Anyone in eschatology work has to get a grip on basics covered in Jn 11-12 and expressed in John's simple way. Not Rev 11-12. John.
First is the concern in 11:48 that the nation is going to be destroyed. In the 1st century context it is not too much to say that the burden of Dan 9's 490 years weighed heavily on Israel's leaders. While Messiah was going to atone for sins, the nation was still going to be overrun by the 'rebellion that causes desolation' and be ruined.
Caiaphas thinks there is a way to keep peace with Rome by disposing of one of the people Rome considered troublesome. However, one of the really dark sides of chs 11-12 is that Barrabas was released and that by Pilate. Meaning, neither Caiaphas nor Pilate had the guts to conflict the zealots, and that shows who was really in charge of Israel at the time.
Caiaphas, says John, said this by a prophetic utterance. But there is an important shift in the meaning of 'die for the nation,' starting right here, and anyone doing eschatology should be on it. To die for it is not going to stop the desolation! It is going to provide atonement for sins, but it will not stop what Dan 9's prayer was about, nor the vision (the answer) of course.
Instead it introduces the message, so harmonious with the rest of the apostles, that the people of God is from every race on earth. The scattered children of God are from all over and are those who believe on this Gospel.
Next is the Entry, 12:12. The OT passages are quite appropriately sung in praise of him by a great crowd, who apparently had more understanding than did the disciples (v16). (So our friend Doug here, there was understanding before the resurrection or the coming of the Spirit...).
(On a linguistic note, I hope all my friends here will look hard at v19 where "the whole world has gone after him" is 'ges' and it means Israel. There are 100 examples of 'ges' meaning Israel only, not least of which is Mt 24A and //s.)
We then have the thunder from heaven since the Lamb accepted his fate in v27. V31 then affirms that the power of the prince of this world was broken (unless the phrase is positive and refers to himself and his death as the judgement of God). Either way, the Gospel was always preached as an act of the judgement of God. There was no need to scan news reports about troop movements in Iran or Arabia etc.
Now, by way of correction, let's look at the mistake of Israel's theology as understood by the public. V.34. Their understanding of the Law (meaning, OT scripture) that the one thing a Christ would do is come reign forever. Exactly. That's what happens when the OT is read in normal literal sense. That is still true today. it is called futurism. Futurism is the OT as though the Gospel never happened. The crowd were futurists.
The Gospel of the crucified Christ is the "light" to walk by so that the populace would not walk in the darkness of the zealots who wanted a messianic state to come into existence and displace Rome. In fact there are other writings from the time in the DSS that use the terms here about 'sons of light' and Jesus has clarified the terms which those writings had confused. It continues in v46.
There are now quotes from Isaiah at the end of ch12 about the overall problem of Israel. The OT was indeed speaking of Christ, not about a futurist Israel, and for a different reason. That reason was already given back in ch 11: to save the nations. That is the mission of the Gospel, and that mission resumes what the miracle of the Bible exists for, even in its OT form.
It is extraordinary that the shift of the meaning of die for the nation happened through the high priest himself, and confirms that Dan 9 was going to happen as understood (Josephus confirms this in his rabbinic training): Israel would be decimated, but Messiah's accomplishments would remain and thrive.
First is the concern in 11:48 that the nation is going to be destroyed. In the 1st century context it is not too much to say that the burden of Dan 9's 490 years weighed heavily on Israel's leaders. While Messiah was going to atone for sins, the nation was still going to be overrun by the 'rebellion that causes desolation' and be ruined.
Caiaphas thinks there is a way to keep peace with Rome by disposing of one of the people Rome considered troublesome. However, one of the really dark sides of chs 11-12 is that Barrabas was released and that by Pilate. Meaning, neither Caiaphas nor Pilate had the guts to conflict the zealots, and that shows who was really in charge of Israel at the time.
Caiaphas, says John, said this by a prophetic utterance. But there is an important shift in the meaning of 'die for the nation,' starting right here, and anyone doing eschatology should be on it. To die for it is not going to stop the desolation! It is going to provide atonement for sins, but it will not stop what Dan 9's prayer was about, nor the vision (the answer) of course.
Instead it introduces the message, so harmonious with the rest of the apostles, that the people of God is from every race on earth. The scattered children of God are from all over and are those who believe on this Gospel.
Next is the Entry, 12:12. The OT passages are quite appropriately sung in praise of him by a great crowd, who apparently had more understanding than did the disciples (v16). (So our friend Doug here, there was understanding before the resurrection or the coming of the Spirit...).
(On a linguistic note, I hope all my friends here will look hard at v19 where "the whole world has gone after him" is 'ges' and it means Israel. There are 100 examples of 'ges' meaning Israel only, not least of which is Mt 24A and //s.)
We then have the thunder from heaven since the Lamb accepted his fate in v27. V31 then affirms that the power of the prince of this world was broken (unless the phrase is positive and refers to himself and his death as the judgement of God). Either way, the Gospel was always preached as an act of the judgement of God. There was no need to scan news reports about troop movements in Iran or Arabia etc.
Now, by way of correction, let's look at the mistake of Israel's theology as understood by the public. V.34. Their understanding of the Law (meaning, OT scripture) that the one thing a Christ would do is come reign forever. Exactly. That's what happens when the OT is read in normal literal sense. That is still true today. it is called futurism. Futurism is the OT as though the Gospel never happened. The crowd were futurists.
The Gospel of the crucified Christ is the "light" to walk by so that the populace would not walk in the darkness of the zealots who wanted a messianic state to come into existence and displace Rome. In fact there are other writings from the time in the DSS that use the terms here about 'sons of light' and Jesus has clarified the terms which those writings had confused. It continues in v46.
There are now quotes from Isaiah at the end of ch12 about the overall problem of Israel. The OT was indeed speaking of Christ, not about a futurist Israel, and for a different reason. That reason was already given back in ch 11: to save the nations. That is the mission of the Gospel, and that mission resumes what the miracle of the Bible exists for, even in its OT form.
It is extraordinary that the shift of the meaning of die for the nation happened through the high priest himself, and confirms that Dan 9 was going to happen as understood (Josephus confirms this in his rabbinic training): Israel would be decimated, but Messiah's accomplishments would remain and thrive.
