when will this prayer make sense? It will makes sense when it is prayed by those to whom it was given (Israel) in her hour of testing (the coming time of Jacob's Trouble). It is not "the Lord's Prayer" nor is it "the Our Father." If we must give it a name, it is rightly, "the Tribulation Prayer." 

We have been led astray by tradition and teachers for 2000 years.

Next time, we will examine how the section of  the prayer regarding the forgiveness of sins  ("forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors") and our relationship to both God and fellow believers in this age. This line, as the prayer for God's will in heaven, cannot be lifted out of the Matthew 6 prayer and applied today.

The Big Boys on the Gospel of the Kingdom in Matthew

Checking in With the Big Boys on the Beatitudes (Matthew 5)

Odd Thing We Say to the Bereaved Spouse (Matthew 23 and the Sadducees)

The same day the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry his wife and raise up children for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers with us. The first died after he married and, having no children, left his wife to his brother. Likewise the second and third, on to the seventh. Last of all, the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? For they all had her.” Jesus answered, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

-Matthew 23:23-32

My mother passed away in 2019. We knew her passing was near so, fortunately, locally and via Face Time we were able to have much of the family with her. She spent her last several years in a Catholic assisted living facility in the next town. My grandmother was in the same facility in the mid 1990s until she passed. In the intervening years, my mother would often visit residents and lead a singalong. She was well-known at the facility.

The overseers of this facility were primarily Irish nuns. Fairly conservative from what I could tell. I didn't interact with them much. I spent my time with the day to day staff. I only note that as this entry concerns a brief moment I had with the nun I assume was the Abbess. 

When my mother finally breathed her last, this nun whispered in my ear, "She's with Michael now." "Michael" referring to my father who had passed away in 2014. Obviously at that moment, I wasn't going to engage in a theological discussion with the nun, but she should have known that was she was saying was, in light of long-standing, codified, common Catholic teaching, nonsense. Worse that that, it was terrible heresy deserving of condemnation (anathema).

If anyone says that after the grace of justification has been received the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out for any repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this world or in the other, in purgatory, before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven, anathema sit [“let him be anathema” or excommunicated].

-Council of Trent (Sixth Session, Canon 30, fully affirmed in by the Second Vatican Council and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church

She was putting both my mother and father into heaven (in her understanding of it). This is not a study on the doctrine of Purgatory, but even if my father had somehow finished paying for his venial sins in God's torture chamber by then (five years being a rather light sentence, for the record), unless that nun somehow had a confirmed vision that my mother was a "Saint," my mom had just enter her own torture chamber.

As we noted in a previous study, the Catholic Church isn't quite sure what Purgatory is. Some say it is not necessarily a fire. These same teachers, who would point to "Saint" Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica in defense of other aspects of their faith, would then be questioning his definitive statement that punishment in Purgatory is, indeed, "fire." But whatever they teach on any given day, it is stated that they do know this, "it is painful." But whatever it is, they must affirm the doctrine. 

"Saint" Augustine (note that some Reformed theologians like RC Sproul hold Aquinas and Augustine among the greatest Christian thinkers and theologians despite this horrific denial of the work of Christ) had this to say of Purgatory (stating clearly as did Aquinas that Purgatory is a fire):

"This fire of Purgatory will be more severe than any pain that can be felt, seen or conceived in this world." -Augustine (xli De Sanctis, as quoted by Aquinas)

That being the fate of both my parents, it would not be a very fun reunion. The nun affirming my parents were both somehow already in heaven was a dual sin for which she will pay her own debt in fire (according to their own teachings). It could be argued she is excommunicated which carries and even greater danger according to her own church.

But we can expect such confusion (or deception) from the Catholic Church. In terms of Evangelical believers (who hold and affirm the complete and sufficient work of Christ), their confusion (although not as abhorrent to Christ) is also found in statements they say about the deceased.

My believing Father-in-Law passed away several years ago leaving a believing widow. She has moved into a Christian retirement village and is free to marry again. If she does not, I am certain (as I've heard the equivalent at other funerals) many will speak of her reunion with her late husband. But what if she had remarried? What do we say then? (The Catholic nun has this problem as well, but since their heresies are far greater, it is of less concern.)

This illogical (unbiblical) understanding of the state of the dead, namely that believers are in a bodiless, conscious state in what they understand as "heaven" immediately upon death, should be easily dismissed. But the latter error (which still presents the remarriage problem) poisons not only our understanding of death, but our appreciation of what Christ accomplished on our behalf (what he conquered for us). Our victory is in resurrection and the celestial body and in a future immortality.

There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies. The glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

-1 Corinthians 15:40

For this corruptible will [future] put on incorruption [celestial body], and this mortal will [future] put on immortality. When this corruptible [terrestrial] will have put on incorruption [celestial], and this mortal will [future] have put on immortality, then [future] the saying that is written shall come to pass: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”  

“O death, where is your sting?
O grave [Greek: "Hades," the state of the believing dead], where is your victory?"

-1 Corinthians 15:53-55

 

We have covered the issue of death before, but we note again here that the doctrine of bodiless entry directly into a mythical version of the real "heavenly places" makes the resurrection of no importance. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul leads to many errors ("making the word of God of no effect through your tradition" -Mark 7:13).

Next time we will briefly address why we cannot currently enter the heavenly places. 

Back to our example from the surviving partner remarrying. Christ addressed this issue when the Sadducees tried to trick him. Their trick didn't work on him, but what would Evangelicals say today? Note the Lord goes straight for resurrection, not some mythological intermediary state. 

Jesus answered, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

In resurrection (when the believer becomes immortal after his time in the grave, the state of the dead, that is, in Hades, 1 Cor 15:55), there is no marriage. Now, I'm the first to admit I cannot grasp what that is like as I am now walking in a body of death for which God has provided the marriage relationship. But it is true nonetheless. In resurrection, we become like the angels in that particular aspect. That is, angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. 

But the error of bodiless "souls" will be perpetuated until the end of all things both in both Catholic and Evangelical circles. 

Water Baptism is Not for the Current Age

A vast majority of Christendom not only practices baptism (in several forms), but a clear majority deem it necessary for redemption. We have noted in other studies that the practice of baptism is not for believers in the current age. We have made reference to the practice as being part of the washing of the Levitical priesthood. Let's look again at the practice.

Before we get to the practice itself, we note two things about the practice that help us to rightly understand the meaning and purpose of the practice. And even as we note these, we point to Adam, Abel, Noah, and Abraham (all in uncircumcision) coming to faith without a ritual of washing either before or after their justification. We note that there is nothing in the instructions from God to Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. regarding this ordinance. This is important as the primary goal of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2 Tim 2:15) is understanding who is being addressed in context of the age in which they lived.

• The practice is related to the nation of Israel, the land, and the earthly plan of God
• There is more than one baptism in scripture

We note these as I hope it will become apparent that, specifically, water baptism is connected to certain truths as spiritual baptism is quite distinct. Looking at these in light of the practice of right division noted, we should start to pull out the ordinance as found in scripture then place it back in its context. 

Just for a starting thought, you will find no mention of a water ritual in the post-Acts epistles. The multiple baptisms (identification, water, spiritual) seen the Acts age are reduced to "one baptism" in Ephesians and that is not a baptism in water. 

There is one body and one Spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 

-Ephesians 4:4-6

Colossians warns of the earthly ordinances. These ordinances are not inherently evil, but just as animal sacrifices for sin in the current age would be a denial of the greater truth of the sacrifice of Christ, so do the earthly ordinances connected to the earthly plan do damage to the current hope "in the heavenly places."  We do not observe Sabbath laws or other commandments given to the earthly chosen people. This includes those declared a "statute forever." 

Therefore let no one judge you regarding food, or drink, or in respect of a holy day or new moon or sabbath days. These are shadows of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 

-Colossians 2:16-17  

The statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment, which He wrote for you, you shall observe to do forever. And you shall not fear other gods.

-2 Kings 17:37

 

 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ

-Ephesians 1:3
 

He raised us up and seated us together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus

-Ephesians 2:6

We must address the word itself as its common use in English has taken on a life of its own. The different English forms of the word come from different Greek forms of the word. The Greek is essentially transliterated into English. That is, the word is just spelled so an English reader can pronounce it, but it is just a restating the word from the original language. The concept of baptism comes from Israel and the word "baptism" comes into the English from the Greek translation of the original Hebrew.

When we hear someone speaking in Hebrew (a dead language brought back to life by Zionists), we must create words for things that did not exist when the language went dark. It is odd to hear an Israeli speaking in Hebrew and then a word like "telephone" jumps out. As ancient Israel had no telephones, a modern word is inserted. With the word "baptism" we have a similar phenomenon. 

The Old Testament (phrase used for convenience sake) practice of washings in baptisms (from the Greek) is carried over into New Testament Greek and eventually into English. Along the way, I would say that the meaning and origin have been lost and replaced by a more pagan/Roman understanding of the practice than it had from the original Hebrew/Biblical understanding.

We'll have to leave that there. Suffice to say when we read the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew texts) we find the word for washings transliterated into English word "baptism" (and related).

Note that baptízo is not "translated" but is transliterated in our English Bibles. To transliterate is simply to transcribe (a word in one alphabet) into corresponding letters of another alphabet. 

-Greek Word Studies from the Austin Precept text commentary of the Bible

The idea of "baptism" has taken on some degree of mysticism in modern Christendom, but if we hope to understand the word, we must get back to its basic usage. It is a picture and description and not a word that casts a spell. We see that one can be "immersed" in several ways. This is important when we come across the word in Paul's Post-Acts epistles.

 

The idea behind the ancient Greek word for baptized is “to immerse or overwhelm something.” The Bible uses this idea of being baptized into something in several different ways. When a person is baptized in water, they are immersed or covered over with water. When they are baptized with the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:11, Acts 1:5) they are “immersed” or “covered over” with the Holy Spirit. When they are baptized with suffering (Mk 10:39), they are “immersed” or “covered over” with suffering. Here, Paul refers to being baptized - “immersed” or “covered over” in Christ Jesus.

-Commentary, David Guzik, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Santa Barbara, California

 

Consider how W.E. Vine explains the word.

 

baptizo was necessarily transliterated into English, as there was no equivalent in our language. “To immerse” would be simply “to plunge into.” To baptize is to put into water and take out again. It involves immersion, submersion, and emergence—death, burial and resurrection. The word was used among the heathen Greeks of articles which underwent submersion and emergence, as in the case of the dyeing of a garment. 

- Collected writings of W. E. Vine. Nashville: Thomas Nelson

 In the idea of immersion, we have the idea of identification. If I immerse myself into Bible study or into any project, I become identified with those practices. One one "dips" something, it can be symbolic of an "immersion" or complete picture of a greater truth. We further note that the practice takes us back long before many teachers like to start the discussion. That is, it has origins and significance long before John the Baptist (who is from the priestly line of Levi).

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth... Now Elizabeth’s full time came for her to be delivered, and she brought forth a son. When her neighbors and relatives heard how the Lord had shown great mercy to her, they rejoiced with her. So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias. His mother answered and said, “No; he shall be called John.” 

-Luke 1:5, 57-59

 

The word bapto is found nine times in the law of Moses, where it is used of dipping in blood, or in oil, or in water (Exod. 12:22; Lev. 4:6; 14:6; Num. 19:18 and Deut. 33:24). While the references in the New Testament to Pharisaic traditions do not take us back to any Old Testament passage, they do indicate that baptism is in no sense a New Testament rite or custom (Mark 7:8, Luke 11:38), and the inquiry by the Pharisees of John the Baptist was not to ask the meaning of baptism, but why he baptized if he were neither Christ, Elijah nor that prophet? (John 1:25), which again shows clearly that baptism was no new thing.

-Charles Welch "Baptism" (excerpt)

 Three New Testament verses with references to the Old Testament texts (from Acts Age epistles) further shed light on the grand theme of baptism.

1. The reference to the Ark and the Flood (1 Peter 3:21-22)

God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body, but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

2. The crossing by Israel of the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:1-2)

I would not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea

3. The carnal ordinances of the tabernacle (Heb 9:9-10)

This is an illustration for the present time, showing that the gifts and sacrifices offered could not perfect the conscience of those who worshipped, since they are concerned only with foods and drinks, ceremonial cleansings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

The eight saved through the judgment of the flood (physically rescued) were the ones kept dry. Peter, pointing to an uncircumcised Gentile in Noah (before Abraham), notes that "baptism" is an identification.  The washing is symbolic. Just as the priest stood offering bloody sacrifices "which can never take away sins" (Heb 10:11), so the priestly washings could never take away sins. 

Let us turn to Mark.

He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.

-Mark 16:16

Many who offer water baptism rituals would teach today that water baptism follows salvation (as it is commonly used: justification, redemption, the granting of Life). The Lord and Peter are clear that the salvation spoken of in that age followed faith and the ordinance. This might lead one to conclude that the sacramentalist then has it right: faith, then baptism, means resurrection life. The problem in reading it this way is that we must then ignore the rest of the Lord's words.

These signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

-Mark 16:17-18

 All of this is part of the Lord's calling to Israel and, specifically, to the calling of the Apostles sent to the Circumcision (and Paul as he ministered to Jews in the Acts Age). When Paul has the scales taken from his eyes in Acts 9:18, he is afterward baptized. (We do not address infant baptism here as it can nowhere fit any biblical account of baptism.) Was Paul still in his sin until the ritual? No, he already had the calling of God on his life. 

We note very clearly in Acts 10 that when Cornelius and his house have the Holy Spirit fall on them and they display the gifts the Jewish believers had been experiencing for years at that point (Cornelius was a believer before Peter entered his house) he was only then baptized. That is, Cornelius not only was a believer, he had the baptism and gifts of the Holy Spirit before he saw any water.

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the word. All the believers of the circumcision who had come with Peter were astonished, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in other tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter continued, “Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these, who have [already] received the Holy Spirit as we have?” So he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. 

-Acts 10:44-48

As an aside here, there is no record of anyone specifically being baptized "in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19).

When Paul shares his testimony in Acts 22 we are given a few more details to note.

“Ananias, a devout man according to the law, who was well spoken of by all the Jews living there, came and stood by me, and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that moment I looked up at him. “Then he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Just One and to hear His voice, for you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise, be baptized and wash away your sins, and call on the name of the Lord.’

-Acts 22:12-16

Would we today (or even the sacramentalist churches) describe someone called a "Christian" as "a devout man according to the law?"  Would the opinions of local Jews be of any concern for the believer of this current age? 

We've covered elsewhere the Apostles placing on Gentile believers the laws concerning Gentiles living among Israel as found in the Pentateuch. In both Acts 15 and Acts 21 the Apostles distinguish between Jewish and Gentile believers (as Paul does in his seven Acts Age epistles). We know from Acts 21 that Paul was still teaching circumcision for the Jewish believers as he was warning Gentile believers that circumcision meant a required obedience to the law.

Paul, as we know, was also very adamant that the law had nothing to do with justification (Rom 3:28, etc.) and neither did circumcision. Abraham was justified in uncircumcision (Rom 4:11-13, etc.). The law was wholly separate from the gift of resurrection life by grace through faith. The latter being true since Adam. 

It would be good here if the reader would compare Paul's statement in Romans 4:2 and the statement in James 2:21 which seemingly contradicts it in their contexts. We see there different aspects of justification in these passages. James writing a purely Jewish audience in light of the coming tribulation and establishment of the Kingdom in Israel. Paul addressing the gift of resurrection life, freedom from the Adamic curse of death and decay.

We will not divert into a study of the concept of "saved" here, but this idea must also be rightly divided. We quickly offer a few verses to consider. 

Examining Another "Claimed" Promise in Context (Psalm 5:12)

There are a number of YouTube channels that feature daily prayer. That's fine. Of course these range from the charismatic to the Catholic to the ultra Orthodox and everything in between and beyond! The prayer I want to address today is from an Evangelical channel. Clearly I would most likely be at odds with a Catholic or Orthodox prayer, but what of the Evangelical offering?

I wrestled with the idea of posting the video listing the channel, but I decided against both as this is not an attack on the man. I do not know him and I am not familiar with the full breadth of his beliefs. So, I will limit myself to a few points in today's prayer video.

The overall goal of this blog (and of my podcasts) is not to tell you what to believe. I encourage every individual believer to seek to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" (2 Tim 2:15). This is a lifelong process, but I fear most believers never seek to rightly divide God's words and find themselves claiming things for themselves or even confusing the hope of this current age with promises and plans for other people in other ages.

The YT prayer in question quotes a number of verses but builds its foundation on Psalm 5:12.

For You, Lord, will bless the righteous;
You surround him with favor like a shield.

-Psalm 5:12

So, what's the problem?

First, just so we understand, I am sure to emphasize that ALL the Word of God is profitable. I want to be sure to note that God does bless the righteous and God will surround the righteous with favor. That is part of God's character. "God is Love" is also relevant in all ages and is unchanging. But just because God's character doesn't change, doesn't mean his promises and plans and applications do not change. God's love and God's blessings manifest in different ways according to his different plans and purposes. 

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ...

-Ephesians 1:3

This comforting verse has a much different realization than a physical or financial blessing on earth.

This is the generic problem I see: believers in the current age will take the words of Psalm 5 and assume bless and favor mean today what they have always meant. This is a problem that we also encounter when we see believers ripping Jeremiah 29:11 or Ezekiel 36:26 from their contexts. There we are dealing with national promises to a group of people that many want to extract and apply to themselves or to individuals.

While recognizing the plan and purpose in view and differentiating the manifestation of blessings, we do not exclude the idea of blessing itself in all passages. If a specific blessing is part of a future prophecy for the nation of Israel in the land then, yes, we are excluded. Psalm 5:12 is different, however, in that it does have universal principles. We can recognize that while still rightly dividing how the blessing attached is manifested differently in different ages. All three verses in question must still be rightly divided in context.

We are dealing with a national "you" in Jeremiah 29 and Ezekiel 36, so we cannot insert ourselves in there or redefine the blessings as stated.

For I know the plans that I have for you, says the Lord, plans for peace and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

-Jeremiah 29:11

Also, I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.

-Ezekiel 36:26

In Psalm 5, there are principles for individuals. What needs to be rightly divided there is are definitions of words like "bless" and "favor." 

Again, right division of the Word of Truth does not just involve dividing the promises and plans of God, it also involves righty dividing principles and outcomes. Whereas the "new heart" promised in Ezekiel is a future promise for Israel and it change will be known among the nations what God has done for Israel. Part of that promise there is that God "will cause you to dwell in the cities, and the waste places shall be built" (Ezekiel 36:33). As noted above, the pronoun "you" here is not universal. It is specific to Israel as is same pronoun in verse 26 of the chapter (often quoted in evangelistic meetings). These refer to God's plans for the earth.

The righteous in Israel addressed in Psalm 5 includes those of Israel faithful to the Law. Those who were "blameless" regarding its tenets (not sinless, but blameless in sight of the Law which included sacrifices for sin). We must rightly divide the subject (as we have above), but we must also rightly divide the application of descriptive words and definitions.  

The Book of Psalms opens with this sort of righteous living (according to the Law).

Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor stands in the path of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and in His law he meditates day and night. 

He will be like a tree planted by the rivers of water,
that brings forth its fruit in its season;
its leaf will not wither,
and whatever he does will prosper.

-Psalm 1:1-3

Is the promise here true for the believer of this age? Do we meditate on the Law of Moses and thus whatever we do prospers?  Obedience to the letter of the Law in the current age would be disobedience to the call upon Gentiles today. Even in that day, an uncircumcised Gentile could live peacefully among Israel, but he could NOT participate in the Passover. Not observing the Passover meal would not be disobedience for a Gentile. This was not a question of "salvation" (the gift of Life from the curse of death), but connected to blessings in the promised land.

How often did Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph observe the Passover? Never. And Adam and Noah were never circumcised while Abraham was justified while still uncircumcised. The Law distinguished between Israel and the Nations, and it even distinguished among the circumcised and un uncircumcised among the nations.

Observe the month of Aviv and keep the Passover to the Lord your God, for in the month of Aviv the Lord your God brought you [Israel] out of Egypt by night. Therefore, you must sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God, from the flock or the herd, in the place where the Lord shall choose to place His name.

-Deuteronomy 16:1-2

 

So the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner may eat of it. But every man’s servant bought with money, when you have circumcised him, may eat it. A foreigner or a hired servant shall not eat it. In one house shall it be eaten. You shall not carry any of the flesh outside of the house, nor shall you break a bone of it. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. Now when a stranger sojourns with you and keeps the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it. And he shall be as one that is born in the land. However, no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. The same law shall apply to him that is a native and to the stranger who sojourns among you.

-Exodus 12:43-49

Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? We are saying that faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it credited? When he was in circumcision? Or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

-Romans 4:9-10

Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness while Abraham was in a state that would forbid him from obeying the command to observe the Passover (which he never did anyway as he was never a slave in Egypt).

Obedience depends on our definitions and our definitions depend on our calling. We might prosper in our hearts when we meditate on the teachings of Paul in Ephesians. There we are filled with thankfulness for what the Lord accomplished on our behalf on the cross and in his glorious resurrection. We would find none of this in the Law. We would know nothing of the heavenly calling. The focus in this age is not the Law for us gentiles and the hope is not earthly.

We, today, should also avoid the counsel of the ungodly as they were instructed, but we do not meditate upon the Law day and night.

When we expand our look at Psalm 5, we can see truths that clearly cannot be followed directly.

But as for me, in the abundance of Your mercy
I will enter Your house;
in fear of You I will worship
at Your holy temple.

-Psalm 5:7

What men do with verses like this is redefine "Your house" and "Your holy temple" as being some gentile local church today anywhere on earth.  They have no problem redefining certain clear references that need no redefining. They readily turn the very specific temple with its priesthood, separate courts, and holy of holies in either a nebulous concept or a big building in suburban USA as they hold steadfastly to limiting corporate promises like prospering and blessing to the physical.  

This is convenient, but it robs from the original intent and it robs from the prophecies concerning the future temple and Israel's blessings in an age to come when Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 29 come to pass for that nation. The New Covenant itself is specifically give to Israel, the same people that had the Old Covenant. Yet those clear words are dismissed (as well as the future scope of the passage in Jeremiah 31) so men today can spiritualize and claim parts of it for themselves.

A temple and a land, and a nation are immovable objects. When we encounter the idea of mercy, however, we understand that it may manifest today differently.  While "worship" will look differently today, God's "holy temple" is very specific. The temple is the dwelling place of God. Yes, our bodies may be a temple, but if we try to equate the two, the equality falls apart quickly when we read of the Jerusalem temple past and the temple future.

Some additional context in Psalm 5: 

 Declare them guilty, O God;
may they fall by their own counsels;
cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions,
for they have rebelled against You.
 But may all those who seek refuge in You rejoice;
may they ever shout for joy,
because You defend them;
may those who love Your name be joyful in You.

-Psalm 5:10-11 

Again we note the difference between a principle and a direct application. We can pray this principle in the current age. David is singing of his enemies. Those enemies were both of Israel and outside Israel. David could expect to God move physically on his behalf. There is a twofold reason for this. In that age, God intervened directly in the life of Israel on her behalf according to his promises if they obeyed as a nation. We have no conditions or assurances today. God also made individual promises to David. We can claim neither set of promises or conditions for ourselves.

Neither your descendent nor my descendent will sit on the throne of David.

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest. And the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. And of His kingdom there will be no end.

-Luke 1:32-33

 

Blessed is the kingdom of our father David That comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! 

-Mark 11:10

David is the father of Christ and of the Kingdom in Israel. There is no way to insert some Gentile body into those promises and prophecies. Even when Gentiles were grafted into Israel in the Acts age for the state purpose of "making Israel jealous," the gospel of the Kingdom was still "to the Jew first."

As we pull the lens even farther back in scripture, we see that God's earthly blessings involve God's earthly plan and the earthly hope. Adam hoped for a restoration of Paradise on the earth. Israel hoped for all the land promised to Abraham on the earth. Israel looks forward to the new temple and reestablishment of the Kingdom under her Messiah on the earth. Even those who looked for something greater in the "city whose builder and maker is God" (the New Jerusalem) will see that city come down to earth. These speak of future things.

By faith he dwelt in the promised land, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs of the same promise, for he was looking for a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

-Hebrews 11:9-10

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth.” For the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no more sea. I, John, saw the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven, saying, “Look! The tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them. They shall be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God.

-Revelation 21:1-3

Our hope is in the heavenly places. So the blessings we seek are spiritual and not earthly. If I pray from the Psalms, I should not expect "favor" or "blessings" to necessarily arrive in some tangible, physical, financial form as Israel would. 

I would not rob any believer of any part of God's word, but I would assert that if he wants to rightly pray with biblical expectations, he must rightly divide and interpret in context what he is reading and what he is praying.

If, as it seems, those commenting on the video are expecting financial gain and physical healing because of a promise in the Law, the Psalms, the Prophets or even in the earthly ministry of our Lord (which he said was for Israel alone, Matthew 15:24), they are wrongly dividing the Word of Truth.

That is a very different understanding than whether God can bless financially or heal physically or protect experientially. He very much can. It is not sinful to pray to that end. The distinction is in the expectation and the plan in sight. I would never say do not pray for healing or financial rescue. But don't expect that by "claiming" some promise to Israel or David or by thinking you meet the requirements for such blessings in the Law and the Psalms that God is obliged to bless or rescue. There is a very real difference there that must be understood.

The False Choice and Logical Fallacy of a Jew Hater

Will you bow down to the Jewish Zionists and deny Jesus is the Messiah OR will you become a fellow cast-off with Jesus, as this man born blind and healed by Jesus had to do, and be disowned by your own family and friends, and potentially lose everything? 

-Created4Health dot org

The full article in which this quote is pulled is linked above if you desire to read all of it. I pulled out this false conclusion of his to make several points about current antisemitism in the professing "church" and among professed believers (current and past). 

The writer apparently doesn't like Jews. Yes, that's an opinion, but it doesn't take long on his site to determine that's it's not an unfair assessment. But you may draw your won conclusions upon visiting.

First, we must recognize that in the current age, with Israel set aside and all being considered Gentiles for the sake of the revelation of the Mystery, that those promulgating the Jewish rejection of Christ are, in fact, the enemies of Christ. We also note that those pushing Jewish ordinances inside or outside Christendom are also enemies of Paul's revelation. 

But while acknowledging that, we also note very strongly that the plan of God for the earth (covering the vast majority of scripture including the gospel accounts, the Acts, and the epistles of the Acts age) is very much centered on the physical children of Abraham. We have covered that in many other places, so we will leave that there and only point to a couple of foundational verses (out of many) along this line.

Then Jesus said to the [Gentile] woman, “I was sent only to help God’s lost sheep—the people of Israel... “It is not right to take the children’s bread and to throw it to dogs.””

-Matthew 15:24,26b

For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen by race, who are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [priesthood] of God, and the promises, to whom belong the patriarchs, and from whom, according to the flesh, is Christ, who is over all, God forever blessed. Amen.

-Romans 9:3-5

Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers [patriarchs; ancestors].

-Romans 15:8

The Lord was sent to redeem Israel and bring in her kingdom, on earth, centered in Jerusalem. That is what he taught the Apostles after his resurrection (Acts 1:3-6) as the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). We will be starting and building on that foundation.

In the question posed above at Created4Health, we are offered a false dichotomy

It's a false choice in two ways: 

1. he is essentially arguing that all Zionists (anybody who believes God promised a physical land to Abraham and a physical kingdom to David's offspring)  is quote "bow[ing] down to Jewish Zionists." This would include the chosen Apostles of Christ, by the way, including Peter.
2.  he argues that anyone who believes in the land and Kingdom promises (like the Apostles did) is one who denies Jesus is the Christ 

As we shall see, he (as well as Calvin) insult and demeans the very chosen Apostles to the Circumcision. Apostles chosen and commissioned by Christ himself. God did not abandon or condemn Israel in the Acts age and neither did the Apostles.

On the contrary, they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, as the gospel to the circumcised was to Peter. For He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles. When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, understood the grace that was given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

-Galatians 2:7-9

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. For it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

-Romans 1:16

As to his stated argument, I'm not sure how believing God will eventually keep his promises regarding the land, the Kingdom, and the covenants (which are Israel's alone, Romans 9, etc.), the owners being his earthly people (and people are free to believe this interpretation or not), somehow means I am denying Christ is the Messiah? That's a rather harsh charge. It doesn't bother me as it is a false choice and I am fairly confident that God is a God who will keep his promises. 

His argument is self-serving to say the least. It falls into the "have you stopped beating your wife?" category of questions.

I've read the prophets and the New Covenant. I am convinced God will restore the Kingdom in a believing, cleansed Israel in a future age. That is, I believe the prophets are clear.

The writer of the article (and related site owner) must have as low opinion of the scripturally enlightened  (Luke 24:25) and chosen Apostles of the Lord, who were taught for 40 days by the risen Lord about the Kingdom in which they will sit in 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes (Mat 19:28). We noted these passages already. The only way to get around the literal nature of these verses and the natural conclusion of the chosen Apostles of Christ is to accuse these men of ignorance and as did Calvin.

Let's take a rather amazing look at what Calvin wrote about the Apostles:

He showeth that the apostles were gathered together when as this question [about the restoration of the kingdom in Israel] was moved, that we may know that it came not of the foolishness of one or two that it was moved, but it was moved by the common consent of them all; but marvelous is their [the Apostles'] rudeness, that when as they had been diligently instructed by the space of three whole years, they betray no less ignorance than if they had heard never a word. There are as many errors in this question as words. They ask him as concerning a kingdom; but they dream of an earthly kingdom, which should flow with riches, with dainties, with external peace, and with such like good things; and while they assign the present time to the restoring of the same. They desire to triumph before the battle; for before such time as they begin to work they will have their wages. They are also greatly deceived herein, in that they restrain Christ’s kingdom unto the carnal Israel, which was to be spread abroad, even unto the uttermost parts of the world. Furthermore, there is this fault in all their whole question, namely, that they desire to know those things which are not meet for them to know. No doubt they were not ignorant what the prophets did prophesy concerning the restoring of David’s kingdom, they had oftentimes heard their Master preach concerning this matter. Lastly, It was a saying common in every man’s mouth, that, in the most miserable captivity of the people, they should all be comforted, with the expectation of the kingdom that should be. Now, they hoped for the restoring hereof at the coming of the Messias, and hereupon was it that so soon as the apostles saw their Master Christ risen from the dead, they straightway began to think thereupon; but, in the meantime, they declared thereby how bad scholars they were under so good a Master.

-John Calvin (excerpt, Commentary on Acts 1:6), emphasis added

Such blasphemy against the chosen twelve. And if the opening argument from Created4Health is true, the Apostles were thus "denying Jesus is the Messiah." Peter, in Acts 3 will go on to offer "Ye men of Israel" the "restoration of all things" should they repent. No gentiles at Pentecost. No gentile having any gifts of the Spirit at this point (and that means believing gentiles). When a Gentile does receive the "same gifts" as the Jews, the Apostles are "astonished" and then go out and preach "to Jews only." Were they denying the Lord Jesus is the Christ?

And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. [Note: before they were baptized].

-Acts 10:45


And as I [Peter] began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them [Gentiles], as upon us [Jews] at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If therefore God gave them [Gentiles] the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” When they [Jews] heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” Now those [Jews] who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.

-Acts 11:15-19

As Calvin holds the Sermon of the Mount being somehow given to a Gentile "Church," (I do not) and as one who believes in bodiless eternal fiery torment as he did (I do not) his condemnation of the Apostles even more amazing (horrifying). He calls them bad scholars, greatly deceived, rude, ignorant, and foolish. That is, he is ironically calling the chosen Apostle of Christ "fools." 

 And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

-Matthew 5:22 

Calvin in his own words, says of verse in Matthew 5 warning against calling a brother "a fool":

He who shall say to his brother Christ assigns three degrees of condemnation besides the violence of the hands; which implies, that this precept of the law restrains not only the hands, but all affections that are opposed to brotherly love. “Those who shall only be angry with their brethren, or treat them with haughty disdain, or injure them by any reproach, are murderers.” Now, as it is certain that the word Racha occupies an intermediate place between anger and openly reproachful language, I have no doubt that it is an interjection of contempt or disdain. Though Christ adjudges to the hell of fire none but those who break out into open reproach, we must not suppose, that he declares anger to be free from a similar punishment; but, alluding to earthly judgments, he assures them that God will judge and punish even concealed anger.  But, as he who manifests his indignation by bitter language goes farther than this, Christ says, that that man will be held guilty by the whole heavenly council, that he may receive severer punishment.

-John Calvin (excerpt, Commentary on Matthew 5:22), emphasis added

The writer of the article quoted at the start must really not like Paul either. For that matter, he must really really hate the twelve who went to Jews only (Acts 11:19, I've done the math here, Acts 11 comes after Acts 2 and the falling of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost). As noted, I guess he believes he knows better (as Calvin seems to know) what the risen Lord taught the enlightened and chosen Apostles of Christ for 40 days about the restoration of the Kingdom in Israel (Acts 1:3-7) despite not having heard one word! Nothing the Lord taught them alone is recorded for us. How does Calvin or anyone today conclude that the Apostles were wrong in their conclusion? Christ certainly does not correct or chastise them, our Lord merely tells them that they are not to know the timing of the event.

[The Lord Jesus Christ] said to them [the Apostles], “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority."

-Acts 1:7 

As I read it, Calvin and many others not only accuse the Apostles of stupidity, they have to assume that they somehow know what the Lord's teachings about the Kingdom during those 40 days must be. Again, any are free to disagree with my interpretation, but I certainly wouldn't conclude that if you disagree, that means you are somehow denying Jesus is the Christ. But I would say that they are blaspheming the Apostles.

Accusing the Apostles of ignorance concerning teachings that are (a) only for the Apostles for which (b) we have no record and arguing that if we agree with their conclusion we are somehow denying Jesus is the Christ is a terribly self-serving Logical Fallacy and conclusion.

Ironically, the writer accuses the Pharisees of a logical fallacy when they attempted to ignore the Lord's arguments and presented him with a false dichotomy. From the article linked above:

they did what the servants of Satan always do when they cannot win a debate based on merit, and instead resorted to personal attacks against Jesus, and slandered his character. 

His false choice slanders anyone who believes God will someday "restore the Kingdom in Israel" including the Apostles of Christ! 

We do not currently live in the age wherein Israel is to have their kingdom restored (that was put on hold at the end of the Acts age), but if the author and accuser of the Apostles wants to embrace the Book of Romans as for himself and as for this current age, I would offer this bit of advice:

For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root [Israel] is holy, so are the branches [Jews] . 17 And if some of the branches [Jews] were broken off, and you [Gentiles], being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them  [Jews], and with them became a partaker of the root [Israel's promises] and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches [Jews] . But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root  [Israel] , but the root  [Israel]  supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches  [Jews], He may not spare you [Gentiles] either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.  23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you [Gentiles] were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree  [Israel] , how much more will these  [Jews], who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

-Romans 11:16-24

• do not boast against the branches [Jews].
• Do not be haughty [against the branches], but fear.
• Otherwise you also will be cut off.

Anyone is free to interpret that passage anyway he likes. But interpreting it as Gentiles grafted into Israel for the Holy Spirit, scripturally stated purpose "to make Israel jealous" (Romans 10:19, 11:11, 11:14) does not mean I have chosen to deny Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God! 

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

-John 20:30-31

I didn't know hating Jews or denying the hope of their earthly kingdom was a requirement to make that choice. If it were, as Calvin charges, and as "Created4Health" (also "Health Impact News") accuses, the twelve were denying Christ, not true believers, and headed for the fires of [man's traditional] hell.

Such blasphemy!

If the author quoted at the start does somehow believe Israel has a future in the land (and maybe he does), does he believe the mechanism for Israel to be in the land to experience the tribulation and cleansing is stated clearly in scripture? If so, make the argument without concluding that anyone who disagrees with you is thus denying Jesus is the Christ. If he doesn't think Israel has a future, that would be odd. Looking at other article from his site he obviously holds to a future Antichrist.

As I would interpret it, he most likely is participating in Jewish ordinances (Lord's Supper, Baptism) which I believe are in opposition to Paul's revelation for this age. I think I have a biblical argument for that. I believe he is in disobedience to the calling of this age. But I wouldn't create a false choice of either agreeing with me OR you are siding with Satan and denying that The Lord Jesus is the Christ. I wouldn't even deign to judge him as that is the Lord's prerogative.

His false choice is self-serving and contemptable.

Paul's Critics Are Still Our Critics Today

When we look across the vast wasteland that is Christendom, we may ask ourselves how has the faith fallen so far? Of the approximate 2.5 Billion professed "Christians" in the world, the vast majority are sacramentalists (over 60%). And that number (percentage) has grown since 2010 (Pew Research/World Christian Database). 

Many of the rest preach a false gospel based on a mix of law and grace. And even among those who outwardly embrace the doctrines of Grace Alone and Faith Alone and Christ Alone, their hierarchical systems put believers under bondage. Pentecostalism has exploded in numbers over recent history. A system that utterly rejects the revelation of Paul in Ephesians. Though not alone in that (as most what we call denominations reject Paul), their embrace of the teachings to Israel in the Lord's ministry and in the Acts cements their rejection. 

The false teaching that the New Covenant is somehow the gospel of Ephesians is destructive to our calling today. It has mixed law and grace and confused God's plans for Israel, the Kingdom, the earth, and his plan for blessings in the far above the heavens. We have covered that covenant elsewhere.

Let's turn to root cause of the confusion and the embracing of this man-centered, earth-centered religion. 

Paul and his revelation of the Mystery age were rejected in the first century. Believers abandoned his teachings (he’s still hated today) and some believers even sought to make his bonds even harder.

You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me.

-2 Timothy 1:15

Second Timothy was Paul’s lase epistle.

Some [believers] indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of partisanship, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment.

-Phil 1:15-17

 

One can be a believer, have the hope and free gift of resurrection by grace through faith, and still be an enemy of the current calling and even be an enemy of the cross of Christ. Certainly many are the enemies of Paul and his revelation.

Christ was still preached while Paul was in prison (for which he gives thanks), but many who preached sought to silence and diminish Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, the one to whom alone the revelation of the unsearchable riches in heavenly places was revealed. A revelation unknown to the Moses, the Prophets, or the sons of men.

Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those [believers] who so live as you have an example in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction [Greek: apṓleia, waste, loss], their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

-Phil 3:17-19

You may have heard of the administration of the grace of God which was given me for you, how by revelation He made known to me the mystery, as I have written briefly already, by which, when you read it, you may understand my knowledge of the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed

-Ephesians 3:2-5a

 

Paul’s message of blessings in the far above the heavens was abandoned for ordinances, hierarchy, and ritual. So, while Christ is still preached by some, they have turned their eyes and their listeners’ (congregations’, seminaries’, denominations’, etc.) eyes and minds away from Paul’s doctrine of blessings “in the heavenly places.”

We are to consider ourselves dead to earthly hopes and ordinances.

If you have died with Christ to the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are you imposed upon with ordinances (Greek: dogmatízō, subjected to ceremonial rules imposed on you)?

-Col 2:20

We are to hold fast to the Head and not be subject to men. As I often note, one of the curses on the faith is the clergy/laity system. And from that, the system of Jewish ordinances and earthly rituals.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh [Gentiles], He has resurrected together with Him, having forgiven you all sins. He blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us and contrary to us, and He took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.

-Col 2:13-14

 

And because the ordinances of Israel and the earthly calling were taken away as a source of separation of Gentiles (even believing Gentiles) Don’t let yourself be judged by the ordinances of the earth.

Therefore let no one judge you regarding food, or drink, or in respect of a holy day or new moon or sabbath days. These are shadows of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

-Col 3:16-17

Colossians 2 and 3 should be read closely and in full. We just note these few passages here and point  the reader to his own responsibility to "compare the things that differ" in Paul's epistles between his Acts Age epistles and his Post-Acts epistles. We must all individually "study to show [ourselves] approved of God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth." 

Did Paul Keep the Law in the Acts Age? He Sure Did. But Not After

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

-1 Corinthians 9:20-21 (NIV)

to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law [?], that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without aw toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law.

-1 Corinthians 9:20-21 (NKJV)

The NIV and other dynamic equivalency translations from the minority texts have inserted the idea that Paul was not under the law. Well, he was never under the law for justification as to that end, the law can only condemn. A very clear point Paul makes in regard to the doctrine of justification is that justification (resurrection life through his name) is by faith alone. Abraham was declared righteous before he was circumcised (and centuries before anyone heard of the law or Moses or the Sinai Covenant).

Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.

-Romans 4:9-10 (NKJV, based on the Masoretic Text)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

-Romans 3:28 (NKJV)

So, back to our opening verses from 1 Corinthians 9, did Paul keep the law even though we have established it was never for justification for resurrection life? We note here the judgments pictured in the parables during the Lord's earthly ministry (to Israel alone, Matthew 15:24, etc.) and in The Revelation which distinguished between "good/bad" or "profitable/unprofitable" "servants" and "wise/unwise" "virgins," etc. 

As with the casting into the outer darkness spoken by Lord first in Matthew 8:10-12, these judgments are for "the sons of the Kingdom." There. the sons are juxtaposed with "Gentiles." In other words, these are judgments that concern Israel and the earthly hope and Kingdom and New Jerusalem blessings. Things that are achieved. The free gift of resurrection life ("life in his name" John 20:31, by grace faith alone) is never achieved. It is granted to all who have been reconciled to God by faith (as he has already been reconciled to men through Christ alone, 2 Cor 5:16-21).

Paul surely did keep the law, however, as did the Jewish believers in the Acts age. Paul still taught circumcision for Jews too. What he didn’t do was put Gentiles under a Law they never had (apart from the laws in Leviticus for gentiles living among the Jews in Israel, Acts 15, Acts 21). That’s why he warned Gentiles not to get circumcised. We do not make these distinctions today. 

Now then, why test God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the [Gentile] disciples, which neither our [Jewish] fathers nor we [Jews] have been able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we [Jews] shall be saved, even as they [Gentiles].”

-Acts 15:10 

Would we teach today that if any believer is circumcised he is obligated to keep the whole law?

 

Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. I testify again to every man who is circumcised that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You have been cut off from Christ, whoever of you are justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

-Galatians 5:2-4

We have the clarification from the Apostles that the newly grafted in Gentiles would not be put under the entirety of the Law (which was never given to Gentiles anyway), yet we will see that these believing Gentiles were rather grafted in for the expressed purpose to make real, live, living Israel "jealous" (Romans 10:19; 11:11) that they might be converted.  

Let us look at how the chosen, enlightened, Holy Spirit filled and approved Apostles handled the question of the Law in the Acts.

 

To the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

Since we have heard that some of us [Jews], whom we did not commission, have gone out and have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law,” it seemed good to us, being assembled in unity, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who will also speak to you, saying the same things. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to put on you [Gentiles] no greater burden than these necessary things: Abstain from food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from strangled animals, and from blood. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

-Acts 15:23-29


For freedom Christ freed us. Stand fast therefore and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you [Gentiles] become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. I testify again to every man who is circumcised that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You have been cut off from Christ, whoever of you are justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we, through the Spirit, by faith, eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith which works through love.

-Galatian 5:1-6


For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves

-Romans 2:14


When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the next day Paul went with us to James, and all the elders were present. He greeted them and recounted one by one what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they heard this, they glorified the Lord. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they [Jews] are all zealous for the law. They have been informed concerning you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to observe the customs. What then shall be done? The assembly will certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow. Take these men and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may have their heads shaved. Then all will know that what they were told concerning you is nothing, but that you yourself live in observance of the law. As for the Gentiles who believe, we have written and concluded [conversely to the instructions for Jewish believers]  that they should observe no such thing, except that they abstain from food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from strangled animals, and from blood.”

-Acts 21:17-25

Paul, in the Acts, kept the Law (but never for redemption or reconciliation with God) and taught Jews to circumcise. He gave no such burden to Gentiles who never had the Law. There was a rumor that Paul “[taught] all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to observe the customs.” This was a lie and James and Paul disputed it. “Then all will know that what they were told concerning you is nothing, but that you yourself live in observance of the law.”

The apostles contrasted the burden of the Law on Jewish believers in the Acts (again, never for justification, but for a position in the Kingdom) with the burden placed on Gentiles (drawn from the Laws for Gentiles living among, but not numbered with, Israel). 

• Gentiles were never given the Law.
• We do not make these distinctions in the current (Post Acts) age.

I hear lots of things about what people think Ultra-dispensationalism teaches, but in the most simple terms in couplets:

• There is a plan for the earth centered around the covenants and promises and Kingdom in Israel

• There is a plan for unsearchable riches in the far above the heavens where Christ sits at the right hand of the Father.

---

• The earthly plan was known by Moses and Prophets (which is all Christ taught and all Paul taught in the Acts as he testified) and was revealed since the ages began. Paul being in chains for “the hope of Israel” going always to the Jew first and the 12 waiting for “the restoration of the Kingdom in Israel.” Peter offering the restoration to Israel if she repents.

• The heavenly plan was hidden from before the ages began and revealed only to Paul (unknown to the sons of men before). It has no ordinances, Sabbaths, or dietary restrictions (as both Jews and Gentiles had in the Acts); Paul in chains “for you Gentiles.”

---

• The middle wall of separation was up in the Acts (very clearly up in the gospels), Jews and Gentiles with different sets of instructions, the Jew still first, Gentiles only warned they could be “cut off” from the blessings of Israel; Gentiles warned not to boast against Israel.

• Middle wall comes down. The calling changed. No more distinctions.

---

• Abraham is prominent in the gospels, Acts, and Acts epistles.

• Abraham disappears post Acts as his blessings have to do with the earth.

---

• The “Parousia” is the hope of the gospel and Acts (the presence of the King)

• The “Parousia” disappears post Acts and the hope becomes the bright appearing.

---

• Instructions for marriage change in light of the change of expectation. The tribulation and Kingdom were “near” and “at hand” in the gospels and Acts so young women instructed best to NOT marry and NOT bear children. The “time [was] short.”

• Post Acts, young women and widows instructed they should marry and bear children as the expectation changed.

---

These couplets are obviously not exhaustive, simply differences for your consideration.

• Why Every True Believer is a Dispensationalist
• Re-introduction to Dispensationalism

• Law-Keepers, the Enemy Within
• The Law, Conscience, Sin, and Salvation
• Why Not Get Circumcised? It's a Bible Law!
• Why Was Timothy Circumcised in Acts 16

Another Look at the Wedding Guests in Matthew 22 and the Earthly Plan

In a previous study we looked at the wedding guests in the Matthew 22 parable (often titled "Parable or the Wedding Feast" and similar). The “wedding” involves Israel. The Bride is connected to Israel and the earth (New Jerusalem, the restoration of the unfaithful wife, the regathering of the Ammi, etc.). Let's revisit and consider a few things in light of the differences between gentile inclusion in an earthly hope context and in a heavenly hope context (as we have in the current age).

In the earthly hope, reflected in the churches of the Acts age, you have local bodies of believers spoken of in the picture of "eyes" and "ears," etc. These local bodies were made up of Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor 12:16-17). The ONE Body of the current age as revealed in Ephesians (Post Acts) has Christ alone as its head and is male in character (Eph 4:14-16). 

The middle wall of partition (or "separation," Eph 2:14) between Jew and Gentile is now down (and not before; see Acts 15, 21, Romans, etc.). The prophetic scenario (revealed by “Moses and the Prophets”) concerns God’s plans for the earth. 

Since Adam, the restoration of the earth was the hope; through Abraham the land and the Kingdom (through the Son of David). The current plan and hope is not earthly, it is heavenly.

In short, the guests at the wedding are Gentiles, but not Gentiles of the current age (Matthew did not see that which was revealed to Paul alone, Eph 3). These Gentiles were NOT invited to the wedding, but grafted into blessings “to make Israel jealous” (as Romans clearly states). Those gentiles, invited last, after Israel had been invited, are NOT the Bride, but merely guests.

Even among Israel, there are things to be earned by faith and faithfulness. Not all Israel is the Bride (pictured as the New Jerusalem in the Revelation as a reward). Some of Israel qualified as the Bride (rewarded "the city whose builder and make is God") and some as guests. 

By faith [Abraham] dwelt in the promised land, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs of the same promise, for he was looking for a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

-Hebrews 11:9-10 

We note again, The New Jerusalem (“adorned as a Bride for her Bridegroom”) is a reward that comes down from heaven to earth. The city has the names of the twelve tribes and the twelve Apostles to the Circumcision. Not Paul’s name. 

Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west. Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

-Revelation 21:12-14

The Lord brings his reward with him to earth when he returns in the clouds. Those storing up treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:19-20) do not necessarily get their reward in heaven.

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work..." 

-Revelation 22:12

As for that very literal return:

“Men of Galilee, why stand looking toward heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you to heaven, will come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” 

-Acts 1:11

He did not ascend "spiritually" and his return will be be "spiritual," but very literal.

Matthew is the Gospel of the King, John is the gospel of God. We have compare and contrast those two previously. You can refrence the post on the Parable of the Wedding feast linked above or consider this post. 

The heavenly hope is very limited. ALL believers are part of God’s Kingdom, but there is a specific Kingdom that is earthly, ours is heavenly. The “restoration of the Kingdom in Israel” (Acts 1:6) is a very real, earthly Kingdom, fulfilling many promises and the New Covenant (which is for Israel). 

We are not teaching "two kingdoms" here. Rather, there is the greater Kingdom of God (ruling over even principalities in the heavenly places) and the specific earthly Kingdom established in the promised land. This has been true since David sat on the throne in the united Kingdom. We would not call that period a "two kingdoms" doctrine. God was, is, and ever shall be King, yet he chose the line of David as the Kings in a kingdom within his kingdom.

What did the Lord mean when he spoke of the Kingdom being "within" his listeners?

When the Lord Jesus was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

-Luke 17:20-21

The KJV lets us down here. The idea here is that the Kingdom was in their midst. There are a number of translations that use this language. The New KJV reflects the KJV, but it notes the wording "in your midst" as a proper rendering. Conversely, the NRSVA (quoted below) uses "is among you" while noting it can also be "within you." 

Nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (English Standard Version)


Nor will they say, “Look, here it is!” or “There it is!” For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.’ (New Revised Standard Version, Anglicized)


People won’t say ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘Look, over there!’ No: God’s kingdom is within your grasp.” (New Testament for Everyone)

The Greek word suggests both. The King was there, he was among them. The Kingdom was offered to Israel in the Lord’s earthly ministry, rejected, then offered again in the Acts (particularly in Acts 3, and cp Romans 9-11, etc.). The idea of the Kingdom being "within you" suggesting the Kingdom is purely spiritual does not hold up against the rest of the witness of scripture. In my opinion, it doesn't hold up in the least. 

The coming of the Son of David, the King, to sit in the throne in an earthly kingdom was prophesied, but it had to all come to fruition. The Kingdom of heaven was indeed at-hand when the Lord walked in Israel.

We note again the commission of the twelve in Matthew 10. When they are sent to preach the Kingdom to Jews only, this is the message:

And as ye go [to Israel only], preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Back in Luke, when the Lord speaks of the budding of the fig tree, he tells them:

So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

We could quote other verses along this line, but these will suffice.

The Greek word is used of a number of things including the Passover being “at hand” or “near” in time. Paul says in Romans that “the day” is “at hand” (Romans 13:12). Salvation from sin was near? No, the prophesied “Day” was near. That is "the Day of the Lord" (rendered "the Lord's Day" in the Revelation). 

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light.

This is why (as previously noted in other studies) Paul instructs young women its better they NOT marry and NOT bear children in that age. Not some local (hence meaningless outside the area) teaching, but because, specifically in 1 Cor 7 (during the Acts) because the age was "passing away":

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this [age] passes away.

The Lord echoed this back in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24. He speaks of very real people, in very real places, seeing very real prophesied events. These are not "spiritual" places and things and activities. These are not generic conditions since the Lord's first coming. They speak of a literal tribulation coming to Israel. And when that day arrives, "woe to those who are with child." Hence, Paul instructs young women that is better to NOT bear children.

“So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. Let him who is in the field not return to take his clothes. Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse in those days! Pray that your escape will not be in the winter or on the Sabbath. For then will be great tribulation, such as has not happened since the beginning of the [ages] until now, no, nor ever shall be.

Won’t go through all of Matthew 24 & 25, but we have a very real return seen there.

Post Acts (the current age where this no distinction and the time is not “at hand”), Paul gives very different instructions.

Therefore I desire that the younger women marry, bear children, manage the house, and give no occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

-1 Timothy 5:14

Just a small, but very clear, practical difference.

Paul speaks of the last days in his last epistle (2 Tim). We must compare and contrast those with the last days in the Matthew 24 and the Acts. What I can tell from the warnings there and in Philippians (as seen in the case of Demas who abandoned Paul, 2 Tim 4:10), the religious persecution of the last day’s will come from fellow believers who will abandon Paul's revelation in Ephesians.

having a form of godliness, but denying its power

 

Brothers, become fellow imitators with me and observe those [believers] who walk according to our example. For many [other believers] are walking in such a way that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ. I have told you of them often and tell you again, even weeping. Their destination is destruction, their god is their appetite, their glory is in their shame, their minds are set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, from where also we await for our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our body of humiliation, so that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working of His power even to subdue all things to Himself.

• OK for the Apostles to look for the restoration of the Kingdom in Israel on earth
• Not OK today to look for any kind of earthly blessings or hope or earthly kingdom

Many will depart from Paul’s apostleship to the Gentiles, his teaching of unsearchable riches in the heavenly places (Ephesians), his warnings about earthly ordinances, and they will instead look to the earth for their blessings and hope.

Demas fell in love with this present world and has deserted me

If you then were raised with Christ, desire those things which are above, where Christ sits at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on earth. For you are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life shall appear, then you also shall appear [phaneróō ] with Him in glory.

phaneróō - the brightness, manifestation of his coming in the epiphenea, not in the parousia of the King to his Kingdom. The Greek parousia of the King disappears as a hope after Acts. It cannot be found in the Post Acts epistles.

Therefore let no one judge you regarding food, or drink, or in respect of a holy day [feast day] or new moon or sabbath days. These are shadows of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

-Colossians 2:16 

"Things to come" in a future kingdom, in a future age. All the things concerning that earthly hope were revealed to Moses and the Prophets. In the Acts, Paul testified that he preached only what was in Moses and the Prophets (Acts 26:22). He witnessed to Israel only what was in Moses and the Prophets. What was revealed to Paul was not known before.

when you read it, you may understand my knowledge of the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, and fellow members, and partakers of the promise in Christ by the gospel. Of this I [Paul] was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the incomprehensible [unsearchable] riches of Christ, and to reveal for all people what is the fellowship [dispensation] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God, who created all things through Jesus Christ.

We are to follow Paul as he follows Christ. Always true for Gentiles (during and after the Acts age), now true for all in the current age.

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 

-1 Corinthians 11:1

The Purpose of Parables