ECT No one was "looking forward to the cross"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
To test out Jerry's theory about the disciples awareness of the cross, I have worked back through Matthew from 16. At first I was more sympathetic with Jerry because of 16:16: God had revealed that Jesus was the Christ, and that looks very much like the definitions of things are validated; whatever Peter thought the Christ was at that point was being validated.

But details from lead-up chapters began to say otherwise.

One thing that happens right after the Confession is one of the warnings not to tell anyone. Among other things, this should alert us to realize that it was very easy for things to be misconstrued among the masses. He knew that the title was a 'sound-byte' that might not have the meaning he wanted.

We find this, for ex., in 12:16. With many following him and 'all their sick' healed, he tells them not to say who he is. There is then a quote from Is 42 which does not seem to match the restriction. It matches the healing, but does not match the restriction. That is because he was the Servant (they knew the Servant was also the figure in ch 53) and he was going to be victorious in justice, but you had to be careful with that expression in those times! It was in the sense of the Gospel and justification, not the zealot revolt. To declare victory in justice under Roman admin (but obviously outside of its admin) was sedition.

We also so that this gospel he is going to provide is for all the nations to hope. So, sorry about that, all those who have built their case for exclusion on 15:24 as a soundbyte.

So he is the Servant, is going to help all the weak, is going to provide justice, and also hope for all nations.

It is then interesting to note the crowd reaction pertaining to David. There is a healing of a complicated person and the crowd says this is the Son of David. Once again, 1st century background is needed. The zealots were so divided from the complicit Jerusalem people (many Pharisees), that Jesus said a divided kingdom will not stand. He said that because he really was the Son of David, which has to do with the gospel, not with either the zealot nor Pharisee view of a kingdom. Jesus meant that the country was going to be destroyed (saying this again, in many ways), but the kingdom has come (arrived, settled).

Everything he says there is tied tightly to the dilemma of the times.

Now watch what happens in v38. Those Pharisees want a sign. (This is the same way that ch 16 opens). The sign they get is that of Jonah's 'death and resurrection.' The same will happen to Jesus. (Please note that this is repeated in ch 16).

But Jesus is also on to the destruction of that generation again. The problem with that generation (on the Pharisee side) is that it won't put the Gospel in the cleaned house. Instead it becomes more perfectly wicked. This is a way of showing there is a similarity between the zealots and the Pharisees on mistaken doctrine (the kingom, David, salvation), but that the way of doing things or solving things as done by the zealots is 7 times worse.

In 16:4, he doesn't provide anymore of a sign than the fact that his whole life is the same as the sign of Jonah, the death and resurrection.

Overall, instead of the 'out of nowhere' unawareness of the cross which Jerry thinks is in 16:22, Jesus has made it quite clear he is that generations 'Jonah,' and also made it clear that he is not one of the zealots, which are only going to destroy the country. He is not going to be doing 'popular justice' and he is going to provide a hope for all nations.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
To test out Jerry's theory about the disciples awareness of the cross, I have worked back through Matthew from 16. At first I was more sympathetic with Jerry because of 16:16: God had revealed that Jesus was the Christ, and that looks very much like the definitions of things are validated; whatever Peter thought the Christ was at that point was being validated.

But details from lead-up chapters began to say otherwise.

One thing that happens right after the Confession is one of the warnings not to tell anyone. Among other things, this should alert us to realize that it was very easy for things to be misconstrued among the masses. He knew that the title was a 'sound-byte' that might not have the meaning he wanted.

We find this, for ex., in 12:16. With many following him and 'all their sick' healed, he tells them not to say who he is. There is then a quote from Is 42 which does not seem to match the restriction. It matches the healing, but does not match the restriction. That is because he was the Servant (they knew the Servant was also the figure in ch 53) and he was going to be victorious in justice, but you had to be careful with that expression in those times! It was in the sense of the Gospel and justification, not the zealot revolt. To declare victory in justice under Roman admin (but obviously outside of its admin) was sedition.

We also so that this gospel he is going to provide is for all the nations to hope. So, sorry about that, all those who have built their case for exclusion on 15:24 as a soundbyte.

So he is the Servant, is going to help all the weak, is going to provide justice, and also hope for all nations.

It is then interesting to note the crowd reaction pertaining to David. There is a healing of a complicated person and the crowd says this is the Son of David. Once again, 1st century background is needed. The zealots were so divided from the complicit Jerusalem people (many Pharisees), that Jesus said a divided kingdom will not stand. He said that because he really was the Son of David, which has to do with the gospel, not with either the zealot nor Pharisee view of a kingdom. Jesus meant that the country was going to be destroyed (saying this again, in many ways), but the kingdom has come (arrived, settled).

Everything he says there is tied tightly to the dilemma of the times.

Now watch what happens in v38. Those Pharisees want a sign. (This is the same way that ch 16 opens). The sign they get is that of Jonah's 'death and resurrection.' The same will happen to Jesus. (Please note that this is repeated in ch 16).

But Jesus is also on to the destruction of that generation again. The problem with that generation (on the Pharisee side) is that it won't put the Gospel in the cleaned house. Instead it becomes more perfectly wicked. This is a way of showing there is a similarity between the zealots and the Pharisees on mistaken doctrine (the kingom, David, salvation), but that the way of doing things or solving things as done by the zealots is 7 times worse.

In 16:4, he doesn't provide anymore of a sign than the fact that his whole life is the same as the sign of Jonah, the death and resurrection.

Overall, instead of the 'out of nowhere' unawareness of the cross which Jerry thinks is in 16:22, Jesus has made it quite clear he is that generations 'Jonah,' and also made it clear that he is not one of the zealots, which are only going to destroy the country. He is not going to be doing 'popular justice' and he is going to provide a hope for all nations.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Get your facts straight.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
You're wrong. Get your facts straight.
Click to expand...





The main 'fact' is that Jonah was presented twice as the sign; the 'death, burial and resurrection' sign. Both before the Conf/Trans when Jerry says they knew nothing about it. Go Jerry.

The zealots were divided from Jerusalem, making a very complicated and inflammatory situation; see Lk 13:1+ on the slaughtered Galileans.

Just so you know, no "person" is wrong, but individual facts may be. Unless you point out something specific, you are not doing anything constructive here.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
Your commentaries make you ignorant.
Click to expand...




Your not seeing the hope for all nations in Mt 12's quote of Isaiah makes D'ism ignorant.

Can you not see that if you declared that you were going to establish justice in the civic sense in place of the romans, that you were declaring war? So Mt 12's quote of Isaiah did not mean that, obviously. Instead it is consistent with God's justice in rom 3.

Your lack of truly putting passages and facts together makes you ignorant and dangerous.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
dodge said:
Kinda like MADness destroys the context of scripture. "world" does not mean world (John 3:16). "whosoever" does not mean whosoever ( John 3:16), and "Repentance towards God" does not mean repent (Acts 20:21)
Click to expand...

It's Calvinists that do that, fool.
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Interplanner said:
Your not seeing the hope for all nations in Mt 12's quote of Isaiah makes D'ism ignorant.

Can you not see that if you declared that you were going to establish justice in the civic sense in place of the romans, that you were declaring war? So Mt 12's quote of Isaiah did not mean that, obviously. Instead it is consistent with God's justice in rom 3.

Your lack of truly putting passages and facts together makes you ignorant and dangerous.
Click to expand...

Their minds have been so compartmentalized into multiple time slots, they have lost all ability to think globally at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top