The significance of the two fold advent of Christ in relation to the place of His return

Much of what the prophets were trying to discern as to the person and time of the one who was to come with salvation for His people (I Peter 1:10-11) was actually built around the yet to be revealed mystery of two advents of this promised one and not just one advent. Much of what they pondered over in the prophetic scriptures was actually forecasts and prophecies of His second advent instead of the long awaited first advent. Many of the prophecies they pondered over concerned the sufferings He endured at His first advent while many concerned the glory of His second advent when He would rule unto the furtherst reaches of the earth. At Pentecost, Peter was the first to openly proclaim the mystery of the two advents (Acts 2:19-21). The appointed Christ came but left and will be at the right hand of God until His second advent. It seems logical and scriptural to me that if He came to Israel and left that Israel would and will be the place of His return. In relation to God's continual relationship with Israel (in spite of their present unbelief) there is theology that advocates that God's peculiar relationship with Israel is over since salvation is now universal. The thinking goes that the land etc. were just types and allegories of each believer being in the promised land when they become saved etc. This is on my mind because I was just speaking with a believer that believes Christ left Israel for good and present day Israel has no relative significance in the plan of redemption. He mocked to a degree Christ returning to the Mount of Olives. I've seen and heard that type of mockery before regarding His return and the Mount of Olives. My question is if one believes Christ will not return to Israel at His second advent then where do they think He will return to? When His feet touch down on terra firma again where will that be? Kansas City, Kansas? Lima, Peru? Rome, Italy or maybe Holland or London perhaps? If one believes Christ is going to return and set feet on the earth again it harldy seems enough to say only that He will return to the "earth." Where on earth? I wonder what type of reply one would have gotten from the early church if they were asked where do they believe Christ will return to. How is it that the early church would not have hesitated for a second when asked this yet much of the modern church has reduced it to a generality by saying He will return to the "earth." The creed says, "He will come again to judge the quick and the dead" but where will He come again? The thinking goes in many quarters that land is not important any more since the true riches are spiritual. I agree with the true rices being spiritual yet whatever piece of real estate His feet will touch down on would in my opinion hardly render that particular land as having no special or peculiar significance in the plan of redemption. Sure it will be on the earth but where? In my opinion, the belief that Christ's business was completed with Israel at His first advent and they are no longer relevant needs to be reexamined if one is searching for an answer on where on the "earth" the promised Christ will make His second advent. What the early church saw as a solemn and sobering reality as to His return to whence He left is a point of generaltiy and even mockery in many quarters of the contemporary church. Since at His second advent His feet are going to touch down somewhere then where on "earth" is the question.

G'day DOCS

I have been meaning to post this info for a while.

I am of the belief that there is much in scripture speaking of the land and people of Israel that is yet to be fulfilled. I see in scripture that the Lord will use the issue of the Land and the people of Israel to fulfil many purposes, still. I also see a literal return of the Lord on the Mt in Jerusalem. I do not have time presently to write much more on this.

Many on SI have beeen blessed and challenged by Art Katz sermons, writings and ministry and you will find that he did cover this topic in many of his messages.

Art's theological companion Reggie Kelly has a web site "mystery of Israel" that has much content on this and there are some youtube clips under the same name.

Dalton (thomas) Lifsey has written an intersting book called the "Controversy of Zion", which gives great clarity to some of these issues. He also has a website of the same name and some mp3 sermons at Tauranga House of Prayer website and a documentary underway discussing these issues. Dalton also has a new book out on persecution and martyrdom which I'm about to start reading.

Check out these resources if you like, with Bible in hand. I hope to post more on the issue itself, but it could prove to be a devisive one and I don't want to engage in something that is less than edefying at the moment.

Tom

Thank you for your reply bro.

I too agree there is much in scripture regarding Israel and the land that is still to be fulfilled. It's just that after my exchange with a Christian the other day it became clearer to me than ever before that the belief of Christ returning to Israel at His second coming is a belief that has come to be outright mocked in large parts of the Christian church. I suppose that all who don't believe that go so far as to mock the belief but still many do express an outright derision that this will be. I guess I knew Israel being relevant to the second coming and God's redemptive plan was scoffed at by certain streams of theology but the other day it became crystal clear to me that indeed it is held in derision by many. I'm wondering just how this came to be! What would have been the reply if the early church was asked where they believed Christ would return? I think part of the reason at least that this derision holds sway is because it has been taught that once the Savior came then land and the things of the earth became secondary in value because Christ's kingdom is a spiritual kingdom within each of us and is not concerned with this world. When Christ told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), He supposedly meant that everything of His kingdom is heavenly or within and not of this world therefore anything regarding salvation and anything eschatological in nature that includes Isarel and "land" promises is a left over Jewish fairy tale based on crassly carnal aspirations and nationalistic Jewish interpretations. Therefore any eschatological prophetic references to land and even a literal Jerusalem were just types and allegories that really didn't mean what they actually say but were meant to convey higher spiritual truths (not of this world) etc. I'm wondering out loud right now that if one believes that the land from whence Christ left has no releveant significance whatsoever regarding the mystery of His two advents that will culminate in His second coming and the fulfillment of ancient promises still unfulfilled then what nation or land does hold any special significance? Are the scriptures more precise than stating just that Christ will return to the "earth?" Was the location of His return a subject of much debate in the early church? His feet will touch down somewhere so where? Meanwhile, if one believes in the second advent of Christ to Israel they are laughed and snickered at in many quarters of today's church. The enemy must be delighted that He has even caused the place of Christ's second advent to be a subject that causes intense division.

I know of Art Katz. I was allowed to come into the kingdom of God during the Jesus Movement days and we used to get together and get one of his tapes and listen. His word was and still is staggering at times. Many times you feel like there's nothig left of you after you listen to his teachings and sermons. I know Brother Reggie and communicate with him occasionally. I recommend his website "mysteryofisrael." I know of Dalton Lifsey and once held a copy of his book "Controversy of Zion" and read through as much of it as I could at the time. I recommend it also. Yet I made my original comments because this subject is fresh on my mind and heart because the idea of Christ returning to Israel was mocked by another Christian just a few days ago when I communicated with him and I'm seeing clearer than ever that that is not uncommon in the overall body of Christ today. It's pretty amazing if one sits down and thinks about it. How could this division have come to be? If not Israel, then where?

______________________________________________________________
QUOTE:
" I'm wondering just how this came to be!"
______________________________________________________________

I may be wrong but do suggest it is because of ignorance of the content of Revelation. This ignorance can occur when people will argue, debate it, thus bewildering others with the belief that nobody can understand the book. At least this is what I have heard others say.

I tell people to read Revelation, concentrating on visualizing what John is describing - he is describing a vision he had. To concentrate on interpreting its meaning for future events will rob one of the blessing that is in there for us to enjoy.

Too many who are deep into eschatology get very dogmatic, aggressive and brook no patience with those who ask questions. This does not help solve the problem, either.

My testimony is that I love to read Revelation. When I feel blue about world events, I read Revelation. It always cheers me up because it teaches us that Jesus will be victor. Do I understand everything? No. I have a general idea, but the main one is that awful things will precede Jesus return and that He is in charge. He ordains these calamities to make people think about their mortality and their need to repent.
In the end, I find the book fascinating...the descriptions in chapter four, twenty-one, twenty-two....:-)

Brother DOCS

It can be disheartening sometimes when we see others who proclaim Christ and yet have come to dramatically different conclusions doctrinally from the same scripture we read each day.

I know my understanding of some scriptural truths has changed much over the years, so I recognise that we need to have much grace towards other believers and gently correct in love where we can.

You speak of being mocked, or your view being mocked, that is a shame, I suppose you can only pray for such a one as it appears they will not allow you to reason from scripture with them.

The eschatology we hold to will effect the way we live and particularly when we see these scriptures unfolding. We need great grace from the Lord and revelation to understand prophecy and none of us should be so self-sure as to think we can not be deceived in these matters as the hallmark for the last days is deception.

I have recently heard Brother Zac Poonen talk on 1Corinth 11 v 19 English Standard Version (©2001)
"for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." I have overlooked this scripture for years but now see it with more clarity. It may very well be that the issues you are speaking of are matters that the Lord will use, amongst other things, to sift His church.

In every age there seems to have been simple biblical truths that have come under attack and with it persecution to the body of Christ.
Keep following Christ

Tom

You wrote,

"God's redemptive plan does not focus on Israel but on the cross of Jesus Christ. John 3:16 is the heart of God. The verse does not say for God so loved Israel. But God loved the world. That whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Me: What made you think I was perhaps speaking against the cross of Christ in any way? I reviewed my comments and I don't think I did that. My comments concerned the two advents of Christ in relation to the place of His return.

You wrote,

"If anyone could write on the role of Israel in the redemptive plan of God, Paul could. He describes God's dealing with Israel in Romans 9-11. In these chapters God is bringing forth a remnant to saving faith in Jesus Christ. The work if God is the salvation of souls, not the restoration of the land to Israel."

Me: I can't claim to be a expert or the likes regarding Romans chapters 9-11 but I've tried to read them and understand them as many of us likely have. I understand the remnant of Israel that God is seeking but my comments by and large concerned the place of Christ's return. One of my questions though might be, in regard to the contents of Romans chapters 9-11, when the remnant of Israel is finally gathered and "all Israel has been saved" then where might Christ return to? My comments were not against the salvation of souls in any way.

Regarding the restoration of the land of Israel that you referred to. The book of Isaiah ends with a restored Israel living in the land. Jeremiah is full of references to a eventually restored Israel. Ezekiel ends with a restored Israel living in the land. Daniel ends with a restored Israel living in the land. Hosea ends with a restored Israel. Joel, Amos and Obadiah end with a restored Israel living in the land. Micah, Zephaniah and Haggai end with a restored Israel. Zechariah ends with a restored Israel living in the land. Malachi speaks of the great day of the Lord coming which occurs before the restoration of Israel spoken of by so many of the prophets. So when Paul speaks of God gathering a remnant and speaks of a day when "all Israel will be saved" did he automatically cancel out the promises of the prophets regarding Israel and the land? How is spiritual salvation in Christ (the greatest treasure) supposed to automatically cancel out a majority of the writings of the prophets regarding a redeemed and restored Israel living in the land?

You wrote,

"The cross of Jesus Christ is the focal point of God's redemptive plan. Not the nation of Israel. To imply that Christ will return to the Mount of Olives does not make Israel any more special than America. All ground is level at the cross. All are equal before the cross. God does not show favoritism."

Me: I fully understand that the cross of Christ is the focal point of God's redemptive plan. Where did I say anything different? I was speaking of the fact of Christ's two advents and the place of His return and how it fits into the overall redemptive plan of God. The big picture and its culmination. Where does God's involvement with the nation of Israel take away from the centrality of the cross? Why does the mention of the place of His return and the particular "land" that will occur in make people think that you need a good ole lecture on the cross being central? They are lecturing folks on something those folks are already completely aware of. The centrality of the cross is a natural assumption and natural given that goes without saying. Meanwhile, where was it promised that Christ would appear and where did He appear when He endured the cross and paved the way for salvation? And from where did He leave while all the while promising to return? My comments were not any slight against the cross and the gospel but concerned the place of His return.

You wrote that "To imply that God will return to the Mount of Olives does not make Israel any more special than America" and "all are equal before the cross" etc. I didn't say said that Israel will have some special advantage over the rest of the nations as far as the cross goes? The remnant of Israel will have to come to the table by faith just like the rest of the people and nations. It seems almost absurd in a way thought to think that the place of Christ's return will have no real special significance or place of honor. God doesn't show favortism as far as the cross goes but that doesn't mean that in God's overall plan of redemption that He doesn't have a designated place that Christ will return to which was the subject of my comments.

You also wrote,

"If we advocate Christian Zionism (whatever that is). Then we have lost sight of the cross and its message. That message is best articulated by Paul in 1 Cor. 15. The message is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins. If we lose sight if that message then we are indeed distorting the scriptures for our destruction.

Me: Christian Zionism is a derogatory term that was coined and is used by those who by and large oppose any thought of a eschatological remnant of Israel being restored to the land of Israel. It's the land aspect that bothers them and while venturing no opinion of their own as to the place of Christ's return they maninly focus on ONLY on Israel's present unbelief. In spite of the demeaning way the term "Christian Zionist" is used, what does one do with the many prophetic scriptures that speak of an eschatological return to the land? God authored those prophetic scriptures so is He a "Zionist?" Why is wondering about those scriptures and believing Christ will return to the land He left somehow losing sight of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? If one has an opinion about the place of Christ's return how is that distorting the scriptures? My purpose was to point out that if one believes Christ will return to Israel then in many places today that belief is scoffed at and even mocked.

You gave some good things to ponder and thanks for the time you took to share them.

Blessings.

Good post docs, it was about time to end the waffle talk and focus on actual scripture that relates to the topic at hand.

I suggest opinions that differ from scripture are just opinions, so why even bother with that? What do we have to say when asked "don't you know the scriptures?" It is written:

Acts 1:11  Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

Revelation 1:7  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.

Zechariah 14:4  And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

14:8  And it shall be in that day, that 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.

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

--- the promise of Acts 1:11 finds its fulfillment in Zechariah 14:4. ---

Any theology where this is different, is probably confused with the simple OT/NT misunderstanding that has this proposal that a few things have been nailed to the cross that obviously have not. If the law and the prophets are part of that 'nailing' you are by definition an antinomian and/or dispensationalist according to the Darby school of philosophy. The first is heresy, the second is Jesuit conceived teaching. To come back to scripture and the Word of God is the way out of theses deceptions. It's the truth that sets you free, then you can read and actually understand scripture. Your eyes will not glance over the words of God anymore not believing them and you will not have this thought in your mind that starts with "yes, but...." where Satan tries to snatch God's words away and replace it with his "higher understanding" that he presents as a new doctrine together with a spiritual substitute to confuse the plain words of God. By the grace of Jesus we can win this battle. You know when you agree with God and his word that Jesus has won that battle, because you are in harmony once again with Him. There are many spirits today, the Holy Spirit is that Spirit of truth.

The Holy Spirit is that Spirit that agrees with His Words.

Jesus will fulfill ALL unfulfilled prophecies concerning him, it does not matter if they are written in OT or NT scripture. To understand what a true prophet of God is you first need to understand that linear time constraints do not exist for them.

Ahh, forgot one orientation of view that also cannot see it: The Preterist view.

Brother Jim has a few questions for them:

"Let's ask them some simple questions, like - When did Jesus split the Mount of Olives in two? You see, IF all has happened, they should be able to tell you when Jesus touched down and split the Mount of Olives in two at His return. I am sure you will be able to think of many such simple questions, like:

When were the 75 LB hailstones falling from the sky? Rev 16:21
When did the sea turn to blood? ...Rev 8:7-8, 16:21
When was the mark of the beast enforced? ...Rev 13:17
When did Jesus rule for a thousand years from His 3600 square mile BIG Church of the Firstborn on Mt. Zion. Eze chs 40-48

There are too many things that would not work with this historic or "Preterist" view. They have to throw out EXTREMELY LARGE portions of Scripture and Allegorize the rest. They must assume most of the Bible is not to be taken seriously. That is Scary!"