So Many Professed Believers Hate Jews Based on Prejudice and Wrong Division

The believer (or professed believer) who shows animosity and hatred towards the Jew quote us:

“[Jews] Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:”

-1 Thessalonians 2:15

Those, in my experience, who cast aspersions on the Jewish people, would never refer to Israel or the Jews and "brethren" or as God's "children." Yet this is how they are referred to in the Gospels and Acts Age. They will God's priests in an age to come (spoiler: believers today are not priests).

Peter and Paul called the Jews "brethren." The Lord referred to Jews as "children" and, by contrast, he called Gentiles "dogs" (including believing Gentiles). When a Gentile approached him as "Son of David" in Matthew 15, he told her he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. He would not even heed her request. She had no right, as a Gentile, to refer to Him as "Son of David." Only when she comes to him only as her "Lord" does he listen. For is Lord of the Gentiles too. But in listening to her request, he reminds her the children come first.

And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

  -Matthew 15:22-28 

This is not the Lord lying to make some point for today's church (as we know it). We do not level such a charge to the Lord. It is a metaphorical comparative, but a very real one. As the Lord says in John, salvation is of the Jew. As Paul wrote, the gospel is to the Jew first. We must understand these dispensationally, but tin Matthew 15, we take the Lord at his word.

In his Acts age epistle, James writes "to the twelve tribes." Peter writes "to the dispersion" of the Jews. As noted, Paul wrote that the gospel was "to the Jew first." Paul even warned gentile believers not to become haughty against Israel lest they be "cut off" (Romans 11). Paul wrote that the promises and covenants (both) belong to Israel (Romans 9). You cannot read "the church" into that passage. It would make no sense as Israel is juxtaposed against believers there.

 In the Acts age, Gentile believers were grafted into Israel's promises and could be cut off from Israel's promises. Gentiles never became Israel. The Body is not Israel.

"For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to ISRAEL until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so ALL ISRAEL will be saved."

"you [Gentiles], being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them [Israel], and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 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 [Gentiles]."

You cannot read these with Israel meaning believers. Blindness in part had come upon "the church" until the fullness of the Gentiles come in, then all the church will be saved? Gentiles were grafted into the church and can be cut off from the church?

This is all after the cross, the resurrection, and after Pentecost.

There was still an Israel in the Acts age, there will again be an Israel in an age to come.

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."

-Romans 9 

Jew-haters of our day would never call Jews their "brethren" and they believe themselves to be Israelites.

Paul near the end of the Acts age:

And it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews together. So when they had come together, he said to them: “Men and BRETHREN, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans, who, when they had examined me, wanted to let me go, because there was no cause for putting me to death. But when the Jews spoke against it, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar, not that I had anything of which to accuse my nation. For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of ISRAEL I am bound with this chain.”

The risen Lord taught his enlightened disciples for 40 days "things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" and they had one question: "will you, at this time, restore the Kingdom to Israel?" They are promised to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel in the coming kingdom (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:20). Jews are The Lord's brethren.

No, the Israel in the land today is not there in faith. That is why a day is coming when God will sift her. But to hate them and call for their annihilation is foolish. And from a practical sense, it's a game of "eat me last." There is a plan for the earth and God will fulfill it through that nation, cleansed and believing.

Paul's statement in 1 Thessalonian 2:15 changes nothing in regard to the witness of scripture in regard to God's plan for the earth and his plans for the Kingdom restored in Israel and the twelve tribes. The Jews were (are) an enemy of the gospel, but the Lord grafted in Gentiles to ISRAEL, SPECIFICALLY "to make them [Israel] jealous" (cf. Romans 10:19, 11:11, 11:14)  because, as Peter preached, the Lord could not return UNTIL ISRAEL repents (Acts 3). Did Peter mean the church must repent and accept the Lord? Did Paul mean Gentiles were grafted into the church to make the church jealous? And why could only GENTILES be "cut off" from Israel ("the church")?

Romans 9, quoted above, states that the promises and covenants and prophecies all belong to Israel. When the Lord returns, he will judge Gentiles (Greek: ethnos) as to how they treated "the least of these my brethren" (Matthew 25) which refers to Jews by contrast. The Lord =, in his earthly ministry, FORBADE the gospel of the Kingdom to be preached to Gentiles (Matthew 10). We must distiguished God's gospel and plans for the earth, in the Kingdom in the land, and his plans for the far above the heavens.

We do not preach "the gospel of the Kingdom." That gospel was for Israel alone (Matthew 10). The Lord was sent to Israel alone and the Kingdom Gospel is for Israel alone. It was forbidden to be preached to Gentiles. It had no cross, no resurrection. It is not preached today. We preach a heavenly hope. What Peter and Paul preached in the Acts age was Israel's earthly hope (see Acts 3, 15, 21, 22, 26, 28, etc.). You cannot make this the hope of "the church" (as men define it).

Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.
-Revelation 3:9

This verse in the Revelation is trotted out by the Jew-haters as an accusation against Israel and Jews today. We first must note that the Revelation is for Israel in a coming age. But let's look at how they want to use it today. 

The "synagogue of Satan" is a description of "those who say they are Jews and are not." Why, then, does the Lord care if being a Jew is meaningless? If Jews are cursed and God is done with them, why would anyone call himself a Jew? But you know who does call themselves Jews and are not? The Replacement churches. The Greek OC call themselves "New Israel." The Catholic Church and the Reformed have claimed Israel's covenants. They say they are Jews and are not.

How can one argue that "Jews" are cursed, but the same "call themselves Jews and are not?" 

Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
-Matthew 10:5-7

He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
-Matthew 15:24

They were lost, but they were still those of the House of Israel. But the argument from the Replacement theologian is that this somehow transferred to a Gentile church after the cross (or after Pentecost).

How can they ignore the context of the commission in Acts 1? The Lord taught the future judges of the twelve tribes in the Kingdom for 40 days about the restoration of the Earthly kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:3-6). That is the message they were sent with. Were they stupid? 40 days being taught about the Kingdom and they didn't get it, but you do? Was the Lord making false promises? First concerning their future as judges over the twelve tribes in the kingdom and, second, the fact that a kingdom would be "restored" to Israel?

Peter preaches that restoration to his "brethren" the "men of Israel" (not the church) after Pentecost (a Jew-only event) in Acts 3. The Kingdom is God's plan for the earth, centered in Israel. When they believe, they will have their kingdom, they will have all the land from the Euphrates to the Nile (Gen 15:18). We need to distinguish the difference between God's plans for the earth as spoken by the prophets and God's plan for the far above the heavens, not revealed to the prophets (Ephesians 3). If we fail to see the differences in the hopes of scripture, will will never see the truth and we will never experience the fullness of "the unsearchable riches of Christ." 

Believers who do not step into these blessings from above, blessings hidden from the prophets, find themselves concerned with earthly matters. They seek ordinances and the law. They seek an earthly and a heavenly kingdom and by doing so deny both. 

In the Acts, Paul ministry was "to the Jew first" (was that the church?). In EVERY city, he went to the Jew first "as was his manner." Why? Do you do that, dear reader? Paul spoke NOTHING that was not spoken by Moses and the Prophets. NOTHING (Acts 26:22). He said he was in chains for "the hope of Israel" in the Acts. All the way until Acts 28. Is that our message for this current age?

"For this reason I have called for you [Jews of Rome], to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain" 

-Acts 28:20

These were "Jews" late in the Book of Acts. They looked for "the hope of Israel." These are not believers looking for, looking for, looking for what, exactly? Were these false Jews looking for the church in Moses and the Prophets?

Peter and Paul witnessed to truth revealed FROM/SINCE "the foundation of the world [ages]" regarding God's plans for the EARTH. In Ephesians 3 Paul reveals a hope unknown to the prophets and revealed to him, a hope hidden from BEFORE the foundation. This is a different hope. It is a hope dealing with the far above the heavens where Christ sits. That's what we preach today.

Paul was in chains "for the hope of Israel" in the Acts age. Post Acts, he was in chains "for the hope of you Gentiles." When the times of the Gentiles is complete, God will turn again to Israel. She will go through a terrible time, but a remnant of believers will be rescued and the Kingdom restored to Israel

For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, [to whom] Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. 

-Romans 9:3-5

Paul knew the promises and covenants (earthly) are for Israel. Paul knew who the Jews were. Peter the same. They didn't spit on them and wish them dead as some do today in the name of Christ. Truly, in the current age, some are the enemies of the gospel, but we leave that with God.

If we believe the "church" today is Israel, try reading the church into every reference to Israel in the Acts and the Acts epistles. Acts 3, 26, 28; Rom 9, 11 just for starters. Do you believe the twelve tribes and the Dispersion are also the church in the epistles? 

James writes, "when you come into the synagogue" when he writes to the twelve tribes. The KJV translators translated the Greek "synagōgḗ" as "synagogue" 54x out of 56. They use "assembly" in James because they wanted to un-Jew it, but it's a very Jewish book. They lied to us. They did not do it on purpose, however their prejudiced theology caused them to steer us away from the truth revealed in James.  


A special word to those who believe they are safe from jihad, because (as I was told) "Muslims teach Christians are also 'people of the book'."


Tell that to the Armenian Christians.


In Islam, "People of the Book" also refers to Jews. How's that working out for them?

‘Ahl al-Kitab‘ means those who possess the scripture or the divine book. The term, along with another term outou al-kitab ‘those who were given the Book’, occurs more than 50 times in the Qur’an. Both expressions denote the JEWS, believers of the Torah, and the Christians, believers of the Gospel. (See al-Baqarah 2: 113; Al-Imran 3: 64-65).

-Bashar Bakkour (Syrian researcher in Islamic Studies)

Don't let your hatred of Jews cloud God's plans for the ages.

 

The Rich Man and Lazarus (Soul Part 2)

 Is the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus literal? 

The problem with this position is that the story is given to Pharisees. An even greater problem is that it knows nothing of faith or the cross or of God. Salvation in the story is by poverty.

One day the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torment in Hades, he looked up and saw Abraham a long way off, with Lazarus at his side.

“‘Son,’ Abraham said, ‘remember that during your life you received your good things, just as Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here, while you are in agony.

Salvation by Poverty?

The other glaring problem is "Abraham's Bosom." How could Adam, Abel, Noah, or even Abraham himself go to Abraham's Bosom? Imagine Abel. He dies and is in a conscious state somewhere that nobody told him about. Cain dies and Abel suddenly sees him being tortured by God by fire? God never warned that. The hope of Adam was deliverance from death not bodiless bliss. If that's the case, rejoice at a child's death.

What God very specifically said to Adam was

• You shall surely die
• For you are dust, and you will return to dust

That is the curse. The Lord calls death "the last enemy" because it was the first enemy. Death was conquered and will one day be no more. There is no hint of a fiery torture chamber wherein God metes out unending pain. The Pharisees called it "Abraham's Bosom" because they were "the children of Abraham." They make no explanation of Adam, Abel, Noah, etc. as they placed their fate on being the children of Abraham. Another contradiction to their doctrine of chambers.

Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

"We shall not all sleep." Who cares if death means eternal bliss?

What was the punishment for not taking the Lord's Supper "worthily?" Death, which is referred to as sleep in 1 Cor 11:29-30. Now, what kind of punishment is "eternal bliss in the presence of God?" if that is what death is?  It would be a stupid warning. (BONUS! This does not happen today, that age has closed. Unless you know "many" dead from not taking the Lord's Supper correctly).

For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and MANY sleep.

The doctrine of God torturing most of his creation with merciless fire is an abominable heresy. It means that anyone you know who dies outside the Lord is now being tortured by the Lord without end, without mercy. Not only that, you should rejoice that this is the case. It is pure justice, right? It is God's righteousness, correct? There is no mercy we can have. God has none for them, why should we?////

When an unbeliever dies, no matter anything else, those who hold to eternal fiery torment by God should rejoice and praise God that the deceased is being tortured by God, without hope. That is the conclusion RC Sproul had to come to. It's horrifying and an indictment of God's character. But to be consistent, he had to say we should rejoice in seeing billions in God's torture chamber. 

Further, if you feel any sympathy for the deceased, it is sin. It is a condemnation of God's justice (in that paradigm). The "obedient" believer, to have the mind of God, must rejoice in God's justice, without mercy.

Luke 16 is not an affirmation of a never-mentioned torture chamber, it is a condemnation of a hypocritical Pharisaical doctrine. They preached to the people that poverty was good for them (they themselves being rich). The Lord was not revealing truth to the Pharisees, he was exposing their hypocrisy.

The Lord references that hades will not prevail in Matt 16. That is simply the state of death. The context of Matthew 16 is the profession of faith made by Peter, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”. The grave will not hold in (prevail) against such a profession. Gates do not attack anything. 

The Lord is partly quoting Isaiah 38:10 ("gates of Sheol/Hades"), words spoken by good king Hezekiah. He was facing death. He was anticipating being in a state of death in Sheol/Hades. He wasn't rejoicing over it! Professed Christians today have parties when someone dies because he/she is supposedly in bliss beyond our comprehension. So, isn't mourning them an act of selfishness and even stupidity? 

If my mother was whisked off to the Italian Riviera, with only bliss and happiness and perfect health waiting for her and the only condition is that she couldn't talk with me until I arrived some years later, would I weep in despair? Would I wish her back? 

Why do men suppose the Gates of Hades in either context is a place of Satanic warfare? Men teach that Satan has some sort of HQ in Hades whence he attacks us. Mythological nonsense. But it's the same mythology behind the idea of God-run torture chamber.

What would the Gates of Hades mean in a two-chamber construct? Is it the good side or the bad side that won't prevail? The bad side is just people being "justly" tortured by God. The good side is awesomeness and comfort. The resurrection becomes a footnote. What's going to not prevail and over what?

The Lord concludes his scathing indictment of the Pharisees by saying they would not believe "even if one rose from the dead." The resurrection is the conquering of death, not someplace called "Abraham's Bosom." And there is no teaching in the Acts or Epistles of some chamber of hell being brought to heaven. To date, there has been  only one resurrection. Some have come back from the dead, but not into immortal bodies. The resurrection is yet future (1 Cor 15).

I won't lay it out again, but if the Lord was in some bodiless state in Abraham's Bosom, he is now, at least, a dual being. Adding in the "spirit" going back to the Father, he becomes triune on his own. That makes the Trinity now a 5-part God. No. The Lord was in the heart of the earth as he said he would be. Period.

Death is like sleep. This is clear in both the OT and NT. The resurrection isn't an asterisk on a reward. It is not a non-event of little significance. It is the undoing of the curse. It is everything.

For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

-Ecclesiastes 9:4-5 

What is a Soul?

 It's important to revisit some of these basic doctrines. If one does not rightly divide these foundational concepts and truths, much confusion will ensue and terrible error can creep in unaware. One of the most important foundational pillars is the idea of the soul. 

Of course, the soul is an important biblical truth. But it must be understood through the witness of scripture and not through the lens of commonly held beliefs or mythologies. 

Soul is who you are, not what you have. You are not a triune being (and neither is the Lord Jesus).

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath [Hebrew: nᵉshâmâh, English: spirit] of life; and man (Adam) became a living soul" 

-Gen 2:7

Adam was made from dust (as we are, indirectly in Adam, and to which we return in death bc of the curse of Adam on all of us "in Adam all die"). When Adam was made, he was a soul, but not a "living soul." When "spirit" was put in him, he BECAME a LIVING soul.

When the Lord was on the tree, he breathed his last and gave up the spirit (the breath of life) and died.

And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’ ” Having said this, He breathed His last. 

-Luke 23:46

We are told the Lord's "soul" was in "hades" (Acts 2:31) That is, who he was was in a state of death known to God. He told us "the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt 12:40). The Lord was not simultaneously in heaven where he gave up the Spirit, and in a place called Hades where his soul was, and also in the heart of the earth. His body was in the tomb (the earth) and who he is was in a state of death (hades).

The tomb and Hades are conquered by resurrection. In resurrection the spirit (breath of life) returns to the body. That is our hope. Paul mentions Hades one time, and it is context of believers and resurrection (rescue from the state of death).

So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality [in resurrection], then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades [grave, state of the dead], where is your victory?” - 

1 Cor 15:54-55

We await resurrection from the state of death. Our immortal and incorruptible life is hidden in Christ to be revealed in resurrection. We "groan" not to be naked, but to be clothed in resurrection (2 Cor 5:1-10, 2 Cor 4:7-14)

For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 

-Col 3:3

You ARE a soul. Each person IS a soul. Scripture proclaims, a soul can die. The one who sins is the soul who sins. It is not an entity, it is the person.

• The soul who sins shall die. (Ezek 18:4)
• The person who sins is the one who will die. [HCSB]

The gospel saves souls/people from death and destruction (not bodiless torture by God).

let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death [thánatos, same word Paul uses in 1 Cor 15:55] and cover a multitude of sins. 

-James 5:20

We are all living "souls." We die because we have sinned. We are rescued from death and Hades in resurrection. We then become (are made) immortal souls.

Next time we'll look at "Abraham's Bosom" from the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16.

God's Mercy is the Undoing of Death in Resurrection for All Who Believe in Any Age

Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him,
On those who hope in His mercy,
To deliver their soul from death,
And to keep them alive in famine.

Our soul waits for the Lord;
He is our help and our shield.
For our heart shall rejoice in Him,
Because we have trusted in His holy name.
Let Your mercy, O Lord, be upon us,
Just as we hope in You. 

-Psalm 33:18-22

When we seek to glean truth from God's word, we have to mine on several levels. But no matter the level, if we do not seek to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" (2 Tim 2:15) we will miss truth on the one hand or we may slip into confusion and doubt on the other.

No matter how often I try to get away from speaking about the plague of "heaven/hell" and "saved/lost" theology (reading every book, chapter, and verse through those false dichotomies) which permeates the professing church, I am almost daily confronted with these errors flowing out of Evangelical Christianity (the only cohort with whom I am concerned). 

As I have covered the larger topic here and elsewhere (podcasts posted below), I want to examine Psalm 33 in light of these errors and in light of right division. When we interpret scripture, we seek to be consistent. Consistent to audience and hope. That is, to whom is it speaking (directly) and what hope is before them. 

• Is it an individual or a group? 
• Are they of the nation or outside he nation?
• Is God dealing with a nation or all of mankind in the age?
• Is the hope before us earthly or heavenly?

In Psalm 33, we have the writer addressing God as Creator

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth

God, as Creator, focuses us clearly on the seen heavens and earth (Gen 1:1). In the fist two millenia of the story of man, there is no promise of a "nation" or a "land." The hope is the restoration of Paradise lost in Adam and salvation from the curse of death. It is only when the Lord chooses Abraham that he reveals his plan for a land, a nation, and an earthly priesthood (removed from the heavenly priesthood of Melchizedek). 

The Psalmist is looking at all Creation. What should not be lost here is that God always had a plan for the Gentile nations. Before Abraham, all scripture knows is God's plans for all men. No nation above any other. When God chose Israel, he did not abandon the Gentile. His plan for the earth and the earthly Kingdom connected it made provision for the Gentiles. Israel was to be the twelve wells of water for the 70 palm trees (Exodus 15:27).

We note again that the Lord Jesus Christ came to confirm the promises made to Israel in regard to the land and the earthly kingdom and priesthood. He tells us, in no uncertain terms, that he "was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). And he came to confirm the promises to the same people. 

As the Apostle Paul notes in Romans 15:8-12 this two-fold ministry and plan of the Lord:

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, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy, as it is written:

“For this reason I will confess to You among the Gentiles,
And sing to Your name.”

And again he says:

“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people!”

And again:

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles!
Laud Him, all you peoples!”

And again, Isaiah says:

“There shall be a root of Jesse;
And He who shall rise to reign over the Gentiles,
In Him the Gentiles shall hope.”

The House of Israel and the House of Jacob are central to both the Old (Exodus 19) and the New (Jer 31, Heb 8) Covenants. God's plans for the earth are centered on these people and their nations.

In Psalm 33 the lens is pulled back. While God was dealing with men through Israel in that age (no Gentile is seen in scripture unless he comes in contact with Israel or with a Jew), God has never stopped dealing with all nations. 

The Lord looks from heaven;
He sees all the sons of men.
From the place of His dwelling He looks
On all the inhabitants of the earth;
He fashions their hearts individually;
He considers all their works.

God has always seen all nations and has always seen every individual. Scripture deals with the hope placed before men in the restoration of Paradise until the plan for a nation at the head is revealed. The hope from Abraham to the end of the Acts was God's plan of an earthly, righteous kingdom of priests via the nation of Israel. But as scripture lays out the plan of God and his dealings with Israel (and the Covenants given to Israel for the land and the earth), he continues to see all men. This is brought out by the Psalmist.

Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him,
On those who hope in His mercy,
To deliver their soul from death,
And to keep them alive in famine.
Our soul waits for the Lord;
He is our help and our shield.

We have a change here toward the end of the Psalm. The focus turns from "those who fear Him" to "our soul" and "our shield." But let us stay on the thoughts for those who fear Him of any nation. We first note that these are those who "hope in His mercy." This is the gospel of grace that has been declared since God spared Adam after he sinned. A righteous man needs no mercy, only the sinner needs mercy. The germ of this truth is found in the declaration of God in Genesis 3:15.

This section of Psalm 33 finishes with a dual identity (as I see it). The Psalmist identifies with ALL men who need His mercy (for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God). And the Psalmist stands here for Israel who also need the Lord's mercy for the nation surely failed the Lord.

In there, we see that every man needs the mercy of God to have his soul delivered from death. What would this mean in a "saved/loss" theology? From what is God "delivering" the "soul?" We can read verse 19 two ways, but either way, the "soul" dying is before us.

One who has God's mercy has the certain hope that his soul (his being) will be delivered from the state of death that all men experience. That deliverance will come when the hope of resurrection is experienced. How this was mercy was to be secured was not fully understood. Blood had to be shed, and God would supply a substitute in his mercy, but this was only seen in type before Christ. But we see the hope of resurrection and immortality (dual freedom from the death of the soul) in Christ!

For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

“O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”

The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.  But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

-1 Cor 15 

We see clearly in Christ what the Psalmist saw in God's mercy. He knew the Lord is merciful. He knew the Lord forgives sin. He knew the Lord would deliver his soul (life) from death (grave and Hades), but he had to look forward. We look back to the finished work of the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ!

If we turn back to Psalm 32, we see the Psalmist rejoicing in the knowledge of sins forgiven. This is BEFORE the "New Covenant" of Jeremiah was revealed. That covenant is not "salvation by grace," for God has saved by grace from the beginning. 

1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
Whose sin is covered.
2 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit.
3 When I kept silent, my bones grew old
Through my groaning all the day long.
4 For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me;
My vitality was turned into the drought of summer. Selah
5 I acknowledged my sin to You,
And my iniquity I have not hidden.
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,”
And You forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah

So, it is the "soul" that is saved from "death" by grace through faith. Once again, scripture testifies that the hope of all in Adam is the hope of resurrection in Christ.

For since by a man came death, by a Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

-1 Cor 15:21-22

The New Covenant does not create salvation by grace, it has always been there. The New Covenant for "O Virgin of Israel" (Jer 31) and the security of rescue from death are both sealed by the complete work of Christ, but remain independent truths,  

 

Fidelity to the Truth is More Important Than Sincerity to a Cause

I marched on Washington, DC, against abortion as a teen. I was very sincere. I don't doubt many people caught up in Q or in Trump are sincere and "well-meaning." I'm just wary of leaders, all leaders. Every movement gets usurped by "leaders" who basically become the Pope and Magisterium of that movement. 

Personally, I suspect Donald Trump is, at least, part con-man. He knows how to play the crowd. The crowd may be very sincere, but I don't believe Trump is. He hugs an American flag, people melt, then he displays a rainbow flag and becomes a salesman for the Covid gene therapy and Pharmaceutical companies. Maybe he's somewhere in-between. The greater point is that he has become, as most leaders do, above question. This is common on all sides of every issue and it is dangerous no matter the person, no matter the cause.

If you try to point out that his cabinet and Department of Justice were filled with the same old Washington bureaucrats (the Swamp) that his followers supposedly detest, you feel the wrath of those same followers. Then he hugs another flag and all is forgotten.

This pattern can also be applied to those connected to projects such as The Passion movie of 2004, the current TV show, The Chosen, and even the popular movie out now, Sound of Freedom.

Those who go to see Sound of Freedom are very sincere. The people at my church who went to see The Passion of the Christ (TPOTC) were very sincere. I just think they were being played. Not necessarily played because Mel Gibson had some evil plan, but played because Mel Gibson (and Jim Caviezel) were sincerely putting forth their version of the truth and allowed great, swelling promises to accompany their vision without protest. 

They didn't make any promises, they let the crowds of Evangelical Christians do that for them. Caviezel and Gibson want you in the Catholic Church. They think that is a "good" goal. They were pretty open about it, yet very few listened. They took the Hopium, got believers hooked on it, and handed hundreds of millions over to papists.

There is always a great anticipation around these things. Some hope of some "great spiritual awakening" is in the air. But the people behind these things are rarely doctrinally sound (even on basic matters of the faith). I know pastors who love "The Chosen." I watched 20 minutes of The Passion and saw several key errors. 

TPOTC was hardly "the most accurate film about Christ ever  made" as we were promised. It was not based on scripture, but rather on the visions of a Catholic mystic. And that's not rumor or a theory, they were very open about that. It's just that people did not want to listen.  I watched 10 minutes of The Chosen and saw a healthy dose of supposition and error. How can those pastors not see what I saw? Hopium. They want to believe a revival will follow.

Look at America since TPOTC was released. Moral decay. Attacks on the family. Evangelical believers denying core tenets of the faith and seeing declining numbers. There were no "church services breaking out in theaters" or people "crying out for salvation" as we were promised.  What we did see was Evangelicals handing $1,000,000,000 to devout papists who have a very low regard for their gospel. 

This week Pope Francis met none other than Jesus in St. Peter’s Square. While greeting faithful on Wednesday, Aug. 11, the pope spoke with Jonathan Roumie, who portrays Christ in the series “The Chosen” and was visiting Rome to promote the show. “Meeting the pope was essentially having a childhood dream be realized,” Roumie told Religion News Service later that day at Rome’s Hotel Indigo St. George.

It is well-known that The Chosen is produced by Mormons and Catholics. Do we believe they will show fidelity to a right division of the Word? I don't. But the reason many Evangelicals won't see the problem is because most Evangelicals fail to understand the Lord's earthly ministry. He was sent to Israel alone. That is not some weird, dispensational twist, it is exactly what he said (Matthew 15:24). He forbade the Gospel of the Kingdom to b preached to anyone but to Jews in Israel (Matthew 10:5-8).

I think these religious things are the ecclesiastical side of the secular "trust the plan" Hopium. They lead to complacency ("I don't have to do anything, just wait for the movement to do it!"). I'm not arguing there is necessarily a direct correlation between The Passion and the quick decay of the West, but it certainly did nothing to save the West from decay

I well remember the  (friendly) Passion wars I was in with believers in 2004. Now, understanding I'm biased here, remembering my many discussions on the topic in deep red and Bible Belt Alabama, I think my assessment was right. The film was not the answer, it would not bring national revival. And America has been in steep decline since. The Passion opened in 2004, Barack Obama elected POTUS in 2008 along with a Marxist House and Senate. The GOP then nominated a Mormon in 2012. Gay marriage declared a constitutional right in 2015.

2016 saw two of the most immoral and unethical public figures in US history as the choice for the presidency. Then came the authoritarianism of Covid policy, forced vaccinations, and finally, an entire political party committed to allowing pornography in grade school libraries while promoting men in women's bathrooms and girls' locker rooms as they shake their genitalia in the face of children.

The rot is evident on both sides and both sides demand absolute orthodoxy or you will be shunned and shamed.   

Oppose any of the Progressive sexual agenda to any degree and you will be labeled a fascist, racist, misogynist, transphobe. There is no tolerance for dissent on one side as we tolerate the historical enemies of the faith if they tickle our ears with what we want to hear. 

We should reaching out to those who might be realizing that we've gone too far. Perhaps they'll listen to a real hope. A hope that has a future beyond this earth. But too many are focused on an earthly gospel and an earthly kingdom to see greater truths. 

Shearing the sheep by selling them Hopium hasn't worked before and it won't work now. Our focus should be getting out the truth, defending the truth, teaching the faithful, and encouraging one another. Rescue those we can while there is still time. Sound of Freedom is nice, but it is no substitute. And I fear will only enrich the enemies of the gospel (again) in the end.

Actor Jim Caviezel speaking on Trump: “I’m still Jesus, but he’s the new Moses”

Yikes! 

The Old and New Covenants Veil the Truth of Liberty in Christ

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, Who is the image of God, should shine unto them

-2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (KJV)

At first glance, this passage may have an obvious application. And in some ways it does. But we need to be careful to read and interpret all things in their contexts and according to the age and company addressed. We also need to be careful as some translations are poisoned by the traditions the translators knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate.

Let's look a at few words in the passage and see if we pull out a fuller and more precise meaning.

Hid = kalýptō (Greek)

to hide, veil;  to hinder the knowledge of a thing (Thayer)

 

Lost = apóllymi (Greek)

to destroy (Thayer)
to destroy fully, perish (Strong)
to destroy (Mounce)
perishing (Bullinger)
to waste (Far Above All)

In = en

in, by, with (Thayer)
A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state) (Strong)

Whom = hós

who, which, what, that (Thayer)

A number of other translations render kalýptō as "veiled." Charles Welch notes this:

The symbol of the old covenant is the veiled face of Moses (II Cor. iii. 13); the symbol of the new is the unveiled face of Christ (II Cor. iv. 6). The figure of the veil is continued in the words of II Cor. iv. 3, 4

-The Berean Expositor XXIII

Before we continue in this vein, let's quickly look back at our verse as presented in the KJV:

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost

On its own, "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not" is a bit awkward if we the "lost" which precedes it as the commonly used meaning of that word. As given to us, are we to understand it as:

if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are [unbelievers]: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which [are unbelievers]

The modern version try to make better sense of this:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. [ESV]

I don't see a justification for using "in their case." I see why they want to use it there as it cleans up the problem left by the KJV translators. "In whom" in the KJV. But I believe both translations are the result of some wanting to see the heaven/hell, saved/lost dichotomy here. In doing so (as is often the case with this sort of imposition on the text) a greater truth is lost.

The idea in this passage is that the gospel Paul was preaching (to Jew and Gentile, but primarily in his calling to graft in Gentiles to Israel in that age) was "veiled." by that which was perishing and headed for perdition (destruction). That is, The Old Covenant. Let's quickly look at Paul's conclusion in Hebrews 8 after reiterating the New Covenant found in Jeremiah 31. 

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

-Hebrews 8:13

"Ready to vanish away" is a translation of the Greek engýs aphanismós, literally, "imminent destruction/disappearance." As we have touched on many times before, the Lord's return was also "imminent" ("at hand"). The ushering in of all the promises of the New Covenant (for "Virgin Israel") was at the door. 

The Old Covenant was on its last legs. It was about to vanish the moment Israel repented (Acts 3). We see in Hebrews 13 that the Old Covenant is [palaióō] "becoming obsolete." The KJV uses "decayeth." This is the idea of wasting away. Thayer defines it as "worn out" and "about to be abrogated." It is not yet gone, but nothing can stop the New Covenant coming to fruition upon Israel repentance. 

Remember, Peter promised Israel after Pentecost that God would send back Jesus "unto the restoration of all things" if Israel would repent. At Pentecost itself, the prophecy of Joel was only partly fulfilled. There was a stumbling block. That stumbling block was Israel's unbelief and her insistence on holding onto the Old Covenant.

We need to be careful here. The Old Covenant contained the Law, but it is not the Law. The Old Covenant was made before the Law was given. It was a conditional promise that Israel would become a special people above all. 

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

-Exodus 19:5-6

It was conditional upon adherence to the Law, but it was not the Law itself. As we know from Acts 15 and Acts 21, provisions in the Law were still given to Jewish believers and Gentile believes out of the Law. Not a condition for the gift of eternal life as adherence was never a condition of the free gift of resurrection life. That gift is given by God's grace based on our faith.

The Old Covenant was about to disappear in the Acts Age. It just needed Israel repentance. Israel's New Covenant was about to come in. Let's turn back, then, to our passage in 2 Corinthians. We've noted the redundancy which is found in most translations. Remember, if we see the unbeliever as both the "lost" and the "in whom" [KJV], making the sentence redundant and awkward. 

But if we see the verse referring to that which is "perishing" or "decaying" and ready to "vanish away" and be "abgrogated,"  the idea of "by which" fits much better and the point becomes clearer and not redundant at all, 

But if our gospel be veiled, it is veiled by those things which are perishing, by which the god of this age has blinded the minds of them which believe not

That which was a veil over the faces of those who would not believe was the perishing Old Covenant and the attached Law. We see that the Law was a stumbling block for many in Israel. It is a tool of the god of the Acts age. I would venture to say it is still a tool used to veil the truth of the Mystery of Ephesians in our age. Even those today who claim to be a "New testament (or covenant)" church still lean on the Law and have tried to claim the promises of both covenants. Even the mpst hardcore Acts 2 dispensationalist claims a priesthood as spoken by Peter (an Apostle to the Circumcision) who wrote his epistle to "the dispersion." 

For a little context, let's turn back to 2 Corinthians 3:

But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones [the Law], was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

The eyes of "the children of Israel" [Jews] could not look on the glory on Moses' face. The Law has its own glorious. It is certainly "holy and good," but it can only minister death. And just as the glory was fading from Moses' face as he hid his face with a veil, so does a veil cover the eyes of those who refused to see the glory of The Old Covenant passing away. A New Covenant was awaiting its enactment upon the repentance of Israel.

“Yet now, brethren ["ye men of Israel"], I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.  But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world [ages] began. For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you."

-Acts 3 17-22

We are purely on Jewish ground. The prophets were sent to Israel. The fathers are of Israel. The Lord Jesus Christ was raised up a prophet for Israel. We know from Paul's witness in Ephesians that the truth revealed there was unknown to the prophets and hidden from before the ages began. 

Before we end this part of our study, let me present on alternative translation of 2 Cor 3:3-4:

But if on the other hand our gospel is veiled, it is veiled among those who are on the road to perdition, among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, so that the light of the of Christ, who is the image of God, does not shine on them.

-Far Above All 

If we allow this application of those on the road to perdition (decay, perishing), we can still see the Jewish context. The veil, the blinding, the light of Christ. 2 Cor 3 still gives us the greater context of the comparison of the glory of the Law against the glory of Christ.

It is important to mark these distinctions in the Acts and in the Acts Age epistles (before the "wall of separation" between Jew and Gentile comes down post-Acts).

There are many today who veil the minds of believers and unbelievers alike with the faded glory of the Law, not allowing the full brightness of the glory of Christ to shine in their hearts. We may have a different hope before us in this age, but that only makes the deception far worse. There is no New Covenant for us to look to in this age. There is a greater hope in the far above the heavens.

So, the ability to see the truth of the current dispensation is veiled by by both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Teachers and preachers today keep their flocks in the dark by insisting they focus on the things of the earth. Its ordinances, its hopes, its holy days, its promises.  

Veiling the glory of Christ and his Kingdom is one thing, veiling the hope of a place seated at the right hand of the Father a far greater loss. 

 

The Gentile Believers in Caesarea

We pause to note here that the receiving of the holy spirit by the Roman Centurion Cornelius and his house was separate from any talk of baptism and even separate from faith itself. Certainly the holy spirit fell on the twelve (all twelve, including Mathias chosen to replace Judas in Acts 1) at Pentecost. All there were already believers. 

This falling of the holy spirit* on Gentiles for the first time was in Samaria, part of an outreach to the region connected with the 10 tribes and the northern kingdom of Israel (as we noted in our previous study). The word was allowed to go there. This was part of the commission of the Apostles to the Circumcision (Gal 2:7-8). 

*we will look later that the difference between the "Holy Spirit" and the "holy spirit" in a future study.

 When Peter finally goes to Cornelius the Gentile (of Caesarea) in Acts 10, his whole household has the spirit fall on them and they display the gifts of the Spirit before they are baptized. What we are dealing with in the Acts Age is not just "faith," but a specific calling of a priesthood according to the covenants Israel has with the Lord. Caesarea, then the civil capital of Judaea, was in the boundaries of the promised land and Kingdom.

While Peter was still speaking these words, the holy spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift [singular] of the holy spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the holy spirit just as we have?” And 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

It is clear that the astonishment was in regard to the "gift of the holy spirit" and not that Gentiles could believe. The twelve had  seen a centurion believe in Matthew 8 and a Gentile woman believe in Matthew 15. They famously saw the Lord interact with a Samaritan woman (in Samaria) in John 9 (note that the 12 do not interact with her). 

Despite the astonishment and the change in the Lord's approach to Israel. He was now grafting Gentiles into the promises to Israel to "make Israel jealous." From that we can conclude several things, but two giant things should stand out:

• God was still dealing with Israel
• Israel was not "the Church"

And after these Gentile believers in Caesarea display the gift (singular) of the holy spirit, and after the twelve were "astonished" by hearing they received that gift, and after Peter gave his testimony of the vision of the great sheet and the unclean animals:

If therefore God gave them 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 heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

-Acts 11:17-18

 

Read all of Acts 11. Peter was unequivocal when he explained his vision to the others. Yet these men get accused of being either stupid or rebellious. It is claimed they didn't understand. The men who accuse them of this are the same who accuse the chosen apostles who were taught for 40 days about the Kingdom by the risen Lord himself did not understand the Kingdom! 

After all that, we are told that these went "preaching the word to no one but the Jews only" (v.19). They also went unto the "Hellenists." These were the Greek-speaking Jews of the region. But now that God had initiated his calling of the Gentiles into the blessings of Israel, who would go to the Gentiles? God had already made that provision by the calling of Saul/Paul in Acts chapter 9.

“Go, for [Saul/Paul] is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

Paul was going to bear witness before Gentiles. This was spoken by the Lord before Peter went to Cornelius' house in Acts 10. But di not miss that Paul was also called to go to "the children of Israel."  Bear witness to the "Church?" To some new thing God had replaced Israel with? No. Just as Gentiles believers weren't grafted into the Church then threatened that they could be cut off from the Church if they became haughty against the Church (see Acts 11), God still had a witness and a calling for Israel that is different from the calling of this current Age.

Gentiles were grafted into Israel. They were told they could be cut off from Israel. And they were warned not to become haughty against Israel.

Immediately after Paul is called in Acts 9 to go bear witness before the Gentiles, what does he do?

Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus. Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.

-Acts 9:19-20

Paul could not yet go to the Gentiles in Acts 9. We stress again, Gentiles believing unto life was not something that was unknown or unimagined. God has never forgotten the Gentile in all his dealings with Israel since Genesis 12. But we only see God dealing with Gentiles through connection to a Jew or to Israel. Even great Nineveh is known through Jonah and later its dealing with the dispersion. 

 And as we know from Acts 17, Paul's practice was to go to the Jews first in every city where there were Jews. This is not a practice we follow today (nor should we). 

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures...

The Gentile believers at Caesarea were not the first Gentile believers. They were the first Gentiles believers to be grafted into the root of Israel and her blessings and  the first to receive the gift of the holy spirit. And all of that before they were baptized. No "Acts Church" today follows anything resembling the conditions or callings of the Book of Acts, yet almost all believe they do.

Their excuse for not following the patterns and practices of the Acts Age is to blame the chosen Apostles and future judges in Israel of being, in short, ignorant racists. May we repent of these assertions.

The Pairings in Acts 1:13

 Now let's examine the assumption we noted above: "both' is limited to Jerusalem and Judea; Samaria unto the ends of the land (or to the dispersion).

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James

-Acts 1:13

καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθον ἀνέβησαν  εἰς τὸ ὑπερῷον οὗ ἦσαν καταμένοντες ὅ τε πέτρος καὶ ἰάκωβος καὶ ἰωάννης καὶ ἀνδρέας φίλιππος καὶ θωμᾶς βαρθολομαῖος καὶ ματθαῖος, ἰάκωβος ἁλφαίου καὶ σίμων ὁ ζηλωτὴς καὶ ἰούδας ἰακώβου

How are we to read "both" in this verse? If we take a literal translation of the Greek (using a direct Greek to English translator), we get:

And then they went up to who lived both Peter and Jacob [James] and John and Andrew Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, Jacob Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas Jacob

 

And in the Revised Version:

and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, [both] Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James

Notice the groupings:

• Peter and John
• James and Andrew
• Philip and Thomas
• Bartholomew and Matthew,
• James and Simon
• and Judas

A quick look at the ministry in the Book of Acts, we see Peter and John linked. Peter and John are mentioned together in Acts 3. In Acts 4 Peter and John are arrested together. They are mentioned twice there together. Finally, in Acts 8, Peter and John are again together. This is well into the Acts age and well after the commission of Acts 1, yet the Apostles were still in Jerusalem.

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

-Acts 8:14-15 (NKJV)

We will look, next time, a little more closely at the believing Gentiles in Caesarea. It is important to note Peter's calling, the region of Caesarea, the events in that house, and the reaction of the Jews.

But I digress. Peter and John are a group unto themselves in Acts 1. We God dealing in pairs much in the ministry of the Gospel accounts and in the Acts Age, The Lord sent the 70 out two-by-two.

After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go.

-Luke 10:1 (NKJV)

We can see this in Paul's ministry as well (Paul and Barnabas then Paul and Silas).

When we apply this pattern to the listing in Acts 13, we can start to see:

Both Peter and John and BOTH James and Andrew, BOTH Philip and Thomas, BOTH James and Simon, and Judas (there only being 11 at the time, this is the other Judas and before Matthias was chosen). 

This use of "both" following its use earlier in Acts 1 helps to see more clearly the use of "both" as not only a pairing of two, but of pairs of two. While this latter is not as definitive, in context of the calling of the twelve in the Gospel accounts and as revealed in Acts epistles, we can get more clarity about the "commission" of Acts 1:8. When we can see their commission to Judah and Israel, we can start to understand the Book of Acts better and the we can start to rightly divide the epistles. 

Hopefully we can understand why the Apostles said and did in the Book of Acts itself and discard any thought that any "church" today is an "Acts church." I think we can clearly demonstrates that there s no such thing in the current age and that we shouldn't pretend there is.

 

Both Ends of the "Great Commission"

 Back in 2019 we examined one aspect of what some call "The Great Commission." In that study looked at the word translated "earth." We proposed that the word can be and is sometimes translated as "land," referring to Israel's promised land and kingdom.

That study can be reviewed here:  Uttermost Parts of the Planet?

In this brief study, we want to examine a Greek word used in the commission of Acts 1:8. As we do, we remember that this commission was given to the chosen apostles of the Lamb; those who were promised that one day they would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the earthly kingdom.

The setting (context) is the risen Lord Jesus concluding his 40-day teaching on the Kingdom to the future judges of the coming Kingdom in Jerusalem. The only detail the Savior left out was when the Kingdom would be restored to Israel (not to the "Church"). But, surely, the Kingdom will be restored.

The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

-Acts 1:1-7 

We are not privy to what the risen Lord taught them for those 40 days. That is the Lord's prerogative. We have no need to know. This is what the Holy Spirit does preserve for us through Luke's account in the Acts:

• The Lord gave specific commandments to the chosen apostles
• They were not to depart Jerusalem until the promised Holy Spirit (w/gifts) fell
• The Davidic Kingdom would be restored to Israel
• The timing was under the Father's authority

We know from Acts 3 (post-Pentecost) that the main condition is the repentance of Israel.

Ye men of Israel... brethren... Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

The angel Gabriel reiterated the promises to the fathers (cp. Rom 15:8) in the prophets to Mary when she conceived.

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

We pause to remind ourselves it was Gabriel who reveled God's timeline to the prophet Daniel. That prophecy was interpreted for Daniel by Gabriel. In his explanation, he was very clear, "Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end.” (Dan 8:17b).

We note, also, that Paul at his trial late in the Acts age, testified that he spoke "nothing" that was not spoken by Moses and the Prophets. He stated as late as Acts 28 that he was in chains for "the hope of Israel."

All these things concerning the earthly Kingdom concern Israel. The commission of Acts 1 is no different. Israel's hope and Kingdom is the context. In our previous study, linked above, pointing to that commission's scope we did not focus on one word. That word is the word BOTH. We want to see "both" in its connection to the "land" and the calling of Israel by the apostles to Israel.

We stopped in verse 7 of Acts 1 above, but now let's look at  the oft-quoted verse 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 Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

-Acts 1:8 (KJV)

but ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you, and ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth.'

-Acts 1:8 (Young's Literal Translation)

The KJV and YLT use "both" in their translation. Some modern versions do as well (ESV, NASB, etc.). Many other versions do not (NKJV, etc.). I believe one of the reasons for this is a bias on the part of the translators. So familiar with the assumed usage and application of this verse (assuming all the Bible is spoken to all people in all ages), they ignore its context and find "both" to be unimportant. The versions that do use "both" probably assume the dual nature of the word is limited to Jerusalem and Judea. We'll look at that in our next study on Acts 1:13. For now, we return to 1:8. 

The Greek word translated "both" is "τέ." As with many words, it can mean different things in different contexts. Luke uses it three times in Acts 1, here in verse 8, and also in verses 1 and 13. When used with a list of things, "both" should be considered. Now, I haven't looked up every use, but the few I hve from the gospel accounts and the Acts using this word, "both" is implied. That is, two things.

As just one example, the NKJV, which does not use "both" in verse 8 for "τέ," does use "both" for "τέ" in verse 1:

The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach

Just out of curiosity, I checked 1:8 in the Reformed Bible of choice, the 1599 Geneva Bible.

But ye shall receive power of the holy Ghost, when he shall come on you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. -Acts 1:8

 

For those keeping score at home, Young's Literal Translation uses "both" in all three verses in Acts where where "τέ' is found.

I used an online translator, Koine Greek to English. This greatly helped me see more clearly the intent of Luke and the Holy Spirit in the commission to the apostles to the circumcision; a commission they obey throughout the Acts.

let the power of the Holy Spirit come upon you, and bear witness to me, both in Jerusalem, and in all of Judah, and in Samaria, and to the rest of the Earth.

Without being dogmatic, but in light of the immediate context of Acts 1 (the restoration of the Kingdom to and in Israel) and the calling of the twelve to go to Israel alone as the future judges of the twelve tribes, we can look at Acts 1:8 the following way.

The apostles to the circumcision, who carried the gospel to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7-8) were commissioned to take the gospel of the Kingdom to Judah ("Jerusalem and in all Judea") AND to Israel (Samaria and to the rest of the land/earth). "Both."

This would be to all 12 tribes. Two which made up Judah and the Ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom, Israel. The Ten tribes are connected to the dispersion (although some from all 12 tribes were in the dispersion). So, we note, again, to whom both Peter and James directed their epistles.

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greetings.

-James 1:1



To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father

-1 Peter 1:1-2a

We cannot insert a Gentile "church" into these epistles. James addresses those meeting in "synagogues" (James 2:2). Unfortunately, the King James version translates synagogue there as "assembly." This is the only time they translate it such. In every other case, it reads, "synagogue." Men imposing their theology on the Holy Spirit's inspiration. 

I'd like to refer to John Calvin's commentary on 1 Peter here. I choose Calvin not because he divides scripture as I do, but because even Calvin understood that the dispersion must mean Jews.

To the sojourners They who think that all the godly are thus called, because they are strangers in the world, and are advancing towards the celestial country, are much mistaken, and this mistake is evident from the word dispersion which immediately follows; for this can apply only to the Jews, not only because they were banished from their own country and scattered here and there, but also because they had been driven out of that land which had been promised to them by the Lord as a perpetual inheritance. He indeed afterwards calls all the faithful sojourners, because they are pilgrims on the earth; but the reason here is different. They were sojourners, because they had been dispersed, some in Pontus, some in Galatia, and some in Bithynia. It is nothing strange that he designed this Epistle more especially for the Jews, for he knew that he was appointed in a particular manner their apostle, as Paul teaches us in Galatians 2:8. In the countries he enumerates, he includes the whole of Asia Minor, from the Euxine to Cappadocia.

 

When we rightly divide the Acts and the Acts Age epistles, when we understand the calling and commission of the Lord's chosen apostles, we can start to see the differences between the earthly hope of Israel and the hope of the Body in the far above the heavens. We can see the difference between the physical Temple and physical Kingdom in the promised land and the spiritual temple and spiritual kingdom in heavenly places.

Pause and read that last sentence again. I named four things, but they represent only two hopes. This is how the Holy Spirit has preserved the commission of the Kingdom in Acts 1:8. Four places noted representing two places. 

We are going to again take up the use of "both" in our next study, but regardless, in light of the calling of Peter and the twelve, in light of the limitation of the Gospel of the Kingdom to Israel, and in light of the earthly hope of Israel in view, we can certainly see that the commission many take today for themselves should be limited to that group and to that calling under that hope in that age.

[Your city] is not "your Jerusalem." When the Lord speaks of Jerusalem, we need to read "Jerusalem." 

The Podcast Has Gone to Video

 My podcast, "Brooklyn's Dad Talks About Everything" (available on Spotify and most podcast services) has been audio only since its inception. There are 122 audio podcasts available as audio-only. The most recent episodes (Season 2, Eps 48-49) have both am audio and a video component.

The podcast studies are more conversational than the blog. Most episodes are theology-based, but we occasionally take a dip into current events and culture.  I have posted links to certain podcasts if they are relevant to a particular blog entry.

Today, I invite you to enjoy the new video format.

THE LORD CUT STRAIGHT LINES IN SCRIPTURE AND SO SHOULD WE

finding scriptural gems in every age

Link to SPOTIFY Podcast Page (all 124 audio podcasts)

Matthew Henry's Commentary on Jeremiah 31 (The New Covenant)

Let us note what John Calvin stated in his commentary concerning The Lord's desire in regard to those who would worship him.

God disdains the forced services of men, and chooses to be worshipped freely and willingly

I'm sure the Calvinist has some theological explanation for Calvin's apparently clear statement here. He is stating that God Himself will never "force" men against their wills to serve Him. For such an idea is abhorrent to God. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Calvin is arguing that our service to God must originate from our own free will. We must choose to serve him.

I note this statement from Calvin, because, I believe, it is a good example of how truths can find there way through error. Personally, I think Calvin's view of the will is far more flecible than those who call themselves Calvinist's in our day. 

Previously, we have looked at Calvin's somewhat nuanced position on those some call the "Early Church Fathers. We also looked at Calvin's view of the conscience and its ability to determine that which is right and that which is wrong. In these (and in other posts quoting Calvin), in my estimation, we see a bit of flexibility in Calvin's views that we don't always see in those who take his name. That said, Calvin's lack of clarity on certain subjects is the result of his inability to separate the plan of God for the earth and the plan of God for the heavenly places.

The failure to make these distinctions has led Calvin and other Calvinists, like Matthew Henry, to try and insert themselves (rather selectively) into both plans. Let's take a brief look at Matthew Henry;s commentary on Jeremiah 31:31.

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah (1599 Geneva Bible)

That God will renew his covenant with them, so that all these blessings they shall have, not by providence only, but by promise, and thereby they shall be both sweetened and secured. But this covenant refers to gospel times, the latter days that shall come; for of gospel grace the apostle understands it (Hebrews 8:8; Hebrews 8:9, c.), where this whole passage is quoted as a summary of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ. Observe, 1. Who the persons are with whom this covenant is made--with the house of Israel and Judah, with the gospel church, the Israel of God on which peace shall be (Galatians 6:16), with the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob. Judah and Israel had been two separate kingdoms, but were united after their return, in the joint favours God bestowed upon them so Jews and Gentiles were in the gospel church and covenant.

-Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible (Jeremiah 31, excerpt)

Note the use of "they" and them" in his opening statement. We like to note the importance of pronouns.  Henry is pointing to "the house of Israel, and the house of Judah," yet he is so determined to see God as having only one plan for all men of all ages that he forces himself to make Israel and Judah into the "church" (as he defines it). He states "but this covenant refers to gospel times" without warrant. He refences Paul's quote of the passage in Jeremiah, but fails to note that Paul, in the Acts Age, still speaks of the New Covenant as yet future and having not come in yet. The apostle also continues to use "the house of Israel, and the house of Judah."

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

-Hebrews 8:8-10 (NKJV)

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

-Hebrews 8:13 (NKJV)

The word translated "becoming obsolete" is the Greek word "palaióō." The King James Version translates this word as "decayeth." The idea is that it is essentially dead, but it has not fully gone away. The New Covenant could not come in because Israel had not repented. 

Peter promised in Acts 3 to "Ye men of Israel" that if they repented, God would send back Christ to restore all things. And we know from Acts 1 that the Lord taught the Apostles to the Circumcision that the Kingdom would be "restored" in Israel one day (Acts 1:6). He taught those who will one day sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30) for 40 days about that kingdom, but he gave no timeline. The timeline is dependent on Israel's repentance.

When Paul writes late in his ministry of the Acts Age that the New Covenant is still future and that the Old Covenant is decaying, he is telling us that Israel had not repented. In Acts 28, Paul spoke with the Jewish leaders of Rome concerning "the hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20). He was "bound" for that hope.  We note here here that in his Post-Acts epistle of Ephesians, Paul states that he is in chains, "for you Gentiles." 

While the commentaries of Calvin and Henry can offer valuable thoughts and insights, their failure to see God's divisions, hopes, and ages in scripture blinds them to their own words of contradiction. 

The Old Covenant was a rotting corpse waiting for Israel to come to faith so the New Covenant could come in in full (as revealed in Jeremiah 31, Isaiah 61, etc.). When God revealed his new economy through the apostle Paul at the end of the Acts age, all covenants with Israel and the plan for the earthly blessings were set aside temporarily.

We have today, the enlightenment unto the truth of this age and calling which we must accept (Ephesians 1:18, etc.). This age will end and God will once again call out for Israel to repent and the offer of Acts 3 will again be in sight. Believing Israel, a remnant, will believe, and God will install the promised, restored Kingdom in the land.