Much debate lately about whether literal Israel actually plays a part in end-times prophecy or not, so I will start a thread for it. For those who think God is done with literal Israel, let me start by asking a few questions to kick things off: Does not the Bible say that God has made an everlasting covenant with the descendants of Abraham? And what should early church Christians have been looking for if the Antichrist was not going to conquer literal Israel and sit himself in the actual temple in Jerusalem?
Let's start with the first question:
1. Does not the Bible say that God made an everlasting covenant with the descendants of Abraham?
There are numerous passages on this, but let's start with the following:
Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— the LORD of hosts is his name: 36 “If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.” 37 Thus says the LORD: “If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 31:35-37)
The apostle Paul confirmed that these promises were still in effect to literal Israel when he said the following:
I ask, then, has God rejected his people [the Jews]? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has NOT rejected his people whom he foreknew” (Romans 11:1-2).
Now some argue here that God annulled His covenant with the Jews in A.D. 70 after they were unfaithful to Him by rejecting their Messiah, but this goes against what Paul said elsewhere in Romans:
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” (Romans 3:1-4).
So my first question is, does or does not scripture teach that God truly did make an everlasting covenant with literal Israel, one that has not yet passed away and never will?
2. What should early church Christians have been looking for if the Antichrist was not going to conquer literal Israel and take his seat in the actual temple of God in Jerusalem?
The passage for this is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4:
Now we implore you, brothers, by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him, that you not become quickly disturbed in mind nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by report, nor by letter as if written by us [intimating] that the Day of the Lord is here. No one should deceive you in any way if the apostasy has not yet come first and that man of lawlessness has been revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above everything that is called God or is worshipped, so as for him to sit down in the temple of God, exhibiting himself that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4)
What Paul in essence was telling them here was this: Do not become concerned that the Lord might be returning already and the Day of the Lord - the Day of His vengeance - is about to begin, if you have not yet seen the Antichrist emerge in Jerusalem, since the coming of the Antichrist is prophesied to precede the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the "apostasy" Paul was referring to here. The Antichrist would emerge, march upon Jerusalem and conquer it, and then take his seat in the temple of God in Jerusalem, in effect proclaiming himself to be God in manifestation. They fully expected this is potentially what a Roman emperor might soon do, because the potential for war was building between Rome and Judea, and Emperor Gaius (better known as Caligula) had indeed attempted to do these very things around A.D. 40, only he was thwarted from doing so and murdered before he could carry out his plans.
But both Christians and Jews now fully expected that the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the Antichrist were now on their way to fulfillment.
Now, here is my question to those who subscribe to Replacement Theology; the idea that Israel has now been replaced in the eyes of God by the church. If this event was actually instead referring to some Pope one day taking his seat in the church and proclaiming himself to in effect be "God," wasn't Paul being misleading to the Thessalonians? This suggests that Paul was somehow warning them that a false leader would take his seat as head of the church, when at that time there was no head of the entire church, and there would not be a single monarchical bishop who would wield authority over the church for many centuries to come yet.
So what should early church Christians have been looking for if the Antichrist was not going to actually conquer literal Israel and take his seat in the actual temple of God in Jerusalem?
I suppose that will start things off. I will tag several people I think might be interested in this discussion, including several who I know actually take the opposite position that I do on this subject. I only ask that we be polite and respectful, and discuss things together in a Spirit of brotherly love.
In Christ,
Hidden In Him
@Heart2Soul, @marks, @quietthinker, @Backlit, @Mayflower, @charity, @Waiting on him, @APAK.
Let's start with the first question:
1. Does not the Bible say that God made an everlasting covenant with the descendants of Abraham?
There are numerous passages on this, but let's start with the following:
Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— the LORD of hosts is his name: 36 “If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.” 37 Thus says the LORD: “If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 31:35-37)
The apostle Paul confirmed that these promises were still in effect to literal Israel when he said the following:
I ask, then, has God rejected his people [the Jews]? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has NOT rejected his people whom he foreknew” (Romans 11:1-2).
Now some argue here that God annulled His covenant with the Jews in A.D. 70 after they were unfaithful to Him by rejecting their Messiah, but this goes against what Paul said elsewhere in Romans:
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” (Romans 3:1-4).
So my first question is, does or does not scripture teach that God truly did make an everlasting covenant with literal Israel, one that has not yet passed away and never will?
2. What should early church Christians have been looking for if the Antichrist was not going to conquer literal Israel and take his seat in the actual temple of God in Jerusalem?
The passage for this is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4:
Now we implore you, brothers, by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him, that you not become quickly disturbed in mind nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by report, nor by letter as if written by us [intimating] that the Day of the Lord is here. No one should deceive you in any way if the apostasy has not yet come first and that man of lawlessness has been revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above everything that is called God or is worshipped, so as for him to sit down in the temple of God, exhibiting himself that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4)
What Paul in essence was telling them here was this: Do not become concerned that the Lord might be returning already and the Day of the Lord - the Day of His vengeance - is about to begin, if you have not yet seen the Antichrist emerge in Jerusalem, since the coming of the Antichrist is prophesied to precede the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the "apostasy" Paul was referring to here. The Antichrist would emerge, march upon Jerusalem and conquer it, and then take his seat in the temple of God in Jerusalem, in effect proclaiming himself to be God in manifestation. They fully expected this is potentially what a Roman emperor might soon do, because the potential for war was building between Rome and Judea, and Emperor Gaius (better known as Caligula) had indeed attempted to do these very things around A.D. 40, only he was thwarted from doing so and murdered before he could carry out his plans.
But both Christians and Jews now fully expected that the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the Antichrist were now on their way to fulfillment.
Now, here is my question to those who subscribe to Replacement Theology; the idea that Israel has now been replaced in the eyes of God by the church. If this event was actually instead referring to some Pope one day taking his seat in the church and proclaiming himself to in effect be "God," wasn't Paul being misleading to the Thessalonians? This suggests that Paul was somehow warning them that a false leader would take his seat as head of the church, when at that time there was no head of the entire church, and there would not be a single monarchical bishop who would wield authority over the church for many centuries to come yet.
So what should early church Christians have been looking for if the Antichrist was not going to actually conquer literal Israel and take his seat in the actual temple of God in Jerusalem?
I suppose that will start things off. I will tag several people I think might be interested in this discussion, including several who I know actually take the opposite position that I do on this subject. I only ask that we be polite and respectful, and discuss things together in a Spirit of brotherly love.
In Christ,
Hidden In Him
@Heart2Soul, @marks, @quietthinker, @Backlit, @Mayflower, @charity, @Waiting on him, @APAK.