Dan references 'all Israel' in Dan 9:11 and continues in Dan 9:13 to reference "us". It may be the case that "all Israel" at the time could have been composed entirely of ethnic Israelites (Isaacites?). It's not necessarily the case that "all Israel" would always be composed entirely of those born as ethnic Israelites. (If God can turn rocks into children of Abraham, etc.)
Well, there's no evidence from the passage that God turned any rocks into children of Abraham or turned any trees or any grass into them either. We know He could make anyone into the children of Abraham, but there's no evidence He did here.
...And if He did, we'd also have to wrestle with the issue that these people were being punished for breaking the covenant and about to be punished further (per Daniel 9:24-27). Would God make new children of Abraham just to punish them? No. Would He punish strangers for a covenant they never agreed to? No. So the simplest explanation is what Daniel shares: "All Israel" are ethnic Israelites who made the covenant with God. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter what scripture says because "anything is possible with God" right, and we're free to assume anything we want?
This is splitting hairs in the same sense that saying 'elect' and 'chosen' would be different things (they aren't). Strong's concordance also does not agree with your breakdown of the word.
It is not splitting hairs when there is a clear difference between the ancient Hebrew construction & usage of language and the Greco construction & usage of language. For example, the word "Ruach" was translated into the word "Spirit", but the words are not synonyms of each other. Ruach means "breath or wind that acts upon [a thing]" while spirit means "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul". The soul is "Nephesh" in Hebrew, not "Ruach".
The translator did their best but many words they used diminished the original Hebrew meaning of words. I hope you realize that the scriptures weren't written in English. There is a textual weakness to wade through.
'Inhabitants of Jerusalem' is actually inclusive of Israelites and nonIsraelites alike. How can we make this determination? Because 'all Israel' and 'people of Judah' also necessarily have overlap despite being different things.
'Inhabitants of Jerusalem' does not exclusively referring to nonIsraelites. It wouldn't make sense.
^THIS is - in fact - splitting hairs because the list I gave is a repeat of what Daniel said and covers all of them. Focusing on which particular group covers which and overlaps with which, is a moot point.
Was Satan 'set apart' to commit destruction? Would you call Satan holy?
Satan was indeed "set apart" (i.e. chosen) for that purpose. He was the angel of destruction, chief prosecutor, and guardian cherub. Those were his tasks. Nebuchadnezzar also was "set apart" to judge Israel. Cyrus was also "set apart". "Kodesh" means "set apart". Kodesh does not mean
pure, righteous, or good...that is another word ("Tzedek").
Romans 9:21
Or does the potter not have authority over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel unto honor, but one unto dishonor?
Translating words that simply meant "set apart" as "holy" is yet another corruption of Roman Catholicism. It's why calling Israelites "the holy people" doesn't make sense, because they are far from pure, righteous, and good. A proper translation should be "the set-apart people", "the chosen people" or "the elected people".
Here's another example; in Joshua, the Captian of the Host (I believe was Messiah) told Joshua to remove his shoes because the ground upon which he was standing was "holy". There was nothing particularly pure, righteous, or good about the ground they were standing on apart from the MOMENT the Captian appeared to set foot there. At that moment it was "set apart" from all other grounds for that purpose. It was "set apart" because of the One who chose it.
I don't follow your breakdown of "Jew", "all Israel", "grafted", or "northern house". It's hard to say whether I agree or disagree. On what part of your comments, you seem like you are saying one thing, and then another part you almost seem to be saying something entirely different.
Since Dan 9 doesn't reference "Jews" directly, it might be better to avoid the use of that term.
I simply repeated what's been shared by Daniel following the context.
"people of Judah" = Descendants of Judah = Judahites = Jews.
This is incorrect too. If we look at the LXX, we see in that instance of holy that the context of purity is present.
Could you share a reference?
This isn't correct. 'All Israel' cannot possibly refer to a portion of chosen people,...
In the portion you've quoted I said "must include
both houses..." You're splitting hairs again when I'm pretty much saying there's overlap just like you've been.
Highly speculative and seems to contradict what Eph 6:12 is saying in context.
Hmm?? What exactly is speculative? That each nation/ethnic group of people has a spiritual principality over them? Or that Michael is the Principality over Israel?
Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Daniel 12:1
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:
Daniel 10:6,13
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
^ The man in linen (I believe is The Word) was sent to Daniel as soon as his prayer began but couldn't get to him because the Prince of Persia prevented Him...but Archangel Michael, the Prince of "Daniel's people", helped Him.
What's your take on this question: why is 'times' plural?
If we follow a similar translation from Daniel 12, "times" is plural because it means more than one. "
Until the years of the gentiles be fulfilled".
Dan 12 relates to the great tribulation and strongly seems to be talking about all holy people, not a subset of holy people.
Please prove this.
If
The Great Tribulation is a time of trouble on daniel's people since there ever was a nation please prove daniel's people means "all holy people" rather than specifically Jews.
Your argument in this post seems to rely on:
1) an unusual definition of holy,
No, on the definition of "Kodesh"...the Hebrew word translated into "Holy".
2) an unusual breakdown of 'all Israel', 'Jew', 'inhabitant of Jerusalem', 'people of Judah'.
Bit of a strawman here. This wasn't my list...I said "Jews, Inhabitants of Jerusalem, the northern house"
3) what I assume is a comparison of Jacob's trouble and the Great Tribulation that needs to be fleshed out more
1) Daniel 12 speaks about the
scattering of "Daniel's people" being the conclusion of the trouble.
2) Daniel 12 is a continuation from Daniel 10, where a further explanation was given to him in support of the prophecy given to him in Daniel 9 several days earlier.
3) In Daniel 9, it is explained that the southern house would return from Babylonian captivity and then be scattered
again in fulfillment of a punishment made "7 times" more severe (
Lev 26:18,24,28) for those under the covenant who continued to sin while already in punishment.
4) No one but ethnic Israel made the covenant with God at Mt Sinai. So it's not talking about punishing any other people but them.
5) The northern house was already scattered when Daniel was given these prophecies, and it was never said they'd return before any of these punishments would fall.
6) So it's only referring to the southern house of Israel who made a covenant. The House of Judah.
4) unusual interpretations of NT passages (like presenting Eph 6:12 to be about flesh when it seems to state the opposite)
Strawman. When did I say it was about flesh? I literally made the point about spiritual principalities.
1
