Full circle

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that her desolation is near" (Luke 21:20).

I'm just thinking how we have come full circle. The prophets spoke of the final desolations of Jerusalem at the hands of its final eschatological enemy before the appearance of the Messiah that would bring the nation into its spiritual rebirth and allow the nation to lie down in safety never to be molested again by hostile Gentile powers. Jersualem was destroyed, the nation was carried captive into the nations, then, against all odds, was regathered and 1878 years later Israel appeared again as an official nation in much the same manner and condition it was when it disappeared. No other nation in history has undergone this. And now once again, we see Jersualem surrounded by hostile armies intent on its destruction. And the Messiah has not come - to us His second coming. To Israel and the Jews the first appearance of their Messiah. Why have we come full circle and appear to be right back where we were centuries ago? Same nation, same circumstances. We are right back where it all started.

Matthew 10:22You will be hated by everyone because of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (In judgment)

docs

And the Messiah has not come - to us His second coming. To Israel and the Jews the first appearance of their Messiah.

It was revealed to the Jewish people at the FIRST coming of Christ that Jesus is their Messiah. Therefore, when the Lord Jesus comes again, it will be His SECOND coming to ALL, BOTH Jews and Gentiles.

At the first coming of Christ, John the Baptist announced to the Jewish people that that Jesus is the Lord, Jehovah, prophesied by Isaiah:

John 1:22-23 ”“
Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” He said, "I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.”

God the Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah:

Matt. 16:15-16 ”“
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

And on the Day of Pentecost Peter declared to the Jewish people that Jesus is the Lord and Christ, their Messiah:

Acts 2:22,36
"Men of Israel, listen to these words: ……………… Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ””this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Paul continually proved to the Jewish people from the scripture that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah:

Acts 9:22 ””
But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.

Acts 17:2-3 ”“
And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”

Acts 18:5 ”“
But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.

Acts 18:28 ”“
for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Note:
Messiah comes from the Hebrew word mashiach and means "anointed one” or "chosen one.” The Greek equivalent is the word Christos or, in English, Christ. The name "Jesus Christ” is the same as "Jesus the Messiah.”

/It was revealed to the Jewish people at the FIRST coming of Christ that Jesus is their Messiah. Therefore, when the Lord Jesus comes again, it will be His SECOND coming to ALL, BOTH Jews and Gentiles./

I understand completely what you are saying. Yet it's no secret that many Jews today do not believe Jesus is their Messiah. In their understanding, when the Messiah arrives, it will be for the first time and it won't be Christ. But we know they are wrong in this belief. The Scriptures you point out very adequately show this.

My point is that the nation and Jerusalem was surrounded by hostile armies and were razed and most of the population was exiled into the nations. Against all odds, 1878 years later, the nation reappeared again largely in the spiritual and natural condition in which it disappeared. No nation before or since has reappeared in this manner. It's a totally unique happening in history although they are largely in unbelief but it was prophesied they would be regathered largely in unbelief. And now the nation and Jerusalem are once again surrounded by hostile armies intent on its destruction. We have come full circle and are right back where we were and Christ has not come again.

I don't believe the church is now Israel. The NT nowhere declares this to be so and actually, in places, it declares just the opposite. The word Israel in the NT is not automatically a synonym for the church.

Meanwhile, we have come full circle.

Brother, the question is not whether the church is Israel but whether Jesus is. All in Jesus would therefore be in Israel spiritually. The church and all who have faith are His body.

Amen Doc.

CofG,

I don't think you are wrong. To me, it's a very nuanced truth in many ways. If I can say it that way. Many times the word Israel is even used in the NT to describe those of Israel who have rejected Christ. Any preacher or teacher that declares the church is now Israel does not stand on solid exegetical grounds and should declare to his audience first of all that what he is saying does not appear anywhere in the NT. He hasn't been given the authority by God to make this unscriptural change. To its own harm, especially in the area of eschatology, the belief that the church is now Israel has been used like a hammer blow to destroy and nullify many of the prophecies made regarding Israel in the end-time and its future after that.

Hi Robert,

The church and all who have faith are His body.

The Church is Christ’s body. The Church is made up of those who are IN Jesus, of those who have faith in Jesus.

Hi docs

And now the nation and Jerusalem are once again surrounded by hostile armies intent on its destruction. We have come full circle and are right back where we were and Christ has not come again.

Today, 1953 years on from 70 AD, except for a very small number, the Jewish people continue to reject Christ.

If we have come a full circle and history repeats itself, 1953 years on the Jewish people will still be rejecting Christ.

I don't believe the church is now Israel. The NT nowhere declares this to be so and actually, in places, it declares just the opposite.

Rom. 9:6-8 ”“
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all ISRAEL who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: "through Isaac your descendants will be named.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Gal. 4:28 ”“
And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Note: The brethren here are the Church in Galatia. According to Paul, they are Israel, Abraham’s descendants, and children of the promise.

The confusion is essentially this:

The Bible teaches we are included in the promises given to Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham, via faith in Christ.

The Bible does not teach we have replaced Israel in those same promises via faith in Christ, but that through our inclusion faith in Christ will come to physical Israel (albeit after a final judgment), the descendants of Abraham.

Notice Paul calls us children of promise, not children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; children of God. We are LIKE Isaac, regarded AS (both similes) but nevertheless not his descendant.

Inclusion and replacement are very, very different; and that difference makes all the difference in the world, both to God and His promises.

Read in Gal. 4:21-31 about the son of the bondwoman and the son of the free woman and who they are.

v. 30 -- For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.

This is scripture, not antisemitism.

I can't see how this is contrary to what I said... Maybe I'm just dim.

I don't understand your vehemence against the view that says we are included in the promises of Abraham, but that God is not done with the Jewish people, Pauls, and Abrahams descendants according to the flesh (physical descent, before walking according to the spirit and not according to the flesh is brought up).

I simply cannot comprehend how someone is so adamant in insisting God has broken His promises to physical Israel, and for that reason, I will leave it to Doc and others to continue to explain, because as Paul said, its blindness. Blindness cannot be cured by reason or exegesis.

ES,

The church or "saints" ( I don't mean Gentiles) don't replace. I acknowledge some wrongly say that. It was always God's plan that the true Jew would be one circumcised in heart so the true Jew is defined by Scripture, unless you are willing to assert that Paul by the Spirit had come up with that as new idea instead of it being a constant truth through time. Otherwise, you are stuck with asserting that God reacted to the Jewish rejection of Jesus by including Gentiles by default which isn't how Scripture works. Things happen and choices get made by men to fulfill God's plan, not to determine it. ("These things happened so that Scripture might be fulfilled")

There is a "first and last" of course as the Scriptures teach. Ethnic Jew first, Gentile Jew second, Ethnic Jewish remnant last. God said it's not enough for Jesus to be the redeemer of the ethnic Jew only. He deserves worship and praise from all nations. That was always God's plan.

The promises to Abraham were always for the "descendants" of Abraham "before circumcision" and that's where you should reconsider your post. It's the Adamic and Abrahamic promises that are in focus. So many focus on the OT promises through Moses and many times this is where the error comes in with Bible interpretation in so many categories on this site. There are some Mosaic promises and prophetic words that are brought forward clearly in the words of Jesus through NT writers. The trap has always been in which ones should come forward as completely unrealized and which ones are time specific.

/Read in Gal. 4:21-31 about the son of the bondwoman and the son of the free woman and who they are.

v. 30 -- For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.

This is scripture, not antisemitism./

It's a head scratcher for me as to why references such this are made in the midst of discussions like this. Of those you disagree with, who said anywhere or in any way that the sons of the bnondwoman would be heirs also with the sons of the free woman? It's not remotely anti-semitic to quote this scripture. But again, who has implied anywhere that the bond and the free will be heirs together? Does believing that God has a future for the geographic land Israel and its occupants, though presently mired in unbelief, somehow imply in certain quarters they are advocating that unbelieving Jews will be heirs also with believers? If so, it's not true in the least. I'm confused. Can it be pointed out where anyone even suggested this? If not, then why the scripture reference?

Sincerely baffled.

UNBIBLICALLY MIXING THE COVENANTS

It is common for non-millennialists to associate the temporal nature of the conditional Mosaic covenant with the abiding nature of the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, the result being that elements of the former are imposed on the latter. The promise of the land to Abraham in Gen. 12:13 thus becomes absorbed into a conditional, typological frame of reference. As a result, this same land, having been forfeited through disobedience, is merely regarded as a micro-earthly representation of future macro-heavenly glory that the Church inherits on a universal scale. Palmer Robertson wrote,

"The land of the Bible served in a typological role as a model of the consummate realization of the purposes of God for His redeemed people that encompasses the whole of the cosmos. Because of the inherently limited scope of the land of the Bible, it is not regarded as having continuing significance in the realm of redemption other than its function as a teaching model.”

Over 150 years before Palmer, Patrick Fairbain expressed a similar approach. He likewise wrote,

"The relations of the covenant people, as connected with the occupation of Canaan, leads naturally to the conclusion, that their peculiar connection with the territory has ceased with the other temporary expedients and shadows to which it belonged.”

In other words, the land is merely a basic type that projects through the Mosaic economy into the NT reality, and as such has no tangible relevance today. Hence one cannot help but suspect that this association of the Abrahamic land promise with the Mosaic economy is most necessary, even if unbiblical, so that the former might, by association, be abrogated. A necessary progression from Abraham to Moses is advocated.

Fairbain again,

"The Mosaic religion did not start into being as something original and independent; it grew out of the Patriarchal, and was just, indeed, the Patriarchal religion in a further state of progress and development….We are not to imagine, however, that the additional religious truths and principles which were to be historically brought out as the commencement of the Mosaic dispensation, must have appeared by themselves, distinct and apart from those which descended from Patriarchal times.”

This unsupported portrayal, however, is incorrect, and proof for what is a most necessary point to uphold this system that in fact would be difficult to produce. After all, if the land promised to Abraham remains as permanent for national Israel as the other terms of that covenant, then it radically interferes with supercessionist theology. The NT makes a clear distinction between the Abrahamic covenants, and especially their conditionality, along with the permanence of one and the abrogation of the other, as Gal 3:17 and Heb. 8:13 make abundantly clear. Further, Paul’s explanation concerning the purpose of the law, that it "was added because of transgressions” (Gal. 3:19; see Jer. 11:7-8; Rom 5:20), also conflicts with the idea of progression from Abraham.

(From "Future Israel" - by Barry Horner)

Paul's teachings are clear to me.

You are free to disagree.

No further comment.

That's fine. No problem. But if I may, do you think him or I ever advocated that the bond woman will be joint heirs with the free woman? If you don't want to answer ok, but I remain confused in regard to this as to why certain scriptural references were used seemingly to imply such.