There wasn’t anything allegorical about the recent events in Israel. These are concrete reality out-workings of the eschatology of the covenant appearing before our eyes. – “Doc” So true. It’s the age ending conclusion to the quarrel that began in Abraham’s tents. Ezekiel calls it “the everlasting hatred” (Eze 35:5; compare also Eze 35-36 with […]
If one sees no need for a peace arrangement that fulfills Dan 9:27; 11:23 and the covenant with death and hell (Isa 28:15, 18) that provides for Israel’s declaration of “peace and safety” (1Thes 5:3), and IF the revelation of the Antichrist is NOT (as I’m persuaded) at the threshold of the abomination in connection with Satan’s dejection by Michael in the middle of the week (Dan 12:1 with Rev 12:7-14). In other words, if the AC can appear completely independently of these preliminary events, then, of course, he’s subject to just appear at anytime. But then what events would distinguish his parousia? Surely, at very minimum, you’d agree it would be his violation of the holy place at Jerusalem.
Apart from such preliminary signal events, the revelation of the Antichrist can be just whenever anyone’s dates suggest that he’s on the scene. Apart from something tangible, as Paul’s identification of his appearing with standing in the temple, then its up for grabs and what is there to distinguish his presence? If the temple of God is NOT the holy place in Judea, then we may suppose the AC appears when he stands up in the church, or in the Holy See at Rome, and forces worship on Sunday, demanding worship on pain of death, as in the view of the replacement oriented 7th day adventists.
