Dispensationalism...

What is sick is anyone thinking the blood of goats would be pleasant , in any way shape of form, to the Lord God.
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

O how dispensationalism devalues the Cross of Christ.

Became righteous after his works. The righteousness of Jesus Christ was not available in the OT.

Galatians 3
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The Epistle of James, is a man justified by works?

Jesus, speaking to the Jews who believed in him said:

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;" (John 8:31, KJV)
again
"Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, 'If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,'" (John 8:31, RSV)

Following Christ, obeying him, producing fruit or works shows you are truly a disciple of Christ.

James begins his epistle, also addressing the Jews:

"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting." (Jas 1:1, KJV)

James makes a similar statement as Jesus phrased differently:

"What is the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he may not have? is that faith able to save him?" (Jas 2:14, YLT) Young's very literal rendering here.
again
"What good is it, my friends, for someone to say he has faith when his actions do nothing to show it? Can that faith save him?" (Jas 2:14, REB) The REB an excellent meaning to meaning translation

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (Jas 2:18, KJV)
again
"But someone may say: ‘One chooses faith, another action.’ To which I reply: ‘Show me this faith you speak of with no actions to prove it, while I by my actions will prove to you my faith.’" (Jas 2:18, REB)

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (Jas 2:24, KJV)

The word "justify" from the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary:
"1. To prove or show to be just, or conformable to law, right, justice, propriety or duty; to defend or maintain; to vindicate as right. We cannot justify disobedience or ingratitude to our Maker. We cannot justify insult or incivility to our fellow men. Intemperance, lewdness, profaneness and dueling are in no case to be justified." [Compare Rom. 3:4 and 1 Tim. 3:16]

Holy Spirit inspired James does NOT contradict the Holy Spirit inspired Apostle Paul who wrote:

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (2Tim 1:9, KJV)

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal 2:16, KJV)

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." (Rom 3:28-30, KJV)

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!" (Gal 1:8-9, NRSV)

Pages 16 and 17 are about reinstating blood sacrifices. Where do you find in Scripture such and insult to the Cross of of Christ ? Where are you going to find a Levite to be a high priest? The records were destroyed about 70 AD. Do you not see Christ as your High Priest ,the perfect Sacrifice before the Lord God. Dispensationalism elevates man while lowering Christ.

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

A Temple built by mans hands will not have a Holy Place. Christ the Perfect Sacrifice rent the vail and opened the Holy of Holies . Because man labels a place holy does not make it so. Only God makes a place holy. , from the ground around the burning bush to the what was the temple.
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Some in this thread seem to think that salvation, at least in the OT was by works. While we Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha as canonical, it is valuable as a historical record. What can we learn about the old Jewish idea of righteousness and works?

The Second Book of Ezra, also called the Second Book of Esdras is found in the Orthodox Bible and it is also included in the Apocrypha of the older KJV Bibles. The Orthodox Church dates the work at 538 to 410 BC. It is not an inspired book, Canonical by Protestants, but it is valuable for Jewish history. I will quote from this book, which can be read online: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Esdras-Chapter-2/

"Take thou no indignation at them which are deemed worse than beasts; but love them that always put their trust in thy righteousness and glory. For we and our fathers do languish of such diseases: but because of us sinners thou shalt be called merciful. For if thou hast a desire to have mercy upon us, thou shalt be called merciful, to us namely, that have no works of righteousness. For the just, which have many good works laid up with thee, shall out of their own deeds receive reward. For what is man, that thou shouldest take displeasure at him? or what is a corruptible generation, that thou shouldest be so bitter toward it? For in truth them is no man among them that be born, but he hath dealt wickedly; and among the faithful there is none which hath not done amiss. For in this, O Lord, thy righteousness and thy goodness shall be declared, if thou be merciful unto them which have not the confidence of good works."
(2Esdras 8:30-36 KJVA)

The KJV on my shelf with the Apocrypha includes cross references and I'll quote the Canonical references for this passage.

For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great. (Ps 25:11, KJV)

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5, KJV)

Who will render to every man according to his deeds: ... But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Rom 2:6, 10, KJV)

If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; (1Kgs 8:46, KJV)

If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near; (2Chr 6:36, KJV)

The KJVA text note on the word "confidence" in the last sentence of the 2 Esdras passage "Or, substance. He.11.1(Lat.)."

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb 11:1, KJV)

Paul states faith only, whereas, James states by works a man is justified and not by faith only. The audience makes all the difference.

Yep that's why in the early Church they referred to the 6000 years(six one thousand year days and then the Sabbath/Millennial) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennial_Day_Theory but it's like saying "Savvy" in Spanish or understand,know,ect. in English,,, one's calling it dispensation while the other is referring to it as in Genesis 2:4 https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/2-4.htm So what they then called the 7 one thousand year days and were explaining today they refer to them as dispensations and have different points in time where they began and ended...

Here's one they left off the list of early Church writings http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book5.html If you take the link and do a word search for "thousand" Irenaeus explains out the sets of thousand year days(dispensations)...

So in the end though the Jews,Israel obeyed Gods decree of punishment and like it says in Daniel were held in captivity as punishment under Babylon then M/Persia then Greece but when it got down to the fourth beast(Rome) instead of accepting their due punishment like they did under the other three they set out to cast off the times the times they were sentenced to by God that the gentiles would rule over them and in rebellion revolted(1st,2nd,3rd Jewish revolt) against Rome and were destroyed and carried off into captivity like Jesus said?

You may want to read Romans 11.

I subscribe to BritBox by the BBC. I've been watching their series "Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire." Last night I watched the Episode, "Rebellion" which covered the battles leading up to 70 AD and the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. The first thing that caught my eye was the scene of Jews continuing animal sacrifices after the Christ had already been the one final sacrifice for sin, the Antitype who was represented by the Old Covenant sacrifices. Made me think of those pushing a heresy, wishing to bring back sacrifices in some renewed temple in a future physical Israel in Palestine. Ignorant literalism in a highly symbolic book like Ezekiel, produces crazy results.

Watching last night's episode caused me to see just how closely Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 were played out in that horrible period. Physical Israel was dramatically ended there, as the Old Covenant had been ended at the cross. There can be no more animal sacrifices in a temple there. Many good men of God in the past saw a great influx of physical Jews coming into the church before the last day. But looking at Romans 11, if holding to that view, there still is no mention of any temple, throne or sacrifices in that passage. I take the Scriptures to indicate the physical nation Israel ended in 70 AD, never to be reinstituted, the body of Christ being Israel continued, God's people in the New Covenant ruled by King Jesus from the throne in heaven, and this includes the saved of Gentiles and Judeans alike. King David ruled over God's people in under the Old Covenant. Now it is King Jesus ruling in the New Covenant.

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Matt 21:43, KJV)
"That, I tell you, is the reason why the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to a nation that will exhibit the power of it." (Matt 21:43, Weymouth)

"But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." (Luke 20:14-18, KJV)

"Jesus said to her, 'Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem...But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him.'" (John 4:21, 23, NRSV)

When they were saying this on the show what did they say about James,the elders and Paul sacraficing in the Temple in Acts 21? https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Acts-Chapter-21/

Covenants, economies, dispensations, administrations

's all the same

God dispensed His grace differently through Moses than He does through Christ

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:28-29, KJV)

"Yet God forbid that I should boast about anything or anybody except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, which means that the world is a dead thing to me and I am a dead man to the world. But in Christ it is not circumcision or uncircumcision that counts but the power of new birth. To all who live by this principle, to the true Israel of God, may there be peace and mercy!" (Gal 6:14-16 Phillips)

"God forbid that I should boast of anything but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world is crucified to me and I to the world! Circumcision is nothing; uncircumcision is nothing; the only thing that counts is new creation! All who take this principle for their guide, peace and mercy be upon them, the Israel of God!" (Gal 6:14-16, REB)

The translations above give the usual understanding up until the heresy of dispensationalism began spreading early in the 20th century, largely through the Scofield Bible. If one wishes detailed explanation of "Israel of God" in v16, the 19th century Lutheran Heinrich Meyer goes into great detail.

"The Israel of God, that is, as contrasted with Jacob’s bodily descendants as such (comp. Rom 9:6; 1Co 10:18; Php 3:3), the Israelites who belong to God as His own, and therefore form the real people of God ideally viewed (comp. also Joh 1:48), are at any rate the true Christians.[271] But according as καί is taken either as explanatory or as conjunctive, we may understand either the true Christians in general, Jewish and Gentile Christians (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Pareus, Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, Baumgarten, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Borger, Winer, Paulus, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, and others), or the truly converted Jews (Ambrosiaster, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Schoettgen, Bengel, Rückert, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Ewald, Reithmayr, and others; Usteri does not decide). If we adopt the latter interpretation, we must either (with Grotius, Schott, Bengel, Ewald) refer the foregoing ὅσοι and ΑὐΤΟΎς to the Gentile Christians,—a view which is, however, decisively at variance with the universal ὍΣΟΙ, and with the description excluding any national reference, Τῷ ΚΑΝΌΝΙ ΤΟΎΤῼ ΣΤΟΙΧ.—or (with Rückert, Matthies, de Wette, Reithmayr, and others) we must explain the train of thought as follows: “Salvation be upon all true Christians, and more especially (to mention these in particular; see on Mar 1:5; Mar 16:7) on all true Jewish Christians!” But however near Paul’s fellow-countrymen were to his heart (Rom 9:1), he not only had no ground in the context for bringing them forward here so specially; but any such distinction would even be quite improperly introduced—especially in the deeply-impassioned close of the letter—in presence of churches which consisted principally of Gentile Christians and had been involved by Jewish interference in violent controversies. And even apart from this, no reader to whom the teaching of the apostle as to the true Israelites was familiar (and see Gal 3:7, Gal 4:21 ff.) could think that τὸν Ἰσρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ referred to Jewish Christians only; this would be opposed to the specific conception of Paul on this point. We must adhere, therefore, to the explicative view of καί as the correct one (1Co 3:5; 1Co 8:12; 1Co 15:38; Joh 1:16), and indeed, namely, so that it introduces an appropriate, more precise description (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 145 f.; Winer, p. 407 [E. T. 545 f.]) of the subjects previously characterized. Hofmann is wrong in objecting that the epexegetical καί is always climactic; see Hermann ad Viger. p. 838. Moreover, the designation of all those, who shall walk according to that entirely anti-Jewish rule of conduct, as the Israelites of God, forms as it were the final triumph of the whole epistle over the Judaistic practices, the very aim of which was to assert the title of the Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ αάρκα to the heritage of salvation. Hofmann is entirely mistaken in his view that ΚΑΊ is even, and that the Israel of God are the Jew-Christians, so that Paul expresses the idea that he desired to include even these in his wish. It was, indeed, obvious that in ἐπʼ αὐτούς they could not be, and were not intended to be, excluded; but Paul was neither so unwise nor so devoid of tact as expressly to state that self-evident point, as if there could possibly be any doubt about it. By adding this last word, he would only have offended the theocratical point of honour (Rom 1:16). Lastly, Matthias also is wrong in supposing that καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ begins the new sentence (Gal 6:17): “And concerning the Israel of God henceforth let no man,” etc. This interpretation ought to have been prevented by the solemn repetition of the preposition, which indeed on the second occasion would acquire quite a different sense (concerning)."
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hmc/galatians-6.html

Hello Mr. SoanSo! From your photo you appear older and probably wiser than I. LOL

The series from the BBC is purely secular history, taken from secular sources (and Josephus) and reviewed by today's historians. So, no theological views were expressed at all. At the start of the episode it showed the sheep going to be sacrificed, but no comment was made upon it. As to what was going on with Paul, James and the elders as mentioned especially in Acts 21:26, it seems to be a difficult passage to be sure of what was happening in full. In such cases of narrative, where a command to me is not involved, I am not overly concerned about silence in the details that cause me to wonder, so put it under the OT directive:

"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut 29:29, KJV)

I notice in Acts 21:25, reference is made to the idea of being careful about the sensibilities of the Judeans as is quoted from Acts 15:20. In this I tend see merit in the comment by the Presbyterian Albert Barnes:

"Took them to himself; united with them in observing the ceremonies connected with their vow. To transactions like this he refers in 1Co 9:20; “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law.” Thus, it has always been found necessary, in propagating the gospel among the pagan, not to offend them needlessly, but to conform to their innocent customs in regard to dress, language, modes of traveling, sitting, eating, etc. Paul did nothing more than this. He violated none of the dictates of honesty and truth."

The Methodist Adam Clarke remarked here "There seems to have been something in this transaction which we do not fully understand...Paul himself, who appears so ready, on other occasions, to acknowledge and humble himself for his errors and failings: on the contrary he reflects with comfort on his having complied with the customs of the Jews in order to remove their prejudices against him and his ministry, and against the Gospel which he preached, and to win them over to embrace it: 'Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; and this I do for the Gospel's sake.' "

John Gill, the Baptist states: "The four men that had the vow on them; he joined himself to them, and put himself in the same condition, and under a like vow: this he did, not as what he thought himself bound to do in obedience to the law, and much less as necessary to salvation; but to satisfy weak minds, and remove their prejudices, that he might gain them, and be useful to them; and in such a case he would very easily and readily condescend; but when such like things were insisted upon as points of duty, and especially when urged as necessary to salvation, no one more stiffly opposed them:"

I underlined what seems to me the best explanation though the text itself does not explain it for us. It seems that men I hold in great respect, Clarke, Barnes and Gill hold similar understandings on it as I quoted above. I'm comfortable with those answers. Also, the Lutheran Heinrich Meyers comments on this: "The step, to which he yielded, stands on the same footing with the circumcision of Timothy, which he himself performed (Act 16:3), and is subject essentially to the same judgment."

I wondered if they had mentioned any of the Act's of the Apostles in the show I notice that the sections from Acts 15-21 are in general left out of these type discussions because as you say it is an difficult matter. Men often do speak of their own opinions of this as you see in the writings you have quoted. To me it is important to note that when faced with this Peter points out that the Holy Spirit was involved in his being shown this concerning taking the Gospel to the Gentiles and so it is not only just men opinion's involved in this but as we believe these men were "filled with the Holy Ghost" and so the Holy Ghost is also speaking through them.


Also these are the very Acts of the Apostles as recorded so then it is an record of their very actions of that time frame. To me it seems clear that both in Acts 15 and in Acts 21 their is a distinction made and pointed out by James(reminding Paul of the decision in Acts 15 concerning the Gentiles), Acts 21:25, that they seem to still see the issue the same as in Acts 15. Also of note is the change of personal pronoun usage by Luke where before Acts 15-16 he used words like them,they ect.(reciting things told to him) but after the Acts 15 meeting he uses first person pronouns including himself(we,us ect.) and so from then on he is giving his first hand account. Anyway to me there are an multitude of explanations of this offered by men and then there's the Acts recorded in the book of Acts of/by the disciples,Apostles and the Holy Spirit who were first hand witnesses of these events and so one just far outweighs the other. I'll give again the two chapters for others to examine because they seem to explain themselves the reason why they were doing the things(Acts) they were doing. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/15.htm and https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/21.htm