666 ?

[Guest]

What is the Biblical significance of 1948?

It's the symbolic cycle of exile/return coupled with the appearance of the Messiah. Here are some examples of this symbolism:

1. At the beginning of history, we have man exiled from Eden, from the presence of God. Nevertheless, there was a prophecy made about a "promised son" of this man who would crush the head of the Serpent. At the end of history, we have man (in the form of Jesus the Messiah) returning to "His Temple" where the presence of God is supposed to dwell. At this time, He defeats and binds the Serpent, Satan.

2. When Abraham came into the Promised Land after being in a type of exile in the east, he did not immediately inherit it in perpetuity. However, after several years, his own "promised son" was born - Isaac, a type of the Messiah.

3. At the beginning of the Babylonian captivity, the Jews were exiled to Babylon. At the end of the captivity, they returned to the land. This return was accompanied by prophecies concerning the appearance of the Messiah. (ex. Haggai 2:1-9 where the "desire of all nations" is the Messiah)

The whole point is that coming back to the "Promised Land" (which is a type of Eden) is directly connected with the appearance of the "promised son" - the Messiah. Therefore, unless God were to scatter the Jews again - which He hasn't yet; in fact, He's deliberately protected them from insurmountable military odds in order to keep them there - then this definitely is a sign that the coming of the Messiah is near. It can't be anything but.

Damon

[Guest]

What is the Biblical significance of 1948?

It's the symbolic cycle of exile/return coupled with the appearance of the Messiah. Here are some examples of this symbolism:

1. At the beginning of history, we have man exiled from Eden, from the presence of God. Nevertheless, there was a prophecy made about a "promised son" of this man who would crush the head of the Serpent. At the end of history, we have man (in the form of Jesus the Messiah) returning to "His Temple" where the presence of God is supposed to dwell. At this time, He defeats and binds the Serpent, Satan.

2. When Abraham came into the Promised Land after being in a type of exile in the east, he did not immediately inherit it in perpetuity. However, after several years, his own "promised son" was born - Isaac, a type of the Messiah.

3. At the beginning of the Babylonian captivity, the Jews were exiled to Babylon. At the end of the captivity, they returned to the land. This return was accompanied by prophecies concerning the appearance of the Messiah. (ex. Haggai 2:1-9 where the "desire of all nations" is the Messiah)

The whole point is that coming back to the "Promised Land" (which is a type of Eden) is directly connected with the appearance of the "promised son" - the Messiah. Therefore, unless God were to scatter the Jews again - which He hasn't yet; in fact, He's deliberately protected them from insurmountable military odds in order to keep them there - then this definitely is a sign that the coming of the Messiah is near. It can't be anything but.

Damon

I hear what you are saying Damon, but I would place the coming of the Messiah in the chronology you listed. The first coming, that is. Wasn't that a significant fulfillment of prophecy? Jesus is the rest we enter, the rest that Joshua didn't give. We aren't part of the Jerusalem on earth, but the heavenly one IMO.

While one can argue about the significance of 1948, I don't see any unfulfilled prophecy pointing to it.

As Cameron noted, if it was clearly predicted that this would happen, people wouldn't have become Amil in the past. It seems to me that it wasn't clearly predicted until Dispensationalism.

[Guest]

I hear what you are saying Damon, but I would place the coming of the Messiah in the chronology you listed. The first coming, that is.

I understand why that makes sense to you, but let me point out something. The Old Testament covenants made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all involved, among other things, LAND. There was a "promised land" which they could inhabit if only they would obey and love God. Going back to the beginning of history, we have the same "promised land" in the form of Eden. Whether we're talking about Eden or Israel, this represented the place where God's presence dwelt. Man would be exiled from this promised land if he sinned, but there was always the promise of a return to the promised land and a restoration of the covenant.

Even if our citizenship is in heaven, in the heavenly Jerusalem, we must FIRST see the return from exile of God's people to the earthly dwelling place of God, accompanied by the coming of the Messiah. Even if Jesus' first coming fulfilled this (since His first coming was tied in with the return from Babylonian exile, and even before that, with the entry of the Israelites into the promised land in the first place), His second coming must also fulfill this.

The point of the physical creation is that it's to be a reflection of heaven. God is already king over heaven, and the proof is that all of heaven is perfectly ordered and established under His rule. But God has not yet taken dominion over the earth, and the proof is that all of the earth has not yet become like the original Garden of Eden, filled with His presence and filled with love and peace. God may be king over all the earth, but He has not yet taken dominion over it! (And if He had dominion over it, why do you think He told Adam and Eve to take dominion? If it were His already, He could have simply given dominion to them.) The coming of the Messiah to God's earthly dwelling place signifies the beginning of the process by which all of the earth will become like Eden.

Our dwelling place is with God in the heavenly Eden, but that should not take away from what God is accomplishing in restoring the whole earth to an Edenic state. That's why it's important to look at the events taking place in the Promised Land on earth, because that's where this process of restoration will begin.

Damon

[Guest]

I hear what you are saying Damon, but I would place the coming of the Messiah in the chronology you listed. The first coming, that is.

I understand why that makes sense to you, but let me point out something. The Old Testament covenants made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all involved, among other things, LAND. There was a "promised land" which they could inhabit if only they would obey and love God. Going back to the beginning of history, we have the same "promised land" in the form of Eden. Whether we're talking about Eden or Israel, this represented the place where God's presence dwelt. Man would be exiled from this promised land if he sinned, but there was always the promise of a return to the promised land and a restoration of the covenant.

Even if our citizenship is in heaven, in the heavenly Jerusalem, we must FIRST see the return from exile of God's people to the earthly dwelling place of God, accompanied by the coming of the Messiah. Even if Jesus' first coming fulfilled this (since His first coming was tied in with the return from Babylonian exile, and even before that, with the entry of the Israelites into the promised land in the first place), His second coming must also fulfill this.

The point of the physical creation is that it's to be a reflection of heaven. God is already king over heaven, and the proof is that all of heaven is perfectly ordered and established under His rule. But God has not yet taken dominion over the earth, and the proof is that all of the earth has not yet become like the original Garden of Eden, filled with His presence and filled with love and peace. God may be king over all the earth, but He has not yet taken dominion over it! (And if He had dominion over it, why do you think He told Adam and Eve to take dominion? If it were His already, He could have simply given dominion to them.) The coming of the Messiah to God's earthly dwelling place signifies the beginning of the process by which all of the earth will become like Eden.

Our dwelling place is with God in the heavenly Eden, but that should not take away from what God is accomplishing in restoring the whole earth to an Edenic state. That's why it's important to look at the events taking place in the Promised Land on earth, because that's where this process of restoration will begin.

Damon

I think I agree.
I see the land however as extending to cover the whole earth after the second coming. The wicked will be removed and the "meek shall inheirit the earth". Just as the new covenant has better promises, I believe the promised land is extended, just as forgiveness is extended to all believing Gentiles as well as Jews.

[Guest]

I think I agree.

I see the land however as extending to cover the whole earth after the second coming. The wicked will be removed and the "meek shall inheirit the earth". Just as the new covenant has better promises, I believe the promised land is extended, just as forgiveness is extended to all believing Gentiles as well as Jews.

Despite your "however," I think we're on the same page. I absolutely agree that the Promised Land will encompass the whole earth after Jesus' return.

As far as the parallels of the meek inheriting the earth, forgiveness, etc., this is all true. However, all of these together didn't happen when Christ first came. Some of them (like the meek inheriting the earth as opposed to those who choose to live by the sword) will happen at His second coming. Nevertheless, there IS a definite symbolic connection between all of them, and you're absolutely right about that.

Cheers!

Damon

[Guest]

Somebody said, "Therefore, unless God were to scatter the Jews again - which He hasn't yet; in fact, He's deliberately protected them from insurmountable military odds in order to keep them there - then this definitely is a sign that the coming of the Messiah is near."

This is something I've been thinking about lately. At present, I'm using the wireless signal on the stairs outside of McDonald's in Jerusalem (just off Ben Yehuda ave). I look to the right and there's a scooter with orange ribbons hanging off of it (orange symbolizing the unwillingness of 'settlers' to comply with the national mandate to disengage from Gaza/Gush Kattif). A pillar next to me has written on it in orange hebrew writing "The people of Gush HASHISH". Walking up the street there are probably upwards from 100 young people sitting in circles singing mournful songs about leaving Gaza.

What seems strange to me is that I don't hear anybody saying, 'I guess we were wrong. Apparently, we misunderstood something.' Evidently, God did not bless the resolve of large numbers of jewish settlers who had planted themselves in the midst of Palestinian territory - with the intention of siezing the land by biblical warrant.

I wonder if 'Christian Zionists' (?) would reconsider their position/rethink theology - at such a time as this?

sd

[/u]

[Guest]

Hi SD!

Why would there be a reason to rethink things? I mean, compare the current situation with the situation of the Jews following the return from Babylonian captivity. First of all, were they inhabiting the whole land of Israel at that point in time? Hardly. They could barely occupy Jerusalem itself, let alone all of the territory originally allotted to Judah, and let alone all of the territory originally allotted to all of the twelve tribes of Israel! Secondly, were they chronically troubled and terrorized by the Samaritans, the people living in the area at the time? You bet!

But nevertheless, was the Jewish return from exile in Babylon highly significant, biblically speaking? Of course!

So why would there be a reason to rethink things, as far as the current situation goes? Your logic doesn't make sense to me.

Damon

[Guest]

This sentence might be worth reading again...
Evidently, God did not bless the resolve of large numbers of jewish settlers who had planted themselves in the midst of Palestinian territory - with the intention of siezing the land by biblical warrant.

The fact that some of these people had dwelt up to 38 years at friction in Gaza because they held the understanding that God willed it so commends some respect to their sincerity; however, sincerity is not incapable of being misinformed.

If the Almighty's credibility were at stake with respect to a promise He had made, presumably we would both agree that the promise will not fail - His integrity will see the promise through. Coupling this with a sizeable crowd of individuals dedicated and holding fast to such a promise, thus empassioned to see it's fulfillment (demonstrated by 'settlers' in the relocating and remaining in Gaza on condition of such a promise), I'm persuaded that heaven and earth would move (even disappear) rather than see the promise fall flat.

It would make sense that those who would put themselves, their families, and the families of those already present (Palestinians, for example) under the risk of whatever hazards would accompany the 'settler-lifestyle' were in some measure sincere. Guessing that a certain resolve would be necessary to make such a move - into a community where previous occupants have plainly communicated their stong disapproval of the new immigrants' intentions - including the newly developing colony (aka 'the settlement').

The fact that some of the settlers were removed by force suggests to me that these people were willing to disregard national authority for the sake of what they were doing. Unless I'm grately misinformed about the stated motives of many of the settlers, many of them were determined to 'take the land' according to what they believe the scriptures taught. It has struck me as odd that oftentimes the mandate to take the land, as had been promised to Abraham is spoken of as a 'settled' issue (aka a given, something dogmatically adhered to without question). Yet, I rarely here any biblical reference sited beyond a few comments about Abraham. The end of Joshua 21 phrases and re-phrases (maybe so none of us is apt to miss the point) the certainty that all these things were fulfilled.

I am not aware of any outstanding utterance of the prophets that would require a return of the Jewish people to the land as it's fulfillment - beyond those addressing the Babylonian exile. Nor am I aware of any New Testament statement or promise that would plainly suggest any such requirements for the scriptures to be fulfilled. Being ignorant of the existence of any such relevant instruction, particularly in light of the recent withdrawal/retreat from Gush Kattif, the notion that the physical nation of Israel is prophetically determined to be restored to her original borders seems but a myth to me.

It is continuing source of astonishment to me - considering how much money is being funnelled to Zionist ends in the name of 'blessing Israel' by professing Christians - meanwhile the nations still wait for the gospel. Large institutions labelling themselves with 'Christian'/'Messianic' names have amassed some weighty finances while making merchandise of 'believers'. Some institutions have made a pact that they require their volunteers to sign, agreeing that while working for them one will not initiate a conversation about Jesus Christ with a Jewish person. I wonder if the reason apostate documents of this sort are considered acceptable by so many, is merely the fruit of magnifying physical Israel (the land, people, culture, etc) above the God Who made His Name great by introducing the Promised seed through the nation...

sd

[Guest]

Greetings, SD! Its good to have you contributing from your vantage point there in Israel. Amen to your ideas.. I do love the Jews (as well as the Palestinians and all Gentiles), but I have to agree with the theology and the argument you have presented..

[Guest]

Thanks Steve, it's encouraging and humbling to receive a compliment from a superior...

sd