Wrestling with God
I'm sure many of you are
familiar with an incident that occurred in the life of Jacob, son of Isaac and
grandson of Abraham, in which Jacob spends the night wrestling with some
unidentified man who ultimately changes Jacob's name to Israel. Some commentators
have pegged the mystery man in the story as a preincarnate appearance of
Christ, and I am inclined to agree.
In the story, Jacob is
on his way to meet his brother Esau, many years after
Jacob and their mother Rebekah conspired to deceive an elderly Isaac into
giving Jacob the blessing he intended to give Esau
(Gen. 27). Although both brothers have prospered handsomely since that time,
Jacob is understandably afraid Esau will seek to kill him out of a deep-seated
desire for revenge. So, he is planning his moves carefully and preparing
generous gifts to bestow upon Esau when they finally meet face to face.
Let's pick up the
narrative in Genesis 32:
22He rose up that night,
and took his two wives, and his two servants, and his eleven sons, and crossed
over the ford of the Jabbok. 23He took them, and sent them
over the stream, and sent over that which he had.
24 Jacob was left alone, and wrestled with a man there until the breaking of
the day. 25When he saw that he didn't prevail against him,
the man touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was
strained as he wrestled. 26The man said, "Let me go, for
the day breaks." Jacob said, "I won't let you go unless you bless
me." 27He said to him, "What is your name?" He
said, "Jacob." 28He said, "Your name will
no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have fought with God and with
men, and have prevailed." 29Jacob asked him,
"Please tell me your name." He said, "Why is it that you ask
what my name is?" So he blessed him there. 30Jacob
called the name of the place Peniel; for he said, "I have seen God face to
face, and my life is preserved."
(Genesis 32:22–30 / emphasis added)
Hence Jacob's name was changed to
Israel, which in Hebrew is typically translated as "one who struggles or
wrestles with God"...which is precisely what Jacob did that night.
Of course, Jacob's new name also
became the name of the nation of people that arose from his line of
descendants, and the name "Israel" turned out to be appropriate
indeed because that's exactly what God's Chosen People have done since
the days of the Patriarchs. Just as their namesake before them...
They have wrestled with God.
But Jacob and the nation that arose
from him are certainly not the only people who have wrestled with God. In the
broadest sense of the word, we all have—both saved and unsaved.
We all wrestle with the Holy Spirit, who convicts us of sin and draws us to
Christ. The only difference is that some of us ultimately yield to the Holy
Spirit's leading and come to believe the gospel in faith and trust Christ for
our salvation, and some don't.
And even after we do
get saved, God still has to put us in a full nelson
from time to time to get us back on track.
Recently, however, it appears that one
particularly dangerous doctrine has been rearing its unscriptural head to a
greater degree as many otherwise good people blindly and foolishly acquiesce to
the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas protests that are sweeping the
country and, sadly, some of the nation's most prestigious universities. Not
only that, but many who may not necessarily approve of these anti-Israel
protests are becoming increasingly gun shy when it comes to showing open
support for Israel due to very real fears of violent repercussions at the hands
of what are little more than deluded, demonically manipulated thugs. The
result?
A growing number of
believers today are "wrestling with God" as they become increasingly
hesitant to openly support Israel.
This increasing reluctance to openly
show support for Israel and the Jewish people is a major boost for a pernicious
doctrine that has done great damage to the Church, and it is luring increasing
numbers of otherwise good believers into its clutches. That doctrine is the
teaching that the Church has replaced Israel in the plan of God, and so there
is no biblical mandate whatsoever for Christians to support the modern-day
nation of Israel or the Jewish people in any way. Its purveyors claim
modern-day Israel is an accident of history that got palmed off on a gullible
Church. And the name of that doctrine?
Replacement theology.
It's also known as supersessionism,
meaning that the Church has superseded or taken the place of Israel.
Personally, however, I tend to dislike using that word because even though I
consciously know it doesn't mean that, there is certainly nothing
"super" about it. This patently unbiblical doctrine has become a
plank in the platform that underlies today's burgeoning anti-Israel sentiment,
and it needs to be rooted out and exposed as the pack of lies that it is by
scripturally competent believers at every opportunity.
And this article is part
of my own small effort to that end.
What I want to do in this article is
show you from Scripture why several of the arguments commonly offered in
support of replacement theology are simply contrary to what God's Word clearly
teaches. Although I suspect that many of you are already familiar with the bulk
of the points I will make in this article, it is sometimes helpful to have such
ideas swept into one neat pile, so to speak, perhaps to show someone else you
know who may not be as tuned in to the Word as you are and who might benefit
from seeing scriptural refutations of some of the claims of this insidious
doctrine with their own eyes.
This article is certainly not meant to
be comprehensive—these are just a handful of the issues that often come up in
discussions with those who adhere to the doctrine of replacement theology (whom
I will sometimes refer to as RTs in the remainder of this article for
simplicity), along with some passages of Scripture that clearly refute the
doctrine of replacement theology if read in a literal, straightforward manner.
Although I didn't consciously try to put them in any certain order, these
points generally fall into two basic groups:
1. Passages of Scripture
that are being misinterpreted by those who hold to replacement theology (RTs),
and other Scripture that clearly supports the fact that those passages are
being mishandled.
2. Passages of Scripture
that, when read in a plain, contextual manner, would seem to clearly refute the
tenets of replacement theology. However, these are ignored or allegorized into
oblivion by RTs.
And by the time we're finished, my
prayer is that there will be no doubt in your mind that God's Word clearly and
emphatically tells us we should love, honor, bless, pray for, support, protect,
and defend the nation of Israel and God's (still) Chosen People the Jews, the
woke winds of liberal left-wing politics notwithstanding. And we will be
blessed if we do so.
Israel was God's Chosen
People and the apple of His eye four millennia ago, and you can believe me when
I say that nothing has changed His perfect plan or His
eternal promises since then.
1. Many Christians cite Genesis 12:3—God's promise to bless those
who bless Abraham and curse those who curse him—as a reason to support Israel.
But this promise only applies Abraham himself,
not to his entire bloodline...so stop supporting those Zionist oppressors!
Yes, blessing and cursing—certainly
one of the best-loved passages of Scripture in the entire Old Testament for
many believers (this writer included):
3And I will bless them that bless you, and
curse him that curses you: and in you shall all families of the earth be
blessed.
(Genesis 12:3 AKJV)
This promise was given to Abram (later changed to Abraham) when God first told him to leave his father's house and go to a land that He would show him—and Abraham obeyed in faith.
You...yeah, you: Before we go on, think for a moment. According to RTs, the word "you" in the first two clauses of this verse refer strictly to the man Abraham: If you bless the man Abraham, God will bless you. If you curse him, God will curse you...right? OK, so who does the word "you" refer to in the third clause? If we want to maintain a shred of consistency, it must also refer to the man Abraham, and him alone. Now, I don't know about you, but this man Abraham—who died roughly four millennia ago—didn't do anything personally, all by himself, to bless me or my family. Any takers on that one? (crickets chirping...) My point is that it's patently obvious that all three "yous" in this verse refer to Abraham's entire bloodline, which includes the Jews and all of Israel, which includes Jesus, who blessed me by atoning for my sin.
But the question at hand is whether
this promise only applies to Abraham personally, or to Abraham's
descendants—and hence to the Jewish people all the way up to and including the
modern nation of Israel.
As with many such spurious claims
about the meaning of particular passages of Scripture,
I really don't have to do much work of my own to refute this. All I have to do is follow the Golden Rule of biblical
interpretation:
Let Scripture interpret Scripture.
Why? Because God's Word will typically
do the work for us, if we'll just stand back and get out of its way.
First of all, notice that the promise apparently
also applied to Abraham's son Isaac, because Isaac applied it to his son
Jacob:
29Let people serve you [Isaac speaking to Jacob], and nations bow down
to you: be lord over your brothers, and let your
mother's sons bow down to you: [And for the second time:] cursed be every one
that curses you, and blessed be he that blesses you.
(Genesis 27:29 AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)
Even though the context
clearly seems to be in reference to all Jacob's descendants, at the very
least this proves the promise didn't apply to Abraham alone: It applied
equally well to his son Isaac and to Isaac's son Jacob, which is sufficient to
punch a gaping hole in the argument put forth by RTs...to whom we can
truthfully say:
So Genesis 12:3 only
applies to Abraham himself, eh? Sorry, but God's Word clearly says otherwise.
OK, so there's that. But oh
my...it gets better. In Numbers 22–24, we read about a prophet for hire named
Balaam, and how he was summoned to speak to Balak, King of Moab. The Israelites
had already defeated the Ammonites and now were eyeing the Moabites, and Balak
was desperate to find a way to avoid the fate of his Ammonite neighbors.
He sends for Balaam, a known prophet
in the area, for the purpose of cursing Israel on behalf of the Moabites—and
naturally, Balaam would be royally compensated for his efforts...cha-ching.
God tells Balaam point-blank not to go, but he disobeys and goes anyway.
As Balaam is riding his donkey on his
way to meet with Balak, however, for some strange reason his donkey repeatedly
refuses to proceed. After beating the donkey several times, the donkey finally
speaks to Balaam and questions why he is beating it, and then God opens
Balaam's eyes and he sees the Angel of the LORD standing before him, blocking
the donkey's path with sword drawn. The angel informs Balaam that his actions
are perverse, and if the donkey hadn't stopped him, he would have slain Balaam
and let the donkey live. Balaam is repentant, and asks
if he should just go back home. The angel tells him to proceed and speak with
Balak, but to only speak the words the angel would give him to speak.
Balaam obeys and proceeds to meet with
Balak; but when he attempts to curse Israel for him, he instead blesses
them. Balak is stunned and understandably upset, and a second attempt at
cursing Israel is arranged—same result: Balaam blesses Israel. Balak is now
beside himself, and angrily gets Balaam to try a third time, and here are the
words of Balaam the third time around:
5How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, and your tabernacles, O
Israel!
6As the valleys are
they spread forth, as gardens by the river's side, as the trees of lign aloes which the LORD has planted, and as cedar trees
beside the waters.
7He shall pour the water out of his buckets,
and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag,
and his kingdom shall be exalted.
8God brought him forth out of Egypt; he has as it were the
strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations
his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his
arrows. [It is patently obvious that this entire passage is
directed at the nation of Israel, not one lone forebear of it. And just
to dot every "i" and cross every
"t": God didn't bring Jacob forth out of Egypt—he died there.
God brought the nation of Israel forth out of Egypt.]
9He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion: who
shall stir him up? Blessed is he that blesses you, and cursed is he that
curses you. [Third time's a charm.]
10And Balak's anger was kindled against Balaam...
(Numbers 24:5–10a AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)
This confirms that God's promise
applies to Abraham's bloodline—the nation of Israel—not just Abraham
himself, nor just him, his son, and his grandson.
By the way, we have seen the results of this promise
play out in real life many times. For example, when Israel declared itself an
independent nation on May 14, 1948, it became official when the British Mandate
on Palestine expired at midnight that night (technically the 15th). At 11
minutes past midnight, the very first phone call they received was from a
representative of U.S. President Harry Truman, and it was to inform them that
the United States officially recognized the newborn nation of Israel. And that
phone call came as a very pleasant surprise to the Jewish leaders, since they
were anxiously preparing for an attack from the surrounding nations that would
begin in a few hours.
And whaddya
know...God arranged for Truman to win the 1948 presidential election in the
most stunningly improbable manner, and God blessed the United States
like few countries in history over the next several decades, turning it into a prosperous
superpower and the envy of the entire world.
But my, how times have
changed. Now the U.S. is clearly beginning to become subject to the flipside of
that promise...and deservedly so.
2. In Matthew 21:43–46, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and says the
kingdom will be taken away from them and given to a people who will produce its
fruit. RTs insist Jesus meant the kingdom would be taken away from Israel and
given to the Church.
I addressed this exact
same point in an article eight years ago entitled "Hidden
in Plain Sight." Since I haven't changed my mind about any of this since
2016 and I can't say it any better than I did then, I decided to simply insert
that one section of that article here.
* * *
* *
One of the most
misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied verses of Scripture in the entire
New Testament is Matthew 21:43—a verse that has almost single-handedly given
birth to Christianity's collective dismissal of the prophetic significance of
the re-establishment of the nation of Israel (1948), and has fueled such
heresies as replacement theology, dominion theology, ad infinitum, ad haeresis.
As
we pick up the narrative in Matthew 21, Jesus has entered Jerusalem and has
presented Himself as the Jews' prophesied Messiah. He is teaching in the
temple, and during the course of His teaching some of
the religious leaders of Israel—Pharisees and chief priests—confront Jesus in a
fairly combative, antagonistic manner:
23When
he had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people
came to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority do you do
these things? Who gave you this authority?" 24Jesus
answered them, "I also will ask you one question, which if you tell me, I
likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25The
baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?" They
reasoned with themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask
us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' 26But if we say,
'From men,' we fear the multitude, for all hold John as a prophet." 27They
answered Jesus, and said, "We don't know." He also said to them,
"Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."
(Matthew 21:23–27)
Jesus
knows their hardened hearts will never accept Him, and so He doesn't hesitate
to stick it in their ear with the Parable of the Two Sons and the Parable of
the Wicked Tenants, both of which are clearly intended as condemnations of the
religious leadership of Israel for their hard-hearted rejection of their
promised Messiah and their historic mistreatment of the prophets God had sent
them in times past.
When
He's finished, Jesus looks these highly venerated religious leaders in the eyes
and says:
43Therefore
I tell you, the Kingdom of God will be taken away from
you, and will be given to a nation bringing forth its fruit.
(Matthew 21:43)
Strong
words indeed. But what exactly did Jesus mean?
It's not hard to see how many people could read this verse out of context and
interpret it to mean the kingdom was being taken away from Israel and given
to...oh, let's see, who can we give the kingdom to...think think
think...oh, the Church, of course!
"After all, we're
the ones who are gonna produce its fruit, right? We're
the ones who are gonna go out and preach the gospel
and win the world for Christ, aren't we?"
This
interpretation (which didn't emerge until the second century) effectively gives
the Church a license to view itself as taking Israel's place in the plan of God
and as the recipients of all their promised blessings.
But
is that what Jesus meant? Did Jesus really mean that God was done with the
Jews, and that the promise of the kingdom God had made to them was being
revoked and transferred to the Church? It's a question that needs to be
addressed in a straightforward biblical manner, since this has become the
official position of a substantial portion of mainstream Christianity.
To
gain a clearer understanding of this verse, there are two key points that need
to be examined in Jesus' statement, and the first is this:
1. From whom was the kingdom being taken?
Those who adhere to
replacement theology insist Jesus meant the kingdom was being taken away from
Israel as a nation. This interpretation, however, fails to stand up to closer
scrutiny.
Notice what Matthew writes
two verses later:
45When the chief priests
and the Pharisees heard his parables, they
perceived that he spoke about them. 46When they sought to
seize him, they feared the multitudes, because they considered him to be a
prophet.
(Matthew 21:45–46 /
emphasis added)
It is clear from the
context of the entire chapter that Jesus is specifically condemning the
religious leaders of Israel, if the testy, in-your-face exchange he had just
had with them and the blistering parables he had just not so subtly directed
their way are anything to go by. And in these last two verses of the chapter,
we see that they got the message loud and clear:
They knew Jesus was saying the kingdom was being taken from them,
the religious leadership of Israel—the very ones who should have recognized
Jesus for who He was and led the nation of Israel in receiving Him.
After all, it was they
who rejected Jesus, not all of the people of Israel,
and God would hold them accountable as leaders for their willful refusal to
properly interpret their own Scriptures that clearly and unmistakably pointed
to Jesus as their prophesied Messiah. There were in fact multitudes of ordinary
Jews in the area who came to embrace Jesus as the Messiah, in
spite of being censured by their religious leaders. Christians today
often forget that in the beginning, the Church was composed almost entirely of
Jewish believers, and make no mistake—they were Jewish believers who paid a
heavy price for their newfound faith.
The fact that Jesus didn't
mean the kingdom was being permanently revoked from Israel as a nation is
evident in other places in the Gospels where Jesus clearly talks about Israel receiving
its promised kingdom at a future time. In fact, we only have
to back up two chapters to see an example of this:
27Then Peter answered,
"Behold, we have left everything, and followed you. What then will we
have?" 28Jesus said to them, "Most certainly I tell
you that you who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will
sit on the throne of his glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel."
(Matthew 19:27–28)
Here, Jesus is telling His
Jewish disciples that they will sit on thrones and judge the tribes of Israel
during the coming kingdom. Well, that doesn't make much sense if the kingdom
has been taken from Israel and handed over to the Church, wouldn't you agree?
If you insist the kingdom
has been taken from Israel as a nation, the only possible way to massage this
into something intelligible is to argue that the Church has simply replaced
Israel because God's done with the Jews. So, whenever you see the word "Israel"
in the New Testament, just cross it out and insert the word "Church."
Yeah, that's the ticket.
I guess somebody forgot to
tell Jeremiah:
35Thus said the LORD,
which gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of
the stars for a light by night, which divides the sea when the waves thereof
roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: 36If those ordinances
depart from before me, said the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease
from being a nation before me for ever. 37Thus
said the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the
earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all
that they have done, said the LORD.
(Jeremiah 31:35–37 AKJV)
The sun still shines by
day. The moon and stars still shine by night. The waves still roar. So Israel is still a nation before God. And unless God is a
liar and a welcher, His promises to His people are
just as ironclad and unshakable today as they were when He made them to
Abraham.
There are many in the
Church today—not to mention the world—who will blow a gasket trying to convince
you otherwise. Don't listen to them.
2. To whom was the
kingdom being given?
As strong as this first
point is, it's not enough for people who have made up their minds that God has
transferred the blessings promised to Israel over to the Church. They are not
easily dissuaded from this heresy because it inappropriately elevates, glorifies,
and empowers the Church. As an added bonus, it gives
them a high-sounding, Christianized outlet for their pent-up hatred for the
Jews.
Many of them would be
inclined to argue something along these lines:
"Well, the religious leaders of Israel represented the nation, so the kingdom was still, in a sense, being 'taken from Israel.' Just because Jesus was addressing the religious leaders at the time doesn't change that. And the kingdom was still being given to the Church, a people who would produce its fruit. How 'bout them apples, Mr. Jew-Lover?"
And it sounds like a good
argument...that is, until you take a closer look at the Greek word Jesus used
to refer to this future recipient of the kingdom.
In Matthew 21:43, Jesus said the kingdom would be given to a people (singular) who would produce its fruit, and He uses a form of the Greek word ethnos (which is where we get the English words "ethnic" and "ethnicity"). Now, when ethnos is used in the plural in the Bible, it normally refers to the Gentile nations of the world. When it is used in the singular, however, it refers to a particular race, people, nation, ethnic group, etc. But regardless of what sense it is used in, it always carries ethnic connotations.
And that's the rub. There is simply no way that the Church is any sort of ethnic group. None. Zero. If the word had been used in the plural, you just might have an argument (a faulty argument that could still be refuted, but an argument nonetheless). But with ethnos being singular, the argument for it referring to the Church simply dries up and blows away. POOF...it's gone.
There is no ethnicity
associated with the Church, because there is no ethnicity associated with
Christ, who transcends and dispenses with all ethnic divisions. As born-again
believers, we are one in Christ:
26For you are all children
of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you
as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, 28there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:26–28)
Ephesians 2:11–18 and Colossians 3:9–11 say essentially the same thing. Believers are one in Christ, and in the body of Christ ethnicities are out the window. The Church, which is never called an ethnos, is normally referred to in the New Testament as an ekklesia (assembly, congregation; a group called out from the world to God). The Church doesn't have an ethnos bone in its body.
And if that doesn't clinch
it, then Paul does when he quotes Deuteronomy 32:21 in his letter to the
Romans:
19But I ask, didn't Israel
know? First Moses says, "I will provoke you to jealousy with that which
is no nation [ethnos], with a nation void of understanding I will make you
angry."
(Romans 10:19 / emphasis & [comments] added)
In other words, that which is not
an ethnos. That's the Church, and it drives Jews batty when we go on and
on about Jesus being their Messiah. By the way, the
"nation (ethnos) void of understanding" that angers Israel
could possibly be a reference to the Arab people surrounding them in the Middle
East.
"Well, Mr.
Jew-Lover, what about Peter calling the Church a 'holy nation'? There's
your word ethnos,
bud. Guess that blows your little theory, huh?"
Here's the passage in
question, and Peter is clearly speaking of the Church:
9But you are a chosen
race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation [ethnos], a people [laos] for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellence
of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10who
in time past were no people [laos], but now are God's people [laos], who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
(1 Peter 2:–10 / emphasis & [comments] added)
When Peter uses the phrase "holy
nation," he is harking back to Exodus 19:6, where God is establishing His
covenant with the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai. When God said if Israel
would obey His covenant that they would be to Him a "holy nation," He
meant "nation" literally, because Israel is a nation:
an ethnos in the literal sense. Here, however, Peter is merely drawing a
spiritual parallel between Israel and the Church, and
is not calling the Church a literal ethnos (because it isn't).
In other words, Peter is clearly using the word ethnos figuratively in
verse 9.
As a confirmation of this, note that
in these two verses, Peter uses the Greek word laos
three times, which usually refers to God's people rather than a literal ethnic
group. At the same time, it should be noted that there is nothing in Matthew
21:43 that suggests that Jesus is using the word ethnos figuratively—there
is no indication that He is using the word with anything other than a literal
meaning, and so it simply cannot refer to the Church.
Now that we have ruled out the Church, there is only one single ethnos that Matthew 21:43 can possibly be referring to: Israel.
Israel—as a people, as a
nation, as an ethnic group that God has promised to give the kingdom to some day, after a remnant of them return to Him with all
their hearts after being purged in the Great Tribulation. When Christ returns
at the Second Coming, a believing remnant of Jews will be gathered into the
land (Matt. 24:29–31), and they will be ushered into their long-awaited kingdom
just as promised in His Word.
Oh, you wanna talk about producing the fruit of the
kingdom? Straight up:
The 144,000 Jewish
evangelists that God will seal and send out to preach the gospel to the
post-Rapture world are going to make today's Church look like giggling
teenagers passing out tracts at a local supermarket.
And the hard-hearted
hypocrites who rejected their Messiah and plotted to have Him executed two
thousand years ago?
They'll have no part in
that kingdom.
Since so many Christians have
bought into the idea that the Church has replaced Israel in God's plan, it's
easy to see how they can read a passage of Scripture like Revelation 7:4–8 and
see 12,000 Jews sealed from 12 specific tribes of Israel
and insist without blinking an eye that they really represent the Church in
some convoluted way, because, after all, God has washed His hands of the Jews,
right?
* *
* * *
Note that some Bible teachers I
greatly respect (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, for one) believe Jesus is emphasizing
that the kingdom will be given to a different generation of Israel. That
is, He is telling us that the kingdom is being taken away from that generation
of Jews and will be given to a future generation. In a sense,
however, this is little more than my argument with a slightly different spin.
This is my argument with a fresh coat of paint. After all, the Jewish remnant
and the 144,000 Jewish evangelists who will preach to them during the Tribulation
are certainly a different generation from the Jews of Jesus' day, are
they not? So, I basically agree with Arnold's spin on this verse.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
3. Romans 2:28–29 tells us that when you get saved, you become a
Jew "inwardly" and are "circumcised in the heart." Hence
the Church has become "spiritual Israel."
Those who espouse replacement theology
are drawn to some of Paul's writings in the book of Romans like kids to an ice
cream truck, because Paul does admittedly use some rather subtle phraseology
that must be read thoughtfully and that is susceptible to misinterpretation by
those who are so inclined. And a prime example of this is the following
passage:
28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that
circumcision which is outward in the flesh; 29but he is a Jew who
is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in
the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
(Romans
2:28–29 / emphasis added)
RTs interpret verse 29 to mean that
when a Gentile gets saved, that person becomes a "true Jew" or a
"spiritual Jew." But regardless of what term you use, the point is
that they become a Jew in God's eyes. As a result, the Gentile
believers of the Church have become "spiritual Israel" and have
replaced physical Israel, since God has no more use for them.
But is that what Paul is
saying? Have all Gentile believers, who are circumcised in the heart and the
spirit, become "true Jews" in the eyes of God? Has the Church—that
is, the body of all born-again believers—taken the place of physical Israel,
who apparently has no further role in God's program?
One could say that the question boils
down to this:
Does Paul mean that
Gentiles become Jews in the eyes of God when they get saved and thus the Church
has replaced Israel, or does he mean that when physical Jews get saved they become "true Jews" or "spiritual
Jews" or "the Israel of God" as in Galatians 6:16 (see point no.
4)—a group of born-again Jews that are simply a subset of all physical Jews?
It's that second thing, because it is
quite clear that Paul, unlike those who follow the path of replacement
theology, sees Jews and Gentiles as absolutely separate,
distinct groups. Neither becomes the other in any way, and the entire book of
Romans bristles with this notion at every turn. For example, earlier in Romans
Paul writes:
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God to salvation to every one that believes;
to (a) the Jew first, and also to (b) the Greek.
(Romans
1:16 AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)
So it's (a)
then (b), with (a) and (b) being separate and
distinct groups. "The Greek" is a reference to Gentiles, and it is
obvious not only here but throughout the book of Romans that Paul doesn't
comingle these two groups anywhere in his teaching. And that's the heart
of the matter:
Those who believe that
born-again Gentile members of the Church have become Jews or Israel in some way are comingling these two distinct groups in a way
that must be read into anything Paul wrote.
What causes confusion for RTs,
however, is the fact that although Paul never comingles Gentile
believers with Israel, he does clearly distinguish two groups of Jews:
those who reject the truth that Christ is their Messiah, and those who come to
faith in Christ as their Messiah...and that leads us to the next point:
4. In Galatians 6:16, Paul calls those
who are in Christ "the Israel of God," and that means the Church has
become Israel—God's Israel.
First, lets
look at that verse and the one that precedes it:
15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16And as many as walk according to this rule [i.e. being a new creature in Christ for whom physical circumcision is meaningless], peace be on them, and mercy, and [the problem focuses on the word "and"] upon the Israel of God.
(Galatians
6:15–16 KJV / emphasis & [comments] added)
With all due respect to the KJV-Only
crowd, there have been several occasions over the years when I have been
justifiably critical of the English translation of the venerable King James
Version of the Bible, but not this time. Oh no. In this case, I happily offer
praise and kudos to the KJV crew because they nailed it, and got it clear,
straight, and true.
Sadly, the same cannot
be said for a number of other English translations.
And as I noted above, the vortex of
this cyclone centers on one simple, harmless little word:
< and >
On second thought, maybe it's not
so harmless, because the questionable translation of this one little word has
led legions of believers into the waiting arms of the demonic doctrine of
replacement theology, which attempts to rip God's eternally Chosen People out
His plan and out of His promises.
The last phrase of verse 16 in Greek
is:
...καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν
Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
(...kai epi ton Israel tou Theou.)
...and upon the Israel of God.
The Greek word kai means
"and" and is translated that way in the vast
majority of cases. OK, pop quiz for all you
grammar mavens out there:
Q. If a sentence reads "I
sent the email to the tech group and the engineering group,"
how many groups was that email sent to? One or two?
A. Two. The word
"and" clearly indicates that the "tech group" and the
"engineering group" are two separate, distinct groups, whatever
meaning those two names are intended to convey. They're clearly two different
groups, no matter what you call them. That's how the sentence should be
interpreted.
That's pretty
straightforward, but the problem is that certain modern English
translations use a variant translation of kai that, while grammatically
legitimate, is far less common. Kai does have a couple of specialized
usages that appear occasionally, one of which is to indicate an equivalence
between two entities or groups (equivalence that should normally be quite clear
from the context). When used in this manner, it is sometimes translated into
English as "even," or in some cases a dash is inserted into that spot
in the sentence. In other words, if my example sentence were changed to read:
Ex. "I sent the
email to the tech group—the engineering group."
Now what do you think? One
group or two? That's easy—one. Now it sounds like the writer is only
talking about one single group, and he's just giving you a wee bit of
additional information about which group he is referring to for clarity. Maybe
they are called the "tech group" by some people, but maybe others
call them the "engineering group" and the writer doesn't want there
to be any doubt in the reader's mind about what group he is talking about.
Well, that's what some
modern English translations do with Galatians 6:16, rendering that verse
something along the following lines:
"Peace and mercy to
all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God." (NIV)
"Peace and mercy to
all who walk by this rule, even to the Israel of God." (BSB)
"May God's peace
and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of
God." (NLT)
Granted, the New Living
Translation's version is twisted in a rather blatant manner, but I trust you
see what I mean. So...follow-up pop quiz:
Q. How many groups do
these translations sound like they are referring to?
A. One: Born-again
believers, who can also be called the Israel of God.
And it's adiós to literal Israel. Of course, one might wonder why
anyone would want to alter the English translation of the Greek wording of the
last phrase of Galatians 6:16 this way, and frankly I only see one reason:
Such translators have
already fallen for the lie that the Church has replaced Israel, and they are
clearly seeking any potential opportunity to lure other believers into falling
for it.
So don't fall for it.
5. In Acts 1:6–7, Jesus is about to
ascend back to heaven and His disciples ask Him if He is going to restore the
kingdom to Israel at that time. Jesus responds, but what He doesn't
say is rather telling.
Here is the passage in
question:
6Therefore, when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord,
are you now restoring the kingdom to Israel?" 7He
said to them, "It isn't for you to know times or seasons which the Father
has set within his own authority."
(Acts
1:6–7 / emphasis added)
First of
all,
note that when the disciples asked Jesus this question, they understood that
Jesus was in fact going to establish Israel's promised kingdom at some
point—they just weren't sure when. Yes, Israel's promised
kingdom. So we can safely assume that Jesus had made
it clear to them that He was going to do just that—return to establish Israel's
promised kingdom. And even if He hadn't, the fact that the Messiah was
going to inaugurate Israel's promised kingdom is well established in the Old
Testament, and to their credit the disciples knew their Old Testament a lot
better than most of today's believers (especially RTs, not to put too fine a
point on it).
So however
you look at it, it's a perfectly reasonable question. The disciples weren't spitballing Jesus, or yanking screwy ideas out of the
clear, blue sky. But if the doctrine of replacement theology is to be believed
and the kingdom were going to be taken from Israel and given to the Church
because the Church was going to replace Israel, then it's a fairly
stupid, uniformed question that reveals an astonishing level of
ignorance on the part of the disciples.
And in that case, Jesus
certainly would have corrected their misunderstanding and set them straight
about the Church replacing Israel and the kingdom being transferred to the
Church. That's kind of important, don't ya think? But
what does Jesus say to them to correct this gross error in their understanding?
Nothing.
Not. One. Word. The only thing Jesus does is make a remark concerning the timing of the establishment of Israel's kingdom, which was not for the disciples to know (nor is it for us to know, incidentally) because the Father has set such things within His own authority.
There is only one thing
RTs can do with passages like this, and it's the same thing they have to do
with countless other passages:
Israel
the Church!
6. In many places throughout the Old Testament, God talks about
His people Israel and His eternal covenant with them. They are the apple of His
eye, and so on. So...when did God get in the habit of changing His mind and
breaking His unconditional promises to His people?
You know, this is what
just kills me about this doctrine:
Just exactly how low an opinion of
God and His promises do
you have to
have
to believe replacement theology?
I mean, just what kind of
God do we serve, anyway? One who is in the habit of changing His mind due to
man's sin and disobedience? One who breaks His covenants and cancels His
promises because of our failures or shortcomings?
I'm as serious as a spot
on a chest X-ray. Because if that's the case—and it absolutely is
the case if you buy into replacement theology—then our salvation and the
heavenly inheritance that goes with it are in real jeopardy, I don't care what
you want to call us: the Church, Israel, spiritual Israel, the "Up, Up and
Away" Gang, whatever. How do we know God won't change His mind again,
and dump us like last night's food scraps? And considering the fleshly carnival
that large swaths of the Church have degenerated into in recent times, it's
tough to say anyone could blame Him.
The
New Jerusalem? Remodel it and turn it into a spa for the
principalities and powers in heavenly places.
7. Romans 9–11...the entire three chapters.
There are so many verses
in Romans 9–11 that blast from the rooftop that replacement theology is a lie
that all I can do is list a few sample verses to give you a taste of what I
mean. The bottom line is that people who have bought into replacement theology
simply have no choice:
RTs have
to rip Romans 9–11 out of their Bibles—there's no other way.
6Not as though the word of God has taken none
effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: [The
only way this makes a lick of sense is if Paul is talking about two
different parts of Israel: saved Israel and unsaved
Israel]
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all
children: but, In Isaac shall your seed be called.
(Romans
9:6–7 AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)
The true Israel, God's Israel, the
Israel of God, spiritual Israel, etc. are all those of Israel who have
believed the gospel. Yes, they are saved—and no, they are not
the Church.
1I say then, Has God cast away his people? [Has
He, all you RTs out there? Never mind—here's your answer:] God forbid.
(Romans
11:1a AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)
And if the Church has replaced Israel
and God's promises to them are now transferred to the Church and God is done with
them, then it's sorta like, you know, He's "cast
them away," wouldn't you agree?
11I say then, Have they
stumbled that they should fall? [Have they, all you RTs out
there? Never mind—here's your answer:] God forbid: but rather through
their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12Now
if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them
the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? [Israel
and the Gentiles (the Church) = two separate groups.]
(Romans
11:11–12 AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)
So is Paul teaching replacement
theology? God forbid.
26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn
away ungodliness from Jacob:
27For this is my covenant to them, when I shall take away their
sins.
28As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: [Again,
Paul couldn't make it any clearer that Israel and the Church are two
separate entities] but
as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. 29For
the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
(Romans
11:26-29 AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)
During the Tribulation,
one-third of the Jews will come to believe the gospel and be saved and will be
protected until Christ returns so they can be ushered into the Millennial
Kingdom. The other two-thirds will remain hardened in their unbelief and will
perish (Zech. 13:8–9). This isn't just not the Church—it has nothing
to do with the Church. This is 100 percent Israel—believing
and unbelieving Israel who will (a) enter the kingdom and (b)
perish, resp.
So yeah, all (believing)
Israel will be saved (future tense)—during the Tribulation. That's
the "Israel" Paul is talking about.
And that ain't the Church. To a large extent, we are
being saved (present continuous tense) and our group is very nearly
complete—and about to be taken out of the picture.
Wrestle
with this...
I know this has been a bit
of a slog, and for that I apologize. But I pray that you found it worth the
effort because this article touches on some extremely important truths—and we
as born-again believers and members of the body of Christ need to understand
and be willing to stand rock-solid in our support of these truths. We have no
business "wrestling with God" over our love and support for the
Jewish people and the nation of Israel.
Not now...not ever.
Nobody's perfect: Let me be crystal clear
about one thing—Israel is not perfect. They do not have
nor have they ever had perfect leaders. So, I don't want anyone out there to
think that anything I have said in this article suggests that God expects you
to support or agree with every decision made by the Israeli government, no
matter what—no questions asked. You can certainly love and support Israel and
still think they are making mistakes or doing something you think is wrong or
misguided.
For example, perhaps you
sincerely believe Israel has pushed the Gaza offensive too far,
and should put stronger efforts into reaching some kind of ceasefire
agreement (and I might deign to see it differently). That's fine—that just
means you have a mind of your own, and that's your view. Disagreeing with any
of Israel's very human decisions in no way suggests that you don't love and
support the nation of Israel and the Jewish people—you can do that and still
think for yourself.
My point is simply that we
have no business being influenced to waver in that support by a gaggle of
deluded college kids who are busy wasting their parents' hard-earned money and
chanting grand-sounding slogans and carrying signs bearing equally grand-sounding
memes, the true meanings of which they are simply not equipped to fully grasp.
For example, they wave
their signs and chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be
free." Now, how many of those kids do you suppose actually
understand and appreciate the fact that this cute, catchy little jingle
is more properly and accurately interpreted as...
"We want to see every Jew in Israel dead"?
Actually,
any Jew
anywhere. Oh, and they want to see every square inch of Israel handed
over to a gang of terrorists and the descendants of Arab refugees whom those
terrorists have indoctrinated to believe that it's all really their land
for some hazy (read: "fictional") historical reasons.
Do not be deceived:
That's precisely what their slogans are communicating to a world that is
foolish and deceived enough to listen to them.
If we kowtow to Satan's
useful idiots on this, we betray what God's Word tells us in clear,
black-and-white terms, and passively and unwittingly offer our assistance to
the demonic realm in their unceasing (and increasing) efforts to wipe Israel
off the map and kill every last Jew so their boss can put the Second Coming on
ice and hang on to his pathetic excuse of a kingdom where he can strut around
pretending to "be like the Most High."
So if you feel the need to
wrestle with something, wrestle with this:
Understand that Satan
can only hang on to his pathetic excuse of a kingdom if he can somehow rid the
world of the Jewish people, because it is they who will implore God to
save them at the climax of that pathetic excuse of a kingdom (Hos. 5:15). And
save them He will, because...
That's the Messiah's cue to enter stage up.
Come to terms with that.
Incidentally, in stage parlance phrases like "stage right" and
"stage left" are not so much directions as they are areas.
In other words, "enter stage up" doesn't mean Jesus is going up—it's
just a theatrical way to express the idea that when God gives the cue, Jesus
will enter the earthly stage from up above, when He returns to earth
from heaven to establish His kingdom—the kingdom God promised
unconditionally to Israel.
And since we're dabbling
in stage jargon here, I'm pleased to report that it's very nearly time for the
Church to exit stage up, when we are caught up to meet the Lord in the
air and then proceed on to heaven where we will be with our Lord and our loved
ones for eternity.
And when God gives that
cue, it's gonna bring the house down.
From Greg Lauer @ A Little Strength—MAY '24
Greg, thank you for a once again well-reasoned and well-presented article in defense of the Truth. My one red line re any church is this: RT. I happen to believe in the modern day operation of the Gifts of the Spirit, but I can live with a church that doesn't (up to a point), but I cannot live with/accept a church that believes in RT. I never ceases to amaze me how many sound biblical scholars there (I suppose this can be an oxymoron, given their misunderstanding, whether innocent or deliberate on this issue) are who adhere to this false teaching/conclusion. In a time when Israel is more and more alone, the dangers and betrayal of RT only exacerbates their problems on the world stage. I suspect most readers here and those of us among the "watching" community believe in the enduring nature of God's relationship with His Chosen, but thank you for this article that can be share with those who don't. One more way we can stand with, NOT INSTEAD OF, our brothers. After all, Jesus is pretty clear that we are GRAFTED IN, not having shoved aside, the other branches. We are blessed to be included, not having shoved the original branches aside.
ReplyDeleteThis cuts both ways. There are people who say you are cursing Israel if you aren't supporting every action they take.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I know there are those who would say that, but it is a straw man argument. Would a parent accept/condone every action, choice, a child/adult child would make just because we love that child? Those who think support for Israel means an automatic condoning of every decision, every action, they take are just lazy thinkers.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read every bit yet, but I will. I think that RT is often a part of post mill dominion/kingdom Theology. I think the Bible speaks strongly against the Church replacing Israel and don't understand the refusal to share God with our older brother. Where is the humility, I want to ask.
ReplyDeleteAlso, about Israel. Their government is corrupt. Their country accepts great depravity. They are NOT walking in the ways of God by any measure. But I support those among them who are dear to God. Israel is God's portion, and it will glorify Him and return to Him again. Our salvation came through the Jews. We should view them thusly.
Thank you for the timely message!
Momma, agreed. I think it is important to differentiate between apostate Israel and the True Israel/Remnant. It is the Remnant, those whose hearts are still His--and God always reserves for Himself a holy few--that we love and support. Not the corrupt men that have, as they so often did in the past, departed from all that God stands for. Don't we often feel like Elijah, all alone, but God knows there are still those who are His. It is the 144,000 and the Remnant who will survive the years of Jacob's Trouble that I pray for--in addition to praying for many to come back to the God of their Fathers and His Son in the meantime.
ReplyDeleteI do agree, that remnant is the focal point at the dep core
DeleteI recently saw on a Facebook a group that was anti dispensational. It was a group that Facebook thought I would have interest in joining apparently? I scrolled through the different posts and was appalled at the comment section. It was filled with antisemetism, anti-Israel, anti-premellenialism, and anti-rapture. I was shocked at the vitriol directed at fellow believers who held different eschatalogical beliefs. They kept promoting a book with a title along the lines of "God Divorced Israel"
ReplyDeleteI would agree that RT is often a gateway drug to all sorts of bad theology:
ReplyDeleteLegalism (i.e., opposed to sola fide)
Dominionism
Poor or otherwise unclear eschatology
Anti-Semitism (obviously)
Etc
'Am Yisrael Chai' When Jesus sent Holy Spirit after me to return me to The Flock, I was instructed to 'read The Bible like your life depends on what you learn !' I DID ! 'n' as a result, I became a Hebrew Roots Christian at the age of 63! Immersion baptized at the age of 72, & in a strong relationship with Holy Spirit . This Scotch/Irish great grandma loved you article, Greg L. & am as repulsed by RTcs as you are. Thank you for this thought provoking message. Blessings.
ReplyDeleteI was just thinking that there is a pattern of the second child getting the blessing first in the OT, and the elder being provoked to jealousy.
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent point, Momma. A very insightful thought to start the morning. Thank you!
DeleteAnd I was just thinking about how so much of the Bible is self-fulfilling. The prophecies and stories are applied to us, personally, whether we like it or not, and yet we choose to make them applicable, as well. Israel may have a warped government and a distracted population, but it will be the citizens reading the Bible that have the brightest future in the afterlife. And, on some level, that will hold true in their earthly lives as well, when they flee to the wilderness, maybe.
His ways are higher, for sure. But I can't help but wonder . . . are they higher because they're very circuitous and complicated and specific on a quantum level? Or are they higher because they're so simple and clean and random and engaging on a personal level? And what is it that we each need to learn from that? Because there definitely is something there for each of us.
Or maybe I just shouldn't have had caffeine this morning.
Jeremy
Elegant in simplicity and perfectly clean.
DeleteCY,
DeleteGreat response. I have a feeling that you're right. That His ways are elegantly simple and perfectly clean from His perspective. Not so much from ours . . . yet. But someday! lol
Jeremy
I have a question I was hoping you all could help with. And it is this: According to many Bible prophecies, Israel will be invaded and many of her people will either die or be taken captive during the Tribulation. However Israel is currently protected by the Iron Dome and nuclear weapons as well. How is such carnage to take place given those protections? Will the Antichrist eliminate nuclear weapons from the world this allowing such warfare to take place?
ReplyDeleteCould be any number of things, including the idea that the government/ leadership of Israel is in the pocket of the Anti-Christ at this time (thus has control of all the weapons).
DeleteAnother idea could simply be the advancement of technology. What was once cutting edge is outmanouvered by something new. Maybe in the next few years drones are more stealthy. Maybe viruses take out the Iron Dome communication system. *shrugs*.
DeleteI think the answer to that question is probably a lot more practical than we imagine.
DeleteThe Iron Dome system is just a missile system. Nothing more. And even though the technology has been around for decades, it still runs out of missiles, and it still can be outmaneuvered, and it can still break down. All three of these are absolute certainties in the end. In other words, depending on the Dome for defense is really just a running game of probability, just like all other weapons. Wars chew through bullets, tanks, planes, and people. And they usually end through attrition. The first army to outrun its fuel supply, accessible runways, media support, male population, etc. is the army that will sign the surrender document.
Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, are different. You never really run out of missiles because it only takes one. The same with the system breaking down. You don't need nuclear weapons to work well for very long. And they can't be outmaneuvered because of their sheer power. Either your enemy has been vaporized . . . or they haven't.
But I think there's more to consider with the nuclear argument. First, that there's some evidence in the Bible that they might be used on a tactically smaller scale. Second, on a large scale, they are disproportionate weapons that can only be used once . . . and last. So, they're not really weapons as we perceive them. They're just really expensive OFF buttons for the whole area. Which leads us directly to the third, and probably most important consideration. That nuclear weapons are not defensive. Ever. They can only remove different enemies and territories from the map. So the only way to use them defensively is to use them offensively by removing someone else, and their land, from the map first. You can't use them anywhere near your own home at all. And that's not a tool that you can use easily. In fact, it unites all other lands and world opinions against you, making you a larger target, overall. And it's doubtful that Israel, or anyone else, would be willing to nuke any significant area just to preserve their own small piece of it.
I guess what I'm saying is that Israel has NO real defense right now, outside God's providence and promise. I'd say that it's been that way since the beginning, and always will be. In today's world, the return of the Jews to their land has brought forth a prosperity that everyone else looks at with curiosity. As if there is something overwhelmingly powerful and prescient about Israeli technology, Israeli work ethic, Israeli farming, Israeli leadership, Israeli methodology, Israeli morals, or Israeli military capability. Truthfully, though, there is only something special about the Israeli God. And He says that there will come a day when Domes and Nukes won't help. And He also says that He will allow these events to happen in order to draw attention to Himself, because it will be sadly necessary in order to do so.
I guess I would answer the question like this: I highly doubt that the AC is going to have much input or say over Israel's military might. But tactical capabilities on small battlefields are not the same as having real protection. The grace of God. And there is a day, soon coming, when Israel will not have that.
If you read what I wrote just a few posts above this, about self-fulfilling events, then what I think you're really asking is kind of related. Since God won't abandon a nation seeking Him, but He does allow an apostate people to walk away from His will, what will be the sign or event or betrayal that marks the removal of His hand on Israel's safety? And I would have to think that it's the declaration of a 2-state solution by a self-seeking Israeli nation. But you never know.
Jeremy
More about the"beast"
ReplyDeleteGod used as symbol, the image of a beast with seven heads and ten horns throughout these end time prophecies. There were also crowns involved, and sometimes the crowns were on the heads and some time the crowns were on the horns.
That is a small detail, but nonetheless important in the identification of whom these symbols identify.I want to illustrate the precision with which God used these symbols to keep track of who he was talking about - it's important from the standpoint to show that God knows exactly what He is doing, and He's going to get it done, His way.
The scripture says in Daniel, at the time of these ten kings, loosely held together, like clay and iron, will the events of the end time, the last seven years, the seventieth week begin to unfold.
When the subject is Satan, who ruled all seven kingdoms, and when the timing is before he is cast out of heaven to the earth by Michael, and before the man child has been raptured, the eighth kingdom (Antichrist's kingdom) is not yet in power, so there are no crowns, the symbol of power, on the horns.
And when the Subject is the Devil, who is the real ruler; the crowns are on the seven kingdoms, the seven heads. But, when the subject changes from the Devil to the beast who will give Antichrist power to conquer the remainder of the reconstituted Roman Empire and set up the final eighth kingdom - when he, as Antichrist will rule and set himself up as the one to be worshiped, then the crowns go on the horns.
I want you to see the precision with which God outlines the end of time.
What are the seven heads and the ten horns?
Rev.17:9: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth and there are seven kings, five are fallen. What five kings, that have oppressed Israel, have fallen.
Egypt was the first, took them into bondage, Assyria, that took the Northern Tribes was the second, Babylon was the third, Medo-Persia was the fourth, Greece is the fifth.
There are seven kings; five are fallen - one is - that's the sixth - the Roman Empire, the other is not yet come. But when he cometh, he must continue a short space - that's that seventh one, which history shows is The Moslem Empire. The Moslem Empire was short lived as formed, as Muhammad dies, the Empire brakes in two within a year.
But, the sixth beast (the nondescript beast of Daniel), Rome, is who grows the ten horns. So, the power that the beast from the pit gets comes from the Roman portion of the Moslem Empire.
The Seleucid portion of the Grecian Empire, which contains the land of the Hashemite Kingdom, of the Moslem Empire, was conquered by the Romans and is the territory from where these ten kings grow. And the one that grows up among them, the eleventh, grows up among them in that territory, but was not there at the time of the Romans. So the “little horns” kingdom is an emerging kingdom. Jordan is that Kingdom that grew up among them in the modern times, and Jordan is ruled by the Hashemite King.
And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These kings get their power at the time of the beast, which is in the second half of the Great Tribulation.
The ten toes of Daniel, are ten kings of the last days, out of the Grecian portion of the Roman portion of the Moslem Empire, who come together loosely in the end times to give power to the Little Horn to form Antichrist's short lived final kingdom, the restored Hashemite Rule in the Hashemite Kingdom.
That will be the reconstitution of the real Hashemite Kingdom of the Moslem Empire, which will be given power in the last days by ten of the kings on that land. The Moslem Empire included Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine/Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Iran, all the Moslem lands around the Black sea, the Caspian Sea and along the Caucasus Mountains between them (the lands of Magog), and Saudi Arabia.
ReplyDeleteContinued
The angel explains to John in Rev.17:10 that there are seven kingdoms that make up this "beast", and there are seven kings. Five of them have fallen, one is, and one is yet to come and out of it (the one to come), the final kingdom will arise.
In addition, we see that "the beast that was, and is not, even he...", with a spiritual head, will be the eighth or final ruler over the ten earthly kings that comprise the loose confederacy of the end days which are represented in Nebuchadnezzar's image as the ten toes and in Daniel's vision as ten horns.
The five Empires that had fallen by the time John was on the scene in the first century were Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Grecia. The one that was in John's time, Rome, was the sixth (the legs). The one that was yet to come was the seventh (the feet), which, in history, turned out to be the Moslem Empire.
Rome did not replace itself on the stage of history on that land. Therefore, Rome cannot be the kingdom out of which the Little Horn will arise.
The next kingdom on that land, after Rome, was the Moslem Empire, founded by the first
Hashemite King, Muhammad, the prophet of Allah, who also founded the religion of Islam.
Rome, the legs of iron, is the sixth kingdom to come and go on the stage of history leaving one kingdom, the seventh, yet to come on that land; it's depicted on the image as the feet. Out of the feet grow the toes (Daniel 2), and out of this seventh kingdom grows the final kingdom, the eighth, which is given dominion (Revelation 17).
In history we have moved across the gap in time as the Moslem Empire (feet -seventh kingdom) has come and gone, leaving its residue on that land in the form of the Moslem Kings that currently occupy and rule the land of the Middle East. These are the toes of Daniel's vision and the horns of John's vision - the eighth kingdom.
These are the kings that are presently engaged in seeking peace with God's chosen people, the Jews. Now, because peace is defined as the cessation of againstness, the engine that is driving
the peace is a war. This struggle, as required by the prophecy, results in the uprooting of three of the ten horns. These horns are the ruling kings of the kindoms depicted by Daniel's "toes" and John's "horns". Of course, the current perpetual war between the Palestinians and the Jews
provides the opportunity for a peaceful gesture (covenant) which grants Temple Mount rites to
both sides.
This is a future seven-year covenant, made in the time of the end, and confirmed by this "little horn" king (the one who grows up among the ten horns on the territory once ruled by Rome in its day and Moslems in the end days). Thus, the final "week" of Daniel will begin. The uprooting takes place in order to make room for him, this Little Horn King, and the provisions of his covenant.
Brad at Rev12daily graciously reposted my latest article. Lo, and behold! It was deleted by The Powers That Be for not following their guidelines and informed of the possibility of my blog being terminated. I wanted to let my Unsealed Family know this is happening.
ReplyDeleteI redid the article changing some terminology but not the important message, but we will see how long it stays up:
THE GREATEST GENERATION, THE GREAT SHAKING, AND THE LAST TRUMP
I nearly decided to start my blog with the blogger platform, but after discovering some time later that it is run by Google, I'm glad I didn't for that very reason of sensorship or the threat of having the blog site deleted. As we all know, they do the same with YouTube videos since Google took over the YouTube platform. People get their videos and/or whole site removed.
DeleteBut I'm sure the WordPress platform that I use is probably no better. The threat of deletion is probably there nonetheless. Oh well, if it disappears, it disappears I suppose. Not much you can do about it except maybe back up all the articles with a secondary site just in case. Then just hit the publish button and republish them if your original site disappears.
Thanks, Corey--great idea. Will take it before the Lord to see whether I continue OR whether He has other plans!
DeleteGreat article GregL as always! :)
ReplyDeleteAnother danger is NAR...
To Lyn, Corey:
I'm using blogger for as long as I can since it doesn't cost me anything. I gather I haven't said anything yet that really shakes them up. :p
- - -
Prayers for Israel and her people.
Keep the word, and don't deny His name. Endure patiently.
🚫 🍇
🦊 Jack Foxman on the Wall