watched not heard

We can't control what people may think of us, but we can be sure that people are in some way affected by how we act and what we say—or don't say.

I've had some curious encounters with people over the years, and it's not because I said anything to them, but because they have observed something about me and come to whatever conclusions.

When I first started working for my present employer in '86, I was in our breakroom by myself, and a woman walks in and comes up to me and says, “It's OK to use profanity, as long as you don't use God's name in vain.” I don't recall having said anything to her, or what motivated her to even say that to me.

I was operating a stamping press with another man, and for some reason, I showed him a picture of me when I graduated from High school. He thought it was funny that I had kind of long hair—the back touched my collar, and the sides were below my ears. He goes and shows it to one of the supervisors at work. That supervisor comes up to me and points his finger in my face and exclaims: “And that is why I don't go to church!” I don't know what that was all about. I don't recall talking to him about anything before.

One day at work, while running a press, the fork truck driver pulls up near me and says, “stop trying to be perfect, there's only one who is perfect!”   

One day at work (many years ago), I was in a meeting, and everyone who worked in the transfer press department were in that meeting. The group leader put up on an overhead projector something sexually obscene as a joke. The group was all men except for one woman in our group. After the meeting, she comes up to me and says how inappropriate and embarrassing it was for her and asked me if I didn't think it was wrong. I did. And I should have said something about it.

One day a co-worker comes up to me and asks me, “how can a man of God have the tongue of the devil?” I knew who he was talking about. I didn't have an answer for him. It seems that some Christians must think it's ok to use coarse language. I suppose that's why the guy asked me the question, since I didn't believe it is ok.

No too long ago a co-worker comes up to me and says, “I'm not pro-abortion, but pro-choice.” I suppose he approaches me and makes this declaration, because he assumed I am prolife. But I said to him that those who are prolife don't see it that way. If abortion is taking a life, then it is wrong to do it.

Someone once said to me that I say more by what I don't say than by what I do say. I suppose that has been my experience. I could have a lot to say if people wanted to actually have a conversation, but I think most want to avoid talking about things they know little about. So, I usually keep a lot of what I believe to myself, and maybe my conduct speaks in some way.

A co-worker once said to me that he had to put up with “Bible Thumpers” where he used to live. I've never given him a reason to think I'm a Bible Thumper. I don't think I have ever discussed anything spiritual with him. About a year ago, he came up to me and asked, “you are a church goer, aren't you?” I said that I was. He asked me to pray for him, because he was getting a certain surgery. I said I would. He has always treated me respectfully.

I think people are afraid to engage me in spiritual conversation, but they are watching me and my conduct.

Political

 I heard someone recently refer to another man as being political, and I took that as being a negative assessment of the man. I have wondered if there is a difference between being political and having a social philosophy that one seeks to promote. To say someone is political seems to have a negative connotation to it, and I wonder if it is being used correctly in its application. I don't think it is as negative as calling someone a “hypocrite”--which is obviously a negative characterization that is used quite often towards those people someone disagree with, even if they are only being inconsistent in some way as opposed to be deceptive, which hypocrisy more accurately denotes.

I could see a person being “political” if they side with their political party contrary to their beliefs, but if one has a specific social philosophy and sticks to it, regardless of their political party that they align with, is that being political? If a person believes in open borders, is he being political? If you are for open borders or opposed to open borders, depending on what your political party believes, wouldn't that be being political? I'm just using that as an example.

It's amazing what you can find on YouTube, because you can usually find the opposing side of a view supporting that view at one time, whether it be tariffs or gay marriage or Israel's right to exist, etc. Of course, people have the right to change their minds on an issue, but is it what they believe or is it their party's platform that they are now supporting?

I just don't think it's right to dismiss someone's views that you don't like by claiming they are being political. Do you know for sure that it isn't their social philosophy? And we have the freedom and right to claim our social philosophy as anyone else in this country.

And why do those who oppose a certain social philosophy get to be so outraged, when that opposing view has just much of a right to have a view? If we are both going to get so outraged and violent, then we are going to destroy one-another. Why can't we calmly discuss the social philosophies we disagree over without outbursts of wrath and derogatory names and labels inaccurately used to discredit those you disagree with?

every answer

Several years ago, a pastor asked me to give the sermon in his place, and he asked me not to say anything controversial. I don’t remember if I had a response to that particular request, but since then, I have thought “what's not controversial?”

I came up with the saying a few years ago that “every answer has an argument against it.” I found that no matter how good of an answer you have on a particular issue, someone has an argument against it.

You can't go anywhere without finding people who you will disagree with.

So, you need to know what you believe, and why you believe it, and decide what you are going to divide over, for you can't go anywhere without finding disagreement.

It's good to be willing to be persuaded--to have a change of mind--but that takes humility, honesty, and objectivity, and I'm afraid we are too often too far removed from these qualities of character. Of course, we don't want to be “tossed to and fro” by every “wind of doctrine” or new idea or argument. Most likely, one won't have a change of mind about anything unless they begin to doubt what they believe. Doubt can be an uncomfortable and scary thing. It can lead to being ostracized.

I don't think it is necessarily bad to be certain of something if you are convinced by the evidence but be just as certain that someone will disagree with you and maybe find fault with what you believe. Every answer has an argument against it.

Boyd's Scripture

 I read Greg Boyd's book,  “Inspired Imperfection.” 

Boyd believes in the Divine Inspiration of Scripture, but he believes it has a multitude of errors in it. 

This came about after he had a crisis of faith, not being able to refute an evolutionary professor of his, after which, for a time, he abandoned his faith.

He eventually came back to the faith, but he concluded that Scripture had a multitude of errors. Yet he still believed in Divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

This can be explained by his accommodation view, that God accommodated all that error, historically and theologically as a kind of consequence of man's sinfulness. And this all fits more specifically with his "cruciform" view of Scripture, that all scripture points to the cross of Christ, the ultimate consequence of man's sinfulness.

Boyd's divine accommodation and cruciform theory understands inspiration of scripture to include exaggeration and lies and myths about historical events and requirements of the law that were Ancient Near East [ANE] in practice but not God's requirements. All the undesirable, offensive, and unexplainable things, and so-called multitude of errors of the OT were accommodations as consequences of man's sinfulness, and these all foreshadowed the ultimate consequence of sinfulness of the future rejection of Christ by crucifixion. God would forgive despite this. This is the love of God in all its fullness of loving your enemy.

This view allows him to explain everything he doesn't like or struggles with. The divine accommodation theory and the cruciform model. 

Boyd's approach to Scripture is all about God accommodating man's sinfulness and the consequences of that, and through that comes a view of the cross that is not penal substitution but the consequence of man's sinfulness, but God suffers that consequence and then offers forgiveness. 

I believe he has it backwards about God accommodating the Ancient Near East's influences being accommodated. The ANE were corrupted views about God and history, and the revelation the Hebrews had was accurate. They had an accurate worship and approach to God. God defined that approach--not merely accommodating an incorrect view of that approach. 

Also, the genocide of Canaanites was not due to the hate of the Hebrews but divine judgment on those nations. 

The OT said to love your neighbor and the strangers among them, but those genocides were divine judgment. 

We are to love our enemies, but the circumstances are not always the same. Some enemies are only philosophically enemies--they disagree with you, but they are not physical enemies as in someone who is trying to kill you.  You love them if you can but there can be circumstances when you have to physically fight back and maybe kill them. 

God uses government to enforce law and order and sometimes to defeat other nations. It is clear in the OT that God used nations to judge other nations, just like he called Nebuchadnezzar his servant. Neb was used to judge Israel and take her captive. 

Boyd can explain everything objectionable in the OT as God accommodating man's sinfulness from animal sacrifices to ethnic cleansing to exaggerated accounts and all this accommodating pointing to Jesus suffering at the hands of sinful man as a consequence of their sinfulness in crucifixion. 

Why would God intentionally mislead us or give us inaccurate accounts and laws that he hates when he could have given us the true account and laws? 

Boyd, as a new Christian,  thought he could take on the evolutionists and higher critics, but he lost. He took their word as truth and suffered shipwreck in his faith. He thought he could turn the world upside down, but he couldn't.   The result was to come up with a view of scripture that he didn't have to defend before the atheists and higher critics for anything that seemed historically difficult to substantiate or morally objectionable.

Boyd's Faith

 I recently read a book by Greg Boyd titled "The benefit of the Doubt."  The book is about faith, doubt, and certainty. I'm concerned that I may not represent his views accurately, but I will try my best. But this is not a book review.

The past few years, I've been hearing this idea that faith and belief do not mean the same thing. One of then includes doubt. I don't remember which one, but Boyd says that faith includes doubt, so maybe it is faith. I must admit that I found this problematic from the first time I heard it. For it seems to me that the words themselves do not support such a distinction. The Greek word for faith is the same for belief, being “pistis”; and of course “believe” is a verb, which is “pisteuo.” I would think the difference between the words is how one best fits in a sentence; that is, the word “faith” may work better than “belief,” and then it depends on whether you use a noun or a verb. However, one can choose to use “faith” to include doubt, and to use “belief” to not include doubt but the words themselves do not give indication that one includes doubt and the other does not. If faith and doubt can be used interchangeably in a context, it would seem they mean the same thing. If one includes doubt, then they both do. Wouldn't they?

Boyd believes that faith includes doubt, and that faith has the idea of “trust”--a trust that allows you to act accordingly in-spite of your doubt. At least that is how I understood him. He sees doubt as being honest, and certainty as being proud and unwilling to change ones view. He even calls certainty idolatry or the pursuit of certainty as idolatry. That's how I understood him.

I'm not sure about the idolatry claim, but I know that certainty can come across arrogant to others. I see certainty as a kind of confidence that can manifest itself as arrogant, depending on how it appears. David had a certain kind of confidence that came across as arrogant to his brother, when he came to where the battle was: “²⁸ Now Eliab his oldest brother heard when he spoke to the men; and Eliab's anger was aroused against David, and he said, "Why did you come down here? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your pride and the insolence of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle." 1 Samuel 17:28 Was David's confidence in God idolatry? I see his confidence producing a kind of bravery because of his particular belief in God. Am I wrong about this?

Certainty as a kind of confidence depends on the object and context. There are things I believe that we can be certain about and things that are not guaranteed. I can be certain that God is able to heal me, but I am not certain that he will. I see these as 2 different things, not one thing. I am certain that God cannot lie, but I don't know what He might do in a certain situation. It seems to me that certainty depends on the object of faith and what is actually being offered. Sometimes we are mistaken about what God says or promises in Scripture. If I have faith the size of a mustard seed, can I really tell a mountain to go jump in the water? What is being communicated in those words? Can I be certain that I can receive anything I believe God for? I don't believe so. Yes, I actually doubt it. But I do believe the object of faith is an issue, and certainty depends on the object. I can be certain that Jesus is coming again, but I am uncertain concerning the timing—such as “pretrib.” Though I know that some can be certain about the timing. I might say that I see one view more likely than the other, so maybe that indicates there is some doubt in my own belief. Fine.

Boyd saw a problem, a kind of hypocrisy, in those who considered it pride if one was not willing to doubt their view while they were not willing to doubt their own view. I would suggest that we shouldn't expect someone to doubt their view, but to be willing to consider a different viewpoint. It's not wrong to be certain of something, and yet be willing to consider a different viewpoint. It's probably true that one won't have a change of mind until they begin to doubt what they believe, but it doesn't necessarily have to begin with doubt. I have had a change of mind on some things that didn't necessarily begin with doubt, but a curiosity as to why someone had a different view than I did—so I looked into it.

Boyd sees doubt as a good thing, because then may be willing to consider a different viewpoint. But as I said in the previous paragraph, one does not have to doubt to consider a different viewpoint. If one does have doubt, it is good to consider why you doubt. Because it may mean you lack assurance. John the Baptist begin to be uncertain if Jesus was the one, the specific one to come, and so he sent his disciple to Jesus to ask him if he was the one—which reveals that he still believed he was sent from God, because, how could John even trust him to speak the truth? Jesus answered his inquiry by working some miracles to attest to who he was.

I don't know what Boyd would say about John the Baptist's doubt, but Boyd does make some interesting points about the difference between doubt and wavering. And I think there may be some merit in the distinction between the two, but I tend to think it involves the object of faith. Boyd would say to have doubt is not bad, but to waver would be. He says that the word translated “doubt,” as in James chapter one should be understood as “waver.” I find that interesting (and maybe possible). If one lacks wisdom, one should ask in faith without wavering (as opposed to doubt); in other words, you should precede to trust God for the wisdom and not waver. But I confess I have a little trouble distinguishing between wavering and doubt. So, I trust God and not waver but I can still have doubt? Ok. I'm not sure about this. I guess he means that one should live their life consistent with expecting that God will give wisdom (trust without wavering), but what is the doubt about? I suppose Boyd is thinking that deep down inside me there may be an uncertainty that I will receive the wisdom that God promises., but I should press on trusting that the wisdom will come, regardless of the doubt I might feel—this would be trust God without wavering.

One other thing I want to bring up--and I'm doing this from memory, so I hope I represent Boyd correctly on this—is his discussion of Hebrews 1:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for ...” Hebrews 11:1 I am only looking at the first part of this verse, which seems to give a definition of faith. I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this entire verse early this year (2025), trying to understand the Greek words translated “substance” and “evidence” (but not looking at that word here) in the KJV. I was teaching on the topic of “faith” as used in Scripture at Church in a small group, and I was finding myself uncertain how to best translate Hebrews 1:1. What does the KJV mean by “substance?” The Greek word is “hypostasis.” “Faith” is the “substance” of things hoped for—what does that mean? Other translations have words like “assurance” or “confidence.” I understand those words better, but they are quite different in meaning, and easier to make sense of. Faith is the assurance and confidence of things hoped for. I wanted to conclude that the Greek word had a broad range of meaning or usage, and “assurance” fits best. But the Greek word appears elsewhere in Hebrews and seems to mean “substance”: “[Jesus] who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person [hypostasis]” Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is the express image of God's hypostasis. The KJV translates “person,” but it could be “substance.” What does this mean?

My Greek lexicon says the best meaning is “realization”: “faith is the realization of things hope for.” I don't know, does that help? Boyd sticks with the word ”substance” and says that faith is something like the substantializing of things hoped for. I take that to mean that by one's actions, that reveal a trust in God, one substantiates the thing hoped for. Something like that. Does that make sense? There is a connection between what one does and believes, and there is a sense in which actions fulfills faith, and that is one way of understanding James statement about faith being made complete through works: “Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?” James 2:22 The word “perfect” can be understood as “complete.” So I think that Boyd was saying something about how faith substantializes the things hoped for by how it is made compete in actions of trust in God. I do believe Hebrews 11 is showing what living by faith looks like with the many examples from the Old Testament. So, I don't know if this discussion was of any help. But I will leave it at that.

I do think that calling “certainty” idolatry is rather extreme, but I do understand how some people may come across as arrogant in their faith and could maybe be dishonest or hypocritical in some way. But I think that certainty depends on the object and context and understanding of what is believed. I don't see a problem with being certain about some things, especially the character of God—because if God does lie, everything changes, and nothing is certain.

be ready

 Many years ago, a fellow church member approached me and said that if he studied the Bible as much as I did and the pastor, it would mess up his mind. I can't remember if I even had a response. Maybe I could have thought...”are you saying that my mind is messed up?” I don't know how much Bible study he thought I did, but it wasn't like I spent many hours a day studying it. Usually, I spent a lot of time trying to think through issues I was confronted with, and I read portions of books that addressed issues I was thinking about (by people I would both agree with and disagree with). I had a lot of time to think, because for many years, I did factory work that was very monotonous, standing at the end of a conveyor, stacking automotive parts—for many hours every day.

I have taught adult Sunday School from my early 20's into my 60's, and I had to put some effort into knowing what I was going to talk about in my class. I did have a tendency to pick some difficult topics. I need to understand things and know what I am talking about. A pastor from the same church once called me to his office and said: “Jason, tell us what you know, not what you don't know.” He must have heard me teaching on a difficult topic, and thought I wasn't well enough prepared. I'm sure that he was correct about that. Obviously, I've never forgot what he said.

I remember at the same church on a Sunday night I was doing the speaking, and I was teaching on regeneration. We had a visitor that night, who had family members in the church. I and the pastor went to visit him one night. He just kind of unleashed anger on me for teaching on such a topic. He claimed that he didn't think his parents understood what I was talking about, and even he, an elder in his church, didn't understand what I was talking about. I was just a little surprised and wasn't sure how to respond. (My pastor actually got emotional about it and defended our teaching.) Maybe I made it too complicated; I don't know. 

Maybe it seems arrogant to others to try to understand and have an answer for the things the Bible addresses. I know there are things that I work at trying to understand that others say they just aren't interested. I've had people say or indicate to me that they just aren't interested in prophecy. I guess I understand that, but I am very interested in those things.  A family member once told me that he wasn’t interested in prophecy, but he must have changed his mind later, because I sent him a book on a particular topic, and a few years later, he sent the book back to me, but it was an updated version of the book, not the same copy. 

Character witness

 In a church discussion group (a few years ago), the question was put to the group "why do you believe?" I don't think the questioner was satisfied with any of the answers the group gave. His answer was that God changed his life. That's why he was a believer.

I felt push back to that answer within myself. My response was that people's lives change for a lot of reasons, and such change is sometimes short-lived. Also, belief would actually precede the change, having resulted from the belief.

But I suppose I was looking at this question from the perspective of whether what was believed is really true.  Just because someone believes something, and it changes their life, it doesn't mean that what they believed is true. I wanted the answer to be that my belief was due to the understanding and persuasion that the object of my faith was true.

But looking back and thinking about the question some more, I would have to agree that character was a major reason as to why I believed. But not really my change of character, but others.

Looking back, I can see that human character had a major role in why I became a believer. It was the character of others that had an impact on me: it was the character of others who have believed. And it was the character of others that made me realized I wasn't saved, for I was already becoming positive about a lot of things related to Christianity.

And probably before and after I became a believer, I think I saw as one of the greatest witnesses to what I believed was the character of Christ. There is no one in history that was like Jesus Christ, in both words and deeds: "No man ever spoke like this Man!" John 7:46

As a believer for over 45 years, I have seen that though people's lives can and do change as believers, they are far from perfect. And though the character of believers had an affect on me, eternally and practically, I know that they, just like me, will fail. Unfortunately, but true.

Jesus is the “Captain” and “Perfecter” of faith (See Hebrews 12:2). We are to look to Him as the supreme example of what living by faith and obedience to God is to be.

Though I remember with gratitude those who by their words and conduct had an impact on my life and even led to my salvation, I know that even they have had failures and struggles in their Christian lives.

I have determined that regardless of whether others fail, I will not use that as an excuse to be disobedient to God. Because we can use others as an excuse for our own failures and disobedience to God. And it could be that what hinders us is not really the failures of others, but our own affections—but we tend to want to blame others for what hinders us.

Though the witness of the character of others plays an important role in our lives, Jesus is still the Captain and Perfecter of faith. Look to Him and His example.

Love Enemies

Jesus said to “love your enemies ... [and] do good to those who hate you,” Matthew 5:44, and this is seen by some as a contradiction to the accounts in the Old Testament where Israel was to kill all the inhabitants of certain peoples of the land of Canaan.

Some may seek to explain the extermination of the inhabitants of Canaan as a myth, or it was God accommodating the brutal ancient Near East culture, while God himself was opposed to such measures. Yet, I would suggest that not all enemies are the same and not all circumstances are the same.

Not all enemies are the same in that not all enemies are a threat in the same way. Some enemies are only those who disagree with what you believe, or they just don't like you for some reason. You can have enemies in your own family due to differing beliefs. Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. ... a man's enemies will be those of his own household,“ Matthew 10:34-36. You would not treat such enemies the same as you would someone who sought to do bodily harm to someone in your family. There may be circumstances where you have to do bodily harm to someone else. In times of war, you may have to kill the enemy, though in different circumstances, you could respond in a less lethal way, and maybe, even show compassion. It depends on the circumstances and the kind of enemy involved.

The “kind” of enemy is an issue. There are times when the enemy has to be dealt with in a just, legal way. And in some cases, the enemy is of such a disposition that they reap the judgment of God. This is the case several times in the Old Testament in which God destroys a people because they have reached a certain degree of evil or injustice. Israel was not to go into Canaan until the people's sins have a reach a full point: “...in the fourth generation they [Israel] shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete," Genesis 15:16. The Amorites, being the people of Canaan, were Divinely appointed to destruction, and God would use Israel to carry out that judgment. God uses nations to judge other nations. Though God could do it directly through other means, as in the days of Noah or the cities of the plain (Sodom, etc.), he also did it with nations against nations. One does not have to explain the killing away as a myth or some accommodation by God of evil cultures by the Hebrew people.

In the event of war, involving nations, one is not able to love his enemy, for he may have to kill him, lest the enemy kills his countrymen and possesses his country. And some enemies have reach a point of opposition to God that makes them objects of God's wrath. These types of enemies are the ones who are “the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” Romans 9:22. Though there are circumstances where an individual can show acts of mercy to their enemy (see the account in 2 Kings 6.8-23 concerning the Syrian army and the prophet Elisha), there comes a point where the enemies of God become objects of His vengeance and wrath. We can see this in the book of Revelation with the Christian martyrs: "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" Revelation 6:10. Prayers in the Psalms that are harsh against the enemy, praying for their destruction, could be understood in this light, that they are enemies of God, and they shall not prosper against the people of God (unless there is a Divine reason for them to). Depending on the circumstances, one could show grace to their enemy, or they could seek their destruction.

When Jesus seemed to contradict the Old Testament [OT], it should be kept in mind that the Laws of the OT set limits, and one was not to go beyond those limits (but that doesn't mean that they didn't), but also, one was not obligated to go even that far. The “eye for an eye” set a limit: if someone knocked your eye out, you were not to take both of the offender's eyes out as a consequence; however, one didn't even have to take one eye out—you could chose to forgive them instead. One did not have to exact revenge or seek justice, but if they did, there were limits.

The ideal is not to return evil with evil but with good. But again, it depends on the circumstances. The Apostle Paul should be considered as well: “¹⁷ Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. ¹⁸ If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. ¹⁹ Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. ²⁰ Therefore 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.' ²¹ Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:17-21

But again, I would suggest that not all enemies are the same and not all circumstances are the same.

Water Baptism

Consecratory

I believe the ritual of water baptism is a consecratory act, meaning that it portrays one being set apart unto God for service in association with that thing God has sanctioned.

The Unger's Bible dictionary says that baptism is “the application of water as a rite of purification and initiation.” I would agree with this, but I believe the word "consecratory" includes both of those ideas. The person baptized is seen as being set apart for service to God (consecration), and this rite (ritual) is a kind of initiation into that service, and it has a purification significance (a washing) from any past defilement or associations. There is also an identification with the particular baptism to the particular service that God has sanctioned.

The book of Hebrews speaks of various washings, which could refer to baptisms that were done under the Old Covenant with Israel: the tabernacle service was “concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings [the Greek word translated is “baptisms”], and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.” Hebrews 9:10

The Gospel of John also speaks of a dispute over “purification” when the disciples of John and the Jews (probably the Jewish leaders) in a context about water baptism: “²³ Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. ²⁴ For John had not yet been thrown into prison. ²⁵ Then there arose a dispute between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purification. ²⁶ And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!" John 3:23-26

I think it is also significant that the First Century Jewish historian Josephus, in writing about John the Baptist, said, "They must not employ it [baptism] to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behavior."

I believe the baptism of Jesus by John makes sense when the baptism is seen as being consecratory, that is, setting one apart unto God for service. We also see that after Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit came upon him, he was driven into the wilderness to fast for 40 days and then to be tempted by Satan. His ministry would officially begin after that, and that would be his service to God which he was set apart for: “¹³ Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. ¹⁴ And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?" ¹⁵ But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him. ¹⁶ When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. Matthew 3:13-16 … ​¹ Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. ² And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights ... Matthew 4:1-2 … ¹⁷ From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17

Baptism defined

Unger goes on to say about Baptism... “[that it] is held by some scholars to mean 'to dip, immerse.' But this meaning is held by others to be not the most exact or common but rather a meaning that is secondary or derived. By the latter it is claimed that all the term necessarily implies is that the element employed in baptism is in close contact with the person or object baptized.” I include this definition here, because the words “baptized” and “baptism” appear in Scripture with a usage that doesn't necessarily involve the ritual involving water.

Knowing that the word “baptism” or “baptized” is used in a non-ritual sense may remove some of the difficulty concerning the significance of baptism.

Paul wrote that Israel was baptized into Moses, and this would be a non-ritual meaning and use of the word: “all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, ² all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 This baptism was an identification or unification with Moses. Moses was Israel's deliverer and leader. Israel was in Moses during their exodus from Egypt.

Similar to Israel being baptized into Moses, the believer is baptized into Christ, who is also a deliverer and leader: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? ⁴ Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:3-4

A similar statement is made to the Galatians:  "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Galatians 3:26-27

These references are not about water baptism, but identification, association, or union with Christ—like the second definition Unger gave.

Surely, many believe this speaks of water baptism, and they may use it to describe what water baptism portrays, being buried with Christ and raised with Him, but like the reference to Israel being baptized into Moses, these references can likewise be speaking of the association of the believer with the death and resurrection of Christ.  This association is a work of the Holy Spirit.  The death of Christ releases us from the eternal consequences of sin, and since sin resulted in spiritual death, the release must include being delivered from the condition of spiritual death. The believer is seen as buried and resurrected to a new life: the old man or self with its sinful disposition is seen as dead and buried with Christ, and he is resurrected from the dead with a new man or self—this is his new eternal being, which shall live with God forever, fully realized in the future resurrection of the body.

Another case in which “baptism” is used that is not about the ritual is where Jesus said he had a baptism to be baptized with that surely speaks of the sufferings he would face: "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They said to Him, "We are able." ²³ So He said to them, "You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father." Matthew 20:22-23.

The Apostle Paul wrote of a baptism that involved the work of the Holy Spirit in which the believer is united with all other believers in one body: “¹² For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. ¹³ For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. ¹⁴ For in fact the body is not one member but many. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14

Mode and Portrayal and Recipient

The mode of the application of the water is debated whether immersion, pouring, or sprinkling--though immersion probably best portrays what the ritual intends to portray. It may be common to say it portrays outwardly an inward change--and that may sound right, but that is an assumption.  If it is a ritual washing as a consecration, then it would seem better to see it as portraying a change of standing and not state:  the candidate's standing with God has changed; he/ she is a new creation; the old is gone, and the new has come.  The state of the person is always a potential thing, depending on their walk and maturity in the Lord.

This change of standing also supports who the recipients should be, being a believer in Christ, who has become a new creation in Christ; and it seems in every case in the New Testament, that it is for those who have responded in faith in Christ. In the account about Cornelius, he first believed, and then was baptized: “⁴³ To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." ⁴⁴ While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. ⁴⁵ And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. ⁴⁶ For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, ⁴⁷ 'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' ⁴⁸ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. Acts 10:43-48 Infant baptism may have been practiced early on in Christendom, but that was a departure from believer's baptism.

The ritual of water baptism is a consecratory act, meaning that it portrays one being set apart unto God for service in association with that thing God has sanctioned and that thing with which the service is identified--which for the Christian is Jesus Christ.

Baptism and Salvation

An important issue concerning the ritual of water baptism is whether it in some way is essential to be saved, in the eternal sense. There are many who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, or at least the intent to be baptized. It appears that most of the Early Church Fathers held this view. There are also some Scriptures that seem to connect salvation with baptism. There are other Scriptures that say one is saved by faith in Jesus without a reference to baptism, and you have the account of Cornelius and those with him apparently being saved before their baptism. And then there is the issue of the thief on the cross, being told he would be with Jesus in Paradise, without a chance of being baptized.

If salvation requires the ritual to be performed, then salvation would have to be put on hold until one could be baptized, unless the intent to be baptized would suffice, if they were to die before the ritual is carried out. And what about those Scriptures that say we are saved by faith apart from works? Paul makes it very clear that Abraham was justified by faith alone: “if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. ³ For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." ⁴ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. David Celebrates the Same Truth ⁵ But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,” Romans 4:2-5. I suppose the response would be that baptism is not a “work” of the Law. Though baptism could have been very much one of the washings of the law for consecration. Obviously, Abraham was not baptized in water to be justified before God: He believed the word of God and was justified.

Salvation and remission or forgiveness of sins can be understood in a temporal sense as well as an eternal sense. It could be that when salvation or forgiveness is associated with the ritual, it could be of some temporal nature. In other words, when one believes in Jesus for salvation, they receive eternal salvation or eternal forgiveness, but when they are baptized, they receive some sort of temporal salvation or forgiveness—just like the believer doesn't need to think his eternal salvation is forfeited every time he sins, but only his fellowship with God is interrupted, which can be restored through acknowledgment: “⁹ If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9 So, maybe baptism has some sort of temporal salvation in view—especially for the First century Jew, who was particularly held accountable for the rejection of Christ. Maybe it released the First Century Jew from the consequence coming upon the nation, though I'm not sure how that would really work. The nation would be judged, and the believing Jew would become part of the new people—the “Church,” and Peter does say, "Be saved from this perverse generation." Acts 2:40 That salvation would be a temporal kind of salvation. But it does seem like the believing Jew would have been disassociated when they believed in Jesus—though the baptism would have been a clear associating act with Jesus on their part.

I'm not sure that on the Day of Pentecost when the Jews and their proselytes asked Peter what to do, after seeing and hearing his message, would have understood his words—or even he intended them to mean—a temporal kind of forgiveness or salvation. Some believe those who asked what they should do of Peter were already believers and saved at that point—since they asked—and peter is telling them: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38 If they were already saved, what were they to repent of, and what is this remission of sins? And then they will receive the Holy Spirit—though this could be just the special manifestation of the Spirit in e exercise of spiritual gifts. Some try to understand the “for” her in the sense of “because of”: be baptized because of the remission of sins. If one repented in the sense of they resolved to get right with God by believing in Jesus, they would have forgiveness of sin, and because they have it, they should be baptized. And then they receive the Holy Spirit in the sense of His manifestation in their lives. That use of “for” is possible, but not as common.

I guess I am open to the possibility that water baptism could be very closely associated with faith, and in a sense completes it, at least for the First century Jew. Their baptism assumes faith. And the manifestation of the Spirit afterwards makes it clear that it is in connection with Jesus as the Christ that all this is happening and not just because they are sons of Abraham or Jews. It could be that in the mind of Peter, to be baptized and to believe are inseparable—at this point. And at this point in time, such expectation is acceptable to the Holy Spirit. The repentance would be a resolve to get right with God by believing in Jesus as the Christ and being baptized in His name. And this would work with the words of Jesus at the end of Mark –though that is a variant text that is disputed: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16 Of course, the salvation here could be of some temporal kind, but I question if it is. It's true that Jesus doesn't say that one is condemned if they do not believe and is not baptized, but if they do not believe, they probably will not carry through with baptism. The baptism is an expected act associated with the believing.

When Paul is baptized by Ananias, we see Ananias saying to Paul, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16 The washing away of sins could be some sort of temporal thing, but I wonder if Ananias was thinking in those terms. It's often thought that Paul was saved when he saw Jesus and called him “Lord,” but is that for certain? I have thought that while he was in Damascus until Ananias came to him, he was kind of in a state of limbo, waiting for further revelation. The revelation from Ananias and the exhortation to be baptized may have been the final piece of revelation that resulted in him to believe and be baptized. His sins then washed away.

Connected with this is the words of Peter: “...the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God).” 1 Peter 3:20-21 Like with Paul, baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. By baptism, one is accepting what it is associated with, being Jesus. This would especially apply to the First Century Jew, because of the consequences it would bring, such as ostracism from those who don't believe. Concerning the Baptism of John, we read how baptism “justified God”: ²⁹ And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. ³⁰ But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” Luke 7:29-30 Looking at Peters statement again, associating baptism with the flood, it was through the flood, that God saved Noah's family from the corruption of the world, and through baptism, the believer disassociates from the nation that rejected Christ. The baptism is the manifestation of one's faith in that which God has sanctioned.

I just want to add here that I don't believe John 3:5 is about water baptism, but it is about the negative and positive aspects of the new birth/ regeneration: “⁵ Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁶ That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John 3:5-6 The being born of water and spirit, speaks of the negative and positive aspects of the new birth, being the washing and renewing work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration: “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Titus 3:5-7

So, I am open to the idea that those passages that speak of baptism and salvation in some sense is closely associating the baptism with faith in Christ, that faith is assumed in it. And keep in mind that Jesus was not baptized to be saved, but it is a manifestation that one is in agreement with what it is associated with, and it is a consecratory ritual—being set apart unto service to God, in association with that which God has sanctioned.

Church

The word “church” is an interpretation of the Greek word “ekklesia” which means “assembly.” Church is an interpretation because it is telling you what kind of assembly is in view. Church actually comes from another Greek word, “Kuriakos,” which means “the Lord's.” The word Church just kind of evolved from the Greek word over time. In most places in the New Testament, where ekklesia appears, it is referring to the assembly of God. The Church is an assembly of believers in Christ.

The primary aim of the assembly is set forth in Ephesians 4:11-16 (text below). It sets forth that each member in the assembly (“the body”) has a part (a gift, role, and “ministry”) towards building up the assembly in unity of “the faith” and maturity. There are certain roles of a leadership nature that are to help equip the others in fulfilling this ministry. This aim is something an individual cannot do by himself, since he/ she is outside the assembly: he can't do his part, if he is not part of the assembly. Of course, there are circumstances where one cannot be part of an assembly of believers, but this is the ideal.

The Apostle Paul gave some practical instruction on how the assembly should function, in his letter to the Corinthian Church in Chapter 14 (text below). This was because they were placing too much emphasis on a certain gift. The instruction he gave reveals that there was more involvement, more participation, among those assembling together at that time. The usual church "worship service" today doesn't really allow for such--the format Paul gave is definitely different.

The Apostle Paul gives a list to the Corinthian Church of a Divine order of the roles. Though the word “pastor” appears in the Ephesians 4:11 reference, it does not appear in the list in Corinthians. “Pastor” appears in the English in Ephesians 4:11, but elsewhere, the Greek word from which it is translated is always “shepherd.” But Corinthians does not list the pastor/ shepherd. But it does list “teacher,” and some believe the role in Ephesians 4:11 is not just pastor but “pastor-teacher.” Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.” 1 Corinthians 12:28 It might seem that “pastor” and “teacher” are the same role or function in the Church. The designation “pastor” is often used for the “elder” and more specifically the vocational elder. Elder is an office, and all elders should be able to teach, but not all teachers are elders. In a sense, all teachers are pastors/ shepherds, but not all pastors are elders. Elder is an office, and not all qualify for that office, whether they can teach or not. Paul's list that has teacher but not pastor probably combines the two.

The Church is the Lord's assembly, with the aim of each member doing its part to build up and mature in the faith, having certain leaders to help them fulfill this; the assembly is to gather together and function in a way that this can be accomplished.

Ephesians 4:11-16: 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. Ephesians 4:11-16

1 Corinthians 14:26-33: 26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:26-33

crazy Bible

 "The Bible says crazy sh!t too, but nobody takes it seriously": Bill Maher

If he's talking about the Mosaic Covenant, and its requirements, then it needs to be kept in mind that it applied to the theocracy of Israel only, setting them apart from the nations, but it contained timeless morality. Things like the animal sacrifices were to teach that sin has a consequence before God, which is death; they provided a temporal kind of forgiveness for the Hebrews in their special status with God (by which the nations could observe and learn about God's holiness and salvation from sin), and they foreshadowed the future sacrifice/ death of Christ as God's ultimate answer to the sin problem of mankind (by His death we have forgiveness of sin, are justified and born again/ receive eternal life).

If he's referring to the miraculous things God did, it should be pointed out that if God created all things, then He can do anything with His creation that is not contrary to His nature.

If he's referring to what man has done to one another, it should be pointed out that man has a measure of free will and an evil nature, and God allows that free will and evil to a certain extent.

God instituted government to exercise justice on certain evil, but if the government becomes evil and does not execute justice, then that government and society's existence is limited. We see this several times in the Scriptures, with the destruction of Noah's world, the cities of the Plain (such as Sodom), the Amorites/ Canaanites, Israel (taken captive by Assyria and Babylon), Assyria, Babylon, and so on.

moral law today

An accusation is sometimes made that certain Christians are being selective and inconsistent in saying homosexual sex is sin when the same condemnation is made towards eating certain seafood (without fins and scales) or wearing clothes made from mixed fibers according to the book of Leviticus (though the consequence was death for homosexuality, while the other prohibitions required being cut off from the people).

The Mosaic Covenant (or the Law of Mose), made with Israel, contained moral, social, and ceremonial (or ritual) requirements. The Mosaic Covenant was only for Israel as a nation, but that covenant included universal and timeless moral law. The moral law of God is required of all people, but for Israel, there were other requirements beyond God's moral law, being the social and ceremonial type laws, and this only makes sense, because Israel was a theocracy. The social and ritual requirements of the Mosaic Covenant are unique and specific for Israel, but the moral laws are for all people: the Mosaic Covenant to Israel included the moral law of God along with the social and ceremonial. This is why you will not see the social and ceremonial laws required of Israel required in the New Testament writings. The book of Acts makes it clear that the dietary requirements are no longer in force—they were for Israel. But things like murder, lying, stealing, coveting, sexual immorality (including homosexuality) are still contrary to the moral will of God.

Dispies and Israel

 

Dispensationalists are typically more supportive of the present Jewish State in the land of Israel because of their futurist views and because of the Abrahamic covenant. Preterists, it seems, are less supportive of the Jewish State in the land of Israel and more accusatory of the government of evil.

Dispensationalism is a system of theology that sees differing stewardships throughout human history. I understand the stewardships as the people of God for God's purposes, and the most significant ones being the nation of Israel and the “Church.” The distinctions between these two groups are clear in that Israel is primarily descendants of Jacob, existing as a theocracy in a particular land promised to them, while the Church is made up of both Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus as the Christ, and it is not a geographically fixed people and government like Israel was.

Dispensationalists or “Dispies” are “futurists” in that they believe there are many prophecies that are yet unfulfilled, besides the “Second Coming” of Christ, concerning things like the “70th week of Daniel,” the “Great Tribulation” period, the salvation and restoration of Israel as a people and nation, and the “Millennial Kingdom” (1000 year reign of Christ).

Opposed to Dispies and their futurist views are “Preterists” (“praeter” is Latin for “past”), who believe all prophecy was fulfilled in the past, mostly involving the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in the events of AD70. Most Preterists still believe in a future resurrection of the dead and a Second Coming of Christ (though some believe even those things have already happened in the past).

Dispies, unlike Preterists, believe one of the “dispensations” yet unfulfilled involves a future salvation and restoration of Israel as a people and nation. Of course, that will be through their acceptance and belief in Jesus as the Christ in connection with end time events, especially in connection with His Second Coming. That salvation of Israel as a people and nation will involve the Millennial reign of Christ on earth.

Dispies understand the “all Israel will be saved” in Romans chapter 11 verse 26 to be about Israel as a people and nation. Jews who believe in Jesus as the Christ and Savior from sin at this present time are part of the “Church,” and the Church belongs to the present dispensation. A new dispensation will begin with the future salvation of Israel as a people and nation for the Millennial Kingdom.

There's a futurist view that is non-dispensational, that believes in a future Millennial kingdom, but the salvation and restoration of Israel is not essential—this is call “Historic Premillennialism.” But some may call themselves Historic Premill, as opposed to being a Dispie, and still believe in a restoration of Israel.

Preterists do not believe in this future salvation of Israel as a people and nation for the Millennial Kingdom. They believe that either the promises to Israel have been forfeited, due to their unbelief and rejection of Jesus as the Christ, or those promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Church: believing Jews are joined with believing Gentiles, and the prophecies concerning the salvation of Israel are fulfilled in that arrangement. Preterists believe God is done with Israel as a distinct people for His purposes. There is not a future salvation of the nation—no restoration to the Land of Israel and no literal 1000 year reign of Christ. The Millennial Kingdom is a spiritual reality fulfilled now in the Church—though some believe in a 1000 year kingdom before Christ's return, in which Christianity advances throughout the earth. They might understand the “all Israel will be saved,” in Romans 11:26 as simply a reference to Jews who believe as opposed to those who don't, and they may reference the statement, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” Romans 9:6. (I had a man get pretty irate at me and remove all my posts, block me and unfriend me on Facebook because I understood “Israel” as referring to the nation of Israel, and he did not—and the funny thing was that his last name was “Savoie.” Why do people get so angry?)

Dispies are typically more supportive of the present Jewish State in the land of Israel because of their futurist views and because of the Abrahamic covenant, which states: “3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." Genesis 12:3 Preterists, it seems, are less supportive of the Jewish State in the land of Israel and more accusatory of the Jewish government of evil, being occupiers in the land that is not theirs, and presently, accusing them of things like genocide towards the Gazan people. The accusations and conspiracies seem to be getting worse.

Dispies see that God still has a purpose for Israel as a people in the Land promised to them, while Preterists believe that God is finished with them as a people, and they have no Divine right or purpose. Yet even some Jews would be opposed to the Jewish State, because they see it as premature and illegitimate because their restoration will be with the coming of Messiah, and ultimately, they are correct, because any kind of peace agreement now (such as a 2 state solution) is only temporary and lacking, for according to the prophecies, such as in Ezekiel (see Ezekiel chapters 36-39), the restoration will a regathering of all Israel into all of the land of promise.

Understanding the different views of Dispensationalism and Preterism can help understand why some Christians are pro-Israel and others are not. And like everything in life, people will differ, and the division seems to get worse as time passes.

Seventy Weeks

 

The “70 Weeks of Daniel” (Daniel 9:24-27) is a prophetic timetable concerning the restoration of Israel as a people and nation in relation to the first and second comings of Christ.

The “Weeks” are sevens of years and adds up to 490 years. It begins with a command (decree) by a Persian King after the 70 years of Babylonian captivity of Judah, the southern kingdom of Israel, “to restore and build Jerusalem,” Daniel 9:25. The 70 Weeks end with the second coming of Christ at the end of “great tribulation” to save and gather the elect and Israel as a people under the terms of the “New Covenant.”

From the time of that command “until Messiah the Prince,” Daniel 9:25, is 69 Weeks, that is, 483 years. The reference to “Messiah the Prince” is to the time and year in which Jesus either started his ministry, or made his "triumphal entry," or was crucified. Some have actually calculated the end of the 483 years to the very day Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. It's after the 483 years that “Messiah shall be cut off,” Daniel 9:26. The text breaks the 69 weeks or 483 years into two time periods, being 7 Weeks and 62 Weeks, and it is believed that the first 7 Weeks or 49 years (7 times 7 years) is the time period it took to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

The Messiah being “cut off” is understood as His execution the crucifixion of Christ. Included in the time at the end of the 483 years is the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 by the Romans: “the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.” Daniel 9:26   This was by the Romans under the command of Titus, whose Triumphal Arch commemorates this event. It stands in Rome today just to the south-east of the Roman Forum. 

The final Week, being the 70th Week, is understood by many as not yet fulfilled.  Between the 69th and 70th Weeks is an unspecified period of time, being a gap of time of unknown length.  That gap is mostly the time during which the people of God for His purposes is the Gentile-Jew Assembly, commonly identified as the "Church."  Prior to this unique people of God, Israel were the people of God for His purposes.  

The final Week, being the 70th seven of years, begins with a covenant to be confirmed or strengthened for 7 years.  Then in the middle of those 7 years, there comes an end of the daily sacrifices, and an event takes place that is considered an “abomination” in the holy place of the temple. This abomination causes "desolation," and it continues to the end of the period: 

Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;

But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate. Daniel 9:27

In the middle of the Week, there is an event that is called the "abomination of desolation" that takes place in the Jewish Temple or "holy place."  Jesus makes reference to this in the context of His Second Coming, and he says that following that event will be "Great Tribulation."  Daniel also speaks of this Great Tribulation with reference to "the time of the end."  

Jesus said: ¹⁵ ... when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place ... ²¹ For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. ²² And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened. Matthew 24:15-22    

Daniel wrote:  ​¹ At that time [the time of the end]

 Michael shall stand up,

The great prince who stands watch 

over the sons of your people [Israel];
And there shall be a time of trouble [tribulation],
Such as never was since there was a nation,
Even to that time.
And at that time your people [Israel] shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book. Daniel 12:1

The end of the Great tribulation is the end of the 70 Weeks.  It is the time of Jesus's second coming, to deliver the saints of God from great tribulation and save Israel as a people and nation:  

²⁹ "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ³⁰ Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ³¹ And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Matthew 24:29-31

The 70 Weeks prophecy was a timetable for the fulfillment of certain things with reference to Daniel's people Israel and Jerusalem in connection with the first and second comings of Christ and what he would accomplish.  Those accomplishments are through both comings of Christ, as some have to do with what Jesus accomplished on the cross for sin and salvation, and some are the realization of the benefits of the cross in Israel and their land.  

Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy. Daniel 9:24

Jesus at His second coming will bring an end to the 70 Weeks and the great tribulation.  He will raise the dead, gather the elect, and restore and save Israel as a people and nation.  Israel will be saved and come under the terms of the New Covenant.  Israel as a people of God is in a state of blindness, while presently the gentiles along with Jews who believe in Jesus are in a place of privilege and blessing, like Israel once was, but that will change with the close of great tribulation at the coming of Christ.

²⁵ For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 

²⁶ And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
²⁷ For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins."

²⁸ Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. ²⁹ For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:25-29

The future fulfillment of the salvation of Israel in their land is according to those things determined in the 70 Weeks prophecy.  Those things include what Jesus accomplished on the cross, dying for sins that will make reconciliation and restoration possible.  What Jesus accomplished on the cross is the basis for a new covenant to be fulfilled in Israel.  At the coming of Christ, there will be a resurrection of the dead in Christ, a gathering together of living believers, and a turning to Christ in faith a remnant of Jews who will enter the 1000 year reign of Christ.

When Jesus comes again ... it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it. Zechariah 12:3  And then ... ⁸ In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; ... ⁹ It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. Zechariah 12:8-9   ¹⁰ "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. ¹¹ In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. Zechariah 12:10-11  

And then...

It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; 

and they [Gentiles] shall come and see My glory. 

¹⁹ I will set a sign among them [Gentiles]; 

and those [Jews] among them [Gentiles] who escape I will send to the nations: 

to Tarshish and Pul and Lud, who draw the bow, 

and Tubal and Javan, 

to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. 

And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles. 

²⁰ Then they [Gentiles] shall bring all your brethren [Jews] for an offering 

to the LORD out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, 

on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," says the LORD, 

"as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel 

into the house of the LORD. 

²¹ And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites," says the LORD. 

Isaiah 66:18-21

Curse Reversed

Jesus did not stay in the grave. 

Physical death was part of the curse. God cursed man because of sin with a limited lifespan: he would return to the ground of the earth from which he came. The immediate death that resulted from sin was an alienation from God, being a spiritual death, but physical death was a subsequent consequence of sin, being a part of the curse.

Since the death of Jesus was for sin, to bear what sin required, the curse could then be removed. The curse included physical death. Jesus could rise from the dead, physically, because the original cause of the curse was dealt with. And Jesus was given the authority to reverse the curse: just as Jesus has authority to give eternal life (being “born again”), he also has authority to raise the dead. Jesus rose from the dead, being proof that satisfaction for sin had been made, and that he had authority to give life both eternally and physically—the latter to be a time determined by God, involving all who have ever lived.

¹⁷ Then to Adam He said, "Because you ... have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake... [and] you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return." Genesis 3:17-19

And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, ²⁸ so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. Hebrews 9:27-28

The Law of Moses revealed the sinfulness of Israel, or anyone who sought to live by it, because of their inability to do the Law; therefore, all who are under the Law are under the curse of the Law. 

Christ suffered the curse of the Law, so that the Lawbreaker could be released from the curse of the Law and be justified, receive eternal life ("born again"), and be released from the curse of physical death.

¹⁰ For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." ¹¹ But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." ¹² Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."

¹³ Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"),

¹⁴ that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:10-14

Jesus was cursed for us—alienated from God and put to death on the cross—so that we, through faith in Him as our Savior from sin, could be justified, born again, and be released from the curse of physical death.

"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Romans 4:3 …

²³ Now it was not written for his [Abraham's] sake alone that it [righteousness, that is “justification”] was imputed to him, ²⁴ but also for us. It [justification] shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, ²⁵ who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification. Romans 4:23-25

[Jesus said:] "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, ² as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.  John 17:1-2

²¹ For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.

²² For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

²³ But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 1 Corinthians 15:21-23

²⁴ "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

²⁵ Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is,

when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.

²⁶ For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, ²⁷ and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.

²⁸ Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice ²⁹ and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. John 5:24-29

The Woman and her offspring

 

...A great, fiery red dragon

having seven heads and ten horns,

and seven diadems on his heads.

... the dragon [Satan working through King Herod]

stood before the woman [Israel]

who was ready to give birth,

to devour her Child as soon as it was born.

She bore a male Child [The Christ]

who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron.

And her Child was caught up [Christ's ascension]

to God and His throne.

Then the woman [a remnant of Israel]

fled into the wilderness [during “great tribulation”],

where she has a place prepared by God,

that they should feed her there

one thousand two hundred and sixty days [3 ½ years].

Revelation 12:3-6

… The woman [a remnant of Israel] was given

two wings of a great eagle,

that she might fly into the wilderness [during great tribulation]

to her place, where she is nourished

for a time and times and half a time [ 3 ½ years],

from the presence of the serpent [the dragon and Satan].

^... And the dragon was enraged with the woman,

and he went to make war

with the rest of her offspring [the church/ Christians],

who keep the commandments of God

and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 12:14-17

The dragon [Satan] gave

him [the “beast” or “Antichrist”]

his power, his throne, and great authority.

... all the world marveled

and followed the beast.

So they worshiped the dragon

who gave authority to the beast;

and they worshiped the beast,

saying, "Who is like the beast?

Who is able to make war with him?"

And he [the beast, Antichrist]

was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies,

and he was given authority

to continue for forty-two months [3 ½ years].

Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God,

to blaspheme His name,

His tabernacle [the “abomination of desolation”],

and those who dwell in heaven.

It was granted to him

to make war with the saints [“great tribulation”]

and to overcome them.

And authority was given him

over every tribe, tongue, and nation.

All who dwell on the earth will worship him,

whose names have not been written

in the Book of Life of the Lamb

slain [Christ's crucifixion]

from the foundation of the world.

If anyone has an ear, let him hear.

He who leads into captivity [during the “great tribulation”]

shall go into captivity;

he who kills with the sword

must be killed with the sword.

Here is the patience and the faith

of the saints [Christians/the Church].

Revelation 13:2-10

​At that time Michael [the archangel] shall stand up,

the great prince who stands watch

over the sons of your [Daniel's] people [Israel];

and there shall be a time of trouble [the “great tribulation”],

such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time.

And at that time your [Daniel’s] people [Israel]

shall be delivered,

every one who is found written in the book [“the Book of Life”].

Daniel 12:1

[Jesus said:] Therefore when you see

the 'abomination of desolation,'

spoken of by Daniel the prophet,

standing in the holy place [the Jewish temple]

(whoever reads, let him understand),

then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

… For then there will be great tribulation,

such as has not been

since the beginning of the world until this time,

no, nor ever shall be.

And unless those days were shortened,

no flesh would be saved;

but for the elect's [the people of God] sake

those days will be shortened.

Matthew 24:15-22

[Jesus said:] Immediately after the [great] tribulation

of those days

the sun will be darkened,

and the moon will not give its light;

the stars will fall from heaven,

and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Then the sign of the Son of Man

will appear in heaven...

they will see the Son of Man coming

on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet

and they will gather together His elect [the people of God]

from the four winds,

from one end of heaven to the other.

Matthew 24:29-31

[the Apostle Paul said:] For I do not desire, brethren,

that you should be ignorant of this mystery,

lest you should be wise in your own opinion,

that blindness in part has happened to Israel

until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

And so all Israel [the nation] will be saved,

as it is written:

"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,

and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

For this is My [New] covenant with them,

when I take away their sins."

Romans 11:25-27