Understanding the Prophecy of 70 Weeks

[TMSO]

Let the reader
No connection to 2nd cent. BC. There is nothing (except) in the negative for what the Pharisee movement became. It was trying to compensate for past failures; to put God in debt.

It makes sense that these instructions to the group-reader (most people did not) that they were going to look for something new--other than what was done in the past. It was very different. That's why Dan 8:13 is so important--that the expression was originally 'the rebellion that desolates.' A rebellion takes a leader; that leader was the man of sin; the son of perdition; the guy in Thess.

They were to understand that this is a parallel fulfillment. What happened in 2nd Century BC, will happen in the middle of the 70th week, will happen before the Great Tribulation. In 2nd Century BC, it was in the holy place of the temple, and Jesus says it will be in the holy place of the temple. Is there a reason why you believe that it is not in the holy place of the temple?

 

[TMSO]

re Acts 3
Nothing has been destroyed about the meaning. The mission is the blessing. They were asked to be missionaries to bless the world, before Gentiles were asked the same thing.

I'm aware that 'restoration of everything' has a certain ring to it that might sound Judaic. But there are reasons against this:
1, don't try to figure out the kingdom. Why would he pop this in when he had just been told not to--when at the end of 40 DAYS of instruction, nothing had been said about Israel's kingdom?
2, the signs and wonders of Acts 2 where the latter rains, the last days, the outpouring
3, there are many cases when 'everything' is used but is limited in actuality.
The main thing though is that translation mistake about ' Jesus being kept'. Not at all. He is being honored in a reception, as the comparisons from 2 Cor 10 show. And he goes and does several things in various forms all through Acts, the last being to support Paul in prison in late stages.

What version are you reading Acts 3 in?

"12 But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, “Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why are you staring at us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His [d]servant Jesus, the one whom you handed over and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. 14 But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the [e]Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, [f]a fact to which we are witnesses. 16 And on the basis of faith in His name, it is [g]the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all.

17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers also did. 18 But the things which God previously announced by the mouths of all the prophets, that His [h]Christ would suffer, He has fulfilled in this way. 19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things, about which God spoke by the mouths of His holy prophets from ancient times. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your countrymen; to Him you shall listen regarding everything He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken from Samuel and his successors onward, have also announced these days. 25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 God raised up His [k]Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”

So, point out where it says what you are saying. I put in bold those verses because some here have said that we must ignore the Old Testament, and deal only with the New Testament. So how are we to understand what it means with "whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things", if Peter is clear here that one finds this in the Old Testament?

 

[CrowCross]

Why does God, through the author, interject with "let the reader understand"? What is there for the reader to understand if the event has already happened? I mean, it would make sense if the author knew that it was going to happen after he wrote the book,

Good point.

 

[EarlyActs]

Can you give explicit reference to this, where these words show up clearly?

I read them for what they say explicitly. How else? The same way the early church father's also did not see a present imperative kingdom. Do I need to quote Justin Martyr again?

Can you give an approximate date as to when this message was to replace the gospel?

Hi,
just a note of thanks for being a good discussion partner. I hope I have not disheartened you. But I just had to say goodbye to someone who was persistently belittling and demeaning.
EA

 

[EarlyActs]

They were to understand that this is a parallel fulfillment. What happened in 2nd Century BC, will happen in the middle of the 70th week, will happen before the Great Tribulation. In 2nd Century BC, it was in the holy place of the temple, and Jesus says it will be in the holy place of the temple. Is there a reason why you believe that it is not in the holy place of the temple?

The reason for not accepting that at all is that the 490 years is so badly broken. Here is the complete treatment at the Daniel 9 thread: post #258

In the historical intact view, the Messiah is cut off in the 69th (assumed at the beginning) and sacrifices stop (ie, stop having any value) while he makes the new covenant firm. He did this through teaching the apostles (between the Resurrection and Pentecost) and through Paul.

There is no way to refer to a past event and say it is in the future.

The future he meant was that generation, except for the worldwide day of judgement that we now know was postponed.

Dan 8:13 is critical: the expression was originally the rebellion that desolates. Here is what this means: the 4 kingdoms of Dan 2 would come and occupy Israel. The Maccabbean independence period had a bit of rebellion to them, but God does not blame Israel for what pagans do. In the 4th kingdom, a person would arise who would take the rebellion as far as possible--the Jewish revolt of 66. He would do this against the knowledge that Israel now had a mission through Messiah, and he would do it against the knowledge that there was no way to take down Rome. Jesus called it a foolish idea; it was taking 10K to fight 20K (a Lk 13 parable)--knowing that the numbers were far worse for the underdog!

But the zealots had a notion that a "kingdom" of Dan 2 would come in the form of assistance to what they were doing! This figures into what Caiaphas said in Jn 11--that it would be better for one rebel to put down than for the whole nation to perish (notice that this justified the crucifixion to Jews). I don't think temple leaders wanted a revolt, but they bred the thinking of the zealots, regardless. A high priest in 66 or 67 was assassinated by the zealots also. This was for not helping in the revolt.

That guy, that evil person of Dan 9:27b (not Christ!) is the one who is seen in the temple; they seized it and used it as a fortress. 27a is Christ.

 

[EarlyActs]

Can you give explicit reference to this, where these words show up clearly?

I read them for what they say explicitly. How else? The same way the early church father's also did not see a present imperative kingdom. Do I need to quote Justin Martyr again?

Can you give an approximate date as to when this message was to replace the gospel?

You will be clothed (Levitical terminology for priests clothes) with authority (royal power). Ie, kingdom of priests. This is surely what Peter recalled when he wrote 1 P 2:9:

1. 1 Peter 2:9 sn This verse contains various allusions and quotations from Exod 19:5-6; 23:22 (LXX); Isa 43:20-21; and Mal 3:17.

We should always watch for irony, contrast, wordplay. They asked about the kingdom, he said you will be a kingdom of priests.

Remember, this follows right after 40 days of teaching from Moses and the prophets. How is it that they have to ask when a kingdom is coming for Israel? It isn't! It obviously was nowhere in the teaching curriculum. Instead they get to be the royal priesthood.

It is royal power of its own accord. It asserts that Christ was enthroned Davidically by the resurrection. That is shocking to any informed Jew because they now know that the Son has been seated, awaiting the smashing of all his enemies. Things are in motion! This is why Rom 1 starts: descended of David as a man, declared to be the Son by the resurrection.

 

[EarlyActs]

Can you give explicit reference to this, where these words show up clearly?

I read them for what they say explicitly. How else? The same way the early church father's also did not see a present imperative kingdom. Do I need to quote Justin Martyr again?

Can you give an approximate date as to when this message was to replace the gospel?

re the imperative kingdom
It is absolutely clear. That's what 'honor the Son, lest he be angry with you!' means. Do you know what imperative means: it is the verb tense that you are supposed to do something. That is why the kingdom does not have external signs; it is not here or there; you dont go here or there to see it. God has commanded all men to honor the Son. That is the command! That is the power of the kingdom, which is our job to uphold.

At the end of talking to pagans in Acts 17, Paul said, God has set a date in which he will judge the world in righteousness through His Son. I'm surprised everytime I see that in the Greek Aeropagus setting: Paul used the most advanced eschatological concept from Ps 2 and 110 speak to the pagans. This world rightfully belongs to Christ! "Though the eye of sinful man His glory may not see"! You must absolutely shed the idea that a kingdom of God is here like the USA is here. Or that it will be, until the NHNE.

 

[EarlyActs]

Can you give explicit reference to this, where these words show up clearly?

I read them for what they say explicitly. How else? The same way the early church father's also did not see a present imperative kingdom. Do I need to quote Justin Martyr again?

Can you give an approximate date as to when this message was to replace the gospel?

??? It sets up the Gospel. The same Gospel. Because He is King and is to be honored for accomplishing the Gospel, we should honor Him. There is no replacement.

Christ had two natures, divine and human. The Gospel of the kingdom (ie belonging to it) had two aspects as well: that Christ was the King and that the King had given his life as the arch-hero.

 

[EarlyActs]

What version are you reading Acts 3 in?

"12 But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, “Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why are you staring at us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His [d]servant Jesus, the one whom you handed over and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. 14 But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the [e]Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, [f]a fact to which we are witnesses. 16 And on the basis of faith in His name, it is [g]the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all.

17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers also did. 18 But the things which God previously announced by the mouths of all the prophets, that His [h]Christ would suffer, He has fulfilled in this way. 19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things, about which God spoke by the mouths of His holy prophets from ancient times. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your countrymen; to Him you shall listen regarding everything He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken from Samuel and his successors onward, have also announced these days. 25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 God raised up His [k]Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”

So, point out where it says what you are saying. I put in bold those verses because some here have said that we must ignore the Old Testament, and deal only with the New Testament. So how are we to understand what it means with "whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things", if Peter is clear here that one finds this in the Old Testament?

Yes, it is the same as Ps 2 and 110. He has been honored and is in a grand reception in heaven--though he keeps an eye on his church and manifests several times in Acts to help them. You have picked a better than average translation with its "to receive him" but it is not as though he's stranded and has no where else to go. The verb is about a warm and honoring welcome, an official reception, an honors reception.

And yes, God will smash His enemies and restore everything to him, but I don't know that that event is on this earth, judging from the NHNE. It is at the end of time and I don't think current corporeality continues (there is no time, no marriage, no temple except Christ, no light except God).

You are probably thinking restoration is about Israel things, but I addressed this above:
1, it's Christ's things, not Israels
2, he just spent 40 days teaching from Moses and the prophets, with nothing about kingdom for Israel and said not to think about it, so its not coming out here!
3, "all things" can sound very universal yet have a limitation.
4, he did say just below (v24) that this was the time of blessing that had been announced by all the prophets. That's the mission of the Gospel and he is offering that to Israel first. This restoration of everything, however, is so total, that I must think it is the NHNE; I don't see how it could happen in human history. It's supposed to give Christ all that he deserves (he deserves it now but fat chance that will happen!).

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

The reason for not accepting that at all is that the 490 years is so badly broken. Here is the complete treatment at the Daniel 9 thread: post #258

In the historical intact view, the Messiah is cut off in the 69th (assumed at the beginning) and sacrifices stop (ie, stop having any value) while he makes the new covenant firm. He did this through teaching the apostles (between the Resurrection and Pentecost) and through Paul.

There is no way to refer to a past event and say it is in the future.

The future he meant was that generation, except for the worldwide day of judgement that we now know was postponed.

Dan 8:13 is critical: the expression was originally the rebellion that desolates. Here is what this means: the 4 kingdoms of Dan 2 would come and occupy Israel. The Maccabbean independence period had a bit of rebellion to them, but God does not blame Israel for what pagans do. In the 4th kingdom, a person would arise who would take the rebellion as far as possible--the Jewish revolt of 66. He would do this against the knowledge that Israel now had a mission through Messiah, and he would do it against the knowledge that there was no way to take down Rome. Jesus called it a foolish idea; it was taking 10K to fight 20K (a Lk 13 parable)--knowing that the numbers were far worse for the underdog!

But the zealots had a notion that a "kingdom" of Dan 2 would come in the form of assistance to what they were doing! This figures into what Caiaphas said in Jn 11--that it would be better for one rebel to put down than for the whole nation to perish (notice that this justified the crucifixion to Jews). I don't think temple leaders wanted a revolt, but they bred the thinking of the zealots, regardless. A high priest in 66 or 67 was assassinated by the zealots also. This was for not helping in the revolt.

That guy, that evil person of Dan 9:27b (not Christ!) is the one who is seen in the temple; they seized it and used it as a fortress. 27a is Christ.

You have absolutely no idea what the concept of "desolation" meant in that prophecy. No idea whatsoever.

 

[EarlyActs]

A page on Daniel 9 is at the thread "Daniel 9" post #258. It shows how the vision is a miniature of NT history.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

A page on Daniel 9 is at the thread "Daniel 9" post #258. It shows how the vision is a miniature of NT history.

That's not a proper interpretation of the prophecy. Gabriel clearly stated what the 70 Weeks is all about: "...have been determined for your people and for your holy city...". That is nothing about the church and Christianity. Absolutely nothing.

 

[TMSO]

That's not a proper interpretation of the prophecy. Gabriel clearly stated what the 70 Weeks is all about: "...have been determined for your people and for your holy city...". That is nothing about the church and Christianity. Absolutely nothing.

That is a good point. When one consider this in light of Zechariah, Revelation and other prophetic passages, even the very end seems to revolve around Jerusalem. (See Zechariah 12-14.) There is war against Jersualem, and after it is over, Jesus presents Himself as the unveiled Messiah, coming in His full office, and full presentation of power. Whereas when Jesus left, He still hadn't answered the disciples question of when He would be unveiled as the Messiah, take authority, and restore the kingdom to Israel. When they asked Him originally in Matthew 24, they had no idea that He was going to ascend back to heaven. Hence they ask again in Acts 1 if the kingdom would now be restored to Israel.

 

[EarlyActs]

That is a good point. When one consider this in light of Zechariah, Revelation and other prophetic passages, even the very end seems to revolve around Jerusalem. (See Zechariah 12-14.) There is war against Jersualem, and after it is over, Jesus presents Himself as the unveiled Messiah, coming in His full office, and full presentation of power. Whereas when Jesus left, He still hadn't answered the disciples question of when He would be unveiled as the Messiah, take authority, and restore the kingdom to Israel. When they asked Him originally in Matthew 24, they had no idea that He was going to ascend back to heaven. Hence they ask again in Acts 1 if the kingdom would now be restored to Israel.

re Mt 24 and heaven
There's a clue in v29. After the destruction of the city in 70, he spoke of returning in a way the whole world would see in judgement. That event has been delayed as 2 P 3 explains.

Ps 2 and 110, the most quoted from early Acts, have Jesus seated in his reign, enthroned Davidically by the resurrection, with Rom 1, Phil 2, Eph 1, Heb 1.

The curiosity of asking about the kingdom in Acts 1 is from another angle: they had just spent 40 days in instruction from Moses and the prophets without a bit of info about a kingdom for Israel, followed by powerful word plays that they were now a kingdom of priests to the world. That was the answer. That was why not to seek.

As for authoritative use of Zech, Lk 23:28 says there is a biological lock on the meaning of things like 'asking the mountains to fall on them' and it is in that generation. (I am using the Hos quote as a model; there are others that are similar quoted by the apostles, about the generation of Israel that failed to be in the mission of the Gospel to the world.

We know from Dan 2 that Jesus does not have a kingdom like others. His has a completely different look/format.

 

[TMSO]

re Mt 24 and heaven
There's a clue in v29. After the destruction of the city in 70, he spoke of returning in a way the whole world would see in judgement. That event has been delayed as 2 P 3 explains.

I don't believe 2 P 3 says it has been delayed. It doesn't say God is being slack and has put it all on hold. He says that He isn't being slack, but is waiting for the elect to be gathered in. (For the elect that will be saved before His coming to be saved.) However, I do believe that since in v 26 of Daniel 9 that the destruction of the city and temple occurs before the 70th week, that the 70th week did not start in 31AD, but could start no sooner than 70 AD, and has not actually started yet.

Ps 2 and 110, the most quoted from early Acts, have Jesus seated in his reign, enthroned Davidically by the resurrection, with Rom 1, Phil 2, Eph 1, Heb 1.

Actually He is seated at the Father's right hand, a position of power and honor. That is different. As king, He is to reign in the midst of His enemies, however, the Father and angels of heaven are not His enemies, nor the saints that already dwell there. He will sit in the seat of David/Melchizedek in Jerusalem/Salem. (I added Melchizedek only because I read that there is a tradition that states that Salem, Melchizedeks city/throne are in Jerusalem. (Keeps with Psalm 110.) In Matthew 24 the disciples asked for a sign for when Jesus would be revealed in His full majesty as the Messiah. According to Jesus, that is after the Great Tribulation, when the sign of the Son of Man appears in the sky, and He returns. This is in keeping with when the disciples ask in Acts 1, if the kingdom would be restored to Israel at this time, seeing as Jesus had accomplished what He needed to accomplish before this could happen. They still didn't know Jesus was ascending back to heaven, and leaving things as they were. To which Jesus told them that it wasn't for them to know when God had this planned, there sole purpose was now to be His witnesses throughout the world until the end.

The curiosity of asking about the kingdom in Acts 1 is from another angle: they had just spent 40 days in instruction from Moses and the prophets without a bit of info about a kingdom for Israel, followed by powerful word plays that they were now a kingdom of priests to the world. That was the answer. That was why not to seek.

Word plays. You have to be careful with spiritualizing a passage, especially when Jesus specifically states that it is because it is the Father's business. You just downplayed the Father. And it isn't that they aren't to seek, but that it isn't for them to know. They are to know that it is imminent, as in ready to occur at any time, but that they have the responsibility of setting their all to being Jesus' witnesses to the whole world. If they are trying to know about the kingdom, then they aren't fulfilling their responsibility. Also, another reason for not saying anything is that the state of imminency leads to holiness. Don't be caught off guard by Jesus coming, and be ashamed at His coming.

As for authoritative use of Zech, Lk 23:28 says there is a biological lock on the meaning of things like 'asking the mountains to fall on them' and it is in that generation. (I am using the Hos quote as a model; there are others that are similar quoted by the apostles, about the generation of Israel that failed to be in the mission of the Gospel to the world.

That last part... I still haven't found that anywhere. You point out references that I read as given, without spiritualizing the passage, and it isn't there. Paul speaks of Israel's rejection of the Messiah, not a rejection of being missionaries.

We know from Dan 2 that Jesus does not have a kingdom like others. His has a completely different look/format.

What are the differences. No one will take it over, and it will last forever. It's establishment is prior to the rock smashing the kingdoms. These will be present again in the form of the beast's kingdom, which Jesus will utterly demonish on His return. His Kingdom will then be centered at Jerusalem where He sits in the seat of David/Melchizedek as King and High Priest, and when He is done destroying the last enemy, the center of His Kingdom will be the New Jerusalem above the New Earth. (Unless it descends and becomes part of Earth, however, it isn't clear.)

None of this is given as established fact. It is again, not a shot across anyone's bow, but given for discussion. I believe your methodology, and how you reached your conclusions has flaws. I know I don't have the answers, because I can go look it up and other things from other scripture will be brought to light, and I have to change my sight picture. (Love using military terms.) However, my position, as orthodox with first and second century believers, will not change. And that is a physical manifestation of the Kingdom on Earth from Jerusalem in fulfillment of Messianic prophecies.

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't believe 2 P 3 says it has been delayed. It doesn't say God is being slack and has put it all on hold. He says that He isn't being slack, but is waiting for the elect to be gathered in. (For the elect that will be saved before His coming to be saved.) However, I do believe that since in v 26 of Daniel 9 that the destruction of the city and temple occurs before the 70th week, that the 70th week did not start in 31AD, but could start no sooner than 70 AD, and has not actually started yet.

Actually He is seated at the Father's right hand, a position of power and honor. That is different. As king, He is to reign in the midst of His enemies, however, the Father and angels of heaven are not His enemies, nor the saints that already dwell there. He will sit in the seat of David/Melchizedek in Jerusalem/Salem. (I added Melchizedek only because I read that there is a tradition that states that Salem, Melchizedeks city/throne are in Jerusalem. (Keeps with Psalm 110.) In Matthew 24 the disciples asked for a sign for when Jesus would be revealed in His full majesty as the Messiah. According to Jesus, that is after the Great Tribulation, when the sign of the Son of Man appears in the sky, and He returns. This is in keeping with when the disciples ask in Acts 1, if the kingdom would be restored to Israel at this time, seeing as Jesus had accomplished what He needed to accomplish before this could happen. They still didn't know Jesus was ascending back to heaven, and leaving things as they were. To which Jesus told them that it wasn't for them to know when God had this planned, there sole purpose was now to be His witnesses throughout the world until the end.

Word plays. You have to be careful with spiritualizing a passage, especially when Jesus specifically states that it is because it is the Father's business. You just downplayed the Father. And it isn't that they aren't to seek, but that it isn't for them to know. They are to know that it is imminent, as in ready to occur at any time, but that they have the responsibility of setting their all to being Jesus' witnesses to the whole world. If they are trying to know about the kingdom, then they aren't fulfilling their responsibility. Also, another reason for not saying anything is that the state of imminency leads to holiness. Don't be caught off guard by Jesus coming, and be ashamed at His coming.

That last part... I still haven't found that anywhere. You point out references that I read as given, without spiritualizing the passage, and it isn't there. Paul speaks of Israel's rejection of the Messiah, not a rejection of being missionaries.

What are the differences. No one will take it over, and it will last forever. It's establishment is prior to the rock smashing the kingdoms. These will be present again in the form of the beast's kingdom, which Jesus will utterly demonish on His return. His Kingdom will then be centered at Jerusalem where He sits in the seat of David/Melchizedek as King and High Priest, and when He is done destroying the last enemy, the center of His Kingdom will be the New Jerusalem above the New Earth. (Unless it descends and becomes part of Earth, however, it isn't clear.)

None of this is given as established fact. It is again, not a shot across anyone's bow, but given for discussion. I believe your methodology, and how you reached your conclusions has flaws. I know I don't have the answers, because I can go look it up and other things from other scripture will be brought to light, and I have to change my sight picture. (Love using military terms.) However, my position, as orthodox with first and second century believers, will not change. And that is a physical manifestation of the Kingdom on Earth from Jerusalem in fulfillment of Messianic prophecies.

Re the mission:
Have you ever read Rom 10. ALL Israel knew! How could they be sent unless taught, etc etc etc. it is smashing you in the face and you refuse to see it.

 

[TMSO]

Re the mission:
Have you ever read Rom 10. ALL Israel knew! How could they be sent unless taught, etc etc etc. it is smashing you in the face and you refuse to see it.I

I did. Romans 10 opens with:

"Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God."

"14 How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who [j]bring good news of good things!”"

"16 However, they did not all heed the [k]good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word [l]of Christ."

What is the good news they rejected? An order to be missionaries? No, the gospel. Again, this passage deals with Paul speaking to the salvation of the Jews. First verse.

"18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? On the contrary:

“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the [m]world.”
19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says,

“I will make you jealous with those who are not a nation,
With a foolish nation I will anger you.”
20 And Isaiah is very bold and says,

“I was found by those who did not seek Me,
I revealed Myself to those who did not ask for Me.”
21 But as for Israel, He says, “I have spread out My hands all day long to a disobedient and obstinate people.”"

Notice how verse 19 is in line with Romans 11. By going to the Gentiles, He sought to stir up jealousy in Israel.

Verse 21 doesn't mean anything without the rest of the chapter. It has nothing to do with being missionaries, and everything to do with their rejection of the Messiah. The refuse to acknowledge God and His Son.

 

[EarlyActs]

I did. Romans 10 opens with:

"Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God."

"14 How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who [j]bring good news of good things!”"

"16 However, they did not all heed the [k]good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word [l]of Christ."

What is the good news they rejected? An order to be missionaries? No, the gospel. Again, this passage deals with Paul speaking to the salvation of the Jews. First verse.

"18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? On the contrary:

“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the [m]world.”
19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says,

“I will make you jealous with those who are not a nation,
With a foolish nation I will anger you.”
20 And Isaiah is very bold and says,

“I was found by those who did not seek Me,
I revealed Myself to those who did not ask for Me.”
21 But as for Israel, He says, “I have spread out My hands all day long to a disobedient and obstinate people.”"

Notice how verse 19 is in line with Romans 11. By going to the Gentiles, He sought to stir up jealousy in Israel.

Verse 21 doesn't mean anything without the rest of the chapter. It has nothing to do with being missionaries, and everything to do with their rejection of the Messiah. The refuse to acknowledge God and His Son.

There absolutely no difference. To have the Messiah come, to follow him, meant to be a missionary, not a warrior or terrorist or government agency.

You think you know but you are very blind to all that is being said.

The reason to make them jealous was to get them to have some stake or pride or accomplishment in the work of the Gospel. Your theology is worthless on this.

Read the feedback to the teaching at the Pisidisn synagogue in Acts 13. He quotes Isaiah 42 bc they were supposed to be missionaries to be light to the nations. The “not worthy of eternal life” is not just their own but those they were supposed to reach. And it is from their shame, which can only be healed in Christ.

The cost of not being missionaries in that generation was the destruction of their country. They paid it.

Do not speak or ask about these things again until you have read THE COVENANT REVOLT, bc your theology has totally dismantled the Bible. I have offered to mail it for free since you think I am so evil about gaining anything for it. DM me a church address, but do not comment any further unless you have read it.

The only Messiah who came was to be preached among the nations, AKA mission work. How can you claim to know any NT theology and object to this?

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

There absolutely no difference. To have the Messiah come, to follow him, meant to be a missionary, not a warrior or terrorist or government agency.

You think you know but you are very blind to all that is being said.

The reason to make them jealous was to get them to have some stake or pride or accomplishment in the work of the Gospel. Your theology is worthless on this.

Read the feedback to the teaching at the Pisidisn synagogue in Acts 13. He quotes Isaiah 42 bc they were supposed to be missionaries to be light to the nations. The “not worthy of eternal life” is not just their own but those they were supposed to reach. And it is from their shame, which can only be healed in Christ.

The cost of not being missionaries in that generation was the destruction of their country. They paid it.

Do not speak or ask about these things again until you have read THE COVENANT REVOLT, bc your theology has totally dismantled the Bible. I have offered to mail it for free since you think I am so evil about gaining anything for it. DM me a church address, but do not comment any further unless you have read it.

The only Messiah who came was to be preached among the nations, AKA mission work. How can you claim to know any NT theology and object to this?

No one is interested in reading such tripe because what you write is not according to Scripture. Stop flogging your wares. It's not wanted.

 

[Hobie]

But it can be changed by Gods private decision.

God is one of order, not random and careless decisions...