I am speaking of the “abomination of desolation”. This is the event that Jesus directs His disciples to “read and understand” (Mt 24:15). Jesus well knew that by obedience to His solemn command to identify and understand this event, it would become possible for His sheep to recognize a number of other preliminary signs that must precede and lead up to the abomination of desolation (Mt 24:15 with Dan 8:11-14; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11).

It is these well defined events, one that is particularly unmistakable, that will alert, awaken, and mobilize the saints for their finest hour of witness and triumph over Satan and the man of lawlessness. There is a divine strategy that God has invested in making the approximate time of His coming unmistakably clear to His saints when these key, preliminary signs will be in clear, unmistakable fulfillment.

But I don’t want to begin my answer by simply laying out the order of events leading to Christ’s return. We have done that often elsewhere. Instead, I want to point out the interpretive key that is essential to support and defend our view of the end from all other competing interpretations, both now and across the annals of church history.

It is crucial that this be in the hands and understanding of God’s people for the sake of the many that will be called upon to give an answer, as we expect that the manifest fulfillment of the prophecies on the open stage of history will prove the greatest evangelistic tool since the days of the early church (Dan 11:32-33; 12:3; Rev 7:9, 13-14).

This critical key of interpretation is found in the most unexpected place. By God’s design, the event that so clearly and indisputably holds all else in proper alignment is also the most misunderstood and commonly dismissed. I speak of the indispensable sign of the sacrifice.

I want to explain why this sign is such a gift to the body of Christ. It is not only an indispensable bulwark of defense against the great deception that will so profoundly test and expose the heart (Mk 13:23), but also the priceless advantage that this advance certainty will contribute towards the readiness and prophetic equipping of the coporate body of Christ for the final task of witness to Israel and the nations.

Without exception, every debacle of discrediting, disappointing false alarm can be traced to the misinterpretation or neglect of this event.

Although there are many other signs that will be visibly identifiable in advance of the tribulation, even in advance of the restored sacrificial ritual in the rebuilt sanctuary in Jerusalem, none are more unmistakable than this, and none more essential to avoid the common error of what I call, “separating the inseparable“.

Of all the signs that Jesus gives that He was careful to say are NOT a definite indication of the end (Mt 24:6, 14), He gives one sign in particular that marks the beginning of the unequaled, or “great tribulation” (Mt 24:15-16, 21). By deliberately sending His disciples to “read” and “understand” Daniel’s prophecy of this event, Jesus well knew they would be discovering a series of events that lead up to this great sign event. These events that must necessarily precede the abomination constitute what I’m calling, “the signs before the Sign“.

Jesus knew that when His command is obeyed, this key event would establish, not only what follows but what precedes. By locating the abomination, we discover other attending events that comprise a definite chronology of events leading up to this transitional event that will signal its approach well in advance of its actual arrival  (Isa 28:15, 18; Eze 38:8, 11, 14; Dan 9:27; 11:23-31; 1Thes 5:3).

The Hebrew word for those who will see the signs of the tribulation’s approach and understand their meaning are called the “maskilim”. The term means those having insight (Dan 11:32-33; 12:3, 10).  Armed with this knowledge, the maskilim of the end will rise to the occasion with mighty acts of soul winning witness that will “instruct many” (Dan 11:32-33; 12:3; Rev 7:9, 13-14).

When we obey the Lord’s directive to seek out this particular event in Daniel’s prophecy, we see that it is mentioned four times. Without exception, in every instance the abomination of desolation is immediately accompanied by the cessation of the daily sacrifice (Dan 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). The removal of the sacrifice is manifestly part of the same event, since both take place at an equal distance, approximately 3 ½ years from the end (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11).

With rarest exception, since the earliest church fathers, every failed system of prophetic interpretation has this tendency to separate the removal of the sacrifice from the abomination of desolation. On this one error, they all run aground.

In order to stand, these systems of interpretation, whether amillennial, post-millennial, historicist (often subscribing to the infamous year day theory) must, necessarily, separate the removal of the regular sacrifice from the abomination of desolation. Yet, an honest exegesis will recognize that these are conjoined aspects of a single event that stand at an equal distance, approximately 3 1/2 years from the resurrection (Dan 12:1-2, 7, 11). How is this not plain to see?

Furthermore, it is typical to deny a future, literal temple. It is usually argued that the “temple of God” that the man of lawlessness enters at the end is metaphorical and not literal. But to maintain this, Paul’s reference to the temple in 2Thess 2:4 and the self exalting man of lawlessness must be disconnected from the abomination of desolation and the stopping of the continual sacrifice and located somewhere else along the biblical timeline.

But can the sacrifice be separated from the abomination that makes desolate? And can this event be separated from a literal “holy place” in Jerusalem? (Mt 24:15). And what of Paul’s nearly verbatim citation of Dan 11:36-37 to describe the man who exalts himself in the temple in 2Thes 2:4?

How can this future person who is destroyed by the Lord’s coming (2Thes 2:8) be separated from the event that Daniel mentions only five verses earlier? (Dan 11:31). Moreover, Dan 9:27; 12:1-2, 7, 11-13 will show decisively that the sacrifice is removed approximately 3 1/2 years before the final deliverance of Daniel’s people and the resurrection of the righteous. These inextricably related events cannot be separated and dislocated except by resorting to an elaborate system of side-stepping, which must deny or spiritualize the otherwise obvious.

What then should be the plain person’s reading of the plain language of the text? Regardless what other mysteries await the time of the end, one thing would have been clear to Daniel’s first readers: that is the manifest inseparability of the abomination of desolation from the removal of the daily sacrifice in the temple of God at Jerusalem. This is so important, because if this event can be established as impossible to separate exegetically, then God has graciously given us an unmistakable sign that will alert His saints of the approach of the tribulation in precious strategic advance of the outbreak of the final tribulation.

Note that this sacrifice and its removal is very distinguishable from any other similar event in history. According to Isa 63:18; 64:10-11, the tribulation temple that is appointed to destruction at the time of the end is one that has been only recently recovered to Jewish possession. Nothing in history answers to this description. In every other instance where the continual burnt offering has been stopped, it had been ongoing for centuries without interruption, whether in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), or Titus.

This is without historical precedent. And if the holy place has stood only “a little while”, it follows that the sacrifice that will be stopped in the middle of the week has only recently been restarted. This is momentous! This kind of clarity and certainty will be a priceless mercy, not only to guard His saints against deception, but to unify, equip, and prepare them for the final thrust of gospel witness to Israel and the nations, with the sure and certain promise of an unparalleled harvest of souls as their reward (Dan 11:32-33; 12:3; Mt 24:14; Rev 7:9, 13-14; 14:6).

This brings me to my next point. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the “strong delusion” that God Himself has decreed to send on those who will not receive the love of the truth (2Thes 2:9). What?! God sending a strong delusion?! This signals to us that a very provocative red line has already been crossed by much of the world’s population. I began to think about what this implies for the events leading up to this moment of the great divide.

I thought of the principle implicit in Jesus’ warning to the rulers of Jerusalem, “If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father (Jn 15:21). In the same way, we know that God would never send such a fatal strong delusion unless the world had not first been powerfully exposed to very compelling evidence (conspicuous prophetic signs), leaving them completely and totally without excuse.

The glorious upside of this dread reality for the persistently defiant is the blessed contemplation of what success and wide reach the message of warning and promise must have, even before the outbreak of the final tribulation. You see the logic.

Then there is the question of what will start the final week. Again, interpreters seem most always to separate the inseparable. Even among the few that recognize a future removal of the sacrifice in Dan 9:27; 12:11 3 ½ years before the end, most very wrongly regard the sacrifice in Dan 8:11; 11:31 as fulfilled entirely by Antiochus IV in the second century B.C.

Not only is this poor exegesis, it is a great loss, because there is great advantage to the saints in expecting a future fulfilment of the 2300 day prophecy, and especially the events of Dan 11:21-35, which are usually assigned to antiquity. This is to rob the body of Christ of a powerfully strategic checklist of future events that start with the “alliance” of Dan 11:23, and follow in perfect chronological order on to the abomination of desolation in verse 31.

Antiochus was indeed an invaluable type and pattern of the coming prince (Dan 7:8; 8:9; 9:26; 11:21, 36), but there are many important details that he did not fulfill, which conservative scholars seem to try to ‘force fit’ in order to defend the miraculous fulfillment of prophecy, while neglecting numerous particulars that call for a much more complete fulfillment in the future.

That is another rather involved debate, but suffice to say,  we understand that the covenant that Dan 9:27 has in view is the “holy covenant” of Dan 11:28, 30, and that this covenant is not “made”, but “confirmed” (in the sense of strengthened, or caused to prevail). If this is true, the implications are massive. This covenant obviously is a recognition and endorsement of a renewed temple service, since this is precisely what is being called, “the holy covenant”.

This also proves beyond dispute that, even while those who preside over the service of the temple remain unregenerate, as often is the case throughout much of biblical history, still, the commanded institutions, and their assigned location are regarded as holy by God (Mt 24:15; 2Thes 2:4 with Jn 2:16-17), just as Jerusalem under judgement is no less, “the holy city” (Rev 11:2). For this reason, Jerusalem and the temple are special targets of the Antichrist’s intense hatred for the “holy covenant” (Dan 11:28, 30).

By implication, the covenant that the Antichrist confirms is not just another peace arrangement, but a formal recognition and ostensible support for Jewish access to their historic institutions of temple and sacrifice. Furthermore, it presents the most amazing paradox, namely, that the most unholy human in history is giving visible consent and support to something that God and the Jewish people regard as holy. What paradox of circumstance could ever bring such a thing about?

There are many theories, some more viable than others. I have my own tentative view, but how it comes about is not so critical as knowing how to distinguish and identify the event when it happens. But there is delicacy here and we must be careful about a natural tendency to over presume how this will come about.

When we know the nature of the covenant that is being confirmed (“the holy covenant” of Dan 11:28, 30), even if the Antichrist is not clearly distinguishable from the “many” who may participate in endorsing the covenant, it will still be possible to know that the seven years have begun, since it will be known that the sacrifice is soon to start. Then, soon “after the league made with him”, he will proceed to fulfill the things written of him in Dan 11:21-31.

As mentioned, for a futurist interpretation that is not satisfied with the partial, pre-typical fulfillment by Antiochus IV of the second century B.C., verses 21-30 gives us the first half of the week in an orderly chronological sequence from the “alliance made with him” (verse 23) to the abomination of desolation in 11:31. Verses 31-45 is the second half of the week that ends in nothing short of the deliverance of Israel and the resurrection (Dan 12:1-2, 7, 11).

That said, provided we can be settled that the events of Dan 11:23-30 are yet future, the believer will be able to observe his actions during the first half of the week. Immediately
“after the league made with him …”, Dan 11:23-30 reveals a clear chronological order of events that describe in great detail his strategic military movements and conquests leading up to the point where he places the abomination of desolation (Dan 11:31; 12:11). This begins the last half of the week that is chronicled from verse 31-45. Dan 12:1-13 is a recap of Dan 11:31-45 (compare also Rev 12:7-14).

We have charted out elsewhere why we believe he is a small, very likely fledgling new power (a “little horn — becoming strong with a small people”) in the region somewhere to the north of Israel. If so, he may very well be identifiable by the time he steps forward to confirm the covenant. But is the covenant he confirms, whether by expediency or political necessity, one that already exists?

If the covenant of Dan 9:27 is rightly identified with the “holy covenant” of Dan 11:28, 30, it has certainly existed since Abraham. Will recognition of Jewish right to sacrifice and worship on the temple mount be required to secure the peace? That seems to be the best inference to be drawn from a comparison of Dan 9:27 with Dan 11:23.

Evidently, the alliance of 11:23 takes place in conjunction with his endorsement and support of the covenant of Dan 9:27. In any event, even if some of this remains to be seen, what cannot, and certainly should not, be missed is that the end cannot come apart from the reinstatement of the regular sacrifice. This will be a sign before the Sign, certainly only one of many others.

This will be public. So the saints will have every opportunity to see the tribulation coming before it arrives when these things begin to take place, and those who will not see will have no excuse in the sight of God.

And while we know that Israel will be under a false, disarming illusion of peace when their final suffering comes upon them unexpectedly (though soberly warned in advance by prophetic witnesses; see Isa 28), it is possible, and from the context of Dan 11:24, probable that some measure of peace will already be in place when he joins the alliance. We must hold fast to the text and be restrained in our presumptions.

There will be much that may surprise when the time comes but Jesus gives us the key that sends us to Daniel to learn a number of things that will be no surprise at all, because they will be unmistakable and certain. There will be signs before the sign that will be public and knowable. When Jesus says, “when you therefore will see”, He certainly expects this event to be recognized and acted upon.

It is no mystery that if a sacrifice that has not been in existence since 70 A.D. is to be taken away 3 ½ years before the end, it must first be started. As a “sign spoken against”, the return of the sacrifice is calculated to spark tremendous controversy. It will be the proverbial, “talk of the town”. It will be a paradigm shift for an unwary Christendom. At first, we may expect it to be forthrightly rejected by many mainline denominations and traditions. Yet, we may hope and trust that as things progress, more and more will have their eyes opened to consider and begin to understand the much larger picture that this implies for the imminence of Jacob’s trouble and the refinement and purification of the Bride for the day of translation. It will be a trumpet call to awaken, correct, and unify the the body of Christ for its final mission to the Jew first and also to the nations.

As Joseph received revelation of the seven before the seven, even so, we have received knowledge of the marked off and well signaled 3 ½ before the 3 ½ . If God’s people are duly prepared to show the case from scripture, this will be the opportunity for the awakening and sending of many into the harvest. It is this certainty that will move the living members of Christ’s body to a Daniel-like intercession that will receive the same help from Michael in the casting down of Satan that Daniel received in the removal of the opposing prince of Persia (see Dan 10:13; 12:1 with Rev 12:7-14).

As the heavens are cleared of Satan’s ability to hinder and oppose, very significantly, immediately after mention of the abomination of desolation in Daniel 11:31, the scripture says, “and the people that know their God shall be strong and do exploits, and they that understand among the people shall instruct many, and they that be wise shall turn many to righteousness” (Dan 11:31-33; 12:3).

It is not incidental that it is just here, at the start of the final 42 months that the two witnesses receive power (Rev 11:2-3). Satan’s expulsion has cleared heaven of his presence and while this will mean great woe for the earth dwellers, with the revelation of the mystery of lawlessness and the rage of Satan (Rev 12:12-14), it is then that the army of watchful, waiting intercessors, sensible of the signs that mark the time, will receive a mighty, unparalleled unction of “salvation, strength, the kingdom of our God and the power of His Christ” (Rev 12:10).

This is in the middle of the week (Dan 12:1, 7, 11; Rev 12:6-14). This new strength and power will be shown in their complete freedom from the fear and joyful resignation to martyrdom (“they loved not their lives unto death”; Rev 12:10). Not only has Satan been cast out, but perfect love has cast out fear.

Time forbids going into further detail, but we simply cannot begin to contemplate what seismic changes this great transition in heaven will bring for Israel, the nations, and the living church of God. From this point, Satan will no longer be able to hold back (restrain) what he fears most. His expulsion from heaven will mean his time is now short (Rev 12:12). This is because this accomplishes what Paul will call, “the mystery of lawlessness”.

Paul tells us that this revelation of the “mystery of lawlessness” in the man of lawlessness is what holds back the coming of Jesus and the kingdom (compare 2Thes 2:1-8 with Rev 12:7-14). Paul is clear, and the book of Revelation confirms, that apart from this prior event, Jesus cannot return and the mystery of God cannot be finished (2Thes 2:3-4, 7-8; Rev 10:7; 12:10-12).

So, what is the mystery of lawlessness? It is the divinely ordained antithesis to the “mystery of godliness” in the incarnation of Jesus (1Tim 3:16). It is the incarnation of Satan in the body of the second prince, “the prince that shall come” (Dan 9:25-26). He is the self exalting, sacrifice removing little horn (Dan 7:8; 8:9, 11, 9:27; 11:31-37; 12:11).

This happens when Satan is thrust down and forced to enter into the body of the mortally wounded beast. As the revived beast, he becomes “the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” The whole world of mankind will marvel at the sight of this public miracle of unthinkable power and deception, as the beast rises with “all power, signs, and deceitful wonders” (2Thes 2:8).

This utterly demonic miracle, for which the return of Christ has waited, cannot take place “until he (Satan) is taken out of the way” (2Thes 2:7). That is until Michael forcibly removes him (Rev 12:7-14). In the middle of the week, the event happens in heaven that is answered by the sign on earth that the tribulation has started. At this point, Satan will know that “his time is short” (Rev 12:12); he will have lost his ability to restrain this long awaited mystery from being revealed. The kingdom of God come in full power on earth can no longer be hindered by divine permission.

With Satan’s perfectly timed removal from heaven in the midst of the week, the saints in heaven and earth can jubilantly declare, “now is come salvation, strength, the kingdom of our God and the power of His Christ” (Rev 12:10). That power will not only be seen on the two witnesses but we believe on a growing army army of Elijah forerunners declaring the Word under great urgency and at greatest possible cost all throughout the earth.

So if the confirmation of the covenant will be a sign, with the sacrifice apparently soon following, and if believers will be able to predict with perfect accuracy the political strategies, military movements and wars that will take place between the alliance of Dan 11:23 and the abomination of Dan 11:31, what will it mean when prophetic witnesses will be declaring that the man you see doing these things is very soon to rise from the dead and enter the temple in Jerusalem claiming to be above all other forms of deity? (Dan 11:36-37; 2Thes 2:4). Never has there been a time like this — finally decisive for multitudes in the valley of decision.

With such things in view, we may take great confidence that the wise among the sleeping will awaken and wax mighty, like the deeply-humbled Samson, who rose up to slay more in his death than in all his life. You see the principle.

In His great grace, Reggie

The post The Signs Before THE Sign appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Isaiah 63:18
“The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while: our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary.” (KJV)

“Your holy people possessed Your sanctuary for [only] a little while; Our adversaries have trampled it down.” (Amplified)

Just as Jeremiah’s prophecy was a catalyst for Daniel’s further quest for understanding (Dan 9:2), there can be no doubt that Ps 74 with Isa 63:18; 64:10-11 would have been an influence on his expectation concerning the fate of a future sanctuary that would be standing at the time of the end.

Whether Ps 74 was written before Isaiah or the reverse, it is Isaiah who adds something that entirely distinguishes the tribulation temple from any other.
.
The broad context surrounding the mention of the temple in Isa 63:18; 64:10-11 makes clear that Israel’s ultimate deliverance at the day of the Lord is envisioned as following in the wake of the devastating loss of the temple and the trampling down of the holy city. This is a theme that we see in many places throughout the prophets. But here’s what is so striking about Isaiah’s prophecy in particular. The temple that will be trampled burned and destroyed in the final tribulation has only been back in Jewish possession for “a little while” (Ps 74:7-8; Isa 63:18; 4:10-11; Dan 8:11, 13; 9:26).

No other temple in history answers to this description. It can only have reference to a third temple that has been only recently rebuilt, shortly before it is desecrated, trampled and burned by the self-exalting little horn (Dan 8:11; 9:27; 11:23, 31; 12:11).

Similarities in language suggest very strongly that either Isaiah is aware of a very early Asaph (Ps 74), or else a later Asaph is certainly aware of Isaiah‘s prophecy (Isa 63:18; 64:10-11) — and Daniel shows awareness of both. I tend to favor the view that the prophecy originated with the Asaph who served in the tabernacle of David.

Certainly, an early Asaph would have inherited all that Moses had said concerning the inevitability of exile and dispersion. Covenant chastisement would be the ever-looming threat until the expected day of national repentance that Moses foresees at the end of a final tribulation “in the latter days” (Deut 4:29-30; 29:4; 30:1-6).

It is just as likely that the original Asaph could have prophetically anticipated the destruction of the sanctuary. In any event, it seems clear that Ps 74:7-8; 78:59-60; 79:1, with Isaiah 63:18; 64:10-11 forms the prophetic background for an eschatology of tribulation that is centered around a very recently restored sanctuary.

Liberal commentators who hold that this portion of Isaiah could not have come from the pen of Isaiah of Jerusalem will, of course, assume that Ps 74 and Isa 63-64 are both written in retrospect after the exile, looking back and lamenting the bitterness and shock of the loss of the first temple.

We say, on the contrary! In both cases, the Spirit of prophecy is putting into the mouth of the suffering remnant of the final tribulation the cry for the long-awaited day of deliverance and permanent possession of the Land, according to the the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.

Daniel’s prophecy is building on this background. In what follows, we want to reflect on how he would have most naturally interpreted his own prophecy in light of where he stood in history. Both the context and the unmistakable similarity of language leave no doubt that Daniel understands “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer 30:6-7) to be the unparalleled period of trouble culminating in Israel’s national deliverance at “the time of the end” (Joel 2:1-2; Isa 13:6-8; 26:16-17; 66:8; Mic 5:3; Dan 12:1-2). The removal of the sacrifice at the midpoint of Daniel’s 70th week clearly marks the beginning of the this calamitous time (Dan 9:27; 12:11).

Significantly, Daniel’s visions of the long march of kingdoms and the prophecy of the seventy sevens puts Jacob’s trouble at a great distance in the future, on the far side of three more kingdoms after Babylon. Even the earlier Isaiah saw something of this march of kingdoms before the end, and therefore expected no soon fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. He saw beyond the contemporary Assyrian threat, past Babylon’s defeat by the Medes (Isa 13), and on to the rise of Cyrus as a type of a yet more distant restoration under the Messiah from David’s line (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; 44:28-45:5).

Christendom’s Solemn Loss

Therefore, not only Daniel, but Isaiah before him, understood that the final struggle at the end is centered around a lately repossessed temple and recently restored sacrifice (Isa 63:18 with Dan 8:13). Since the removal of the regular sacrifice is an inseparable aspect of the abomination of desolation, which Jesus gives as the sign that begins the final tribulation, and since the chronology of John’s Revelation is framed around Daniel’s half week as the immediate precursor to Christ’s return (Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14: 13:5), it is astonishing that this expectation, so manifestly fundamental to Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and John would come to be so absent from the consciousness of the church.

What is the reason for this loss and what does it portend for the future? That is a question the church needs to ask itself, particularly since ignorance of these critical musts of the last days exposes one to the very deception of which Jesus, and later Paul so gravely warn (Mt 24:4-5, 11, 23-26; 2Thes 2:3). Inattention to, or misinterpretation of the vital sign that Jesus gives in Mt 24:15 may (I believe certainly will) prove unspeakably costly.

Contemplate what it will mean for the watching saints to see a covenant confirmed and a sacrifice started just a short while before the man of lawlessness goes to the temple to stop the sacrifice and place the abomination that brings the final desolation of Jerusalem.

Failure to observe and obey Jesus’ command to His disciples to look for this particular event in the book of Daniel (“let the reader understand”; Mt 24:15), not only exposes one to unpreparedness, disarming shock, and possible deception, but also forfeits the priceless advantage of seeing the preliminary signs that lead up to the sign (Mt 24:15; 2Thes 2:3-4).

And this is only part of the loss. In my own experience, as a new and very young believer, I found that by following Jesus’ directive to seek this event out in the book of Daniel, with His counsel to understand, as we see that Daniel “set his heart to understand” (Dan 10:12), so much else would come to light.

I found that a knowledge of the end in its native Judeo-centric context opened up a whole new vista of the covenant background that stands behind the history of Israel and the glorious promise plan of God. So, the study of the end is crucial to our understanding the whole story line of the Bible from beginning to end and all the time between.

Returning to the question of Daniel’s likely understanding from his vantage point, let us review. Certainly, Daniel knew and expected that Isaiah had prophesied of the coming of Cyrus, identifying him by name for a testimony to the captivity weary Jews. Cyrus would issue the decree for the rebuilding of the temple. So Daniel well knew that his brethren were going home to a restored sanctuary  (see Dan 9:2, 17 with Isa 44:28). Would this second temple last till the end, be destroyed and replaced by the millennial house so graphically described by Ezekiel?

Is this second edifice the temple that would be still after three more world empires would arise in succession? Is this the temple that will be invaded by the last aggressor who will replace the continual sacrificial ritual with an abomination that brings the final desolation of Jerusalem  approximately 3 1/2 years before the resurrection of the righteous, including Daniel’s own resurrection? (Dan 12:1-2, 13).

Reasonably, the answer is no, not if he took careful regard to the language of Isaiah’s prophecy that the temple under final siege has been standing only a “short while” (Isa 63:18). So, while Daniel may very well have expected the second temple to last many generations, he would have anticipated its eventual end and a new and recent sanctuary to be standing in its place when invaded by the final Antichrist.

He would also certainly be aware of Isaiah’s prophecy that the Land would be barren and desolate, not only for one generation (as during the 50 years from 586 to 536 B.C.), but for “many generations”, according to Isa 61:4. The same is prophesied by his contemporary Ezekiel.

Ezekiel sees another return “after many days”, back to a Land that had “long been desolate” (Eze 38:8). Clearly, he is not speaking of the post-captivity return from Babylon, because this final and complete return takes place in the “latter days” after Israel has only recently returned to resettle the once barren Land, turning it into an Eden of beauty (Joel 2:3; Dan 8:9; 11:41), sufficient to awaken the covetousness of the northern invader (Eze 38:10-13).

This is the final aggressor. “Thus says the Lord GOD: “Are you he of whom I have spoken in former days by My servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied for years in those days that I would bring you against them?” (Eze 38:17).  When this invasion happens, the elect nation is still in a condition of unregenerate blindness, and under covenant judgment, with God’s face yet hidden (Deut 31:17-18; 32:20; Isa 8:17; 54:8; 57:17; 64:7; Eze 39:8, 23-24, 29). It is after the destruction of Gog at the day of the Lord that the nation comes suddenly to faith in one day (Isa 66:8; Zech 3:9; Eze 39:8, 22, 28-29)

Manifestly, Ezekiel is consciously referring to the same long absence from the Land that Isaiah describes in Isa 61:4. So Daniel’s long-distance vision of a march of kingdoms before the end is corroborated by Isaiah, Hosea, and his contemporary, Ezekiel (Isa 61:4; Hos 3:4-5; Eze 38:8). All are looking ahead to a much longer absence from the Land than the single generation prophesied by Jeremiah.

But when has the Land been bereft of its Jewish population for more than a generation? Only the long Roman exile that lasted from A.D. 135 until modern times answers to this description.

In view of Daniel’s certain knowledge of Isaiah’s prophecy of another temple, which will be standing only a short while before it is defiled and destroyed (Dan 8:11; 9:26), just as surely, the sacrifice that the little horn stops 3 ⅓ years before the end has been only recently restarted after “many generations” of absence from the Land.

Dealing with Dating: Making Sense of Daniel’s Numbers

Not only this, but Daniel would have known that the difference between the 2300 days of Dan 8, and the 1290 and 1335 of Dan 12 creates an apparent discrepancy: the three numbers are given in reply to the question, “how long”? (Dan 8:13; 12:6). What would this mysterious disparity between the days have meant to Daniel? How are the extra days to be interpreted?

The 2300 days end with the cleansing of the sanctuary. What is this? When is this? If this time could be known precisely, one could simply count backward to discover precisely when the 2300 days start.

Dan 12:11 makes clear that the 1290 and the 1335 are both reckoned from the removal of the sacrifice in the middle of the final week (also Dan 9:27). If the 2300 days are to be counted from this point, it would mean that the sanctuary is not cleansed until nearly three years into the millennium. I’ll come back to why I think this is the most doubtful of the possible choices.

Let’s put ourselves in Daniel’s sandals.

Daniel knows from his predecessors and his contemporary, Ezekiel, that there will be a renewed temple after the final, unequaled tribulation (Amos 9:11; Isa 2:2-4; 16:5; 56:7-8; 60:7, 12-13; Eze 37:26-28; 38-48). Significantly, Daniel’s precise language for the cleansing of the sanctuary is found in only one other place in scripture — in Eze 45:18 (and very nearly the same language is found in Eze 43:20-26). Therefore, there can be no doubt that Daniel expects the sanctuary to be cleansed sometime after “the end”, in the early days of the millennium.

With Amos, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, Daniel is expecting a new temple to be raised after the tribulation, because the temple standing at the time of the final tribulation is expected to be destroyed by fire (Ps 74:7-8; 79:1; Isa 64:10-11; Dan 9:26).

So in view of the expectation of a renewed and much more glorious temple (Hag 2:7, 9), never again subject to enemy invaders (2Sam 7:10; Amos 9:15), evidently, Daniel’s reference to the cleansing of the sanctuary takes us beyond the destruction of the tribulation temple to the beginnings of the new temple. This temple, will sit atop the elevated plateau of Zech 14:10 that will emerge from the great earthquake, which takes place in conjunction with Jesus’ return (Zech 14:1, 3-5; Rev 16:18).

The tribulation temple will be entirely replaced by a new temple. Ezekiel gives detailed instructions for the cleansing of the sanctuary in Eze 43:20-26; esp. 45:18. So where do we locate the extra days? It is most unlikely that the cleansing of the sanctuary will be delayed very long, because the returning Jewish survivors of the tribulation will want to resume their mandated worship as soon as possible. The question is, how soon might this be?

Recall that when the first wave of exiles returned under Zerubbabel, the Jews did not wait till the new house was completed before the sanctuary and the altar was set up only seven months after the return. The actual construction on the new house did not begin until seven months later (Ezra 3:6-8). Moreover, the question, “how long shall be the vision?”, suggests that the focus is on the events leading to final relief and deliverance from the persecution of the little horn.

This focus means that, for the larger part, the extra days should be reckoned, not from the time the sacrifice is taken away, but from the time it started. So I think the careful instruction of the Spirit in Eze 43:20-26; 45:18 applies to however and whenever the altar and the minimal sanctuary will be available to be cleansed.

Notably, the sanctuary is not the same as the larger temple edifice (Lev 4:6; Eze 43:21). As in the above example of the first return, a completed temple is not required to fulfill the prophecy. Whether the structure standing before the tribulation or Ezekiel’s new temple situated on the exalted plateau described in Zech 14:4, 10, all that is required to begin sacrificing is a simple altar and the inmost parts of house. The example of the returning exiles under Zerubbabel shows that the construction of the larger edifice can be ongoing concurrent with the daily offering of sacrifice.

What about the 1290 and the 1335? Could either of these terminal points be possibilities for the cleansing of the sanctuary? It would appear that both of these dates fail as an option because by this time Jesus has already returned. 1290 days is almost 43 months and 1335 is another month and a half further, whereas the career of the Antichrist is limited to 42 months when he is slain by the breath of the Lord (2Thes 2:8; Rev 13:5).

But if neither of these points after the close of the 70th week would seem to provide enough time for the returning Jews to gather to cleanse the new sanctuary atop the newly exalted “mountain of the Lord’s house” (Isa 2:2; Zech 14:10), nothing in the prophecy requires that the 2300 days end at either of these points that obviously take us beyond Christ’s return and into the early days of the millennium.

There is one place we can look for an event early in the millennium that answers very well to the pattern recorded in the book of Ezra. In the same way that the first wave of Jews returning under Zerubbabel and Joshua began to sacrifice seven months after returning and seven months before construction would begin on the house of the Lord (Ezr 3:6-8), there is another period of seven months described in Eze 39:11-16. This is the time that it takes to “cleanse the Land” of dead bodies that filled the mountains and valleys during the battle of Gog and Magog (compare Eze 39:8 with Rev 16:13-17). Could this be the time that the new sanctuary is cleansed, according to Eze 43:20-26: 45:18).

Regardless of how we account for the difference between the 2300 days and the 1290 and 1335 days, it is clear that these are not merely symbolic numbers. They are not years, as some have suggested, but days, which manifestly follow the end of the half week of unequaled tribulation and extend into the early period of the millennial age.

Moreover, they are given to mark events that are expected on this earth after the tribulation has passed. We could suggest such possibilities as the time that Israel will go apart to mourn (Zech 12:10-12), or the messianic banquet that coincides with the time of the resurrection, as described in Isa 25:6-8.

Qualifications Concerning the 3rd Temple Service

It is important to note that though the sacrifice and the sanctuary do not lose their sanctity and legitimacy because of the spiritual condition of those presiding over the temple service, the restoration of the covenant institutions of the temple and sacrifice do not exempt those serving in the temple from covenant judgment (Deut 28:49-50; Isa 10:5-6; 28:14-15, 17-18; Jer 5:15; Eze 38:4, 16; Lk 21:22-24; Rev 11:2)

Nevertheless, the ordinances and institutions commanded in the law, along with those that Ezekiel adapts to the millennial temple, remain holy and inviolable. These temple ordinances on the elect location, belong to what the scripture in Dan 11:28, 30 calls the “holy covenant”.

This covenant with the Jewish people does not depend on their personal holiness, but on God’s election and command. The “holy place” remains holy, even when the people called to holiness are not yet holy in the sense of personal regeneration. Still, in the sense of set apart, and fiercely preserved by covenant decree until the appointed day of national redemption, they are, in that sense, holy before they’re holy, as all who ravage, spoil, and pillage them will discover, to their horror.

On the other hand, because the blood and righteousness of Christ is the only acceptable covering, sacrificing in a house appointed to desolation will not insulate the worshippers from the judgment of Jacob’s trouble. Yet, it is the holiness of the appointed place where God has put His name, with the sacred institutions He has appointed for that place that establishes the obsession of Satan to usurp and the arrogance of the Antichrist to defile and destroy, as the consummate transgression — “the abomination of desolation” (Dan 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Mt 24:15).

Prophetic Expectations: Piecing Together the Puzzle

The phrase translated, “trodden down” or “trampled underfoot” is often applied by Isaiah and the earlier prophets to Israel and Judah when facing the Assyrian threat, as typical of the final siege of the Antichrist (Isa 5:5; 28:3, 18; 63:18). It is applied again by Jeremiah as the imminent fate of the first temple (Jer 12:10), and Daniel also applies the same term to a future defilement of the temple and the final desolation of Jerusalem (Dan 8:13).

But since he knew the second temple would soon stand again, upon the return decreed by Cyrus (Isa 44:28; Dan 1:21; 6:28; 10:1), and since he expected many generations to come and go (Isa 61:4; Hos 3:4-5; Eze 38:8), with kingdom following after kingdom (Dan 2, 7, 8, 11), it is altogether possible that Daniel expected the eventual destruction of the second temple and the eventual erection of a third. This is even probable, since he would have known from Isaiah that the tribulation temple is unique — only recently recovered to Jewish possession before it is trampled for a last time (Isa 63:18; 64:10-11).

We can see Daniel’s awareness of Isa 63:18 in particular by his use of the term for “trodden under/trodden down”, which is quite unique to Isaiah’s vocabulary. It is most often used for the final trampling down of Jerusalem just before the great day of deliverance (Isa 28:3, 18; 63:18; Dan 8:13; Lk 21:24; Rev 11:2).

Across the landscape of salvation of history, it is really edifying to see the miracle of prophecy in all its interdependent, interlocking intricacy. Looking back, we cannot fail to see the necessity of a long interval between the destruction of the second temple and the yet-future third temple that would follow the return that is “after many days” (Hos 3:4-5; Eze 38:8), and after “the desolation of many generations (Isa 61:4).

So, looking far beyond the soon restoration of the second temple, Daniel sees the temple described by Isaiah, standing at the time of the end. So far as we can be sure that Daniel knew Isaiah’s prophecy, this cannot be the second temple, but a third. And since this construction appointed to destruction (Isa 63:18; 64:11; Dan 9:26), it cannot be the fourth envisioned by Ezekiel and the earlier prophets, who see a new sanctuary in the new age (Mic 4:1-2; Isa 2:2-3; 16:5; 60:7, 13; Amos 6:11; Eze 37:26, 28; 40-48), as well as the later prophets, Zechariah and Haggai (Hag 2:7, 9; Zech 14:20-21). All the evidence points to a third, recently repossessed temple that is destroyed a final time, to be very soon followed by the glory of “the latter house” situated atop the newly lifted “mountain of the Lord’s house” (Isa 2:2; Zech 14:10).

Isaiah and his contemporaries to the north and the south all spoke of the destruction of the first temple. They also spoke of a very long exile that would last “many days” (Hos 3:4-5; Eze 38:8) and “many generations” (Isa 61:4). This long estrangement, during which time God is hiding His face from Israel, would end with the national repentance and return to raise up the fallen booth of David (Amos 9:11; Isa 16:5; Hos 3:4-5). But it is Isaiah alone who sees another temple standing at the end, one that has stood only “a little while”.

This is clearly before the restoration of the tabernacle of David that is always put after the last tribulation (Amos 9:9-11) and therefore, after the destruction of the Antichrist (“the aggressor, desolator, oppressor; Isa 16:4-5). It is also after the great national repentance (Isa 66:8; Eze 39:22; Zech 3:9, 12:10). This is followed by the complete return from all nations, with “none left behind” (Eze 39:28).

Daniel knows the vision of the final trouble and the final deliverance is at a great distance, “many days”, which from his vantage point is at least 490 years away (Dan 8:26: 9:24; 10:14; 12:1-2, 7, 11-13). Of course, Daniel did not see the gap between the first and second comings that would be shrouded in mystery until the appointed time of revelation (Act 3:18-21; Ro 11:25-29; 16:25-26; 1Pet 1:11)

The great take away from all of this is that unlike every other instance of the sacrifice being removed, whether by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus, or Titus, it was never a sacrifice that had been only recently restarted in a sanctuary that has been only recently returned to Jewish possession.

Call it reading between the lines, but there’s a lot to be read between those lines that glorifies the amazing foresight of the scripture, in all its delicate intricacy, so easily overlooked.

Daniel’s Understanding of Messiah’s Cutting Off

What may we suppose would have been Daniel’s understanding concerning the “cutting off of Messiah” at what would have appeared to be just seven years before the end? (Dan 9:25-27). Would the “cut off” King of Israel be raised after the seven years, with Daniel and all the righteous of Israel? (Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:8; 26:19; Dan 12:1-2; 13).

Is it then that the stem of David will slay the “wicked one” with His voice and the breath of His mouth (Isa 11:4; 30:30-31with 2Thes 2:8) Would He then slay the Antichrist and begin His rod-of-iron rule over the nations? (Ps 2:9). Or would He immediately rise to His Father’s throne, to return with the armies of His saints? (Compare Jude 1:14; Ps 149:6-9; Isa 13:4; Joel 3:11; Zech 14:5; Rev 19:14-15). In such a case, His session at His Father’s right hand would be a very short-one of only seven years. These suggestions are, of course, speculative, but they demonstrate the perplexity of the prophets, of which Peter informs us (1Pet 1:11-12).

Daniel knew Moses’ prediction of a rejected prophet by whom the nation would be judged and divided (Deut 18:18-19). Together with Isaiah’s prediction of a suffering servant who would be “abhorred” and “rejected” by the nation (Isa 49:7; 53:3), this is doubtless what Simeon had this in mind when he said, “this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against” (Lk 2:34).

Daniel knew that Micah had foretold that the ruler from Bethlehem would be smitten with a rod upon the cheek, and that this would provoke God to “give them up UNTIL” the time of Zion’s travail when the penitent remnant would return to their Messiah, whose rule would now extend “to the ends of the earth” (Mic 5:1-4).He also would have known Hosea’s prophecy concerning a particular consummate “offense” (singular) sufficient to provoke the Lord to “return to His place UNTIL” (Hos 5:15-6:2).

Can we conceive that Daniel knew that the wounded, curse-reversing Seed of the woman (Gen 3:15), the divine son of David (Isa 9:6-7; Mic 5:2), would be “cut off” after suffering rejection and death at the hands of His brethren, in remarkable analogy to the story of Joseph? I think a comparison of Isa 53:8 with Dan 9:26 settles the question.

Because of this act of killing the Divine Messiah that Daniel would most naturally see at the end of the 69th seven, he would also naturally assume this to be the great transgression that brings about the Divine desertion prophesied by Hosea and Micah (Hos 5:15; Mic 5:3). Doubtless, Daniel would understand this “cutting off” of the Messiah to be the consummate “offense” (singular) that provokes Yahweh to return to His place and surrender the elect nation over to the final covenant discipline of the little horn for the final half week.

This would be after the sacrifice had been recently restored in the first half, to no avail, since the sacrifice cannot be accepted apart from a living, Spirit-quickened faith, as only demonstrated by recognition and faith in the Messiah.

Without knowing the mystery of the two comings and the long gap of “many generations” that would lay between the destruction of the second temple and a recently restored third, tribulation temple, and judging from the absence of the definite article in the Hebrew text, Daniel manifestly expected his readers to know he was using the phrase, “anointed One” as an understood title for the Messiah, Son of David (Ps 2; 110; Isa 9, 11; Mic 5:2).

From all of this detail, and the background from the earlier prophets, it would seem clear that Daniel saw the rejection and death of the Messiah as THE crowning offense that provoked God to momentarily abandon the larger part of the nation, delivering them into the hand of their enemies, and ultimately over to the disciplinary scourge of the Antichrist, whose rise would mark the revelation of the mystery of iniquity (2Thes 2:7), the finishing of the mystery of God (Rev 10:7), and the end of the times of the Gentiles (Lk 21:24, Rev 11:2).

What Daniel could not have seen was the mystery of the two distinct comings and the age-long interim that would transpire between Israel’s fall and her final return (Deut 4:20-30;Isa 8:14-17; Mt 21:43; Lk 19:42-44; Ro 9:32; 11:11, 25-27). This unexpected turn of events belonged to the secret hidden in ages past (Ro 16:25-26), and has revealed God’s secret intention to visit the gentiles to take out a people for His name BEFORE the post-tribulational return of scattered Israel to build again the tabernacle of David.

“After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up …” (Acts 15:16)

After what? It is a matter of intense dispute whether the term, “tabernacle of David ”, as James used it here, is in keeping with the normal Jewish understanding of a post-tribulational event, or whether James has completely reinterpreted its meaning to be completely and sufficiently fulfilled in the present inclusion of the gentiles.
Or is it more likely that James is using the term, “after” in this passage in the same way it is used elsewhere in the prophets – to denote the expectation that the eschatological tabernacle of David is established “after” a still-future return of the penitent Jewish remnant to the Land in the “latter days”, as in Amos 9:14-15; Hos 3:4-5?

In this case, James’ reference to Amos is not to reinterpret the original language of the prophets, but to apply this foretold future precedent to the present visitation of the gentiles, in unexpected advance of the yet to be fulfilled post-tribulational conversion of greater Israel (Acts 3:21; Ro 11:25-26).

Notice that James’ citation of Amos is representative of what was foretold by other  prophets. Notice how James’ citation of Amos coincides with his use of very similar language in Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the same future conversion of the nations upon Israel’s restoration.

Thus says the LORD: “Against all My evil neighbors who touch the inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit—behold, I will pluck them out of their land and pluck out the house of Judah from among them. Then it shall be, after I have plucked them out, that I will return and have compassion on them and bring them back, everyone to his heritage and everyone to his land. And it shall be, if they will learn carefully the ways of My people, to swear by My name, ‘As the LORD lives,’ as they taught My people to swear by Baal, then they shall be established in the midst of My people. But if they do not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation,” says the LORD. (Jer 12:14-17; see also Isa 19:24-25; Isa )

James is manifestly conflating the results of what all the prophets foretold of a coming conversion of the nations that will not require that they take on all the particulars of Jewish stewardship, which was never imposed on God fearing gentiles, whether in the past or in the future, when the saved of all nations will flow to Zion (Isa 2:1; 60:5).

The post A Tale of Four Temples: What the Prophets Knew and When They Knew It appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

https://www.newantisemitism.com/antisemitism/is-the-stage-being-set-for-the-prophecy-of-zechariah-123

Good thoughts, good points, raising a very timely question. However, and it’s a big however, we must never forget the larger surrounding context of Zech 12:2-3. Obviously, the final siege of Jerusalem ends when the repentant survivors of Israel “look upon Him whom they pierced” (Zech 12:10), as a fountain for cleansing is opened (Zech 13:1). So when do “all” nations gather against Jerusalem? (Zech 12:3; 14:2), and what are the circumstances that will be prevailing at the time?

It may come as a surprise, but not all nations that come to fight at Jerusalem are being driven by an antisemitic hatred. Not all the nations that are gathered to Armageddon are coming against Israel. This is not well known, but contrary to popular prophecy scenarios, the final siege of Jerusalem is not directed against the Jews but against the Antichrist (Dan 11:40-45). The modern state of Israel will have already been overwhelmed and conquered 3 1/2 years earlier. This is clear from Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:1, 7, 11 with Mt 24:15-16, 21; Rev 11:2; 12:6, 14. A careful comparison between Eze 39:8, Dan 11:40-45, and Rev 16:12-17 will show that “at the time of the end”, the nations are directing their attack against the Antichrist, little expecting that they will be meeting the returning Lamb of God. Armageddon is the time at the end of the tribulation that all nations, deceived by demons (Rev 16:13), are rushing headlong into the trap that God has prepared for all who have ignored His everywhere declared covenant Word.

At this time (i.e., the end of the tribulation), the nations are not coming to destroy the Jews. They are coming to oppose the Antichrist who will have set up his royal pavilion on God’s holy mountain (Dan 11:45). It is then that the gathered armies of the nations will come flooding into the valleys of Esdraelon, Jehoshaphat (Decision), and Jezreel (Hos 1:5; 2:22-23; Joel 3:2, 12-17), only to “fall upon the mountains of Israel” (Eze 394, 17). God will use, not only the rabid antisemitism of the Antichrist and his ten, but the revolt of other great nations that have apparently found his yoke unbearable. In this way, God will fulfill His long declared intention to bring all the nations into a final trap of judgment for their defiance or indifference to the prophetic Word of God (see Isa 5:26; 13:4-6; 14:24-26; 17:12-13; 29:7-8; 34:2; Eze 38:4-6; 39:8; Dan 11:40-45; Joel 3:2; Mic 4:11; Zeph 3:8; Zech 12:3, 9; 14:2-3, 16; Rev 16:12-17).

Not all nations will unite with the Antichrist against Israel. Some will express astonishment and helpless disapproval (Eze 38:12-13), while others such as Egypt will be ravaged at the same time that Israel is ravaged by the same fierce king (Isa 28:2; 19:4; Dan 8:23-25). Notice that whereas Ezekiel is notably prolific in his prophecies concerning Egypt, curiously, Egypt is not mentioned in the list of nations that come against the Land under the leadership of Gog (i.e., the Antichrist; cf. Eze 38:17). This strange silence speaks volumes. Evidently, Egypt is among the moderate Arab nations that are at peace with the peace, intensifying the hatred of the Antichrist that will also break out with fury against Egypt at nearly the same time he makes his move against Israel (Dan 11:42).

If we are correct to understand that the covenant that the Antichrist ‘confirms’ (strengthens / gives formal approval) in Dan 9:27 is indeed the “holy covenant” of Dan 11:28, 30 that is violated in the middle of the week (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), then apparently the Antichrist was only one among “many” other nations who lent his support to the holy covenant that manifestly recognized Jewish right of return to the temple mount, (perhaps in some agreement to share the temple mount). This too suggests a divided world, since some nations will be in support of the ill-fated peace, as others who have hated the covenant from the start will join the Antichrist’s secretive plot to overthrow it (Dan 11:23-31).

We know from a number of scriptures that before the fateful invasion of the Antichrist, there has been some kind of peace arrangement that has worked to greatly relax Israel’s guard (Isa 28:15, 18; Eze 38:8, 11, 14; Dan 11:23-24). This helps to explain why the invasion will take Israel so suddenly by complete surprise (Isa 28:17-18; 1Thes 5:3). That Jerusalem is not under siege before this time is made clear by Jesus’ reference to Daniel’s mention of the abomination of desolation (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). The demand for urgent flight is in plainest connection with this particular signal event (Mt 24:15-16). This tells us that Israel does not come under final siege until the middle of the week. Before this, the Jews suppose themselves safe and secure in their alliance with the Antichrist, with other nations that are doubtless pledged to protect the peace (Isa 28:15; Eze 38:8, 11, 14; Dan 11:23-24).

All of this goes to show how tremendously secure this peace will seem. It would appear from Isa 28 & Eze 38, in light of the presumption depicted in 1Thes 5:3, that at least the orthodox will perhaps (?) suppose that that the messianic era has dawned, or is soon to dawn. Therefore, what seismic changes must be expected between the present status quo and the kinds of conditions described in scripture? Certainly recent events are moving us along an inexorable trajectory in that direction, but radical changes are required to get us there. We’re getting there, but we’re not there yet!

Obviously, there must be renewed Jewish access to the controversial temple mount in order for there to be a temple that the man of lawlessness can enter, not only to exalt himself above all forms of deity (Dan 11:36-37; 2Thes 2:4), but also to place what appears to be an idol image of himself in the holy place (Dan 11:38-39; Mt 24:15; Rev 13:14). We know too that with a temple, and probably before the temple is finished, there must be the restoration of the ancient sacrifice (Dan 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). The continual sacrifice is “stopped” / “taken way” 3 1/2 years before the end (Dan 9:27; 12:7, 11). This is very plain. It is this twin event (namely, the placing of the abomination and removal of the daily sacrifice) that starts the unequaled tribulation (compare Dan 12:1, 7, 11; Mt 24:15-16, 21; Rev 11:2; 12:14; 13:5).

Due to the massive amount of error that is currently circulating, it is important to stress the point that it is Jesus Himself who sends His disciples (and therefore us), to “read and understand” Daniel’s prophecy concerning this decisive event that signals the start of the tribulation (“let the reader understand”). Jesus well knew that when this simple command would be obeyed (as Daniel “set his heart to understand”; Dan 10:12), not only would one discover what follows, but also what precedes this pivotal event that would work to align and put in order all of the most strategic events of the end. In view of what is being taught, it is very critical that we note very carefully that this unequalled tribulation that begins with standing up of Michael in heaven (Dan 12:1 with Rev 12:7-14), coupled with the removal of the continual sacrifice and invasion of the temple on earth (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:7, 11) ends in nothing short of the return of Jesus (Mt 24:15-31) and the resurrection of the righteous (compare especially Dan 12:1-2, 13 with Mt 24:21, 29-31).

To miss the vital interconnection between the abomination, the cessation of the sacrifice, the tribulation, and the resurrection is to run adrift. For example, with only one exception, every misleading interpretation that I’ve encountered invariably disjoins and separates the abomination of desolation from the cessation of the regular sacrifice. Note this connection carefully. It will help you when you encounter any number of highly influential viewpoints that separate the inseparable. No less than the abomination, it is the cessation of the daily sacrifice that starts the final half week of unequaled tribulation. Both aspects of this single event are at an equal distance from the resurrection (Dan 9:27; 12:7, 11).

The sacrifice is stopped at the same time the abomination is placed in the temple. It should be obvious that these are two aspects of a single event that cannot be separated. For many, this will seem obvious, but it may surprise to know that the throughout the vast literature over the centuries, the abomination is seen as one thing (often the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.), and the cessation of the sacrifice another (usually imagining that when Jesus died, the sacrifice became obsolete). But any careful comparison will demonstrate that these two aspects of a single event cannot be separated, and the tribulation that follows this event, though very brief, cannot end with anything short of the resurrection at Jesus’ return (Dan 12:1-2; Mt 24:21, 29-31).

All’s to say, these inextricably conjoined aspects of the single event that starts the unequaled tribulation cannot be exegetically separated without unconscionable violence to the text. But this is precisely what has been done, yet nothing could be more vital for the church’s awareness and preparation against the great deception so urgently stressed and forewarned by Jesus and Paul (Mt 24:4; 2Thes 2:3). The connection is crucial, not only to escape from the great deception but also the means by which those of understanding will be made ready agents of world witness, holding the critical key of interpretation for the final great, unparalleled harvest of souls that will come out of ‘the tribulation, the great one’ (Dan 11:32-33; 12:3, 10; Mt 24:14; Rev 7:9, 12-13; 14:6).

As much as many of us are convinced that the time is very short, we are to hold the church steady by helping our brethren to avoid the false alarms of prophetic speculation. Not only because this has discredited the witness of many, but because of what God has invested in that time when those of understanding will know the time with utmost certainty. It is for this cause, we are to guard with utmost diligence the proper order of events. For many, the time will become very certain at the outset of the last week. For others, this certainty may not come until more nearly the middle of the week when the man of lawlessness is about to be revealed.

Personally, I believe God has been pleased to reveal even more than this. We have made no secret of our conviction that a compelling case can be made from many interrelated scriptures that the two days of Hos 6:2 represent the 2 thousand years since the cross and ascension, as the third day represents the millennium that follows Israel’s national resurrection. As compelling as we believe the case to be, and the greater glory of God in the marvel of such a fully foretold timeline, we too are held in check. Only by confirmation of these necessary preliminary events sometime within the next few years will our confidence be vindicated. Until then, we must remain tentative and restrained. What is NOT tentative, but most certain, is the necessity of a temple and sacrifice before the tribulation can begin.

What great use God will make of such unprecedented certainty seems implied by the great power and anointing that is seen to rest on the godly remnant of the last half of the week (Dan 11:31-35; 12:3; Rev 11:2) and the fruit that comes of it (Dan 11:33; 12:3; Zech 12:10; Ro 11:26-27; Rev 7:9, 13-14). This is why Satan will do all in his power to discredit, confuse, and obfuscate the certainty of the time that will spell his downfall (Rev 12:12), as these things will be seen and known by the saints with utmost certainty at that time. I love to quote G. H. Lang, “The History and Prophecies of Daniel”, pg 140.

“When this agreement shall have been confirmed, the wise will know that the final Seven of years has commenced, that the end days are present, that the consummation of the age has arrived. They will expect the violation of the covenant after three years and a half, and will not be overwhelmed with surprise, having been told beforehand by this prophecy. Then will it be seen in fullness that the knowledge of the prophetic Scripture is simply priceless.”

In the patient waiting (James 5:7-8), reggie

The post The Stage is Not Yet Set: Critical Distinctions appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

The post Critique of the Prewrath Position (by Brock Hollett) [VIDEO] appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Exactly what event begins the last seven years? With what certainty can this be recognized?

The usual teaching is that the Antichrist signs a peace treaty with Israel. This is based on Dan 9:27.

27 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, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. Daniel 9:27

“Which covenant is in view?” has been the question that has occupied interpreters. Is it the covenant that God made with Israel on Sinai? Is it God’s covenant to give Abraham’s descendants the Land as an everlasting possession?. Or is it referring to the New Covenant established in Christ’s blood? Commentators of different schools of thought are quite divided.

So, how this verse is translated and interpreted becomes a very delicate matter, in light of nearly identical terms found within the book (e.g. Dan 8:11-14; 11:31; 12:11) as well as other places, whether the reference is to the desecration of the sanctuary (Ps 74:3, 7-8; Isa 63:18; 64:10-11; Mt 24:15; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 11:2), or to the half week that begins with this event (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5).

Whether the last seven years of Daniel’s 70th week is understood as past or future will depend on which of the two princes mentioned in the preceding two verses puts an end to the sacrifice (Dan 9:25-27). If it is Messiah, then the final seven years will be seen to follow the preceding 69 weeks in unbroken sequence. If, on the other hand, the sacrifice is stopped by the future man of lawlessness, then one must recognize a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks.

A gap between the Roman kingdom and the final Antichrist must be observed in chapters 2 & 7 of Daniel. In chapters 8 & 11, the leap is made between the divided Grecian kingdom and the final Antichrist. Rome is passed over.

In many places throughout scripture there is often this mingling and overlapping of near and distant events with no clear distinction of the time that would lapse between them. Often, contemporary events on the near horizon would be portrayed against the background of the climactic completion of the final day of the Lord. This often observed phenomenon, unique to Hebrew prophecy, has been called ‘the near and far” view of prophecy.

This, and the pattern of partial, first-fruits fulfillment that anticipates further completion in the future, lies at the heart of what the NT reveals as the mystery of the kingdom of God, and the mystery of the gospel that reveals an unseen period between the advents. It’s all about the unseen gap! This pattern of a first-fruits, partial fulfillment is seen in the blending of the prophecies that envisioned Israel’s first return from captivity and the ultimate millennial end of exile.

All of this is in perfect keeping with the mystery of Christ’s twofold coming, and the two great mysteries of incarnation that circumscribe this age. The first is the “mystery of godliness” (1 Tim 3:16), fulfilled in Christ’s incarnation and atoning death at the end of the 69th week. The second is what Paul calls, “the mystery of iniquity” (2 Thess 2:7). This is fulfilled when the spirit of Satan is fully manifest in the flesh of the risen beast, in the middle of the final seven years.

Nothing else so well explains the mystery of the gap as these two mysteries, which perfectly incarnate the woman’s seed in Jesus, and the serpent’s seed in the now-fully empowered man of sin (“all power” …2 Thess. 2:9). The age is appropriately bounded by these two climactic mysteries embodying the great enmity originally put between the two seeds.

This is not the place to enter upon a defense for the view that the 70th week of Daniel is yet future and that the one who removes the regular sacrifice is not the Messiah, but the self-exalting “prince who shall come” (Dan 9:26 with Dan 8:11; 11:31, 36-37; 12:11; 2 Thess 2:4). My question is to those who already take our view: What is the nature of this covenant that begins the seven years?

Is the covenant of Dan 9:27 a newly formed peace agreement, or is it a covenant that already exists? Does the one who ends the sacrifice make ‘a’ firm covenant? Or, does he make firm ‘the’ covenant (in the sense of strengthen, recognize, endorse, or cause to prevail)? On a strictly linguistic, technical basis, either translation is equally legitimate, but what does the context indicate?

Our first interest should be to discover how the word is used in all other instances within the book. We should also be very reluctant to conclude that the reference to the covenant would be something entirely different than Daniel’s first readers would have understood.

The covenant with which they were familiar is the “holy covenant” mentioned in Dan 9:4; 11:28, 30, 32. As understood at the time, this would include more than God’s covenant oath to Abraham concerning the Land, or His new covenant promise to Jeremiah. It would also include all the holy assignments and ordinances connected to the temple and the law.

We see this in the use of the term in Dan 9:4, where Israel’s violation of the covenant receives all the penalties threatened in Lev 26, Deut 28-32, and Dan 9:7-14. Clearly, Daniel’s first readers would have made no such dissociation between the covenant of Dan. 9:27 and the holy covenant mentioned in Dan 11:28, 30.

What then has inclined interpreters to so completely dissociate the covenant of Dan 9:27 from the holy covenant of Dan 11:28, 30? Since Paul so clearly cites Dan 11:36-37 in 2 Thess 2:4, there is usually little disagreement that the Antichrist and the final events of the end are in view from Dan 11:36 to the end of chapter 12.

With only a few very notable exceptions, the consensus among most contemporary academic commentaries is nearly monolithic: Dan 11:21-35 was all fulfilled within the 2nd century B.C., between the rise of Antiochus IV in 175 B.C. and the end of his persecution of the Jews (167-165 B.C.). This means that conservative scholars of all schools will usually (but not always) put the gap between verses 35 and 36.

Those who see the covenant as confirmed by Jesus consider it to be the everlasting/new covenant promised in the prophets, not the ‘holy covenant’ that was attacked by Antiochus. Accordingly, they see the covenant as a peace treaty or alliance signed by a future Antichrist, but make no connection at all between this and anything that could be called holy.

Others, most often those of liberal leaning in their view of prophecy, see Antiochus Epiphanes as the one who removes the sacrifice in all four references in Daniel (Dan 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). For them, the covenant in view is the same throughout, as most readily recognized by Daniel’s first readers.

The discussion is too involved to enter upon a defense of our position at this point, but all lines of evidence, both from within the text and a careful reading of the documented history of Antiochus IV, lead us to conclude that many commentators have been far too hasty to assume that all the events of Dan 11:21-35 were entirely fulfilled in the person of Antiochus. Other scholars (some highly acclaimed – Jerome, Tregelles, Watson, Keil, Lang, Emerson) argue that many of the details of the text were not sufficiently met in the history of Antiochus’ rise and fall. This, of course, demands that we look for a future fulfillment.

Futurists very reasonably infer that the covenant is related to a peace agreement, since a number of scriptures show that the Antichrist invasion of the Land takes place at a time when the fledgling new nation is dwelling securely (Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26, with Isa 28:15, 18; Dan 8:25; 11:21, 24; 1Thess 5:3).

Ezekiel depicts Israel as dwelling securely, enjoying millennial-like conditions. However, this security is very clearly not millennial, but a false security, since the attack by Gog ends, not with the eternal state, but with the day of the Lord (Eze 39:8 with Rev 16:17), the burying of bodies and burning of weapons (Eze 39:9-16), but most importantly with Israel’s final and complete redemption (Eze 39:22-29). This tells us that the invasion of Gog takes place before Israel comes to faith on the day of the Lord (Eze 39:8, 22 with Rev 16:14-17).

Furthermore, some translations of Eze 39:26 show this interval of security to be a period during which Israel’s sins increase, placing it in marked contrast to the righteousness that attends the security that will be Israel’s in the millennium. This raises the question: is this peace the result of the Antichrist’s support for the “holy covenant” that implies recognition of Israel’s right to the Land and acceptance of Jewish worship on the forbidden Temple Mount?

Isaiah will show that the final desolation comes when Jerusalem’s rulers will lightly dismiss the prophetic warning of impending invasion because they have (evidently very recently) entered into a “covenant with death and hell” (Isa 28:15-18). Paul is doubtless referring to these OT prophecies when he speaks of those who will be “saying ‘peace and safety’” when sudden destruction comes upon them like birth pangs upon a woman (1 Thess 5:3 with Isa 13:8; 26:16-17; 66:8; Mic 5:3; Jer 30:6-7; Dan 12:1).

Daniel, however, will speak of one who comes in ‘peaceably’ (KJV), “in time of security” (ASV), “in a time of tranquility” (NASU), “when its people feel secure” (NIV), and obtain the kingdom ‘by flatteries”, variously translated as fair words, intrigue (Dan 11:21). Depending on which translation best captures the meaning, it appears there is already some measure of security already existing in the region  when he comes to power.

Can we imagine this? Our translations differ, but the question will depend on whether we understand the best reading as “at a time of peace”, or “peaceably”. The translation that seems most consistent in its use of similar language in Dan 8:25; 11:21, 24 appears to indicate that perhaps not peace itself, but the promise of peace is being extended, but as a strategy of deceit, to obtain political advantage.

And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. Daniel 11:23

It appears that immediately after the fateful “league” is made with him, he begins to work deceitfully, and from the larger context, this deceitful working takes the form of plotting against the conditions that were caused to prevail by his confirmation of the covenant centered at Jerusalem.

If we are correct to interpret Dan 11:21-45 of the future Antichrist as only prefigured by Antiochus, it appears that this alliance takes place at the same time that he, with many others, confirms “the holy covenant”. This would seem to suggest that the covenant of Dan 9:27 is being confirmed at the same time that the alliance of Dan 11:23 is being made between the Antichrist, Israel, and evidently many other nations.

Commentators have also taken different views of the identity of the “many” in Dan 9:27. Is the covenant being ratified between Israel and the Antichrist only, or is this something that the Antichrist does together with other participating nations? We think the latter.

In any event, the single most important question, decisive for all else, is whether or not the covenant of Dan 9:27 is the “holy covenant” of Dan 11:28, 30.  We note that in both places, there is the abolition of the sacrifice. This is often overlooked by the popular view. The covenant in Dan 9:27 stands in the same connection with the sacrifice as the holy covenant in Dan 11:28-32. This must not be missed!

Therefore, if the taking away of the sacrifice in Dan 11:31 is the same event described in Dan 12:11, then how can it be reasonably denied that this is the event that begins the half week of Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11? From Dan 12:1-2, 7, 11, it becomes clear that the half week ends in nothing short of the deliverance of Israel and the resurrection of the dead.  By solid, irrefutable exegesis, it is the same covenant violated by the same act of desecration.

But this brings the supreme paradox. How does the AC “confirm” (in the sense of approve or strengthen) a covenant that is holy if this is indeed the same covenant that he so vehemently hates and conspires to destroy? (Dan 11:23-24, 28-31). We are about to see why this is such a mystery that has defied clear resolution until these end days (Dan 12:4, 9).

Whatever else recognition of the holy covenant might include (such as Jewish right to the Land), it must also include the presence of the “holy place” in Jerusalem (Mt 24:15-16; 2 Thess 2:4). The standing again of the “temple of God” (2Thes 2:4) is certainly required if there is to be a sacrifice that is taken away only 3 ½ years (the half week) before the end (Dan 9:27; 12:1-2, 7, 11).

A comparison of texts within Daniel will show the following: the Antichrist begins as a “little horn” (Dan 7:8; 8:9). Is this metaphor only to indicate that he will arise in a kingdom that is lesser in size and strength than any of the four divisions of Alexander’s kingdom? If we observe the language of Dan 11:23, it seems that the term ‘little horn’ signifies a “small people”. This may suggest a kingdom that is even lesser in size and strength in its beginning than the ten kingdoms he unites in common cause against the covenant.

He comes from the north of Israel. According to Dan 8:9; 11:20-21, this could be anywhere within the general region of the ancient Seleucid (Syrian) empire that ruled from Damascus to Babylon.

Judging from the use of the prepositions in Dan 7:8, 24, it appears that the kingdom that gives rise to the Antichrist is one that comes up “among” the ten, sometime “after” they have already been established as kingdoms. Taken together, the evidence suggests that the Antichrist takes his rise in a fledgling new power after a predecessor has ruled only a “few days” (Dan 11:20). Nothing in history has adequately fulfilled these details of Daniel’s prophecy. Antiochus, whom most commentaries credit with fulfilling vs. 20, ruled, not a “few days” (even if taken metaphorically), but a full twelve years!

From the text, we see that after rising to power an ill-fated alliance is struck by Israel with the AC (Dan 11:23-24) – the proverbial ‘deal with the Devil’. Is this human alliance the same as the holy covenant that the Antichrist does not make, but only confirms? There is an important difference.

It appears that there are two sides to the arrangement: as part of a treacherous human alliance, the Antichrist apparently agrees to confirm (support and endorse) what the Jews regard as holy. This is something he personally hates and begins very shortly to plot against (Dan 11:23-24, 28-30).

On one side, it is confirmation of the holy covenant that recognizes Jewish right to land and temple service. On the other side, Jewish obedience has been made to depend on the frailty of a human alliance, this time the Antichrist himself. This is what Isaiah is calling an ill-fated “covenant with death and hell” (Isa 28:15, 18).

This resolves the paradox of how it is that something can be at once a covenant with death and hell where the Jews are concerned, yet show the great desolator who will take away the sacrifice to be one among many who confirms the holy covenant (Dan 9:27; 11:23).

[Note: Contrary to popular opinion, the anger of God does not burn against the Jews because some want to rebuild the temple and offer sacrifice according to the law. Far from it, His deep umbrage with them will be on the basis of what it has always been: trust in the arm of the flesh. This longstanding misplaced trust will at last sell them into the hand of the final Antichrist. It is the deadly presumption that lasting peace can exist apart from lasting righteousness, that is, the “everlasting” righteousness” (Dan 9:24) that can come only through the Spirit of “the Lord our righteousness” (Jer 23:5-6).]

For these reasons we are led to expect a multinational peace agreement between many nations. This particular peace must include within its provisions a formal recognition of the holy covenant. This will necessarily include, not only recognition of safe borders, but rights of access to the presently forbidden Temple Mount, particularly to attend to the service of the temple according to the law of Moses.

Many nations will oppose and rage against what the Antichrist with many nations have agreed to confirm. We know this because it is with such nations that the Antichrist will have secret intelligence, plotting to overthrow the covenant and recapture Jerusalem (Dan 11:28-30). We can safely add the word, “secret” intelligence, because it is plain from scripture that Israel will not be expecting the invasion of the united forces under the Antichrist.

As noted, some translations imply that the alliance with the AC takes place at a time of security (Dan 8:25; 11:21, 24). Others indicate only trickery and surprise. Even now, as of the recent “Abraham Accords”, regional nations, some of longstanding antagonism, are beginning to pursue normalized relations with Israel. So it is entirely possible that there will be a comparative measure of peace before the many confirm the covenant. It appears that the Antichrist is one among many who “confirm the covenant” (holy covenant) at the same time the “league” is being made with him (Dan 9:27; 11:23).

In this way something holy is being confirmed (supported, endorsed) by one who secretly (or perhaps not so secretly) despises what he has so recently confirmed. This is the great paradox! Little wonder it has not been more recognized by the exegetical commentaries. What scenario of political expediency could possibly incline the Antichrist to enter into an agreement (alliance / league) that will evidently entail his support for something that he vehemently hates and begins almost immediately to plot against? (Dan 11:23-34; 11:28-30). Does his compliance owe to some political pressure?, or, is this a planned strategy intended to pretend compliance until the passionately pursued opportunity presents itself?

If we are correct to identify the covenant of Dan 9:27 with the holy covenant of Dan 11:28, 30, it would appear that the holy covenant is confirmed at the same time certainly Israel, evidently with other nations, enter into the deadly “league” with the man who will prove their greatest adversary. This is the dark side, the “human” side of the agreement that is rightly called, “a covenant with death and hell,” precisely because its basis is a naive trust in man. This is the very deep contention that God has always had with His covenant nation.

So all scriptural evidence, duly considered, contemplates a two sided phenomenon that takes place paradoxically at the same time. This is how something can be at once a covenant with death and hell, even while unholy nations unite to confirm an ancient covenant that is holy. Most apparently, this is a multi-national agreement to recognize Jewish right to the Land of promise and freedom to practice their commanded worship in the appointed place. This will likely take place in connection with a human peace arrangement that will be enforced by a multinational peace keeping force.

But note carefully:

The peace that will be in place when the AC confirms the covenant to start the last seven years must be one that is completely without precedent. We know this because scripture shows that Israel’s guard is relaxed, leaving the nation quite unsuspecting of what’s about to hit them (Isa 28:15-18; Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26; Dan 11:23-24; 1Thess 5:3). And not only Israel, but I speculate that this shock and the fire that the ten will bring upon the harlot (Rev 17:16) will doubtless include, not only Jerusalem, but the west, with even some of the moderate Arab nations that were favorable toward  the peace. This would include the Gulf States of the Arabian Peninsula (ancient Sheba and Dedan; see Eze 38:13), and most certainly Egypt (see Isa 19).

If, with all of this, one could remain uncertain of the time, it will soon enough become very clear that the covenant so lately confirmed by the Antichrist is the one that begins the seven years. This will be known by the starting again of the daily sacrifice. According to Dan 8:11-14, the sacrifice does not start immediately after the covenant is confirmed. It starts 2300 days (6 1/3 years) before the end, and is stopped 3 1/2 years before the end (Dan 12:7, 11).

This means the sacrifice begins somewhere between the eighth and tenth months of the first year after the covenant has been confirmed. The reason the exact time is not easy to fix is because the 2300 days do not end with the return of Jesus (the precise day and hour unknown), but with the “cleansing of the sanctuary” (Dan 8:13).

Since this point has most likely to do with the “anointing of the most holy place” as one of the end goals of Dan 9:24, the reference to cleansing the sanctuary seems to be part of the dedication ceremony of the new temple. Precisely where this event will fall within the mysterious extension of days in Dan 12:11-12 is difficult to say.

In all other instances where the sacrificed was stopped (Nebuchadnezzar; Antiochus, Titus), it had been in session for centuries. Unlike any of these examples, the sacrifice is one that has not been only recently restarted. Our interpretation of Dan 8:11-14 as future is further confirmed by the observation that the temple that the Antichrist enters to desecrate is one that has only recently come back into Jewish possession (see Isa 63:18; 64:10-11).

By this we know that well before the Antichrist invades Israel and enters the temple, the saints will have opportunity to see many things that will confirm that they have entered the final seven. This will be a tremendous gift to the body and the world. But for those who persist in unbelief in the face of such massive evidence of fulfilled prophecy will become much more accountable and without excuse.

It is another discussion, but knowing the time when it is ‘time to know the time’ will be an unspeakably invaluable gift to the saints. This is because of all that God has invested in the use he intends to make of that complete certainty when the time comes.

“When this agreement shall have been confirmed, the wise will know that the final Seven of years has commenced, that the end days are present, that the consummation of the age has arrived. They will expect the violation of the covenant after three years and a half, and will not be overwhelmed with surprise, have been told beforehand by this prophecy. Then will it be seen in fullness that the knowledge of the prophetic Scripture is simply priceless.” (G.H. Lang, “The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel”; 1940)

The post How will we know when the final week has begun? appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

I was recently talking with someone about the Pre-Wrath view. The way I understand it, it seems so close to Post-trib with maybe a few minor distinctions. And it’s all up to the interpreter as well, but what scriptures can we use to defend Post-trib, or does it even matter that much?

I think it matters, not just for the practicalities of the dangers that may surface if the truth is not clear when the time arrives, but even more for the harmony of scripture to the greater glory of God.

There are so many in and outs of the pre-wrath position. On the one hand, they surrender the principal pillar of pre-tribulationism, namely, the doctrine of imminence, while retaining the really ridiculous pre-trib concept that for the church to be exempted from divine wrath, she must be removed from the earth. Tell that to the Jews who aren’t even saved till Jesus’ return to destroy the AC and establish His millennial rule, not to mention those of the nations that are not translated with the church but remain and are engaged in helping the scattered Jews back to their Land after the tribulation (Isa 14:2; 49:22; 60:9, 14; 61:5; 66:20; Zech 8:23)

To support a pre-wrath removal of the body, there are many things that must be done with the timing of the day of the Lord that cannot be exegetically justified, with a number of things that just don’t add up.

For example, how obnoxious the notion that Jesus has returned, lifted out the church while the Jews continue to suffer under the fury of a still kicking Antichrist?

No, when Jesus shows up, everyone sees Him and it’s over in an instant. Scripture says “one day”. In one day, an instant, the AC is toast (Isa 9:14; 10:17; 11:4; 2Thes 2:8; Rev 19:15, 19-21 with Dan 7:11); the church is translated (Mt 24:31 with 2Thes 2:1, 1Cor 15:51-52),as Israel is delivered and transformed at the believing sight of Him whom they pierced (Isa 59:16-21; 63:3-7; Eze 39:22; Dan 12:1; Zech 3:9; 12:10; Mt 23:39; 24:29-30; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:26-27; Rev 1:7). The harlot is judged. The mystery of God is finished, as the veil cast over all nations is destroyed (Isa 25:7 with Rev 10:7) and Satan is bound. The righteous are raised at the “last day” (Job 19:25-26; Isa 25:7 -9; 26:19; Dan 12:2, 13; Jn 6:39-40; 44, 54; 11:24: 12:48). The marriage feast begins ‘in this mountain’ (Isa 25:5-8), and so on we could go.

The same sound of the trumpet that gathers the bride (Mat 24:29-31; 2Thes 2:1) also sets in motion the long return home by land of the newly repentant Jewish survivors of the tribulation (Isa 27:12-13). Clearly, the surviving remnant of Israel is NOT translated with the body. Why? It is because they are only now receiving repentance and the Spirit, as Jesus is revealed, not only visibly in the clouds, but in their hearts as the transforming gift of revelation and repentance is happening at once, in one day (Isa 59:18-21; 66:8; Eze 39:22; Zech 3:9, 12:10 with Mt 24:39; 24:30; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7)

It all lines up with the same comprehensive and inclusive transformative event. The end of this age and the break of day happens instantly, as every eye sees Him and we may be sure, no AC survives that brightness, not even for a moment, let alone a number of days.

The day of the Lord that comes as a thief is also the Day of God Almighty” (compare 2Pet 3:10, 12 with Rev 16:15-17; also see Eze 39:8). Peter shows that that day does not come until AFTER the darkness that is “immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days (Mt 24:29 with Acts 2:20).

Very significantly in Rev 16:15, Jesus announces His now truly ‘imminent’ coming. That announcement / warning comes AFTER the 6th bowl and just BEFORE the 7th bowl and final outpouring of wrath and destruction of mystery Babylon at the Great Day of God Almighty. This is the same day of the Lord that comes as a thief in 2Pet 3:10, 12.

Jacob’s trouble may be the exception of speaking of “that day” (Jer 30:7; Joel 2:2-3; 1Thes 5:3) as the Day of the LORD, which would give the impression that the day is the last half of Daniel’s week, but it was the occasional habit of the prophets to speak of the Day of the LORD as inclusive of the events that lead most immediately up to the climax of that great day.

This was a kind of ‘short-hand’ way of referring to the great transition between this age and the kingdom come on earth, but to speak in these very few instances of an inclusive, transitional period does not cancel out what the far greater number scriptures pin point much more precisely as the very climax of the tribulation, as Jesus’, Peter’s, and John’s above cited references make clear. For them, and for all believing Jews of that time, the Day of the LORD was ‘one day’ Zach 3:9; 14:7), known only to the Lord, i.e., ‘the last day’.

There’s no denying that the Day of the LORD that comes as a thief is the same as the Day of God Almighty that also comes as a thief (compare Mt 24:43; 2Pet 3:10, 12; Rev 16:15-17). Clearly, it comes AFTER the 6th bowl (Rev 16:15),  which is obviously very late in the tribulation. Even more precisely, it comes AFTER the darkness that is AFTER the tribulation (Mt 24:29 with Acts 2:20).

That’s only some of my reasons, and I don’t push it to the unnecessary distraction of brethren who differ, but I do think it matters, particularly when the primary defense of the pre-trib error depends entirely on an extended Day of the LORD. Also, it may prove to matter even more when the saints may be unnecessarily distracted at a time when endurance to go the distance may be extremely difficult. So there is some of my thinking on the question.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

The post Pre-Wrath vs Post-Trib appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

What do you make of the fact the week the British mandate ended and Israel became a nation, May 14 1948, the Torah portion reading included Amos 9?

I think it was a token that the Lord is gracious to encourage those who had so lately endured so much that the promise of return is faithful and running on schedule. This is the Hatikvah [“The Hope”]. But this is not the only return. Just as the exile to Babylon was not the last exile, and the return not the last return. The present return is subject to further dispersion, as the far greater number of return prophecies speak of a final and complete return to follow an unequaled trouble that ends with Israel’s national repentance and the judgment of all their enemies.

It is very important that we not neglect the larger context of Amos 9, lest many be deceived and unprepared for what lies still ahead. There is an order to the return that is often overlooked. We must remind ourselves when Amos penned these words. It was before the fall of the northern kingdom. Since then, there has been, not one but two returns to the Land. The return from Babylon proved far short of the promise as described in Amos 9, leaving Israel vulnerable to further judgment and exile. It is the same with the present return.

Since Amos 9:15 is often cited as proof that the people of Israel will “never again” be uprooted out of their Land to which they have so lately returned, let us review the context:

“On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” says the Lord who does this thing. “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “When the plowman shall overtake the reaper, And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; The mountains shall drip with sweet wine, And all the hills shall flow with it. I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. 15 I will plant them in ‘their’ Land, And they shall NEVER AGAIN be pulled up out of their Land, which I have given THEM, says the Lord your God” (Amos 9:11-15, NKJV, NIV).

This is descriptive of the arrival of the Davidic kingdom. So long as Israel remains threatened surrounding enemies, the promise of the Davidic covenant has yet to be fulfilled (2Sam 7:10) The return in view is NOT the pre-tribulational return, whether past or present, but the post-tribulational return that follows the final judgment of Israel’s enemies. This full and complete return to everlasting peace and secure continuance in the Land is most typically the context of the far greater number of return prophecies.

“And I will make a resting-place for my people Israel, planting them there, so that they may be living in the place which is theirs, and NEVER AGAIN be moved; and NEVER AGAIN will they be troubled by evil men as they were at the first” (2 Sam 7:10, BBE)

Jeremiah appears surprised to see that the return from Babylon would not at once fulfill all the glorious conditions described in Amos 9. Jeremiah’s vision of Jacob’s trouble expresses the popular assumption that the promised kingdom of peace would immediately follow the predicted judgment on Babylon (Jer 25:12-15; 29:10-14). Instead, he is astonished to see ‘the day’ that is like no other.

“For, lo, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it. And these are the words that the Lord spake concerning Israel and concerning Judah. For thus saith the Lord; We have heard a voice of trembling, of fear, and not of peace. Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness? Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it” (Jer 30:3-7).

Now consider. Jeremiah had predicted that Israel’s return from Babylon would not come until after the predicted seventy years of exile (Jer 29:10-14). So when Jeremiah speaks of ‘the time of Jacob’s trouble’, what ‘day’ could he have in mind? It can only be the everywhere mentioned day of the Lord, because only then is the final oppressor destroyed and peace in the Land secure forever under the messianic king, as described in Jer 30:8-10, 16:22, and all throughout the so-called, ‘book of consolation (Jer chs 30-33).

This is our exegetical choice. Do we interpret “that day” of Jacob’s trouble as an event lying only in the past, only in the future, or with some, both past and future? To be sure, there have been visitations of divine judgment that presaged the day of the Lord, and some would argue for multiple ‘days’ of the Lord, but there is only one ‘day of the Lord’ that ends in the messianic kingdom that so clearly follows immediately after the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jer 30:8-10, 16-22 with Dan 12:1-2; Eze 39:8, 22, 28-29 et al).

Even on the basis of Jeremiah’s limited perspective, the destruction of 587 B.C. must be ruled out as constituting ‘that day’, because this was not followed by the abiding peace and everlasting righteousness described in Jer 30, and reiterated all throughout the ‘book of consolation’ (Jer 30-33), but by seventy years of captivity in a foreign land. And by no stretch of the imagination can the term, ‘that day’ be made to stand for the entirety of the exile. Furthermore, Jeremiah would have been aware of Isaiah’s prophecy that associated the ‘day of the Lord’ with Babylon’s destruction at the hands of the Persians (Isa 13:1-19; 44:28; 45:1).

It is noteworthy that the conditions that are described as following upon Babylon’s fall to the Persians in both Isaiah’s and Jeremiah’s prophecy (Isa 13:17-19; Jer 29:12-14; 50:9; 51:28-29 ) stand in marked contrast to the prophets’ vivid descriptions of the messianic era. Even before Daniel’s prophecy of a continuous succession of world empires, Isaiah and Jeremiah sees beyond Persia’s overthrow of Babylon, which proved only a type of a yet greater and more ultimate day of the Lord still to come. This is further evidence that Jeremiah sees this climactic, and ultimately transitional day somewhere quite beyond the liberation that Isaiah had associated with the destruction of Babylon at the hands of the Medes and Persians under Cyrus (Isa 13:16-19; 48:28; 45:1-5 with Jer 25:12-14, 25; 51:11, 28).

The prophets show an implicit understanding of typology. Consider. As much as Isaiah knew that Babylon would be succeeded by Persia, and that Cyrus was only a figure of the liberation that could only come through the Messiah Redeemer from David’s line (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5). And as much as both Isaiah and Jeremiah knew that neither Assyria nor Babylon was the last of the great world empires to stand before the kingdom age, but that both stood as figures of a more ultimate oppressor to be destroyed by none other than the Messiah (Isa 9:4, 14; 10:5, 17, 20-27; 11:4-5; 14:3-4, 24-27; 30:31; 31:8; Jer 30:8, 14; see especially the Septuagint translation of Isa 11:4 as cited by Paul in 2Thess 2:8), it becomes evident that not only the Spirit who inspired them, but the prophets themselves were quite aware of a recurrent pattern of partial fulfillment that prefigured a more ultimate eschatological crisis that would usher in the rod iron rule of David’s greater son and Lord (Ps 2; 110). This is something to ponder.

Consider too that in both Isaiah and Ezekiel, the day of the Lord is depicted as coming upon a nation that has only recently returned to the Land after ‘many generations’ of desolation (Isa 61:4; 63:18; Eze 38:8). This return would not be to the permanent peace of the messianic era but to continued threat from their enemies at a time when the Land has become prosperous (Eze 38:12-13), with its beauty likened to Eden (Joel 2:3). Context will show that these prophecies are not speaking of millennial conditions, as in Eze 36:35, but of the state of the Land that exists just prior to the day of the Lord, the day that will be ‘like no other’ (compare Joel 2:1-3; Isa 13:5-8; Jer 30:5-7).

Even if it should be questioned whether Jeremiah sees this unequaled time of trouble as taking place in the Land AFTER the return of Jer 30:3, it cannot be disputed where Daniel puts the time of unequaled trouble, as he has obviously contemplated Jeremiah’s prophecy (Dan 9:2) and will appropriate the language of Jeremiah’s prophecy of Jacob’s trouble to describe the final tribulation (compare Jer 30:7 with Dan 12:1). Clearly, Daniel places the unequaled trouble at ‘the end of days’ when his people will be delivered and the righteous raised to everlasting life at this time (Dan 12:1-2, 14).

Very clearly, in both Daniel and Revelation, the unequaled tribulation is equated with the last half of the final seven years that begins with Michael’s heavenly victory over Satan and the placing of the abomination in the temple (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 11:31; 12:1, 7, 11 with Mt 24:15, 21; 2Thes 2:4; Rev 11:2; 12:6, 7-14; 13:5). Furthermore, the later prophets of the return (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) show clearly that the return from Babylon by Persian decree was only a precursor to a much greater and more complete return that takes place AFTER the still coming day of the Lord (Zech 8:7-8; 10:6-10; 14:1; Hag 2:6-7, 22; Mal 4:5).

Therefore, before we ‘over-conclude’ for the present return (though indeed a sign of the first magnitude), we must not forget that until Israel has attained to the ‘everlasting righteousness’ of the New Covenant (Isa 45:17; Jer 31:31-34; 32:40; Dan 9:24), the great tribulation that concludes the age is manifestly still future.

What Jeremiah and the prophets understood of the return from Babylon is no less true of the modern return. As with the return from Babylon, the Jews are home again, but they’re not yet ‘home free’. Remarkably, and wondrously, the Jews are back in the Land. The return from Babylon was after seventy years, which is only one generation, but this return will be after “the desolation of many generations” (Isa 61:4). That is a significant distinction! Nevertheless, a final suffering at the hand of a ‘cruel one’ (Jer 30:14) is yet ‘determined’ (Dan 9:24, 27; 11:36) to, at some point, follow the present return.

In notable contrast to both of these returns, the return that will follow the day of the Lord will end the diaspora forever, because from that return, not one will be left behind (Eze 39:28-29). Until ‘that day’, whether in the Land or out of the Land, Israel remains under the abiding threat of covenant judgment. Only after a final tribulation of unequaled severity (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21) will all Israel be saved and justified with an everlasting salvation (Isa 45:17, 25). “From that day and forward” (Eze 39:22), all (and not only a remnant) will know Him, so that there is no more need for evangelism among the Jews and their children again forever (Isa 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; 66:22; Jer 31:34 et al). This is astounding! No wonder interpreters cannot conceive of such an uniform salvation among the Jews ever happening here, on this earth.

Regardless of how clearly the former prophets saw beyond the destruction of Babylon, Daniel and the later prophets are very clear that the sufferings of the Jews does not end with the return from Babylon. Daniel sees the rise and fall of many kingdoms, some fierce persecutors of his people. It is this state of affairs that is expected to continue until “the coming in of the ‘everlasting righteousness'” (Jer 32:40; Dan 9:24). Although Daniel does not use the specific phrase, ‘the day of the Lord’, it cannot be mistaken that his seventy week prophecy ends just there, with Israel’s ultimate deliverance and the resurrection (Dan 12:1-2).

On ‘that day’, when the great trumpet will sound (Isa 27:12-13), the penitent survivors of Israel begin their trek back home, this time over the great waterways that have been lately dried up, evidently by the events presaging Armageddon (compare Isa 11:15-16; 27:12-13; Zech 10:10-11; Rev 16:12). The penitent survivors of Israel will be assisted by willing gentiles that have also survived (Isa 14:2: 49:22; 60:9; 66:20; Zech 8:23). This is the far more complete and final return from which no Jewish survivor will be left behind in the nations (Eze 39:28-29).

The prophets well knew that no revival or return could be sufficient to secure abiding peace in the Land that did not attain to the ‘everlasting righteousness’ from which they will “never again depart” (Isa 59:21; Jer 32:40). They understood that until ‘all Israel’ (and not only a remnant) attains to THIS righteousness, the discipline of the covenant continues and further desolations are determined (Dan 9:26; 11:31; Mt 24:15-16, 21: Rev 11:2).

That this well established axiom of biblical eschatology is not more commonly understood and taught is as strange as it is haunting. Its oversight or denial leaves the Jewish people open to great deception, as also the shattering of the faith of many who join them in saying, ‘this will not come to us’ (Isa 28:14-15; Amos 9:10; 1Thes 5:3).

This raises the question of the church’s job description. If the church is, as Paul calls her, “the pillar and ground of truth,” where is the clear voice of warning that is in agreement with these prophets of return? Who will tell them that the modern return has no more guarantee of permanence than the return from Babylon?

Whereas we agree that the remarkable repatriation of the Land is in accordance with the irrevocable promise made to the fathers (Jer 30:3), it is the prophets of Israel who insist that there can be no final and secure inheritance of the Land that is not based on the everlasting righteousness that has come to full light in the gospel. It is the church’s task to not only speak of this kind of righteousness but to demonstrate it in a way that makes the contrast compelling, thus moving some of them to emulation.

Jewish right to the Land is unconditional, but their ability to keep it is clearly conditioned upon covenant obedience. It is always ‘their’ land, even in their blindness and disobedience. The divine grant of the Land was never based on their righteousness (see Deut 9:4-6). God holds the nations accountable to understand this. This is seen in the ferocity of the judgements that God has decreed on the nations that presumptuously dismiss and disregard the ‘everlasting covenant’ that includes the Land grant (Ps 105:8-11). The divine threat on those who curse Israel in their hearts is not based on Israel’s righteousness but their election. This is evident as the very nations that are brought down in judgment of a disobedient Israel become the objects of divine wrath for their disregard of the covenant. But secure peace in the Land depends on the righteousness that is God’s alone, the ‘everlasting righteousness’, as only this righteousness can make true covenant keeping possible by the power of the Spirit.

Just a few thoughts your question sparked. Reggie

The post Amos 9 and the Order of the Return appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Moses’ prophetic despair of Israel’s ability to keep the Land based on covenant compliance (“The Lord has not given you an heart to perceive … unto this day”) looks ahead to a final crisis of great affliction that ends with the eschatological new heart and the universal and final re-gathering to the Land (compare Deut 4:30; 30:4-6; Eze 39:28-29). This becomes the paradigm of a time of national travail that we see in such prophets as Isaiah (Isa 13:6-10; 21:3; 26:16-17; 66:8), Micah (Mic 5:3), Hosea (Hos 5:15;6:1-2), Jeremiah (Jer 30:6-7), to mention only a few where the express language is used.

Note how Jeremiah uses Isaiah’s language in Isa 13:7-8 almost verbatim. Only he, in keeping with Moses, applies it not only to a cosmic upheaval, but more specifically to God’s covenant controversy with Jacob (Mic 6:2). We know, however, that God’s controversy is not only with His people, but no less with the nations. Both are contending in one way or another against the covenant. Israel, by seeking to stand in any other righteousness than that found only in Messiah (Ro 9:32); the nations, by their presumptuous assault on the covenant land and people (Joel 3:2; Dan 11:28, 30, 30; Zech 12:2-3 etc.), thus, the ‘controversy of Zion’. We may be sure that the question of the Land, particularly Jerusalem, will be the one stumbling stone calculated to kill all the birds, as it tests Israel in one way, the nations in another, and the church in still another.

I read Jeremiah’s experience in Jer 30 as one of personal shock and confounding astonishment. Precisely where he, along with the returning exiles, would have expected the final peace of the return prophecies of the earlier prophets, he sees instead the anomaly of Jacob in the throes of a final travail that ends in millennial peace in the Land under Messiah. Yes, it fulfills some intimations in some of the earlier prophecies, but it is no less a paradox of astonishing proportion.

Later, Daniel will adopt Jeremiah’s language of Jacob’s trouble by applying the same precise language to the last great and unequaled trouble that ends in nothing short of Israel’s deliverance and the resurrection of the righteous (compare Joel 2:2; Jer 30:7 with Dan 12:1-2, 13; Mt 24:21, 29). If similarity of language and sameness of described events is permitted to mean anything, then manifestly, Daniel sees Jacob’s trouble as the last half of the last week of years bringing in the final redemption. Jesus will appropriate this same language of a final and unequaled tribulation that begins with Daniel’s abomination and ends in His return (Mt 24:15-16, 21, 29).

The Lord’s use of Joel’s and Isaiah’s language for the day of the Lord leaves no question that His return follows the stellar darkness that follows “immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days” (Mt 24:29; Acts 2:20). Uniformly, in all such passages, the surviving remnant is saved only after a final travail that ends in the national repentance / birth that accompanies the day of the Lord (Isa 59:19-21; 66:8; Zech 12:10; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7). It is the time of the great, “blessed is He who comes” (Mt 23:39). It is the day of Israel’s penitent acknowledgement of their estranged brother Joseph / Messiah. Rev 12 will take up this theme by associating Mary’s travail with Israel’s travail of the last 3 1/2 years (Satan’s ‘short time’; Rev 12:12). The thing to be noted is that before the age can end, not must Jerusalem be again  under siege, but Israel’s survival depends on flight into the wilderness, just as we see in Mt 24:16 (“let them which be in Judea flee”).

It is too involved to get into the details now, since translation questions afflict the discussion, but there are references in the OT that imply (I won’t say clearly) flight and refuge into the neighboring wilderness from the face of the Antichrist (extortioner, spoiler, etc.). The last Jewish return is shown to be from the desert / wilderness of those express territories.

One final thought on Isa 11:11. In the discussions on Isaiah’s use of the term ‘second’ to describe the universal and final regathering to uninterrupted peace, I have no problem of conceiving this in stages. However, in the interest of a ruthlessly careful exegesis, it should be pointed out that the language describing what is clearly the same events in Isa 11:15-16 and Isa 27:12-13 is just too striking to ignore their obvious connection to the post-tribulational trumpet that Jesus refers to in Mt 24:31. In both places in Isaiah (Is 11:15-16; 27:12-13), the return in view is associated with a miracle that dries up the obstructing river ways.

Even if this is taken as metaphorical, still, the time is clear. It is the post-tribulational return of penitent Israel. This is understood unless we are able to dissociate the trumpet of Isa 27:13 from the trumpet that Jesus has in mind when He speaks of the re-gathering of His elect, i.e., that particular elect (Jewish) for whom the days will be shortened for the sake of survial on earth (Mt 24:22). No, the evidence seems to be that the same trumpet that translates the church, also marks the time that the surviving remnant repents at the sight (spiritual sight) of the pierced Messiah, in analogy to Paul’s sudden arrest on the Damascus road. It is a penitent and cleansed remnant that now begins the journey home, not by rapture, but by the assistance of surviving gentiles (Isa 49:22; 60:9; 66:20 with Zech 8:23).

Let me speak to the puzzlement of how many godly servants may have missed the order of events that we seem to representing as simple and basic. There is a simplicity to the basic order of events, concerning which most will agree. The more difficult question is the order of the return, and here I believe there is more that is obscured by the terms used than actual difference among us. Perhaps this is already agreed, but let me explain. It is our view that the prophecies of final return can be helpfully distinguished by recognizing two stages. The first comes before the tribulation after ‘many generations’ of exile. Though a real fulfillment of the return prophecies, this return bears the anomaly of being in unbelief. It is described in such passages as Jer 30:3, 7; Eze 38:8; 39:8, 13 and Zech 2:1-2, as being BEFORE the day.

This is what Daniel and the post-exilic Zechariah understood in keeping with Jeremiah’s astonishment that the return from Babylon would not end in the abiding peace of covenant promise. There would be a future tribulation and climactic day of the Lord before the enduring peace would come. Who will deny that a second stage of return happens after the tribulation? This has been recognized by the vast host of millennial scholars. We are only saying that it is THIS post-tribulational return that is depicted as taking place with an entirely saved nation (Isa 4:3; 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; Jer 31:34 etc.), never again to lapse back from the covenant obedience of the new heart. It is only the return AFTER the tribulation that is in faith, permanent, and to the last man (Eze 39:28). This is when all the glorious ‘never agains’ of scripture find fulfillment and not before.

Until the end, desolations are determined (Mt 24:15; Rev 11:2) and it is not our purpose to be overly exercised over how many Jews survive in or out of the Land but rather to give ourselves to them and make every provision for them in the day of Jacob’s last distress. Whether it is right to call it expulsion, captivity, or simply flight, and regardless of precisely what percentage survives, it is a time like no other.

And while this should not be measured only in terms of Jewish suffering (since it extends to the upheaval of nature), still, it is critical that the Jewish people, and even Israel’s Christian supporters do not have naive and sanguine views of Israel’s future, lest many fall into a state of paralyzed shock and even unbelief.  Israel will need friends that do not know the beleaguered nation or the nature of the crisis ‘after the flesh’ but ‘after the Spirit.’ I, for one, believe that Israel will have at least one more military victory before the conditions for Jacob’s trouble will all be in place, but this will not change what has been prophetically determined from the standpoint of divine foreknowledge.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

The post Zion’s Travail appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

How do you differentiate the “third-part left in the land” (Zech 13:8-9) from those brought back to the land from the Diaspora in Isaiah 66:19-20?

To answer this question we need to establish the time of Israel’s national salvation, because this is also the time of another worldwide return that is complete and final. A careful comparison of Isa 11:11-16 with Isa 27:12-13 in their context (note particularly Isa 11:15 with Isa 27:12) will show that the time of the final return is the post-tribulational day of the Lord. This is further established when we see that Jesus mentions Isaiah’s ‘great trumpet’ in connection with His personal return after the tribulation (Mt 24:29, 31).

With the sounding of the great trumpet, the tribulation is past, Jesus appears and the church is translated (Mt 24:31; 1Cor 15:51-52; 2Thes 2:1). At the same time, the elect remnant of Israel that has survived the tribulation deeply repent as they “look upon Him whom they pierced” (Zech 12:10; Mt 23:39; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7). It is a moment of transforming revelation, best likened to Paul’s revelation on the road to Damascus.

With this, a nation is born, ‘at once’ and ‘in one day’ (Isa 66:8; Eze 39:22; Zech 3:9; 12:10; 14:9; Mt 23:39; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7). Now, with God’s face no longer hidden, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon the penitent remnant (Eze 39:28-29) and a newly regenerated nation begins to make its way back to the Land, not by rapture, but by means of every kind of natural means of transport (Isa 49:22; 60:9; 66:20).

[To interpret these scriptures literally, and in light of what we know of the time and nature of the church’s translation into glorified immortality at the last trump, we are left to infer that the Jews who had not repented before the rapture are not translated, but receive repentance and regeneration at the time of the Lord’s appearing (Zech 12:10 with Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7).]

It is crucial that a distinction be made between a preliminary stage of return to the Land before the tribulation and another that is final and complete that takes place after tribulation. The first is in unbelief with prospect of future covenant discipline.  The second stage of return is in the repentant faith of the New Covenant.

“From that day and forward” (Eze 39:22), their peace will be sure forever. This final return will be without the presence of the usual remnant, since only the penitent remnant survive to enter the Land as an entirely regenerate nation (Isa 4:2-4; 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; Jer 31:34; Eze 39:28). All others will have perished in the tribulation (Eze 20:33-38) . In that day, every Jew left alive will be alive to Christ.

This means that the “third-part” of Zech 13:8-9 will constitute the saved remnant from among those that were dwelling “in the Land when the tribulation began.” This exceptionally large remnant of the Jewish population will escape into the wilderness and thus survive the terrors of the tribulation. They will be preserved alive until the salvation of the last day when the Spirit is poured out (Ps 102:13; Jer 30:7; Eze 39:22, 29; Zech 12:10). Both those that survive in the Land and those in the nations who were “ready to perish” (Isa 27:12-13) are evidently saved at the same time by the same transforming revelation, as the Deliverer returns to Zion (Isa 59:21; Mt 23:39; Ro 11:26).

With the revelation of their estranged Joseph, Zion’s travail is finished, and the nation, wherever it is found among the nations, is “born at once … in one day” (Isa 66:8). With the revelation of Jesus, the Antichrist is destroyed instantly, as the survivors of Israel receive repentance (Zech 12:10; Mt 23:39; Rev 1:7) and begin their final return home, assisted by gentiles (Isa 49:22; 60:9; 66:20; Zech 8:23). No living Jew is left behind; all return (Eze 39:28). Aliyah is complete.

We may ask, how it is that an entire third of the Jewish nation manages to survive the rage of Antichrist? If we restrict the surviving third to only those Jews that are in the land when the tribulation begins, this is indeed a generous portion of survivors of the great tribulation, since we know that Jews in the Land will be the special target of the marauding armies of Antichrist.

This would suggest that many living in the Land when the tribulation begins will manage to escape by flight into the wilderness (Rev 12:6, 14). Could it be that by this time, Jesus’ warning in Mt 24:16 concerning the urgency of flight has become common knowledge through the witness of the believing remnant (the ‘maskilim’ of Dan 11:32-33; 12:3, 10) during the preparation of the first half of the week?

We have yet to see what impact the prophetic testimony will have on a shaken and terrified nation that will see every prophetic word established that they will have heard through the prophetic testimony of believers. They will have heard, for example, what believers were warning concerning Israel’s ill-fated covenant with death and hell (see Isa 28).

The witness of the first half of the week will prepare for the even more powerful witness of the last half of the week. The second half of the week will be the time that a multitude which no man can number will be saved “out of the tribulation, the great one” (Rev 7:9, 14) through the witness of the maskilim (Dan 11:33, 35; 12:10) that will turn many to righteousness (Dan 12:3).

This would suggest that huge numbers of Jews in the Land will be able to escape the Antichrist to places of safety, which according to a number of clear scriptures seem mostly outside of the Land, particularly and specifically the wilderness of southern Jordan (e.g., Isa 16:1-5; 42:11; Dan 11:41). On the other hand, Art contended that the third-part may be proportional to the ratio of Jewish survival globally. In any event, we know that when the tribulation strikes, Jews everywhere will be the target of Antichrist hatred, as Satan knows that only their complete annihilation can stop the fulfillment of the promise.

Although many more Jews may return to the Land after the false peace with the Antichrist, still, the far greater number will remain in the nations. Therefore, any return before the tribulation is much to be contrasted to the final return when not a single Jew will left behind in the nations (Eze 39:28), never again to be threatened by their enemies. Furthermore, it is evident that when the tribulation starts, some Jews from within the land will flee to neighboring regions outside the Land for refuge. We know of at least one area that prophecy makes certain, namely, the wilderness of Petra (Isa 16:1-5; 26:20; 42:11; Dan 11:41).

There will definitely be a remnant of Jews that miraculously survive in the Land all throughout the time of Antichrist (Zech 14:2; Rev 11:13). However, in view of what the scripture depicts of that time, we may expect that the ratio of survival will be comparatively sparse within the Land, particularly in Jerusalem. It seems clear from scripture that the far greater number survive only because they were able to escape into the wilderness, or, in the case of those that survive in Jerusalem (Zech 14:2), this could be due to the special protection by the two witnesses.

In any event, flight is the only wise and obedient response to the clear warning of Jesus (Mt 24:16), as significantly confirmed by Rev 12:6, 14. Scripture is clear that not only Jerusalem, but the entire Land will be the scene of great desolation, because the implacable forces of Antichrist will cover the Land like a flood and like a cloud (Dan 9:26; 11:22; Eze 38:9, 6). The desolation of the holy place, the cities, and all the land will continue for forty two months (Rev 11:2 with Isa 63:18; 64:10; Dan 11:31; 12:1, 7, 11; Mt 24:15-16, 21).

It is important always to distinguish between the preliminary return that we see now (Jer 30:3; Eze 38:8; Zeph 2:1-2) and the final and complete return (to the last man; Eze 39:28) that comes only after the tribulation (i.e., “Jacob’s trouble;” compare Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21; Rev 11:2). It is only this latter return after the tribulation that the scripture can be fulfilled that promises that ‘all Israel’, without the exception, will “lie down in safety, so that none make them afraid ever again forever.’ Until the obedience of the covenant is fulfilled through the regenerating Spirit of Christ, the threat of further covenant discipline and the forewarned desolation of Jerusalem will always hang over Israel’s head as a prophetic inevitability (Dan 11:36).

It is only after the tribulation that the full number of scattered Israel returns, this time as an “all” holy nation, (Isa 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; Jer 31:34). This final return is the one from which Israel will never again be plucked up or destroyed (Amos 9:15). That is the order we see in scripture, and failure to make this crucial distinction has led to very naive notions of Israel’s future, just as the presumption of a pre-trib rapture has led to ignorance of the church’s part and role towards Jacob in the coming hour of ultimate crisis and testing.

In conclusion, the “third-part left in the Land” may refer to a great number that survive within the borders of the Land that endure to the day of national salvation. That would be the most optimistic interpretation. However, knowing what the scripture says of the concentration of the Antichrist forces in the Land, I cannot share that optimism. I see scripture better harmonized by understanding that this is the third-part of the full number of those that were in the Land at the start of the tribulation, but the greater part of the surviving remnant are those that managed to flee into the wilderness. Ezekiel speaks of a final dealing in the “wilderness of the nations” as the scene of a final divine pleading (Eze 20:35 with Jer 31:2; Hos 2:14) .

Whether that wilderness is in the Land or beyond the Land in southern Jordan is a moot question. But in a time when the long arm of Antichrist hatred and persecution will extend into all nations, it is not far to consider that Jacob’s trouble will extend to wherever Jacob is found among all nations. Therefore, the concept of Jewish flight into the wilderness makes perfect sense in view of an Antichrist policy of persecution that will extend as far as his economic control extends (Rev 13:7).

The wilderness mentioned in Rev 12:6, 14 is a common theme throughout the prophets. It is often mentioned as the scene of God’s final pleading in judgment that ends with Israel’s final redemption. This will have it greatest fulfillment in the brief exile of the last 3 1/2 years. Ezekiel speaks of “the wilderness of the peoples” (Eze 20:35), a term that can have reference to the outlying countries, or the particular wilderness through which Israel passed to the promised Land. In either case, we may be sure that the greater part of the “third-part” will survive only by obedience to the Lord’s command to flee, Judea in particular (Mt 24:16).

We believe that the greater part of the ‘third part’ that survive the tribulation do so precisely because many will have been warned to flee when it becomes clear that the desolation of Jerusalem is near at hand (Mt 24:15-16; Lk 21:20-21)? Where do they flee? Jesus said to the mountains of the Judean wilderness, but this may not be their final destination. From the evidence of several passages, many will flee to the wilderness of Petra in southern Jordan, and perhaps other bordering nations, some of which are presently hostile to their Jewish populations (e.g., Egypt, Assyria; Isa 27:12-13). This suggests that survival during that time may be more hopeful in those hostile territories than in the Land itself, a sobering thought to consider.

In any event, the promised survival of a full “third-part” gives us great hope that there will be a sizable remnant that survives throughout all the nations as well, and this puts the onus on the church to be the prophetic voice in all places, and to be the mysterious “they” of Rev 12:6 who “feed her (the woman) there,” i.e., in the wilderness place prepared of God.

So whether in or out of the Land, there is one thing about which there should be sufficient agreement: Jews will not fare well in the population centers. Their greater hope of survival will be to find shelter in the wilderness, in places of refuge from their hunters. I believe at least the greater part of the ‘third part’ of Zech 13:9 will be those that return to the Land from the wilderness to which they fled from the face of Antichrist. It is after his destruction by the returning Messiah that the greater Diaspora of Isa 66:19-20 will return from all lands with singing and everlasting joy (Isa 35:10; 51:11; 61:7). The time of this final and complete return of all Jews from all lands is very clear. It is “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (Mt 24:29; with Jer 30:7-10; Isa 11:10-16; with Isa 27:12-13 with Mt 24:31).

This theme of Israel’s everlasting redemption coming only after a final exodus of sifting and trial in the wilderness has been much neglected. Most Bible scholars recognize it, but interpret the so-called, “new exodus” only of the salvation of the church through Christ. But for our purpose we need to see the time and circumstance of this quite literal wilderness pleading with the nation during its last and most severe phase of the discipline of the covenant.

It is clear that after the Jews have been regathered and reconstituted as a nation in the Land, the prophet Jeremiah does not see the peace that he would have expected on the basis of the earlier prophecies of return in Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah. On the contrary, he is astonished to see, not peace, but a sword (Jer 30:3-7). “Alas, for that day is great so that there is none like it; it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble.” This is also the unequaled tribulation of which Daniel and Jesus spoke (Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21). Therefore, the initial stage of Jewish return from the many generations of exile into revived nationhood (Jer 30:3; Eze 38:8; Dan 12:1) is NOT the final regathering that secures the lasting peace of the everlasting covenant. Rather, it is a prelude to final divine discipline (Zeph 2:1-2).

An unbelieving Jewish nation, however much a necessary fulfillment of prophecy, is still subject to the “quarrel of My covenant” (Lev 26:25). Therefore, it becomes clear that a final wilderness experience that ends in Israel’s everlasting deliverance is future, having its most ultimate fulfillment in the final 3 1/2 years of the great tribulation (Dan 12:7, Rev 11:2; 12:6, 14), which is the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11).

Rather than quibble over to what degree Jews may or may not be again displaced from the land, isn’t it enough that we agree that the greatest tribulation of all time and history is at hand, and that every preparation of faith and foresight is now urgently expedient? Whether in the Land or out of it, who will not agree that Jews everywhere will be driven into the wilderness in flight from the long arm of the Antichrist, which scripture shows will reach into all lands and places (Rev 13:7)?

Seeing that all these things shall surely come to pass, how should we then live? I suppose the question of what action faith and obedience would demand in the light of these things will depend on the question of how soon? That is another discussion, but scripture seems very clear that just as soon as Israel back in the Land after ‘many generations’ of dispersion, the last assault of the gentiles is shown to follow not long after (Jer 30:3; Eze 38:4, 8; Zeph 2:1-2; 3:8; Zech 14:2).

That seems to me to be the general order of events and how the prophecies of return are best harmonized.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

The post The Order of the Return (Part 2) appeared first on Mystery of Israel.