Home > Radical Islam, Theology and Eschatology > Israeli Minister Calls For The Construction Of The ‘Third Temple’ In Al-Aqsa Compound

Israeli Minister Calls For The Construction Of The ‘Third Temple’ In Al-Aqsa Compound


But is this fulfillment of Bible prophecy? Many Christians today believe that a physical 3rd temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem according to 2 Thessalonians 2:4. In light of the unfolding panoply of the New Testament texts, however, the “third temple” is already built, not as one built by human hands, but rather as one built by Christ Himself. Every time the Apostle Paul wrote about the temple of God (or an equivalent expression) and used the Greek word “naos” he always referred to Christian believers both individually and collectively — the Church. We see this in 1 Corinthians 3:16, 3:17, 6:16, 6:19, Ephesians 2:19-22 — a teaching that is even affirmed by Peter himself in 1 Peter 2:4-5. But those who advocate the idea of a physical 3rd temple suddenly (and perhaps unknowingly) change the consistent and explicit meaning of the “naos” of God in Paul’s previous epistles. In his letter to the Thessalonians, 3rd temple proponents now claim that Paul was suddenly referring to a physical temple instead. Doing so, however, has no textual justification and interprets 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in light of a preconceived doctrine, not in light of Scripture, and forces Scripture to conform to our understanding when what we need to be doing is forcing our understanding to conform to Scripture. For more in-depth reading on this subject, see the links below. We could be much closer to the return of Christ than many had expected …

Acts 17:24, “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.”

World Bulletin – “The Israel Minister of Housing and Construction Uri Ariel on Friday expressed his wish to see the construction of a ‘Third Temple’ in the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied Al-Quds (East Jerusalem).

According to the Alray Palestinian News Agency, Uri Ariel said ‘The first Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE, the second Temple in 70 CE, and ever since the Jews have been mourning its loss.’

He then went on to say ‘Al-Aqsa Mosque is currently in place of the temple, despite the temple being much holier than it. Al-Aqsa Mosque is only the third most holy mosque in Islam.’

‘Now that Israel has once again become a Jewish sovereign state, there have been occasional calls to rebuild the Temple,’ he added.

Palestinians who have stated their desire to see Israeli occupying forces retreat out of East Jerusalem back to their 1967 borders are suspicious of so called archeological excavations taking place under the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. They believe the works are destabilizing the foundations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and have already reported damage to the building.

In recent months, the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound has been subject to numerous raids by far-right Jewish settlers under the protection of Israeli security forces, who have performed Jewish rituals on the site. On a number of occasions last year, the Israeli authorities banned Muslim congregational Friday prayers at the mosque.” Source – World Bulletin.

Daniel 12:8-10,Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, ‘My lord, what shall be the end of these things?’ And he said, ‘Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.’”

2 Thessalonians 2:4 — A Rebuilt Jewish Temple, or Something Else? – “Even though Daniel was not always granted full understanding, he was faithful in recording the prophecies he was given. Not knowing that the temple of God would one day be the people of God, however, would have conceivably been somewhat bewildering to Daniel if he had himself assumed that it was a physical temple that would be defiled during the time of the end. This could very well have been one of the reasons why Daniel did not understand all that he was receiving. According to the words of the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:24, a physical temple today would be little more than an empty building, void of the presence of God. I am sure that Christ would have known this, suggesting that Jesus would in no way have been referring to a physical temple as the ‘holy place’ in Matthew 24:15 when referring to the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel. A building absent of God is just another building. But the ‘holy temple’ that is the Church in which God dwells, however, is another matter. This may have been why Jesus said ‘let the reader understand’ in Matthew 24:15 — because Daniel did not …” Read more.

  1. Anonymous
    01/30/2014 at 4:45 PM

    The Third Temple is not for the Church it is for Israel, the Jews. It is required for the fulfillment of the 70th week of Daniels Prophesy that is strictly for the Jews. This is a physical temple as clearly stated By John in Rev 11. “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty [and] two months. [Rev 11:1-2 KJV] This temple stands for 42 months during the 7 year tribulation period on the Temple mount in Jerusalem. This is the temple the AC commits the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Jesus (Mat 24) and Daniel (9, 11). The AC does not enter the hearts of Christians to proclaim himself God, he enters a real temple in Jerusalem. Get you eschatology straight. Do your homework.

    Like

  2. ICA
    01/30/2014 at 5:36 PM

    Anonymous, “This is a physical temple as clearly stated By John in Rev 11.”

    Hi Anonymous, thank you for chiming in. Your comments are fully addressed in the articles I linked to in the post, but since some will not take the time to visit the links and take a few minutes of additional study, let me share some of it here. First, we need to keep in mind that the Apostle Paul and Jesus both pointed to a Last Days event that would take place just before the Day of the Lord (Christ’s post-trib Second Coming). Paul referred to it as the “man of sin” who sets himself up in “the temple of God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4), while Jesus described it as the “Abomination of Desolation” standing in “the holy place” (Matthew 24:15). Many have assumed that the temple mentioned by Paul must be a physical temple in Jerusalem. But if we look a little more closely we begin to notice something that we may not have noticed before. As I mentioned in the article, each and every time the Apostle Paul speaks about the “temple of God” and uses the Greek word “naos” (G3485) in Scripture he is always referring to believers both individually and collectively. He is referring to the Church:

    1 Corinthians 3:16, “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?”

    1 Corinthians 3:17, “If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.”

    1 Corinthians 6:19, “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?”

    2 Corinthians 6:16, “And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God …”

    Ephesians 2:19-22, “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

    Even the Apostle Peter agrees in 1 Peter 2, the only time he ever refers to God’s temple:

    1 Peter 2:4-5, “Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

    Each time Paul refers to the temple as the Church he uses the word “naos” (G3485) and always called the Church the temple of God or the temple of the Holy Spirit or an equivalent expression. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Paul again refers to the temple of God (“naos” ) which, as in each and every other usage of the expression, would in my opinion again be referring to the Church as it always had before, not a physical temple. According to those who believe that a future literal temple will be rebuilt, however, we are expected to believe that Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 suddenly changes what he consistently meant in previous epistles when speaking about the temple of God. But if Paul spoke of the Church each and every time before, then it only stands to reason that he was again referring to the Church when writing about the temple of God in his letter to the believers in Thessalonica:

    2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in [eis G1519 – or against] the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

    The only other times Paul spoke about a physical temple were in 1 Corinthians 9:13, Acts 25:8 and Acts 17:24. In both 1 Corinthians 9:13 and Acts 25:8 he uses the word “hieron” (G2411) specifically to refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem. In Acts 17:24 he uses the word “naos” to refer to physical temples in general, however his entire point was that it was no longer a physical temple in which God dwells. Why? Because the Church was now that temple. In these instances where Paul spoke about a physical temple he never referred to it as “the temple of God” or an equivalent expression.

    Acts 17:24, “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.”

    The Temple of Revelation 11

    With this thought in mind, let us now turn our attention to the portion of Scripture that you claim supports the idea that we’re still waiting for a rebuilt Jewish temple. In the very first verse of Revelation 11 John writes:

    Revelation 11:1, ”Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, ‘Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.’”

    Many believe that if John could measure this temple using a physical tool like a reed, then the temple must itself be physical. This, however, need not be the case at all. Four quick reasons why:

    1. The Angel who speaks to John uses the exact same expression in Revelation 11:1, saying, “Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.” Even the word “naos” is used when referring to the temple of God, the same word the Apostle Paul used when referring to the temple of God as the Church, not a temple made of stone.

    2. The very first time we find the word “temple” in Revelation is in 3:12a regarding the Church in Philadelphia when Christ says, “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more.” To be made a pillar in the temple of God must mean that the temple in view here is not a physical temple made of stone, but rather one that is made of people.

    3. Lampstands/candlesticks were important items that were found in the physical temple in the Old Testament, yet John shows us that this time the lampstands/candlesticks in the temple of God are represented by the two witnesses (11:4), which again would indicate that the temple in view is not a physical temple made of stone, but rather one of people.

    4. In the Old Testament a priest was one who served within the physical temple. In Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 we are told that anyone who has been washed by the blood of Christ is a priest, and the Christian understanding of this according to 1 Peter 2:5 is that as priests we now “offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” We no longer offer animal sacrifices in a temple made of stone.

    Indeed, we are being built together upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone, a building in which all of us as believers are being fitted together, growing into a holy temple in the Lord for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22). Considering all that we have just learned, could it not therefore stand to reason that when John speaks of the “holy city” being trampled under foot in 11:2 that he is referring directly to God’s people, and not a physical temple built in Jerusalem? In my opinion, definitely (cf. Revealtion 21).

    Anonymous, “It is required for the fulfillment of the 70th week of Daniels Prophesy that is strictly for the Jews… This temple stands for 42 months during the 7 year tribulation period on the Temple mount in Jerusalem.

    There are three views regarding the 70th week of Daniel, the time in which Daniel writes about “confirming the covenant”. These three views state that the 70th Week is either: A. Already fulfilled, B. Partially fulfilled, or C. Not yet fulfilled.

    Although the first view — that the 70th Week of Daniel has already been fulfilled — is the most prevalent view throughout church history, I currently lean towards the second view that it is partially fulfilled only. To the surprise of some, the popular position held by many premillennial Christians today which teaches that the 70th Week of Daniel is still awaiting a full future fulfilment is largely a relatively recent invention and, aside from Ireneaus and his student Hippolytus who put a date on Christ’s second coming around 500 AD that has long since come and gone, was never taught prior to the 19th century. We can verify this by reading any book on Biblical eschatology prior to Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby. Not only is this position the newest, it is, in my view, the weakest as well.

    Today’s prevalent view teaches that Christ being “cut off” (crucified) was what ended the 69th week and that we are now in the midst of a 2,000 year gap in between the 69th and 70th weeks. Let’s take a look at verses 25 and 26 to see if this is what the text of Daniel teaches:

    Daniel 9:25-26a, “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince [the Anointed One comes], there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. And AFTER THE SIXTY-TWO WEEKS Messiah shall be cut off [killed], but not for Himself …”

    Let us play close attention to the text emphasized above. If we read the text carefully it becomes apparent that Daniel 9:26 does not say that the cutting off of Messiah (meaning “Anointed One”) is what ends the 7+62 weeks, as the full futurist view assumes. Rather, Daniel is saying that after the 7+62 weeks is when the Messiah would be “cut off.” In other words, the Messiah is killed during the 70th week. The NIV renders Dan 9:26 to say that He “will have nothing”, however the Hebrew also means “but not for Himself”, which is precisely how it is translated in many Bibles. The Messiah would die after the 69th week had ended, but He would not die for Himself. Why? Because He would be dying for others. This describes Christ’s work, His substitutionary death on the Cross perfectly.

    Let’s also note that in 9:25 Daniel wrote that from the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One comes there will be 7 ‘sevens’ and 62 ‘sevens.’ In other words, Daniel is telling us that at the end of the 7+62 weeks the Messiah would come. Daniel does not say that “from the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah rides into Jerusalem on a donkey” or “until the Messiah is cut off” there would be 69 weeks. Daniel said until the Anointed One comes, which is to say, is made known publicly or is revealed. Jesus had already been well known for a few years prior to His “Triumphal Entry” into Jerusalem and His subsequent death. The question, therefore, is when was the Anointed One revealed? According to Scripture, it happened the day He was baptized by John the Baptist when “John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’” (John 1:29-30). Notice what John says next: “I myself did not know Him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that He might be revealed to Israel.” (v 31). And indeed, the Anointed One has now come, “And John bore witness, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him’” (v 32). Jesus is anointed and is now revealed to Israel as Messiah in fulfillment of Daniel 9:25. This is what started the 70th week.

    From what I can find in Scripture alone, I am therefore persuaded to believe that Christ is the One Himself who already fulfilled at least the first half of Daniel’s 70th week. When it was pronounced to Daniel that 70 weeks (each “week” being 7 years) were determined for his people and that the Messiah would be “cut off” after the first 69 weeks, the natural reading of the text is telling us that the death of the Messiah is what would take place sometime during the last week. Knowing that the Messiah is mentioned more times in Daniel 9:24-26 than anyone else, it only stands to reason that the Messiah is therefore Daniel’s primary focus. After speaking about the Messiah and what He would accomplish, Daniel then writes:

    Daniel 9:27a, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease…”

    If a covenant was subsequently confirmed by Christ, then Scripture should affirm this elsewhere. And does it? Let’s allow Scripture to speak for itself and compare Daniel 9:27a above with the following verse below:

    Galatians 3:17, “And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.”

    Not only does it imply as much, Galatians 3:17 uses the exact same language as Daniel 9:27a, indicating that the Apostle Paul — an expert on the Old Testament — was referring directly to Daniel, telling us that Daniel’s 70 weeks did not stop once the 69th week came to an end. It continued right into the 70th week.

    There is nothing in Scripture that I could find to suggest a pause in between the 69th and 70th weeks, as the popular full futurist position attempts to do today. But a pause in time, however, is not out of the question in the middle of the 70th. Admittedly, I could be wrong, and perhaps there is no mid-70th week “split” at all and Daniel’s prophecy continued to completion with the stoning of Stephen (Acts 11) about 3.5 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, at which point the Gospel was then preached shortly thereafter to the Gentiles (cf. Romans 1:16). But like the curtain of the physical temple that was ripped in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:50-51), the Messiah’s death appears to have caused a separation of the 70th week into two separate periods of 3.5 years. This separation in the middle of the 70th week is again evidenced by the fact that Daniel 9:26 speaks of two subjects, namely, the Messiah and the “people of the prince that shall come.” Even the original Hebrew of Daniel 9:27 again infers that two separate subjects are in view. Contextually, this would have to be the Messiah and “the people of the prince that shall come” per the preceding verse. As Don Henson of Life, Hope & Truth ministries explains:

    “[A] careful reading shows that ‘he’ [of verse 27] does not refer to the prince, but rather to the Messiah. Notice the phrase in verse 26 ‘the people of the prince.’ It is not grammatically correct to assign the singular pronoun ‘he’ in verse 27 to the plural ‘people’ in verse 26. If ‘he’ were to refer to the prince, the phrase should have been stated differently: ‘the prince of the people.’ But since the verse refers to the ‘people of the prince,’ the prince is not the proper antecedent of the pronoun. ‘Messiah’ is the only person mentioned in verse 26 that can be the antecedent of the pronoun he. So the phrase ‘he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week’ refers to the Messiah” (Read more).

    Although some English translations do not fully convey this distinction, other translations such as the New King James Version translate the verse more clearly:

    Daniel 9:27, “Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”

    In its entirety, Daniel 9:27 is not just referring to one subject, but rather to both the Messiah and the “people of the prince that shall come” of the preceding verse. The One who confirms the Covenant is not the Abomination that desolates. Christ confirms the Covenant. Antichrist will set up the Abomination that desolates.

    In all of Scripture we only read of 3.5 prophetic years in the eschaton just prior to the Second Coming of Christ. The “two witnesses” of Revelation 11:3 prophecy for only 3.5 years. During this time the “woman” flees into the wilderness and is fed for those 3.5 years per Revelation 12:6. John again reiterates in Revelation 13:5 that this persecution by the Beast will last for 3.5 years. Daniel calls it a “time of trouble” in Daniel 12:7 and is told by an angel that it lasts for 3.5 years. From the Abomination of Desolation until the end in 12:11 we again have about 3.5 years. Each and every time the prophetic texts only speak of 3.5 years, the time of Antichrist during which time the people of God suffer intense persecution by the Beast, during which time a coalition of Islamic nations gather against Israel for the battle of Gog-Magog, and during which time the Beast and its people incur the chastising wrath of God before their ultimate end. Scripture itself never speaks of a future seven-years of anything. It just doesn’t exist. But it does speak of 3.5 prophetic years repeatedly, which just so happens to be half of Daniel’s 70th week …

    Daniel 9:27, “Then he shall confirm a covenant [‘the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ’ (Gal 3:17)] with many [‘this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’ (Matt 26:28)] for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering [‘For the law … can never with these same sacrifices … make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered?’ (Heb 10:1-2)]. {– Christ | Antichrist –} And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate. [‘when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel … then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again (Matt 25:15,21)].”

    Anonymous, “This is the temple the AC commits the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Jesus (Mat 24) and Daniel (9, 11).”

    Daniel’s prophecies often spoke about the last days leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. Some will point to these prophecies and assume that since Daniel appeared to speak of a physical temple and daily offerings that the last days temple must therefore be a literal temple in Jerusalem. As we can see from above, however, the New Testament is quite clear that today the “temple of God” is the Church and that we, as believers, now offer up the sacrifice of praise continually (cf. Romans 12:1; Hebrews 13:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Even if the prophet Daniel himself believed the prophecies he was given of the end times referred to a physical temple would not change this reality. The revelation that the Church would become the temple of God was progressive and prophets were evidently not always granted a full understanding of the prophecies they were given, which is quite apparent in Daniel 12 itself:

    Daniel 12:8-10, “Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, ‘My lord, what shall be the end of these things?’ And he said, ‘Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.’”

    Even though Daniel was not always granted full understanding, he was faithful in recording the prophecies he had received. Not knowing that the temple of God would one day be the people of God, however, would have conceivably been somewhat bewildering to Daniel if he had himself assumed that it was a physical temple that would be defiled during the time of the end. This could very well have been one of the reasons why Daniel did not understand all that he was seeing and hearing. According to the words of the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:24, a physical temple today would be little more than an empty building, void of the presence of God. I am sure that Christ would have known this and would in no way have been referring to a physical temple as the “holy place” in Matthew 24:15 when referring to the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel. A building absent of God is just another building. But the “holy temple” that is the Church in which God dwells, however, is another matter. This may have been why Jesus said “let the reader understand” in Matthew 24:15 — because Daniel did not:

    Matthew 24:15, “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand–”

    Ephesians 2:19-22, “… you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

    Anonymous, “The AC does not enter the hearts of Christians to proclaim himself God, he enters a real temple in Jerusalem. Get you eschatology straight. Do your homework.”

    The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 that the “man of sin” or “lawlessness” — whom we often refer to as Antichrist — “takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” It is important to note, however, that the Greek word for “in” is the word “eis” (G1519), but it does not only mean “in.” It is also translated dozens of times as “against” in Scripture. For example:

    Matthew 10:21, “Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.”

    Matthew 18:21, “Then Peter came to Him and said, ‘Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?’”

    Mark 14:55, “Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none.”

    In the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 the Apostle Paul made a reference to the “temple of God.” The natural assumption on the part of the translators would have therefore been to interpret “eis” to mean in. But in light of the full canvas of Scripture we now understand that the New Testament writers no longer defined the temple of God in terms of one that was made of stone, but rather as one made of people — the Ekklesia of God (the Church). In this light, the Holy Spirit could very well have been referring to the leader of the Ummah of Islam (the false Islamic “church” as it were) positioning itself against the temple of God (the true Church). In 2 Thess 2:3-8 Paul writes about the “man of sin” or “lawlessness” setting himself “eis” the temple of God, seeking to defile it, and then being destroyed by God at the brightness of His coming. In 1 Corinthians 3:17 Paul stated the exact same thing, saying, “If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.” In my view, this is certainly not a coincidence.

    Most translations say that before the “man of sin” is destroyed he will “sit” or “take his seat” in the temple of God. The Greek word for “sit” is “kathizō” (G2523) but it means more than to simply sit down physically, as one would sit on a chair. It also means to appoint, or to set or to confer a kingdom on someone. When we say that we have a sitting President or Head of State, for instance, it does not mean that they are physically sitting down. It means that they have taken their seat in office. According to the Greek, it therefore appears that the “man of sin” will likewise be taking his seat or appointed position as “Antichrist.” The “man of sin” is therefore called the “man of sin” for a very good reason — because he sins against God, and against His people — the Temple of God — whom he sets himself against once he assumes his “office.”

    If Jesus in Matthew 24 and the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 are referring to the holy place that is the new spiritual temple of God — the Church — then it may be that all we need to watch for in this respect is “someone” of significant importance to rise up against the Ekklesia of God. This new spiritual offensive could even commence as a physical offensive against Jews and Christians at the Temple Mount itself whereby this “someone” would proclaim himself to be something that only the true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can lay claim to. And what could that be? Read this eye-opening article to find out.

    Hope this helps! God bless …

    Like

  3. Paul Felter
    01/30/2014 at 7:45 PM

    Hi, this is Anonymous, I forgot to leave my info earlier.

    I have heard all this before in you other writings. I cannot address all the points on which you are in error due to the length of you response. Just because you are verbose does not mean you are correct. You have a faulty hermeneutic in that you fail to properly distinguish between Israel and the Church. Also you have a misunderstanding of the Rapture being Post-Trib. The Post -trib position is absurd and renders the rapture superfluous. Go up in the air to immediately return to earth, why? But let me take on verse wherein you error. Daniel 9:27 talks about a covenant for 1 week (7 years). In the midst of the week (3.5 years) the daily oblation is halted by “he”. You say that this was fulfilled by Jesus according to Galatians ch. 3. Then I ask, When did Jesus initiate or confirm a 7 year covenant with the Jews. When did Jesus stop the daily sacrifice and oblation? Neither of those events are recorded in Scripture. You are very good at twisting scripture to fit your end time paradigm. The two events just mentioned are fulfilled by the AC as noted in 2 Thess chapter 2. Jesus did not fulfill the 70th week of Daniel.

    If you would actually read the entire chapter 3 of Galatians you would clearly see that Paul is talking about the Arbahamic covenant and that the law which came 430 later did not annul the Abrahamic covenant. This has nothing to do with the covenant of Daniel 9:27. Just because two verses have similar wording does not mean that they are addressing the same subject. Please take a course in Hermeneutics to learn how to really study the Bible if you are going to make public statements. Learn to answer the questions like who is talking and who is the intended audience. God Bless and enjoy your studies.

    Like

  4. 01/30/2014 at 8:16 PM

    To Paul Felter:

    Since you ask “when did Jesus initiate or confirm a 7 year covenant with the Jews?” Please show us where in scripture does it say that Jesus has to initiate or confirm a covenant with the Jews? Your theory is just a pre-trib theory and assumption and not based upon biblical truth or doctrine. In fact, your theory is extra-biblical.

    Jesus stopped animal sacrifices with His death and resurrection . There were some who
    were persecuted or pressured by the Jewish community to continue to offer sacrifices either because they rejected Jesus or felt his death was not enough.

    The book of Hebrews actually deals with this and shows that the Old Testament sacrificial system (the Old Covenant) was temporary until the coming of Christ who was the fulfillment of all that the sacrificial system anticipated. Paul teaches us the same thing in passages like Colossians 2:16. It was Paul who specifically pointed to Christ as our Passover who was sacrificed for us (see 1 Corinthians 5:7)

    You really need to read scripture yourself and stop listening to false, man made teachings. The Holy Spirit will show you the truth once you do.

    Like

  5. Paul Felter
    01/30/2014 at 8:39 PM

    Organicnature, you completely took me out of context. If you read all the posts you would not have made those comments. I was saying that Jesus did not and will not make a 7 year covenant with many, the AC will. Jesus did not stop the sacrifices at His death, The Jews continued with the sacrifices in the Temple until 70 A.D. when the Temple was destroyed. Get your facts straight. Practice what you preach.

    Like

  6. ICA
    01/30/2014 at 9:42 PM

    Paul Felter, “You have a faulty hermeneutic in that you fail to properly distinguish between Israel and the Church.”

    Hi Paul, can you demonstrate — using Scripture — the difference between believing Israel and the Church? Or, if it is easier, can you explain why the Church is present throughout the Old Testament?

    Acts 7:36-38, “He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church (ekklesia G1577) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us”

    1 Corinthians 10:2-4, “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

    Matthew 16:16-18, “Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him … ‘I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’”

    Paul Felter, “Also you have a misunderstanding of the Rapture being Post-Trib.”

    Can you demonstrate, using Scripture alone, how the rapture is pre-trib without first assuming a pre-trib rapture to begin with?

    Paul Felter, “The Post -trib position is absurd and renders the rapture superfluous.”

    Can you please explain why, according to Scripture, a post-trib rapture is unnecessary?

    Paul Felter, “Go up in the air to immediately return to earth, why?”

    This is already answered in full here. In a nutshell, it is because we are not appointed to suffer the “orge” wrath of God, which is only found in a post-trib context. See the article titled “Lost in Translation: ‘Not Appointed Unto Wrath’ – What Scripture is Really Saying”.

    Paul Felter, “Daniel 9:27 talks about a covenant for 1 week (7 years).”

    The original Hebrew text of Daniel 9:27 does not say that the covenant lasts “for” one week in the sense that it only spans the duration of seven years. This is a common misconception, imho. Although the 70th week is one “seven” the covenant itself that is confirmed (strengthened) during this 70th week is an everlasting covenant. Some translations like the LEB and Darby put the word “for” in brackets to let the reader know it isn’t in the original text and can just as easily be translated “in one week” or “for the one week” every bit as much as “for one week.” The LXX, for instance, renders Daniel 9:27 to say “And one week shall establish the covenant with many”. Douay-Rheims says “And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week”. Young’s Literal Translation says “he hath strengthened a covenant with many — one week.” The Jubilee Bible says “In one week (they are now seventy) he shall confirm the covenant by many”. The Vulgate says “One week also shall confirm the covenant to many”. The whole idea of a 7-year peace treaty is built around the word “for” that isn’t even in the original Hebrew text. In other words, the pre-trib theory absolutely requires that the covenant be confirmed/strengthened “for” one week, otherwise it crumbles.

    Paul Felter, “In the midst of the week (3.5 years) the daily oblation is halted by “he”. You say that this was fulfilled by Jesus according to Galatians ch. 3. Then I ask, When did Jesus initiate or confirm a 7 year covenant with the Jews.”

    Jesus didn’t confirm a 7-year covenant with the Jews. Jesus confirmed the Abrahamic covenant with many — including Gentiles (non-Jews) — during the 70th week when, in the midst of the week, He was sacrificed. The New Covenant is the ratification of the promises made under the Abrahamic Covenant. Jesus came “to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Romans 15:8) and is the Seed of Abraham upon whom the blessings are bestowed. Paul is clear to note just a few verses earlier in Galatians 3:14 that receiving the Holy Spirit is fulfillment of the covenant that God made with Abraham. When did we receive the Holy Spirit? After Christ confirmed (strengthened) the Abrahamic Covenant upon His death (Gal 3:17; Matt 26:28; Dan 9:27a; cf. John 16:7), thus mediating a superior New Covenant (Heb 7:22; 8:6; 12:24). Also see Malachi 3:1:

    Malachi 3:1, “‘Behold, I am going to send My messenger [John the Baptist], and he will clear the way before Me [Christ]. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple [the Body of Christ]; and the messenger of the covenant [Christ], in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,’ says the LORD of hosts.”

    Paul Felter, “When did Jesus stop the daily sacrifice and oblation? Neither of those events are recorded in Scripture.”

    Yes, the ceasing of the sacrifices and offerings are recorded, and quite explicitly by the Apostle Paul. In the book of Hebrews he explains why animal sacrifices were now abrogated through Messiah’s sacrificial death once and for all and would no longer be acceptable to God. This is a major point that Paul is making in Hebrews 10 — that sacrifices under the old covenant were merely a shadow of what was to come (Jesus) and that now through Christ’s sacrifice the old sacrifices ceased from being offered (10:2) because of the new covenant (10:16) that was confirmed by Christ (Galatians 3:17). It was now incumbent upon all to focus on the substance, not upon the shadow.

    Hebrews 10:1-2, “For the law … can never with these same sacrifices … make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered?

    Hebrews 10:12-18, “… this Man [Christ], after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God … For by one offering He [Christ] has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them’, then He adds, ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.’ Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

    Paul Felter, “You are very good at twisting scripture to fit your end time paradigm.”

    Can you demonstrate how I am twisting Scripture by using the text itself and not simply stating what pre-trib dispensationalism teaches?

    Paul Felter, “If you would actually read the entire chapter 3 of Galatians you would clearly see that Paul is talking about the Arbahamic covenant and that the law which came 430 later did not annul the Abrahamic covenant. This has nothing to do with the covenant of Daniel 9:27.”

    The word “covenant” of Daniel 9:27 is being used in a Messianic context. I am sure that even you would agree. Who is it that confirms the promises made under the Abrahamic covenant if not the Messiah Himself?

    Paul Felter, “Please take a course in Hermeneutics to learn how to really study the Bible if you are going to make public statements.”

    I was a theology student at Master’s College and Seminary and am well versed in hermeneutics and exegesis, but I appreciate the suggestion. ;)

    God bless!

    Like

    • Paul Felter
      01/31/2014 at 9:17 AM

      Lets take the first one,the Church and Israel. You quoted Matthew 16:16-18, “Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him … ‘I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’” Jesus own words are that He will build His church. That is in the future tense. Before Jesus death he took the cup of wine and proclaimed the new covenant in His blood. If the church existed in the OT then why did we need a new covenant? No one in the OT was saved under the Name of Jesus Christ as were the first church saints as described in Acts 2. When the Spirit fell on those at Pentecost Peter preached the first sermon about salvation through the name of Jesus Christ. No one in the OT knew anything about Jesus Christ. They knew the messiah was coming but not his name. Even then they missed him and the Church became primarily a Gentile Body. The church is the bride of Christ, how did that exist in the OT, it did not. The Church is a unique entity that began at Pentecost and will end at the Rapture when it is taken out of this world.

      I feel that you have fallen victim to Replacement Theology which states that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan for the ages. Or perhaps you are an Amilliannialist of some sort. But you and I have a completely different worldview on the Scriptures. God Bless, Paul

      Like

  7. ICA
    01/30/2014 at 9:57 PM

    Btw, here is a photo I came across a while back. I thought it was a good side-by-side comparison:

    Israel and the Church

    Let us also be mindful that we must never replace believing Israel with the New Testament Church. We do not replace Israel in any way, shape or form. According to Scripture, believing Israel is the Bride of Christ and, as Gentile believers, we do not replace the Bride. Rather, we are grafted into the commonwealth of Israel and are now fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built together as one body per Ephesians 2. We are adopted in His family. In other words, we should not view Messianic Jews as being a part of the Church because they believe in Jesus, but rather it is we as Gentiles who are now a part of the Church because we believe in Yeshua.

    Like

  8. ICA
    01/31/2014 at 12:34 PM

    Paul Felter, “Jesus own words are that He will build His church. That is in the future tense. Before Jesus death he took the cup of wine and proclaimed the new covenant in His blood… the Church became primarily a Gentile Body.”

    Hi Paul, when Jesus says that He will “build” (oikodomeō) His Church the word build is in the future active voice and carries with it the meaning “to build up from the foundation.” Contrary to pre-trib dispensational teaching, the Church did not begin at Pentecost. According to Scripture, it began in the Old Testament where the foundation of the Church had already been laid. But now, because of Christ, everyone who believes would be added to His Church (cf Acts 2:46-47 – “And the Lord added to the church (ekklesia G1577) daily those who were being saved) and would no longer be foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2).

    This should be evident to us when Jesus explained to His disciples how to resolve conflicts in Matthew 18:15-17, saying, “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (ekklesia G1577); and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector….” Now, this is in the book of Matthew and many Christians believe that Jesus was addressing this teaching to a Jewish audience only, yet here He is calling them the Church. Since the Church — as it is taught by traditional dispensationalism — was not yet formed until after Pentecost, what was Christ referring to? The answer is simple: it was the Church, and the dispensational teaching regarding its post-Pentecost nature is incomplete. As I shared previously, Scripture clearly tells us that the Church existed in the Old Testament all along:

    Acts 7:36-38, “He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church (ekklesia G1577) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us”

    1 Corinthians 10:2-4, “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

    According to the Word of God, the Church therefore did not begin at Pentecost. It was increased at Pentecost. The Church began in the Old Testament with the assembly of believers of Israel. These are they who put their faith in God’s promise of a coming Deliverer, in the hope of Messiah. It is because of their Messiah that we as Gentiles who believe are adopted into God’s family and become one body. Again, I need to stress that at the end of the day we should not view believing Jews as being a part of the Church because they believe in Jesus, but rather it is we as Gentiles who are now a part of the Church because we believe in Yeshua. We have become a part of Jacob. This is the Temple that Christ has been building. This is the place that He has been preparing.

    John 14:2b-3a, “… I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself …”

    Zechariah 6:12-13, “… ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, saying: ‘Behold, the Man whose name [is] the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out, And He shall build the temple of the LORD; Yes, He shall build the temple of the LORD. He shall bear the glory, And shall sit and rule on His throne; So He shall be a priest on His throne …’”

    Ephesians 2:19-22, “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner[stone], in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

    1 Peter 2:5, “And now God is building you, as living stones, into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are God’s holy priests, who offer the spiritual sacrifices that please him because of Jesus Christ.”

    Paul Felter, “Before Jesus death he took the cup of wine and proclaimed the new covenant in His blood. If the church existed in the OT then why did we need a new covenant?”

    The efficacy of the sacrifice of Messiah was always there (there is no other name given under heaven whereby we can be saved), but His work on the cross still needed to happen at the appointed time. God promised a Deliverer (See Genesis 3:15 – the “protoevangelium“), and when God makes a promise, He keeps it. The Old Covenant was merely a shadow of a superior New Covenant for “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come — In the volume of the book it is written of Me — To do Your will, O God.’ … He takes away the first that He may establish the second” (Heb 10:4-9). Hebrews 8:7, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.”

    Paul Felter, “No one in the OT was saved under the Name of Jesus Christ as were the first church saints as described in Acts 2… No one in the OT knew anything about Jesus Christ. They knew the messiah was coming but not his name.”

    Are we saved under the name of “Jesus” or “Yeshua”? We call Christ by the name of Jesus in English. His name is Yeshua in the Hebrew tongue. If OT saints were spiritually fed by Christ according to 1 Corinthians 10:2-4, then how could Christ not have been the One who saved them? If there is no other name given under heaven whereby anyone can be saved (Acts 4:12) yet Old Testament saints were saved, then how did they obtain salvation? There is only one answer: It was Christ all along:

    Matthew 1:21, “She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name YESHUA, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.”

    Isaiah 62:11, “Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy YESHU’AH cometh; behold, HIS reward [is] with HIM, and his work before him.”

    Revelation 22:12, “And behold, I [YESHUA] am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.”

    Isaiah 12:2-4, “Behold, God is my salvation. I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the LORD, the LORD, is my strength and song; and he has become my YESHU’AH. Therefore with joy you shall draw water out of the wells of YESHU’AH. In that day you will say, ‘Give thanks to the LORD! Call on HIS NAME. Declare his doings among the peoples. Proclaim that HIS NAME is exalted!’”

    John 4:14, “… whoever drinks of the water that I [YESHUA] shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

    Old Testament saints were saved the same way we are today — by faith. Even though it is not fully explained like it is in the New Testament (its revelation to us is progressive), it is quite obvious that OT believers experienced regeneration, as we do today. For instance, consider the logical implications of Christ’s statement and question to Nicodemus:

    John 3:1-10, “Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.’ Jesus answered him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.’ Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can these things be?’ Jesus answered him, ‘Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?’

    Why did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he should already know this if nobody could yet be born again, according to what pre-trib dispensationalism teaches today? Obviously, this was not some new and profound teaching that Jesus was making, for Jesus effectively tells Nicodemus — a “teacher of Israel” — that he should already know that one must be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God. How could Jesus say “So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” if the Holy Spirit had not yet been sent? Why would Jesus say this, unless being born again was also true in the Old Testament as well? Why did Jesus not say, “So it will be with everyone who will be born of the Spirit?”

    In light of Christ’s words to Nicodemus, I searched the Scriptures to see if we could find Old Testament saints that are explicitly described as being indwelt with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, and consequently, born again. And here is what I found: Joshua was “a man in whom is the Spirit” (Num 17:18). Joseph was “one in whom is the spirit of God” (Gen 41:38). Daniel, whom “in him is the Spirit of the Holy God” (Dan 4:8). In referring to Moses, the prophet Isaiah in 63:11-13 writes, “Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying: ‘Where is He who brought them up out of the sea With the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them, Who led them by the right hand of Moses, With His glorious arm, Dividing the water before them To make for Himself an everlasting name, Who led them through the deep, As a horse in the wilderness, That they might not stumble?” Even John the Baptist – the last of the Old Testament prophets before Pentecost – was “filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15). If the Holy Spirit indwelt them before Pentecost, and if being indwelt by the Holy Spirit is to be “born again”, then the Old Testament saints must have therefore been “born again” as we are today and would explain Christ’s words to Nicodemus. Christ was indeed their Savior, even in the Old Testament, just like 1 Cor 10:1-4 tells us.

    If we consider Rev 13:8 and 2 Tim 1:9, even though Christ had not yet come from their linear perspective of time, the promise of Messiah was as good as done and the efficacy of the Cross existed before the death of the coming Deliverer, not just after. As such, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to conclude that its efficacy was only “retroactive” after it was accomplished and limited to our linear time, as some suggest today. Christ’s Sacrifice atoned for all those who believed in Him, whether it be those who looked forward in faith to the Deliverer who was to come, or we today who look back to the Deliverer who came.

    Revelation 13:8, “All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

    2 Timothy 1:9, “who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began

    If, as Revelation 13:8 and 2 Timothy 1:9 tells us, the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world and grace was given in Christ Jesus before time began, then the blood of sheep and goats did not remove sin. Through faith, however, they were offered up to God and, through faith, they were “baptized” in the Spirit of God and therefore born again in the same way that we are today. In other words, since they were preached the same Gospel (Heb 4:2, “we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did”) then Old Testament saints were saved just like we are and were saved by grace through faith, just as we are. But the New Testament explains and expounds upon what Israel experienced, because now the Holy Spirit was now being sent to bring in a world of Gentiles into the household of Israel, to be grafted into the family of God and become fellowcitizens with the saints (cf Ephesians 2). And thus the Church, being built by Christ, began to increase.

    Paul Felter, “The Church is a unique entity that began at Pentecost and will end at the Rapture when it is taken out of this world.”

    Where do you find this in Scripture? And what about all the Christian believers who are killed for the faith of Jesus after an alleged pre-trib rapture? Let’s think about this very carefully. We are called “priests” of God who will rule and reign with Christ, correct? (cf 1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6, 5:10). Yet this is precisely how those who are raised up in the First Resurrection after the tribulation are described, for “they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years” (Rev 20:6b). Why? Even today Christians are, as I write this, being shot, stabbed, blown up, beheaded etc. by the Beast. This is happening today. The Beast is not a system that all of a sudden appears overnight out of thin air after a secret rapture. It is already here, now. We see it every day. Turn on the news, and you will hear about it and see it waging war against Jews and Christians.

    The First Resurrection of the dead in Christ is the resurrection of the assembly of God who have died throughout the ages in Messiah, even those killed by the Beast during Great Tribulation. All believers killed by the Beast are in the Church. They are in Christ’s Body. There is no Biblical basis to believe otherwise, in fact to do so is to invite a tremendous amount of theological inconsistencies. To quote R. Totten, “The sacrifice of Christ benefits any truly repentant sinners who have sincere faith and trust in Christ, but this benefit is conferred as God automatically baptizes all true believers in the Holy Spirit, which places them ‘into’ the Body of Christ (1 Cor.12:13), which is the Church (Eph. 1:22,23), so that they are ‘IN Christ’ (2 Cor.5:17). Being ‘in Christ’ is the place of justification (Gal. 2:17), redemption and forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7)… There is no other place, than in Christ’s body, for those spiritual transactions in the NT. It will only be people ‘in Christ’ (and in his body), who have been crucified with him, who have died and been buried with him, and are made alive with him (read Rom. 6:1-10). For anyone to be saved, God places Jews or Gentiles ‘in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross’ (Eph. 2:16) and that one body of reconciliation is the Church (Eph. 1:22-23). There will never be any other way to justification, reconciliation to God, redemption, resurrection and eternal life, than by being ‘IN Christ,’ which is in his body, the Church … anything else is another way (and really, another gospel) than is found in the Bible. It would take some major explaining to tell how a person could be ‘in Christ’ but not in his body. If the tribulation saints are not in Christ’s body, then how are they saved? Consider especially verses like Romans 12:5, which says, ‘so in Christ we who are many form one body.’ Paul says explicitly there that being ‘in’ Christ means being in his ‘body’, and he uses those two ideas as being inseparable. Biblical Christianity can never advance any other way of justification and redemption, other than being ‘IN Christ.’

    So, the pre-trib notion of a group of ‘tribulation saints’ who are saved and redeemed during the tribulation, but yet are not part of the body of Christ (the Church), is actually a contradiction in terms, which rests on very shabby theology that undermines the biblical doctrine of salvation. The true situation during the tribulation will be: there will be Spirit-baptized saints who are ‘washed …in the blood of the Lamb’ (Rev. 7:14), so, they are blood-bought and justified saints; they will be born-again Christians ‘who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus’ (Rev. 12:17), and who ‘remain faithful to Jesus’ (Rev. 14:12). And very crucial for this discussion: note those saints who ‘die IN the Lord’ during the Great Tribulation (see Rev. 14:12-13 with 6:9-11)… that being ‘in the Lord,’ or ‘in Christ,’ is precisely the NT description of a believer who is part of the Church, the body of Christ. There is no possible way that these tribulation saints are not part of the Church.” (Read more).

    Paul Felter, “I feel that you have fallen victim to Replacement Theology which states that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan for the ages. Or perhaps you are an Amilliannialist of some sort.”

    I am a premillennialist who completely rejects replacement theology. In fact, I even take it one step further by also rejecting the notion that the New Testament church alone is the Bride of Christ. According to Scripture, it is believing Israel that is the Bride, not the NT church alone (here is proof). Although I do not adhere to traditional dispensationalism (that replaces the Bride with the NT Church), I also do not adhere to covenant theology that replaces Israel with the Church. I adhere much more closely to progressive dispensationalism because, as Gentile believers, we do not replace the Bride, believing Israel. Rather, we are grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel and are now fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built together as one body per Ephesians 2. In my view, the traditional dispensational understanding that you are promoting is therefore itself another form of replacement theology, which I reject in all its forms. I cannot state it enough that we should not view believing Jews as being a part of the Church because they believe in Jesus, but rather it is we as Gentiles who are now a part of the Church because we believe in Yeshua.

    Revelation 21:9-12, “And there came unto me one of the seven angels … saying, come hither, and I will shew thee the bride, THE LAMB’S WIFE. And he … shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem … which had a wall great and high, and twelve gates… and names written thereon which are the NAMES OF THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

    Hosea 2:14,16,19, “Therefore I am now going to allure her (Israel) … ‘In that day,’ declares the Lord, ‘you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master… [and] I will betroth you to me forever.’

    Hope this helps! God bless …

    Like

  9. 01/31/2014 at 3:26 PM

    No one has been saved in any other name: “there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

    This is for all time – he is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8)

    There is no other way to be saved – this is basic Christian doctrine. We are not saved by our works, and neither were the OT saints. Its Christ or nothing – OT were justified by their faith, per Paul, see Rom 3:28, 5:1; Gal 2:16, 3:11. Paul makes clear Abraham was justified by faith too, see Rom 4:1-3.

    Dispensationalism treads on dangerous ground when it creates two categories of people.

    Like

  10. ICA
    01/31/2014 at 10:57 PM

    Kurt J, “Dispensationalism treads on dangerous ground when it creates two categories of people.”

    Precisely, and error then begets error …

    Like

  11. Eliane
    02/04/2014 at 10:38 PM

    I really want to understand this, people say a lot of different things. So if it is not a physical temple, where will the Antichrist be seated then?

    Like

  12. ICA
    02/25/2014 at 1:43 PM

    Eliane, “I really want to understand this, people say a lot of different things. So if it is not a physical temple, where will the Antichrist be seated then?”

    Hi Eliane, thank you for your question. Most translations say that before the “man of sin” is destroyed he will “sit” or “take his seat” in the temple of God. The Greek word for “sit” is “kathizō” (G2523) but it means more than to simply sit down physically, as one would sit on a chair. It also means to appoint, or to set or to confer a kingdom on someone. When we say that we have a sitting President or Head of State, for instance, it does not mean that they are physically sitting down. It means that they have taken their seat in office. According to the Greek, it therefore appears that the “man of sin” will likewise be taking his seat or appointed position as “Antichrist” and is thus called the “man of sin” for a very good reason — because he sets himself against God and against His people — the Temple of God — once he assumes his “office.” Let me know if this helps.

    Blessings …

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of MidnightWatcher's Blogspot. Although differences of opinion are welcomed, please refrain from personal attacks and inappropriate language. This blog reserves the right to edit or delete any comments that fail to do so.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: