These questions come up in the context of a fairly extreme polarization between the Premillennial Dispensational and the Reformed theological camps, as to the place Israel has in the end times. The Reformed position can be as extreme as denying that Israel has any place at all, the people of God are all one people in Christ and the fact that there is now a Jewish state of Israel which hadn't existed for millennia is meaningless, biblically irrelevant, a trivial historical accdient. On the other hand to the premill pretrib eschatology it is the central fact around which all the end times events revolve. I have sympathies in both camps and some unanswered questions.
First, the fact that there is now a state of Israel where for the most of the two previous millennia there had been nothing but wilderness is hardly something to wave away as a mere accident of history. For one thing how does a Christian wave away any part of history, since we understand history to be His Story, in which everything is in God's plan? How do you so cavalierly ignore the fact that the people of the Old Testament have reclained their ancestral land and made it into a thriving state over the span of a mere century? There are prophecies that can be pointed to but the fact itself should be enough to astonish, and how could God not be in such an event?
It certainly seems to be a major part of the stage setting for the final act of Planet Earth.
The main or general question is how there can be two separate groups of saved people, the Church and the Jews. I've come to accept the general idea based on a chronological literal reading of the book of Revelation, starting with the fact that the book of Revelation in itself seems to be a return to Old Testament prophetic imagery and language, suitable for a return to dealing with the Jews apart from the Church. Then, since the Church (meaning Christian believers) is not specifically mentioned from Revelation 6 to Revelation 19, which is the period identified as the Great Tribulation or Day of the LORD, which is God's judgment on the whole earth, and it also apprears to be what is referred to as "The time of Jacob's trouble," again focusing on the Jews or today, the nation of Israel. < br>
. The apparent absence of the Church is easily explained as the fulfillment of Jesus' promise that faithful beliers would not experience God's wrath, which is not the usual persecution the Church does experience but the Great Tribulation which is God's judgment.
Neverteless there remains a conflict in my mind about there bgeing two separate bodies of saved people. Since the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ as the Savior of all, the Jews having been chosen to be the carriers of that gospel to the world, that the pre-mil pre-trib system overemphasizes ethnic Israel, or hasn't found the right framework for its place. The Church in the specific meaning of believers in Christ as opposed to the Gentil Church, MUST be the ONE body of Christ; how can there be two bodies of Christ? It seems pretty clear from what I point out above that there is yet to come a final dealing with the Jews, but often this is described as if there were really two completely different peoples of God, which makes no sense to me. Certainly there are passages in the Old Testament that refer to Israel as Israel and not in any sense as the Church, but there are also passages that DO refer to Israel as the Church in the sense of the body of believers and not any ethnic group. I haven't sorted this out yet and I get the impression that no particular system as yet has found the right perspective either.
. Abraham was called to be the father of many nations:
In the Reformed understanding of the history of redemption, therefore, there is no ultimate separation between Israel and the church. The promise God made to Abraham in the formal ratification of the covenant of grace (Gen. 12; 15; 17), namely, that he would be the father of many nations and that in his “seed” all the families of the earth would be blessed, finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The seed promised to Abraham in the covenant of grace is Jesus Christ, the true Israel, and all who through faith are united to Him and, thus, heirs of the covenant promises (Gal. 3:16, 29). In the Reformed view, the gospel of Jesus Christ directly fulfills the promises of the covenant of grace for all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. Israel and the church are not two distinct peoples; rather, the church is the true Israel of God, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Peter 2:9).----------Cirbekus Vebena, https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-church-and-israel-the-issue/
I also have a specific question that comes from Revelation 20 where the "first resurrection" seems to describe those who came through the Tribulation, those martyred in particular during that time, and the first thought I have is why the Rapture isn't mentioned. How do the Raptured saints fit in here? There is no hint that they even exist. It's always seemed odd to me anyway that the martyrs under the altar are treated as such a special group although the supposedly raptured Church would have been full of martyrs, especially martyrs of the Roman Catholic Inquisition in the millions, and in my view the Antichrist of the Tribulation is going to bring about a renewed Inquisition. Meanwhile the raptured martyred ones would also not have been avenged, not merely those martyred in the Tribulation period. But if the pre-trib interpretation is true at least the raptured Church should be the first resurrection, or if the first resurrection occurs in stages, as some understand it, then they should certainly be mentioned as the first stage of that number. Instead the way it is so emphatically said, "This is the first resurrection" I for one am left wondering about the raptured saints. This passage even seems to suggest that there was no Rapture yet And my own ponderings here lead me to that conclusion as well. I know they are subsumed under the first resurrection but that's only because the Rapture is assumed for starters, not because there's anything in the scripture here to support the idea. At the very least I need to see a discussion of this question and although I've been looking I haven't yet found it mentioned.
Nevertheless I do keep coming back to the seventieth week of Daniel and the yet-unfulfilled Day of the LORD as so nicely synonymous, and the times described, the 42 months, the "time, times and half a time" that also come from the book of Daniel in relation to the seven-year period yet unfulfilled. I don't know how to put all this together. The Amillennialists, the Reforjed, just ignore all the references to Daniel, which makes zero sense biblically, and yet I agree with their basic view of the Church as composed of all beleivers in Christ as one and not two separate groups and not two separate covenants. I can accept that the Tribulation period revolves around Israel and the Jewish people, that seems to fit with the Old Testament and Daniel referneces, but in accepting that I don't know what to do with the Raptured Church. It doesn't fit into its allotted place as well as is claimed by the premill pretrib camp. I can't resolve this yet so it's going to remain a question.
There are also still questions about the identity of the Antichrist that I might as well revisit here, as there is one candidate I don't think I've discussed before, though I may have mentioned it. Revelation 13 describes the beast that rises from the sea followed by the beast that rises from the earth. The first beast has seven heads and ten horns and the characteristics of Babylon, the lion, Medo-Persia, the bear, and Greece, the leopard, of Daniel's vision of the successive empires down to the Roman Empire of Jesus' time. This beast embodies all that in one and also shares the characteristics of the dragon of the previous chapter, which is Satan himself.
The beast from the earth has two horns like a lamb and the mouth of a dragon. He causes the world to worship the first beast, to make a statue of him which he then has the power to bring to life. It is the second beast, known as the False Prophet because he causes everyone to worship the first beast, who also requires everyone to take a mark in forehead or hand, without which nobody can buy or sell. This mark is the name or number of the beast which is 666. Years ago I was shown by a family member that the title of the Pope in Latin contains Roman numerals that add up to that number. Vicarivs Filii Dei, or Vicar of the Son of God. The title itself, even "Vicar of Christ" is blasphemy and synonymous with "Antichrist." This may even be the "name of blasphemy" on the heads of the beast. Since Latin contains its own numbers in its letters unlike other languages, the derivation of this number from the name has a particularly organic force not found in the usual gematria or numbering systems often applied to the 666 based on other alphabets. It's a peculiarly satisfying correspondence between the name and the number 666, besides not being just a person's name but the title that actually defines Antichrist. It's hard to imagine a more satisfying solution to the puzzle of the 666 than that.
So those who sugest that a Pope might be the False Prophet instead of the Antichrist himself seem to me to be completely misguided. The Pope has credentials upon credentials for the role.
I've pondered how anyone else could possibly have more claim to the title of Antichrist than the Pope and it's as good as impossible to come up with other possibilities. The man would have to have an even better claim to the number 666. His title would have to be in Latin, no other numbering system could outdo the one for the Pope.
The only possibility that sometimes crosses my mind is the Roman Catholic version of the "Virgin Mary." I think it was Alexander Hislop who concluded that she must be the beast. She certainly has the basic qualifications according to her veneration in the Roman Church, as some of the titles given to her quite specifically usurp the role of Christ, such as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix" and "Advocate." Scripture clearly calls Christ our Redeemer, our Mediator and our Advocate with the Father, it takes a lot of scripture-twisting to apply any of those terms to His mother. She was a good woman but she was a fallen human being, not divine, certainly not the Queen of Heaven or any of the other titles the Roman Church bestows on her.
The persona who emerges from all those titles belongs to the religion of Babylon that spread to many other cultures, as laid out in Hislop's book, The Two Babylons. The image of Mother and Child that came to characterize so much of Roman Catholic imagery comes down from the religion of Nimrod and his mother Semiramis. That imagery shows up in Asian religions and in the worship of Krishna in Hinduism as traced by Hislop. Mother and Child pictures can be found in these other religions. in Roman Catholicism it elevates the role of Mary over her divinely conceived Son. Many Popes have particularly venerated her. Pope John Paul had the motto "Mary I am all yours." Not all Christ's, but all Mary's. He also elevated the apparition at Fatima, taking "her" words as prophecy to be followed.
So the false Mary who usurps so much of the role of Jesus Christ in Roman theology, certainly has qualifications for the role of Antichrist. Since "she" has appeared in the air so many times to Catholics it gives her a divine aura, though there can be no doubt that the apparitions are demonic fabrications. People walk on their knees around statues of Mary. Dave Hunt describes this in his book "A Woman Rides the Beast" and it's also described in accounts of the apparition at Medjugorje. Mary over Christ. If she is the Antichrist and the Pope the False Prophet it is easy to imagine the False Prophet commanding that an image of her be made and that all peoples should worhip her as Revelation 13 describes. She would also have the characteristics of Satan as a demonic impersonation, tying her to the dragon of Revelation 12.
But if she were the Antichrist, to outdo the qualifications of the Pope for that role she would have to have a name or title in Latin that adds up to 666. There is a Wikipedia article that lists an emormous number of titles given to Mary in Latin, but I found none that come close to 666. I couldn't find the Latin for Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix or Advocate but just guessing at the Latin equivalents of those titles I don't see how they would fit the requirement either. "Advocate" comes closest, D+V+C adding up to 605 while the other two have the letter "M" in them which takes them over a thousand. Besides "Advocate" is only one of Jesus' attributes and not the most central one of Redeemer or Savior. So at least at this point I don't see that the demonic "Virgin Mary" is going to be the Antichrist of the Tribulation period.
That leaves me as usual with the Pope. And again, this Pope in particular has come on the scene with his own personal peculiar signs, the date and time, the seagull sitting on the chimney and so on. If a better candidate should show up his credentials would have to be quite amazing. Satan may yet pull it off of course as he is always in the business of inventing antichrists. Wait and see.
Back for a moment to the radio show there's just one other issue I'd mention. The oppoents to the Premillennial Disepnsationist eschatology are often characterized as anti-semitic for their denial of the importance of Israel in the last days. Two examples were given and one of them might fairly be called anti-semitic because he goes on about how the Jews have too much power in Washington. But the other is Hank Hanegraaf who is simply representing the Reformed eschatology which insists on the unity of Jew and Gentile in the Church in a way that leaves no place for the state of israel. That is, his position is theology-driven rather than an attitude of anti-semitism.
I like the quote I put up earlier of Cornelis Venema because it doesn't go to either extreme of the eschatalogical conflict since I have sympathies as well as problems with both sides. I don't think it makes biblical sense to ignore or allegorize the Old Testament reerences in the Book of Revelation, especially all its extremely specific numbers, and i also think Amillennialism, which is the Reformed interpretation of the end times, makes no sense at all.
Nevertheless they maintain what seems to me to be a much more consistent reading of how the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New, than the Premillennial Dispensationalists do. To call the Reformed view "Replacement Theology" always grates on me for that reason. They aren't replacing Israel with the Church, they see the Church as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies, Jesus Himself being the main subject of them all. One New Covenant in His blood, not two covenants, not two separate peoples. (There is now no more Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.") A return nevertheless to Old Testament themes in dealing with the Jews seems to be the case, a tying up of many loose ends, a fulfillment of many prophecies, and I don't know how to reconcile these things.
Just a few questions that remain unanswered for me.
