If Danoh is a rep (maybe he is not), it is about straining to say that Israel's state or kingdom was going to be restored, as a theme in Isaiah, and as the meaning of Acts 3:21. Those who pride themselves in NOT using the NT to interp the OT don't seem to realize that the new wine of the mission of the Gospel keeps bursting the old wineskin of merely a restored kingdom in Isaiah. Isaiah prepares us for Acts; it does not prepare us for a restored kingdom then or in a distant future. Too many other things are to happen that are great works of the Spirit of God through the Gospel.
Not both ways.
No, brother...not so.
One, I hold to a Mid Acts MORE OR LESS.
Meaning; I do not allow myself to settle on any conclusion I might arrive at as set in stone; final word; end of story; my way or the highway.
Instead; I keep an open mind to the possibility that tomorrow I might not only see some things I had not seen before; but the seeing of which might impact how I see other things.
As Jazz legend: the late great, Miles Davis, once advised - "Play it like you don't know how..."
Advice of which the Apostle Paul might have noted; were he still around - "this witness is true..."
As a result, two; my "Mid-Acts assertions" as to your above only demonstrate once more that you do not understand Mid-Acts.
This has nothing to do with some sort of a pride on my part in not using the NT to interpret the OT - that is your ignorance.
I interpret the OT thru the NT and the NT through the OT.
Because it is crystal clear to me from Mat.-Early Acts and Hebrews thru Revelation that that is what both their writers and who they are describing in their writings are doing.
What you continue to fail to see is that Paul is not doing either unless one; he is dealing with the issue of Israel.
Two; other times he quotes the OT when he is making use of a principle that is the same both in the OT/NT but that at the same time differs in his unique application of it within the Mystery he both preached and wrote of - which is neither OT, nor NT.
That might be one area where I appear to not "rep Mad," but only because the "Mad" I "rep" differs in this distinction.
Because, as with any school of thought within the faith; one is bound to find individuals within a same school who hold to a different understanding on some things.
An understanding that greatly impacts how they each see various things as a result.
And there are many valid factors behind such things on all sides of such fences.
Level of time in the Word; difference in approach; level of skill at questions and or distinctions and or similarities; and so on, being just some of those factors...
