"how that Christ died for our sins"

[Guojing]

I do very much appreciate you sharing these resources. It strikes me as suspect how certain terminology such as "offer of the Kingdom" is believed to somehow be reserved for only Jews. I don't believe Paul, the most educated of all the apostles in terms of the Scripture and the Law of Moses, viewed the Kingdom of God in this manner. Check out Colossians 4:10-11.

[10] Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions--if he comes to you, welcome him), [11] and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.

The key to note is that the same English term used in the KJV can mean different things in the Greek. The classic example is the term heaven. Depending on where it is used, it can mean the first heaven, the skies, where the birds fly, the second heaven or outer space where the stars and planets are, or the 3rd heaven when the throne of God is.

Likewise, the word tribulation does not always means Jacob's trouble or the 7 years great tribulation, it can also mean sufferings that we are undergoing now, as Paul has used 1 Thess 3:4. Someone who rightly divide the word of Truth should not use 1 Thess 3:4 to conclude that Paul is saying the Body of Christ will also be going thru Jacob's trouble.

Once you are able to understand the above point, when you then read Paul talking about the Kingdom of God, in that Colossians passage or even at the end of Acts, Acts 28, it does not mean the same Kingdom of God used by Peter and the 11, the latter refers to the physical kingdom of heaven on Earth, where Jesus will reign as King over the Jews sitting on David's throne.

Paul is not referring to that physical kingdom when he talks about the Kingdom of God. Hope this clarifies for you.

 

[EternalFire]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the term. Here’s an article from the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible published by Zondervan that will help you understand the use of the word “kingdom” as the authors in the Bible understood it.

Kingdom​

In Biblical languages, the term translated into English as “kingdom” usually meant “reign,” “rule,” or “authority.” Jewish people recognized that God reigned as king over the world he created (Ps 22:28; 145:12-13; Da 4:3,34). Some believed that they affirmed this whenever they recited the Shema, acknowledging that there was just one true God (Dt 6:4).

But while Jewish people acknowledged God’s present rule, most looked for God’s unchallenged reign in the age to come (Da 2:44-45; 7:14,27). Many prayed regularly for God’s future kingdom—for him to reign unopposed, to fulfill his purposes of justice and peace for the world. One familiar prayer that came to be prayed daily was the Kaddish, which in its ancient form began: “Exalted and hallowed be his great name … May he cause his kingdom to reign.”

By Jesus’ day, many were familiar with Daniel’s prophecy about four kingdoms and believed the fourth and final kingdom to be the current Roman Empire (Da 2:37-43). Daniel prophesied that in the time of that fourth kingdom, God would establish an eternal kingdom, overthrowing the other ones (Da 2:44). This kingdom belonged to a “Son of Man,” a human one, whose rule was associated with the deliverance of God’s people and contrasted with the preceding empires that were compared with beasts (Da 7:12-14,17-18,21-22). Daniel spoke of these truths as “mysteries” (Da 2:28-29; cf. 2:47). Thus it is not surprising that the Gospels speak of the “secret” or “secrets” of the kingdom (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11; Lk 8:10).

Jesus’ first followers in the New Testament, who believed that the coming Messianic king had already come once and that the first fruits of the future resurrection had occurred, often treated the future kingdom as also present. We recognize that just as the king has both come and will come again, his kingdom has already invaded this world but remains to be consummated. Where the other Gospels use “kingdom of God,” Matthew uses “kingdom of heaven” with just four or five exceptions. This Jewish expression appears elsewhere and reflects the Jewish use of “heaven” at times as a respectful and roundabout way of saying “God.”

 

[Guojing]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the term. Here’s an article from the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible published by Zondervan that will help you understand the use of the word “kingdom” as the authors in the Bible understood it.

Kingdom​

In Biblical languages, the term translated into English as “kingdom” usually meant “reign,” “rule,” or “authority.” Jewish people recognized that God reigned as king over the world he created (Ps 22:28; 145:12-13; Da 4:3,34). Some believed that they affirmed this whenever they recited the Shema, acknowledging that there was just one true God (Dt 6:4).

But while Jewish people acknowledged God’s present rule, most looked for God’s unchallenged reign in the age to come (Da 2:44-45; 7:14,27). Many prayed regularly for God’s future kingdom—for him to reign unopposed, to fulfill his purposes of justice and peace for the world. One familiar prayer that came to be prayed daily was the Kaddish, which in its ancient form began: “Exalted and hallowed be his great name … May he cause his kingdom to reign.”

By Jesus’ day, many were familiar with Daniel’s prophecy about four kingdoms and believed the fourth and final kingdom to be the current Roman Empire (Da 2:37-43). Daniel prophesied that in the time of that fourth kingdom, God would establish an eternal kingdom, overthrowing the other ones (Da 2:44). This kingdom belonged to a “Son of Man,” a human one, whose rule was associated with the deliverance of God’s people and contrasted with the preceding empires that were compared with beasts (Da 7:12-14,17-18,21-22). Daniel spoke of these truths as “mysteries” (Da 2:28-29; cf. 2:47). Thus it is not surprising that the Gospels speak of the “secret” or “secrets” of the kingdom (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11; Lk 8:10).

Jesus’ first followers in the New Testament, who believed that the coming Messianic king had already come once and that the first fruits of the future resurrection had occurred, often treated the future kingdom as also present. We recognize that just as the king has both come and will come again, his kingdom has already invaded this world but remains to be consummated. Where the other Gospels use “kingdom of God,” Matthew uses “kingdom of heaven” with just four or five exceptions. This Jewish expression appears elsewhere and reflects the Jewish use of “heaven” at times as a respectful and roundabout way of saying “God.”

Thanks. Your point in using that article is to say...?

 

[EternalFire]

Thanks. Your point in using that article is to say...?

More study is necessary on understanding how the phrases "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" is used and meant in the Scriptures.

 

[Guojing]

More study is necessary on understanding how the phrases "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" is used and meant in the Scriptures.

As the article you said concluded, Jews during that time don't use the term "Jehovah" due to reverence so Matthew used term heaven, instead of God. That is very understandable.

The key difference being discussed is that when Jesus, Peter and the other apostles talk about the kingdom, whether of God or heaven, they are referring to the physical kingdom on Earth where Jesus reigns over the Jews from David's throne.

When Paul use the same term, he is not referring to that same kingdom, he is referencing more towards salvation, being saved, and entering heaven.

 

[Guojing]

Jesus’ first followers in the New Testament, who believed that the coming Messianic king had already come once and that the first fruits of the future resurrection had occurred, often treated the future kingdom as also present.”

When do you think the 12 realized that? It can't be during the first chapter of Acts, otherwise the 12 won't be asking him "Are you at this time, going to restore the Kingdom to Israel.

Jesus also did not reply to them "Don't be silly and ask that stupid question. Didn't I already tell you in the 4 Gospels that my kingdom is

1. not of this world? John 18:36
2. is already among you? Luke 17:21
3. and is a spiritual kingdom"?

 

[dcontroversal]

When Jesus said, "It is finished".....this is a legal accounting term that = PAID IN FULL.....the SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD were purchased by the blood of Christ and SIN is no longer the issue between God and man although it may temporarily break fellowship between God and a believer......However two things are crystal clear.....FAITH is the issue and a saved child of God gets whipped, not cast away due to rebellion which is Sin!

 

[EternalFire]

When do you think the 12 realized that? It can't be during the first chapter of Acts, otherwise the 12 won't be asking him "Are you at this time, going to restore the Kingdom to Israel.

Jesus also did not reply to them "Don't be silly and ask that stupid question. Didn't I already tell you in the 4 Gospels that my kingdom is

1. not of this world? John 18:36
2. is already among you? Luke 17:21
3. and is a spiritual kingdom"?

These are great questions. As the author states next, "We recognize that just as the king has both come and will come again, his kingdom has already invaded this world but remains to be consummated." The time of consummation was not for them to know.

 

[Guojing]

These are great questions. As the author states next, "We recognize that just as the king has both come and will come again, his kingdom has already invaded this world but remains to be consummated." The time of consummation was not for them to know.

Okay, at least we are clear that Peter was trying to bring that physical kingdom during his preaching in Acts. The Gospel of the Kingdom message is clear, "The nation must repent and be baptized, so that Jesus can return to sit on David's throne (Acts 3:19-20)

 

[EternalFire]

Okay, at least we are clear that Peter was trying to bring that physical kingdom during his preaching in Acts. The Gospel of the Kingdom message is clear, "The nation must repent and be baptized, so that Jesus can return to sit on David's throne (Acts 3:19-20)

Interesting you bring up Acts 3. As you point out, Peter is undoubtedly talking to Israelites. We also know they are at the temple. Since accepting Jesus as God's Christ and repenting are the prescription for sins being blotted out, why doesn't Peter--or later James, or John--if they are to still follow the Law of Moses after believing in Jesus, ever mention animal sacrifice as part of the requirements? The temple is still, shall we say, "open for business" during the Book of Acts.

 

[Guojing]

Interesting you bring up Acts 3. As you point out, Peter is undoubtedly talking to Israelites. We also know they are at the temple. Since accepting Jesus as God's Christ and repenting are the prescription for sins being blotted out, why doesn't Peter--or later James, or John--if they are to still follow the Law of Moses after believing in Jesus, ever mention animal sacrifice as part of the requirements? The temple is still, shall we say, "open for business" during the Book of Acts.

There was a long thread being discussed here that concluded that Jesus never told them, even after his resurrection, that the Law of Moses have been done away.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-longer-need-to-keep-the-law-of-moses.185392/

I have also discussed elsewhere that it was taken for granted that all Jews needed to keep the Law of Moses. It would be superfluous for Peter to remind the Jews that the Law of Moses continue to be in force for them, animal sacrifices are covered under the same Law.

But that is not enough, they need to repent and believe Jesus as their Promised Messiah. The sin they are to repent from, and to be blotted out, is the sin of crucifying Jesus.

Believing in Jesus is a necessary condition for the Jews, not sufficient. Similarly, when Jesus told Nicodemus the famous John 3:16, Jesus was not saying that the Jews no longer need to keep the Law of Moses.

 

[EternalFire]

There was a long thread being discussed here that concluded that Jesus never told them, even after his resurrection, that the Law of Moses have been done away.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-longer-need-to-keep-the-law-of-moses.185392/

I have also discussed elsewhere that it was taken for granted that all Jews needed to keep the Law of Moses. It would be superfluous for Peter to remind the Jews that the Law of Moses continue to be in force for them, animal sacrifices are covered under the same Law.

But that is not enough, they need to repent and believe Jesus as their Promised Messiah.

Believing in Jesus is a necessary condition for the Jews, not sufficient. Similarly, when Jesus told Nicodemus the famous John 3:16, Jesus was not saying that the Jews no longer need to keep the Law of Moses.

Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses. You simply cannot follow the Law of Moses without animal sacrifice.

 

[Guojing]

Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses. You simply cannot follow the Law of Moses without animal sacrifice.

Yes but we only knew that after Paul. You should not anticipate revelation to conclude that Peter and the other 11 knew about that too during early Acts.

Remember what Jesus told them in the Matthew version of the Great Commission.

Matt 28
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

That part I highlighted in bold reminded us that Jesus never told the 11 that the Law of Moses had been done away after his death burial and resurrection.

All these will make sense if you recognize, as I have stated previously, that the Jews were granted a one year extension period, after they crucified Jesus, to believe in the Gospel of the Kingdom, which required strict law obedience.

And yes, that includes sacrificing animals for their sins.

 

[EternalFire]

Yes but we only knew that after Paul. You should not anticipate revelation to conclude that Peter and the other 11 knew about that too during early Acts.

Remember what Jesus told them in the Matthew version of the Great Commission.

Matt 28
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

That part I highlighted in bold reminded us that Jesus never told the 11 that the Law of Moses had been done away after his death burial and resurrection.

All these will make sense if you recognize, as I have stated previously, that the Jews were granted a one year extension period, after they crucified Jesus, to believe in the Gospel of the Kingdom, which required strict law obedience.

And yes, that includes sacrificing animals for their sins.

You make a great point about one not anticipating revelation. Look to the previous verse from the one you highlighted. They were to go and teach all nations, not just the Jews with whom they were to begin. This becomes clear when Peter is sent by God to the Gentiles in Acts. Surely teaching others to follow the Law of Moses was not one of Jesus' commands.

A one-year extension? Where do you read this in Scripture?

Take a look at Lk 24:44-49. Amazing how similar it is to 1Co 15:1-4. Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (Lk 24:45). As you will notice from v. 44, Jesus has not only fulfilled what was written about him in the Law of Moses, but also in the Prophets and Psalms! All this they understood before he ascended on high.

 

[Guojing]

You make a great point about one not anticipating revelation. Look to the previous verse from the one you highlighted. They were to go and teach all nations, not just the Jews with whom they were to begin. This becomes clear when Peter is sent by God to the Gentiles in Acts. Surely teaching others to follow the Law of Moses was not one of Jesus' commands.

A one-year extension? Where do you read this in Scripture?

Take a look at Lk 24:44-49. Amazing how similar it is to 1Co 15:1-4. Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (Lk 24:45). As you will notice from v. 44, Jesus has not only fulfilled what was written about him in the Law of Moses, but also in the Prophets and Psalms! All this they understood before he ascended on high.

Jesus told the 12 not to go to the Gentiles. Matthew 10:5. So when Jesus reminded them in the Matthew's GC to obey everything he has commanded them to, that was obviously one of them.

Peter went to the Gentiles "under protest". Without God showing him the vision three times, he would not have went. He even told Cornelius that it was against the Law of Moses for a Jew to be associated with the Gentiles. He even had to ask Cornelius, "Why do you send for me?"

All these indicated that the term "all nations" does not mean to the Gentiles immediately. The Jewish nation must accept Jesus as their Messiah first, before the Gentiles can be reached. This was the divine timetable under the prophecy, found in places such as
Zechariah 8:23.

In the Luke's version of the GC, Jesus also reminded them to "start from Jerusalem".

As for the one year extension, it was based on the parable of the barren fig tree that Jesus stated in Luke 13:6-9

6 And he told this parable: “A man had ta fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’

8 And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. 9 Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’ ”

 

[EternalFire]

Jesus told the 12 not to go to the Gentiles. Matthew 10:5. So when Jesus reminded them in the Matthew's GC to obey everything he has commanded them to, that was obviously one of them.

Peter went to the Gentiles "under protest". Without God showing him the vision three times, he would not have went. He even told Cornelius that it was against the Law of Moses for a Jew to be associated with the Gentiles. He even had to ask Cornelius, "Why do you send for me?"

All these indicated that the term "all nations" does not mean to the Gentiles immediately. The Jewish nation must accept Jesus as their Messiah first, before the Gentiles can be reached. This was the divine timetable under the prophecy, found in places such as
Zechariah 8:23.

In the Luke's version of the GC, Jesus also reminded them to "start from Jerusalem".

As for the one year extension, it was based on the parable of the barren fig tree that Jesus stated in Luke 13:6-9

6 And he told this parable: “A man had ta fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’

8 And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. 9 Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’ ”

It is impossible to take Mt 10 and use it as reasoning for negating Mt 28. Read Lk 22:35-38. Mt 28 represents another "but now." When Christ died and rose again, many things changed and were set into motion.

Also, Mt 28 really annihilates the baptism belief you hold. Mt 28 certainly supports Peter's command to baptize the Gentiles in Ac 10:47-48.

In terms of the fig tree bearing fruit, this idea of a one-year extension period being applicable to the Jews is absurd. The point of the parable is not to fix some universal application of repentance time, but to relay the fact that a believer must bear fruit, and at some point, if no fruit is found, then the tree will be chopped down.

 

[Guojing]

It is impossible to take Mt 10 and use it as reasoning for negating Mt 28. Read Lk 22:35-38. Mt 28 represents another "but now." When Christ died and rose again, many things changed and were set into motion.

Also, Mt 28 really annihilates the baptism belief you hold. Mt 28 certainly supports Peter's command to baptize the Gentiles in Ac 10:47-48.

In terms of the fig tree bearing fruit, this idea of a one-year extension period being applicable to the Jews is absurd. The point of the parable is not to fix some universal application of repentance time, but to relay the fact that a believer must bear fruit, and at some point, if no fruit is found, then the tree will be chopped down.

I am not using Matt 10 to negate Matt 28. I am using both of them to explain why Peter was correct in going to Cornelius "under protest". Matt 10 had Jesus commanding them not to go the Gentiles with the Gospel of the Kingdom. Matt 28 had Jesus reinforcing to them to keep all the things he commanded them.

So when Peter received the instructions from the HS to eat unclean animals, he will naturally be confused. We know now that its because God has postponed the Gospel of the Kingdom to began the grace dispensation for the Gentiles thanks to Romans 9-11 but that revelation was not available for Peter during Acts 10.

But if you don't want to agree with this, I am fine too.

As for parable of the barren fig tree, Jesus was a minster only to the circumcision during his time on Earth. Matthew 15:24, Romans 15:8.

Fig tree, vineyard and olive are always symbols in the Gospels referring to Israel and the Jews. You will not be rightly dividing the Word of Truth if you want to believe that they apply to ALL believers, including Gentiles.

Some examples from the OT show that The fig tree is symbolic of Israel itself – It often symbolized the health of the nation both spiritually and physically. Hosea 9:10 says,

“When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your ancestors, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree.”

Later, the Bible tells us of the glorious time when

“Judah and Israel lived in safety, every man under his vine and his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.” (1 Kings 4:25)

The fig tree is a picture of Israel. In Jeremiah 24, we read about the prophet’s vision of two baskets of figs. Every person in Israel was symbolized by those figs. This means that the whole nation is one or several fig trees from which come the figs, the individual Israelites.

Elsewhere in the OT, when God was displeased with His people because of their unfaithfulness, He would make it known by referring to the lack of fruit on a fig tree. We have an example of this in Jeremiah 8:13. "I will surely consume them," says the Lord. "No grapes shall be on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things I have given them shall pass away from them." Here again, Israel as a nation is symbolized by a fig tree.

 

[Guojing]

Also, Mt 28 really annihilates the baptism belief you hold. Mt 28 certainly supports Peter's command to baptize the Gentiles in Ac 10:47-48.

Think about it, if Peter truly understood that Matt 28 means the Law of Moses have passed for the Jews and they are to preach and baptize the Gentiles, why didn't he remind his Jewish brethren that when they made him explain why he visited Cornelius at the beginning of Acts 11?

He could have said instead "Hey Jesus himself told us to go to ALL nations. What then is wrong with me preaching to Cornelius?" But he didn't.

We are all gentile believers and we were taught in churches that the church is also to fulfill the GC. Hence I understand it is difficult for us to accept that all the Jews, including Peter, who were with Jesus throughout the Gospels, understood the GC differently from us.

 

[JaumeJ]

We should all be diligent in minding our pq's.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

1 Corinthians 15:3 - For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

What do these words mean?

I think of two passages

1 to redeem us from the law..

Gal 3: 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


2, to spiritually circumcise us by having the HS baptize us into his death, hence wiping out everything which condemns us, which in effect made us completely clean, through the washing of regeneration of the HS

Col 2: 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [h]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the [i]handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

a