I don't agree with either system completely

I'm not sure that Missler and Riddlebarger can be said to represent two opposing theological systems exactly enough to identify them as representative of those systems, but as I've been listening to their end times talks I've taken sides with one or the other of them on particular points and can sort it out that way at least:

I agree with Riddlebarger / the Reformed / the Amillennialists on the general point that there is now no more Jew nor Gentile but all are one in Christ. The Church IS both Jew and Gentile, therefore it does not "replace" Israel, it is an expansion of the people of God to include believing Gentiles with believing Jews. There was a massive influx of Gentiles into the Church in the first centuries on down to the present, and according to scripture there is yet a time coming, very soon it seems to some of us, when God's focus will shift and there will be a massive influx of Jews into the Church. Riddlebarger sees it this way and so do many on the other side of the theological divide.

To deny that physical earthly Israel must have a part in this drama, as the Reformed / Amillennialists do, seems completely blind to me. Their restoration to the land and their preservation there over the last century are marked by miraculous events. This has to be God's work even though the people of Israel do not acknowledge Him. This has to be fulfilled prophecy. And there must be more to come.

On the other hand, those who see a restored Israel as a return to Old Testament religion, as the final form to persist after Christ returns, have gone too far in this direction. Scripture does suggest that the temple will be restored, so that there will be at least an interim return to OT practices, but the revelation of the Antichrist in that temple is to wake up the Jews and bring them to Christ, and the OT practices which are clearly identified in the NT as the types and shadows of Christ will be finally done away.

I believe Paul's "Israel of God" of Galatians 6:16 refers to all believers, both Jew and Gentile. Missler says this is literal Israel, believing Israel, and does not include the Church. I disagree with Missler. Gentile believers are children of Abraham no less than Jewish believers are, are therefore all of the Israel of God.

Nevertheless I disagree with the Reformed / Amillennialists that the temple of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 refers to Christians. I posted below my conclusion that it must refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem, and if the context is the Antichrist of the very last days sitting in that temple, this has to mean the temple will be restored, and there have been plans underway for decades now for that restoration.

I also disagree with them about the 70th week of Daniel (a post I haven't yet written). The first 69 weeks were a literal period of time counting up to the revelation of Christ as King in Jerusalem. The events right after that revelation do not fit into a "week of years" no matter how much nudging you do. The Lord Jesus was crucified within days of that revelation. There is simply no week of years to be found in that time frame or any time up to the present. Therefore it is right to think of that last 70th week as yet future. The Amillennialists take that week and turn it into an allegory of the obedience of Christ. Ridiculous.

None of this proves the timing of the Rapture one way or another.

More to come.

Considering the Amillennial View: The Temple of 2 Thessalonians 2:4

Trying to settle some things in my mind about what the Bible says about the end times, I've been listening to some lectures on Amillennialism by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (down right hand margin), to see if I think their interpretation of various passages is better than that of the Dispensationalists, who preach the pre-trib Rapture. I finally listened enough to have a fairly decent idea of what they believe, so I want to sketch out my response.

I want to start with 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in which the "temple" is interpreted by Dispensationalists to be a physical temple in Jerusalem and by the Amillennialists as the Church:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The Amillennialist argument is that the "temple" refers to Christians because that's the only way Paul has used the word elsewhere, so that anyone who disagrees would have to prove that he's departed from his usual use of the word for this one verse.

In principle I don't have a problem with the temple-as-the-church idea because Paul has shown many times in his New Testament writings that Christians are the true Temple of God. Also, Dr. Riddlebarger at one point made it clear that there is historical support for this interpretation: The Protestant Reformers regarded the temple in this verse as the church because they believed the papacy was the seat of the Antichrist. I found that Matthew Henry's Commentary shares this understanding. (I have to assume they still regarded the Roman Church as including enough true Christians to justify seeing the Pope as sitting within the Church of God).

But I end up disagreeing with him, and I'll sketch out my reasons:

1. "... he as God sitteth in the temple of God... This doesn't read like it could possibly be a metaphor rather than a literal reference to a building. I can't see Paul describing someone who arises out of the Church as "sitting in the temple of God." It's a very awkward and unnecessary way of talking that I can't impute to Paul.

The amillennialist answer is that "to sit" simply means "to rule" but that just seems to make it even more unlikely, as if Paul suddenly starts speaking in cryptic symbolic language when he has never done so before. He would TEACH such symbolism but he wouldn't just casually USE it. Can they show anywhere else that Paul ever uses such a metaphorical way of speaking? I can't think of one place myself. In the other passages where Paul refers to Christians as the Temple of God, he is teaching the people that they are the temple and what that means. But in 2 Thess 2:4 if the Amillennialists are right he would be using the word in a completely different way, using it to imply something he could have said much more directly, such as He will arise out of the Church to rule over the people of God, pretending to be God himself. [I've listed all the places Paul refers to a temple at the bottom of this post]

2. But now this begins to show another problem with this reading in that the true Church would never be the seat of a ruling Antichrist, he could only rule over an apostate church, and it's hard to see that Paul would call THAT church the Temple of God. This was pointed out in different contexts in commentaries I read.

3. Another point is that since the Jerusalem temple was still standing at that time, and Paul is writing to people who knew it was standing, he wouldn't just toss off such a cryptic use of the term and expect them to know that he was using it in the sense of the Church. Just because the Church is now the true Temple of God doesn't mean the physical temple has lost all meaning in everyone's mind. In 1 Cor 9:13 Paul does refer to the physical temple, to illustrate his point that workers for the gospel deserve to be supported by those they serve. So this is another reason why if he's going to use a phrase like "sit in the temple" to refer to the Church he'd have to make a clear distinction so as not to be misunderstood, and he doesn't do that. Also, Paul continued to participate in the temple functions himself although he knew the temple no longer represented God, and many believing Jews went on practicing their customs and rituals for many years, so although it is true that a rebuilt temple now would amount to blasphemy, there's no reason to think that it had yet that meaning in those days.

No, he wouldn't just toss out a phrase like "sit in the temple of God" and expect his audience to know he meant the Church. Therefore he didn't mean the Church.

So I disagree with the Amillennialists on this point, and agree with those who read this to refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem.

This of course does imply that if the Antichrist is yet future there will have to BE a temple in Jerusalem for him to sit in to show that he's God and right now there isn't one. But there have been plans for many years for it to be rebuilt. So I think if we believe God's word, and trust that His prophecies will all be realized in historical time, that this temple WILL be rebuilt at some point in the future and then it will be there for the Antichrist to sit in.

The objection that its rebuilding would be blasphemous is a rather odd objection, it seems to me, since we're talking about a time when evil is to be permitted to come to its perfect flowering, and when unbelieving Jews will be saved en masse out of the evil to the glory of God.

====================================
All the scripture verses where Paul uses the word "temple:"

1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1Co 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.