ECT Two circumstances about 1st century Judea

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.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
The second coming, as opposed to 70ad:

Zechariah 14
14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
There is only 1 circumstance to believe.
GOD said He would do it.




Your fixation is never found in the NT. There is some concern of saving the land from what is going to happen in Judea, but there is no separate focus on the land restoration as such, because the only way to do it is to restart Judaism again. Hebrews says that is not going to happen and neither the land nor the worship system is coming back nor a concern.

There is no indication at all in the NT that even though the above situations were the truth of that generation, that 'outside' of that awful outcome was a completely separate outcome for completely separate reasons. That is a fantasy, a mythology.
 

Danoh

New member
Your fixation is never found in the NT. There is some concern of saving the land from what is going to happen in Judea, but there is no separate focus on the land restoration as such, because the only way to do it is to restart Judaism again. Hebrews says that is not going to happen and neither the land nor the worship system is coming back nor a concern.

There is no indication at all in the NT that even though the above situations were the truth of that generation, that 'outside' of that awful outcome was a completely separate outcome for completely separate reasons. That is a fantasy, a mythology.

Prove your assertion.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Your fixation is never found in the NT. There is some concern of saving the land from what is going to happen in Judea, but there is no separate focus on the land restoration as such, because the only way to do it is to restart Judaism again. Hebrews says that is not going to happen and neither the land nor the worship system is coming back nor a concern.

There is no indication at all in the NT that even though the above situations were the truth of that generation, that 'outside' of that awful outcome was a completely separate outcome for completely separate reasons. That is a fantasy, a mythology.

Show us the land cancellation, and we will shut up.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Your fixation is never found in the NT. There is some concern of saving the land from what is going to happen in Judea, but there is no separate focus on the land restoration as such, because the only way to do it is to restart Judaism again. Hebrews says that is not going to happen and neither the land nor the worship system is coming back nor a concern.

There is no indication at all in the NT that even though the above situations were the truth of that generation, that 'outside' of that awful outcome was a completely separate outcome for completely separate reasons. That is a fantasy, a mythology.

Who are the meek that inherit the earth?
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
see THE BIBLE PROJECTs summary of Acts. Very well done.

"While asking gentiles not to participate in pagan practices any more, the council did not have them practice much of the law of Judaism either."

"the whole account is about the power of God through them to work in the mission, ending with Paul being able to teach for 2 years straight right under Caesars nose!"
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
tam wrote:
Quote Originally Posted by Tambora View Post
There is only 1 circumstance to believe.
GOD said He would do it.



Where in the NT do you think God sounds like this no matter what happens in the 1st century, no matter what happens for the next 20 centuries, etc.?


God did bring Israel back like Isaiah and Daniel said, but the parable of the Vineyard must be factored in: the worthless employees lose their place and it is given to another 'nation' which is not a nation, but the play on the words.

Daniel stresses the realistic desolation of Israel that is coming after Babylon. Isaiah stresses that something new and delicious is coming is beyond just restoration to the land; 'It is too small a thing...I will make you a light to the nations'. God announces in advance in 49:6-9 that he is going to do things in a new way, not the same as the previous.

But in D'ism, I'm not sure if the parable of the Vineyard counts!
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
tam wrote:
Quote Originally Posted by Tambora View Post
There is only 1 circumstance to believe.
GOD said He would do it.



Where in the NT do you think God sounds like this no matter what happens in the 1st century, no matter what happens for the next 20 centuries, etc.?


God did bring Israel back like Isaiah and Daniel said, but the parable of the Vineyard must be factored in: the worthless employees lose their place and it is given to another 'nation' which is not a nation, but the play on the words.

But in D'ism, I'm not sure if the parable of the Vineyard counts!
it is given to another 'nation' which is not a nation, but the play on the words.

And Genesis 1:1 KJV is a "play on words." What else would you like to "prove?"


Teach us...Please?
 
Top