Some adherents to Covenant Theology take the too rigid view that Israel in prophecy is always fulfilled only in Christ and never in natural Israel.
If that was the case, there's no reason to say the Messiah had to be born in Israel, or that He really had to come to Jerusalem at a time when the Temple existed and Levitical priesthood was functioning. He could just as well have been born in Saudi Arabia hundreds of years later - if references to Israel in prophecy never have any reference to natural Israel at all. And in that case we only have an ethereal basis for our assertion that Jesus of Nazareth is Messiah.
No. The regathering of the Jews from Babylon was a prophesied event.
The rebuilding of the stone Temple at that time was a prophesied event.
The reinstitution of the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices and feasts had been prophesied.
And then in that place and circumstances, Messiah was to come - He was to suddenly come to His Temple, to Israel, in Israel, bringing salvation for Israel, first. And afterwards Gentiles also would believe and be saved.
God fulfilled His promises to Israel first, but only believing Jews experienced it - then afterwards the Gospel spread to the Gentiles also.
What emerged was one new man alright - the Church - Christ's body - the true house of God - comprising of Jews and Gentiles without distinction.
But it came about without bypassing God's promises to natural Israel. Without postponement. And without altering identities in prophecy.
The Church came into existence through the exact order, chronology, in the exact geographical location, in the exact natural and physical circumstances and in the exact timeframe that had been prophesied.
Thus our faith is based on a precise interaction between Scripture and history, not just on a spiritual, ethereal take on the identities in prophecy.
If that was the case, there's no reason to say the Messiah had to be born in Israel, or that He really had to come to Jerusalem at a time when the Temple existed and Levitical priesthood was functioning. He could just as well have been born in Saudi Arabia hundreds of years later - if references to Israel in prophecy never have any reference to natural Israel at all. And in that case we only have an ethereal basis for our assertion that Jesus of Nazareth is Messiah.
No. The regathering of the Jews from Babylon was a prophesied event.
The rebuilding of the stone Temple at that time was a prophesied event.
The reinstitution of the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices and feasts had been prophesied.
And then in that place and circumstances, Messiah was to come - He was to suddenly come to His Temple, to Israel, in Israel, bringing salvation for Israel, first. And afterwards Gentiles also would believe and be saved.
God fulfilled His promises to Israel first, but only believing Jews experienced it - then afterwards the Gospel spread to the Gentiles also.
What emerged was one new man alright - the Church - Christ's body - the true house of God - comprising of Jews and Gentiles without distinction.
But it came about without bypassing God's promises to natural Israel. Without postponement. And without altering identities in prophecy.
The Church came into existence through the exact order, chronology, in the exact geographical location, in the exact natural and physical circumstances and in the exact timeframe that had been prophesied.
Thus our faith is based on a precise interaction between Scripture and history, not just on a spiritual, ethereal take on the identities in prophecy.
No comments:
Post a Comment