Interplanner
Well-known member
Because of Jacob's recent questions, I'm going to state the two main circumstances that matter to Christians about 1st century Judea. I got the sense from him that all a person does is read torah and doesn't find out any background information at all about anything. This reminded me of a person reading the NT but never asking what a Caesar was.
There are two main circumstances or existing conditions about the land we must keep in mind when reading the NT.
1, it was in awful shape. I don't think anyone would have quoted 'it was the best of times, it was the worst of times' in that generation. They would just say it was the worst. This would be different from 'the most disobedient' as in the generations before the punishing exile. This was simply complicated, polarized, depleted economically, etc. It was also rather awful to be the 'rim' of the Mediterranean and therefore squished between tribes and nations beyond the rim who wanted access back to the sea. There was no point to Rome controlling 'the Lake' unless it controlled the rim. It simply wasn't possible to think of Rome not being there. All this without even mentioning what Herod was like. Or the double-meaning of the temple tax.
2, the arrival of the reign of God was completely apart from the land, from civic authority, etc. It arrived in the preaching of his Gospel of forgiveness, and there was no intended friction with Roman authority. This being apart from the circumstance of the land was a breath of fresh air. it was arriving but it was not another party threatening conflict and impounding people and running a police state opposite of Rome's. Instead there were its healings, its challenging forgiveness both of one's self and of others, some miraculous sources of food, very honest ethics and practice, and offering to Israel the chance to be missionaries all over the world 'away from this place.'
If these two things could not be seen in Isaiah, they certainly were in Dan 8-9. The 'rebellion that desolates' was inevitable in the future, and its leader's conflict with the coming prince was inevitable. But Messiah would also appear, be cut off for others, and accomplish redemption and righteousness for all. He is distinct from the rebellion, the land is desolated along with the rebellion, and he is victorious in what he meant to accomplish. All this is very remarkable because it is the answer to the prayer of Daniel about the future of Israel. It is the answer; it is not saying the coming decimation will be overcome; the vision of Israel as such ends in desolation. And it is essentially set on a time frame.
There are two main circumstances or existing conditions about the land we must keep in mind when reading the NT.
1, it was in awful shape. I don't think anyone would have quoted 'it was the best of times, it was the worst of times' in that generation. They would just say it was the worst. This would be different from 'the most disobedient' as in the generations before the punishing exile. This was simply complicated, polarized, depleted economically, etc. It was also rather awful to be the 'rim' of the Mediterranean and therefore squished between tribes and nations beyond the rim who wanted access back to the sea. There was no point to Rome controlling 'the Lake' unless it controlled the rim. It simply wasn't possible to think of Rome not being there. All this without even mentioning what Herod was like. Or the double-meaning of the temple tax.
2, the arrival of the reign of God was completely apart from the land, from civic authority, etc. It arrived in the preaching of his Gospel of forgiveness, and there was no intended friction with Roman authority. This being apart from the circumstance of the land was a breath of fresh air. it was arriving but it was not another party threatening conflict and impounding people and running a police state opposite of Rome's. Instead there were its healings, its challenging forgiveness both of one's self and of others, some miraculous sources of food, very honest ethics and practice, and offering to Israel the chance to be missionaries all over the world 'away from this place.'
If these two things could not be seen in Isaiah, they certainly were in Dan 8-9. The 'rebellion that desolates' was inevitable in the future, and its leader's conflict with the coming prince was inevitable. But Messiah would also appear, be cut off for others, and accomplish redemption and righteousness for all. He is distinct from the rebellion, the land is desolated along with the rebellion, and he is victorious in what he meant to accomplish. All this is very remarkable because it is the answer to the prayer of Daniel about the future of Israel. It is the answer; it is not saying the coming decimation will be overcome; the vision of Israel as such ends in desolation. And it is essentially set on a time frame.
