The Watchmans Study

Craziness at the UN? But what is the United Nations anyway? Some say it’s the government of the antichrist, but they say that about the Catholic church, so who really knows? My recommendation is search the scriptures, historical documents and pastors or theologians! Keep your mind open and fresh, things are moving fast and in the wrong direction!

World turning on Israel

> 2 days ago half of the united nationss walked out of forum when the prime minister of Israel commenced with his speech. the social media world lost their minds and said it was biblical which I disagree with, the fact that the world just turned on Israel. my question is this, is it the known world of John or the known world of today that will turn on Israel?

Your question touches on a fundamental interpretive divide in biblical prophecy. The passages you’re referencing describe future conflict involving nations gathering against Jerusalem, but they don’t specify whether John’s oikoumene (the known world of the first century) or today’s geopolitical landscape is the intended setting.

Old Testament prophecies depict Jerusalem becoming a source of conflict for surrounding peoples, with all nations ultimately gathering against it. (Zech 12:2–6) Many Christians interpret the 1948 establishment of Israel as confirmation that these ancient predictions anticipate a future Jewish kingdom in Jerusalem, toward which the nations—driven by corrupt leadership—will march in rebellion against God.[1] This reading assumes the prophecies await future fulfillment in our contemporary world.

However, other interpreters argue strongly against this approach, viewing Israel in Scripture as fundamentally spiritual rather than ethnic, with Jesus fulfilling Israel’s role and establishing the church as the new Israel—a shift signaled by Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70.[1] Under this framework, the prophecies already found their fulfillment in John’s era or the early church period.

Interpreters must remain humble about prophecy, and no one definitively knows whether current Middle Eastern tensions represent the beginning of prophesied “latter days” or merely foreshadow them.[2] The prophets spoke of Israel’s future without always referring to a political entity, emphasizing instead a believing remnant community; they communicated in terms their contemporaries understood using urban, pastoral, and agricultural imagery, making strict literal interpretation problematic.[3]

The UN walkout reflects contemporary geopolitical opposition to Israel, but whether this constitutes the fulfillment of biblical prophecy depends entirely on which interpretive framework—dispensational or covenant theology—you find most compelling.

[1] Mark J. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2004), 51.
[2] Larry Pettegrew, Forsaking Israel: How It Happened and Why It Matters (The Woodlands, TX: Kress, 2020), 232.
[3] Gerard Van Groningen, “Israel,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 384.

> if God is going to reestablish Eden through Jesus, then should there really be a Jewish Jerusalem? Adam and Eve were not Jewish?

You’ve identified a genuine tension in Christian theology. The answer hinges on understanding how Scripture connects Adam, Israel, and Jesus—and what “restoring Eden” actually means.

Israel functionally paralleled Adam’s role, with both serving God’s purposes in the world, and these purposes ultimately find their fulfillment in Jesus, who embodied both Israel’s messianic identity and the role of a second Adam.[1] This doesn’t mean a future Jewish Jerusalem is necessary—it means the function matters more than the ethnicity.

Consider what restoration actually entails. Scripture’s eschatological trajectory moves from garden to wilderness to garden-city, with the New Jerusalem paralleling Eden’s paradisiacal character but as a fully developed city—representing the perfect fulfillment of humanity’s original mandate to cultivate and steward creation.[2] The reestablishment isn’t about recreating first-century Judaism; it’s about completing what Adam began and what Israel foreshadowed.

When Israel forfeited her redemptive mission through disobedience, Jesus assumed that role as Israel’s Messiah and suffering Servant, and after Pentecost a restored Israel—now composed of both Jews and Gentiles—resumed her vocation in the world, with a new people of God emerging in the New Testament.[1] This suggests the “Jerusalem” of God’s future plans transcends ethnic particularity. The New Jerusalem descends from heaven as God’s dwelling place with humanity itself, not as a geopolitical entity ruled by one nation. (Rev 21:1–7)

The deeper point: God isn’t reverting to ethnic Judaism but advancing toward a renewed creation where all barriers dissolve. While Revelation’s vision includes gates inscribed with Israel’s twelve tribes and foundations bearing the apostles’ names (Rev 21:10–22:5)—honoring both covenants—the city welcomes all who belong to Christ. A Jewish Jerusalem isn’t biblically required for Eden’s restoration; what matters is that Christ, the true Israel and second Adam, brings creation full circle.

[1] William J. Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 10–11.
[2] Andrew J. Spencer, Hope for God’s Creation: Stewardship in an Age of Futility (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2023), 128–129.

> is that why God calls Israel in the old testament My son?

Yes, precisely. Israel’s identity as God’s son in the Old Testament establishes a foundational relationship, beginning explicitly when Moses tells Pharaoh that “Israel is my firstborn son.”[1] This wasn’t merely an honorific title—it encoded Israel’s entire vocation.

The exodus became the paradigmatic act of redemption, and Israel’s identification as son of God underscores the deep, covenantal love that God has for his people.[1] But sonship carried obligations. Israel’s sonship called for their obedience—in the context of covenant, love and obedience go hand in hand, and sonship requires obedience.[1]

The critical insight is that Israel, like Adam, was a royal image bearer, and at Mount Sinai Israel was corporately identified as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, denoting Israel’s royal status as son of God.[1] This mirrors Adam’s role—both were called to represent God’s authority and mediate His presence to creation.

When Israel failed in this vocation through disobedience, the sonship relationship fractured. Israel’s relationship to Yahweh as son was not through physical generation but through God’s free act of election made concrete through the Mosaic Covenant.[2] That covenant could be broken. Jesus, as the true and obedient Son, fulfilled what Israel could not—restoring the priestly, prophetic, and kingly functions that Israel had forfeited.

So God’s call of Israel as “My son” wasn’t about ethnic privilege; it was about functional purpose. That purpose now transfers to all who belong to Christ, whether Jewish or Gentile, making ethnicity secondary to covenant faithfulness.

[1] Brandon D. Crowe, The Lord Jesus Christ: The Biblical Doctrine of the Person and Work of Christ, ed. Murray J. Smith and John McClean, We Believe (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2023), 3:15–16.
[2] George C. Gianoulis, “Is Sonship in Romans 8:14–17 a Link with Romans 9?,” Bibliotheca Sacra (2009), 76.

> didn’t God solidify Israel as His portion in Psalms 82 at the divine council?

You’re touching on a profound theological framework. The passage you’re referencing establishes a cosmic structure where God delegates authority over nations to heavenly beings, while reserving Israel for himself.

When the Most High distributed nations among the heavenly powers according to the number of divine beings, he set apart Israel as his own inheritance—Jacob as his personal heritage. (Deut 32:8–9) This wasn’t arbitrary; it reflected a deliberate cosmic arrangement where God retained direct governance over Israel while allowing other nations to fall under angelic stewardship.

Psalm 82 depicts God presiding over a divine council where he judges these heavenly beings, holding them accountable for their governance. Though they hold divine status as “sons of the Most High,” they remain mortal and will die like princes, while God alone will ultimately inherit all nations. This suggests a hierarchy: God’s direct claim on Israel stands above the delegated authority given to other powers.

The implications are significant. Israel’s status as God’s “portion” meant she operated under divine kingship in a way other nations did not. God’s personal investment in Israel’s covenant and destiny distinguished her from peoples governed by angelic princes. This explains why Israel’s unfaithfulness carried such weight—she was rejecting not merely a distant deity but the one who had claimed her as his own possession.

However, this framework also illuminates why Israel’s failure to embody her vocation mattered cosmically. If Israel was meant to demonstrate God’s direct rule and justice, her disobedience had implications beyond national politics—it affected the entire heavenly order. This may explain why Christ’s redemptive work transcends ethnic Israel: he restores what Israel could not, fulfilling her role as God’s instrument for redemption across all nations.

> I see why God/Jesus have to have a true word. Because God sits in the midst of the council, He can’t betray His own words! Israel can act as the harlot and jump from this god to that god, but God will stand on His Word as True and Faithful!

You’ve grasped something central to God’s character. God’s righteousness designates “God’s faithfulness to his own person and word.”[1] This isn’t merely about keeping promises—it’s about God’s nature being fundamentally incapable of contradiction.

The marriage metaphor illuminates this perfectly. Just as Hosea was called to take unfaithful Gomer as a wife, the Lord took an unfaithful wife for himself—the people of Israel, who had wandered away from the Lord to worship the Baals.[2] Yet here’s the stunning reality: God pledges to be faithful in spite of Israel’s unfaithfulness.[2] Israel could commit spiritual adultery, abandoning covenant for idolatry, but God couldn’t abandon his own nature without ceasing to be God.

Even when we are faithless God remains faithful because he cannot disown himself.[3] This is the non-negotiable foundation. God sits in the divine council holding all things accountable to his word—he cannot betray that word without undermining his own being. His truthfulness isn’t a virtue he practices; it’s who he is.

This explains why Israel’s unfaithfulness, while devastating, never nullified God’s commitment. Because of his abounding love and mercy, he will continue to pursue them and will settle for nothing less than a faithful commitment that will last “forever,” and in his faithfulness and righteousness, he will receive them back as though they had never been unfaithful, wiping away their transgressions.[2]

Your insight cuts to the heart of redemptive history: God’s word stands eternally true not because he chooses to honor it, but because his word is the expression of his immutable nature. That’s why Christ—the Word made flesh—could accomplish what Israel could not.

[1] Donald L. Berry, Glory in Romans and the Unified Purpose of God in Redemptive History (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2016). [See here.]
[2] Crossway, ESV Systematic Theology Study Bible: Notes (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 1043.
[3] Louis Goldberg, “Faithfulness,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 239.

> question, do I ask or do I bring proper thinking to the table?

The beauty of theological exploration is that you do not have to choose between the two. In the tradition of biblical inquiry, asking questions and bringing “proper thinking” to the table are complementary actions, often described as fides quaerens intellectum—faith seeking understanding.

When you bring your own reasoning and observations to the text, you are engaging in the necessary work of discernment. As you have demonstrated in your recent comments, bringing your own thoughts—such as your realization regarding God’s immutable nature and His relationship to the divine council—allows you to test those insights against the broader witness of Scripture and the reflections of historical theologians.

In this context, here is how those two roles function:

• Asking: This is the posture of a learner. It acknowledges that the complexities of the divine council, the nature of Israel’s sonship, and the restoration of creation are vast subjects. Asking prompts the search for wisdom within the library of historical and theological thought.
• Bringing Proper Thinking: This is the posture of a steward. It means you are not passively receiving information but are actively synthesizing concepts—like the tension between divine faithfulness and human unfaithfulness—to see how they hold together logically and biblically.

Your approach of engaging deeply with the material is exactly what characterizes a diligent student. By testing your own reflections against the data provided by the library, you are moving from mere observation to a more robust, integrated understanding of these difficult subjects. Please feel free to continue bringing your thoughts to the table; it is through that active engagement that the most significant insights typically emerge.

> can you provide 15 scriptures to support the conversation of today?

Here are fifteen scriptures that anchor today’s conversation:

God’s Immutable Faithfulness

• 2 Timothy 2:13 — “if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself.”
• Deuteronomy 7:9 — The LORD is “the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations.”
• Lamentations 3:22–23 — “The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.”

Israel as God’s Son

• Exodus 4:22–23 — “Israel is my firstborn son.”
• Hosea 11:1 — “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”
• Isaiah 1:2 — God says, “Children have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me.”

Israel’s Covenant Identity & Vocation

• Exodus 19:5–6 — Israel shall be God’s “treasured possession among all peoples” and “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”
• Genesis 17:7 — God establishes “an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.”
• Romans 9:4 — To Israelites “belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.”

God’s Covenant Faithfulness Despite Israel’s Unfaithfulness

• Leviticus 26:44 — “Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them.”
• Jeremiah 31:31–32 — God will make “a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers… my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband.”
• Romans 11:29 — “The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

Restoration & Redemption Through Christ

• Ephesians 1:9–10 — God’s plan is “to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth in him.”
• Revelation 21:5 — “Behold, I am making all things new.”
• Isaiah 2:2–4 — In the latter days, “all the nations shall flow” to God’s mountain, and “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”