The promise of the Messiah was for the restoration of Israel.
The promise of the Messiah was for the restoration of life from the dead. That promise was made in Genesis 3, before Israel existed.
[Gen 3:15 KJV] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Israel had additional promises made to them, but those did not negate the original promise that was for all people, all descendants of Adam.
And then Israel rejected her Messiah, and so God decided to demonstrate that He was not limited to using Israel to preach to the nations, but that He could reach the nations IN SPITE OF Israel's rebellion.
Preach WHAT to the nations? Salvation in Jesus' name? So even though the Messiah was to come to Israel first, it wasn't primarily for the benefit of Israel, but the benefit of all mankind, as you are admitting here. The purpose, as you are stating, was to "reach the nations", whether Israel rebelled or not. That good news was preached at Christ's birth.
[Luk 2:10 NKJV] Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people.
[Act 26:22 KJV] Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying
none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
[Act 26:23 KJV] That Christ should suffer, [and] that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people,
and to the Gentiles.
Paul is preaching the same message, with a little extra bit of information--not the part about it being to the Gentiles, but that the Jews weren't required to have their kingdom and all the trappings for Gentiles to be saved (plus the Gentiles would be considered "fellow heirs"). If the good news was that all people could be saved (shown light), including Gentiles from Moses and the prophets, then that part of the message hasn't changed. The only part that has, perhaps, is that God will save Gentiles even if the Jewish nation doesn't want to participate.
They knew from the scriptures that if God promised to establish and raise up a nation, and then that nation rebelled, that God would not establish and raise up that nation.
ok
The gospel of the kingdom isn't about grace at all.
It is if it introduces salvation from death to the world.
The gospel of grace is... well, about God's grace.
Right--salvation from death.
I seriously can't believe you just said that "the gospel isn't just about grace." YES IT IS!
No, it isn't--it is about salvation from death. Grace without that is worthless.
It is LITERALLY the entire gospel, how God is gracious towards sinners, and not only is He willing to reconcile with sinners, but even to forgive them, in spite of them violating His laws!
Yep, Jews, too. Remember what the sacrifices were for? law violations. And it wasn't enough. THey needed grace, in the form of Jesus Christ.
The kingdom gospel, however, is that God is MERCIFUL to those who keep the law, IN ORDER TO be considered righteous.
And that the Gentiles would be given light (Christ), too. The message is the same, but the path had to be rearranged (different dispensation). The path was NEVER the keeping of the law.
Which is the entire crux of the matter.
How is one made/considered righteous?
Only by the righteousness of Christ. Only! For Everyone!
Is it by keeping the law (ie, works)? Then he is under the gospel of the kingdom.
NO. Hebrews tells us the law, the old covenant, couldn't do that.
[Heb 9:9 KJV] Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that
could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
The author of Hebrews is explaining to them that the law could not make the Jew perfect. The way into the holy of holies was not yet provided,
until Jesus:
[Heb 9:8 KJV] The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
If it couldn't do that, and therefore a new covenant was needed, then why do you now say that keeping the law is sufficient to save someone?
[Heb 10:1 KJV] For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
[Heb 10:5 KJV] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
[Heb 10:6 KJV]
In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
[Heb 10:8 KJV] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and [offering] for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure [therein];
which are offered by the law;
[Heb 10:9 KJV] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
This is to those who you say are following and trusting in the kingdom gospel. It is saying, "don't trust in the law to establish your righteousness." Why? because it was never about establishing their own righteousness, neither could it be.
Is it solely through the grace of God and NOT of works (keeping the law)? Then he is under the gospel of grace.
Lest ANY man (including Jews) could boast. If it was possible to be saved by keeping the law, Paul tells us that Christ wouldn't have been necessary. Why then have the law?
[Gal 3:19 KJV] Wherefore then [serveth] the law?
It was added because of transgressions,
TILL the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
When did the seed, to whom the promise was made, come??? And then the law was no longer needed. Was Peter (and the twelve) BEFORE or AFTER the seed coming? Was Paul before or after? Both were after. Paul had to explain all of this stuff to the Jews, including the twelve, but it was there for them all to see.
Yep. That's why grace was necessary for even the law-keepers. I think you've said this before yourself.
[Gal 3:11 KJV] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
[Gal 3:12 KJV] And
the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
The gospel (good news) for the house of Israel was that if they kept the law, they would be seen as righteous.
Bah! Then they could boast. Paul said "lest any man could boast." The Pharisees were already seen as righteous keepers of the law. But it was all whitewash on sepulchres.
The gospel (good news) for the Body of Christ is that if one recognizes that he CANNOT keep the law, and puts his trust in God to save him, he would be seen as righteous.
Which applies to everyone. If the Jew recognizes that he can't keep the law, then his only chance is to put his trust in Christ, just like the Gentile. Peter told us the Jew can't keep the law:
[Act 15:10 KJV] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Things that are different are not the same.
Which means nothing good, if you try to use it to subvert the grace of God provided even to the Jews. Peter said there wasn't supposed to be a difference:
[Act 15:9 KJV] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
So it seems important that things that are not different, and not intended to be different, not be made to be different.
