What is the Significance of the "Two Adams"?

The Mystery of Romans 16 is for the obedience of faith, not the revelation of a new dispensation. Obedience is structured through the epistle but the comparison of the two Adams is significant. Only Paul writes about the two Adams. The two Adams are both associated with Eden, the first and the Eden restored. The first Adam in Eden, disobeyed, brought sin and death into the world and Paradise was lost. The Last Adam, obeyed, shed His blood, and reversed the ill, and the hope of Romans is the inner portion of the Promised Land which will be restored like Eden, Is.51. The Mystery of Romans 16 is the truth found in Adam who was a figure of Him who was to come. Only Paul brings out the truths of Christ as found in Adam. We cannot find Scriptures other than Paul which bring this out; but one thing is for sure, the mystery of Roms.16 is not explained by turning to Ephesians which wasn't even written at that time. The Mystery or Roms.16 fits in the structure and context of the letter.

When was John given the Book of the Revelation?

Brian Kelson of BibleUnderstanding.com answers:
Yes, we know when the book of Revelation was written. It was written during the Acts period, lol.

First up, my God is not going to give an entire book of end times information to the post Acts, church which is His Body who have basically, nothing to do with such things. We have certainly not been made kings and priests to God and His Father, 1:5-6. In other words, our dear Heavenly Father was a tad late if indeed it was written and delivered AD96, years after the very events it describes had been postponed at Acts 28 at the setting aside of Israel.

Revelation has over 290 Jewish OT quotes and themes and is in harmony with the Gospels and the Acts period letters as to content. Thus contextually, Revelation fits with 1 &2 Thessalonians, Jude, 1&2 Peter, Matthew, 1&2 Corinthians et al. This is further evidenced by the fact it was written by John, whose ministry was to the circumcision. John was one of the sons to whom the Lord said they were able to drink of the same cup (of suffering) he endured and James was killed by the sword in Acts 12, it is unlikely for me, that John lived to a ripe old age and died peacefully in his sleep.

So the dating is determined by the contents of the book and how those details align with other NT books.

The Revelation prophesy is about the Day of the Lord which was at hand all the way to Acts 28. Mr Welch's helpful précis of it in the Alphabetical Analysis Vol.8 about page 163 is here http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/pdfwritings.htm

I believe Paul's description of a man who was taken (not up but away IMHO) to the third heaven in 2Cor.12. refers to the same things as Revelation. While only one thing, Paradise, is featured in his account, Paradise is the garden associated with the New Jerusalem, the Water of and the Tree of life which are associated with the new heaven since the "first" or former" have passed away. The third heaven is the new one. Whether it was Paul or John is not so much the issue, but Paul had a vision of the things of Revelation 14 years before he wrote to the Corinthians so it was certainly early in the Acts records that the things of Revelation had already been revealed. Paul does not know whether it was in the body or outside the body and John writes he was in the spirit. Paul also clearly tells the Thessalonians he had told them about such things of Revelation (the man of sin, sitting in the Temple and exalting himself, compare Matt.24) when he had been with them on his second "missionary" journey. If the Temple had been destroyed AD 70, the divine author would have made reference to the Temple that USED to stand on Zion, where, in the future, the man of sin would reveal himself but Paul didn't write in that prophetic sense, he wrote in the now, in the imminence of the time. We shall not all die etc.

This is the best I can do my beloved student. I wish I could be more accurate for you and yours, but we have no other guides to the writing. Some argue that John was in spirit on the day of the Lord and thus was writing prophetically of events in the far distant future, but this is interpreting according to hindsight in my view.

The events of Revelation were widely known during the Acts, having been revealed through the prophetic; the supernatural gifts of that time.

What exactly will the Remnant Inherit and When?

The remnant during Acts were waiting for the Lord's return to the earth where they would live and reign with him.  So, they are/were not going up into heaven where the New Jerusalem remains for a time.  They were righteous and would live with Christ in the inner portion (Gen. 17).   There the Lord specifically says he will be a God to Abraham and his seed.  He did not say this regarding the outer portion, Gen.15, which was not given to Abraham himself, only his seed. Remember, the Gentiles of faith during Acts were, in Christ, and thus the seed of Abraham who would also inherit the inner portion.  It is children of the kingdom who are cast out, not the "unsaved," but rather the unrepentant Jews.

When the Lord returns there are some Israelites still alive ("in Isaac shall thy seed be called") and while these are not living and reigning, they are re-gathered (if not in the land) where they will enjoy long life, but the sinner will die at 100.  Now the outer darkness brings forth, or is where the weeping and gnashing of teeth takes place, because of the previously unrepentant seed of Isaac.  Jews thought they would celebrate "next year in Jerusalem," they said it at the close of every Passover meal so I believe.  Sad state of affairs to be cast outside the holy hill of Zion, Psalm 24.  Paul called the Corinthians "chaste virgins."  The word "meet" in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 first occurs in Matt. 25 where virgins go out to meet the Bridegroom, not the Head.   Read Matt. 24-25 and 1 Thess. 4 and 2 Thess. 2.   Some of these virgins were ready, others were not; he warned them all to watch and pray.  Then there was the guy who made it past the front door without a wedding garment, not clothed in fine linen, no access to the inner celebrations and he was speechless, thus a JEW who thought he had every right to be there, but no.

In the East the Bridegroom comes TO the Bride, never FOR her, read Jer. 30-31 and see if you can find birth pangs, the tribulation, Bride and Bridegroom dancing. nations who mistreated Israel punished (Matt.25 the righteous didn't even know they were serving Christ, Gen. 12:1-3). Weddings were celebrated in the bride's house, not the groom's.  Jer. 30-31, Matt. 24-25, 1 Cor. 15, 1 & 2 Thess.  Revelation are all the culmination of Israel's festive calendar deliverance in glorious fulfillment.

Also, does the valley of dry bones speak of a resurrection of those worthy to live in the kingdom, but not reign there? Again, the malefactor asked for the kingdom but received paradise which is way after the "kingdom."

Will the whole remnant of Israel be protected during the Tribulation?

Praise the Lord for his word; it explains itself; and given time, we shall increase in the knowledge of God as we apply the truths we know.  Col.1:9-12.

The Lord instructed the disciples how they could avoid the tribulation and "the Lord's prayer" is now becoming incredibly specific as we position it in the earthly scheme of things.

The Lord said (in an Australian paraphrased sorta way), hey friends, when you see the armies surrounding Jerusalem, get out of town. When they were obedient and didn't even come back for their food caches (stored for the very occasion), their GPS's and folding maps, they would be praying the Lord's prayer IN THE WILDERNESS, with great intent as follows:

Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed by thy name,

thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,

give us this day the bread which comes down from heaven (or from above)

and forgive our debts (trespass, faults, offenses, sins), as we forgive our debtors

and lead us not into temptation (God doesn't tempt anyone, James 1, so how about trials or even tribulation)?  BUT deliver us from THE EVIL ONE (who is pouring a flood after them (Rev. 12), just like Pharaoh did).

for thine is the kingdom, etc., etc.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians during Acts that the Day was not going to overtake them like a thief?  They would not be caught by surprise and suffer.

So what about those who did not flee? Maybe the martyrs will be those who hear the message during the tribulation period after the others have fled (the Lord has never left Himself without a witness), and these are the ones to suffer?  Notice, the disciples were told to flee out of Jerusalem, not easy for an orthodox Jew; but it is there the image in the temple is erected; there the powerful deceptions take place, there the thinking Jew might reject the falsehoods and turn back to God and stand for the commandments and die for that.  There are witnesses in Jerusalem around that time.

Certainly the supernatural gifts of the Acts period enabled the remnant to determine the spirits; and maybe they will return during those tribulation days and help preserve those believers living under the eyes of the anti-Messiah?

The hope of the remnant during Acts was to meet the Lord as he returned at the second coming, but they enjoy the earthly kingdom first, judging angels (on the earth) and the world.  Many will come and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom, Matt. 8; but Abraham also looked for a city which has foundations, so first the inner portion of the Promised Land.

I think (think, did I say think?) the New Jerusalem descends to the new earth years after the second coming.  DO the remnant have access to it during the interval?  I don't believe so.

Did the Parable of the Fig Tree Add a Year to Israel's Chance at the Kingdom?

In the matter of the fig tree of Luke 13:6-9, where does it say add another year? It says let it alone THIS YEAR.   Add another year to what?  Even if Christ was cut off at the 69th year, Israel were NEVER to be cut off at Passover – Passover was the beginning of their deliverance, not the setting aside of the nation. If Christ was cut off at the 69th week, how is it another year needs to be added, there remained 7 years of the 70 anyway. Only Messiah was to be cut off but "not for himself" at the cross. When he prayed "Father forgive them," it didn't mean he had prevented them from being cut off.
 
It is beyond a joke to insist that Acts 7 was one year from the cross anyway.  Herod died in AD44 as recorded in Acts 12, so Acts 1-7 was one year, and 8-12 was 15?   The three years of testimony in Luke 13?  What did they mean?  Too much is made of the years, when the context is "unless you repent you shall likewise perish."  It is the giving of further time which matters, not how much time because we know, the testimony to Israel was constant right through Acts as Romans 10:21 shows.  Israel rejected God at Kadesh-Barnea and wandered for 40 years.  The purpose was not altered just because Israel was unfaithful.

The death of Stephen was the temporary closing of the recorded witness in Jerusalem is all.  In Acts 21, James invites Paul to consider all the thousands who were saved and zealous of the Law – who witnessed to them?  The witness remained there, but for the records, after Stephen from Acts 8 it then went to Judea and Samaria according to Acts1:8.   Acts 11 saw another martyrdom:  James; but this didn't mean Israel were cast aside either, but the witness moved outside the Land.  All those who were scattered at the persecution of Stephen preached to none but Jews only, Acts 11:19-23.  At Antioch, Barnabas saw the grace of God; but he sure didn't see the dispensation of the grace of God.   Neither Paul or any other Jew preached any new economy, it was all the OT.

See also: 

Did the Parable of the Fig Tree Add a Year to Israel's Chance at the Kingdom?

Did Israel blaspheme the Holy Spirit by stoning Stephen?

What does the Lord "standing" in Acts 7 really mean?

 

How Many of Paul's Letters are for Us and Which are They?

There are seven Pauline letters written after he received the revelation of the mystery as set forth in Ephesians 3:  Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.  These letters contain the doctrine God would have the church, which is Christ's body, learn and live by.  Consideration must be given to the fact that by the time 2 Timothy, the last of Paul's letters, was penned, even his well-established assemblies such as that at Ephesus and Colossae had turned away from his God-given authority:  "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes."  (2 Timothy 1:15).   Since that time, fully-developed assemblies have been few and far between; with only small pockets of individual adherents guarding and teaching the knowledge of the post-Acts genesis of the "one new man" created to inherit the heavenly places.

Was Acts 7 "Three Strikes & You're Out" for Israel?

As you know, many feel that this was a cut off point for the nation of Israel because they rejected Stephen's message and soon after Paul was converted, and Peter opened the door to the Gentiles. Some imagined three strikes and Israel was out theory is promoted and the vision of Stephen is somehow a confirmation of this.

The three strikes and you're out is a Mid Acts invention.  Yes, Israel killed the prophets; but Christ still came according to the prophets; so the first strike didn't stop God from His purposes.  Yes, Israel crucified their Lord; but that isn't a strike, since the Lord prayed for their forgiveness and the cutting off of Messiah was according to the prophets.  SO, we don't have any strikes yet.   Stephen was a martyr, but he prayed "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge," so that isn't a strike either.   Then Paul said "all day long the Lord was holding out his hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people," so obviously the Lord didn't hold any strikes against Israel at Roms.10:29-11:3.

Here are some facts which expose this theory as being out of context and thus, out of line with Scripture.

First up, the Lord had given strict instructions as to how the ministry was to unfold here;

Act 1:6  When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

Act 1:7  And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

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

Acts begins with the restoration of the kingdom in view and the witness is in Jerusalem (where they were to wait), Judea, then Samaria and further out. The martyrdom of Stephen saw the conclusion of the witness in Jerusalem, the next area of witness was about to commence, not national dismissal of Israel.

BTW, there is no historical evidence that it was 1 year from the crucifixion to Acts 7, and the idea that another year was added is based upon the false premise that Israel would have been cut off at the cross which was never the case, only Messiah was to be cut off, and not for Himself. Passover was the beginning of Israel's deliverance, not the end of them.

Stephen's address tells us precisely the state of affairs in the divine scheme of things, and when we allow Scripture to point the way forward for us, we are always going to be on the right track. Stephen is addressing the leaders of Israel and he begins with the call of Abraham and the bondage and great Exodus deliverance of Israel; their first Passover. Joseph is then featured as one who was rejected, sold for silver, cast into a pit BUT despite Israel's faithlessness, it was through the rejected Joseph that deliverance came. Joseph was recognized THE SECOND TIME. There is nothing in the story of Joseph which indicates and casting off of Israel, only the faithfulness of God in the face of Israel's unfaithfulness.

Next character in the story is Moses who thought his brethren would understand that God had sent him to deliver them, but they understood not. Moses was 40 and returned the second time at 80 years of age. BTW, the Acts period runs nearly 40 years but the fact is, Moses was rejected the first time, but this did not mean God had turned away from Jacob. Nothing in Joseph or Moses can possibly be interpreted as the casting off of Israel, on the contrary, two brothers of Israel, 2who had been rejected, and wickedly so, were the means of Israel's salvation, not the bringing in of anything new and completely different. In verse 34, God said that He had seen the affliction of HIS PEOPLE, and Moses was sent back and this Moses Israel refused as a ruler and judge, was the one sent to be a ruler and judge. Stephen immediately reminds Israel's leaders that Moses warned them of the One coming like him. Like him, Christ would be like Moses, rejected, scorned as the other prophets foretold, but this does not mean Israel would be cast off simply because the message of Jesus of Nazareth was rejected.

When we overlay our own ideas on the types and plain words of Scripture, we are confusing the entire setting.

Stephen's message then turns to the faithless Israel, who even rejected Moses despite the incredible and mighty signs and wonders done before their eyes, but again, God never cast them aside, He gave them over to the idolatrous ways, but they remained His people and Solomon built the Temple. Solomon is a picture of Christ in glory, not the church which is His Body brought in because Israel were stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears.

What did Stephen see as they fell upon him? He saw the glory of God first. Which God? The God of Israel's fathers.

Stephen then prayed, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. Israel sinned which was their historical propensity, but they were not cast aside here. Let us turn to our Apostle Paul, not even converted at this time, so years later he wrote this in Romans;
Rom 3:1  What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2  Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3  For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Rom 3:4  God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Paul is telling us plainly, what if some of them did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith (fullness) of God without effect? IN other words, just because Israel is faithless does not mean God is faithless. He had made promises to Israel's fathers and God will keep them as Stephen's address proves.

How spurious is it that so many today want to quote Roms.3:4 pointing to others of different beliefs that they are liars, when the use of Ps.51:4 by Paul is in the context of God's faithfulness to Israel despite their rejection of Him. Here is Psalm 54, can anyone see a new calling in the repentant prayer of King David who pleads for God to do His good pleasure in ZION and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem?
Psa 51:14  Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
Psa 51:15  O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
Psa 51:16  For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
Psa 51:17  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Psa 51:18  Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
Psa 51:19  Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

Later in Romans, Paul writes this;
Rom 11:26  And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27  For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Rom 11:28  As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Rom 11:29  For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

The gifts and calling (singular) is without change of mind.

Prior to this, Paul had written that God was holding forth His hands to a disobedient (disbelieving) and gainsaying people (plural, that is the nation, not individuals) – further evidence that the nation had not been cast aside anytime previously; Roms.10:21-11:5.    A reading of 1Kings 19:10-18 will also show the national rebellion but the faithfulness of God who had preserved to Himself a remnant as was the case during Acts. We are not a remnant according to the election of grace, 11:5 and 9:24-29.

Returning to Roms.3, we are not to read any change of dispensation in the word vengeance of verse 5. Vengeance is that which Moses spoke about which was to be meted out upon the Lord's return, Roms.12:19, Deut.32:35, 43, Roms.15:10.

Messiah was not cut off at the 69th week. He was cut off at the 62nd as the angel spoke to Daniel in chapter 9. Rome does not produce the anti-Messiah as Daniel 8:8-10 proves. Alexander, the great he goat never conquered Rome and the anti-Messiah comes from one of the four divisions of Alexander's kingdom. For the 69th week, see the Tract, What happened to Israel? Lo-Ammi, at the bottom of this page http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/biblestudies.htm

Stephen's address at Acts 7 is all about God's faithfulness to Israel despite the rejection of the deliverers sent to them. This says nothing of God casting them aside, rather on the contrary, it proves that no matter how much Israel remained stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, that God would complete His work upon the earth.

As in the past, Israel faithless, stiff-necked, but God continued on with His purposes because of His faithfulness. Here are some OT passages to show the Acts period setting in type.

Num 23:19  God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Num 23:20  Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

Num 23:21  He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them.

Deut.4:33-39.
Deu 7:7  The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

Deu 7:8  But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deu 9:4  Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee.

Deu 9:5  Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Deu 9:6  Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.