Some thoughts about Jeremiah 31:10, "...he that scattered Israel will gather him..."; and about Ps.102:12-22; and about "call" vs. "whistle".
The prophecy in which Jeremiah 31:10 occurs appears to cover all of chapters 30 and 31.
The context both before and after the prophecy appears to be all to do with the Babylonian captivity. (29:1 and 32:2 both mention Babylon by name). It seems likely to me then that this prophecy (chapters 31 & 32) were also about the Babylonian captivity. Certainly Jeremiah's immediate audience would have thought that it was.
Then at the very start of this prophecy, Israel and Judah's return from captivity is predicted (30:2). Both Israel's captivity, and then Judah's captivity, were mentioned. That distinction between Israel and Judah existed prior to their return from Babylonian captivity only, but never afterwards. So the return from captivity in question had to have been the return from the captivity of that time which was transpiring in Jeremiah's day at a time when the distinction between Israel and Judah still existed - not a future scattering and regathering which occurred after a time when the distinction had long before ceased to exist. That is, the return from scattering that was the subject of this prophecy was a return that occurred during Old Covenant times, not likely in modern times, so it seems to me.
Then it says that this return would be followed by, not precede, the coming of king Jesus (30:9). This was fulfilled in those who believed. The regathering in question therefore had to precede the Messiah, or else we lose our case for saying the Messiah has already come.
The word "chastisement" is in fact mentioned (30:14, 31:18).
All that devoured Jacob would themselves go into captivity (30:16). That came to pass, because the Assyrians were defeated, the Medes and the Persians defeated Babylon, then the Grecians defeated them, then Rome defeated them, then Rome fell...
It mentions "tents". In Olden times Israel still lived in tents, but in modern times they don't (30:18). If we start to allegorise it, where do we distinguish between allegory and literal? It would leave the prophecy open to private interpretations.
It mentions the nation turning to God with their hearts and being called God's people (30:21,22; 31:1). That was true after the return from Babylon, though they again returned to unbelief - but it wasn't true of modern Israel by-and-large in 1948 - and still isn't.
The main weapon mentioned was the sword (31:2). That was true of battles in Babylon's time, but it's not true of weapons of warfare in modern times.
The prophecy mentions Mt Zion (in Jerusalem) as the required place to go if they wished to approach God (31:6). That was distinct to Old Covenant times, but not now - because Jesus stated that Jerusalem is no longer the required place of worship (John 3).
Admittedly 31:8 mentions a return from a wide area. But the Babylonian captivity and the captivities Jeremiah was likely referring to at that time were indeed far wider than just the city of Babylon itself. The book of Esther mentions that King Ahasuerus’ kingdom covered 127 provinces from Ethiopia to India, and the Jews had been scattered throughout all of them (Esther 1:1, 9:2). It isn't only the 'modern' diaspora that was so wide-spread.
Mt Zion is again mentioned as the focus-point of worship (31:12-14). It even mentions the [Levite] priests eating until they're filled with their allotted portion of the sacrificed animals (verse 14).
The Gospel of Matthew quotes verse 16, and does not explain it as an event that was yet to happen in Matthew's future, but as something that was already a reality in Israel (Matt.2:17,18).
It again mentions nationwide repentance and turning to God and accepting instruction (31:18,19). That was true during the return under Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Zechariah - but it doesn't describe 1948.
All these troubles were described as the reproach of Jacob's youth (verse 19). The word "youth" seems to be to place it relatively early in the nation's history - not at the end of it just before the end of the world.
It mentions Mt Zion being holy - that is, used for divine purposes (verse 23). That came to pass in Old Covenant times, but doesn't describe the modern use of the temple mount in Israel since 1948.
In the context of all of this, the new covenant was to follow (verses 31-34). Paul applied this not to our future, but to the Gospel - even in the first century. If the return from scattering is in our future, then the new covenant hasn't come yet, and we lose a case for defending the Gospel from the Prophets. But the fact that it was fulfilled gives us a case for convincing modern Jews that the promised new covenant also must have already come while the details of the prophecy were still a reality in Israel (details such as the priesthood functioning on Mt Zion).
It mentions that the ethnicity of Jews would never cease (35-37). And it didn't, despite what they were about to go through in Jeremiah's own time and immediately beyond.
In the context of this regathering, it mentions the tower of Hananeel and the gates of the walls of Jerusalem (38-40). Those details were relevant in Nehemiah's time, but not now.
Psalm 102:12-22 mentions the nations gathering for worship (in Jerusalem). That was appropriate under Old Covenant times (and we see an example of its fulfilment in Acts 2 when people of many nations gathered for the Feast of Pentecost).
When the whole theme of Zechariah was about captive and backslidden Israel returning not just to the land but to God and to the Old Covenant, I think it's a bit hard to see these prophecies as fulfilled by modern Jews doing Aliyah based merely on the use of the word "whistle" (as opposed to "called") in Zechariah 10:8.
My feeling is that if we see these prophecies as fulfilled, then we have a case for saying the Messianic prophecies must also have been fulfilled, since the Messianic prophecies occur in the same context and were to come to pass while Israel was still functioning under the Old Covenant.
But if we see these prophecies as future, then we're actually saying Israel should resume the Old Covenant functions in future - and we also lose our case for saying Jesus was the Messiah.
What of modern Israel then? If God had a heart for Jews and their well-being in their land then - under the Old Covenant - how much more now -because the Gospel didn't diminish God's love for the Jews - it's the apex of His love for them!
The Gospel fulfilled and summarised all the promises and prophecies.
To understand modern Israel with covenant-accuracy, we have to locate modern Israel accurately on the timeline of Old Testament prophecy.
If we locate and explain modern Israel incorrectly in terms of Old Testament prophecies, it dilutes the Gospel a bit, as distinct from the Old Covenant. It takes the focus away from Jesus and His way of salvation a bit, I feel.
If Jesus' prophecy on Mt Olivet is still to be fulfilled in future, it means Israel is being regathered to Israel only to be destroyed and scattered again - because Jesus mentioned the Jews being scattered. So it's kind of a schizophrenic end-times view where people are expecting a glorious rebuilt Temple and then the worst trouble for Jews at the same time!
A lot of famous preachers interpret current affairs in the Middle East by quoting the prophecy about Gog and Magog. But according to the Book of Revelation, don't Gog and Magog wage their battle AFTER the thousand years, not before? So either the thousand years is symbolic of the church-age, or else if it's future, then we shouldn't be concerned about Gog and Magog until after the Millennium. In other words, current affairs in Israel would have nothing to do with it.
The prophecy in which Jeremiah 31:10 occurs appears to cover all of chapters 30 and 31.
The context both before and after the prophecy appears to be all to do with the Babylonian captivity. (29:1 and 32:2 both mention Babylon by name). It seems likely to me then that this prophecy (chapters 31 & 32) were also about the Babylonian captivity. Certainly Jeremiah's immediate audience would have thought that it was.
Then at the very start of this prophecy, Israel and Judah's return from captivity is predicted (30:2). Both Israel's captivity, and then Judah's captivity, were mentioned. That distinction between Israel and Judah existed prior to their return from Babylonian captivity only, but never afterwards. So the return from captivity in question had to have been the return from the captivity of that time which was transpiring in Jeremiah's day at a time when the distinction between Israel and Judah still existed - not a future scattering and regathering which occurred after a time when the distinction had long before ceased to exist. That is, the return from scattering that was the subject of this prophecy was a return that occurred during Old Covenant times, not likely in modern times, so it seems to me.
Then it says that this return would be followed by, not precede, the coming of king Jesus (30:9). This was fulfilled in those who believed. The regathering in question therefore had to precede the Messiah, or else we lose our case for saying the Messiah has already come.
The word "chastisement" is in fact mentioned (30:14, 31:18).
All that devoured Jacob would themselves go into captivity (30:16). That came to pass, because the Assyrians were defeated, the Medes and the Persians defeated Babylon, then the Grecians defeated them, then Rome defeated them, then Rome fell...
It mentions "tents". In Olden times Israel still lived in tents, but in modern times they don't (30:18). If we start to allegorise it, where do we distinguish between allegory and literal? It would leave the prophecy open to private interpretations.
It mentions the nation turning to God with their hearts and being called God's people (30:21,22; 31:1). That was true after the return from Babylon, though they again returned to unbelief - but it wasn't true of modern Israel by-and-large in 1948 - and still isn't.
The main weapon mentioned was the sword (31:2). That was true of battles in Babylon's time, but it's not true of weapons of warfare in modern times.
The prophecy mentions Mt Zion (in Jerusalem) as the required place to go if they wished to approach God (31:6). That was distinct to Old Covenant times, but not now - because Jesus stated that Jerusalem is no longer the required place of worship (John 3).
Admittedly 31:8 mentions a return from a wide area. But the Babylonian captivity and the captivities Jeremiah was likely referring to at that time were indeed far wider than just the city of Babylon itself. The book of Esther mentions that King Ahasuerus’ kingdom covered 127 provinces from Ethiopia to India, and the Jews had been scattered throughout all of them (Esther 1:1, 9:2). It isn't only the 'modern' diaspora that was so wide-spread.
Mt Zion is again mentioned as the focus-point of worship (31:12-14). It even mentions the [Levite] priests eating until they're filled with their allotted portion of the sacrificed animals (verse 14).
The Gospel of Matthew quotes verse 16, and does not explain it as an event that was yet to happen in Matthew's future, but as something that was already a reality in Israel (Matt.2:17,18).
It again mentions nationwide repentance and turning to God and accepting instruction (31:18,19). That was true during the return under Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Zechariah - but it doesn't describe 1948.
All these troubles were described as the reproach of Jacob's youth (verse 19). The word "youth" seems to be to place it relatively early in the nation's history - not at the end of it just before the end of the world.
It mentions Mt Zion being holy - that is, used for divine purposes (verse 23). That came to pass in Old Covenant times, but doesn't describe the modern use of the temple mount in Israel since 1948.
In the context of all of this, the new covenant was to follow (verses 31-34). Paul applied this not to our future, but to the Gospel - even in the first century. If the return from scattering is in our future, then the new covenant hasn't come yet, and we lose a case for defending the Gospel from the Prophets. But the fact that it was fulfilled gives us a case for convincing modern Jews that the promised new covenant also must have already come while the details of the prophecy were still a reality in Israel (details such as the priesthood functioning on Mt Zion).
It mentions that the ethnicity of Jews would never cease (35-37). And it didn't, despite what they were about to go through in Jeremiah's own time and immediately beyond.
In the context of this regathering, it mentions the tower of Hananeel and the gates of the walls of Jerusalem (38-40). Those details were relevant in Nehemiah's time, but not now.
Psalm 102:12-22 mentions the nations gathering for worship (in Jerusalem). That was appropriate under Old Covenant times (and we see an example of its fulfilment in Acts 2 when people of many nations gathered for the Feast of Pentecost).
When the whole theme of Zechariah was about captive and backslidden Israel returning not just to the land but to God and to the Old Covenant, I think it's a bit hard to see these prophecies as fulfilled by modern Jews doing Aliyah based merely on the use of the word "whistle" (as opposed to "called") in Zechariah 10:8.
My feeling is that if we see these prophecies as fulfilled, then we have a case for saying the Messianic prophecies must also have been fulfilled, since the Messianic prophecies occur in the same context and were to come to pass while Israel was still functioning under the Old Covenant.
But if we see these prophecies as future, then we're actually saying Israel should resume the Old Covenant functions in future - and we also lose our case for saying Jesus was the Messiah.
What of modern Israel then? If God had a heart for Jews and their well-being in their land then - under the Old Covenant - how much more now -because the Gospel didn't diminish God's love for the Jews - it's the apex of His love for them!
The Gospel fulfilled and summarised all the promises and prophecies.
To understand modern Israel with covenant-accuracy, we have to locate modern Israel accurately on the timeline of Old Testament prophecy.
If we locate and explain modern Israel incorrectly in terms of Old Testament prophecies, it dilutes the Gospel a bit, as distinct from the Old Covenant. It takes the focus away from Jesus and His way of salvation a bit, I feel.
If Jesus' prophecy on Mt Olivet is still to be fulfilled in future, it means Israel is being regathered to Israel only to be destroyed and scattered again - because Jesus mentioned the Jews being scattered. So it's kind of a schizophrenic end-times view where people are expecting a glorious rebuilt Temple and then the worst trouble for Jews at the same time!
A lot of famous preachers interpret current affairs in the Middle East by quoting the prophecy about Gog and Magog. But according to the Book of Revelation, don't Gog and Magog wage their battle AFTER the thousand years, not before? So either the thousand years is symbolic of the church-age, or else if it's future, then we shouldn't be concerned about Gog and Magog until after the Millennium. In other words, current affairs in Israel would have nothing to do with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment