You think he means a delay of Israel's theocracy. He does not. That's 2P2P. It is not in the NT. Anywhere.
I see no reason why your two passages support your mistaken kind of delay anyway. The Acts 15 is actually saying the incoming faith among the nations is the raised tent of David that was fallen. Only a programmed reader would rip it away from the present direct meaning it has and say 'oh, neat, another passage about the distant future of Israel!'
I was referring, however, to the delay in the day of judgement worldwide. Paul especially thinks it is very soon. He does not let Luke mention it. Luke does not say the worldwide judgement may be delayed after the DofJ; it is one right after the other to him and Paul.
Deal with the actual propositions before you, not the imaginary reading that you despise, and which you despise because you do so much of!
I shouldn't despise what has you so enamored with the wisdom of men, and blind from what is right in front of you?
You very well know that what you are spouting, you yourself have often asserted is based on this "history first" theory of yours.
A history, which, unless you have a time machine at your beck and call 24/7365; you get from the writings of men.
No, Interplanner. You got all the above from history reinterpreted by book readers, in turn, book writers, read by them all, into the passages.
You then project that practice as actually being the practice of those you disagree with.
There is a huge difference between reading a thing, followed by reading it into another, and then following that with concluding that that is what others also do - there is a huge difference between all that and being able to keep oneself free from same - huge.
Again, my A9D aka Mid-Acts, follows the same basic rudimentary process by which men like Martin Luther initially began to see the actual sense of a passage like Romans 1:17's "the righteousness of God."
Reading how he did, I right off recognized it as similar to my own.
That of looking at a thing from within itself, as to what it might reveal about itself, from itself, from its parts, as to what the sum of its parts is, and visa-versa.
Luther's mistake soon followed - he reached for "books about" in hopes of the insight of those he believed might shed greater light, found a nugget, but then concluded from that, that meant they were to be trusted on their findings a but more than he should have.
And with that, how he initially began to recover what had been lost, his simple process once more became lost to any further understanding beyond the Law and Grace distinction, until, perhaps Darby.
I say perhaps, because I have never read Darby, but in snippets here and there, by his detractors.
Thus, all I know is that his pattern as revealed by his result, is similar to my own, in process, to what Luther has related had been his own (Luther's own) first pattern.
Nothing more than the same practice one learns in the dissecting of a frog in an early Biology class - go in, and begin...from within.
The more astute will also note how he himself is conducting this "going in and beginning from within..."
While the even more astute will begin to arrive at conclusions not unlike those long since arrived at by others.
What they share in common is this same "go in, and begin from within... extract a principle..."
The Bible is the same way. One goes into its pages, not into the pages of men and their endless re-presentations, for their having relied on their own notions, together with those of their favorite writers as to this.
Again, I shouldn't despise what has you so enamored with the wisdom of men, and blind from what is right in front of you?
