Interplanner
Well-known member
V21 points out the mentality of the mostly zealot-raised disciples: "we had hoped..." This hope for a monarchy was mistaken all along, but in case our D'ist friends need a proof, this is where their minds are , not Christ's. Christ never was there.
The transition is from what Judaism thought God would do to what God did in Christ.
the 'hope' in "we had hoped" is also what they mean by the redemption of Israel. This is a rather explosive expression at the time. I don't think for a minute that the true believer's songs at the beginning of Luke were about a monarchy when they mention the 'redemption' or 'salvation' of Israel, because they explain that it was the forgiveness of sins, accessed by faith like Abraham, sounding much like Gal 3.
We also see that the crucifixion of another 'social' or 'political' leader was the last thing they thought would happen (in their zealot-based minds) and that's why their faces were downcast to have to tell the whole account again, v18.
Then we find out the truth in Christ. I have complained in other cases that D'ism takes expressions and things in a narrative and generates universal doctrines from those lines. They might do this, for ex., in Acts 2 about a kingdom offer, etc.
But in the case of Lk 24, the person who would clear up a narrative declaration (where Christ was absent) is present. Christ is actually here in ch 24, telling them that they were slow to believe and foolish about the OT. This means that all of this had been taught to them from the beginning (that's 'from the beginning' as found in I Jn 1:1, not Jn 1--contact with Jesus).
The important thing is it is BEFORE the 40 day seminar. Not after. He's saying that they should have known from his teaching all through the ministry that what he was REPEATING here was true: the suffering of Christ and entering his glory (in the resurrection). All through Moses and the Prophets. This was obviously repetition, and there is obviously no reference to the 'canceled deal' about the monarchy.
The transition is from what Judaism thought God would do to what God did in Christ.
the 'hope' in "we had hoped" is also what they mean by the redemption of Israel. This is a rather explosive expression at the time. I don't think for a minute that the true believer's songs at the beginning of Luke were about a monarchy when they mention the 'redemption' or 'salvation' of Israel, because they explain that it was the forgiveness of sins, accessed by faith like Abraham, sounding much like Gal 3.
We also see that the crucifixion of another 'social' or 'political' leader was the last thing they thought would happen (in their zealot-based minds) and that's why their faces were downcast to have to tell the whole account again, v18.
Then we find out the truth in Christ. I have complained in other cases that D'ism takes expressions and things in a narrative and generates universal doctrines from those lines. They might do this, for ex., in Acts 2 about a kingdom offer, etc.
But in the case of Lk 24, the person who would clear up a narrative declaration (where Christ was absent) is present. Christ is actually here in ch 24, telling them that they were slow to believe and foolish about the OT. This means that all of this had been taught to them from the beginning (that's 'from the beginning' as found in I Jn 1:1, not Jn 1--contact with Jesus).
The important thing is it is BEFORE the 40 day seminar. Not after. He's saying that they should have known from his teaching all through the ministry that what he was REPEATING here was true: the suffering of Christ and entering his glory (in the resurrection). All through Moses and the Prophets. This was obviously repetition, and there is obviously no reference to the 'canceled deal' about the monarchy.
Last edited:
