Posts
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
I will soon start work on a new volume in our "Made Easy" series of books published by NiceneCouncil.com. The working title of this book is: Israel in Scripture Made Easy. In it I will outline and exegetically demonstrate the significance, role, and destiny of Israel according to biblical law and prophecy.
I will be demonstrating that Israel was always intended to be a stepping-stone to the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ, an early stage in the progress of redemption. She was never intended to be an end in herself. Thus, I will be discussing the Abrahamic Covenant, the conquest of the Land, the role of Israel in biblical theology and prophecy, her judgments in history, her final judgment in AD 70, and her future conversion.
I will show that she no longer has a special status among the peoples of the earth, she will never be exalted above the nations, and that she will never rebuild her temple and begin offering sacrifices. In doing this, I will show that she has served her glorious purpose already and that Christ is the fulfillment of the Land promise.
If you have any questions you would like to see me cover, please post a note here on the blog. Or email me at: kengentry@nicenecouncil.com
After I complete that project (which I must first research, then write), I already have planned the following "Made Easy" series books: Daniel's Seventy Week Made Easy and Dismantling Dispensationalism Made Easy.
If you have any ideas for future "Made Easy" series books, send me a note. Our work here at NiceneCouncil.com is having an impact on many dispensationalists. A good impact, that is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Can't wait!
Hi Dr Gentry,
I can't wait! A couple of things I'd like to see covered is the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, particularly the 'you' plural emphasis that dispensationalists apply to blessings and curses, claiming it applies to the jews. I'd also like to see an exegesis on the Abrahamic covenant where God puts Abraham in a deep sleep. This is used to suggest that the covenant was unconditional. The 'olam (owlam)' nature of the word 'everlasting' would be another subject that I think would be invaluable.
Regards
Steve
Rom 11:25 For I don't desire, brothers, to have you ignorant of this mystery, so that you won't be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and so all Israel will be saved. Even as it is written, "There will come out of Zion the Deliverer, And he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. 27 This is my covenant to them, When I will take away their sins." 28 Concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But concerning the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sake.
As far as I understand Paul in this passage speaks of Israel (in the flesh) as having been partially hardened for a time period. Paul speaks about the Gentiles coming into Isreal (this seems to be the real Israel (Eph 2). As far as I understand. physical Israel will be the last rebellion to Jesus being the current King on earth but once the earth has become Christian they give up their hard hearts as a people. My belief is Post mill. I see Israel (as a people group not a nation) as being the last to be subject to the Lord.
One aspect of national Israel which I haven't seen discussed much is that the nation provided a visable, tracable lineage from Abraham to Christ, as the Messiah. As progressive prophesies were madeand fulfillments accomplished regarding His descent from Isaac then Jacob then Judah then David, this provided a means of validatiing the promise made to Abraham that in his seed (singular) the whole world would be blessed. These narrowing prophesies about specific individuals and groups within the nation prevented just anyone from claiming to be the Messiah - they had to have a very specific nationality and lineage. Once the Messiah arrived, there was no need to preserve the nation as a nation, especially given the fact that they had miserably and repeatedly failed their God given mandates to be a witness to the nations of the greatness and goodness of God and had ultimately comitted the greatest possible apostasy by rejecting the Messiah they so longed for. Prior to the coming of the Messiah, God repeatedly punished them for their disobedience and adultery, but preserved them as a nation, not simply to demonstrate His mercy (which was indeed a part of His purpose in restoring them) but to preserve the human line of individuals from whom the Messiah was to come. This is why all the seemingly boring geneologies in the Old Testament. God will still preserve a remanent of Jews (how they will be identified, I'm not sure) who will eventually come to Christ as you mentioned in your comments for the previous blog entry. But these Jews, like we gentile Christians, I believe will be restored from every nation, not just some small group of people living on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.
Len
Postmillennialism Made Easy
The Olivet Prophecy Made Easy
Ken, I sent you a chart on Israel via email. I would like to stress maybe in your book somehow getting people to see Israel now consists of the promised seed and no longer the natural as being counted (Romans 9:6-8) and it will be this way forever (Romans 11:7-10 - elect/promised seed). Also that a Jew inwardly is what is counted not one outwardly (Romans 2:28-29). How Christ is ISrael (Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:13) and the body of Christ Israel and Gentiles becomes one body (Eph. 2:11-15). Maybe also point out just because Israel of God now consist of a majority of Gentiles does not mean Gods promised in Jeremiah 31:35-37 has been violated, for as long as there are some of the natural offspring of Abraham who are elect on earth, His promise is not compromised.
Perhaps you could cover the fact that biblically speaking, the true Israel is Christ and all who are in him through faith regardless of ethnic back-round and that there is no such thing as Orthodox/Biblical Judaism (Unless of course one is speaking of Romans 2:28-29) A study of the fact that most who claim to be Jewish ethnically but have no connection to Abraham physically but rather are Ashkenazim would also be quite informative. Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks Ken.
I would like to see how you address Israel as a nation and the view of Replacement Theology with Israel. How does the parable of the Vine and the Branches fit into this. I would like to see you compare your thoughts with those Of Thomas Ice and Charles Ryrie. I would like to see what you think of Barry E. Horner's book, "Future Israel".
And please speak of the end of the Abrahamic covenant.
"“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." -Hebrews 8
I would like to see a counter to dispensationalists' claim that the church age is a parentheses in God's redemptive work. No where, explicitly or in type, does this idea appear in scriptures. It only exists in the perverted reasonings of men. On the other hand, scripture is replete with examples/types teaching that the age of the natural kingdom of Israel was to be a temporary, parenthetical dispensation. Hebrews 9:8 indicates that all natural types were merely temporary until the time of restoration (the new birth).
Scriptures witness repeadedly of this law (first the natural, then the spiritual) through accounts of firstborn sons who were rejected from inheriting GOD's blessings. Consider the firstborn sons of Adam (Cain), Abraham (Ishmael), Isaac (Esau), Jacob (Reuben), and Joseph (Mannasseh, i.e., Ephraim placed before Mannasseh). Would God have repeated this remarkable pattern so consistently through such notably godly men and the fathers of the kingdom of Israel without the intention of communicating something extremely important? Not likely. The overriding importance of this message becomes even more evident due to its ubiquity in scripture, e.g., all firstborn males in Egypt at the Passover, rejected; the first generation escaped from Egypt, rejected; the first king of Israel, rejected; all firstborn males in Israel, rejected (unless redeemed with a firstborn male sacrifice); etc. Consistent, then, with all of these prophetic examples, God's firstborn nation (the natural kingdom of Israel) was rejected from inheriting the blessings and the nation of Israel after the spirit inherited them (Deuteronomy 32:21).
All of these prophetic types point to the reality of the death and resurrection of God's firstborn son; who in the flesh was rejected from inheriting the blessings, but in the spirit was raised out of the dead to inherit them. In this great company of witnesses declaring this most profound spiritual truth we must ask ourselves what voice motivates people to declare that Israel after the flesh has been exempted from this spiritual law? It's certainly not GOD's voice.
So then, contrary to wishful dispensational thinking, and consistent with every other prophetic type preceding it, Israel after the flesh was sown in death among the nations around 722 BC (2 Kings 17:20), and the nation of Israel after the spirit was raised out of the dead at Shavuot around 30 AD (Isaiah 66:7-8). All true sons of Abraham (Romans 4:11-12) are citizens of this holy, spiritual nation (1 Peter 2:9).
"... Israel now consists of the promised seed and no longer the natural as being counted (Romans 9:6-8) and it will be this way forever ..."
The promised seed/natural seed dichotomy is false. Israel always has been the promised seed. The natural seed has participated in the promises to Abraham and his seed, of course, but the promises were never made to the natural seed per se. They were made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their seed, which is the genealogy of the firstborn that finds its terminus and ultimate fulfillment in Christ. It is important to realize that the blessing is always through the living firstborn.
God has taken pains to explicitly tell us that the natural seed, per se, are not the heirs of the promises. Ishmael, Esau, and Reuben were all firstborn, natural seeds, but they did not inherit the promises (Ephraim inherited the promises, not Reuben, who received blessing of the inheritance through Ephraim [1 Kings 12:16]). Those whom God chose were the heirs (Isaac, Jacob, Ephraim). God alone always choses whom the firstborn seed will be, irrespective of man's will or tradition. A spiritual inheritance (the promises) can never be inherited through a natural birth, but only by God's choice (the spiritual birth). All those of faith are the seed through the one who inherited the promises, died, and now lives forever to bestow the blessings of the promises on his seed to whom he gives eternal life.
It's really quite an amazing, beautiful thing.
You wrote: "In it I will outline and exegetically demonstrate the significance, role, and destiny of the Jews according to biblical law and prophecy."
Without sounding critical, you are committing a word/concept fallacy here if you equivocate "Jew" with "Israel".
From the first appearance of the word "Jew" in the bible, through to the end, "Jews" were not synonymous with Israelites. In fact, there was only ever enmity between them, and they were constantly at war with one another).
For example, the first appearance of "Jew" in the KJV is [2 Kings 16:6] where king Ahaz, and the "Jews", were at war with King Pekah, and the Israelites. (The same is true in the ESV, NIV, NASV, NET, Greens etc.)
At no point in the bible afterwards were Jews synonymous with Israelites (to the point that even the disciples asked Jesus about it [Acts 1:6].
This is such a big deal biblically, that OT messianic prophecies speak to it; for example look at the two sticks in [Eze 37:16]; one stick represents the Jews (as the House of Judah) and the other represents Israelites (as the House of Israel) and Christ is the shepherd in [Eze 37:24]. You can also see it in the New Covenant in [Jer 31:31] (quoted in [Heb 8:8]), and elsewhere.
To make matters worse, Edomites (the goat herding nation who lived in the rocks) were forcibly converted to become "Jews" (under John Hyrcanus). Not all Jews were even Israelites then; the Jewish King Herod being the best example of this. (Though this gives obvious meaning to the 'sheep' and the 'goats', look again at [Rev 2:9][Rev 3:9])
"Jew" is a word that denotes only the House of Judah and derives from "House of Judah" (during the Babylonian exile). Israel is a word that applies to Jacob, the man, but also to the house of Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh because Israel loved Joseph particuarly [Gen 37:3], and bequeathed his name specifically to them in [Gen 48:1-16] (particularly in [Gen 48:16])
The only time "Jews" were Israelites, was when they joined themselves to the House of Israel under Kings Saul, Ish-Bosheth, David, Solomon.
This is plain doctrine found freely throughout the bible. Look at the verses cited above, and confirm they've been represent fairly, and in context.
How then, do you expect credibly, to be able to exegetically demonstrate the significance, role, and destiny of the Jews, according to biblical law and prophecy, when you don't seem to recognize the obvious Biblical distinction between the two groups - "Jew" and "Israelite".
Perhaps it's possible, if the bible is ignored altogether, and only theologians who also fail to recognize the same distinction, are referenced: but then, that exegesis wouldn't be according to biblical law or prophecy.
Note: "Ekklesia" noted a typo in my blo. Since the book I am writing is about Israel, I should have said: "In it I will outline and exegetically demonstrate the significance, role, and destiny of Israel according to biblical law and prophecy. Oops.
From the original blog:
"Thus, I will be discussing the Abrahamic Covenant, the conquest of the Land, the role of Israel in biblical theology and prophecy, her judgments in history, her final judgment in AD 70, and her future conversion."
My thoughts:
I think the last part of this sentence would be better rendered, "and her ongoing conversion". "Future conversion" makes it sound like something different will happen than what is already occuring, and has occurred for the past (nearly) 2000 years. Paul said that most natural Israelites would be blinded, and a believing remnant would exist, until the last child of God out of the nations has been grafted into the vine of Israel. Where in scripture is there any indication that once the temple made without hands is completed, an addition will be added by the conversion of what you call "Israel"? Surely, you can't be referring to Romans 11:25-26, which is merely a synopsis of Pauls' entire Romans 9-11 exposition that asserts only a remnant of Jews will exist until the temple is completed, and that all of its living stones will be saved by the removal of their sins (as it is written). Scripture is pretty clear that once the temple is completed, only wrath awaits those without. I think it's a real stretch to exegete that the temple will be renovated after it's been completed.
To June 10 "Anonymous":
As a matter of fact I do believe Rom 11:25-26 applies to the future (full) conversion of Israel (as per John Murray's exposition). Though this is developing incremently at present, I generally follow the Purtian hope that there will be future massive conversion of Israel to the gospel (see: Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope).
In addition, I would see this implied in the great commission that says "all nations" will be discipled, which would include Israel. Perhaps this could develop incrementally, but it seems to me that it will end "explosively" as it were.
"As a matter of fact I do believe Rom 11:25-26 applies to the future (full) conversion of Israel (as per John Murray's exposition). Though this is developing incremently at present, I generally follow the Purtian hope that there will be future massive conversion of Israel to the gospel (see: Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope)... Perhaps this could develop incrementally, but it seems to me that it will end "explosively" as it were."
From June 10 Anonymous:
I have to ask myself where the idea of a full, massive, or explosive conversion of a natural entity called "Israel" originates. Again, I think it is a great stretch to extract this conclusion from Romans 11:25-26, as it directly contradicts the entire context set forth in Romans 9-11 that only a remnant of natural Israel is saved. It seems unlikely that Paul would take such pains spanning two chapters to argue the point that only a remnant of natural Israel is saved, and then contradict that point in two seemingly ambiguous sentences embedded at the end of those chapters (ie, Romans 11:25-26) with the assertion that all natural Israel will be saved. It is far more consistent with the context of those chapters to argue that Paul is really saying in Romans 11:25 that all those of faith (actual Israel) will be be saved by the removal of their sins, rather than all natural Israel will be saved.
Apart from a tenuous, non-contextual exegesis of Romans 11:25-26, the only scriptural example I see that might point to a future "full" salvation of natural Israel is the children of Israel's exodus from Egypt, in which all were saved out of Egypt. But this example really doesn't witness of a "full" salvation because the Lord afterwards destroyed those who didn't believe. So in actuality, this example better argues that not all will be saved. In reality, one is hard pressed to find where in scripture this truth is not taught.
Now the hope that a certain people will experience a massive or explosive conversion is just that: hope. It is a good hope, but is it realistic? Who knows? We know from the book of Acts that a great number of Israelites became obedient to the faith. But we also know that that number was a small remnant in relation to the whole populace. Scripture witnesses that that characteristic (only a remnant) has always been the case. And if we look to the weight of scripture for a witness of what the future will bring, it seems rational to think that that's the way it always will be. Several verses impress themselves on me in this regard: "The Lord will do nothing except he reveals it to his servants the prophets", and "Jesus, the same, yesterday, today, and forever".
Dr. Gentry, please take out the salutation, Anonymous, in my blog from Anonymous#2 and add: ἐκκλησία said. My reply is to the Greek blogger. Thank you and take care.
I am hoping you deal with the cavil I get from a dear "opti-amil" brother. He says since most who call themselves Jews today are not ethnically descended from the Jews and that those who are we would have no way of knowing who a Jew is. Thus, he posits, that there will nor cannot be any mass conversion as the culmination of the triumph of the Gospel in converting the nations.
Thanks, Ken.
John
"I will be demonstrating that Israel was always intended to be a stepping-stone to the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ, an early stage in the progress of redemption. She was never intended to be an end in herself."
To this end consider the fact that God never intended for there to be a physical kingdom of Israel. His will was for the children of Israel be a holy people unto him: a royal priesthood. He rebuked their request for a king as being idolatry and a rejection of himself.
The OT teaches that the Messiah will physically rule, from Jerusalem, over national Israel from the throne of His father, David and will Himself rebuild the temple (2 Samuel 7:12,13,16; Psalm 45:6; 132:11; Isaiah 9:6,7;16:5, Jeremiah 23:5,6; Ezekiel 43:1-7; Micah 4:6,7; Zechariah 4:1-11; 6:13). This was confirmed by the angel Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:31-33. If this does not happen then JESUS CHRIST IS NOT THE PROPHESIED MESSIAH OF ISRAEL. God is a liar and so is His word; throw it away because it can’t be trusted. You can exegete until the cows come home but that is the logical conclusion of denying that Israel has a “special status among the peoples of the earth”, that “she will never be exalted above the nations, and that she will never rebuild her temple and begin offering sacrifices”. The scriptures plainly, clearly and literally teach otherwise.
Sandi:
I have some comments about your post.
Why do you think that there is any need to build a temple? Why do you think that there is a need for sacrifices? Wasn't Jesus' ultimate sacrifice enough? Why is there a need for a physical nation (who are currently in disobedience and deserving of expulsion from the land according to scriptural precedence). How have all the scriptures you have quoted not found their ultimate fulfillment in Christ.
Can I draw your attention to this scripture. I think it summarizes and answers much of your post:
1 Peter 2:
The Living Stone and a Chosen People
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”[b]
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”[c]
8 and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”[d]
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
I'm guessing you'll suggest this is 'replacement theology'. I'd suggest that the Jewish faith found it's completion with Christ and it's now down to the individual, whether Jew or gentile to accept or reject this.
Blessings in Christ
Sandi Broyden said...
"The OT teaches that the Messiah will physically rule, from Jerusalem, over national Israel from the throne of His father, David and will Himself rebuild the temple"
Are you in denial that the temple of the living God has been under construction for almost 2000 years? Do you think God was being flippant when he said we are living stones being built into the temple of God?
Anonymous, I have absolutely no argument with what 1 Peter 2:4-10 teaches: Christ is the living stone (v.4) who is building up a spiritual house with living stones which are believers in Jesus Christ (v. 5). He is the prophesied “precious cornerstone” (Messiah) of Isaiah 28:16 (v.6) who has become a stumbling block to both Jew and Gentile (1 Cor. 1:23) who reject Him (v.7-8). Believers are a royal priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices which are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. The Body of Christ is God’s special possession, having been called out of darkness and into light (v.9). Believers in Jesus Christ who make up His Body are now the people of God and have received mercy.
But before you say, “see, v. 10 says that the Church is now the people of God”, notice that it does not say anything about national Israel not being God’s people again sometime in the future. This passage does not prove or abrogate the fact that national Israel, although cast aside for the moment, will in the future be restored, just as the OT teaches (the whole book of Hosea for starters). It is the clear and undeniable teaching of the entire Bible that national Israel will be restored as God’s people, having recognized her Messiah at His 2nd coming and entering into the millennial kingdom in which Jesus will rule from Jerusalem, on the throne of His father David and thus fulfilling OT prophecy.
The angel Gabriel confirmed God’s promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 to Mary when he told her in Luke 1:32-33 that “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” Jesus now sits at the right hand of the throne of God, not of David; do not confuse the two. Jesus reigning from Jerusalem from the throne of David is yet to come. The apostle Paul himself confirms that the complete and final fulfillment will take place when “the Deliverer will come out of Zion” and “turn away ungodliness from Jacob” and “all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:26).” Again, if this is not true, then Jesus Christ is not the Messiah, throw away your Bible.
You fail to “rightly divide” the “whole counsel” of God and should therefore be ashamed, as 2 Timothy 2:15 says, because you have not studied to show yourself approved unto God.
Understanding that Israel and the Body of Christ are separate and distinct entities is the key to understanding the prophetic word. If you do not understand this, then you end up spiritualising and allegorizing Scripture to fit what you believe, which is what you have done. As bible teacher Jacob Prasch so rightly says, “a text out of context, in isolation from its co-text, is a pretext”. And guess what, it’s the unmistakable signature of Satan too. That’s right. Satan took scripture out of context when he tempted Eve and he even tried it with Jesus. Christian cults exist because they have taken scriptures out of context, in isolation from their co-text.
If I were you, I would seriously rethink my beliefs and I would take Paul’s admonition to heart: Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith as you do not want to be guilty of having fulfilled this scripture:
For the time will come when THEY WILL NOT ENDURE SOUND DOCTRINE; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves TEACHERS IN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR OWN DESIRES, and will TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH AND WILL TURN ASIDE TO MYTHS ~ 2 Timothy 4:3,4
Sandi, the section of Ezechiel that you quoted also states very specifically that there will be sin offerings offered in the temple. It also mentions "the prince," who likewise will be offering sacrifices.
How in the world can your understanding possibly square with the traditional Christian understanding that Christ's sacrifice is the ultimate sacrifice of the New Testament and can never be supplanted?
Hebrews 10:17-18 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
That portion of Ezechiel also mentions that "the prince" has sons. Do you take that literally? Who is this prince? Some claim He is Christ; others say he is not.
But that begs the question. If the prince is not Christ, then why in the world would there be a prince in Israel when Christ has returned and is ruling?
And if the prince IS Christ, how can He have sons?
You state that we must take the Bible literally. How can a person take the sections, literally, of Ezechiel you alluded to without doing violence to other parts of the Bible?
Hi Sandi,
Sorry, I'm a little pressed for time but in response to one part of your reply.
You plucked Romans 11:26 and quoted 'All Israel will be saved'. I'm sorry to say, you are being rather specious here. If you read Romans in it's entirety and even go back to chapters 9 and 10 and look what Paul is explaining, he doesn't make the statement that 'All Israel will be saved' He explains election by grace and says 'and so' using the term kai houtos. Paul was explaining how a remnant of national Israel would be saved from the first century onwards 'until the fullness of the gentiles come in'. The word 'until' is key here. 'Achris hou' is given a temporal flavour as is 'kai houtus', but if we compare it's usage in other scripture, we arrive at a very different interpretation.
Acts 22:4 “I persecuted the followers of this Way to (achris hou) their death,"
Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any
double--edged sword, it penetrates even to (achris hou) dividing soul and spirit,"
1 Corinthians 11:26 “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you
proclaim the Lord’s death until (achris hou) he comes.”
The phrase 'until' doesn't suggest that anything is going to happen 'after' the fullness of the gentiles come in, it says this is what will happen up to that point in time.
The reason I've taken pains to point this out is because of your comment: 'You fail to “rightly divide” the “whole counsel” of God and should therefore be ashamed, as 2 Timothy 2:15 says, because you have not studied to show yourself approved unto God.'
Quite a damning statement and I'm calling you out on exactly that charge. You haven't studied that verse in context and it's hard to believe you've even read the entire chapter to arrive at your interpretation. You've just done a copypasta because that verse says what you want it to say.
The dipensational framework actually allegorises and bends scripture to what the reader wants to hear, whereas the historical / grammatical / linguistic exegesis considers the writing in it's correct context, studies the language in was written in at the time it was written.
Take Ezekiel 38, Matthew 24 or Revelation 20 and put them in a literal context. It's not possible and causes huge problems for dispensationalists.
Blessings
Steve
Sandi,
The term "national Israel" doesn't appear in the bible. It is a term you dispensationalists have invented to suit your carnal interpretations. The term Israel takes on different meanings in the bible depending on context; but dispensationalists can only fixate on "national Israel". You quoted Romans 11:26 out of context. The full context is that all Israel will be saved as it is written: the Deliverer will come out of Zion and will turn Jacob away from ungodliness, for this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins (Matthew 26:28).
Revelation 13:5-6 seem to relate to the events leading up to the future abomination of desolation, foreshadowed in history by the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 11:31; 12:11) and mentioned by Jesus (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). Not only does the beast blaspheme, but also those who worship him speak blasphemies: “who is like the beast?" This attribution rightly belongs to God alone (Ex. 15:11; Ps. 35:10; Ps. 89:8; Ps. 113:5; Jer. 49:19; 50:44).
This passage also gives us a key piece of information concerning the timing of the ascendancy of the Antichrist: his power is granted for 42 months (for 3 1/2 360-day years). This would appear to correspond to the last half of the 70th week of Daniel (Dan. 9:24-27 cf. Dan. 7:25).
At the midpoint of the Tribulation when the two witnesses have been testifying for 3 1/2 years (Rev. 11:3), the Antichrist arises from the abyss to overthrow them (Rev. 11:7). He then "sits as God in the temple of God showing himself that he is God" (2Th. 2:4).
Since he is a very busy man and lacks omnipresence, some believe that he will set up the image referred to in Revelation 13:15 which will remain in the Holy Place thereafter. This act of entering the Holy Place and setting up the image is most likely what Jesus had in mind as the abomination of desolation that signals Jews to flee Jerusalem in haste because of the latter half of the Tribulation period is characterized by the severe persecution of the Jews (cf. Revelation 12:13-17).
Post a Comment