SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Here are some of the problems with what Steko is saying.
1, The 'only (the cross)' problem is not solved as he thinks. It really is the only thing that matters, however, the resurrection was God's proof that his sacrifice was sufficient, and then that message about his suffering was to be preached to all nations. So all were to be preached, however, they are far short of a restoration of the land of Israel expected.
Once again, you must realize that we can do nothing to remove this from the 1st century. Revolts were started during the Tiberius census, and they had been prophesied to sweep the land like a flood in Dan 8-9. The answer of the Christian message to such revolts was brilliant: the message of the Christians did not need such a restoration. It could function under Roman admin just fine. The Israel that believed that Gospel could do just fine, and not fight Rome.
Luke is really by Paul and transcribed from Paul and about whether Paul was a threat to Rome. The 'redeeming of Israel' is in the text specifically to show Rome that the Christian movement was NOT a threat. Luke, in ch 22 has an extensive description of the kingdom that shows it is not anything that would pose a threat. The 'entry' to the city did not trigger the Antonia Tower guard that was charged with temple security. Nor did the cleansing of the temple. And Jesus even blasted the terrorists while doing that cleansing. So Rome knew exactly where he was, where he stood.
There is nothing about the land restoration in this short list of what Christ's purpose was and what was to be preached.
D'ists can always pull out their Bibles with the green lights that say 'X000 years in the future' but those are not in the text.
To get safety from enemies IN THIS SETTING meant to be able to get away from the zealots. The believers were told to leave when the leader of the rebellion was seen using the temple. But between Mark 13 and Lk 21, it was moved up to: when you see the city surrounded (by Rome). At least I used to think it was Rome in 68 until I learned that about 5 years earlier Festus tried to protect the city with an additional set of walls, but died during the project and it was dropped.
2, The point.
They did know he was raised. They did not know what the resurrection meant. That is more to the point about being dismayed that he did not redeem Israel. They couldn't connect the two. They knew angels had said he was alive. But understanding that the resurrection was his enthronement? Void. They didn't get it. After the Spirit comes and works, we see that they are preaching:
Christ's enthronement in the resurrection, Acts 2
the completion of promises to the fathers in it, Acts 13,
the declaration of Christ as Son of God with power in Rom 1.
3, Disappointment that he was another dead zealot.
2000 were crucified the same year as Christ. For rebellion. but the disappointment would be IF that is what he was supposed to do. Are you getting closer? He wasn't going to do that . "Redemption" didn't mean what they thought. Nor kingdom. Nor power. Nor thrones. It never would. But they sure kept asking! Even in Acts 1, they asked again.
The description of the kingdom in the Lk passages of 17:20, 18:29, 22:16, 26, 27, 29, 37, are not a problem to Rome. They are spiritual maturity. "You are not to be like" the kingdoms of earth, is not much encouragement to operate like the zealots and Judaizers.
their mistake, ALL THROUGH THE GOSPELS, is to think the kingdom was the same old same old. "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord." Actually, power is OK if it is the power of the Spirit, Acts 1, 2.
4, the content of the OT
Here, Steko, you are at your worst. Look closely at what it says, in Lk 24, in the places where the apostles summarize what was expressed, in Acts 26, where Paul says he would not speak beyond that same list (suffering, resurrection, proclamation to the nations), when preaching from the prophets. V23 is remarkable on this, because he says there is NOTHING else there. You think there is. D'ism thinks there is. The club thinks there is. Ryrie does. Chafer does. But Paul says there is nothing else but those things.
I believe this is why there is no clear reference to the land of Israel's restoration in X000 in the NT. I have listed the passages 1000x about the 2nd coming, in their plain language (no symbols) and there is nothing. The longest and most detailed treatment would be 2 Peter 3. There are about 8 others.
Fantasy island post.
