The ten kings are clearly contemporaries with the final “little horn” who emerges among the ten horns of the last beast kingdom. [Note: This 'little horn' (Dan 7:8; 8:9) is the self exalting prince that takes away the regular sacrifice in Dan 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 (compare also Mt 24:15-16, 21). He is the "willful king" whom Paul calls the 'Man of Sin' in 2Thes 2:3-4.]

Therefore, since the ten toes on the feet of the metallic image in Dan 2:41-42 so obviously correspond to the ten horns of the last beast mentioned in Dan 7:24 and Rev 17:12, it can hardly be denied that the kingdom of Dan 2:44 and Dan 7:27 is ‘set up’ only AFTER the destruction of the final beast, as any fair comparison of Dan 7:11, 26-27 with Rev 19:20; 20:4-6 will show.

This is why the denial of a future millennial reign of Christ usually goes hand in hand with a denial of a personal Antichrist and a future tribulation of unequaled severity (Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21). The amillennial system of interpretation can ill afford to grant literal and future fulfillment to the prophecies concerning Antichrist and a future great tribulation, since this would force recognition of a special divine dealing and covenanted future for the nation of Israel.

It is hardly to be denied that Paul sees a particular individual (the ‘Man of Sin’) as present on the scene when Christ returns to destroy him (2Thes 2:3, 8). He had not yet come at the time of Paul’s writing, but Paul fully expects the Thessalonians to be able to recognize him by an appalling act of self-exaltation in the temple of God at Jerusalem (2Thes 2:4 with Mt 24:15; Dan 11:31, 36-37; 12:11).

This ultimate scene of covenant defiance was clearly predicted by Daniel (Dan 11:31; 12:11). Although this kind of desecration has had parallels in Israel’s past (e.g., Antiochus IV, Pompey), it is to this prophecy in particular that Jesus directs  His disciples’ attention, instructing them to “read and understand” what Daniel had said concerning this pivotal sign (Mt 24:15).

That Paul’s ‘Man of Sin’ and John’s ‘beast’ is not a reference to some ubiquitous system or principle of evil, or succession of persons, but a particular ruler that dominates the world at the time of the end is made clear when we compare the use and application of Daniel’s prophecy in Jesus (Mt 24:15, 21 with Dan 11:31; 12:1-2, 11), Paul (2Thes 2:4 with Dan 11:36-37), and Revelation (Rev 13:5, 7; 19:20 with Dan 7:11, 21, 25; 12:7).

The surrounding context of the passages from Daniel that are specifically referenced in the NT show clearly that this “coming prince” (Dan 9:26) is a ruler that rises out of one of the four divisions of Alexander’s kingdom (Dan 8:9). Before his attack on Israel (Dan 11:31), he is depicted as engaged in political strategies and military conquests throughout the region (Dan 11:23-30). Even after Israel has been overwhelmed, he continues to attack other nations and is attacked in return (Dan 11:40-45). In view of such clear and specific language, it becomes absurd to deny that the Antichrist is a definite single individual.

Regardless of the particulars, this much is clear and irrefutable: The age cannot end until this well identified and recognizable ruler is present (2Thes 2:3-5), since he comes to his appointed end by nothing less than the Word of Christ at His personal appearance in glory (Isa 11:4; 2Thes 2:8; Rev 19:15, 20-21). After his destruction, the saints possess the kingdom of God on this present earth and reign with Christ for a thousand years (Dan 7:21-22, 26-27; Rev 20:4).

Clearly, the kingdom that is in view in Daniel’s prophecy does not prevail upon the earth until AFTER the destruction of the Antichrist. Only with the final removal of all false rule do the saints possess the kingdom “under the whole heaven.” This is shown by a comparison of Dan 7:11, with Dan 7:18, 21-22, 27. However, a closer look at the scripture will show that the kingdom that is “set up” upon earth “in the days of these kings” (compare Dan 2:44; 7:24 with Rev 17:12) is the same kingdom that was first awarded to the Son of Man upon His coronation when He ascended in clouds to take His seat at the Father’s right hand (Acts 2:34-36; Heb 12:2; Rev 3:21).

Dan 7:13 says, “I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”

The Son of Man’s coming ‘to’ the Ancient of Days to be ‘brought near’ before Him (the Ancient of Days), would seem to be speaking, not of Jesus’ return, but of His victorious ascent to the right hand of God in heaven. Yet, we see Jesus applying the same language of the cloud-coming Son of Man to His return after the tribulation (Mt 24:30; Rev 1:7; 14:14). From this we see that the same One who ascended with clouds to receive the kingdom, returns with clouds (Mt 24:30; Mk 14:62; 1Thes 4:17; Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7) to enforce the power of His heavenly victory upon the earth with the destruction of the Antichrist (Dan 7:13; 2Thes 2:8; Rev 19:20).

Interestingly, the Son of Man is brought near to the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:13, but in Dan 7:22 it is the Ancient of Days that ‘comes’ to consume and destroy the dominion of the persecuting beast (i.e., the ‘little horn’ of Dan 7:8, 11, 20-21). Notice that the judgement is said to be ‘set’ (Dan 7:9-10, 26) at the same time that the beast is destroyed and his dominion ‘taken way’ (Dan 7:11 with Dan 7:26). Equally significant, this is the beast that is destroyed at the end of a final 3 1/2 year period of unequaled persecution (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:1, 7, 11).

Since the period separating two distinct advents of the Messiah was not clearly discernible until after the revelation of the gospel, we can see  in hindsight that Daniel’s vision is inclusive of the whole sweep of God’s triumph through Christ, extending from the coronation of Jesus at the time of His glorious ascent, to His return in clouds after the tribulation to destroy the Antichrist, raise the righteous, and deliver the surviving remnant of Israel (Dan 12:1-2).

Part of the puzzle of Dan 7:9-10 is the remarkable similarity of language that is used in Daniel and again in Revelation to describe distinct judgments that are a thousand years apart. In Daniel, the judgment is ‘set’  and the ‘books are opened’ when the Ancient of Days comes to destroy the Antichrist (Dan 7:11, 21-22), whereas in Rev 20:12, the books are opened at the end of the thousand years.

Either we are to understand that the books are opened twice, or, more likely, Daniel is viewing the full sweep of divine judgment without distinguishing between the first and second resurrections, since the fate of those that will be raised at the second resurrection is already sealed at the time of the Lord’s return. It is a common feature of OT prophecy to blend into a single scene events that later revelation will show to be separated by a great span of time.

We find a key to this mystery by comparing the language of Dan 7 and Rev 20 with what we find in the twenty fourth chapter of Isaiah. In Dan 7:9, the thrones of the mighty are cast down in association with the destruction of the last beast (Dan 7:11, 21-22, 26-27). The language is fascinatingly similar to what we find in Isa 24:21: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.”

The time in view is clearly the post-tribulational day of the Lord, as the entire context of Isa 24 makes abundantly clear, but notice that the judgment that is visited at this time upon the wicked does not appear to be entirely final. Look closely at Isa 24:22, and you can see a cryptic allusion to the time that John’s later Revelation will show to be the thousand years between the first and second resurrections. “And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.”

In this light, the judgment scenes of Daniel and Revelation can be seen as comprehensive of the full sweep of divine judgment that bounds both ends of the millennium. The imagery is that of a courtroom where the judge sits to pronounce the decisive verdict. But from the standpoint of Christ’s finished work, the verdict has already been passed for the believer who has “passed ‘already’ from death to life” (Jn 5:24).

The believer is depicted as ‘now’ (past tense) ascended and sit down with Christ in heavenly places (Eph 1:3, 20-22; 2:6; Col 3:1). This is already. Not yet is the promise that the overcoming believer will be exalted to sit with Christ in His throne, even as He overcame to sit down with His Father on His throne (Rev 3:21). Of course, this high station of an already secured inheritance must be vindicated in time by the life that overcomes and is not overcome. That life is Christ’s life in the believer (Col 1:27). “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall you also appear with Him in glory” (Col 3:4).

The language of being ‘set down’ speaks of Christ’s finished work and victorious triumph over all enemies (Heb 1:3; 2:8; 10:12-13; 12:2; 1Cor 15:24-27). This implies that it was at the ascension that the Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:13 with Acts 1:9-11). By the sweet smell of His perfect obedience, He was ‘brought near’ to be enthroned at the Father’s right hand (Rev 3:21).

His triumphal ascension over all principality and power (Acts 2:34-36; Eph 1:20-21; Rev 12:5) has secured the heavenly victory by which His saints will quite literally “possess the kingdom under the whole heaven” when He returns with clouds (Mt 24:29-30; 26:64; Acts 1:9-11; 1Thes 4:17; Rev 1:7). Since “all judgment has been committed to the Son” (Mat 28:18; Jn 5:22; 1Cor 15:24), the judgement of the Ancient of Days is no less the judgment of the returning Son of Man.

Note also the remarkable statement in Dan 7:12. After the destruction of the beast in Dan 7:11, mention is made of “the rest of the beasts.” (Should we understand these to be the 10 kings that unite with the Antichrist in Dan 7:24; Rev 17:12? Or is the reference to the four beast kingdoms of Dan 7:3, 17?). In any event, at the time the beast is destroyed in Dan 7:11; Rev 19:20, the “rests of the beasts” have their dominion stripped away at the same time (Dan 7:11-12, 26), but here is what I want us to notice: “their lives are prolonged for a season and a time” (Dan 7:12).

Whatever we make of this, it is certain that there are nations that survive the return of Christ and the destruction of the beast. These are not translated with the church, but go into the millennium in natural bodies. That not all nations are always willingly compliant with the rule of heaven is shown in the reference that Messiah will rule the nations with a rod of iron.

I can’t find a verse in the NT that describes sacrifices during the millennium?

Indeed, we look in vain to find millennial sacrifices mentioned in the NT, but it is also not surprising. The NT is not interested to repeat all the great detail that the prophets describe of the age to come, precisely because it already stood written. It is only the erroneous assumption that the NT corrects the OT that would require us to see every detail repeated again before it can be believed.

We note that mention of the ”the age to come” in the NT is not usually attended with much elaboration. It is mostly used as a kind of ‘short hand’ to reference the time of the great transition from this age to the next. By itself, the term neither affirms nor denies millennial distinctions. The millennium is mentioned only once in what many would remind us is a ‘highly symbolical’ book.

On the contrary, the further revelation of a distinct millennial stage of fulfillment between the day of the Lord and the final perfection solves the riddle of OT prophecy. For those inclined to respect the literal details of prophecy, it helps to reconcile so much that would otherwise have been a hopeless puzzle.

Whereas many of the promises that were thought to belong strictly to the time after the great tribulation were now being experienced in unexpected advance of that day, the early church would not have seen this as an occasion to call in question any of those promises that remained to be fulfilled to Israel in a still coming day of the Lord, understood now to be the time of Jesus’ post-tribulational return. That the yet future ‘restoration of all things’ must necessarily include the plenary fulfillment of all that prophets have spoken was never in doubt (Mt 19:28; 23:39; Acts 1:6; 3:21; Ro 11:25-27; Rev 1:7).

So we say that what the prophets put on the other side of the day of the Lord still belongs there, a measure of present fulfillment notwithstanding. The NT does not correct or change anything that stands written in the OT. Rather, it reveals a mystery that discovers a hidden, albeit foretold age that must supervene between the present age and the age to come.

Whereas it is true that some of what the prophets connect to the day of the Lord has come already, it is also true that the tribulation is still future and certainly the day of the Lord is still future. What presumption then to so confidently deny to the natural branches the full covenantal vindication of all that the prophets describe of that coming day?

Therefore, to ascribe equal authority to both testaments means that we do not require repetition of every detail of prophecy. Progressive revelation expands and amplifies the vision of OT eschatology, but this does not call for correction or change of the plain meaning of words in their native context.

That said, however, the NT certainly is clear that Christ has fulfilled the many types and shadows of tabernacle and the alter. This brings the question; does fulfillment of a type necessarily mark its end? Jesus is the ‘teleos’ (goal) of the law, but does this mean that the law is without further significance, or that it is no longer in force, particularly where one is still ‘under’ its curse? Christ was the great anti-type to the blood sacrifices, but they continued to be offered until the destruction of the temple, as Jewish believers would continue to center their activities in the temple and continue to make annual pilgrimage (Acts 21:26; 24:17).

Notwithstanding, it is what the NT reveals of the final sufficiency of Christ’s blood, particularly in the apologetic presented in the book of Hebrews (see especially Heb 10:2) that raises serious questions concerning a resumption of sacrifices in the millennium. Indeed, no question is more difficult for those who would defend the literal view of OT prophecy. What are we to make of this? Are millennial sacrifices indeed irreconcilable with Christ’s once and for all sacrifice?

One thing is clear: Interpreted literally, the prophecies definitely predict sacrifices and a renewed temple service in the millennium (Isa 56:5-7; 60:7, 13; 66:20-23; Jer 33:15-22; Zech 14:16-21). The context is plainly post-tribulational / post- day of the Lord Israel, which is to say, millennial.

Regardless of our answer to this question, it cannot be denied that Ezekiel’s vision of a new temple is pictured in the setting of a topographically transformed and elevated temple mount in a newly liberated Jerusalem (Zech 14″9-11). This temple has never existed before in any literal sense, and it is clearly AFTER the day of the Lord described in Eze 39:8, 22-29.

So the larger implication of our approach to this question will not only bear on the question of a future millennium, but particularly how we should interpret its purpose and nature in light of what scripture reveals will distinguish and characterize that unique time. For example, will the millennium include such distinctly ‘Jewish’ features as a literal inheritance of the Land by an entirely saved Jewish nation? (Isa 4:3; 45:17, 25; 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; 66:22; Jer 31:34; Eze 39:22, 28-29; Zeph 3:13 etc.).

Can we rightly conceive of a time on this earth when evangelism will not be necessary among the Jewish inhabitants of the Land? (Jer 31:34). Many competent interpreters have said no. Such an extravagant promise can only be fulfilled in heaven. But the greatest crisis for interpretation seems indeed to be the question of whether the future reestablishment of Israel as theocratic head of the nations will also feature another temple with a worship that includes sacrifices.

How should such this language be interpreted? All are agreed concerning what these texts mean in their native context and intention. The question is whether the NT states anything definitely that forces us to spiritualize or re-interpret this aspect of OT prophecy?

If reconciliation is not possible without spiritualizing temple and sacrifices, then certainly later NT revelation must take precedence, but I believe there is a better explanation and that failure to make needful distinctions between the dispensations have created the illusion of a false choice. I am reminded of the old ‘black and white fallacy’ in logic, which assumes that the alternatives thus far considered are the only ones that exist.

I can only give where I stand currently and tentatively on this question, but my answer would be incomplete if I did not give first place to the more easily demonstrated proofs that strongly incline me in the direction of the literal view. Firstly, we know from Heb 10:4 that no sacrifice, whether past or future, was ever efficacious to the actual taking away of sin. Therefore, we can be certain that if there is a future literal sacrifice, it can only be of a memorial nature, much the way that the more portable ordinance of the Lord’s Table functions now for a pilgrim church scattered throughout the nations.

A fully regenerate Israel will most certainly NOT confuse any temporal structure, or emblematic ordinance as a means of justification. How could they? They will have a new heart of divinely guaranteed continuance. Even the godly remnant of the OT, as in the case of David, showed their knowledge that the ordinances of the law counted for nothing unless the heart was first broken and contrite (Ps 40:6; 51:16).

But when this inward reality will first be secured by true repentance, ‘then’ may the worshiper offer sacrifices extravagantly, in jubilant assurance of divine acceptance (Ps 51:19). That is always the order. It is so now with the use of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and it will be so in the millennium, regardless of which ordinances God has deemed appropriate to that unique time and circumstance.

There is much that could be said on this subject that time does not permit, but the question of millennial sacrifices is admittedly very difficult for those who are committed to a consistently literal hermeneutic. This is why no other question is more exploited against a millennial future for Israel than this.

It is the seemingly impossible thought that sacrifices might be re-instituted in the millennium that is most often and most effectively invoked to dismiss a future literal millennium and to justify the ‘re-interpretation’ (spiritualization) of a large volume of Old Testament texts that speak of the post-tribulational restoration of Israel. The argument goes that the millennial headship of a Jewish Israel would imply a regression from the unity of Jew and gentile in the one new man (a ‘re-erection’ of the middle wall of partition).

This would furthermore imply a return to legal ordinances (another grossly misrepresented topic). The solution is typically to deny a millennium altogether, and if not to deny the millennium, certainly its specifically Jewish character. Of course this can only be done by the wholesale spiritualization of a considerable volume of OT prophecy.

Even if we allow full place for all the normal conventions of prophetic and apocalyptic literature, as the common use of figure, type, metaphor, poetic symbolism, and even so-called ‘cosmic language,’ still, there is an enormous amount of prophetic detail that is hard to fit with any spiritual counterpart in the NT, whether for this age or the eternal state of the new heavens and earth.

In order for the Scripture to be fulfilled in every jot and tittle, the details of prophecy demand an age between this age and the final perfection of the new heavens and earth. That further installment of the ‘age to come’ is the millennium. It begins only AFTER the destruction of the last beast of the last persecution (Dan 2:44; 7:11; Rev 6:10-11; 17:12; 19:20; 20:4-6; 2Thes 2:3-4, 8).

One can see at once the kind of problems that such re-interpretation and spiritualization of such a large body of specific prophetic detail would pose for the church’s apologetic towards Jews that are knowledgeable of the scriptures. So the question of the relationship and harmony of the two testaments is a problem that has great bearing on how we talk to Israel, certainly now, but most critically in the coming time of Jacob’s trouble.

We are often reminded that the only clear reference to a future millennium is found in a highly symbolic and pictorial book of beasts and dragons and cubed numbers in multiples of 12 and 7. Many also point out that the promise of the Land recedes in the NT into a heavenly country, with no specific reference to an “earthly” (sometimes called ‘carnal’ or ‘Jewish’) millennium.

Even Paul, in his argument for a necessary future covenant fulfillment for the natural branches makes no particular mention of the Land. Some see this as evidence that Paul has ‘re-interpreted’ the Land promise. Others note the connection of Paul’s language to clear OT references to the the day of the Lord (compare Isa 27:9; 59:13-21 with Isa 63:3-7; Jer 31:31-34; see esp. Eze 30:3 with Lk 21:24; Ro 11:25-27).

Against such clear evidence that Paul has in mind the post-tribulational day of the Lord in Ro 11:26, non-millennial interpreters tend to understand the Deliverer’s return to Zion as a reference to the Lord’s first advent. It is really quite the contrary. Furthermore, unless we accept the view of preterism (that all NT prophecy concerning Jerusalem is past), we find that the NT is not at all silent about the Land, as the entire drama that concludes the age is set in the context of a final Antichrist assault on Jerusalem (Mt 24:15-29; 2Thes 2:4; Rev 11:2 etc.). This is in full accord with the eschatology of the covenant in the OT.

It is the tendency of the supercessionist view to transfer everything that the prophets depict as following the day of the Lord into the present age. Of course, this removes any need for a millennial interim between this age and the perfect state. This is done by a process they call ‘re-interpretation’, which they believe can be justified by certain instances where the NT will apply some future (post-day of the Lord) promise to the church of the present age.

Certainly this is partly true, since the church is indeed the ‘first-fruits’ of the eschatological promise. But the present spiritual fulfillment does not detract from its more literal and exhaustive fulfillment at the day of the Lord. One example would be Peter’s application of Joel’s prophecy of the day of the Lord to the present outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:20). We can be sure that Peter is NOT announcing the arrival of the day of the Lord, since he would have been aware that Jesus used the very same language of Joel’s prophecy to speak of His return after the tribulation (Joel 2:31; Mt 24:29).

Notwithstanding, Acts 2:16-20 has been a favorite text to defend the view that all the OT prophecies of the day of the Lord should be transferred entirely to the church of the present age. It is to assume that whenever an OT prophecy is applied to the present, it has been exhaustively fulfilled in every part. If the presence of the kingdom can anticipate a greater realization in the future, how can a present ‘first-fruits’ of the messianic redemption be thought to nullify the day of the Lord restoration of Israel? (Mt 23:39; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:26). By what logic does a partial fulfillment on this side of the Lord’s return nullify a fuller future fulfillment on this earth after the last tribulation?

While it is true that the mystery reveals that the church of the present age appropriates some (not all) of the first fruits of that coming age, this does nothing to change or disappoint God’s determination to publicly vindicate His irrevocable covenant in the sight of all nations. As shown above, we believe that Paul’s reading of the covenant requires a time on this earth when there will not be found a single Jew on the earth that is not saved (see above).

This would not be nearly so astonishing if this referred only to resurrected Jews, but many scriptures combine to show that the salvation of the surviving Jewish remnant go into the millennium in natural bodies. Evidently, the surviving remnant of Israel is “born in one day” as they look upon Him whom they pierced (Isa 59:21; 66:8; Eze 39:22; Zech 3:9; 12:10; 14:7; Mt 23:39; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7) at the same the church is being translated at the last trump (Isa 27:13; Mt 24:31; 1Cor 15:52; 2Thes 2:1; Rev 10:7; 11:15).

In marked contrast to the rapture, the Jewish survivors of the last tribulation return to the Land by natural means of transport with the assistance of gentile survivors (see Isa 49:22; Isa 60:9; 66:20; Zech 8:23). With the Deliverer’s return to Zion, the surviving remnant is regenerated in an instant, first to mourn apart (Zech 12:11-12) and then to begin the last world wide return to the Land (compare Isa 11:15-16 with Isa 27:12-13).

Notice that this return is distinguished from all others in that not a single Jewish survivor is left behind (Eze 39:28).  If such promises can be conceived to happen in literal actuality, it means that this earth is yet to witness the unprecedented spectacle of an entirely saved Jewish population. Significantly, the public fulfillment of the covenant of Jer 31:34 also finishes the mystery of God (Rev 10:7).

Not only does the millennium begin with a fully regenerate Jewish population, this astonish burning bush of divine testimony is promised everlasting continuance. The promise of an all saved nation is extended to include the future children that will be born to Jewish parents (see Isa 54:13; 59:21; 66:22). No wonder interpreters tend to put this in heaven, as they are hard pressed to find fulfillment in the visible church. That something like this could be fulfilled on this earth, especially by Jews that have not yet been resurrected may seem incredible, but none of this is any more incredible than the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

It is this reading of the covenant that makes perfect sense of a future millennium. It is also the only reading that can make sense of the way that God has chosen that the age should end over the ‘controversy of Zion’ (Isa 34:8) and ‘the time of Jacob’s trouble’ (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21). Can it really be that God will hold all nations accountable to know and understand such an ancient promise? Indeed, it will be the test that will embroil all nations over the Jerusalem question (Zech 12:2-3). It is the question of an abiding and irrevocable covenant election that still stands with the natural branches (Ro 11:27, 29).

The theology of replacement tends to believe that before something of OT revelation can be applied to Israel in the future, they would first need to see it reiterated in the NT. They argue that progressive revelation requires us to abandon the narrow, “nationalistic” orientation of the limited and culture-bound foreview of the OT prophets.

They would have us see that all of this has all been “transcended” (changed?) by a kind of metamorphosis. You may notice that what some justify as ‘progressive revelation’ has much in common with the evolutionary view of scripture embraced by theological liberalism. That is a view that certainly has no problem at all with the unfulfilled details of prophecy.

Here is the decisive question that will ultimately determine our view of the end: The prophets place everything of Israel’s covenanted hope into the context of a future post-tribulational day of the Lord. Should the present fulfillment of some (some say all) of these promises mean that all the prophecies that picture an earthly fulfillment after the tribulation are no longer to be expected, particularly if this would mean a special place of preeminence of the ‘natural Jewish branches?

If these prophecies are to be fulfilled on earth in a future millennium, does this mean we should interpret their meaning in strict conformity to the original intention of the biblical writers, or does NT revelation constrain us to adapt them to some higher spiritual fulfillment? If so, what would this be, and would it be sufficient to account for the great volume of detail that the prophets use in their descriptions?

These are the questions that interpreters and teachers struggle to understand and explain. By perfect design, God has put before us a profound mystery that requires setting our heart to understand. Not only the church, but ultimate all nations will be forced to wrestle with its implications, so it is not a merely an academic exercise (Ro 11:25, but also Ro 11:33-36).

As Jesus was the stone of stumbling to first century Israel through the mystery of His twofold advent, it seems evident to me that the same mystery is still with us in its essence; now in the form of the question of an abiding election of a particular land and people. I believe God intends to use the last day’s crisis of Israel as a formidable test of the heart concerning its disposition towards God’s free and sovereign right to choose as He will choose.

To what degree then does NT revelation justify re-interpretation of that great volume of prophecy that the prophets put on the far side of the great tribulation? That is the question. I do not believe we should expect, as it was never the purpose of NT revelation to explicitly reiterate the basic contour of OT hope, simply because is has not changed. The revelation of the mystery of the gospel has indeed expanded our vision of the glory of God’s eternal purpose beyond anything the prophets could have conceived, but that glory has not occasioned a radical re-interpretation of Israel’s hope, as presupposed by a-millennialists and replacement theologies of different kinds.

What is new is the revelation of Messiah’s twofold coming, departure, and return to Israel. This discovers an unexpected interim that inserts itself between the unexpected death and resurrection of Messiah and the well known day of the Lord that can now be seen as the time of His return.

Through the gift of the Spirit and the revelation of the mystery of the gospel, many of the mighty powers and spiritual blessings of that coming age have come in unexpected advance of ‘that day.’ This is agreed by all schools. What is not agreed is how far this has changed or cancelled the prophecies and promises of the ‘not yet’ that the prophets put in the future with the still coming day of the Lord.

The principal point of difference is this: How far does the presence of the kingdom justify the cancellation or modification (“re-interpretation”) of the kingdom’s future on earth after the day of the Lord but before the eternal state? This is where the question of how post-tribulational / post-day of the Lord prophecies become the point of great controversy.

It is true that Paul says nothing explicit about Israel’s future relation to the Land in his treatment of Israel’s failure in Ro 9-11, but certainly this was not in question. Paul would have understood that the ‘necessary’ vindication of covenant promise in the restoration of the natural branches is indivisibly connected with inheritance of the Land. Such reiteration would have been completely redundant and unnecessary to anyone believing the literal words of the prophets.

It is the question of what it takes to fulfill the covenant. Does Paul insist on a future salvation of Israel that does not include return to the Land? How one reads the covenant and understands its language to be either figurative or literal will determine how we interpret the grafting in again of the natural branches. In fact, how we see the election of Israel in relation to the modern situation in the Land will determine how we understand the meaning of the last days and the test of hearts that the crisis of Israel is divinely designed to expose.

So, since Paul does not say anything specifically concerning the Land, does this mean that the inextricable relation of the Land to the ‘everlasting covenant’ (Gen 17:7-8; 1Chron 16:17-18; Ps 105:10-11; Isa 61:8-9; Jer 32:40-41; Eze 36:26-28) has now been transferred to heaven? The question of the Land is carried forward to the time of the unequaled tribulation precisely because it is intrinsic to the covenant and the last day’s assault on the covenant by the forces of the Antichrist.

It is the Antichrist’s war against the covenant that is the special subject of such clearly tribulational passages as Dan 11:28, 30-31, 39; Joel 3:2; Zech 14:1-4 etc.). Manifestly, the nations cross a line of no return when they lift themselves up to assault the covenant land and people. Why is this?

Significantly, the prophets show this particular act of covenant defiance to be the ultimate provocation that causes God’s fury to come up in His face (Eze 38:18; Joel 3:2). We should ask, why, in all the generations of divine forbearance of depravity and gospel rejection, is it only now that the nations finally and fatally transgress the bounds of divine tolerance? (Isa 24:5). It is because God has ordained that His  irrevocable covenant with Israel is to become the watershed issue of division and a stone of stumbling at the end of the age that will test and reveal the thoughts of many hearts (Lk 2:34-35).

Our perspective is NOT dispensationalism. Recognition of a special millennial calling and role for Israel does not militate against the unity of the body of Christ. Saved Israel and saved gentiles in the millennium will be no less members of the body of Christ on earth. However, as the man and woman are equals in Christ, but not in authority, it is no regression to understand that God’s will require all nations to honor His special election of Israel (Zech 14:16-19).

Of course, as always, the freedom and right of God to bestow special favor sets up a test of the heart (Gen 37:3-4, 11, also Ps 2:6, 8 with Ps 48:2; Isa 14:13). This was the test that was put before the woman of Canaan in (Mt 15:24-28). May we not expect that as it has pleased God to move the Jew to jealousy through the gentile, He has an intention to prove the hearts of the nations through a restored Israel at the end of the ‘times of the gentiles’? We are sure that He does, not only then, but even now, as we move towards an age ending collision over the question of covenant election.

Regardless then of how literally we are able to conceive of a restored temple and sacrifice, this question cannot be permitted to dominate all others. It does not change the far greater evidence that favors the view that a future millennium awaits the full and open vindication of the covenant in the salvation of ‘all Israel,’ as we believe Paul intends that term.

Therefore, the NT is not occupied with an agenda of ‘re-interpretation,’ but concerns itself with the revelation and application of a mystery that discovers an age between the advents that realizes some (not all) of Israel’s promises, replacing nothing of what remains to be established on earth with the natural branches at a still future day of the Lord. All of this is in perfect keeping with the well established pattern of NT fulfillment that scholars have called, the ‘already and the not yet’ of an ‘inaugurated eschatology.’

This is why I find it a thing to be wondered at that replacement theology can so well assure itself that an admittedly still future day of the Lord cannot include what the prophets so clearly promise to the ‘natural branches’ at that time. That’s what mystifies me.

Even if we allow for the utmost natural difficulty in understanding a ponderous mystery that is calculated to send us to prayer, still, to so assuredly conclude that the day of the Lord will NOT bring a millennium of covenant fulfillment for the natural branches seems to me a colossal presumption.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

1 Chronicles 16:34 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever. This appears in the book 50 times and I question the validity of this being true, as I was thinking, how can this be true if there is a place called hell? Please expound on this!

Unfortunately (for the flesh), the question of hell is inseparably bound to the question of Jesus’ identity and authority. I have a view that helps me considerably with this question, but you have not asked concerning matters of interpretation. Instead, you seem to question whether such a place can co-exist with the justice and goodness of God. That is a far more serious issue, since this becomes the question of Jesus’ authority and identity, not only as a prophet, but as the divine Son of God.

Though many will agree that we evangelicals are of all people most to be pitied, it is true that we are ‘victims’ of the conviction that Jesus is who He claimed to be, and this leaves us with no recourse than to believe what He affirmed about hell, else the whole foundation is at once removed. Simply put, if we would not sacrifice the integrity of Christ’s authority, we are compelled to believe in the existence of hell, regardless of how we understand it.

This means that the reality of the hope of eternal life is inseparably bound to the reality of eternal damnation, if Jesus is indeed who He claimed to be. We who are naturally humanistic in our thinking need to understand that only one provision for salvation was ever possible to God. From a human point of view, God is bound to be God. He is defined by His nature. According to Ro 8:20, His very decision to create a universe that He knew would pass into futility was based on the timeless pre-determination to send Jesus to the cross (Isa 49:7; 53:3-5; Dn 9:26; Mic 5:1; Zech 12:10; Acts 2:23; Rev 13:8).

It is significant that the reason for hell’s existence is explained in the very place where we see the greatest conceivable sacrifice of divine love. “For God sent NOT His Son into the world to CONDEMN the world; but that the world through him might be saved … THIS is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil … ” (Jn 3:17, 19).

So we must understand that the question of hell is subservient to the much more ultimate question of the existence and nature of divine revelation. Ultimately its a choice between revelation and philosophy. I begin with the evidence. If the evidence is sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt of the reality of divine revelation, then I am relieved of having to understand hell in order to acknowledge its existence. If He is indeed there; if He has indeed spoken, then who am I? I am creature; He is God. I am at the mercy of whatever He has chosen to reveal (Deut 29:29). This is the humility of faith, but faith is not without reasons.

Revelation transcends the limits of rationality, but it is never irrational. It is not without compelling evidence. The evidence is such as to leave all without excuse, but not such as to remove all mystery. There is the choice. Will we bow to the evidence, suffering the tension that must always exists between evidence and mystery, or will we exalt reason over revelation, with an all or nothing demand?

Hell is one of those things that is so naturally unthinkable that it actually commends itself as belonging, not to the realm of human conceptions of justice, but of divine revelation. The greatest reason for our quarrel with hell is because we are ‘cut off’ and ‘out of touch’ with the holiness of God. We are insensible of divine reality. If God is possessed of a holiness that is infinite, sin becomes something much more than a finite, time bound event, as we tend to imagine. That is why we are incapable of knowing the degree of our sin apart from revelation.

We are in no position to demand of God. Revelation does not come as divine obligation to the creature, else it would not be grace but debt. Revelation is the issue of humility and divine sovereignty (Mt 11:25-27). It doesn’t work with the pride of demand. It works where prayer works, namely, at the end of the power of self-sufficiency (Deut 32:36; Dan 12:7). Revelation comes to those who have been brought to feel their own destitution (Ps 102:17). I call it the Jacob’s trouble principle, but it is the principle of the cross.

“Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God” (1 Cor 8:1-3). In contrast to philosophy, religious dogma, or even a creed that is merely ‘correct,’ only revelation can bend the knee and break the heart. It brings down man and lifts up Christ.

This is why I don’t have to understand or explain hell to enjoy the salvation of Christ. It is the issue of trust. I simply am too weak and unreliable in myself to trust the limits of my poor reason over that which He has spoken (“Has God really said?”). When it comes to the question of hell, my answer is the same as Abraham’s unquestioned assumption: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:25).

Notice that Abraham appeals to this great ‘given’ of the nature and character of God in the face of what seemed to him evidence to the contrary. The operating word here is “seemed.” I like to say that we see through a “seem.” There is often a great chasm between what ‘seems’ and what is. It is testament to Abraham’s faith that he holds fast to the conviction of God’s goodness and justice, even in the face of ‘apparent’ contradiction. He never lifts himself up beyond the place of finite and dependent creature-hood. He puzzles, he appeals, but he never puts his own limited first impressions in the place of God. This is precisely what philosophy does when it rejects the primacy of revelation.

Whether any of His attributes are ever palatable to the flesh, we are not in a position to prescribe the kind of deity that suits us. Either God has revealed Himself as He indeed is, despite the limits of our understanding, or He has not. In which case, we can play till judgment day with our unbounded imaginations, “ever learning (conveniently) and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

By a sublime irony, God deliberately puts Himself on trial. When Jesus stood before Pilate, things were not as they appeared. By placing Himself before the tribunal of human judgment, God was permitting our judgment of Him to be the judgment that we are really passing on ourselves. When we exalt an autonomous reason over the gift of inspired revelation, we judge ourselves (“He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him – the Word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day;” Jn 12:48).

The entire passion scene is divinely constructed to raise the great questions. Pilate’s dilemma is ours. What should be done with this man? “What is truth?” These are questions that the crisis of Jesus (and soon of Israel) puts on the lips of our collective humanity. Settle this one question and all others fade in comparison. The only really ultimate question is put by Jesus Himself when He asks, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mk 8:29).

Either Jesus was a man of His times spreading well meaning religious, but nonetheless human opinion, or He is the final authority of truth on all questions pertaining to human destiny. He is the only One who is in a position to speak with such absolute authority from the other side of the veil. If He is wrong about hell, what is He right about? What good is a mistaken Messiah? “Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die!” (Isa 22:13; 1Cor 15:32). That is sound advise from one whose pious self assurance was crucified on the road to Damascus.

No hell, no Savior! I don’t see any possible middle ground. Both the identity of Jesus and the existence of hell belong to the realm of revelation. A Jesus that is less than divine is no threat to the flesh, but He is also no hope for the soul. If Jesus was sincerely deceived about hell, then tell us, “to whom shall we go?” Judaism? Islam? Or the nihilism of hedonism?

Well, you asked that I expound on the question. Now for a personal appeal. You and I have been back and forth on questions of this kind for a good while now. I don’t mind, but I get the feeling that your frustration may become such that you will despair to inquire further. Therefore, in honor of our friendship, would you consider to read a little booklet that made all the difference in my life? It is, “Saved by Grace,” by John Bunyan. He was the author of the famous, “Pilgrim’s Progress.”

How I would love to see you come to the real resolution and peace that is faithfully quickened to our hearts when we have despaired of any hope in ourselves (Isa 57:10). May it be soon for you, is my prayer.

Your friend in His unspeakable goodness, Reggie

My question is about the salvation of Israel in Romans 11:26 (“And so all Israel will be saved”). I am wondering if the ‘all’ spoken of in this verse, is all those (the remaining third) who survive the time of Jacobs trouble? Is the ‘all Israel’ simply all those who are alive at that time? Or does “all Israel” fit the description of Ezekiel 37 in the “life from the dead” resurrection and “opening of the graves and bringing into the land”, and the “dry bones” of the “whole house of Israel” literally coming to life and salvation in the promise of that God will “put my spirit in you”.

Also in this context, can you shed any light on the significance of the “four winds”, mentioned in Ezekiel 37 “prophesying unto the four winds”, and in Matthew 24:31 as “gathering together his elect from the four winds”?

You asked the perfect question. By His grace, I hope to reply soon. I had not noticed the four winds before, but it does fit perfectly with the timing of Mt 24:31, not only as fulfilled in the gathering of saints at the rapture (2Thes 2:1), but also in the gathering of the dispersed of Israel described in Isa 27:12-13.

I see these as distinct but simultaneous events. One is the gathering and translation of the church. The other is the ‘day of the Lord’ salvation of the penitent Jewish survivors of the tribulation. Then begins the final Jewish return from all nations that will leave none behind (Eze 39:28). When the great trumpet sounds, they are depicted as scattered among the nations and “ready to perish” (Isa 27:13).

Certainly, there can be no doubt that the trumpet of Isa 27:13 is one and the same with the trumpet of Mt 24:31 that Jesus mentions in connection with His return after the tribulation. It is also clear that the bones of Ezekiel are revived by the Spirit at the same time. I believe that the reference to the “four winds” used in both Eze 37:9 and Mt 24:31 is significant language for Israel’s scattered and utterly destitute condition when the Lord returns (Ps 102:13-17).

Interestingly, the time of the rapture for the church (last trumpet / day of the Lord) is the same time that the penitent survivors of the tribulation receive the Spirit (Isa 59:17-21; Eze 39:8, 22, 38; Joel 2:27-32; 3:14-16; Zech 12:10). So if the elect are being gathered from the four winds at Christ’s return, who are the elect? Are they the newly saved natural branches, or, are they the suffering saints of the tribulation? I believe it is both; the language is perfectly interchangeable and equally applicable to both. Let me explain.

I believe the scripture is best harmonized by recognizing that at the same moment the church is being translated, the survivors of Israel are receiving the transforming revelation of Jesus, as He returns in clouds of glory (Zech 12:10 with Mt 23:39; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7). This means there are two distinct kinds of gathering that happen at the same time. Both converge at the last trump’ (Isa 27:13 with Mt 24:31; 1Cor 15:52; Rev 10:7; 11:15), which is also the day of the Lord (Mt 24:29 with Acts 2:20). The church is gathered to Christ in His victorious descent. In contrast, the newly regenerate nation is gathered back to the Land from all nations (Eze 39:28), not by supernatural rapture, but by natural means of transport with the glad assistance of gentile survivors (Isa 49:22; 60:9; 66:20; Zech 8:23).

A careful comparison of Scripture seems to make clear that Christ’s instantaneous gathering of the church is also the beginning of the world wide gathering of Israel back to the Land, and it is no contradiction if both should be presided over by the agency of angels (Mt 34:31). Paul’s use of Isaiah’s prophecy in 1Cor 15:52-54 shows that the trumpet of Isa 27:13 cannot be dissociated from his reference to the resurrection in the context of Israel’s post-tribulational salvation (compare Isa 25:7-9; 26:19; 27:13 in the larger context).

In view of such clear citation of Isaiah’s references to the resurrection of the Old Testament righteous (Isa 25:8; 26:19), it becomes impossible to suppose that Paul’s ‘last trump’ is a different trumpet that sounds seven years earlier, as taught by teachers of the pre-trib rapture. Rather, we understand that the “great trumpet” of Isa 27:13 and Mt 24:31 marks, not only the time that those already alive in Christ are gathered to Him (as Paul seems to understand in 2Thes 2:1, referencing Mt 24:31), but also the beginning of the return home for the scattered Jews that were “ready to perish” in hostile lands (Isa 27:13).

A number of scriptures indicate that Israel will be suddenly saved “at once’ and ‘in one day’ at this time (Isa 59:21; 66:8; Eze 39:22; Zech 3:9; 12:10; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7). Other passages show that the newly saved nation is NOT changed into the glorified state at the last trump with those that were already alive in Christ. Rather, they are depicted as going into the millennium in natural bodies. This is further evidence that Paul’s view of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ is not to be confused with the gradual salvation of Jews that will be saved before the rapture, since these would obviously be included in Paul’s, “we shall ALL be changed” of 1Cor 15:23, 52 at the rapture.

Scripture is best harmonized by distinguishing between living believers that are changed at the last trump, and the surviving remnant of Israel that comes to faith suddenly at the return of Christ (Zech 12:10 with Mt 23:39; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7), as their hearts have been prepared for that revelation through great travail and the witness of the church. The division that takes place between between the glorified redeemed and the newly born nation at the day of the Lord / last trumpet (Isa 27:13; Mt 24:31; 1Cor 15:52; Rev 10:7; 11:15) has a clear and logical purpose.

God’s purpose for the earth is not complete with the rapture of the church, but requires the millennial vindication of His covenant with Israel, as a specially elect nation at the head of the nations. God has bound His name and covenant oath to this millennial demonstration. He manifestly intends to publicly vindicate “His covenant with them” in the sight of all nations, but particularly and necessarily through a people of real ethnic descent from the fathers (Ro 11:28-29), who, although full of the Holy Spirit, are necessarily left in the weakness of their natural bodies for a thousand years of open witness, before passing on to the final perfection.

Notice how different the two gatherings are: Whereas the tribulation saints are instantaneously and miraculously translated at the last trump, the surviving Jews that are only now seeing Jesus (not merely physically, of course, but by revelation of the Spirit), now begin to make their way home by every conceivable mode of transport, assisted by supportive gentiles (compare Isa 49:22; 60:9; 66:20; Zech 8:23).

Notice also how Isa 27:12-13 parallels Isa 11:15-16, leaving no question of the time in view. It is after the Antichrist has been destroyed at Christ’s return. The resurrection of Israel happens in one day (Isa 66:8; Eze 39:22; Zech 3:9; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7). It is at the sound of the great trumpet. It is the same time the Spirit is poured out (Eze 39:28-29; Zech 12:10).

This is when they begin their final return, no longer a remnant, but an entirely regenerate nation (compare Isa 4:3; 45:22; 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; 66:22, Jer 31:34; Zeph 3:13), able now to persevere in true holiness and so abide in security in the Land. This is what it will take to fulfill the covenant as conceived and understood by the prophets (I’ll share more on this in my more complete answer). This is the end and goal that Paul sees as necessary to the fulfillment of “My covenant unto them” (Ro 11:26-27; Isa 27:9; 59:21; Zech 3:9).

Paul’s term, “the fullness of the gentiles,” is the Old Testament equivalent of the day of the Lord (compare Eze 30:3; Lk 21:24). This is the time that the prophets envision the final shattering of the power of the gentiles and the return of the kingdom to Israel. “From that day and forward” (Eze 39:8, 22), there will not exist in all the Land a single Jew that does not know the Lord (Jer 31:34). Let that sink down.

In all the nations, there will be some that do not willing comply with the rod iron rule of the king, as many will ultimately rebel at the end of millennium, but in this one Land among this one people, there will be uniform salvation, and this will not pass away from them, but continue steadfast unto children’s children (Isa 54:13; 59:21; 66:22), so that there will be no more occasion for evangelism among the Jewish inhabitants of the Land (Jer 31:34). That is what “all Israel” meant to the prophets, and that is what I believe it means for Paul. If this is the end of the covenant as it applies to the natural branches, the question for us is ,why? What is God saying through such an astonishing demonstration?

Many miss Paul’s intention entirely by assuming that he has in view a progressive process that aims at the eventual full gathering of all of God’s elect, with an extra number of ethnic Jews tacked on somewhere towards the end, but not in the sense of a covenant necessity based on an abiding election that requires their full return by a miracle of divine intervention. The salvation of Israel may come at the end of a process (‘Jacob’s trouble’), but it is a supernatural sudden transforming event, by which a nation is born in a day. In that sense, it is NOT a process, but a resurrection event!

To completely settle beyond any reasonable question that the Deliverer’s coming out of Zion is not a reference to our Lord’s first advent, but to the transitional day of the Lord at the end of the tribulation, compare carefully Isa 59:21 in the larger context of Isa 59:16-21 with Isa 63:3-7.This is decisive; there can be no question that Paul has in view the day concerning which every prophet spoke when envisioning the salvation of ‘all Israel.’

To come back to your question about the four winds, it is interesting that at the same moment the wind of the Spirit is breathing on the bones (Eze 37:9), the great trumpet is sounds (compare Isa 27:13 with Mt 24:31) that signals the world wide return of the Jewish survivors of the tribulation who are now seeing Him whom they pierced. This is happening at the same time that the church is being miraculously translated (“our ‘gathering together’ unto Him” 2Thes 2:1).

It is all happening at once at the day of the Lord. And lest we think of the day of the Lord as a prolonged period of time, compare Mt 24:29 with Acts 2:20. There we see that the day of the Lord is clearly AFTER the stellar darkness, which Jesus says comes “immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days.” Regardless of whether we believe the day of the Lord includes the millennium, a number or scriptures agree to show that it does NOT include the tribulation, but comes at its end. For Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, it is “one day.” For Paul, the time of the great transition is even more precise, “In a moment; in the twinkling of an eye …” (1Cor 15:52).

I hope to get back to you soon and deal more at length with the much disputed phrase, “and so all Israel shall be saved,” because I believe, as you seem already to sense, that so much hangs on how we see that phrase, not only for Israel’s millennial future, but our whole understanding of how and why the last days end in the way they do. This will be crucial, not only for how the church understands it role towards Israel, but of God’s perfect strategy in making the last day’s crisis of Israel and the issue of Jewish election a watershed of division that will test every heart, in a way not too different from how the mystery surrounding Jesus was “set for the fall and rising of many in Israel; and a sign which shall be spoken against” (Lk 2:34). More on that when time permits.

Your brother, Reggie

Here’s the background of my thought: Although foretold in its entirety in the “scriptures of the prophets” (Acts 26:22; Ro 16:25-26; 1Pet 1:11) the “mystery of the gospel” (Eph 6:19) was kept secret until the appointed time (Ro 16:25), not only to accomplish eternal redemption, but also to bring judgment on the wisdom of this age, both of men and of angels (Mt 11:25; 1Cor 2:7-8). The same mystery that revealed the glories of the messianic redemption to the penitent in Israel was equally designed to elude pride, particularly religious pride. It will be so again.

The same mystery in its concluding stage (though now an ‘open secret’ by the revelation of the Spirit), will once more constitute a watershed of division, certainly in the world, but no less in the church itself. The same mystery that opened the age in both salvation and judgement will likewise conclude it.

The mystery was hidden for judgement, precisely so that its apprehension would be by grace and not by flesh and blood (Mt 11:25; 16:17; 1Cor 2:7; Gal 1:15-16). Ironically, what was entirely unknown to Israel concerning Christ’s two comings, is now well known to the church. Conversely, what was well known to Israel concerning a future day of the Lord, centered around “the controversy of Zion” (Isa 34:8; Joel 3:2; Zech 12:2-3;14:3 Mt 24:16; Rev 11:2) is now mostly hidden from the church.

Which is worse? An evangelicalism that sees itself as an independent entity that will be safely removed by rapture, so that Jacob’s trouble is only ‘Jacob’s problem,’ or an evangelicalism that sees no further covenanted significance in history for Israel? How can we be reading the same Bible? Is this only a question of hermeneutics, or does it imply the dangerous ignorance against which Paul warns in Ro 11:25?

I can only suppose what place the doctrine of election might have in such a theology, what theologians have called, ‘the scandal of particularity.’ I wonder if the abiding election of Israel is not the real offense underlying the way the church has read prophecy? But just when I think so, I remember how that many who hold a robust view of sovereign election where it concerns the church, seem unable to conceive of a future corporate salvation of an all holy nation here on this earth, comprised of the elect progeny of those who perished in the crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, and finally the Holocaust of “Christian” Europe.

But if Israel will not be the head of the nations in a coming millennium, then so much that God has promised fades into vague and undefined notions that empty language of its natural function and meaning. This has been the church’s habit for centuries of triumphal replacement theology that has retained no consciousness of a predestined future of covenant fulfillment and divine vindication for the people of the long exile. It is that theology that has been more or less directly responsible for the anguish of the Jews in all the lands of Christendom, not discerning the divinely intended test of ‘the Jew in the midst.’

The restoration of the kingdom to Israel is God’s self appointed ‘mission impossible’ in history, and the end of the age will show that He will spare nothing to accomplish His goal to bring again the captivity of Zion. The great question of history is, “can He that brought them out, bring them in, finally and permanently? What could bring about such a change in a world of super powers, such as Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Rome? And what could bring about such a radical transformation in the hearts of a people prone always to backslide, so as to secure abiding continuance in the Land, free from fear?

If the prophets had conceived of the promises to Israel as taking place only in the heart or in heaven, they would never have conceived of the necessity of a predestined “great and terrible day of the Lord,” as the ultimate apocalyptic intervention whereby world conditions would be so radically altered as to permit a restored nation of Jews (‘the natural branches’) to “lie down in safety, so that none would make them afraid” (Isa 14:29-31; Jer 23:6; 30:10; Eze 34:27-28; Mic 4:4; Hos 2:18; Zeph 3:13; Zech 14:11) ever again, “world without end” (Isa 45:17).

That is the language of what the prophets would call, “the everlasting covenant.” It is said only of a post-day of the Lord Israel, finally and fully delivered at the end of an unequaled great tribulation (Jer 30:7; 31:34; 32:40; Dan 12:1). The scene is not heaven but earth. The ‘literal’ fulfillment of this impossible promise is the great test of God and history, and God knew it when He told Moses to step aside (Ex 32:11; Num 14:12). It may surprise us to learn that replacement theology was first proposed by God Himself.

He could do this, because He well knew, and fully intended to evoke in Moses, Christ the intercessor (1Pet 1:11), as Moses would appeal to God’s reputation. What would the nations say if the God that brought them out was not able to bring them into the Land? Not only momentarily and provisionally, but ultimately and permanently, as an all holy people (Isa 59:21; 60:21; Jer 31:34), able now to abide in the Land forever without threat of further expulsion.

After Moses’s well argued intercession on behalf of a people that were never chosen or given the Land on the basis of their righteousness in the first place (Deut 9:5-6; Eze 36:22), God answers with the glorious words, “I have pardoned according to your word” (Num 14:20). No doubt in holy contemplation of the solemn cost, God exclaims, “As surely as I live, says the Lord, the whole earth will be filled with my glory!” (Ex 32:10-14; Num 14:15-21). The earth will be filled with His glory precisely when this particular people are all holy in the Land forever (Isa 4:3; 45:25; 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; Jer 31:34; Eze 39:22), never again to be plucked up or removed! (2Sam 7:10; Jer 31:40; Amos 9:15).

It will be glory filling the whole earth, because the bringing again of the captivity of wayward Israel is so demonstrably ‘impossible with man’. As I like to say, history is proof that if God were waiting on Israel to fulfill His promise to them, He would surely be waiting forever. But God will do it, against all odds, publicly, and in the sight of all nations to the praise of the glory of His almighty, all conquering, invincible, grace.

It will be the open historical vindication of an inviolable everlasting covenant to which He has bound His very name and oath. As He apprehended His man on the road to Damascus (Gal 1:15-16), He is well able to apprehend and birth Israel into a holy nation in in “one day” (Ps 102:13; Isa 66:8; Eze 39:22; Zech 3:9 etc.). Oh saints, do we see the glory of this? Do we see what this will mean to God?

What are we missing if we have not conceived of His glory in the way He has conceived it? The tragic binding over to unbelief of Israel in order to obtain the salvation of the world should be a source of great humbling, creating in the heart of every gentile a profound debt of love to the Jew, who is to be honored as the beloved enemy ‘for our sake.’ It would be tragic robbery if such a sacrifice to obtain such a glory, at such an awful cost, should be wasted on the consciousness of the church.

No wonder that the accomplishment of this great impossibility is also the end of Satan’s rule over the nations. Significantly, from that time, he is bound for a thousand years; the covenant has been vindicated and the mystery of God finished. This great impossibility, which also brings Christ back to restore all things (Acts 3:21) will confound and silence the principalities and powers, as nothing else since the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, it is the great historical parallel. Israel must be raised up from the dead, just as Messiah was raised, and so ends the question of history, “Has God really said?’

Finally, if Israel has no particular significance in our world view. If the mystery of Israel is not the key to the meaning of how and why history should end in the way that prophecy so plainly depicts, then when Jacob is in his great trouble and hated by all the world, how many will stand aloof from his sore (Ps 38:11), as one from whom men hide their faces? (Isa 53:3). It would not be the first time.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

Help me be clear on this one point:

2 Thes. 2:6 And you know what is restraining…

My view is a bit unique on 2 Thes 2:6, and not critical to our position. It follows Paul’s main point of correction, that the Day of the Lord cannot come before the prior revelation of the Man of Sin. In my reading, the “what” that is holding back in verse 6 is this necessarily preceding event.

After reviewing the order of events, Paul says, “and now you know what withholds.” What withholds what? I believe Paul is saying that the necessary prior revelation of the Man of Sin is withholding (holding back) the Day of the Lord. Paul has just reviewed with the Thessalonians the very order of events of which he informed them at his earlier visit. “Do you not remember that when I was with you, I told you these things.” Commentators plead modest ignorance of what it might have been that Paul told the Thessalonians at his first visit. But this seems no mystery at all. He told them then what he is telling them now again, i.e., that the Antichrist must comes first.

Having gone over this now a second time, he says, “And now you know what withholds or holds back (the Day of the Lord). Contrary to the hasty conclusion of those who had forgotten or misconstrued Paul’s earlier teaching, Christ cannot come until the Man of Sin has first been revealed, and now, with Paul’s clarification, they know what withholds Christ’s return. That’s how I read it, but as I said, it’s not crucial to the meaning.

With mention of the event (revelation of the Antichrist) that hinders Christ’s return, it seems to me that this moves Paul’s thought naturally on to the person who is hindering the revelation of the Antichrist. This time it is not a ‘what’ (neuter in the Greek), as in verse 6, but a ‘who’ (personal masculine pronoun) that is withholding or hindering the revelation of the the mystery of the iniquity.

Paul conceives of the future revelation of the Man of Sin as the end of a mystery that is already presently at work. This moves his thought to mention of a person that hinders the revelation of the mystery of iniquity. In other words, consideration of the ‘what’ (a thing or event) that is restraining the Day of the Lord moves Paul’s thought to the “who” that is hindering the revelation of the mystery that was presently working at the time of Paul’s writing. [Of course, it is the mystery that has been at work since the fall.] This is what must be revealed before Christ can return. The mystery is revealed in the Man of Sin; but there is one who is now hindering this revelation who will continue to hinder until he is taken out of the way.

Now the question comes; what is the mystery of iniquity? We know that it has its end in the revelation of the Man of Sin, whom Paul distinguishes as the one who sits in the temple of God in Jerusalem (2Thes 2:4 with Dan 11:31, 36; 12:11; Mt 24:15-16; Rev 11:2). We know what the mystery of godliness is (1Tim 3:16). It is the incarnation of the seed of the woman, “the anointed Prince,” in Jesus, as the incarnate Word. What else would the mystery of iniquity be but the incarnation of the seed of the Serpent? (the “coming prince” of Dan 9:26).

From here, we work backward to the probable background of Paul’s thought in Michael’s role in the revelation that came to Daniel with the removal of the demonic prince of Persia, and forward to the key to interpretation provided in John’s Apocalypse, particularly chapter 12.

In Dan chap 10, the revelation that has been hindered (withstood) for 21 days is able to break through to Daniel when Michael arrives to remove the opposing, demonic Prince of Persia that was blocking the revelation of what shall befall the Jewish people in the latter days.This also points to the role of the believer in the heavenly war, which has great implications for the tribulation church in Michael’s heavenly victory over Satan.

Now, in Rev 12, we see that the power of the kingdom comes precisely when Satan is cast down by Michael (Rev 12:10). This is not the first advent, since it begins Satan’s “short time” of the last 3 1/2 years (Rev 12:6, 12, 14). That’s what Paul has been writing about. The coming of the day of the Lord, which is also the time the kingdom comes with the sounding of the seventh angel (compare Rev 10:7; 11:15). But notice; before the kingdom can come (just as it is in 2Thes 2:3, 7-8 before Jesus can come), there is someone in the way who has to be removed. In Rev 12, it is clearly Satan, who is “forcibly” removed by the agency of Michael. This stands in marked analogy to Michael’s role in the removal of the demonic principality that was opposing (hindering) the vital revelation from getting through to Daniel.

When Satan is cast down, his time is short. Now, with Michael’s expulsion of Satan, the revelation of the mystery of iniquity can be revealed in the full incarnation of Satan. This sets in motion the 3 1/2 years that ends in the finishing of the mystery of God (Rev 10:7), but in order for the mystery of God to be finished, the mystery of iniquity must first be revealed, and we may be sure, Satan dreads this event, because it will mean that his time is short.

This concept requires a major shift in our thinking. Our thought has always been that if the coming of the Antichrist is the greatest evil, then only something or someone good could possibly be interested to hinder the coming of Antichrist. Why would Satan be interested to resist the coming of the one in whom he will be fully incarnate? Isn’t this what Satan has always wanted?

It is just the opposite, On the contrary, Satan knows that when the mystery of iniquity is revealed in this final incarnation of the Serpent’s seed, his time is short. In just 3 1/2 years he will be completely bound, as the mystery of God is finished. Significantly, it is when Satan is cast down that the announcement is made, “Now is come salvation, and strength, the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Messiah.” Why now? It is “because the accuser of our brethren is cast down” (Rev 12:10).

At the same time that Satan’s hindrance ends, his “short time” of unequaled persecution of the woman and the saints has just begun. “Woe to the earth and the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time” (Rev 12:12). That short time is manifestly the last 3 1/2 years of this age, the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week. It is NOT a mere symbol of the entire inter-advent period, as held by many commentators.

Manifestly, there is a connection between the end of Satan’s tenure in heaven and the revelation of this mystery on earth. I say it is an “illicit” tenure, because though the cross and resurrection, the “prince of this world” has already been cast out, the principalities exposed, carried captive, destroyed, and dispossessed. This is another example of the already and the not yet of the kingdom that comes by degree and in stages, as the once and for all victory of Christ is enforced in heaven and earth by the the enforcement of the Spirit through the truth of the revelation of the gospel in the people of God. This is NOT some kind of dominion-ism. On the contrary, this kingdom power comes through weakness and the destruction of every carnal confidence, the self-emptying of the cross.

It appears that the perfect and complete victory of the cross is further enforced in heaven by Michael and the angels through the revelation, faith, and prayers of the saints on earth in conjunction with the predetermined time of Daniel’s last week. Satan is, in one sense, completely and finally defeated in the work of Christ; that’s true. But this victory must be enforced in the heavens and on earth by the saints who follow in the way of the cross.

Surely something of this nature must be inferred, since the context of Rev 12 leaves no question that Satan still retains access to the heavenly realm until he is forcibly cast down by Michael to begin the last 3 1/2 years. And we may well expect that Michael’s victory in heaven will not be unrelated to a new corporate fullness to which the church has come through the press and preparation of the signal events leading up to this great transition, particularly those of the first half of the week. I believe the godly remnant will be ‘straightened’ to a Daniel like urgency of travail and intercession that will be answered in Michael’s age ending victory in heaven. The implications of this great middle of the week transition is vast.

This is where we can infer the role of an intercessory travail of the church in analogy to Daniel. I like to say that when the church will ‘travail,’ Michael will ‘prevail.’ Not incidentally, this is when power is given to the two witnesses, and I believe also to the ‘maskilim’ (those having understanding, or persons of insight; see Dan 11:32-33; 12:3, 10).

This is the time of great anointing for the final witness of the ‘maskilim’ (those who understand) in the face of an unprecedented world wide persecution of the church and Israel. We can only imagine what this victory in heaven will mean for the power and witness of the suffering saints of the last 3 1/2 years. We know that it results in an evangelism that saves an innumerable host out of “the tribulation, the great one” (Rev 7:9, 13-14). This is not tribulation in general; it is specifically the unequaled tribulation of short duration that ends the age and finished the mystery of God (Rev 10:7). This will be the greatest evangelism of the lost that the world has ever seen.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

We’re were discussing Rev. 10:7 this morning. Do you see “the mystery of God” as “He preached to His servants the prophets” that was no longer “delayed” and was “finished” the same as “the mystery of Israel?”

Do you think the angel in Rev. 10:7 is the same as the angel of Dan. 12:7? And are they both speaking the same message?

I believe so. Rev 10:7 describes the comprehensive mystery of God that includes His whole work with Israel, as the nation of the irrevocable covenant, and also the mystery of the time between the two advents of Messiah, which no one knew until the time appointed (see 1Pet 1:11-12 with Ro 16:25-26).

Within its scope, there is the mystery of the two seeds, each headed up in an incarnation. This is signified in Dan 9:25-26 where “messiah the prince” heads up the “mystery of godliness” (1Tim 3:16) in the incarnation of the Word made flesh, while “the coming prince” heads up the “mystery of iniquity (2Thes 2:7) in the incarnation of the seed of the Serpent, i.e., the incarnation of Satan in the flesh.

This comprehensive mystery of God is no less “the mystery of the gospel” (Eph 6:19). It was concealed in the prophetic writings until the set time when it would be manifest by the revelation that would unlock its full meaning to those who first received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (see 1Pet 1:11-12).

The secret that was hid in other ages was now to be made known to all nations “by” the scriptures of the prophets (Ro 16:25-26). It is also called, “the mystery of His will’ (Eph 1:9-10), and “the eternal purpose,” which He purposed in Christ before all worlds (Eph 3:11).

It is this larger overarching mystery of God that forms the background and context for the distinct ‘mysteries’ (plural) that Paul speaks of in his epistles. The “mystery of Christ in you (even you gentiles) the hope of glory” is another aspect and application that comes out of the revelation of the mystery of the incarnation, as part of the greater, all inclusive mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ” (Col 2:2).

The mysteries are not separate, but emphasize distinct aspects of the multi-faceted mystery of God that has come to light in the gospel. Paul speaks of the gospel, as a “mystery” (Eph 6:19) “kept secret in other ages,” but now manifest and made known by writings of the prophets (Ro 16:25-26).  This means that the vindication of the apostolic proclamation would be its manifest conformity to what the prophets had foretold in the Hebrew scriptures (Acts 26:22).

The mystery of Israel’s fall and return in relation to the formerly unknown interim between the advents is another example. With the revelation of the mystery of Christ’s coming, departure, and return to Israel, it could now bee seen that God had determined to use Israel’s fall to “open a door of faith to the gentiles” (Acts 14:27).

The mystery was that God’s oath to bless all nations through Abraham’s seed would be fulfilled, not only after the final tribulation when the nation would be restored to holiness, as most Jews expected, but between the two comings of the Messiah, beginning with the death of Jesus and the full revelation of the mystery of the gospel at Pentecost.

Contrary to anything conceived before the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, both the means and the time that God would fulfill His promise to bless the nations could now be seen. Though unknown and unexpected, the gentiles would be blessed, not only after Israel’s restoration at the future great day of the Lord, but all throughout an extended time of covenant judgment that will last until the post-tribulational return of the rejected cornerstone (Zech 12:10 with Mt 23:39). Though unknown and unexpected, this great anomaly of history was all foretold by Moses and the prophets (Deut 31-32; Isa 49:4-5 KJV; Mic 5:1-5 etc.).

As part of the threatened curses of the covenant, Moses had foretold that God would hide His face from the disobedient nation until the time of their reconciliation. During this time of estrangement and judgment, God said He would provoke them to jealousy by a “not a people.” This is the ‘foolish nation’ that Moses had spoken of in Deut 32:21, also by Jesus in Mt 21:43, and by Paul in Ro 10:19. We call it the church (1Pet 2:9), but it is all part of a mystery that is not finished until “the Deliverer comes out of Zion to turn away ungodliness from Jacob (Ro 11:25-29 with Isa 59:21). In my view, even Paul’s mention of the rapture and translation of the saints at Christ’s return (1Cor 15:51-54 esp., 54 with Isa 25:7-9; 26:16-21; 27:13; Dan 12:1-2) is the climactic terminal point of the larger mystery of God, as the mystery of the rapture clarifies how so many otherwise conflicting elements of OT prophecy can be harmonized.

Until the appointed time of its revelation, Jesus was the sole guardian of this secret (Isa 53:11; Mt 16:17, 20-23; Mk 9:9-10; Lk 18:34). This “hidden wisdom” was kept secret, not only from men, but even from the principalities and powers until they would once and for all be exposed and fatally defeated through the cross and resurrection of Jesus. This was God’s hidden strategy prepared before the world began (1Cor 2:7-8; 1Pet 1:20; Rev 13:8). Jesus would make sure that at the time of fulfillment and revelation his disciples would recognize in hindsight that He was in complete knowledge of this mystery throughout His entire ministry (Isa 53:11).

The mystery was hidden not only from the pride of man, not only from Satan and his angels, but even from the righteous until the appointed time (“not made known to the sons of men;” Eph 3:5). Although testified in the prophets as all fully foretold (Acts 26:22), this hidden wisdom was divinely designed to elude not only flesh but angels, since by it, Satan would be hung on his own gallows (1Cor 2:7-8).

Paul is saying that had the demonic realm known this mystery (with the cross at its heart), they would surely NOT have inspired Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas, or the pious leaders of Israel to crucify the Lord of glory. Thus, it is clear that the mystery of Messiah’s death before resurrection and return was not only hidden from men but from Satan. Satan was defeated by the mystery at Christ’s first coming. He is bound in the believer’s experience by its revelation by the Spirit to the heart. He will be further bound as concerns Israel and the nations when Jesus returns to translate the church and deliver captive Israel. That is when the mystery of God will be finished.

Finally, in view of all that we have said of God’s covenant commitment to the natural branches, from whom the gifts and calling can never depart, isn’t it awesome to observe that that at the same time Christ returns, Satan is bound? Just as Jesus said, “it is finished,” this will be the next great, ‘it is finished’ of history. “Behold, it is come, and it is done; this is the day whereof I have spoken” (compare Eze 39:8; with Rev 16:17). This is because against all odds, every word that God has spoken concerning His everlasting covenant has now been fulfilled openly in the sight of all nations, when the eyes of poor blinded Israel are finally and forever opened to recognize Jesus as their long estranged brother Joseph. This is the blessed day that all the prophets call, “that day” (Eze 39:22).

Now, at the sound of the great trumpet (Isa 27:13), “all Israel” (all that are left) will return as a penitent, all holy nation, to dwell in the Land in peace, never to see the face of their enemies again forever. This full restoration to holy nationhood of the full number of the elect from among the natural branches is what Paul sees as the climax of the covenant. “This is My covenant with THEM (the natural branches) when I will (future) take away THEIR sin.”

Surely this is the finishing of the mystery of God. It is nothing else or other than the post-tribulational return of Jesus “at the last trump” (Mt 24:29, 31 with 1Cor 15:52; Isa 27:13; Rev 10:7; 11:15). Since this is also the day of the Lord spoken of by all the prophets of Israel, I do not personally see how the time and manner of Israel’s deliverance could have been made in plainer. It is at the seventh (last) trumpet, when “the mystery of God” should be finished, which He has declared to His servants the prophets (Amos 3:7).

The church, properly understood, should be the ‘maskilim’ who know the secret through the Spirit of revelation, and therefore and watch and pray in priestly intercession and travail for the day of the Lord to come that will finish the mystery of God with Christ’s return out of Zion to deliver captive Israel. Although the time is indeed “determined” of God (Ps 102:13; Dan 9:24; 11:27, 35-36; 12:7), still, as the church, and stewards of the mysteries (the wise of Dan 11:32-33; 12:3, 10), we have a key role in its fulfillment.

Therefore, I close with this: Church history tells us that as the blessed martyr, William Tyndale, was burning at the stake, his last cry was, “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.” Our cry should be just as earnest that God would open the eyes of the true remnant of His people to their stewardship and calling to be a corporate Jeremiah or prophetic witness to the dead, but elect and ever beloved nation, since only with their return can the Lord return and the mystery of God be finished. To long for the one is to groan in travail for the other.

So gratefully your brother, Reggie

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, excepting, of course, the ever present remnant of faith. The second is in repentant faith in Christ. In contrast, the final return is without the presence of the usual remnant, since only the saved are left to enter the Land (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) . 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 are specifically mentioned as dwelling “in the Land.” They will survive the fire of tribulation and so attain to 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 are “ready to perish” (Isa 27:12-13) are evidently saved at the same time by the same transforming revelation.

With the revelation of their estranged Joseph, Zion’s travail is finished, and the nation, wherever it is found among the nations, is born in one day (Isa 66:8). With the Antichrist destroyed and Jesus revealed, Jews in the Diaspora of the nations can now 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 to me that many more than only the messianic Jews in the Land will escape the Antichrist. The scripture makes their means of escape very clear. It is by flight into the wilderness (Rev 12:6, 14). Could it be that Jesus’ warning in Mt 24:16 concerning the urgency of flight has, by this time, become common knowledge through the witness of the believing remnant (the ‘maskilim’ of Dan 11:32-33; 12:3, 10) during 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 believers in the Land and abroad have have spoken concerning these days. They will have heard 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 wise of Dan 12:3 that will turn many to righteousness.

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). 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 for neighboring country for certain, i.e., 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). But in view of what the scripture depicts of that time, we may expect that the ratio of survival will be comparatively sparse, 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, this could be due to a 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 then, the threat of future desolation will always hang over Israel’s head.

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 his hour of ultimate crisis.

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 number of these survive by only by reason of escape into the wilderness.

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 too far to see that the concept of wilderness flight and refuge becomes a symbol of Jewish flight worldwide, as it will be life or death to escape the concentration of Antichrist control in the population centers of the world (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 people” (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 by flight into the wilderness.

Can it be that many who find refuge in the wilderness do so precisely because they availed themselves of Jesus’s warning to flee Judea (Mt 24:16)? 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, they 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 lands 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 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 that third part will return back to the Land from the wilderness to which they fled from the face of Antichrist. The greater Diaspora of Isa 66:19-20 will return from all lands at the same time. 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 dealing of God with the nation under judgement.

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 many 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 “vengeance of the 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

Reggie,
I woke up this morning meditating on these verses in Zech. 14:1,2.

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

My thinking has always been that this capture of the city of Jerusalem takes places immediately before the Lord’s return [“the day of the LORD”]. But it now appears to me that it could be speaking of what actually happens “in the middle of the week.”

Two Questions:

1. Would not this disaster take place before Antichrist “sets up” the abomination?
2. When does Antichrist “enter the beautiful land” and accomplish this taking of the city?

Bro. Phil

I share full agreement with your observation here, Phil. The prophets quite typically envision the day of the Lord as the climax of a larger crisis that is revealed in Daniel to extend for the entire last half of the 70th week (i.e., the final 3 1/2 years of Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5). That is why Daniel says, ” and unto the end of the war, desolations are determined ” (Dan 9:26).

This means the war that begins at the time of the abomination continues for 42 months unto its end at ‘the great day of God Almighty’ at Armageddon (Rev 16:12-17). In other words, Armageddon is the climax of the war that began 42 months earlier. A comparison of Dan 11:40-45 with Rev 16:12-17 will show the development of that war from its inception in Dan 11:31 till its end in the destruction of the AC in Dan 11:45.

According to Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26, the Antichrist (definitely him; see Eze 38:17) comes down from the north (Dan 8:9) like a flood (Dan 9:26 with Dan 11:22) at a time of seductive false security for Israel. There is no way that one can put the battle of Eze 38 & 39 at the end of the tribulation. It certainly does end there (Eze 39:22-29, especially Eze 39:8 with Rev 16:17), but that is not where it begins. The Eze 38-39 invasion of Israel begins at a time of false security, which we may reasonably suppose is the result of the false peace covenant that Israel enters into with the Antichrist (Dan 9:27; 11:23).^[1] (see footnote). Evidently, Eze 38 begins with the invasion that desecrates the temple and starts the 42 months trampling down of Jerusalem and ends at Armageddon. The entire time of desolation is conceived as belonging to a single war (Dan 9:26). That’s what you’re correctly seeing here in Zech 14, Phil. It’s the comprehensive overview of the last war that ends in the day of the Lord.

There is no evidence that the Jews are welcoming the Antichrist, as some teach. He comes with force (Dan 11:31). He prevails militarily and overruns the city. According to Daniel 11:31-45, this begins a conflict that extends into the nations, but is ongoing till its end at Armageddon.

I also very much agree with your statement, ” I cannot imagine Antichrist quietly coming into Jerusalem and setting up the abomination. The security in and around Jerusalem’s old city and their holiest place is impenetrable at this point. An earlier battle of some sort must already have taken place before he sets up the image!” Exactly true. The AC enters suddenly and without warning (1Thes 5:3) at a time of security (Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26; Dan 11:24). He then proceeds to the temple for the desecrating act that marks the beginning of the end. Forty two months later, the war that begins with the Antichrist invasion of Jerusalem ends with his destruction (Dan 11:31, 45; 12:11; 2Thes 2:8; Rev 11:2; 13:5; 19:19-20).

Although Satan’s ‘little season’ of Rev 20 is symbolically identified with Ezekiel’s battle of Gog and Magog, there are marked differences that demonstrate the necessity to distinguish between two similar events that bound the thousand years at both ends. This has confused many interpreters. There are many literal details that could be pointed out that plainly will not fit with a strictly post-millennial fulfillment. I will mention only one that is very clear. The invasion of Eze 38-39 clearly ends with the day of the Lord deliverance of Israel (see Eze 39:22-29). “So the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their God from that day and forward.” But when Satan is released for a little season at the end of the millennium, Israel has known the Lord for a thousand years. Hence, we conclude that Eze 38-39 and Rev 20 describe two symbolically parallel events that are distinct and must not be confounded.

Reggie

[Followup Question from another reader]
Hi Reggie,
Interesting. Then Ez.38f ends in Armagedon 42 months later, and this victory as described in Ez and Rev. is the day of the Lord. Then the Gog and Magog invasion and the wars of the Antichrist are not two different events, one having to occur before the other. Do you have more teachings on that on your website?
Thanks, J

I’ll have to check if there’s more on Ez 38-39 on the website, but I do recall sending an answer on this question to a Jewish brother who just might still have it. I can ask him and forward that on to you. It will probably be a little more detailed than what you saw in that recent exchange. It’s just one more of many such things that merit work I’ve not had opportunity and time to invest in writing a more complete apologetic for that view of those chapters.

There’s a lot out there on those chapters that is way off track. Time and grace permitting, I hope sometime to get to a more complete apologetic on those chapters. I know this: From ch 39, verses, 21-29, one could hardly wish for a more glorious theology of Israel’s day of the Lord redemption, which is shown to come with the end of the hiding of God’s face, which significantly coincides with the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit after a final assault on a newly regathered nation, only “recently” restored from the many generations of the long exile (see Eze 38:8 with Zeph 2:1-2).

This amounts to some powerful evidence against the popular replacement view that the church has now become the “new” Israel and the so-called, “redefined” people of God, with nothing left over for the natural branches except that some might come back into the church at some undefined time and manner. On the contrary, the time is clear (day of the Lord) and the manner is clear (a surviving remnant receives repentance in one day at the sight of the One whom they pierced. With this comes the pouring out of the Spirit and the end of God’s hiding His face from Israel “forever.” Thus begins the millennium). What could be clearer?!

Taken in context with other scriptures from other prophets that show the perfect correlation between the end of the hiding of God’s face with the pouring out of the Spirit at a still future day of the Lord (e.g., Deut 31:17-18; 32:20; Isa 8:17; 32:15; 44:3; 54:8; 59:21; 64:7; Zech 12:10 with Joel 2:28-32 etc.), there is much that needs to be “unpacked” in those chapters. It means that what has come to us already, as first-fruits, will yet faithfully come to them at that time (“in that day”), when “at once,” a nation will be “born in a day” (Isa 66:8; Eze 39:22; Zeph 3:9; 14:7).

Give greetings and love to all my brothers [there], Reggie

1. Though the language is similar, it is important that the interpreter not confuse the security of Eze 39:8, 11, 14 with the millennial security of the restored nation. Eze 39:26 is clear in showing that Israel’s sins increase during the time of this security. This stands in marked contrast to the continuous and undisturbed security that the prophets speak of as following the coming in of the everlasting righteousness at the day of the Lord — Jer 32:40; Dan 9:24 –.