Is Israel's operation 'Rising Lion' prophetically named through Providence?

[Brownie]

When Israel started to bomb Iran, president Netanyahu called it operation 'Rising Lion', after Num. 23:24. I don't know much about Israeli codenames, but I keep thinking about the possible prophetic meaning it could have, that the coming of the Lion of Judah is approaching (or at least the conversion of Israel). Could this be a sign of the times?
I'm usually very careful with these kinds of ideas, but I keep thinking of Caiaphas. He prophesied that Christ would die for the people, without knowing why he actually said it. The words were given to him, because he was the high priest. If a similar prophecy would be given to Israel today, it would make sense that the leader of the nation would utter it.
Also, anti-Israel sentiment is growing worldwide, because of Israel's actions against Iran, Gaza, Hezbollah and others. In The Netherlands, one political party now advocates to withhold even defensive weapons from Israel, possibly leaving Israeli civilians unprotected. This is unprecedented since Israel's restoration after WW2. But in line with the prophecy that all nations turn against Israel.
Any thoughts on this?

 

[Sam Jer]

When Israel started to bomb Iran, president Netanyahu called it operation 'Rising Lion', after Num. 23:24. I don't know much about Israeli codenames, but I keep thinking about the possible prophetic meaning it could have, that the coming of the Lion of Judah is approaching (or at least the conversion of Israel). Could this be a sign of the times?
I'm usually very careful with these kinds of ideas, but I keep thinking of Caiaphas. He prophesied that Christ would die for the people, without knowing why he actually said it. The words were given to him, because he was the high priest. If a similar prophecy would be given to Israel today, it would make sense that the leader of the nation would utter it.
Also, anti-Israel sentiment is growing worldwide, because of Israel's actions against Iran, Gaza, Hezbollah and others. In The Netherlands, one political party now advocates to withhold even defensive weapons from Israel, possibly leaving Israeli civilians unprotected. This is unprecedented since Israel's restoration after WW2. But in line with the prophecy that all nations turn against Israel.
Any thoughts on this?

And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor:
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.
He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them.
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel: according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought!
Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain. (vs. 18-24)

To start with, I highly doubt this prophecy speaks of the restoration of the Hebrew people. This is a scriptural reality in my view, taught from other passages, but this I highly suspect is not one of them. Note that terms such as Israel, Jacob, and Zion are used to refer to more than one thing. For Israel, for example, scripture uses it in at least five diffrent meanings:
1. Israel son of Isaac, also known as Jacob. For example: "And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head." (Gen. 48:31).
2. Israel as the ethnic descendants of Israel, Isaac and Abraham, as God's People, before the gospel went out to the gentiles. For example: "And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together." (Ex. 35:1)
3. Israel as the people of God, in all ages. For example: "Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord" (Deut. 34:29), And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16)
4. Israel as the ethnic people, in all ages. For Example: "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites" (Romans 9:3-4a)
5. Israel as the apostate northern kingdom. For example, "In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel" (2 Kings 8:25)

I highly doubt this verse speaks of Israel in the sense of meaning 4. It is much more likely to be 3 or 2, though I would prefer not to give a dogmatic interpetation of the whole prophecy at this point.


Additionally, I think you grossly underestimate the misuse of scripture in this country. It is quoted willy nilly by people who want to sound smart, from the strictest shul in Bnei Brak and craziest West Bank outpost to the most liberal activist centers of Tel Aviv, usually grossly out of context. If every time an Israeli official source misquoted scripture you'd take it as a sign, you'd run out of paper to print predictions on.

This is actually something much worse for the church than that: An example of the religiousisation of Israeli society and institutions. And why is it bad? Because it is a false religion that is less tolerant of the gospel than the one it is displacing (atheism and pseudo-atheism). Pray that it does not lead to persecution, and that if it does said persecution won't make the church apostasize.

That said, I do believe my people will come to Christ. Pray for that day to hasten - even so as to be within this generation, O Lord.

 

[jwithnell]

I appreciate your caution. May I ask a few questions? Why would prophesy, as a prediction of future events, be given today when we have the completed word of God? And why would God give his word through an unbelieving politician?

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

Additionally, I think you grossly underestimate the misuse of scripture in this country. It is quoted willy nilly by people who want to sound smart, from the strictest shul in Bnei Brak and craziest West Bank outpost to the most liberal activist centers of Tel Aviv, usually grossly out of context. If every time an Israeli official source misquoted scripture you'd take it as a sign, you'd run out of paper to print predictions on.

This is actually something much worse for the church than that: An example of the religiousisation of Israeli society and institutions. And why is it bad? Because it is a false religion that is less tolerant of the gospel than the one it is displacing (atheism and pseudo-atheism). Pray that it does not lead to persecution, and that if it does said persecution won't make the church apostasize.

That said, I do believe my people will come to Christ. Pray for that day to hasten - even so as to be within this generation, O Lord.

Brother, your words are like cool, spring water to this parched pilgrim's lips. I have been earnestly engaging over the past several days in sober discussion with acquaintances of mine pertaining to recent events in the Middle East, and how we, both as Christians and Americans, ought to properly weigh our relationship to the state of Israel. This sort of thing really blew up with the Tucker Carlson interview clip featuring Sen. Ted Cruz, and I felt prompted by the LORD to weigh in.
My own feelings are that dispensationalism, and the Biblical evidence marshaled in support of it, is wielded like a cudgel and a prodding stick by right-wing, pro-Israeli partisans, instead of being a sincere theology held by gospel ministers. I have seen time and again how such an outlook colors one's perceptions of the Israeli state and the actions of its government, so as to result in a nigh-unlimited support for the regime, at least rhetorically. It is this lopsided relationship, this partiality, rooted as it is in theological assumptions, that I aimed to scrutinize and critique in my interactions with others.

Nevertheless, I think myself ill-suited for such disputation, even if I find myself on the side of Scripture and the apostles, owing to what I perceive to be a lack of spiritual maturity on my part. So often I discern as my motivation an anger towards injustice that is rooted in fleshly feelings of outrage and a desire for immediate recompense, rather than a Spirit-wrought charity that aims for repentance, restitution, and reconciliation. How easy are the words " with malice towards none" spoken by the lips! Yet how hard in practice do we find it to set aside the negative impressions that we have built up over time concerning others, and that subconsciously inform our assessments.

I guess that what I'm getting at, @Sam Jer, is that you convey the truth of this matter in a far more succinct and gracious way, and with more candor, than I ever could, and I thank the LORD exceedingly for that. May the God of your fathers continue to strengthen you in the faith and adorn you with all spiritual blessings in Christ. Pray for me also. Have a blessed LORD's day afternoon.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

"No".

 

[MW]

Zionism runs in the background of the Israeli operating system. It is a modern, secular nation; but just as the West co-opts biblical imagery for political purposes so do other nations when it will serve to stir up "national spirit." It is a way to disguise the fact they are invoking "God’s will" for their war.

 

[Brownie]

To start with, I highly doubt this prophecy speaks of the restoration of the Hebrew people. This is a scriptural reality in my view, taught from other passages, but this I highly suspect is not one of them. Note that terms such as Israel, Jacob, and Zion are used to refer to more than one thing. For Israel, for example, scripture uses it in at least five diffrent meanings:
1. Israel son of Isaac, also known as Jacob. For example: "And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head." (Gen. 48:31).
2. Israel as the ethnic descendants of Israel, Isaac and Abraham, as God's People, before the gospel went out to the gentiles. For example: "And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together." (Ex. 35:1)
3. Israel as the people of God, in all ages. For example: "Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord" (Deut. 34:29), And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16)
4. Israel as the ethnic people, in all ages. For Example: "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites" (Romans 9:3-4a)
5. Israel as the apostate northern kingdom. For example, "In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel" (2 Kings 8:25)

I highly doubt this verse speaks of Israel in the sense of meaning 4. It is much more likely to be 3 or 2, though I would prefer not to give a dogmatic interpetation of the whole prophecy at this point.

Thank you for taking the time to write this response! I agree that it's not at all certain that Num. 23:24 is prophetically speaking of the return of Christ, or the return of Israel to Christ. But a lot of prophecies have a double meaning (like Matt. 24 has elements of Jerusalem's destruction in AD 70 and the end times), so I don't want to dismiss the possibility. However, I should have stated more clearly in my question, that I don't think Netanyahu used it as a sign, but in Providence chose this text, because God might've intended it as a sign of the times, to be recognised by the church which He commanded to discern the sign of the times. I'm sorry for the confusion. I'll write more detailed on this later, when I reply to @jwithnell.

Additionally, I think you grossly underestimate the misuse of scripture in this country. It is quoted willy nilly by people who want to sound smart, from the strictest shul in Bnei Brak and craziest West Bank outpost to the most liberal activist centers of Tel Aviv, usually grossly out of context. If every time an Israeli official source misquoted scripture you'd take it as a sign, you'd run out of paper to print predictions on.

This is actually something much worse for the church than that: An example of the religiousisation of Israeli society and institutions. And why is it bad? Because it is a false religion that is less tolerant of the gospel than the one it is displacing (atheism and pseudo-atheism). Pray that it does not lead to persecution, and that if it does said persecution won't make the church apostasize.

Thank you for this information! This really puts it in context for me. Last week, a visiting minister said that about 10% of Israel believes in Christ, about 10%
believes in the OT, but not that the Messiah has already come, and about 80% is non-religious or believes 'something else'. Because of this, I didn't expect Scripture to play a role in most of Israeli society or politics. That made the name of the operation very remarkable in my eyes, but reading your words just makes me feel sad for God's chosen people.

That said, I do believe my people will come to Christ. Pray for that day to hasten - even so as to be within this generation, O Lord.

I will certainly do this, brother. May you be comforted by His presence and His pronises of eternal life with Him and of the future conversion of Israel.

 

[Sam Jer]

Thank you for this information! This really puts it in context for me. Last week, a visiting minister said that about 10% of Israel believes in Christ, about 10%
believes in the OT, but not that the Messiah has already come, and about 80% is non-religious or believes 'something else'. Because of this, I didn't expect Scripture to play a role in most of Israeli society or politics. That made the name of the operation very remarkable in my eyes, but reading your words just makes me feel sad for God's chosen people.

Wow, that waay off. This is the result of a 2020 census on Jews 20 years and over (this skips over Arabs, 20% in Israel proper, and a small population that are technically not considered Jewish halachically):

Irreligious - 43.1%
Traditional - 21.1%
Traditional-Religious - 12.3%
Religious - 11.3%
Ultra-orthodox - 10.1%

Belief in Christ dosen't even make it to the chart.

Traditional usually means observing a bit of Rabbinical Judaism and believing most if not all of it. Irreligious usually means not really believing it or going to the synagogue but observing the culturally most major bits.


And the language of "God's chosen people" is problematic too, I'll get back to that Lord willing but first I have a few matters to attend to so it might take a few hours.

 

[Brownie]

I appreciate your caution. May I ask a few questions? Why would prophesy, as a prediction of future events, be given today when we have the completed word of God? And why would God give his word through an unbelieving politician?

These are very fair questions and I have been thinking about them before posting my original question. I hope to answer them, but to do that, I'll have to explain my views on cessationism.

First of all, I believe Scripture is the ultimate authority on all things. Second, the canon is closed and there will be no new revelation. There doesn't need to be, because God's plan for salvation is complete, shining gloriously through Christ. In that sense, I completely agree with cessationism. However, the fact that there will be no more new revelation doesn't mean there won't be any revelation. This revelation can be prophetic, without being new.

Let me give you an example. A while back, I was without a church and congregation. It would take too long to explain right now, but I was without people to talk to about God or Scripture. At that time I read On the Typology of Scripture by Fairbairn. I was amazed because of how much Jesus was already present, even in Genesis and I said to God 'Jesus was really exalted in all of history, wasn't He?'. At that moment I saw a timeline, with a radiant white light roughly in the middle and I knew that was the point in time when Jesus sacrificed Himself. From this point, golden bolts of lightning radiated across the timeline in both directions. It was an astonishing sight.

I'm very cautious when it comes to visions, phrophecy and so on. I went to a charismatic church for a while, until I learneed how unbiblical its teachings were. I've seen a few false prophets and I'm still hampered by their crooked theology. Still, I truly believe this sight was a vision from God. Why? Because it didn't add to or go against Scripture, only rightfully honoured Christ and it was given when I didn't have other christians around. Just like Elijah was supernaturally fed in that cave by ravens, I think God can supernaturally feed His people spiritually if He pleases. Never with new revelations, but within the boundaries of Scripture.

Returning to your first question: the Word is complete, but God can give a sign of the times. Just like earthquakes, wars and other signs. If 'Rising Lion' would be prophetic, it's not because it was a word given to Netanyahu, but because God gave the term in his mind through Providence. Just like He gave Pharao a hardened heart or Ahab's prophets a lying spirit. I think it's no different from what happened with Caiaphas. He uttered a prophecy, but it seems he didn't know how or why, or even that it was a prophecy.

That brings me to your second question. Caiaphas was a Pharisee and, allthough the high priest, probably not a true believer. Why else would Jesus say to the Pharisees that they don't go into the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 23:13)? Of course God still gave the prophecy to Caiaphas, because of his office. As far as I know, this office doesn't exist anymore. So, if God, in Providence, would want to give a sign of the times concerning Israel, He would be saying it through the only available office left: the leader of the civil government.

Now, I'm not saying that it definitely is a sign. In fact, @Sam Jer made a strong argument for why it isn't. I only tried to explain my train of thought. And as I said, my theology needs some ajustments, so please feel free to correct me where I'm reasoning unbibically.

 

[Sam Jer]

God's chosen people

And the language of "God's chosen people" is problematic too, I'll get back to that Lord willing but first I have a few matters to attend to so it might take a few hours.

So, here I think that this is also a misunderstanding of scripture.


1 Peter 2:9-10: ”But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Here, Peter calls the believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia a Chosen Generation, and applies to them three other titkes previously given to Israel: a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people. These terms referred to Israel as God's covenant people. This covenant people is none else but the olive tree in Romans 11. Many of my brothers according to the flesh took themselves out of the congergation of Israel by rejecting Christ, and were cut off. But many others were grafted in, and my brothers according to the flesh will be again ingrafted.

”The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
...
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15,19)

”For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans 2:28-29)

”Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (Romans 9:6-8)




Anecdotally, this is a really weird combination that seems to exist only or primarily in the Netherlands: Otherwise Reformed churches, that hold a confused view of Israel. I wonder why that may be.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

As Efraim (@Sam Jer ) has said, genuine belief in Jesus – the Messiah-Christ – is very small in the political State of Israel. Which latter has nothing to do with the true Israel of God, which is the church of Jesus Christ.

I could wish there were a great conversion of Jewry to Messiah in the days to come, but I do not see it foretold in Scripture. Rather, I see the formation of the political State in 1948 as a threshing floor where the Lord shall separate the wheat from the chaff before judgment falls upon it.

As for what is happening in the current war, both Islam and the political State have a hatred of Messiah-Christ, and we may seek to call out God's elect from within those two camps through our witness to them, but I see nothing other than destruction coming in the main.

In the bigger picture, POTUS has publicly called upon the name of God – but I think in vain – for he is not a believing Christian, yet his move to destroy the nuclear threat of Iran may well be the first stage of other leaders of nations showing off their military might, ending in the fulfilment of the sixth trumpet where one third of humankind is killed (Rev 9:14-15 KJV). From there we enter the time of the vials (bowls) of wrath in Rev 16 ff.

 

[jwithnell]

These are very fair questions and I have been thinking about them before posting my original question. I hope to answer them, but to do that, I'll have to explain my views on cessationism.

First of all, I believe Scripture is the ultimate authority on all things. Second, the canon is closed and there will be no new revelation. There doesn't need to be, because God's plan for salvation is complete, shining gloriously through Christ. In that sense, I completely agree with cessationism. However, the fact that there will be no more new revelation doesn't mean there won't be any revelation. This revelation can be prophetic, without being new.

Let me give you an example. A while back, I was without a church and congregation. It would take too long to explain right now, but I was without people to talk to about God or Scripture. At that time I read On the Typology of Scripture by Fairbairn. I was amazed because of how much Jesus was already present, even in Genesis and I said to God 'Jesus was really exalted in all of history, wasn't He?'. At that moment I saw a timeline, with a radiant white light roughly in the middle and I knew that was the point in time when Jesus sacrificed Himself. From this point, golden bolts of lightning radiated across the timeline in both directions. It was an astonishing sight.

I'm very cautious when it comes to visions, phrophecy and so on. I went to a charismatic church for a while, until I learneed how unbiblical its teachings were. I've seen a few false prophets and I'm still hampered by their crooked theology. Still, I truly believe this sight was a vision from God. Why? Because it didn't add to or go against Scripture, only rightfully honoured Christ and it was given when I didn't have other christians around. Just like Elijah was supernaturally fed in that cave by ravens, I think God can supernaturally feed His people spiritually if He pleases. Never with new revelations, but within the boundaries of Scripture.

Returning to your first question: the Word is complete, but God can give a sign of the times. Just like earthquakes, wars and other signs. If 'Rising Lion' would be prophetic, it's not because it was a word given to Netanyahu, but because God gave the term in his mind through Providence. Just like He gave Pharao a hardened heart or Ahab's prophets a lying spirit. I think it's no different from what happened with Caiaphas. He uttered a prophecy, but it seems he didn't know how or why, or even that it was a prophecy.

That brings me to your second question. Caiaphas was a Pharisee and, allthough the high priest, probably not a true believer. Why else would Jesus say to the Pharisees that they don't go into the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 23:13)? Of course God still gave the prophecy to Caiaphas, because of his office. As far as I know, this office doesn't exist anymore. So, if God, in Providence, would want to give a sign of the times concerning Israel, He would be saying it through the only available office left: the leader of the civil government.

Now, I'm not saying that it definitely is a sign. In fact, @Sam Jer made a strong argument for why it isn't. I only tried to explain my train of thought. And as I said, my theology needs some ajustments, so please feel free to correct me where I'm reasoning unbibically.

We won't see eye-to-eye on this one, but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to explain your position.

 

[Brownie]

So, here I think that this is also a misunderstanding of scripture.


1 Peter 2:9-10: ”But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Here, Peter calls the believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia a Chosen Generation, and applies to them three other titkes previously given to Israel: a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people. These terms referred to Israel as God's covenant people. This covenant people is none else but the olive tree in Romans 11. Many of my brothers according to the flesh took themselves out of the congergation of Israel by rejecting Christ, and were cut off. But many others were grafted in, and my brothers according to the flesh will be again ingrafted.

”The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
...
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15,19)

”For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans 2:28-29)

”Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (Romans 9:6-8)




Anecdotally, this is a really weird combination that seems to exist only or primarily in the Netherlands: Otherwise Reformed churches, that hold a confused view of Israel. I wonder why that may be.

I completely agree that the gentiles are grafted into the olive tree and the unbelieving Jews cut out, so that all believers are counted as Abraham's seed. Through faith, both Jew and gentile are part of the spiritual Israel, so to speak. However, I'm not sure if that means the physical people of Israel aren't a peculiar people still. It is something I'm going to think and pray about.
I am curious: how do you see the passage in Romans 11:11 that through Israel's fall salvation came to the gentiles, to provoke Israel to jealousy? Doesn't this intimate that they haven't been cast aside, but still have a place?

 

[Brownie]

I could wish there were a great conversion of Jewry to Messiah in the days to come, but I do not see it foretold in Scripture. Rather, I see the formation of the political State in 1948 as a threshing floor where the Lord shall separate the wheat from the chaff before judgment falls upon it.

The idea is that a lot of OT prophecies that speak of Israel are not only for us as the spiritual Israel, but also for the physical Israel, since they were given to them. For example, Eze 36:24 is taken as the prophecy that Israel would get its homeland back, which happened in 1948. The following verses then describe Israel's return to the LORD.

As for what is happening in the current war, both Islam and the political State have a hatred of Messiah-Christ, and we may seek to call out God's elect from within those two camps through our witness to them, but I see nothing other than destruction coming in the main.

In the bigger picture, POTUS has publicly called upon the name of God – but I think in vain – for he is not a believing Christian, yet his move to destroy the nuclear threat of Iran may well be the first stage of other leaders of nations showing off their military might, ending in the fulfilment of the sixth trumpet where one third of humankind is killed (Rev 9:14-15 KJV). From there we enter the time of the vials (bowls) of wrath in Rev 16 ff.

I agree that calling upon His Name will not help an unbeliever. I am, however, interested in your specification of the sixth trumpet. Do you know a good resource that has an overview of the indentifications of the events in Revelation?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I completely agree that the gentiles are grafted into the olive tree and the unbelieving Jews cut out, so that all believers are counted as Abraham's seed. Through faith, both Jew and gentile are part of the spiritual Israel, so to speak. However, I'm not sure if that means the physical people of Israel aren't a peculiar people still. It is something I'm going to think and pray about.
I am curious: how do you see the passage in Romans 11:11 that through Israel's fall salvation came to the gentiles, to provoke Israel to jealousy? Doesn't this intimate that they haven't been cast aside, but still have a place?

There is no doubt of the possibility or natural value of a heritage, an identity in solidarity with ethnic/national/racial origin.

It is that sense the apostles writes after the NC inauguration. Yet, the Jewish people don't have to remain distinct as they were formerly bound to do by divine precept. The purpose of the distinct nation has been achieved.

Those who self-identify as Jews need now to do what the others of us do who come to Christ from other peoples and regions: which is, abandon pride of origin completely, and take on a new adoptive identity in Christ.

 

[Brownie]

There is no doubt of the possibility or natural value of a heritage, an identity in solidarity with ethnic/national/racial origin.

It is that sense the apostles writes after the NC inauguration. Yet, the Jewish people don't have to remain distinct as they were formerly bound to do by divine precept. The purpose of the distinct nation has been achieved.

Those who self-identify as Jews need now to do what the others of us do who come to Christ from other peoples and regions: which is, abandon pride of origin completely, and take on a new adoptive identity in Christ.

Thank you for these thought-out words! They summarize beautifully both sides of the discussion. In Christ, there is no Jew or Greek, yet even Paul says he has to preach to the Jews first and to the gentiles after that.

I've thought a lot about this thread and I keep thinking about God referring to Israel as His firstborn. Would it be fair to say that the gentiles are Israel's younger brother? Both have the same Father, but Israel has the birthright as the oldest son? And by rejecting Christ, they squandered that birthright like Esau?

Also, I'm very intrigued by your idea that there was a purpose of the distinct nation. I always took this as election, forshadowing that the seed of Abraham would stand apart from the rest of the world. Not by strength or righteousness, but because He chose them. What would you say was the purpose of the distinct nation?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thank you for these thought-out words! They summarize beautifully both sides of the discussion. In Christ, there is no Jew or Greek, yet even Paul says he has to preach to the Jews first and to the gentiles after that.

I've thought a lot about this thread and I keep thinking about God referring to Israel as His firstborn. Would it be fair to say that the gentiles are Israel's younger brother? Both have the same Father, but Israel has the birthright as the oldest son? And by rejecting Christ, they squandered that birthright like Esau?

Also, I'm very intrigued by your idea that there was a purpose of the distinct nation. I always took this as election, forshadowing that the seed of Abraham would stand apart from the rest of the world. Not by strength or righteousness, but because He chose them. What would you say was the purpose of the distinct nation?

With regard to the first question, I tend to think of your observation as more of an application of Ex.4:22 rather than a theological point of doctrine correctly draw out. Scripture does not identify any other nation on earth as a son 0f God, or all of them together as that. The idea of many sons comes too close in any case to the error of "the universal fatherhood of God," which is language merging his creation power with some kind of omnibenevolence. Israel is not "firstborn" in the sense of any natural order aligned with other, comparable entities; but solely on account of an assigned, divine priority through covenant. In this Israel is not merely first, but unique.

"Firstborn" must be interpreted according to use, as in what sense is Ephraim called "firstborn," in Jer.31:9? "They shall come with weeping, And with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, In a straight way in which they shall not stumble; For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn." It cannot be natural reference; it's not even Messianic reference in any direct sense, as might be the case if the words had been predicated of Judah. What is predicated of Ephraim is that he (standing for all the northern tribes) will receive restoration and inheritance share equal to, and not one bit behind, Judah or any other tribe.

As for the purpose behind the existence of the distinct nation: it was that this element of the human race should bring forth the Christ, the Savior of the world, when the fulness of time had come, Gal.4:4. I.e., when the historical circumstances, the completeness of OT revelation, the precise persons who should be born and alive at the time, the technology, the degree of peace-in short, when everything was right according to the plan of God he sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law (the covenant of works that bound all) to redeem those (Jews and Gentiles) who were under the law. All the primeval history points via genealogy to this narrowing of concern, not to the discount of the human race more generally, but so that eventually the children of Israel would be the the focus of the human race. And so, through the Seed of Abraham indeed all the families of the earth would be blessed, Gen.12:1-3.

At the time he was called, God made from Abraham a peculiar set-apart people--a church, distinct from the world. As the rest of the nations spread abroad after the flood slowly declined from the knowledge of God possessed by the ark-generation, until they were lost in ignorance completely--God gave special attention and revelation to this church. He had not wholly ceased from calling this or another Gentile out of darkness by sovereign grace; but his "means of grace" were bound to his covenant expression with Abraham, Isaac, Israel and the children of Israel. It was in that church that he elected for many centuries the majority of his forever-people, using the word of revelation and the signs of religion he taught them as the instruments of his Spirit that called and saved them. It is most consonant to the reason (Christ) for establishing the distinct covenanted nation, that there should be such an associated blessing of naming so many of these people (with God so near them) actually of the number of elect; which early preference has been paralleled since the Christ was presented by naming so many from the Gentiles in these more recent ages. And still, he has not ceased from calling this or another Jew out of darkness by sovereign grace in these latter days.

 

[Sam Jer]

I completely agree that the gentiles are grafted into the olive tree and the unbelieving Jews cut out, so that all believers are counted as Abraham's seed. Through faith, both Jew and gentile are part of the spiritual Israel, so to speak. However, I'm not sure if that means the physical people of Israel aren't a peculiar people still. It is something I'm going to think and pray about.

I believe Moses himself can help clarify this:

"Ye [Israel by mount Sinai] have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (Exodus 19:4-6)

And Peter settles it, summarising the application for the era in which he and we are:

To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
Ye [the churches of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia; and by way of application, we] also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:4-10)

Think on these two passages, comparing them one to another. The church, those who are sincere and keep our current administration of the covenant of grace, we are a peculiar treasure for the Lord above all people, and we are his chosen generation, his elect people. We are a holy nation, a kingdom of priests calling to rabbinical Jews and to Atheist ones, to Atheist Dutchmen and to heretical ones, to Muslim Syrians and to Papist ones, to Atheist Americans and Papist ones - Be Reconsiled to God!

I am curious: how do you see the passage in Romans 11:11 that through Israel's fall salvation came to the gentiles, to provoke Israel to jealousy? Doesn't this intimate that they haven't been cast aside, but still have a place?

Have a place as in God still has a providential plan for it? Yes, otherwise there would be no Jews. Is that place one of a future national conversion foretold in scripture? I believe it is, pray that it may come soon. As in sonehow retaining God's covenant two millenia after the majority left it, slammed the door and spit on it? No. (Praise God he saved me and my family from continuing in that rejection and grafted us back in!)

The idea is that a lot of OT prophecies that speak of Israel are not only for us as the spiritual Israel, but also for the physical Israel, since they were given to them. For example, Eze 36:24 is taken as the prophecy that Israel would get its homeland back, which happened in 1948. The following verses then describe Israel's return to the LORD.

I suggest you give the books of Ezra and Nehemiah a read. Note the trajectory of repentance after returning. These books were written after Ezekiel's day. I am not aware of any prophecy that foretells 1948.

Thank you for these thought-out words! They summarize beautifully both sides of the discussion. In Christ, there is no Jew or Greek, yet even Paul says he has to preach to the Jews first and to the gentiles after that.

I am not so sure it applies today anymore. Paul was heralding the news of the coming of the Christ to Jewish synagouges - nay, Jewish churches - that have not yet chosen sides in Israel's apostasy. Then he preached to the gentiles of whatever place he was in. Note the trajectory in Galatia from Acts 13-14: A group out of the synagouge accepts Christ and the rest reject him, causing schism, then God's elect out of the gentiles join the first group, then the rest of the gentiles cooperate with the Jews who just sealed their apostasy to persecute this new church, which is not new at all but the true heir of the old synagoyge.

I've thought a lot about this thread and I keep thinking about God referring to Israel as His firstborn. Would it be fair to say that the gentiles are Israel's younger brother? Both have the same Father, but Israel has the birthright as the oldest son? And by rejecting Christ, they squandered that birthright like Esau?

This was answered better than I can answer it.

Also, I'm very intrigued by your idea that there was a purpose of the distinct nation. I always took this as election, forshadowing that the seed of Abraham would stand apart from the rest of the world. Not by strength or righteousness, but because He chose them. What would you say was the purpose of the distinct nation?

Not in any way to detract from the answer already given, and your'e typological explenation - Is the church not distinct from the world even today, though after a slightly diffrent manner suitable for an era of greater simplicity in worship?

 

[Brownie]

I believe Moses himself can help clarify this:

"Ye [Israel by mount Sinai] have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (Exodus 19:4-6)

And Peter settles it, summarising the application for the era in which he and we are:


Think on these two passages, comparing them one to another. The church, those who are sincere and keep our current administration of the covenant of grace, we are a peculiar treasure for the Lord above all people, and we are his chosen generation, his elect people. We are a holy nation, a kingdom of priests calling to rabbinical Jews and to Atheist ones, to Atheist Dutchmen and to heretical ones, to Muslim Syrians and to Papist ones, to Atheist Americans and Papist ones - Be Reconsiled to God!

Thank you very much for these two texts! I know that we are the spiritual Israel, but the depth of it really shines through here, far more than I realised. I never saw the church as a nation, I think, more as a people. We have a King and are united in Him, but I think I saw the church in a way as subordinate to local laws (as long as they don't conflict with God's, of course) and therefor not as a nation. Strange, now that I really think about it.

Have a place as in God still has a providential plan for it? Yes, otherwise there would be no Jews. Is that place one of a future national conversion foretold in scripture? I believe it is, pray that it may come soon. As in sonehow retaining God's covenant two millenia after the majority left it, slammed the door and spit on it? No. (Praise God he saved me and my family from continuing in that rejection and grafted us back in!)

I agree that it's not about the covenant in that sense. I see it more as the prodigal son - Israel turned its back on its Father and went away to live in sin. Hopefully, Israel will return soon.

Not in any way to detract from the answer already given, and your'e typological explenation - Is the church not distinct from the world even today, though after a slightly diffrent manner suitable for an era of greater simplicity in worship?

Well, yes and no. As Paul writes in 1 Cor 5:9-10, we can;t be separate physically, like Israel could as a physical nation. But we are distinct spiritually.

I want to thank you again for taking the time to answer my many questions. I learned a lot!

 

[darrellmaurina]

I don't want to get into the details of the church-as-Israel debate.

What I do want to say is that we need to guard ourselves against a movement I'm seeing crop up more and more commonly, so far almost entirely online though I've run it occasionally in "the real world," of Reformed people who have reacted so strongly against dispensationalism that they have become anti-semitic.

On at least one major Facebook discussion group, a Reformed person who I know, and who used to attend the church in Springfield that holds my membership, had to be removed because of his comments against "kikes" and even worse racist language.

As for me, I'll stand with John Owen, Oliver Cromwell, and the Savoy Declaration on believing there is a future hope for the Jewish people, as a group. There are good reasons why the Netherlands became a refuge for persecuted Jewish people fleeing the Spanish Inquisition (and sadly, also Luther's horrible language that most Lutherans today reject). I know there are Reformed people on both sides of whether there is a future for national Israel.

What we can't do is say that because Reformed people aren't dispensationalists we should blast Jewish people and those who support Israel.

Even if I had no views at all about Christianity and the Jewish people, there are perfectly good secular reasons for supporting Israel. Here's one of them.... Vitamin B2, from Missouri, with love. We used the B2 Stealth bomber to do one of the VERY few things that Israel couldn't do, and the more I read about what the Mossad did behind the scenes to destroy the Iranian leadership, the happier I am that the Israelis are on our side, and that they are getting rid of a very dangerous worldwide threat that we'd have to be dealing with if they weren't doing it for us.