I'm not joking... who do you believe killed Jesus?

This is not a question about whether Jesus dismissed His spirit after He cried 'It is finished' or He died from exhaustion.

It is a look at His own prophecy, and whether we believe it.

For the sake of a future day when this will not be in my signature, I'll put Jesus' words here.

Mark 10
Then He took the twelve aside again and began to tell them the things that would happen to Him:
33 [color=0066CC]"Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and [b]they will condemn Him to death and deliver Him to the Gentiles;[/b]
34 [b]and they will mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him[/b]. And the third day He will rise again." [/color]

Now, how do you read that?

Which other scriptures militate against Jesus' statement, and why (if at all) are they important for other doctrine? (Or aren't they?)

I have posted this because there are copious volumes of false doctrine filling the air, [u]and we know[/u] scripture interprets scripture.

PreachParsly asked

Are you asking if the Jews or the Gentiles were the ones who killed Jesus?

Phillip, hello.

This question is important for what rests on the answer is huge. If the discussion doesn't go that way initially, I will definitely return to this point.

I have a comment for your post, though.

Joh 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin

Who delivered Him? "He that delivered me." The singular here is put for the plural, including Judas, the high-priests, and the Sanhedrin.

We know from Gethsemane that He had agreed with His Father long before, to lay down His life.

JOhn 10
15 "As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
16 "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock one shepherd.
17 "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.
18 "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

PreachParsly said

1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they [have] of the Jews:
1Th 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:...

I think there has been some that have used this for a reason to persecute them.

I know a man who has researched a great deal, to prove that the Jews who handed Him over, were not of the house of Judah. They were not His direct family.

I agree, also, that it has not helped the cause of the Church, to have Jews thus labelled - even though it is inexcusable to persecute Jews long after the event. Nevertheless, that in itself brings into focus their acceptance of 'His blood' being on them and on their children. Its sort of a living nightmare all round.

Recently, when I was considering how they were willing to say 'we have no king but Caesar', I saw that they had been willing to align themselves with the Gentile powers more than I had clocked before.

Nevertheless, on the day that He died, if you had been there, would you have said 'the Jews killed Jesus'? or is that a bold statement only the Holy Ghost gives the courage to say, after you've received that power from on high?

Hello Phillip

Jesus set him right by telling him he had no power even to be king unless it had been given him from the Father, especially power to kill Jesus or let Him go. Jesus is speaking of The Father as having all power on earth and in heaven... And because of the relationship The Father and the Son had, as you said, that is why Jesus gave all the power responsibility to the Father, keeping with His obeying the Father even unto death. [b]Not that God had the greater sin[/b], but that those that delivered Him to Pilate.

The reason I started this thread though, was to explore whether the brethren here are willing to line up behind Jesus' own prophecy about His death.

He said 'the Gentiles .... will kill me...' [b]Mark 10:33, 34[/b]

[b]Matthew 20[/b]
17 Now Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside on the road and said to them,
18 "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death,
19 "[b]and deliver Him to the Gentiles[/b] to mock and to scourge and [b]to crucify[/b]. And the third day He will rise again."

[b]Luke 18[/b]
31 Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.
32 "For He will be delivered to [b]the Gentiles[/b] and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon.
33 "They [b]will[/b] scourge and [b]kill Him[/b]. And the third day He will rise again."

Here (above) we have three almost identical accounts of this prophecy, regardless of both Peter and Paul afterwards laying [i]responsibility[/i] for His death on the Jews, who had said 'His blood be on us and on our children' (Matt 27:25), if you were a disciple living through that week, what you would have [u]seen[/u] was the Jews handing Him over to the Gentiles who did [u]actually[/u] oversee His death [i]just as Jesus had said[/i].

Jesus' death [i]isn't[/i] straightforward or ordinary. I'm not suggesting it is. But it was prophesied several ways in the Old Testament, when it [i]was[/i] obscure and lacking in vital detail.

Now, I'm beginning to realise the groundswell of interpretation (that) 'the Jews killed Him', is not merely a misrepresentation of scripture: it is a wildly inaccurate presentation of [u]a fact[/u] which later (that is, in the New Testament), was clearly and reliably recorded for us - both its prediction and its fulfilment.

Do you see what I mean?

poet said

But mostly of all, we, crusified the Lord of Glory. because that was the only way for God to have a restored relationship with his creation. We a sinnful people, Crusified Jesus the Christ,

the Romans had the legal authority to crusify Jesus, and did so under great deress.

This is a fulfilled prophecy, with as much weight as others regarding aspects of His life and death:

Matthew 26:56
But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

Matthew 27:9
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

Matthew 27:35
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Luke 22:16
For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These [i]are[/i] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [i]in[/i] the prophets, and [i]in[/i] the psalms, concerning me.

John 13:18
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

John 17:12
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

John 19:28
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

God the Father can have no sin, so the ones that delivered Jesus to Pilate are the ones that have the sin. Namely Judas in the Garden with a kiss and the Sanhedrin and Chief Priests.

Absolutely! Maybe a little history here would help too.

There are in the OT two comings of Messiah, one as KING ( still future) and one as redeemer.

The Jews overlooking redeemer were waiting for King...He is after one in the same. They scoffed at this KING who was born in a manger, and rode through the streets on a donkey.

Funny, when Herod heard of the Birth of Jesus...King of the Jews, He set out then to kill every child under the age of 2 in order to make sure this would not happen.

When the three wise men saw the Star in the sky, they too knew something miraculous has happened. Herod asked that they report back to him concerning this birth, yet after seeing Mary Joseph and Jesus , fled from Harrod, not going back but went out another way.

Something must have happened to them (conversion possibly). Interesting are the gifts they brought, especially myrrth...which has a deep significance. All have a deep significance really.

Judas betrayed Jesus because Judas thought Jesus was going to become King and overthrow the Roman empire and restore the Kingdom to Israel at that time.

Because this didn't happen, ( the way they thought it was to happen) the Jews betrayed Jesus, mocking Him with a crown of thorns and the words over his head in a mocking way...King of the Jews.

The true spiritual Israel knew the redeemer came first, just as John the Baptist said...behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Jesus will come back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, but He will come now in ALL His Glory. When He first came, he left that Glory and humbled Himself and became obedient unto death. John 17 you see Jesus Praying in the Garden.....Glorify me with the Glory I had with you before or from the beginning.

Well, He has that Glory now, and will return in ALL His Glory, and that Glory will be the Glory that is Glorified in his Saints at His return...Thessalonians!!

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

ChrisJD said

Dorcas, maybe this does not have to be an either or?

I fully appreciate that both Jews and Gentiles are implicated in the need for Jesus' death as the sacrificial Lamb of God; no contest. But I started this thread to draw attention to one particular prophecy.

We are always telling each other that scripture interprets scripture. I have come to appreciate this truth, and am applying it here.

I looked at the verses you offered, and would reply with Romans 3, where Paul conclusively establishes that no-one is righteous.

We all know from Genesis that no-one is righteous, and in Romans Paul covers every possible angle to establish that death came upon all men since Adam, and we [u]all[/u] needed a Saviour.

Now, in so asking for strict textual analysis, I am not at all denying those parts of scripture where the [i]reasons[/i] for Jesus' death are expounded.

All I am looking for here, is a public acknowledgement that Jesus' prophecy about who would 'kill' Him, did come true.

Do we have that?

All I am looking for here, is a public acknowledgement that Jesus' prophecy about who would 'kill' Him, did come true.

I can appreciate that Dorcas, and agree with you.

In all truth if the original Herod had found Mary Joseph and Jesus before they left town, Herod would then be responsible for the death of Jesus.

But all this was in God's hands and His time had not yet come.

Therefore ALL are guilty, and have come short of the Glory of God.

Rome has always been afraid of any King as the last King of Israel was killed by Rome when they raised Jerusalem killing that King...probably thinking Jesus was back???!!!

That's another thread.

But there will be another time also in History when the King, this time in ALL His Glory returns and does overthrow Gentile world power, setting up the Kingdom the Gentile world has always been in fear of, as was Herod to begin with.

Added ChrisJD's Scripture here:

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."

- Psalm 2 verses 1-3(KJV)

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

Katy said

The true spiritual Israel knew the redeemer came first, just as John the Baptist said...behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Philippians 2 (Young) (Isa 45:23 - end)
9 wherefore, also, God [u]did[/u] highly exalt him, and [u]gave[/u] to him a name that [i]is[/i] above every name,
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow--of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth--
11 and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ [i]is[/i] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Katy,

I know you hold that Jesus will return as King. I accept this as a true statement. But I want you to know that very many Christians acknowledge that He [u]was King when He was born[/u]. That's why there was a star in the sky and the wise men knew to bring Him gold - and it was the first of their gifts.

Then [u]He was King when He was crucified[/u] - painful as that is.

There are many many hymns acknowledging Jesus as King [u]now[/u] - by which I mean that ever since Pentecost, and the insight which is given by the Holy Spirit, Christians have understood He is [u]already acknowledged as King in heaven[/u].

I have heard it explained that when they sought to make Him 'a king' on earth, He [i]had[/i] to refuse (by running away), because He is [i][u]the[/u][/i] King! Amen.

Especially in Revelation 5, where His work on earth is described in the past tense, we see that He already has recived 'power and riches and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and blessing'. I've come to understand that these are all endowments which He did not enjoy on earth as a Man. [u]He is King now[/u], and we worship Him as King [u]now[/u]. [i]The people who have not made Him their King[/i] [u]before[/u] His return [i]will be destroyed[/i].

Please don't forget that I said right at the beginning of this post that I acknowledge He will return as King.

My point here, is to put a balance on that statement, because when it is emphasised in isolation, there can be a perception that He cannot be known as King [i][b]until[/i][/b] He returns.

Whereas the testimony of Christians down the centuries is that they had become citizens of another kingdom, for the King of which they were ready to die in His service, and still are.

Revelation 5 (NKJV)
9 And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth."
11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands,
12 saying with a loud voice: "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain To receive power and riches and wisdom, And strength and honor and glory and blessing!"
13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: "Blessing and honor and glory and power [i]Be[/i] to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!"

My point here, is to put a balance on that statement, because when it is emphasised in isolation, there can be a perception that He cannot be known as King until He returns.

Well, the King is coming.

However, when you pray, do you pray in the Kings name? Do you refer to Him as Lord or King.

When He comes as King, He will be "King of the Jews", just as He was originally!

How often in the Epistles does Paul or Peter or James refer to Him as King to us now?

Yes He is King, as He is redeemer, but all things in order. The Alpha Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last has Always been that indeed, an order of His events we need to rightly divide the word of Truth on.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

Hi Katy,

I am very interested in the lack of response by everyone to my leading post, in which I quote [u]Jesus said[/u] the Gentiles would kill Him.

I believe we have to try to get back to what the disciples were living through at the time, [i]not knowing what was going to happen next[/i].

I know they had had a hard time accepting that Jesus was going to die at all. They loved Him. None of them (and even Judas changed his mind - but too late) wanted to think of their beloved Teacher actually being [i]killed[/i]. And yet this is the term which Jesus uses in every record of it - 'kill'.

dorcas said:

All I am looking for here, is a public acknowledgement that Jesus' prophecy about who would 'kill' Him, did come true.

'I can appreciate that Dorcas, [u]and agree with you[/u].'

Can I ask, now, with what are you actually agreeing?

Dorcas, This is what was kept silent from the beginning. 1 Corinthians 2 state very clearly that it was kept silent. If satan had known ( who was really behind it all anyway) that the actual victory of redemption and the bruse on his own head would come through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, he would have backed off completely.

Because the distorted movie of the Passion of the Christ puts in extra biblical garbage that Jesus had a conversation with satan in the garden is not found in scripture, it has distorted peoples perception.

Now, even His disciples really didn't grasp the whole of it until Jesus rose from the dead, and He spent 40 days with them after His resurrection explaining many things.

When Peter cut off the ear of the soldier, that tells you even Peter didn't quite get it.

Although Jesus said he would die and rise again, they had a head knowledge they couldn't grasp, but after had a deeper knowledge of Truth.

Jesus said, many things even then they wouldn't grasp, and the Holy Spirit would now bring to rememberance and teach us those deeper truths.

Only those Born Again, born of teh Spirit can actually understand more then just a head knowledge. We have a knowledge so deep, we would die defending it. Headknowledge does no such thing. It might die for it's own power or the power one might have over someone...called religion, but we are not the same thing as religion,. Ours is a personal intimate relationship. A Martyr is a disciple of Jesus Christ. Martyr's don't take lives, they lay theirs down. After Jesus was with teh Disciples, Peter, did not cut off anyone's ears again, but laid down his life for the Gospel. You can see the transformation fo Peter so completely now.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

Hi Katy,

This is what was kept silent from the beginning.

But, my point here is not about those things which depended on Pentecost for their revelation to the understanding of believers.

In my second post on p2 of this thread, I quoted [b]eight[/b] instances where gospel writers connected the events surrounding Jesus death, with specific prophecy.

In fact, not all those observations (although written after Pentecost) may have needed the baptism in the Spirit to recognise them, but rather, a reasonable acquaintance with the Old Testament scriptures. Do you see what I mean?

In this thread, I am looking for acceptance of these observations by the New Testament writers. That's all. Can you agree to this?

PreachParsly asked

Quote:

Are you asking if the Jews or the Gentiles were the ones who killed Jesus?

Dorcas answered:

I am.

Dorcas, it is most clear to me your original post is not that people believe or disbelieve in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or that that death and resurrection was prophesied in the OT, but you want to know... who done it?

When Abraham offered Isaac, and Abraham had a vision of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ [b] No Where[/b] does that vision include [b] who done it![/b] No where does that vision accuse anyone of [b] who done it![/b]

However the first prophecy is Genesis 3:15 and that because of satan corrupting mankind bringing sin and death upon man is [b]who done it[/b]

Now I gave you so much history behind this whole scene, that you probably don't think relevant, but it is......and is still relevant today and tomorrow as well.

The final overthrow of satan, has yet to be, but will come to pass, and now satan hates the Body of Christ Today wanting to kill us and corrupt us and mock us in the same way.

Why, because we have the answer to eternal life, that he doesn't want anyone to know....he'll lose his power over those lost souls he now holds in death.

So, If I may suggest we don't go on a witch hunt, but a Gospel mission to the lost, that whosoever believes Jesus died and rose from the dead, and those who put their faith in Him will be saved.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

[b]It was finished from the foundation of the world[/b]

Dorcas, one other thing. We dont fight agsinst flesh and blood, but powers and principalities.....Don't you think that was true for Jesus as well. Who showed up in the desert and tempted Him for 40 Days???? Jews????Gentiles???

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

Dorcas, this should answer your question:

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. ;-)

He first speaketh a lie to Eve, right from the beginning, and death came upon all mankind.

Hello David,

It would seem to me that Jesus' death and resurrection was for "whosoever" to be saved.
And since salvation is all inclusive, I believe his crucifiction was all inclusive. The whole of mankind is represented and implicated. There is none that escapes implication.This leads to a broader picture of who benefits from the resurrection.

I'm asking simply whether you accept Jesus' [b]precise determination[/b] that He would be [u]killed[/u] by Gentiles?

Is this what those watching, [u]did observe[/u]?

Dear Katy,

Your contributions are all of surrounding interest, but still have not homed in on my original question, which I've tried to elucidate further in my post to David.

What I'm saying is, Jesus said we have to believe [u]all[/u] His words. They are a rock on which we can build a house which will withstand the storm. Could the disciples depend on this word about His death.... or not?

You said:

Dorcas, it is most clear to me your original post is not that people believe or disbelieve in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or that that death and resurrection was prophesied in the OT, but you want to know... who done it?

Very simply, Jesus said the Gentiles would do it.

I'm asking: do we accept this as a rock-solid [u]truth[/u]?

Did His prophecy come true, or not?

Very simply, Jesus said the Gentiles would do it.

Dorcas, considering Rome was in rule and Jews were in subjection to Roman rule, and crucifixion is Roman not Jewish, no one is doubting how OT Prophecy has foretold these events.

However if you read in Acts, and the Apostles on Pentecost preaching to the Jews...NOT GENTILES on that day, they said YOU have Crucified the Lord and killed him.

They turned Jesus over to Roman authority. Rome had the final say for sure, but they did what apostate Israel wanted.

I really don't know why this is so vitally important to you? How does this edify you spiritually?

God works all things together for His Good and His purposes is really the bottom line truth here.

Not to change the subject, but you reject many
solid rock [u]truths[/u] in the area of Romans 11 just for starters. But one can say, well, that's not how I interpret it at all. Is that an excuse for going against solid rock truth, not only there but other scripture to confirm....??

So why is this right on solid rock truth here so important in this area but not in other areas?

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

Very simply, Jesus said the Gentiles would do it.

I'm asking: do we accept this as a rock-solid truth?

Did His prophecy come true, or not?

Dorcas - I don't understand the title showing such emotion over something that Jesus Said would happen and of course it did happen, just as He said it would. Why wouldn't it ? He was God/Logos.

You just asked, ""Could the disciples depend on this word about His death.... or not?
Jesus said the Gentiles would do it. I'm asking: do we accept this as a rock-solid truth? Did His prophecy come true, or not?""

How could we even ask if "God's" prophecy came true?

Yes His Prophecy was true, always was and always will be.

ChrisJD gave a perfect Scripture reference to this on page two.

They, the Jews would have killed Him with stones or however, but He'd slip away because it was neither the time, place or way in which He prophesied how He would go in the O.T. Is 53, Ps 22, Is 42:1; 49:7, etc..

He had to die by and for all and His blood is on both the Jews hands and ours. Everyone of us, because His blood had to be shed for both/all.

Here's the verse Chris gave, again -

From the whole of Chpt 4 of Acts -

Act 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. [Quoting Ps 2:2]
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, [u]both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.[/u]

Simply - the Jews requested it - the Gentiles carried out the request and crucified/killed Him.

Is there any question of Jesus' Words or their fulfilment?

Hi Katy,

I hope this investigation is of edification to all those taking part.

Dorcas, considering Rome was in rule and Jews were in subjection to Roman rule, and crucifixion is Roman not Jewish, no one is doubting how OT Prophecy has foretold these events.

Although you may not yet see where I'm going with this, I believe it [u]is[/u] important or Jesus would not have given this clear a word on it.

Hello HE_Reigns

Dorcas - I don't understand the title showing such emotion over something that Jesus Said would happen [b]and of course it did happen, just as He said it would[/b]. Why wouldn't it ?

But the Spirit brought those words of Jesus about Him going to be killed by 'the Gentiles' to my heart in answer to a slightly different question. And I thought it would be an open and close case that everyone would just agree with Jesus.

Instead, you are the [u]first[/u] person to agree with scripture directly.

?

I can't quite understand why...

Sister, I'm open to an alternative title for the thread. :-)

How could we even ask if "God's" prophecy came true?

Absolutely fabulous!!! Isaiah 53!!!!!

Unfortunately those blind by what they should have known right in their scriptures along with Psalms 22.

Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees.

Many today are blind as well concerning prophecy right in our faces doubting God's Word that what He said He would bring to pass He will do, regardless of whether we understand it or not.

Yet blind to these truths will not excuse or wash any blood off our hands for not seeing and believing things yet to come.

Maybe this thread is a lesson to that we didn't realize we were getting. Thank You Dorcas!

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

I'm not sure if your reference to the OT was a slip of the fingers with reference to Jesus' own prophecy of His death, but for the sake of those who may be unclear, the words of Jesus are all recorded only in the New Testament, (although there are many places in the Old Testament where His coming and death are foretold).

So then Dorcas, Jesus is not the Word of God? So OT scriptures are not the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us??? Who spoke in the OT? Don't you believe in the Trinity?

No slip what so ever.

Katy

Dorcas, this is in first person, and did not happen to David.

[u][b]God[/b][/u]spoke to us in the OT through the Prophets, and [u][b]God[/b][/u]spoke to us in these last days through Jesus Christ.

1[u][b]God[/b][/u], who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2[u][b]God[/b][/u]Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Jesus is God...The Lord our God is one!

Psalm 22
1My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

2O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

3But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

4Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.

5They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

6But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

7All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

8He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

9But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.

10I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

11Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.

12Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

13They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.

14I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

15My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

16For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

17I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

18They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did ;-)

Hi Katy,

Of course I believe that the Word of the Old Testament is Jesus the Word made Flesh. But that is exactly why I'm asking for a focus on what the Word made Flesh said about His death; because this is further definition in respect of a previously less clearly prophesied event.

I am most specifically asking a question about these texts from the [i]New[/i] Testament - all the more now, because there has been a deafening silence to a resoundingly simple question.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture [i]is[/i] given by inspiration of God, and [i]is[/i] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

psalm1 said

Dorcas, Now that you mention it, it really could NOT have been a "jewish" crrucifiction. Nothting about it was jewish.

They were very used to a physical outworking of their religion, and in that sense, that Jesus was a Man completely tied in with their expectations. But, they had not been prepared for Him to redefine terms like [i]righteousness, holiness, justice, mercy, kingdom,[/i] or, for that matter [i]the fold of Israel[/i]. They were amazed when He spoke with or blessed non-Israelites, but they knew enough to keep their mouths shut.

Still, after all that, Peter had no concept of the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentiles. And yet, because they are unavoidably implicated in His actual death, the fairness of including them in His actual life (in fulfilment of all the incomprehesible prophecy that they would be), seems to have been very important to God, and Peter immediately the Holy Spirit fell on the household of Cornelius, understands this has been God's doing, which he must conceed.

Not only for the interpretation of those obvious prophecies about the Gentiles, though, but for others, we actually need to [u]depend[/u] on these three scriptures from the gospels, for the true light of God on our understanding.

Does this in some way tie into where david refused to do harm to Saul?

David said

anything left out and the savior of the world could not have redeemed mankind

David asked

Dorcas , was Jesus in anyway mistreated by the jews in his"trial". Im just wondering.

Over a period of time, I've slowly begun to get my head round what actually happened to Jesus, and to understand some of the issues which those events should raise in the minds of Christians for their own understanding of how they might be treated by the religientsia of their situation.

After Judas had betrayed Jesus, he tried to give back the money [i]to the priests who had paid him in the first place[/i] and this is what the hypocrites said:

Matthew 27:6
But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "[u]It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood[/u]."

It makes it sound as if it is 'lawful' to conspire to put a man to death and to pay for the services of an informant. Can this really be true of [u]the Law[/u]? ... let alone the [i]chief[/i] priests who were supposed to be carrying out the ordinances of the Old Covenant?

The mind boggles!

Luke's account is informative. The sword and club-bearing rabble were made up of 'chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to Him'. He said to them (22:53) 'When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.' 54 Then took they him, and led [i]him[/i], and brought him into the high priest's house.

63 And the men that held Jesus [see above who those were - a selection of the religientsia] mocked him, and smote [i]him[/i].
64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.
66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council,

I feel like putting 'council' in inverted commas, because this was merely the public face of a most disreputable group of men.

70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, [b]Ye say[/b] that I am.
71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Here again in vv 70 and 71, we see they were willing to twist anything He said for their own ends. It was as if [i]whatever He could have said[/i], they would have turned it into [i]the opposite[/i].

The reason they had to try to get the local Roman government employees to condemn Him to death though, was because the Roman law had blocked all killings under [i]Jewish[/i] religious law. (Which raises a question about what happened to Stephen later.) So at this point, the Jews could [i]not carry out any death sentence[/i] under the Old Covenant - not that Jesus was guilty of anything [u]at all[/u] under the Old Covenant! And so they had to find some other reason by which the Romans would accept that He was a danger to Caesar's government.

Of course, we later find Pilate being advised by his wife to have nothing to do with condemning Jesus due to His innocence, (Matt 27:19), but by then, there is a civil disorder issue going on outside his judgement hall, and he succumbs to the crowd.

Another twist to the injustice of this situation, is that Jesus most especially had [i]not[/i] incited any rebellion against Caesar, even when given the opportunity by the question of tribute, when He had said 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's'. It cannot be an accident that scripture records His very words, further underlining the [u]dis[/u]honesty of His captors.

Matthew 26
59 Now [u]the chief priests, and elders, and [b]all[/b] the council[/u], [b]sought false witness against Jesus[/b], to put him to death;
60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, [i]yet[/i] found they none.

David mentioned

The roman occupation

As you say, God has everything lined up.

Phillip said

Please bring us to what that well put together soul of yours and the mind of Christ that is being perfected in you is seeking and share with us what Christ wants us to know.

Your timing is impeccable. After psalm1 (David) had posted yesterday, I knew it would be soon...

David said

Now that you mention it, it really could NOT have been a "jewish" crrucifiction. Nothting about it was jewish.

So, Phillip, this is what's on my mind....

Earlier in the thread, (p2) I listed eight places where Old Testament prophecy is brought to our attention by the gospel writers.

What is different about this prophecy, is that Jesus Himself made it. It's not the only one He made (for instance, where the famous colt would be found), but, like His prophecy that He would rise on the third day, (which John connects with the temple question), this is His own word about His own death.

This time, it is [i]John[/i] who makes the Roman connection to two Old Testament prophecies.

John 19
31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [i]that[/i] they might be taken away.

32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35 And he that saw [i]it[/i] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

37 And again another scripture saith, [u]They[/u] shall look on [u]him whom [b]they[/b] pierced[/u].

Zechariah 12:10 second part of the verse

and [u]they shall look upon me whom they have pierced[/u], and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [i]his[/i] only [i]son[/i], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [i]his[/i] firstborn.

:-o

It's not about the Jews?

37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Zechariah 12:10 second part of the verse

and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

:-o

It's not about the Jews?

Now I think I understand what you are getting at....more of this God is finished with Israel kind of stuff, taking words directed for and About Israel, and applying them to Gentiles. :-?

The Story of Joseph is parallel to this, as Joseph was thought to be dead by his brothers own hands, but was by one brother sold into slavery, to the Gentiles. Joseph refused to bow to the god of egypt, but rather through ***Joseph's God**, Egypy was blessed beyond measure.

When Israel came to Egypt, after God had brought a great drout, the brothers then discovered Joseph alive, and were grieved at what **they** had done.

God does work in mysterious ways to bring about His purpose and plan of redemption to ALL who have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God!!!!

Love in Christ
Katy-Did ;-)

Dorcas I looked and couldnt tell if you addressd the comparison of saul and David? specifically if david acted on principle or law of leadership. [David being at that point executioner of countryman and king?]
This interests me in that David had the option with his servant to see saul killed.

What I had wanted to show in this thread, is that there is an modern doctrine about an end-time revival of Jews (only) based on the second half of Zech 12:10 - but we have both Jesus and John bearing witness that that part of that prophecy is specifically about Gentiles.

My drawing attention to it is not as Katy surmises, but a genuine attempt to highlight what can only be called false doctrine.

There is much more about the interpretation of Zechariah's prophecy which I (personally) question, which has been received into the belief system of modern believers, which I believe is misleading.

'Israel' always included those Gentiles who wanted to join themselves to Israel. Scripture is laden with God's promises to Israel, from Gen 32 when Jacob's name was changed (and before) right until Pentecost in Acts 2. But here is another word specifically for Gentiles - as many other OT prophecies are also - and I believe the Lord has been nagging me with this prophecy for months until He gave me those three references in the gospels, which open up the truth of that word.

It is interesting that he moves from speaking in the third person in the first part of the verse, to speaking in the first '[u]Me[/u] whom they pierced'. If that is the only section which applies to Gentiles, and the rest of the sentence is for Jews, that's ok. Only this one point I wished to bring to everyone's attention.

We killed Him.

My drawing attention to it is not as Katy surmises, but a genuine attempt to highlight what can only be called false doctrine.

Yes and that false doctrine begins by not reading ALL of Zachariah 12. This is to teh House of David, and the House of David does not become even in one's wildest imagination ...Gentiles.

However Replacement/Dominionist/ Reconstructionists will tell you they do.
This is called teh time of JAcob's trouble,

ending in Romans 11, when a Deliver will come out of Sion, and all Israel will be saved.

Zechariah 12
1The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

2Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

3And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

4In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.

5And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God.

6In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.

7The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.

8In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

9And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

11In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

12And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;

13The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;

14All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

THEY SHALL LOOK UPON ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED, and THEY SHALL MOURN FOR HIM (Zechariah 12)

Are all the prophecies of the bible fulfilled and if not which ones haven't been fulfilled yet.
People have dealt differently with prophecies.
Some believe Jesus failed to fulfill all the prophecies and is therefore not the Messiah.
Others believe that some were fulfilled but others fulfilled invisibly or allegorically.
Still, others like myself believe in the delay in the prophetic program that scripture teaches. (Romans 11:25-27; Revelation 10:7 )
I wanted to look at particular prophecies and ask the question whether it has been fulfilled and how.
The first one is in Zechariah which says, "And it shall come to pass IN THAT DAY, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, THE SPIRIT OF GRACE and of supplications: and THEY SHALL LOOK UPON ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED, and THEY SHALL MOURN FOR HIM, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. 11 IN THAT DAY shall there be a GREAT MOURNING IN JERUSALEM, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. 12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; 13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; 14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart." (Zechariah 12)
I've put in CAPS what I want you to look at.
A casual reading of Zechariah will easily reveal that whenever 'In That Day' is referred to it is referring to the end, which hasn't happened yet.
Everything that will happen IN THAT DAY will make it indisputable that these prophecies haven't happened yet.
Some of the things that will happen IN THAT DAY are:
1) All the nations will be gathered against her (12:3)
2) All that try to move her will be injured.
3) there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. (13:1)
4) that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: 7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. (14:7)
5) living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. (14:8)
6) And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one. (14:9)
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Also notice that this prophecy in Zechariah twelve regarding the piercing of Messiah makes it clear that this mourning for him will be in all of Israel. Every family will mourn.
This hasn't happened yet and though Christ has been pierced, the showing of the marks of the crucifixion AND the resultant mourning of all of Israel hasn't happened yet.
In John nineteen we have the verse which says, 'For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. "
Is this the complete fulfillment of the Zechariah passage?
I think not.
Certainly, we can point to multiple fulfillments of prophecy in the Bible.
Often prophecy is fulfilled in ways that beg a more specific fulfillment.
In other words, Antiochus Epiphanes was a type of Antichrist and even his name begins with anti, but he didn't fulfill everything spoken of the AntiChrist and though what he did, resembled a kind of abomination spoken of by Daniel, (9:25-27) Jesus still later speaks of a abomination of desolation which is still future. (Matthew 24)
Now concerning the passage in Zechariah regarding his piercing, we know that obviously he has already been pierced and obviously some did see him.
However, all the families of Israel have not mourned for him as Zechariah predicts.
So there is more to come.
The Preterists make a major mistake when they assume that it is all over and we can relax now.
There is still much more to come and one that can deny what is happening in Israel today must be blind.
Only one that believes that there are dispensations can rightly argue for a delay and an eventual resumption of what happened in the gospels.

It is the dispensationalists( dirty word) who believe the Kingdom is postponed while the Gentiles are given a chance for salvation.

(Romans 11:24-27; 2 Peter 3), and what we see in the end will be a resumption of the program for Israel and the fulfillment of the rest of the prophecies.

The Preterist has to believe that Acts 2:28 was immediate and visible but Acts 2:29 wasn't.

What justifies believing something to be literal and visible in one verse but invisible and allegorical in the next verse?

Absolutely nothing.

If you don't believe in the fulfillment of Romans 11 then the passages in Zechariah 12 present a real problem for you. So what do you do....explain them away!!!!!!

Revelation says this, "Behold, he cometh with CLOUDS; and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM, and THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM: and ALL KINDREDS OF THE EARTH SHALL WAIL BECAUSE OF HIM. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY." (Revelation 1)
These verses are problematic for the Preterist because:
1) He comes in the clouds
2) Every Eye Shall See Him
3) THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM
4) All the Kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.

Not all of Israel mourned when they 'looked upon him whom they have pierced', immediately after the crucifixion.

He is still to come in the clouds, every eye to see him and all the kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.

Certainly, The A.D. 70 assumption of Replacement Theology doesn't fulfill any of this.

This passage in Revelation One also says, 'EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM, **********and THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM*******

Here John is including Israel and is reiterating what Zechariah says.
So the crucifixion was not a complete fulfillment or should I say the only fulfillment of the passage in Zechariah because after the crucifixion we still have John making it future tense and there is no evidence that a.d. 70 was a fulfillment of any of these predictions.

The passage in Zechariah also says, "I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, THE SPIRIT OF GRACE and of supplications:" , which will be fulfilled for Israel and it will be an irresistable grace unprecedented.

Irresistable grace did not follow the crucifixion but will be extended toward Israel in the end.
"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is MY COVENANT UNTO THEM, when I shall take away their sins. " (Romans 11)
This didn't happen after the crucifixion or in a.d. 70.
This was God's covenant 'unto them'
Look at Ezekiel 36 after this and see that God will restore, regather and recreate Israel in such a way as has never been seen. This is not just a national restoration but a spiritual regeneration that will be because of God's faithfulness.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matthew 24)

To set up His throne, and take the Throne of David, ruling the Nations with a rod of Iron.

Love in Christ
Katy-did

PS Added for content

John wrote Revelation 85-90 AD, 15 to 20 years after 70ad. therefore making him a futurist of things yet still to come.

Dear Katy,

I hope you are well. Sorry it's take so long for me to get back here.

You may be a great deal less frustrated by my posts when you manage to draw back far enough to read what I've said, and reply [i]only[/i] to that, without piling in a world of additional assumption about what I [i]haven't[/i] said.

You said this

In John nineteen we have the verse which says, 'For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. "
Is this the complete fulfillment of the Zechariah passage?

'What I had wanted to show in this thread, is that there is an modern doctrine about an end-time revival of Jews (only) based on the second half of Zech 12:10 - [b]but we have both Jesus and John[/b] bearing witness that that part of that prophecy is specifically about Gentiles...

If that is the only section which applies to Gentiles, and the rest of the sentence is for Jews, that's ok. Only this one point I wished to bring to everyone's attention.'

I could add, it doesn't mean that 'Israel' won't see that He was pierced physically, but that they didn't do that physical piercing [u]is my submission[/u]. And therefore, to base a doctrine for Jews on the one part of that verse which [u]does not apply[/u] (to Jews), [u]is a lie[/u].

Doesn't that matter?

More poignant is the piercing of the heart of Mary, for instance, and the piercing of the consciences of those who heard the gospel on the day of Pentecost.

Further, there is the spiritual understanding of His having been pierced in a type of the brith of the Church - the second Eve - as Wesley calls her, which comes to all who receive the Spirit.

And, there is something in all of us seeing in the Spirit a healthy young man being crucified for the sin of the world, which revolts. It [u]is[/u] a deeply painful sight. But, one need only be mortal for this to strike home.

Moving on, I have no idea how you can say 'Irresistable grace did not follow the crucifixion but will be extended toward Israel in the end.' Or, 'it will be an irresistable grace unprecedented.' I believe these statements go beyond scripture, and it is not that the grace will have changed in its quality or power, but those on whom it pours will be ready to receive it - as those who receive it in this generation, and those who did in centuries past.

One of the reasons for this thread is to try to break down the idea that Jews are somehow incapable of responding to the gospel [u]today[/u], because they don't find the grace being extended to them [i]'irresistable' enough[/i].

Now before you assume anything more than I've said in this post, remember that I'm looking at this objectively. I'm hearing (from the US) what is being said [i]to the world[/i] (through SI) about 'the salvation of Jews' in a general way, and I'm looking for its foundation in scripture, and in this case - those few words - I find that what is being shared [u]as gospel[/u] [i]isn't there[/i] - and you seem to want to ignore this - while I cannot.

I am [u]very[/u] concerned, that no Jew should be lulled into any sense of false security, about salvation hitting them unexpectedly at some future time, if God is speaking to them [u]now[/u], and needs them in His kingdom (and His kingdom in them) now, and if for them, [i]today is the day of salvation[/i]. My heart is to invite them to turn to Christ [i]now[/i]. God's word is being fulfilled [i]all the time![/i]

Joel's prophecy, which began to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (ten days after Jesus ascended to heaven), was very definitely to Israel, and has not stopped. This is '[u]the day of grace[/u]'.

John 1
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) [u]full of grace and truth[/u].
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And [u]of his fulness have all we received[/u], [b]and grace for grace[/b].
17 For the law was given by Moses, [i]but[/i] [b]grace and truth came by Jesus Christ[/b].

You are probably unaware of how it reads to the uninitiated, to see many repetitions of the arguments for a future outpouring of the Spirit on Jews - which actually, I am not disputing.

What I'm resisting is the [i]minimising effect[/i] this has on the meaning of Pentecost as a [u]fact[/u] of long past history when Jews [i]began[/i] to be born again, and that this same Spirit continues to be available today in the same abundance to whoever will step up and believe according to the prescription in Romans 10.

You said:

If you don't believe in the fulfillment of Romans 11 then the passages in Zechariah 12 present a real problem for you.

So what do you do....explain them away!!!!!!

Isaiah 59:20
" The Redeemer will come to Zion,
[u]And to those who turn from transgression[/u] in Jacob," Says the LORD.

Regarding Romans 11, do you disagree with Paul that 'The Deliverer [Redeemer] has [already] come out of Zion to turn away ungodliness from Jacob'?

That's not a rhetorical question. It is based in my inferences from your posts, that you believe this has yet to be fulfilled.

Hi Chris,

Thank you I am well. I hope you are also. :-)

I find much in both Zechariah 13 which may have been fulfilled, particularly this verse which is generally accepted as a reference to Christ:

Zechariah 13:6
And [i]one[/i] shall say unto him,
What [i]are[/i] these wounds in thine hands?
Then he shall answer,
[i]Those[/i] with which I was wounded [i]in[/i] the house of my friends.

Symbolically, there is much in Zechariah 14, also.

And so, I'm wondering if maybe if some realised at some point that He was the Messiah, but it was too late and maybe this mourning could refer to that also?

There is a similarity in the reference to the first-born (Zech 12:10) which is reminiscent of the first Passover - that in each of us there is a 'first-born' (the man of flesh) who has to die - as you said, a mourning over sin - but who is represented in Jesus and His death. Somehow though, God uses the separateness of Christ 'cut off for sins but not His own' to draw a response from men which otherwise they could not make. It is the [u]fact[/u] of Christ's death which compels us to believe.

Or maybe even before that when the veil of the temple was rent?

54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, [u]the earthquake[/u], and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

There is a clear picture of the meaning of Christ's death, in Zech 14:4 and 5. Azal means 'an easy way to escape' - which is interesting. Much more could be said.

It has to do with [b]them[/b] seeing Him coming in the clouds of Heaven. Let me know what you think.

The apostle John said
'Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [i]also[/i] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.'

I believe John's observation of the soldier putting the spear into Jesus' side, (while he recognised it as a fulfilment of prophecy), at the time he saw it happening, had not yet had the scriptures expounded by Jesus after His resurrection, and even after that, didn't know quite what to expect from the promise to be 'endued with power from on high' (Luke 24:49) which Jesus made shortly before His ascension.

To be completely clear, I believe Zechariah's prophetic word - literally God speaking through him in the first person (as often happened to David, also) - 'and they shall look on Me whom they have pierced' - is fulfilled when John makes his observation at the cross. It is a reference to Gentiles - their part in His death and their future admission to His life by the Spirit.

It is a tiny part of a prophecy made to Israel (as Katy pointed out), but the moment the Holy Spirit falls in Cornelius' house, another dynamic cuts in - the circumcision of the heart.

Jesus was very clear in the priority He set [i]for Israel/i] - to seek first the kingdom of God. This is where 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' (the other thread) is more relevant for our generation. I don't believe that is a reference to the Second Coming of Christ.

Hi David,

dorcas, I believe my question about david\\saul applies in that "Who killed Jesus" also consequently asks "who didnt kill Jesus".

Now looking at davids opportunity [passed up] to kill saul,compared to the jews opportunity to stone Jesus could be more than coincidence.

Matthew 26:53
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Ciaphas robe was torn,disqualifying him from priestly service. A terrible dilemma for him as it was passover and 3 sacrifices were manditory that day.
Possibly annas did the duty?

Acts 4
1 And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, [u]and the Sadducees[/u], came upon them,
2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

This verse always makes me smile a bit:

Luke 3:2
Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Caiaphas was Annas' son-in-law. Also, they were Sadducees.

Acts 5:17
Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,

Acts 23:8
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Matthew 28
10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him [i]away[/i] while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

It's difficult to know if this fable was devised because they didn't believe in resurrection, or, because they thought it was more believable than resurrection. That the people had seen more than one resurrection and there was historical record of it from the Old Testament, makes it seem like they would always be fighting a losing battle on that one.

I wonder, that since Jesus was priest before his crucifiction, did that prevent the jews from direct involvement?

Isaiah 53:4
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: [b]yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God[/b], and afflicted.

Matthew 27
39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest [i]it[/i] in three days, save thyself. [b]If thou be the Son of God[/b], come down from the cross.
41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking [i]him[/i], with the scribes and elders, said,
42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. [b]If he be the King of Israel[/b], let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: [b]for he said, I am the Son of God[/b].

He was all those and more, as you say, also our High Priest to bring us to God. Apparently, He died at the time of the evening sacrifice. The veil tearing could not have been unnoticed right then. The way to God was immediately open.

Further to my last three posts, I want to put a note here that when I awoke this morning, there was more understanding coming to my spirit from the Lord, which I will try to write when I have words. It seems to me today, that this thread is taking me on a far more personal journey than I anticipated, and it ties into my question to the Lord many months ago (I mean nearly two years actually) to explain 'What is the gospel?'

It is important to me to be able to couch my insight in scriptural language, (I don't mean KJV... ;-)... I mean, biblical terminology) because I am clear in my spirit that there is power in the word, when it is spoken from God's point of view, and [u]understanding[/u] removes confusion and doubt which might militate against authority.

One thing I've mentioned in a couple of threads, is how the religientsia needed to employ Judas (or someone) to lead them to Jesus. There are those verses in Isaiah 53, that He has no comeliness that we should desire Him, by which we understand Jesus was a very ordinary-looking man.

Then, we have His own testimony at the last, that He was in the temple daily, teaching - right under their noses - and yet they didn't know what He looked like. I wondered this morning, if that was because those who [i]should[/i] have been teaching were doing something else - like making money on the tables which sold sacrifices.

And then something else struck me - which I've been meditating upon - that He had said to John the Baptist, 'It behoves us to fulfill all righteousness' and I began to think through what does it mean 'I came to fulfill the law'?

And it dawned on me I've been making a fundamentally flawed assumption - which is, that 'fulfilling the law' is something about being honest with God over one's sin, and making all the repentances, apologies, sacrifices and attendances at days of Atonement, which should have characterised a Jewish life - but that for Jesus [i][b]none of the above applied[/i][/b]. He had never sinned.

The reason the priests didn't know what He looked like, and [i]therefore[/i] 'had nothing on Him', was that He never had to bring a sacrifice. They never saw His face close up while He had to make some kind of confession.

On top of all that, He walked around saying outrageous things about them, which were [u]all so true[/u] He didn't have to repent of a [i]single one[/i].

OUCH!

No wonder they were mad at Him and hated Him!

Obviously, some did engage with His teaching - [i]but not the plotters[/i].

For God so loved the world [u][i][b] HE GAVE [/b][/i][/u]his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him will not parish but have eternal everlasting Life.

A very Merry and Blessed Christmas to everyone!

Love in Christ
Katy-Did ;-)

psalm1 wrote:

dorcas, my point in all that was.....david and saul both being priests and yet it would seem to me sauls behavior would have definatly justified him being killed by david.
now compare that to the priesthood of Jesus and how the Jews[priests] could have stoned Jesus but the death of Jesus was left to the gentiles.
In like manner the death of saul was left to the gentiles.
Soooooo my guestion is........since both instances had an opportunity for a priest to kill a priest, was anything or principle invoked that is not mentioned in the bible?

I've been thinking about your question and again am not sure how to answer it.

First, it's interesting you think of David and Saul as priests, when they most certainly were kings (rather) and prophets. In their day, the priests were of Levi, having started in Aaron's family when first established.

However, I notice that in the parallels offered by the two narratives, it was the greater who was threatened by the lesser and in some ways, Saul represents the established order (the monarchy corresponding to the scribes and Pharisees), and David represents God's free man. Both David as king-in-waiting, and Jesus, speak to us of the mercy which resides with the true power base.

In a way, Saul being slain by the enemy also speaks of how the man of flesh (or 'our old man') does not overcome... whereas David was the conquering hero naturally speaking, as Jesus was spiritually speaking.

Am I getting anywhere close to what you're musing?

Hi David

David's office was triune[prophet priest king]

Another point is that while we recognise him as a prophet, he did not recognise himself as a prophet, and Nathan filled that office.

One thing I've wondered is whether that was his son Nathan. I've no idea how one checks it out.

Wow I just saw something....The reason the gentiles killed him is because in the sin offering it was not the priest but the ,"one that sinned' or the one that brought the sin offering that killed the animal.

The priest didnt slay it it was the job of the "sinner".
The priest took over at that point.
[tthe gentiles killed Jesus, then the Jews took over his body,[sacrifice]

Interestingly, it plays into those waking moments to which I referred in a post last week, about which I still intend to post. But do keep your thoughts coming. I do completely believe that Jesus was the sacrifice for the whole of mankind [i]at the time that He died[/i] and that [i]He knew this also[/i] (John 10) [i]regardless of what things may have looked like on the ground to Jews, at the time of His death[/i].

David, you said

it was not the priest but the ,"one that sinned' or the one that brought the sin offering that killed the animal.

Sorry... I should have asked earlier. I'm not sure where to find it.

Thanks. :-)

From my post at the end of p6

Further to my last three posts, I want to put a note here that when I awoke this morning, there was more understanding coming to my spirit from the Lord, which I will try to write when I have words.

Associated with this realisation was the way the elders and chief priests willingly said 'His blood be upon us and on our children'. They understood something about their very real participation in His forthcoming death as a fact, even if they didn't understand He was their eternal sacrifice. But both before His death and after Pentecost, there were those who recognised how He fulfilled scripture, and they [u]believed[/u] on Him.

I get the sense from the New Testament, that there was a profound wishing that He had not had to die - from both Peter and John initially. Later, Paul says 'if they had known'... as if has come to understand that it was not possible 'they' could have known because [i]that was the way God's plan had to be outworked[/i].

Interesting at the feet of whom Paul lays this charge:

(Young) 1 Corinthians 2:8
which no one of [u]the rulers of this age[/u] did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;

Now, I wonder if he is saying obliquely, that the Jews did know? In a way, that's not important. Afterwards, by the Holy Spirit, they could be convinced of sin and righteousness and judgement. (John 16).

David,

Your observation that the 'sinner' had to slay the sacrifice, fits perfectly into the truth that in Jesus, 'our old man' was also crucified.

This was the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised, since Jesus Himself was there as a Jew, dying for Jews, as much as Man, dying for men.

Hi David,

I have not disputed that king David was a prophet. And I've found the verse you had in mind - 2 Samuel 6:17.

Remember when saul offered burnt offerings[acting as priest] God striped the kingdom from him
...

Saul was in forbidden territory.
Only a priest can offer burnt offerings.

To boil this down to a few words, what I was realising is how seriously significant it is that Paul related 'faith' to Abraham's pre-circumcision state. Abraham is the Jews' primary link with the Gentiles - their Adamic nature. This is what Jesus came to address: sin.
Associated with this realisation was the way the elders and chief priests willingly said 'His blood be upon us and on our children'.

They understood something about their very real participation in His forthcoming death as a fact, even if they didn't understand He was their eternal sacrifice. But both before His death and after Pentecost, there were those who recognised how He fulfilled scripture, and they believed on Him.

Dorcas, Actually it was Adam and Eve's sin that promised a redeemer in Genesis 3:15.

Job knew of the redeemer and believed in the resurrection of the dead.

However Gentiles, Pagam Gentiles as a whole did not know or believe in a resurrection that was IN CHRIST only. This was one of the major arguments between the Jews as well, not believing in the resurrection. Jesus preached. **I AM** the resurrection.

A gentile would have no reason to kill Jesus Christ for claiming to be God for one, as this was an abomination to the Jews, not Gentiles.

The Prophecy stating....I was wounded in the house of a friend is not about Gentiles, but Jews.

When He came to HIS OWN, and HIS OWN received Him not...this is referring to the Jews, not Gentiles. HIS OWN referrs to the House of His friends...the Jews.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

Hi Katy,

Season's greetings to you on the turn of the calendar to 2008. :-)

Apologies for the length, which I decided was better than [i]two[/i] posts.

A gentile would have no reason to kill Jesus Christ for claiming to be God for one, as this was an abomination to the Jews, not Gentiles.

However Gentiles, Pagam Gentiles as a whole did not know or believe in a resurrection that was IN CHRIST only.

Do you [i]not[/i] see that God's word to Eve was fulfilled in the creation of a family - Jacob who became [u]Israel[/u] - into which the Saviour would be born and recognised by [b]the whole world population[/b] [i]wherever He is preached?[/i]

(Of course) I understand that at the time of His arrival, it was [u]the Jews[/u] who were [i]expecting[/i] Him - [i]of course[/i] - on behalf of the whole of humanity - because [i]they had been prepared for this role[/i] in the salvation of [u]the world[/u].

But to suggest that [i]therefore[/i] there was no consciousness [i]in the Gentile world[/i] of [u]the God of Israel[/u], I trust you will reconsider.

Remember Rahab? [color=0000CC]'I know that the LORD has given you the land, that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land are fainthearted because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who [i]were[/i] on the other side of the Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. And as soon as we heard [i]these things,[/i] our hearts melted; neither did there remain any more courage in anyone because of you, for the LORD your God, He [i]is[/i] God in heaven above and on earth beneath...'[/color] - Joshua 2:9 - 11.

In general, archaeological evidence shows us that the peoples of the world in their earliest generations after Noah, [i][b]believed in[/i][/b] an afterlife of some sort, because of what we find in their graves. Then, you have another witness to the hope of salvation in Job, the Elamite. (Elam was a grandson of Noah.)

Thus, the way history reads (to me), God did soundly keep the consciousness of His promise of a Saviour, by calling Abram. Incidentally, when Abram was born, Noah was still alive. (Check it out in Genesis 11.) Although Adam had died before Noah was born, his father Lamech would have known Adam personally, (one would guess). Then Methuselah, Noah's grandfather, had lived five years longer than Lamech.

In the light of these family relationships and the oral history being passed down the generations [i]until Moses[/i], it is difficult to believe that [u]all[/u] Gentiles had [i]completely forgotten[/i] the promise of a Saviour.

Job 19:23 - 28
[color=0000CC]Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!

[b]For I know my redeemer liveth, and he shall stand at the latter [/b][i]day[/i] [b]upon the earth[/b]: and [i]though[/i] after my skin [i]worms[/i] destroy this [i]body[/i], yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; [i]though[/i] my reins be consumed within me. But ye should say, 'Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in me?'[/color]

It is interesting that David later prophesies somewhat counter to Job's recognition of his own mortality.

Psalm 16
[color=0000CC]7 I will bless the LORD who has given me counsel;
My heart also instructs me in the night seasons.
8 I have set the LORD always before me;
Because [i]He is[/i] at my right hand I shall not be moved.
9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices;
[b]My flesh also will rest in hope[/b].
10 [b]For You will not leave my soul in Sheol,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption[/b].
11 [b]You will show me the path of life;
In Your presence [i]is[/i] fullness of joy;
At Your right hand [i]are[/i] pleasures forevermore[/b]. [/color]

Also, Acts 13:22 - 42; Isaiah 49.

This was one of the major arguments between the Jews as well, not believing in the resurrection.

Katy I would appreciate greatly, if you could take on board that I do understand Jesus was Jewish, and although I once started a thread 'Is Jesus Jewish now?' I came to the conclusion that He is, which - with the essential doctrine of the circumcision of the heart - has unavoidable implications for the spiritual identity of [i]all believers[/i]. Maybe you have thought I didn't understand this, because of other things I've written, but, I hope it's clear now, that I do.

This is the reciprocity of the way God has made Jews and Gentiles indispensible to each other. There is no disputing we all suffered from the fallen Adamic nature, and Paul's allusion to Jesus as 'the last Adam' (1 Cor 15:45) is, therefore, undeniably justifyable. That was what the Lord had been re-inforcing to my understanding as I woke up that day (mentioned in the earlier post). (It was not because Corinth was a Gentiles-only church - Acts 18:1 - 4).

The point of this thread has not changed though, and all that has been shown by our discussion, is that if any Gentile had thought to wriggle out of their part in the need for Jesus death, through saying 'the Jews [i]killed[/i] Him', God also had that exit blocked [i]from eternity[/i].

There is an [color=000099][b]awe-full[/b][/color] truth embedded here also, which is that had Gentiles [i]not[/i] been implicated in His actual death [i]so unmistakably[/i], there could have been a dispute over whether they were entitled to salvation through Christ - even though I have shown that the promise was always to the whole human race.

Peter's surprise at the Holy Spirit falling in Cornelius' house gives another insight into the distance which had developed between Jews and the rest of the world. But praise God, as you often remind us, He has broken down that wall of partition and made One New Man in Christ.

To God be the glory, great things He has done;
So loved He the world that He gave us His Son,
Who yielded His life an atonement for sin,
And opened the life gate that all may go in.

[i]Praise the Lord, praise the Lord,
Let the earth hear His voice!
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord,
Let the people rejoice!
O come to the Father, through Jesus the Son,
And give Him the glory, great things He has done.[/i]

O perfect redemption, the purchase of blood,
To every believer the promise of God;
The vilest offender who truly believes,
That moment from Jesus a pardon receives.

[i]Refrain[/i]

[url=http://ingeb.org/spiritua/togodbet.html]http://ingeb.org/spiritua/togodbet.html[/url]

There is an awe-full truth embedded here also, which is that had Gentiles not been implicated in His actual death so unmistakably, there could have been a dispute over whether they were entitled to salvation through Christ - even though I have shown that the promise was always to the whole human race

Seasons Greetings Linn.

You have read Romans 5 haven't you?

You say [u]there could have been [/u] a dispute????

Was there? Is there?

Paul makes no such approach to the Gospel in Galatians to Gentiles.

Wasn't a promise made to Abraham that all families of the earth will be blessed...those who are Abraham's spiritual seed. All families of the earth are Jew and Gentile.

This is why I reminded you of Adam & Eve. As in Adam All die, as in Christ will all( who put their faith in Him) be made alive.

After the Law was proved it could not be kept, God said now ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God...And the Gospel is offered to All.

We were bound for hell long before Jesus was killed.

Do you believe one is not saved until they confess they killed Jesus?? Or is it that we confess we are sinners?...in need of a Savior?

For God so loved the world, that HE GAVE His only begotten son, that who so ever believes in Him will not parish but have eternal life......

The Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did