When You See JERUSALEM Surrounded By Armies, Luke 21

[armylngst]

I wish I had Rom 9-11 written out in more detail. The purpose of that was to show God's faithfulness to his promises.

It was also God, through Paul (Bible is inspired) explaining how things work. Israel/the Jews rejected the Messiah, so do to this "disobedience" the gospel went out to the Gentiles. The Gentiles responded with "obedience", and accepted Christ. (The Gentiles who believed and joined the church.) Israel is under a partial hardening (and it is wrtiten in such a way to know that the purpose you have given is not the purpose, but only part of it) until the fulness of the Gentiles come in. What does that mean? That means that Israel as a whole will not be saved until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. Then everything comes around full circle, and because of the obedience of the Gentiles, God will have mercy on Israel, and Israel will become obedient again, and, as Paul says "all Israel will be saved." Now, the way I believe it works, it is all Israel that is saved. All Israel that survives the Great Tribulation. (Which won't be much. Zechariah says that it is only 1/3rd of the population at the time. The other 2/3rd... perish right then.

This was by showing that the real Israel was narrowed down to those of the promise, as we see in Rom 9:6-13. Then vv14-26 stave off some rhetorical opposition to God's reduction of those who benefit. In vv 27-29, Paul shows that only the remnant were to remain, as found in Isa 10:20-22; it mattered no more whether a diaspora of those without the promise existed. Rom 10 demonstrates further that God had not excluded Jews from hearing the gospel; he sent out people to preach among them, but most did not receive the report.

When all is said and done, and it comes to the salvation of Israel, only the remnant still remains, everyone else has perished. Which is why Paul can say "all Israel will be saved." Only the remnant is alive to be saved.

In Rom 11:1-2, Paul even argues against the idea that all Jews lost their chance to be justified. He reminded the reader he is a Jew and the audience was willing to hear his letter. The chapter continues with the realization the argument that though God gave them eyes not to see (in the broad numbers), their failure to come was the opportunity for gentiles to respond so that jealousy would be an added factor (as per Rom 10:19 and 11:14). Verse 14 shows he hoped at least some would respond in sufficient time. It was only natural that Jews should be grafted back in (vv 17-24).

The argument is not that Jews have lost their chance to be justified, but that God has not rejected the Jews. That is, they are still people of the covenant, still God's chosen people. While all Jews fit under God's chosen people as the nation in which God placed His name, not all are saved. Many rejected God. The remnant has not accepted Jesus, but they haven't rejected God. In the end, they will see Jesus for who He is, and accept Him.

This argument completes by saying that these events and interactions indeed led to all Israel being saved (vv 25-27). This was how Paul finalized the argument to show, against the sad apparent state of the people, that God has fulfilled his promises and thus is proven to have been faithful.

Absolutely. God is not done with Israel. 1948 is a part of the last days. It is also the completion of prophecies God made of an exile/diaspora of Jews. Someone did the calculations using the Leviticus principle, and when they calculated out the dates, it ended in 1948. I don't accept that blindly, however, it doesn't go against my beliefs so it is not simply thrown away, but there for thought and reflection on God. There are a few of these supposed perfectly fitting prophecies that could be mistakes made in calculations, or a lot of assumptions that make it work. So... in the end, more of a curiosity.

 

[mikesw]

It was also God, through Paul (Bible is inspired) explaining how things work. Israel/the Jews rejected the Messiah, so do to this "disobedience" the gospel went out to the Gentiles. The Gentiles responded with "obedience", and accepted Christ. (The Gentiles who believed and joined the church.) Israel is under a partial hardening (and it is wrtiten in such a way to know that the purpose you have given is not the purpose, but only part of it) until the fulness of the Gentiles come in. What does that mean? That means that Israel as a whole will not be saved until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. Then everything comes around full circle, and because of the obedience of the Gentiles, God will have mercy on Israel, and Israel will become obedient again, and, as Paul says "all Israel will be saved." Now, the way I believe it works, it is all Israel that is saved. All Israel that survives the Great Tribulation. (Which won't be much. Zechariah says that it is only 1/3rd of the population at the time. The other 2/3rd... perish right then.

When all is said and done, and it comes to the salvation of Israel, only the remnant still remains, everyone else has perished. Which is why Paul can say "all Israel will be saved." Only the remnant is alive to be saved.

The argument is not that Jews have lost their chance to be justified, but that God has not rejected the Jews. That is, they are still people of the covenant, still God's chosen people. While all Jews fit under God's chosen people as the nation in which God placed His name, not all are saved. Many rejected God. The remnant has not accepted Jesus, but they haven't rejected God. In the end, they will see Jesus for who He is, and accept Him.

Absolutely. God is not done with Israel. 1948 is a part of the last days. It is also the completion of prophecies God made of an exile/diaspora of Jews. Someone did the calculations using the Leviticus principle, and when they calculated out the dates, it ended in 1948. I don't accept that blindly, however, it doesn't go against my beliefs so it is not simply thrown away, but there for thought and reflection on God. There are a few of these supposed perfectly fitting prophecies that could be mistakes made in calculations, or a lot of assumptions that make it work. So... in the end, more of a curiosity.

I'm just sharing what I found Rom 9-11 conveyed. The explanation of the remnant in his era and the saving of all Israel only made sense in his era. Everything hinges on the manner by which Paul could say All Israel will be saved. It cannot be a distant future case because there would be people of Israel who did not get saved until 2000 years later. That would not prove God's faithfulness in the middle 2000 years. Few people deal properly with the phrase "All Israel will be saved."

 

[armylngst]

I'm just sharing what I found Rom 9-11 conveyed. The explanation of the remnant in his era and the saving of all Israel only made sense in his era. Everything hinges on the manner by which Paul could say All Israel will be saved. It cannot be a distant future case because there would be people of Israel who did not get saved until 2000 years later. That would not prove God's faithfulness in the middle 2000 years. Few people deal properly with the phrase "All Israel will be saved."

You are not understanding then. The remnant in Paul's day were saved before they died, or they are not the elect of God. Just as there was a remnant in elijah's day is how Paul explained the remnant. Today we can explain it as, just as there was a remnant in Paul's day. The Israel that will be saved is the 1/3rd of Zechariah's prophecy, a remnant. That remnant is the elect of God that survive the Great Tribulation, where if it wasn't cut short, there would be no life left on Earth. As such, most of life on Earth is dead, as well as 2/3rds of Israel. All that remains of Israel will be saved. (See Zechariah for the details.)

 

[DavidTree]

You are not understanding then. The remnant in Paul's day were saved before they died, or they are not the elect of God. Just as there was a remnant in elijah's day is how Paul explained the remnant. Today we can explain it as, just as there was a remnant in Paul's day. The Israel that will be saved is the 1/3rd of Zechariah's prophecy, a remnant. That remnant is the elect of God that survive the Great Tribulation, where if it wasn't cut short, there would be no life left on Earth. As such, most of life on Earth is dead, as well as 2/3rds of Israel. All that remains of Israel will be saved. (See Zechariah for the details.)

Stay with the Truth of "it is written" = just as you are doing.

Great posts - ty

 

[civic]

It ended, however it will revive. I can't help but get the feeling that it may be the US. (Since we have the same political system the Roman Empire had. We are a Republic. I believe the only other Republic in world history.) Just a pet theory, nothing more.

Yep

 

[mikesw]

You are not understanding then. The remnant in Paul's day were saved before they died, or they are not the elect of God. Just as there was a remnant in elijah's day is how Paul explained the remnant. Today we can explain it as, just as there was a remnant in Paul's day. The Israel that will be saved is the 1/3rd of Zechariah's prophecy, a remnant. That remnant is the elect of God that survive the Great Tribulation, where if it wasn't cut short, there would be no life left on Earth. As such, most of life on Earth is dead, as well as 2/3rds of Israel. All that remains of Israel will be saved. (See Zechariah for the details.)

I share what the only reason for Paul's mention of the remnant. It was to show God was faithful to his promises even though the people overall were destroyed. There is no reason to tie the whole world into prophecies about Israel either.

 

[mikesw]

Stay with the Truth of "it is written" = just as you are doing.

Great posts - ty

The goal here is not to follow man's tradition, especially one out of the 1800s. Then focus on the testimony of scripture. A 170 year old is worthwhile for scrutiny.

 

[DavidTree]

The goal here is not to follow man's tradition, especially one out of the 1800s. Then focus on the testimony of scripture. A 170 year old is worthwhile for scrutiny.

Who is following the 1800's tradition???

Please explain = maybe i read too fast???

 

[JLB]

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 “For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

This is teaching what He spoke through the mouth of Zechariah.


The Day of the LORD.


Behold, the day of the LORD is coming,
And your spoil will be divided in your midst.
For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;
The city shall be taken,
The houses rifled,
And the women ravished.
Half of the city shall go into captivity,
But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Zechariah 14:1-2

 

[atpollard]

"When You See JERUSALEM Surrounded By Armies" ... it must be a Tuesday in the Middle East.

 

[mikesw]

Who is following the 1800's tradition???

Please explain = maybe i read too fast???

Anyone with the pre-mil views held today are doing that. It is just historical detail due to the spread of ideas especially with the Scofield Bible of the 1900s and later.

 

[DavidTree]

Anyone with the pre-mil views held today are doing that. It is just historical detail due to the spread of ideas especially with the Scofield Bible of the 1900s and later.

wutza pre-mil per your assessment?

 

[mikesw]

wutza pre-mil per your assessment?

I mean the influence to deny the first-century events of Matt 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. As to Zech 13-14, I suggest people listen to Steve Gregg. Link: (#Zechariah class audio)
The emphasis on this 1948 country is primarily the result of the Scofield doctrine that simply denies the final judgment on Israel and Jerusalem that happened in the first century.
If I have improperly grouped people of this view into the Scofield pre-mil category, sorry for expressing any inaccuracy in that way.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I mean the influence to deny the first-century events of Matt 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. As to Zech 13-14, I suggest people listen to Steve Gregg.
The emphasis on this 1948 country is primarily the result of the Scofield doctrine that simply denies the final judgment on Israel and Jerusalem that happened in the first century.
If I have improperly grouped people of this view into the Scofield pre-mil category, sorry for expressing any inaccuracy in that way.

You're close. The influence of the Scofield bible was profound in fundamental and evangelical circles for a very long time.

John Nelson Darby is considered to have originated many of the teachings but that isn't necessarily true. The substance of the teachings have been around in contradiction to the Amillennialism of the Church at Rome in the 4th century.

 

[mikesw]

You are not understanding then. The remnant in Paul's day were saved before they died, or they are not the elect of God.

Huh? Those saved were only the rejected of God?

Just as there was a remnant in elijah's day is how Paul explained the remnant. Today we can explain it as, just as there was a remnant in Paul's day.

That was the remnant of Isa 10:20-22. Paul was trying to tell the gentiles that God had not totally rejected those of Israel descent. He saved the elect or else the city would have been completely destroyed like Sodom. We do not say Sodom was preserved and should be rebuilt because Lot escaped.
Anyway, I know I can only show brief details about Romans, but Rom 9-11 is showing God's faithfulness to his promises by the remnant. That was the end of the earthly nation.

The Israel that will be saved is the 1/3rd of Zechariah's prophecy, a remnant. That remnant is the elect of God that survive the Great Tribulation, where if it wasn't cut short, there would be no life left on Earth. As such, most of life on Earth is dead, as well as 2/3rds of Israel. All that remains of Israel will be saved. (See Zechariah for the details.)

You have to be careful of the translations that say "earth" here. The context almost always (if not always) indicates the idea of the land or region. Also note that Zech 3:8-9 follow right after verse 7 (in an amazing coincidence) where the Shepherd had been killed.
Further, the persecutions of the saints in the first century was the fiery refinement of the figurative third of Zech 3:8-9. That refinement also appears in Malachi 3:3 in the context of the judgment in the first century. The proportions can be seen as symbolic within apocalyptic language. This point is just something for you to ponder. It certainly will not change your mind suddenly.

 

[mikesw]

You're close. The influence of the Scofield bible was profound in fundamental and evangelical circles for a very long time.

John Nelson Darby is considered to have originated many of the teachings but that isn't necessarily true. The substance of the teachings have been around in contradiction to the Amillennialism of the Church at Rome in the 4th century.

Sure. People have struggled with details of these prophesies since the second century. None have really put them in the full context of Daniel (with other prophets being important for more of the details).

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sure. People have struggled with details of these prophesies since the second century. None have really put them in the full context of Daniel (with other prophets being important for more of the details).

Daniel has been fulfilled in Christ. I see zero reasons to believe there is some "special week" that hasn't taken place yet.

 

[mikesw]

Daniel has been fulfilled in Christ. I see zero reasons to believe there is some "special week" that hasn't taken place yet.

Yep. Also the 3.5 years (1290 days, 1335 days, 2300 mornings and evenings). I have shared McLellan's papers and book on the seventy weeks being fulfilled.

If we alter the 70 weeks of years, we have the odd sequence. The people are exiled for seventy years due to their falling away from God. They return to their land and are given seventy weeks of years to end their transgressions through the Messiah who comes at that point. The city and sanctuary are destroyed in that judgment but somehow the seventieth week is delayed to allow them to keep sinning with knowledge of Christ while rejecting the reconciliation through him. Why continue the pain and rejection of being under their sin after all this?

 

[Selah]

This is teaching what He spoke through the mouth of Zechariah.


The Day of the LORD.


Behold, the day of the LORD is coming,
And your spoil will be divided in your midst.
For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;
The city shall be taken,
The houses rifled,
And the women ravished.
Half of the city shall go into captivity,
But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Zechariah 14:1-2

Right. This is the Day of the Lord, when Jesus Christ returns as King of kings and Lord of lords.

 

[armylngst]

The goal here is not to follow man's tradition, especially one out of the 1800s. Then focus on the testimony of scripture. A 170 year old is worthwhile for scrutiny.

The fact that you speak of it as out of the 1800s shows your understanding is quite shallow. You would be surprised how early in church history you can find what a futurist talks about. Such as the pseudo ephraim from the 5th - 8th centuries. It not only speaks to a rapture, which means that someone understood exactly what that meant back then, it gives a deep exposition on the antichrist and the abomination of desolation. It's actually DEEPER then most dispensationalists go. A LOT deeper. A real eye opener. Part of the reason why I am no longer certain that the temple doesn't have to be rebuilt prior.