In Chapter 9, Daniel realizes that the 70 years of exile is almost over, so he cries out to God for mercy for himself and his people. In response he has a vision of the the angel Gabriel who begins to explain God’s timetable for delivering Israel. Reggie Kelly and Phil Norcom lead us through the five visions of Daniel with emphasis on what they mean for Israel and the Church (The Mystery of Israel).
A complete session of the Video from September’s “People Prepared” Convocation on Daniel Chapter 9 is now available on YouTube. A direct link is found below: Chapter Nine(click here if you see nothing below)
Until then, the gospel reveals that power and salvation of that “still coming” DAY has come in unexpected advance of THAT DAY through the revelation of the secret hidden in other ages (Ro 16:25-26; Eph 6:19; 1Pet 1:11). But according to Paul, this present fulfillment of the covenant through the revelation of the mystery of the gospel and gift of the Spirit cannot stop short of the grafting of the natural branches back into their own place. Paul does not present their return as a generous divine initiative tacked on at the end of the age for good measure. No, it is a covenant necessity demanded by the specific language of the covenant, (Ro 11:26-29), which would only be established with the larger nation at the post-tribulational day of the Lord. That is the eschatology of the OT, which the revelation of the mystery modifies, but does NOT erase. The day of the Lord will bring all that the literal reading of scripture said it will bring.
So I see Peter as saying “this is that,” but this is NOT “all” of that. It is indeed the Spirit promised to Israel in association with the well known day of the Lord. The promise of that day has arrived. It is here. But the day itself, and the full balance that remains to be fulfilled at that time remains for a post-tribulational future. Nothing about that has changed. The powers of the age to come have indeed broken decisively into this present evil prior to and apart from the kind of outward transformation expected in association with the day of the Lord. This, however, does nothing to change all that Scripture promises will come to the broken and penitent remnant that will look upon Him whom they pierced (Zech 12:10), when “that generation” will say with one voice, “blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Mt 23:39). Hallelujah!
Hello Reggie, hope and pray that all of you are fine while preparing for your Event! Reggie, I was reading your article ” Recommended reading ……, well done. But I want to ask you one important question, is it NOT Time now to explain to the readers about the destruction of ” Israel ” and [...]
[...] Future Israel will be living proof of God’s sovereign ability to bring about the necessary repentance and faith of a naturally unwilling people through mighty judgments and powerful constraints. Do such extreme measures nullify or circumvent Israel’s moral responsibility to choose life? Of course not, but it is not far to see that God has certainly ordained the precise conditions that will powerfully incline that nation’s will at the “set time to favor Zion” (Ps 102:13), so that His people are made “willing in the day of His power” (Ps 110:3), and not a moment sooner! (Compare Paul’s view of God’s sovereign timing of his conversion; Gal 1:15-16).
Here, I have suggested that reconciliation between the two passages should be sought in making a distinction between God’s care for all, and His eternal purpose to save only those who believe through grace. Others propose a different solution. They believe that the answer lies in assigning a more hyperbolic sense to the words, “all men.” In this view, it is not ‘all men’ without discrimination, but ‘all men’ in the sense of men of all kinds and stations of life. In this view, whenever the scripture says, “God so loved the world,” Jews are being reminded, and gentiles are being comforted, that the salvation of Christ extends to all nations and not to Israel only (compare Jn 11:52; 1Jn 2:2). Here, the contrast is being made between a narrow Jewish view of God’s love for Israel and the revolutionary new revelation of God’s unexpected intention to open a door of faith to the gentiles [...]
[...] The approach builds around the well known story of Joseph, as type and parable of both comings of Christ to Israel. The idea is to begin with a couple of key portions of Old Testament prophecy in order to establish a simple outline of the prophetic future, particularly as it pertains to the relationship of Christ’s two comings to Israel. This will provide a convenient frame of reference that can enable and equip any believer to make the case for the mystery of the gospel in the Old Testament, particularly in its relationship to Israel and the events that conclude the age.
To introduce the subject matter, I sometimes begin with people’s universal familiarity with the story of Bethlehem as an opportunity to show them the amazing prophecy in Mic 5:2, pointing out its great antiquity (8th century contemporary of Isaiah). I then call their attention to an even less known feature of that prophecy in the next verse. “Therefore shall He (Yahweh) ‘give them up’ UNTIL the time that she who travails has brought forth; then shall the remnant of His brethren return to the children of Israel (Mic 5:3). It is the age long “giving up” of Israel, but we want to identify the cause of this abandonment as something more ultimately provoking of divine displeasure than covenant failure in general. [...]
But as I have said before: Even if it is insisted that “kept from the hour” should be interpreted as physical exemption, the word “hour” in Revelation is never used of the entire tribulation, but most particularly of the day of God almighty at its end (compare Rev 16:14-16 w/ Rev 18:10). A number of [...]
[...] I believe a woman’s glory, which is no less than a man’s, is to be worship-fully and willingly submitted to what God has chosen in precisely the way He has chosen it. And to bear whatever yoke that comes without complaint or chaffing in resigned trust of the perfect wisdom of His sovereign decree. Of course, it is no different for the man, since he is no less ‘under authority’. But until the final perfection, God has ordained an equality and dissolution of all distinction in one place only, namely, “in Christ” / “in the Spirit”. In the meantime, and while this creation continues through to the end of the millennium, He has chosen to leave certain distinctions and differences in the creation for the sake of His demonstration and statement to the principalities and powers. One of those distinctions is between male and female. Another is the one He has established between Jew and Gentile. Those distinctions form no barrier in Christ, but are left in the creation for the sake of a needful contrast that shows the true nature of unity through the Spirit. [...]
… It is correct to distinguish between the ‘Israel after the flesh’ and the church. But dispensationalism incorrectly divides between the seed of Abraham after the Spirit, saying that saved Jews before Pentecost and saved Jews living in the millennium do not belong to the church. In this way, there are two distinct ‘regenerate’ peoples of God belonging to two eternally distinct entities with different destinies. This constitutes a false view of the nature of the church. Hence, they fail to see that those of the natural seed of Abraham that are predestined for national salvation at Christ’s return will be as much a part of the body of Christ on earth as any living now before the Lord’s return. It is a question of what defines the church. …
[...] So how is God not directly responsible for the fall that was indispensable in His preordained plan of redemption? Well, I’ve already mentioned the implications of Ro 8:20, and a considerable collection of other passages combine to show that redemption was never a divine afterthought. So I theorize that God cannot be justly charged with injustice if He did not elect to extend special grace that might have upheld Adam in the day of powerful temptation. God does not have to impose sin in order to ordain that it serve a role in His perfect and unalterable eternal purpose in grace.
Nothing can be more glorious to God or precious to man as the grace of Christ, the Father’s greatest eternal delight. Grace will be the theme and song of all eternity. This is the glory that the persons of the Godhead rejoiced in before time, in perfect contemplation and enjoyment of what would be accomplished in the foreordained goal of creation. [...]
[...] The great tribulation is not called ‘unequaled’ simply because of some unprecedented degree of human suffering. Though the ‘scale’ of human suffering will indeed be without precedent during the last tribulation, what individuals might face personally cannot be worse than what others of our brethren have faced throughout history without a rapture. The the final tribulation is said to be without equal because it extends to all the natural order. So, of course, human suffering will be co-extensive with the upheaval of a creation that has come to its greatest time of travail.
Therefore, it is not the ‘degree’ of personal suffering that makes this tribulation exceptional from all others, but its ‘scale’ of impact on the world of nature. So I ask: Do we detect a certain selfishness, or subtle presumption of moral superiority in the modern church’s expectation of exemption from a last repeat of the same kind of persecution that their ‘fellow servants and their brethren’ have faced in every age (see Rev 6:11)? I must say that such a doctrine sounds suspiciously accommodating of a soft and untested church that has embraced the cross only in theory as a historical fact in Jesus’ experience, and not as the invariable pattern of the very ‘way’ of God in the experience of every believer before and after Christ (but see Act 14:22). [...]
