“Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, ‘If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.’”
— Luke 19:41–42 (NKJV)
There are moments in Scripture that feel like hinges upon which history turns, and Luke’s account of our Lord’s approach to Jerusalem is surely one of them. The scene appears triumphant. The crowds are rejoicing, garments are laid upon the road, and the disciples proclaim, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Luke 19:38; cf. Psalm 118:26). Yet as Jesus draws near and sees the city, He weeps. His lament is not merely personal sorrow; it carries judicial weight. “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day… But now they are hidden from your eyes.”
Two expressions demand attention: “this your day” and “now… hidden.” The language does not merely describe a long-standing condition. It marks a moment.
Israel had known spiritual resistance before. The Lord had spoken through the prophet, “Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.” (Isaiah 6:9–10). That passage is later cited in the Gospels to explain the people’s response to Christ (see Matthew 13:14–15). There had been hardness and covenant unfaithfulness across generations. Yet Scripture distinguishes between ongoing resistance and judicial confirmation.
Pharaoh, we are told, “Pharaoh’s heart grew hard.” (Exodus 8:15), and later, “the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh.” (Exodus 9:12). Human refusal reaches a point at which divine judgment seals what has already been chosen. In Luke nineteen, as the Messiah enters the city that bears the name of peace, we appear to witness such a sealing. Jesus does not say merely that Jerusalem has been blind; He says that on “this your day” something has shifted. The opportunity has matured. The visitation has arrived. And now peace is hidden.
He continues, “because you did not know the time of your visitation.” (Luke 19:44). The word visitation echoes the language of divine intervention and oversight, as in Psalm 106:4: “Oh, visit me with Your salvation.” This was not another prophet among many; this was the King Himself, long promised in Zechariah 9:9: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!… Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey.” The prophecy was unfolding before their eyes.
If ever there were a climactic hour of covenant responsibility, this was it. Daniel had spoken of the coming of “Messiah the Prince.” (Daniel 9:25–26). The psalms had prepared the language of welcome. Yet the city did not recognise the moment. “This your day” implies divine appointment. When such a day is refused, history does not simply drift onward unchanged.
The consequences are immediately foretold: “For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you… and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another.” (Luke 19:43–44). Within a generation, in AD 70, those words were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. The rejection of the Prince of Peace did not secure peace; it led to devastation. Jerusalem, whose name speaks of peace, did not know “the things that make for your peace.”
It is vital, however, to understand the nature of this blinding. It is national and covenantal, not the instantaneous condemnation of every individual Jew. The apostles were Jews. The early believers in Jerusalem were Jews (Acts 2:5, 41). Luke records that “a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.” (Acts 6:7). Throughout Scripture, national judgment coexists with a faithful remnant. Elijah once believed himself alone, yet the Lord said, “Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal.” (1 Kings 19:18; cf. Romans 11:4).
The blinding pronounced in Luke nineteen falls upon Jerusalem as representative of the nation. It is corporate. It concerns covenant administration. A remnant called into salvation does not negate national accountability.
Here we must also maintain the distinction Scripture itself maintains. Israel is Israel — a covenant nation rooted in promises given to Abraham (Genesis 12:1–3; 15:18) and confirmed to David (2 Samuel 7:12–16). The Church, by contrast, is described as “His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” (Ephesians 1:22–23) and as “the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” (Revelation 21:9). Paul speaks of the Church as a mystery “which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men.” (Ephesians 3:5–6). When Jewish believers entered the Church, they were not perpetuating Israel’s national covenant; they were incorporated into a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).
The judicial blinding of Luke nineteen therefore concerns Israel as covenant nation. Those called into the Church — whether Jew or Gentile — stand in a different sphere of promise and identity.
Yet Scripture does not present Israel’s hardening as final. Romans 11:7–8 declares, “Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Paul then writes, “God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear.” But he immediately qualifies the scope and duration: “Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” (Romans 11:25). The hardening is partial and temporary. He concludes with the promise, “And so all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:26).
The prophets likewise anticipate a future unveiling. Zechariah declares, “They will look on Me whom they pierced; Yes, they will mourn for Him.” (Zechariah 12:10). What was hidden will be seen. What was rejected will be recognised.
Seen in that light, there is a solemn symmetry between two entrances into Jerusalem. The first, recorded in Luke nineteen, is marked by humility, tears, and rejection. The second is described in Revelation 19:11–16, and earlier we are told, “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.” (Revelation 1:7). On the first entry, peace was hidden. On the second, concealment will give way to revelation.
One final detail must remain central: Jesus wept. Judicial blinding is not a cold abstraction. It is grief-filled judgment. The Lord does not delight in sealing blindness; He laments it. The King who pronounces concealment is the King whose heart breaks over the city.
Luke nineteen therefore stands as more than an episode within the Passion narrative. It marks a covenantal turning point. “This your day” signals opportunity brought to fulfilment. “Now… hidden” signals a decisive shift in national history. From that moment, the path toward destruction and dispersion unfolds, even as God’s purposes move forward in gathering the Church from every tribe and nation, including a remnant from Israel itself.
Between two triumphal entries stretches the present age. The first brought judicial blinding upon the nation. The second will bring unveiling. And the Lord who wept as He approached Jerusalem remains faithful to every promise He has spoken.
Thank you Saltwood for this beautifully written piece -packed with v impt scripture references.
In the midst of this profoundly sad story, I note with great pleasure that you are careful to record that a significant number of Jews, including priests, Levites and rabbis, did put their trust in Yeshua.
It has, therefore, become my belief that much greater emphasis needs to be placed by biblical expositors upon this believing remnant of Israel, especially in the context of today’s rising Jew hatred.
Jesus said to a Gentile woman, ” I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” A reasonable question that might arise from this passage is, “Was the work of Christ among his own people, at his first coming, a success or a failure?”
I believe it is important to note, in this regard, that the first 9 chapters of the book of Acts make almost NO reference to Gentiles! They are almost exclusively concerned with the emergence of the believing remnant of Israel!
These were the first “living stones” to be placed on the “Chief Cornerstone, chosen and precious,” which itself was laid “in Zion,” and not among the Gentiles.
Only AFTER, these first Jewish living stones were placed on the Chief Cornerstone, did the work of building the worldwide Church commence!
Therefore, it could be fairly said that Christ BEGAN the renewal of Israel at his First Coming, and he will COMPLETE that renewal at his Second Coming!
His initial renewal of Israel led to the worldwide Gospel
The completion of Israel’s renewal will usher in the worldwide Kingdom of God, as Christ reigns from Jerusalem, amidst a now fully holy people, never again to leave them.
God bless you
Chris
Dear Saltwood,
I would like to press more deeply into what exactly happened to Israel after the Cross. For centuries, the Church has existed with little reference to the people from which it arose. However, in our day, Israel is being restored, and a movement is growing within Christianity that seeks to understand more deeply the significance of that restoration.
One phrase in your essay gave me distinct pause:
When Jewish believers entered the Church, they were not perpetuating Israel’s national covenant; they were incorporated into a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).
My friend, do we have our theology completely back-to-front here? Did Jewish believers enter the Church, or did they become the Church, and Gentile believers were later added to them? What is the evidence?
I note with great interest that, in the Second Testament, there is no new definition of the New Covenant. Heb 8 merely requotes Jer 31:31-34. In this passage, the legal basis of the New Covenant is crystal clear – it is a covenant between the LORD and Israel and Judah ie all 12 tribes. It is a covenant with Israel in her dispersion, not in her gathered strength.
Paul reaffirms this, in Rom 9:4, when he says that the covenants (plural) are Israel’s. I find nothing in the Second Testament about any direct covenant between the LORD and the Gentiles. Do you? Furthermore, in this opening paragraph of Rom 9 we read:
They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. Romans 9:4-5
This is the legal standing of Israel AFTER the Cross, and after her national rejection of Christ. Isn’t Paul emphasising here Israel’s ongoing centrality in God’s plan of salvation for mankind, even in her dispersion?
This is a very hard thing to grasp. We are so used to “The Church,” ie a largely Gentile institution, as the centre of all that God is presently accomplishing in the earth. But we know, for certain, that the end of the Age of the Gentiles approaches swiftly, at which time the Kingdom will be fully restored to Israel.
Since God has declared that the kingdoms of this world will soon come to an end, and will be replaced by the Kingdom of God, (Rev 11:15), I believe that he is calling the redeemed of the nations to think and to live with a stronger Jerusalem-centred focus.
Now to further examine what happened to Israel after the Cross:
Before the Cross, Israel represented God’s entire Covenant Household. God’s sworn oath to Abraham that he would be a blessing to all the nations of the world was carried within her, and her alone.
Israel is the firstborn son among the nations. (Exo 4:22) She is supernatural in her genesis in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his sons; supernatural in her preservation and supernatural in her final consummation in Christ’s millennial reign. In short, she is a supernatural nation.
However, God’s blessing to Abraham was unable to proceed from her because she was comprised only of natural sons of Adam, bound by the Mosaic Covenant. But after the Cross, after the New Covenant was made with her, her remnant became supernatural sons of God, and redeemed Gentiles are added one by one into this renewed heavenly entity, into renewed Israel.
Returning then to your essay when you said:
“When Jewish believers entered the Church, they were not perpetuating Israel’s national covenant; they were incorporated into a new creation in Christ.”
Wouldn’t it be more biblically correct to say that, after the Cross, Israel now exists within TWO covenants? Natural Israel continues to exist under the Mosaic Covenant, since although it is “Obsolete and passing away,” it has NEVER been abrogated. But supernatural Israel exists under the New Covenant, which is HER covenant, and we Gentiles are joined into that, in the heavenly realm in Christ, where we enjoy equal status.
Hugely controversial, I know, and deeply offensive, I’m sure! Prove me wrong, dear Saltwood. Explain to us the legal basis of the New Covenant please.
God bless and keep you. Thank you for your service to us all.
Chris
Dear Chris,
Thank you for this. I have read it carefully, and I think you have put your finger on something important. In fact, I am grateful for the challenge because I think one sentence in my original piece does need correcting.
I wrote that “when Jewish believers entered the Church, they were not perpetuating Israel’s national covenant; they were incorporated into a new creation in Christ.”
On reflection, “Jewish believers entered the Church” is the wrong way round. The Church at Pentecost was Jewish. The apostles were Jewish, the first thousands of believers were Jewish, and the earliest assembly in Jerusalem was Jewish. Gentiles came later. So on that point I think your challenge is entirely justified.
Romans 11 makes this particularly clear. Paul does not describe God planting a new Gentile olive tree into which believing Jews were subsequently grafted. The cultivated tree is already there. Some of its natural branches are broken off through unbelief, while we Gentiles, the wild olive branches, are grafted in “among them” and become partakers with them of the root and richness of the tree. Paul then warns us not to boast against the natural branches, because we do not support the root; the root supports us.
That is a salutary correction to the way much of the largely Gentile Church has come to think of itself.
I also think you are right to press the question of the New Covenant. Jeremiah could hardly be clearer: “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31). When Hebrews 8 explains the New Covenant, it does not redefine the parties. It quotes Jeremiah.
And you make an important point from Romans 9. Paul is writing after the Cross and after Israel’s rejection of her Messiah, yet he still says of the Israelites, in the present tense, that to them belong “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises” (Romans 9:4). A little later he tells us that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).
So I agree with you that we must be very careful about telling the story as though Israel failed, God set Israel aside, created an essentially Gentile institution called the Church, and then invited individual Jews to join it. I do not think that does justice to the New Testament.
However, I am not yet persuaded that the alternative is to describe the Church as “renewed Israel”, or to say that believing Gentiles actually become Israel.
Ephesians 2 seems particularly important here. Paul tells us Gentiles exactly what our position once was. We were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise”. But now, through the blood of Christ, we who were far off have been brought near.
Notice what Paul then says Christ has done. He does not say that the Gentile has become a Jew, nor that Israel has become Gentile. Christ has made the two one, creating “in Himself one new man from the two” (Ephesians 2:15).
That seems to me very precise language. There remain two identifiable peoples in the historical sense, Jew and Gentile, but in Christ neither has a superior spiritual standing. Together we have access by one Spirit to the Father. We are fellow citizens, members of the household of God and, as Paul says in the next chapter, “fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6).
So I think the legal basis of our Gentile participation in the New Covenant is beginning to emerge.
I cannot find a separate New Covenant made by God with the Gentile nations either. The New Covenant is promised to Israel and Judah. But through Israel’s Messiah and His shed blood, we who were strangers to the covenants have been brought near and made partakers of their blessing. We have not displaced Israel, and I am not convinced that we have become Israel. We have been grafted in and made fellow partakers through Christ.
Where I would differ more substantially from you is over the Mosaic Covenant. I am not sure that we can say that natural Israel remains under the Mosaic Covenant while believing Israel exists under the New Covenant. Hebrews says that by establishing the New Covenant God “has made the first obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13). Jeremiah himself says that the New Covenant will not be according to the covenant made when God brought Israel out of Egypt. Paul similarly describes the Law as having a particular purpose “till the Seed should come” (Galatians 3:19).
I think we therefore need to distinguish between the Mosaic Covenant and God’s unconditional promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The passing of the former does not cancel the latter. Indeed, Romans 9–11 seems deliberately written to prevent us reaching precisely that conclusion.
And that brings me back to the point where I think you have challenged me most usefully.
Perhaps we Gentile Christians have been reading the story from the wrong direction. Christianity did not begin with us. The story runs through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, through Israel, through David and the prophets, to Israel’s Messiah and the New Covenant promised through Jeremiah. A believing remnant of Israel received her Messiah, beginning with the apostles themselves. Then something astonishing happened: the door was opened to the nations, and people like you and me, who had been strangers to the covenants of promise, were brought near by the blood of Christ and grafted into something we did not create.
That surely ought to produce considerable humility in the Gentile Church.
So I am not going to try to prove you wrong, dear Chris, because I think you are right about too much of this for me to do that! But neither am I ready to follow you all the way to “renewed Israel” or to Israel continuing simultaneously under two covenants.
I think the biblical picture may actually be more wonderful. God has not abandoned Israel. Neither has He simply turned Gentiles into Israelites. Through Israel’s Messiah He has brought believing Jew and believing Gentile together into “one new man”, while His ancient calling and purposes for Israel remain irrevocable.
And that leaves us with a question which I think deserves much more thought: if the New Covenant is explicitly made with Israel and Judah, exactly what is the covenantal and legal basis upon which we Gentiles participate in it?
My present answer would be this. We participate not because God made another covenant with us, nor because we replaced those with whom He made the covenant, but because we have been united to Christ, Israel’s Messiah. In Him we who were far off have been brought near; in Him we have been grafted in; in Him we have become fellow heirs and fellow partakers of the promise.
That is not a small distinction. And I suspect you have opened a door here through which we ought to walk a good deal further.
Thank you, my friend. This is exactly the sort of challenge that makes us go back to Scripture and look again.
God bless you,
John