MUST CHRIST DIE AGAIN?
By W. N. Glenn
It is becoming quite common to associate the literal restoration of the Jews as a nation with the doctrine of the second advent of Christ. That is, it is argued that Israel according to the flesh must be reinstated in possession of their former territory before Christ comes again. It is worth while to consider for a moment what is involved in such a doctrine. Various scriptures teach that God makes no distinction between Jews according to the flesh and Gentiles. Whatever of distinction there is recognized by man, exists by virtue of the persistence with which the Jews maintain that the old differences never were removed. In other words, it exists through their unbelief in Jesus Christ. The word of God tells us (Col. 2:14) that the “handwriting of ordinances,” which comprised the ceremonial distinction between Jew and Gentile, was blotted out, taken out of the way, being nailed to the cross. In Rom. 2:28 we are told that “he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh.” In the third chapter of Galatians it is plainly taught that faith in Jesus Christ makes us children of God and Abraham’s seed; that “there is neither Jew nor Greek,” etc. In the fifth and sixth chapters it is stated that “neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision;” and in 1 Cor. 7:19 it is made, if possible, even more emphatic: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” These are sufficient to show that God knows only two classes of men,—the believer in Christ and the unbeliever. Now if God should restore the literal seed of Abraham, the Jews according to the flesh, to their former position, he would be actually restoring the things which were taken away by the death of Christ. He could not restore the Jews without recognizing the same distinguishing lines that existed before the death of Christ. He must necessarily recognize the temple service, the law of sacrifices, the priesthood, circumcision, and the whole line of distinctively Jewish service. Otherwise it would not be a restoration of the Jews. Without these distinguishing features, how would it be known who were Jews? Such a restoration would be an actual annulment of all that Christ has done. Now Paul says (Gal. 2:18), “If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor;” and he was then discussing the question of outward circumcision and other dead works. Therefore, according to Paul’s reasoning, if Christ should restore the distinction between the national Jews and the Gentiles, which he has once destroyed, he would make himself a transgressor. Yet this is just what the logic of the literal restorationists say that Christ must do. It cost the death of the Son of God to do away with the ceremonial distinction between men before; and in case of a literal restoration, unless it is forever afterward to be maintained, Christ must die a second time. But when he comes the second time, he comes a triumphant King, conqueror over all foes. But the incongruity of the literal restoration theory arises from applying prophecies that were fulfilled after the Babylonian captivity to the second coming of Christ, and misconstruing those which refer to the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Israel that Christ will gather at his next advent will be the spiritual seed, those who are his by faith. “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” Phil. 3:3. In Rom. 9:6 is the plain statement that “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel,” and in Gal. 6:15, 16 we learn that circumcision or uncircumcision (of the flesh, of course) has nothing to do with it, but that being a “new creature” counts one as of the “Israel of God.”