ECT Gentile vs Gentile
- Thread starter achduke
- Start date
achduke
Active member
What is Lk 13?
Interplanner
Well-known member
The earliest statement of the DofJ (destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD). It uses the desolation language of Dan 8-9 but quite a few scenes earlier than the others.
I appreciate your question, Achduke. However, I do beg to disagree that the Canaanite woman was a gentile. The Gentiles were the descendants of Noah's son Japheth, 'father' of the Gentiles found in Genesis 9:27 KJV, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV (first mentioned). Noah sanctioned procreation between the Shemites/Semites and the Gentile descendants of Japheth in Genesis 9:27 KJV. Noah drew a line in the sand: Canaan's land was geographically identified and inhabited by the descendants of Ham and Canaan. In doing so, Noah did NOT sanction procreation between the descendants of Ham (Canaanites) and the descendants of Japheth and Shem. Procreation between the Shemites/Hebrews/israelites (which included the Gentile descendants of Japheth) was further rebuked in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, as noted by Ezra 9:1, 2, being a "great trespass" in Ezra 9:7 KJV. Therefore, the Gentile descendants of Japheth were never precluded from being a part of the lineage of Shem as in the house of Israel, the Gentiles just fell under the ancestral title of the patriarch, Shem. Separate groups of Gentiles remained, but were never excluded from the house of Israel.
Appreciating Japheth, 'father' of the Gentiles, walked into Noah's tent backwards and covered in Genesis 9:23 KJV; Japheth, 'father' of the Gentiles (along with Shem, father of the Semites) rebuked the notion of mother-son incest as occurred in Noah's tent in Genesis 9:22 KJV. That notion is corroborated in Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV. While appreciating Japheth's bold proclamation rebuking son-mother incest, and while appreciating Japheth being the 'father' of the Gentiles, then Paul's observation in 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV makes it clear he understood what went down in Noah's tent, and he knew their Gentile origin as descendants of Japheth in Genesis 9. Consequently, Paul was the perfect choice to minister to the Gentiles further noted in Romans 2:13, 14, 15, 16.
The Canaanite woman was indeed a Canaanite. She was not the focus of Jesus' mission to the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel.' Therefore, it was incumbent upon HER to seek Jesus out, and not the contrary. Consequently, Jesus both hid making Himself unavailable to her, AND He didn't accept her first request. Jesus was available to the Canaanites, but it was incumbent upon them to seek Him out.
kayaker
Interplanner
Well-known member
When I said the "others" in ref to Luke 13, I meant compared to the other gospels. Mark and Matt don't mention the DofJ until the familiar late chapter during the final week of ministry. Luke has 13 halfway through his 3 years. John in 11 is a bit closer to Luke because it follows the Lazarus account and the leaders decision to kill him, which is where there is an explanation about Caiaphas and whether a revolt/war would do the country any good.
As the Lord is dying at Calvary, He prays the Father forgive them; for they know not what they do, Luke 23: 34-35.
In Acts 2 thru 7, the Spirit offers Israel this forgiveness; the Lord having given the 12 the authority to remit sin, John 20: 23-24.
At the same time, the Lord had warned Israel of the following in Matthew 12:
30. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
33. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
At the height of Israel's sin in its resistance of the Spirit working through the 12 and their converts, we read, the following from the Spirit speaking through Stephen to Israel, concerning this issue, in Acts 7:
51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53. Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
The infamous three strikes and you're out - resisted the Father, killed His prophets; forgiven...resisted the Son, killing Him; forgiven...
54. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
...resisted the Spirit - not forgiven = Uncircumcision status before God.
Acts 7:
53. Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Romans 2:
25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Israel fell at Acts 7.
Acts 13 being only one of three witnesses in God's Words through an odd, new, unexpected, one Apostle too many to Israel's already existing Twelve - an Apostle of Israel's enemy - an Apostle of the Gentiles - that Israel's "unto you first" was no longer the case.
Acts 13:46; Acts18:6; Acts 28: 28.
Israel was now just another Uncircumcision nation; heathen.
Just another lost, Gentile nation - Romans 11:
32. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
"... until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in," Rom. 11:25.
Until the fulness of this Uncircumcision salvation preached by Paul, Gal. 2: 7-9, be come in.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That's a total mess as expected.
What about Mt 21's parable of the vineyard, I mean, about its declarations?
What about Lk 13, the first time things look terminal and there are specifics?
In Lk 2:34, there is termination of the many, but no specifics. Since this addresses when it was on God's mind to terminate (way ahead of when "it" happened), why aren't we talking about Dan 9? Daniel prays for restoration, hears that Messiah will atone for sin, but that the leader of the rebellion that desolates will ruin the country in that 490 year period. That ruin is the fall, known ahead of time. This is what Josephus knew and what Caiaphas struggled with in Jn 11.
What about Mt 21's parable of the vineyard, I mean, about its declarations?
What about Lk 13, the first time things look terminal and there are specifics?
In Lk 2:34, there is termination of the many, but no specifics. Since this addresses when it was on God's mind to terminate (way ahead of when "it" happened), why aren't we talking about Dan 9? Daniel prays for restoration, hears that Messiah will atone for sin, but that the leader of the rebellion that desolates will ruin the country in that 490 year period. That ruin is the fall, known ahead of time. This is what Josephus knew and what Caiaphas struggled with in Jn 11.
Note how you refer to your books for all that once more.
Especially the self-serving word of that lost man and duplicitous against his own, that he save his own neck; Josephus.
Fact is, the Son prayed, and the Father forgave them, offered Israel pardon, but Israel refused His offer - in God's eyes they fell at Acts 7 not in Luke 13.
70Ad was Israel's near destruction by their own hand; not God's; you do not know Israel's/God's Prophets on this; you know Partial Preterism's false ones.
But, their ringleader: Josephus the duplicitous against his own, and a lost man at that; overrules Scripture. I know...
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh,
on this item, he was correct. he said that an evil rebellious leader was coming in that time period to ruin the country. He did. Actually 3 did but 1 won out in internal fighting.
The question was whether they fell at Dan 9, if not Deuteronomy 32 (Rom 10:19), isn't it? And therefore have the complaints about expected failing that come up Rom 9:22-23, 31, 32, 33.
The only apostolic answer to that kind of failure is to continue to appeal to them to work in God's mission: 10:4, 14--11:14 (I hope to arouse my own people...). Because some will still be saved, no matter how hard the mass of them looks.
on this item, he was correct. he said that an evil rebellious leader was coming in that time period to ruin the country. He did. Actually 3 did but 1 won out in internal fighting.
The question was whether they fell at Dan 9, if not Deuteronomy 32 (Rom 10:19), isn't it? And therefore have the complaints about expected failing that come up Rom 9:22-23, 31, 32, 33.
The only apostolic answer to that kind of failure is to continue to appeal to them to work in God's mission: 10:4, 14--11:14 (I hope to arouse my own people...). Because some will still be saved, no matter how hard the mass of them looks.