Daniel 9

[Eleanor]

What does Jesus mean by the abomination of desolation and who or what is that abomination according to Jesus from the context of Matthew 24 ?

Does Luke not tell us in the parallel passage, Lk 21:20?

As happens with prophecy, sometimes they are of two events, one interspersed in the passage of another.

I see that in Mt 24, where the end of two ages is presented, the end of the NT age, with the end of the OT age interjected at vv. 15-22.

 

[EarlyActs]

Does Luke not tell us in the parallel passsage, Lk 21:20?

Actually Luke is telling of a signal to leave, but it coincides with a person/thing that is in the other passages (Luke consulted them) where he is the signal to leave. They refer to the person of Dan 8:13 and 9:27 being in the temple and destroying the country.

 

[Eleanor]

Actually Luke is telling of a signal to leave, but it coincides with a person/thing that is in the other passages (Luke consulted them) where he is the signal to leave. They refer to the person of Dan 8:13 and 9:27 being in the temple and destroying the country.

As happens with prophecy, sometimes they are of two events, one interspersed in the passage of another.

I see that in Mt 24, where the end of two ages is presented, the end of the NT age, with the end of the OT age interjected at vv. 15-22.

 

[armylngst]

1, there is no breaking.
He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.[bs]
But in the middle of that week
he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.
On the wing[bt] of abominations will come[bu] one who destroys,
until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”

Remember the subject is Messiah, until 'one who destroys' (also mentioned above).

You do understand that the but signifies a change, right? The reason why it is mentioned at all is because it means He violated the covenant, that is, He broke the covenant. The covenant is one of peace, and HANDS OFF.

2, What's the ECF?

What is NHNE? Does anyone see an issue with using acronyms that not everyone is aware of? (I know what it is now, but because someone spelled it out). ECF is the Early Church Fathers.

3, The prophets foretold the sacrifice of Messiah and the outreach of his message to the nations. Did you know that Paul once said in Acts 26 that 'we say nothing beyond what is permitted, that (these two things)....' His life was at stake. Why did he not says 'guys, let's try to calm down here. This is just temporary--you know, a few thousand years. Then you guys will have your golden age.' Sorry but I cannot find this anywhere in the NT.

Revelation. Of course, if you decide to reinterpret it away, then you won't see what is clearly stated.

4, There are some rabbinic docs that acknowledge that after Messiah, there was to be a huge outreach to all nations. But they do not have a doctrine that a phase reverts afterward to Israel. Nor does Paul. The next thing is the FDJ (final day of judgement). This is why the apostles are very clear: the world is ending at the end of this generation, and Israel is judged first. No one realize that a delay was allowed. Not a delay in Israel's judgement, clearly. A delay in FDJ or after v29 of Matt when the stage is no longer 1st cent. Judea.

It isn't the judgment of Israel. Everything God has done to Israel has been chastisement, because Israel is the chosen nation of God.

Jeremiah 31 "31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “when I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, but I was a husband to them,” declares Yahweh. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will cut with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Yahweh: “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 And they will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know Yahweh,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares Yahweh, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”"

On Paul:
Romans 11
" I say then, has God rejected His people? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 [a]God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have left for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 In this way then, at the present time, a remnant according to God’s [b]gracious choice has also come to be. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

"11 I say then, did they stumble so as to fall? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their [d]fullness be! 13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my [e]fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 And if the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too."

"25 For I do not want you, brothers, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “And this is [g]My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

28 [h]From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but [i]from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all."

So who are you to declare final judgment on Israel?

The delay was allowed 2 ways: 'only the Father knows' the hour of the FDJ and Mk 13: there are 4 times allowed for the return of the Owner of the estate.

2 Peter 3 is an express discussion of this delay. It is the very question that has been raised to him by scoffers. There is no future Judaic phase or features mentioned; just the FDJ and the NHNE.

5, We should consult the NT when it quotes the OT. Jer 31 is quoted by Hebrews (besides the general theme of the new covenant--last supper, 2 Cor 3-5, etc). It has come. The OT is always in vivid pictures like 'prospering in your homes' but that is not the thought, as we see from the numerous quotes of the NT. It was meant to be seen in Christ.

I looked up the passage in Hebrews. Why was it used? 1. The audience was... the Hebrews. 2. The line of import is that which says that God will forgive them (Hebrews/Jews) their sins. 3. Where there is forgiveness, there is no need for sacrifice. To whom but the Jews, would this have any meaning?

There is no change made to the prophecy. It fits in with the theme of Hebrews which goes to show that Jesus is the greater sacrifice, and that the Jewish sacrificial system serves a purpose no longer.

 

[armylngst]

The Third Reich was the other side of reducing the issue to race-nation. One failure is to kill Jews. The other failure is to think that the race-nation is intermittently God's attention, alternating with the church (the adultery-divorce-remarriage theme would collapse). This breaks the Bible in to 2 peoples, 2 programs. Ironically, that is what Paul's oppoenents, the Judaizers were about.

It is you who are breaking it up into two peoples. The program is two GROUPS not people. The nation of Israel (unbelieving Israel that still contains an elect) and the church, which contains both Jews and Gentiles. God has not rejected Israel, and even as Paul says, after the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled, all Israel will be saved. And then all won't just be one within the church, but within the world.

(I have run out of time, I will look at the rest when I have time.)

 

[EarlyActs]

You do understand that the but signifies a change, right? The reason why it is mentioned at all is because it means He violated the covenant, that is, He broke the covenant. The covenant is one of peace, and HANDS OFF.

What is NHNE? Does anyone see an issue with using acronyms that not everyone is aware of? (I know what it is now, but because someone spelled it out). ECF is the Early Church Fathers.

Revelation. Of course, if you decide to reinterpret it away, then you won't see what is clearly stated.

It isn't the judgment of Israel. Everything God has done to Israel has been chastisement, because Israel is the chosen nation of God.

Jeremiah 31 "31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “when I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, but I was a husband to them,” declares Yahweh. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will cut with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Yahweh: “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 And they will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know Yahweh,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares Yahweh, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”"

On Paul:
Romans 11
" I say then, has God rejected His people? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 [a]God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have left for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 In this way then, at the present time, a remnant according to God’s [b]gracious choice has also come to be. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

"11 I say then, did they stumble so as to fall? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their [d]fullness be! 13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my [e]fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 And if the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too."

"25 For I do not want you, brothers, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “And this is [g]My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

28 [h]From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but [i]from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all."

So who are you to declare final judgment on Israel?

I looked up the passage in Hebrews. Why was it used? 1. The audience was... the Hebrews. 2. The line of import is that which says that God will forgive them (Hebrews/Jews) their sins. 3. Where there is forgiveness, there is no need for sacrifice. To whom but the Jews, would this have any meaning?

There is no change made to the prophecy. It fits in with the theme of Hebrews which goes to show that Jesus is the greater sacrifice, and that the Jewish sacrificial system serves a purpose no longer.

1, if you shift the antecedent of Dan 9:24+ it will get confusing. There are 3 figures/persons that matter. Most of it is about Messiah. He confirms that the covenant of Israel is the one he accomplished in the 6 lines of v24. That is why he is at odds with the rest of Israel--for claiming that.

2, sorry about NHNE, but in eschatology, I am not aware of any other. It is surprising how much disproportionate attention is on the millenium. It is never mentioned in ordinary-language passages on the future, nor is anything Judaic. The expression itself is just used in Judaic literature to mean a very long time, compare to the cattle on a thousand hills. Does Israel have exactly 1000 hills?

3, the Rev says twice on the first page that it is about things that are happening soon. That is why it matters to those 7 churches instead to audiences X000 in the future when they won't be there! Many of its events are about that conflict, up to an including the army that gathers on the Euphrates, which took place in 64, as I recall, and made Rome rather nervous about any disruptions along the western edge.

4, re the punishment of Israel. Both Lk 21 and I th 2 say that total punishment was sent on them, not for the crucifixion, but for failing to go out on the mission of the Gospel. It actually became rather automatic: the more they caved to the zealots, the more chance of agitating Rome into an explosion. They did. We see no complicity in the revolt by Christians.

5, God has not rejected his people' is there to underscore that it has always been about those with faith. The effort the NT goes to to make that clear is far above loyalty to the race-nation Israel. The 2 peoples, 2 programs system has been very effective, but it crashes badly on these things.

In 11:26, the same point is being made --that it is not a race-nation. The olive tree is not a race nation. So "Israel" (we have to make two Israels distinct since 9:6) is always by faith, is always the remnant, not the whole race-nation.

This is why "in this manner" modifies how all Israel is saved. The manner is the remnant and by-faith manner. This will be seen on down to v30, and God has now in Christ shown all men under sin and has mercy on them all (if they believe). There is no partiality. No one can put God in debt to them, says the song in the next few lines.

re the Redeemer will come. This Isaiah quote is meant historically, to support "in this manner." He has come, he has taken away sin (the first thing John the Baptist said), and Paul sees it accomplished. There is only one covenant and Judaism made an old thing out of what was actually there, replacing the Promise with the Law in Gal 3:17. It is called the eternal covenant, because the Godhead agreed even before creation.

6, I can't see the Hebrews issue. If its the status of the new covenant, yes, the apostle saw it fulfilled and current; that is clear from ch 8-10. This is how the last supper narratives speak and 2 Cor 3-5.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is you who are breaking it up into two peoples. The program is two GROUPS not people. The nation of Israel (unbelieving Israel that still contains an elect) and the church, which contains both Jews and Gentiles. God has not rejected Israel, and even as Paul says, after the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled, all Israel will be saved. And then all won't just be one within the church, but within the world.

(I have run out of time, I will look at the rest when I have time.)

I don't see the significance of peoples vs groups. We mean the same thing. Ryrie (DTSeminary) taught 2P2P in his book and said it is the one essential thing of D'ism.

Your view of 'all Israel will be saved' is against the flow, but it is hard to see at first.

Proof that God does not reject Jews is that Paul is an apostle, and 5000 believed in Acts 4. But the whole generation was appealed to in Acts 2-4 to become missionaries. The failure to do so, in the actual pressures of 1st cent. Judea, meant the country would be toast. It was.

 

[EarlyActs]

Armylngst wrote: (unbelieving Israel that still contains an elect)
The NT has no such conception. Paul did make some generalizations, but he always stays close enough to details to say that he is referring to individuals who believe vs those which don't.

In Mt 24, the believers were told to leave the city when the AofD showed. Those in Judaism would not know that he was going to ruin the place, because he sound so familiar and was performing things needed in the temple. Cp. Acts 26, where Israel is performing temple duties all day but are entirely mistaken about hope, which should be connected to what Christ accomplished in the resurrection.

The most emphatic chapter that Israel should be active missionaries at the time is Rom 10. It does carry into ch 11, too.

The expression 'hardness...until the times...' does not in itself guarantee a return to Israel as a focus. The NT is trying very hard to say that an Israel focus was over the minute John the Baptist said he 'takes away the sins of the world.' The songs and prayers of John and Jesus in the nativity always include the light to the nations, as they should. It was no afterthought.

 

[armylngst]

1, if you shift the antecedent of Dan 9:24+ it will get confusing. There are 3 figures/persons that matter. Most of it is about Messiah. He confirms that the covenant of Israel is the one he accomplished in the 6 lines of v24. That is why he is at odds with the rest of Israel--for claiming that.

What are you talking about? When the word he appears by itself in a sentence, how does one discover who that he is? You go back to the last person mentioned that matches the he. In this case, the prince. Simple grammar. While his people destroy the city, the prince himself will make a covenant with Israel.

"26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations.

27 And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.'"(YLT, the septuagint)

Does this make it more clear? (It if does, please explain how. YLT is so confusing.)

2, sorry about NHNE, but in eschatology, I am not aware of any other. It is surprising how much disproportionate attention is on the millenium. It is never mentioned in ordinary-language passages on the future, nor is anything Judaic. The expression itself is just used in Judaic literature to mean a very long time, compare to the cattle on a thousand hills. Does Israel have exactly 1000 hills?

Isaiah. Israel may have had exactly 1000 hills. Did you count? I haven't. Rome has seven.

3, the Rev says twice on the first page that it is about things that are happening soon. That is why it matters to those 7 churches instead to audiences X000 in the future when they won't be there! Many of its events are about that conflict, up to an including the army that gathers on the Euphrates, which took place in 64, as I recall, and made Rome rather nervous about any disruptions along the western edge.

If you look up the word soon, it is also used to speak of how quickly it will be over. John MacArthur says that it speaks to Jesus return as always being imminent, since no one, not even Jesus, knows when that will be. So always be watching and ready, for He will come as a thief in the night, and no thief is going to tell you when they are going to rob your house.

4, re the punishment of Israel. Both Lk 21 and I th 2 say that total punishment was sent on them, not for the crucifixion, but for failing to go out on the mission of the Gospel. It actually became rather automatic: the more they caved to the zealots, the more chance of agitating Rome into an explosion. They did. We see no complicity in the revolt by Christians.

Once again, if the Jews vanish from the Earth, Satan wins. I am sure that is not your hope. So why the hate?

5, God has not rejected his people' is there to underscore that it has always been about those with faith. The effort the NT goes to to make that clear is far above loyalty to the race-nation Israel. The 2 peoples, 2 programs system has been very effective, but it crashes badly on these things.

No, it is there to say that God has not rejected His people. God did not stutter. He is very clear. In the church they are one, outside of the church, they are two. Jews and Gentiles. Paul is clear. There is a time of the Gentiles. That time is from when the gospel is introduced to the Gentiles following the rejection of the Jews (not the Jews in the church, obviously), until God brings His plans for Israel to fruition at the end of the Tribulation. (As spoken of in Zechariah, Jeremiah, and Isaiah.)

In 11:26, the same point is being made --that it is not a race-nation. The olive tree is not a race nation. So "Israel" (we have to make two Israels distinct since 9:6) is always by faith, is always the remnant, not the whole race-nation.

Why the hate? Why do you fight tooth and nail against God's salvation of Israel? If you were not, you would understand that the logical conclusion of Revelation, and the prophets (with Zechariah being very clear) is that when the Tribulation is over, and Jesus has rescued Israel, that all who are alive will be saved. Zechariah is the most clear. (Zechariah 12)

" 7 Yahweh also will save the tents of Judah first so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah. 8 In that day Yahweh will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who stumbles among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of Yahweh before them. 9 And it will be in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."

"10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem [d]the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. 11 In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the [e]plain of [f]Megiddo. 12 And the land will mourn, each family alone; the family of the house of David alone and their wives alone; the family of the house of Nathan alone and their wives alone; 13 the family of the house of Levi alone and their wives alone; the family of the Shimeites alone and their wives alone; 14 all the families that remain, each family alone and their wives alone."

I take the whole Bible together. I don't cut out little bits and pieces to support some belief of mine. I am constantly finding new things, and having people point out other things. I am not rigid in my beliefs except when they are core beliefs.

This is why "in this manner" modifies how all Israel is saved. The manner is the remnant and by-faith manner. This will be seen on down to v30, and God has now in Christ shown all men under sin and has mercy on them all (if they believe). There is no partiality. No one can put God in debt to them, says the song in the next few lines.

I always found it funny when I told someone that only a remnant of Israel would remain a be saved, and they said it is still too many. The hatred was palpable.

re the Redeemer will come. This Isaiah quote is meant historically, to support "in this manner." He has come, he has taken away sin (the first thing John the Baptist said), and Paul sees it accomplished. There is only one covenant and Judaism made an old thing out of what was actually there, replacing the Promise with the Law in Gal 3:17. It is called the eternal covenant, because the Godhead agreed even before creation.

God never replaced it however. He never rejected Israel. Yes, there is a remnant that is elect, but God chose the whole nation to be His. He hasn't rejected any of them. Yes, only the remnant will be saved and brought into the kingdom, but for the sake of the fathers, for the sake of HIs promises, He has not rejected the nation of Israel. (Again, that does not speak to ultimate salvation, except for the elect...the remnant.) Again, in case you didn't understand it the first time, when Christ returns, only the remnant of Israel will still be alive. Everyone else dies in the tribulation, and in God's judgment, along with the rest of the world.

6, I can't see the Hebrews issue. If its the status of the new covenant, yes, the apostle saw it fulfilled and current; that is clear from ch 8-10. This is how the last supper narratives speak and 2 Cor 3-5.

I think the issue is that you don't understand that the only reason the author brought it up was as part of the reason he wrote to the Hebrews in the first place. Jesus is the better sacrifice, and Jesus is the final sacrifice. From what Jesus has done, God has forgiven His people. As such, the author of Hebrews says that where there is forgiveness, there is no need for sacrifice. So if one stands forgiven before God, they have no need to offer sin offerings/sacrifices. They are forgiven. And that includes forgiven for their rebellion as Jeremiah states.

 

[EarlyActs]

This is from back on p2:





The grammatical difficulty of the passage is that the antecedent that switches at v27b to the evil figure of 8:13+. I have spent about 40 years looking into things here. Here is a well-navigated translation that keeps Messiah, Rome and the evil person distinct as intended:

v24 In 490 years from the return, Messiah will make atonement and bring in righteousness, the righteousness of God, Romans 1:16, 3:21.

v25 The rebuilt temple will include a plaza and will be a defensive structure (it was both).

v26 After 483 years, Messiah will be cut off, but that will not be for himself. Rome (the last of the 4 powers of Dan 2) will come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. The destruction will be like a quick flood. There will be a decreed war until the end.

v27 Messiah will confirm the covenant of Israel--show that what he just accomplished was promised to Abraham from the beginning. This was done through his teaching on both sides of his death (40 days of intense instruction after his death & Res before Pentecost).

V27b Meanwhile the evil person of 8:13 will come doing a new kind of abomination ('on the wings'), but the decree against him will hold (I Thess 'you know what restrains him' comforted the readers) and will destroy him.

Josephus commented on this in his history of the Jewish War (66-73AD); he was a trained priest and this was the accepted understanding of Dan 9 in yeshiva. So the set of questions that start Mt 24 etc are on this topic: IOW, when does the 'end' of Dan 9 happen?

There is much more in my THE COVENANT REVOLT at Amazon. My master's thesis work was on the relation between Luke-Acts and the revolt. Luke is the last of the parallel gospels and says the most on the topic.

The important overall thrust of Dan 9 is that Israel is ruined, but Messiah's accomplishment stands and is eternal. Not quite the answer Daniel was seeking.

 

[armylngst]

I don't see the significance of peoples vs groups. We mean the same thing. Ryrie (DTSeminary) taught 2P2P in his book and said it is the one essential thing of D'ism.

Your view of 'all Israel will be saved' is against the flow, but it is hard to see at first.

Proof that God does not reject Jews is that Paul is an apostle, and 5000 believed in Acts 4. But the whole generation was appealed to in Acts 2-4 to become missionaries. The failure to do so, in the actual pressures of 1st cent. Judea, meant the country would be toast. It was.

Once again, if the Jews cease existing, Satan defeats God. This is why Satan spent so much effort, all the way up until Christ returns and destroys him, trying to destroy/kill all the Jews. If you study history, it was bad for them, yet they endured because God protected them. Yes, God also chastised them, but that is because He loves them, as God tells us that those whom He loves, He chastens.

What I think is funny (funny haha) is that scripture says that at the end, everyone will know God, but people say that is impossible. However, when you actually read what the Bible says, it becomes clear. Zechariah 12, God saves all of Israel. Jeremiah, all of Israel will know who God is. There is more than that. While this is a story of the fall and redemption of creation, there is also a love story between God, His chosen people, and a God who is strong to save them. Yes, not all Jews will be saved, but at the end of time, all Israel will be saved. (Question: Does that cause you pain to hear? Does it abate when I explain to you that it is all those of the Nation of Israel that are still alive, or is the pain still there?) I for one take joy in what God has intended for Israel, but also for the church, for in the end, we will all be one, though Israel will come through some really difficult trials.

 

[EarlyActs]

What are you talking about? When the word he appears by itself in a sentence, how does one discover who that he is? You go back to the last person mentioned that matches the he. In this case, the prince. Simple grammar. While his people destroy the city, the prince himself will make a covenant with Israel.

"26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations.

27 And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.'"(YLT, the septuagint)

Does this make it more clear? (It if does, please explain how. YLT is so confusing.)

Isaiah. Israel may have had exactly 1000 hills. Did you count? I haven't. Rome has seven.

If you look up the word soon, it is also used to speak of how quickly it will be over. John MacArthur says that it speaks to Jesus return as always being imminent, since no one, not even Jesus, knows when that will be. So always be watching and ready, for He will come as a thief in the night, and no thief is going to tell you when they are going to rob your house.

Once again, if the Jews vanish from the Earth, Satan wins. I am sure that is not your hope. So why the hate?

No, it is there to say that God has not rejected His people. God did not stutter. He is very clear. In the church they are one, outside of the church, they are two. Jews and Gentiles. Paul is clear. There is a time of the Gentiles. That time is from when the gospel is introduced to the Gentiles following the rejection of the Jews (not the Jews in the church, obviously), until God brings His plans for Israel to fruition at the end of the Tribulation. (As spoken of in Zechariah, Jeremiah, and Isaiah.)

Why the hate? Why do you fight tooth and nail against God's salvation of Israel? If you were not, you would understand that the logical conclusion of Revelation, and the prophets (with Zechariah being very clear) is that when the Tribulation is over, and Jesus has rescued Israel, that all who are alive will be saved. Zechariah is the most clear. (Zechariah 12)

" 7 Yahweh also will save the tents of Judah first so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah. 8 In that day Yahweh will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who stumbles among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of Yahweh before them. 9 And it will be in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."

"10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem [d]the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. 11 In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the [e]plain of [f]Megiddo. 12 And the land will mourn, each family alone; the family of the house of David alone and their wives alone; the family of the house of Nathan alone and their wives alone; 13 the family of the house of Levi alone and their wives alone; the family of the Shimeites alone and their wives alone; 14 all the families that remain, each family alone and their wives alone."

I take the whole Bible together. I don't cut out little bits and pieces to support some belief of mine. I am constantly finding new things, and having people point out other things. I am not rigid in my beliefs except when they are core beliefs.

I always found it funny when I told someone that only a remnant of Israel would remain a be saved, and they said it is still too many. The hatred was palpable.

God never replaced it however. He never rejected Israel. Yes, there is a remnant that is elect, but God chose the whole nation to be His. He hasn't rejected any of them. Yes, only the remnant will be saved and brought into the kingdom, but for the sake of the fathers, for the sake of HIs promises, He has not rejected the nation of Israel. (Again, that does not speak to ultimate salvation, except for the elect...the remnant.) Again, in case you didn't understand it the first time, when Christ returns, only the remnant of Israel will still be alive. Everyone else dies in the tribulation, and in God's judgment, along with the rest of the world.

I think the issue is that you don't understand that the only reason the author brought it up was as part of the reason he wrote to the Hebrews in the first place. Jesus is the better sacrifice, and Jesus is the final sacrifice. From what Jesus has done, God has forgiven His people. As such, the author of Hebrews says that where there is forgiveness, there is no need for sacrifice. So if one stands forgiven before God, they have no need to offer sin offerings/sacrifices. They are forgiven. And that includes forgiven for their rebellion as Jeremiah states.

There is no hate sir. The last person who treated me that was about evolution, and instead of discussing the issues, he kept shaming me for fearing evolution. He wanted an emotional victory first, and a rational one maybe.

I think you need to get familiar with how severed 'exeoluethrsai' is in Acts 3:26. If that generation did not obey the new Moses, they would be degradingly disinherited. That is the understanding of the apostles fresh off of 40 days of in-person teaching by Jesus.

You see, there is a word play in Acts 1:8-9 about the kingdom of Israel. 1st he says it is none of your business, and then he says that a form of kingdom authority will be donned on you; the clothing image is from that of priests, so they become the kingdom of priests by preaching that Jesus resurrection was the Davidic enthronement, Acts 2:30,31. The grammar of those two verses is conclusive. It wasn't that Peter saw the resurrection as such, David did.

The Christian message was thus exactly what Ps 2 and 110 are about: that the Christ must be honored (and is honored by heaven) and those who refuse to honor him will be crushed. This was the message of early Christians, so that we see them maligned for referring to another king who was not Caesar.

With 5000 by Acts 4, they were off to a good start. And that figure doesn't include the people who had left for home after Pentecost!

This is why Romans 10-11 is about the missionary role of Israel, if they would accept it. It is nothing about a future kingdom or a return to the land. "Saved" in Romans is not 'to be back in the land.' It is justification from sins, as the quote from Isaiah says.

I do think your sampling is too little, and also that if you spent a year tracking how the NT quotes the OT, you would have very different ideas.

 

[EarlyActs]

Once again, if the Jews cease existing, Satan defeats God. This is why Satan spent so much effort, all the way up until Christ returns and destroys him, trying to destroy/kill all the Jews. If you study history, it was bad for them, yet they endured because God protected them. Yes, God also chastised them, but that is because He loves them, as God tells us that those whom He loves, He chastens.

What I think is funny (funny haha) is that scripture says that at the end, everyone will know God, but people say that is impossible. However, when you actually read what the Bible says, it becomes clear. Zechariah 12, God saves all of Israel. Jeremiah, all of Israel will know who God is. There is more than that. While this is a story of the fall and redemption of creation, there is also a love story between God, His chosen people, and a God who is strong to save them. Yes, not all Jews will be saved, but at the end of time, all Israel will be saved. (Question: Does that cause you pain to hear? Does it abate when I explain to you that it is all those of the Nation of Israel that are still alive, or is the pain still there?) I for one take joy in what God has intended for Israel, but also for the church, for in the end, we will all be one, though Israel will come through some really difficult trials.

The NT says the Zech passage was realized in the event of Christ.

Rom 11 makes it clear that all of God's activity is now 'in Christ.' He has now bound all men over to sin, that he might have mercy on all; that mercy is in Christ, it is not in an event like a restoration of Israel to its land. The mercy is for all, Jews and Gentiles. Notice that now is repeated 3x in the section.

It may be me, but I have trouble, knowing all the ordeal Jews have been through, that the mercy of God would an event other than what is announced here in Christ. It belittles their suffering. "Yet God protects them." You can tell them that, not me. And what use is a future age to all the ones that have passed away so far, often miserably? What does "all" mean in v26 if so many have suffered and did so in defiance and unbelief? I'm quite sure that Scripture does not go down such paths. Thus, the conclusiveness of 11:

31 so they (Jews) too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now[w] receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[x]

Back to Dan 9's last paragraph: we know from history that Rome was the one that tore down the city, but it is the evil person who agitates and causes that to happen. Thus the cause and effect in the expression: the rebellion/abomination that desolates. The paragraph matches the complexity of the 'great revolt' history satisfactorily.

 

[armylngst]

There is no hate sir. The last person who treated me that was about evolution, and instead of discussing the issues, he kept shaming me for fearing evolution. He wanted an emotional victory first, and a rational one maybe.

Do understand, I speak only at the outlook on the Jews. Mostly due to the Catholic Church and also replacement theology, amillennialism and preterism have a level of antisemitism built in. It isn't due to those who believe in these systems, but is built into the interpretations of scripture. If you look at the threads on preterism part one through four, you should be able to see it there. It was rather blatant to me. Again, the one holding to the position may not even see it.

The hate does not exist without reason, however, that hatred should have died out centuries ago. The hate comes from when the Jewish people refused to recognize Christianity as a branch of Judaism, which would have granted Christians religious freedom in Rome. Judaism was a legal religion, so if the Jews had accepted Christians as being a branch of Judaism through the Messiah, the Romans would have left them alone.

I think you need to get familiar with how severed 'exeoluethrsai' is in Acts 3:26. If that generation did not obey the new Moses, they would be degradingly disinherited. That is the understanding of the apostles fresh off of 40 days of in-person teaching by Jesus.

Once again, Satan has been trying to destroy the Jews, have them disinherited, etc. because then he would defeat God. Don't play that game even a little. The only thing you need to know is what Paul said. And so all Israel will be saved. Again, it is all who will be alive when Christ returns. God will save every last one, because the ones who are still alive are the remnant, God's elect, of the nation of Israel. (Not Jews in the church, they are part of the church.) Once God is done and the creation goes up in one huge nuclear mushroom cloud, and all the elements melt, etc., the church and the nation of Israel become one. The distinction is gone. It will be a glorious happy day.

You see, there is a word play in Acts 1:8-9 about the kingdom of Israel. 1st he says it is none of your business, and then he says that a form of kingdom authority will be donned on you; the clothing image is from that of priests, so they become the kingdom of priests by preaching that Jesus resurrection was the Davidic enthronement, Acts 2:30,31. The grammar of those two verses is conclusive. It wasn't that Peter saw the resurrection as such, David did.

The Christian message was thus exactly what Ps 2 and 110 are about: that the Christ must be honored (and is honored by heaven) and those who refuse to honor him will be crushed. This was the message of early Christians, so that we see them maligned for referring to another king who was not Caesar.

With 5000 by Acts 4, they were off to a good start. And that figure doesn't include the people who had left for home after Pentecost!

This is why Romans 10-11 is about the missionary role of Israel, if they would accept it. It is nothing about a future kingdom or a return to the land. "Saved" in Romans is not 'to be back in the land.' It is justification from sins, as the quote from Isaiah says.

I do think your sampling is too little, and also that if you spent a year tracking how the NT quotes the OT, you would have very different ideas.

Understand, the Israel that Paul is saying will be saved is NOT THE CHURCH. It is the remnant that are alive after the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. After the tribulation is over. So many will have died. God's chosen remnant will be all that remains. God will save them all at that time. (Zechariah 12) When this world/creation is over, then all, the church and the nation of Israel (remnant) will be one. God will fulfill His promises to Israel. That is all I am saying. Once again, is that too many people for you?

 

[EarlyActs]

The quotations of the OT by the NT in Acts are especially instructive, and I think are the best reflection of what the 40 days of teaching was like. Not counting the one about the drawing lots, they are Acts 2 (Joel 2) to Acts 15 (Amos 9). I have found D'ists to be incredibly exercised to 'undo' the Amos 9 piece.

Notice that in v13, James says that what Peter had been explaining (as if new) was that God at first (in the launch of the church) wanted to call people from the Gentiles. But the last line of Amos 9 is that this was known, and was known from long ago--from Genesis! From ch 12 if not 3!

So the mission work of Israel was known from the beginning. It's what Abraham understood, dovetailing with ch. 3 not conflict. There never was a switch to Israel!

This is why the incoming Gentiles is not the mystery, specifically in Eph 3:5-6. It is the channel. The channel is the Gospel, not the Law. We find this because the grammar places the important prepositional phrase 'through the Gospel' at the top of the sentence. All his Christian life, Paul battled Judaizers who said it was 'through the Law.' In Gal 3:17 he says they even erased the fact that there was a Promise 430 years prior to the Law!

 

[EarlyActs]

Do understand, I speak only at the outlook on the Jews. Mostly due to the Catholic Church and also replacement theology, amillennialism and preterism have a level of antisemitism built in. It isn't due to those who believe in these systems, but is built into the interpretations of scripture. If you look at the threads on preterism part one through four, you should be able to see it there. It was rather blatant to me. Again, the one holding to the position may not even see it.

The hate does not exist without reason, however, that hatred should have died out centuries ago. The hate comes from when the Jewish people refused to recognize Christianity as a branch of Judaism, which would have granted Christians religious freedom in Rome. Judaism was a legal religion, so if the Jews had accepted Christians as being a branch of Judaism through the Messiah, the Romans would have left them alone.

Once again, Satan has been trying to destroy the Jews, have them disinherited, etc. because then he would defeat God. Don't play that game even a little. The only thing you need to know is what Paul said. And so all Israel will be saved. Again, it is all who will be alive when Christ returns. God will save every last one, because the ones who are still alive are the remnant, God's elect, of the nation of Israel. (Not Jews in the church, they are part of the church.) Once God is done and the creation goes up in one huge nuclear mushroom cloud, and all the elements melt, etc., the church and the nation of Israel become one. The distinction is gone. It will be a glorious happy day.

Understand, the Israel that Paul is saying will be saved is NOT THE CHURCH. It is the remnant that are alive after the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. After the tribulation is over. So many will have died. God's chosen remnant will be all that remains. God will save them all at that time. (Zechariah 12) When this world/creation is over, then all, the church and the nation of Israel (remnant) will be one. God will fulfill His promises to Israel. That is all I am saying. Once again, is that too many people for you?

So you are not going to study 'exoleuthresai'?

Btw, Paul had referred to 2 Israels since 9:6, if not before (ch 2B).

 

[EarlyActs]

Do understand, I speak only at the outlook on the Jews. Mostly due to the Catholic Church and also replacement theology, amillennialism and preterism have a level of antisemitism built in. It isn't due to those who believe in these systems, but is built into the interpretations of scripture. If you look at the threads on preterism part one through four, you should be able to see it there. It was rather blatant to me. Again, the one holding to the position may not even see it.

The hate does not exist without reason, however, that hatred should have died out centuries ago. The hate comes from when the Jewish people refused to recognize Christianity as a branch of Judaism, which would have granted Christians religious freedom in Rome. Judaism was a legal religion, so if the Jews had accepted Christians as being a branch of Judaism through the Messiah, the Romans would have left them alone.

Once again, Satan has been trying to destroy the Jews, have them disinherited, etc. because then he would defeat God. Don't play that game even a little. The only thing you need to know is what Paul said. And so all Israel will be saved. Again, it is all who will be alive when Christ returns. God will save every last one, because the ones who are still alive are the remnant, God's elect, of the nation of Israel. (Not Jews in the church, they are part of the church.) Once God is done and the creation goes up in one huge nuclear mushroom cloud, and all the elements melt, etc., the church and the nation of Israel become one. The distinction is gone. It will be a glorious happy day.

Understand, the Israel that Paul is saying will be saved is NOT THE CHURCH. It is the remnant that are alive after the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. After the tribulation is over. So many will have died. God's chosen remnant will be all that remains. God will save them all at that time. (Zechariah 12) When this world/creation is over, then all, the church and the nation of Israel (remnant) will be one. God will fulfill His promises to Israel. That is all I am saying. Once again, is that too many people for you?

It is not what Paul is saying at all. He is not predicting the future, as you can see from v30. He's talking about the present and clarifying how the Isaiah quote came true.

I don't know what NT letters you read but the 'distinctions' are already gone in Christ. Have you ever read Gal 3? Col 2? Eph 2-3?

The real replacement problem which the NT addresses is in Gal 3:17 (to void and set aside). The Judaizers opposed to Paul deleted the fact of the Promise to the nations that was 430 years prior to the Law (more if you count Gen 3's gospel). Instead, all of life was defined by the Law.

 

[armylngst]

So you are not going to study 'exoleuthresai'?

Btw, Paul had referred to 2 Israels since 9:6, if not before (ch 2B).

I consider the church, Jews in the church, and the nation of Israel, those outside the church. The nation of Israel is made up of those who are not actually Israel, but simply by being Jewish are God's chosen people (not to salvation), and the remnant that are not yet saved, so they are not part of the church. Hopefully that helps you understand how I understand it. Oh, those who are not Israel (so to speak) die during the tribulation.

 

[EarlyActs]

I consider the church, Jews in the church, and the nation of Israel, those outside the church. The nation of Israel is made up of those who are not actually Israel, but simply by being Jewish are God's chosen people (not to salvation), and the remnant that are not yet saved, so they are not part of the church. Hopefully that helps you understand how I understand it. Oh, those who are not Israel (so to speak) die during the tribulation.

I've studied D'ism for 50 years.

Are you going to study the important warning of Acts 3:26 and 'exoleuthresai'?

When you get to I Pet 2, spoken by a Jew, and he says 'you (believers) in west Asia Minor are the chosen people, the royal priesthood, what do you see? The phrases are quoted from Exodus and Deuteronomy.

(prob gone for at least an hour, thanks for chatting)

 

[armylngst]

I've studied D'ism for 50 years.

Are you going to study the important warning of Acts 3:26 and 'exoleuthresai'?

When you get to I Pet 2, spoken by a Jew, and he says 'you (believers) in east Asia Minor are the chosen people, the royal priesthood, what do you see? The phrases are quoted from Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Why do you dismiss the testimony of all of scripture, and isolate passages? Well, I wish I hadn't looked at I Peter 2 again, because now I have more questions about where you get your ideas from. If you mean dispensationalism, I slept through dispensationalism for two or three days. Does that help? I then slept through Covenant Theology for two or three days. However, I will admit that I found more to like in progressive dispensationalism, where some/many problems were rectified. However, I then stopped caring.

Acts 3 "24 And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also proclaimed these days. 25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God [k]made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 For you first, God raised up His [l]Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”"

What warning? I don't see a warning here. Context is key.

I Peter 2 does not say that those in East Asia Minor are the chosen people. He doesn't say that. He is speaking to another group of people that are part of the church, and is addressing them as part of the church. (Not as the whole church.) If what you are saying is true, the only people who will be in heaven are those from East Asia Minor.

Also, so I would understand what you are asking me to study, I went to google which said "We don't know either". You stumped google.