THIS!
It is so easy to lay our interpretation of "the Messiah" on the Jews, but they regard him much different.
More like "A Messiah".
Just like they wanted Jesus to chuck out the Romans. They would have crowned Him for it.
But when he didn't, they were done with Him.
Now, they are waiting for the one that helps them deal with Hamas, Hezbollah and their ilk.
They will revere the one that brings them peace and security, and lets them rebuild their Temple.
People, that person may be right around the corner!
Yes Kaatje, I can see Israel's definition of Messiah to mean a strong ruler that grants them temporal success. This is what they wanted in the 1st century, yes. And as far as that goes, it would seem the AC to assume those shoes in deception. That makes sense. I think he can do that with regard to their religion. In which ironically Israel will likely in their unbelief be ok with...lol. Which sounds odd.
But you bring up an interesting hinge point that we will of course have to see how it goes. Where we are use to thinking of the AC with peace and safety for Isreal. No doubt in some fashion to make a contract for 7 years would of necessity assure a people are safe. Otherwise, what good is it? But Israel's peace and safety at this point is kind of exactly why I would have interest in this type of discussion. Not to poo poo how the AC may not fit some aspects of Israel's idea of Messiah. I have not really doubted that potential in my thinking.
Where I would see conflation that, to me, tends to blur more than clarify in ways, is using seal 1 as a peace and safety event for the AC. To me, in all honesty, this is highly suggestive. And to me, tends to place the AC as some arbitor of his 70th week. We would never frame it that way. But by virtue of making the 1st seal AC, we hand the 70th week over to him. Now of course in our Christian thinking all of this would be under the plan God has ordained. So we would not see it as his (the AC's). We would see God just use AC in one way or another. But, in all honesty, I just see seeing the 1st seal as AC as confirmation bias. Not that the AC cannot be the 1st seal. But just that we sell out wholesale to that. And I have seen this done in some very deep ways. One of late is someone who sees the Ez 40 temple as one in the same as the 70th week temple. And their arguments are solid from a number of perspectives. But even so, I honestly don't see enough exegetical tenure to overlay the 1st seal as AC in order to fill out a composite picture for us.
The peace and safety commonly associated with AC is Dan 8:25:
He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
Now of course in antiquity, scholars plainly see this to be talking about Antiochus. If it is already fullfillment, well then ok. One of the difficulties with prophecy is that even though there is a fulfillment along the way, that may just be affirmative proof of its later ultimate version of fulfillement. Which we understand. So yeah, I believe this is future too. But the crux in this is highlighting the mid point and also Armegeddon. What I have seen the church tend to do with this is place it at the beginning of the tribulation or even for the age of grace, like for now. And I believe because scritpure "highlights" the mid and end point of the tribulation, that is what is most important about the whole of the passage. In other words, the secure feeling there seems to relate to the mid point when Israel feels safe and then AC turns on them. But what the church can tend to with that is put it on the Abraham Accords and anxciously await an AC appearing. Which is understandable in the excitement. But I just don't see that as the focus. I believe there is an extreme interest scripture has in linking the AC with the midpoint and the end. In Matt 24, and in 2 Thes it seems this way as well. Yet it would seem there is a church tendency to move that line to the beginning. And it is at such a popular level to me seems to be an epidemic of sorts. When the plain reading of scripture has issues with the AC to be related to the middle and the end.
For example, there is no scripture I am aware of that links AC's covenant with the many to the focus of peace and safety. Yet it would seem evangelicalism will affirm this to the grave. In 2 Thes they could argue that. But again, like Andy Woods might use "the apostasy comes first" as the rapture. And that is creative. And may have some poetic value to wink at a rapture, amen. But I believe the most sound and stable over the target observation on 2 Thes is that "the apostasy" (as great as we see church fallout today) seems to be likely near the midpoint. So that the Thes church would know that the day of the Lord (in the Armegeddon reaper angel sense) won't come unless there is a massive religious fallout first. If we think of the Thes context, they might have assumed this is their timeframe. For the entirety of Judiasm was collapsing all around them. A grand theater than never before had occurred like that. So in one sense, the first century was witnessessing a grand apostasy (holding on to the old testament). But however big that was, and however big we see apostasy today...it will likely pale in significance to when things near the midpoint. A primed and prepped way for the world to meet the grand deceiver as (g)of. In that time, the fallout in humanity concerning apostasy will make all other historical periods pale significantly in comparison is how it likely reads to me.
. . . . .
Kaatje, dear sister, I admire you heart. And am very blessed by your excitement. And I respect views that hold a strong pretrib rapture view. But years ago a challenged myself about the pretrib rapture. And I watched as many tough and solid high octane debates as I could on the subject. And unfortunatley what I found was that there are at times pretrib believers that hold to ways of looking at the scripture for that view that don't necessarily make the best arguments. There are actually quite a few. And if I am honest in how I am looking at scripture I tend to put my own views through the ringer. I understand how important it is to the pretrib rapture community to see this or that in scripture to affirm on pretrib rapture views. But in the debates I saw, there are problems with many of them. And unfortunately, in my understanding, it would seem we might hold our pretrib rapture view on passages we tend to affirm too loudly in this respect. And if some of those verses are not related to a pretrib rapture perspective, we might miss out on what otherwise is important about those verses.
Am I saying the pretrib rapture is not accurate? No. Not at all. After almost 20 hours of video debates, I came to realize that even if we dismiss questional use of verses for pretrib, it is still 100 times stronger a reality in scripture, form all things considered, than any other view. In this way, I am not too concerned with seeing some cherished views on pretrib suggest other imports. Because the way I understand pretrib is not necessarily predicated on certain verses to show pretrib. I would say the biggest one is Rev 4 and 5. Although John being called up by a voice of a trumpet does seem to be rapture-esque...it does not have to be. Nor do the 24 elders have to be the resurrected church for me to see pretrib is solid. For in my understanding it is solid with out those takes. I admit Rev 4 looks very much like what the pretrib rapture community would hold it to be. But I don't need to defend pretrib rapture with Rev 4 or 5 at all. So I am just sharing this as an example.
So if we see peace and safety in 1 Thes, yes that seems very tied to the pretribe rapture. And the juxtaposition seems to be Ez 38. In that sense, it would seem very biblically reasonable that 1 Thes 5 implies a rapture at the point of Israel's peace and safety. And I see no AC there. And if that is the condition of the pretrib rapture, it would seem that the AC would come after Ez 38. But if we view the peace and safety of the tribulation midpoint with the peace and safety of Israel promoted to Ez 38 status, to me, this can be a form of biblical conflation. In the end perhaps it does not matter all that much what we are thinking on this. Because it will occur the way it does. And we will be saved and raptured regardless how we look at it. But my greatest interest in pointing this out is not so much to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Which if what we believe about the timing of the rapture or appearance of the AC differ won't affect our outcome in Him. But I guess the reason, to me, this is important is: We only get one end times. And having a front row seat priviledges us to His unique majesty in this moment.
What tends to seem to happen, in my take, is that there are monstrous stories told about evil in the world. And deception etc. And even though we will have a sense of those, to see that mostly, and miss the majesty of God in contrast at our very ripe moment of missing it...would be a trajedy I believe. So its more, for me, a way to mitigate against imported theatrics that lean toward the majesty of the prince to come focus so that we can enjoy Him in His movie. And I know in what you are saying you see it through His majesty the most. Amen. But there are a lot of focuses out there making much of the NWO, deception, the AC, etc...that at a time the heart of God is on display...to me...would be like watching the trailers and going home never seeing the movie we came to watch for 2 hours. For it will only last but a short season. So I guess my interest is more so in making that opportunity most available for my own sanity I reckon and enjoyment in Him, as well as hopefully for others. And although I know we can see His majesty even in the darkness of theater, I don't believe (as children of the light), that is our movie. I guess i am more like a nuerotic artists who insists we use blue instead of red here or there. And I can laugh at myself about too in that. But really, my main reason for voicing themes is because we are obviously going to be off all over the place (each of us). But that there is a core movie going on that is so precious, I believe, in what is seeable, notable, relatable etc. And although it may not work this way for most. For me, it helps me have a more sincere place to share Him with others from. I realize others may not be as damaged as I. And for that I do apologize. But I am jealous for His most pure work in me to come from that place. I don't mean it to be selfish. I just have a lot of issues...lol. So seeing Him most clearly (coming from the camps I had been in) is like this: All throughout life there seemed to a presence always demanding some directors cut over a simple relationship with Christ. And it severed to horrific effect. So on our way out, if I have a chance to see Him for Him better, even as many of the themes I had over the years (and seem to continue and flower into still other more radical version what might seem for me to be potentially quests for a directors cut over His simple beauty), that is a reason to get up in the morning. To better see the God that sees Hagar. It pretty simply, for me, kind of boils down to that. In any event, I hope that is helpful general detail as to where I am kind of coming from. You are very prescious in Him dear sister. Blessings.
PS -- I will try and keep these short...lol. Wrokin on it
