FAP BIBLE PROPHECY Q&A: "Israel as a Sign of the Rapture? Bakit Hindi Sign ng End Times ang Modern Israel?"

FAP BIBLE PROPHECY Q&A: "Israel as a Sign of the Rapture? Bakit Hindi Sign ng End Times ang Modern Israel?" 

Today, I want to talk about something that hits close to home for many of us in the church, especially here in the Philippines. Alam niyo naman sa ating culture, mahilig tayo sa "end times" talk. Tuwing may balita tungkol sa Israel o sa Middle East, biglang dadami ang posts sa Facebook about the "Rapture" and how the world is ending soon.

Madalas nating marinig: "Israel is a nation again! This is the sign that the Rapture is near!"

Pero, let’s do a bit of "real talk" and Bible study. Is it really biblical to claim that the modern state of Israel is the "super sign" of the Rapture? Or are we just caught in a loop of confusing theology?

The "Signless" Paradox: May Warning o Wala?

Isa sa main tenets ng Dispensationalism (yung system of interpretation na madalas gamitin sa mga "Left Behind" type of preaching) ay ang doctrine ng Imminency. Sinasabi nila na ang Rapture ay signless. Ibig sabihin, wala dapat mangyari bago ito mag-happen. Pwede siyang mangyari anytime, even before the tribulation begins.

Ang gulo lang, 'di ba? Kasi, the very same people who teach that the Rapture is "signless" are the same people writing books filled with "signs" of the times.

Isipin mo ito: Sabi nina John MacArthur, Mark Hitchcock, at marami pang iba, "No signs necessary for the Rapture." Pero sa kabilang banda, susulat sila ng mga libro na pinapaliwanag na ang pag-usbong ng Israel noong 1948, ang European Union, o ang pag-unlad ng technology ay mga signs na malapit na ang Rapture.

Para itong prophetic schizophrenia. Sinasabi nilang walang sign, pero todo-benta sila ng mga librong naglilista ng mga signs.

Ang "Stage-Setting" Excuse

Kapag tinanong mo sila kung bakit sila naglilista ng signs kung "signless" naman ang Rapture, ang sagot nila ay: "We are stage-setting." Sinasabi nila na kahit hindi pa fulfill ang prophecy ngayon, God is just "preparing the stage" for the future Tribulation period.

Pero honestly, logic-wise, hindi ito papasa. Kung kailangan pa ng "stage-setting," tulad ng pagtatatag ng state of Israel, para mangyari ang end-time events, eh di hindi pala "imminent" ang Rapture for the past 1,900 years! Kung ang pagiging bansa ng Israel ang "Super Sign," edi dapat hindi inasahan ng mga Christians noon (like those in Paul’s time) na babalik si Jesus, dahil wala pa naman ang state of Israel noon, 'di ba?

Ang logic ng imminency requires that nothing needs to happen. Pero ginagawa nilang "prerequisite" ang pagkakaroon ng modern state of Israel. It’s a contradiction.

The Fig Tree Myth

Marami ang gumagamit sa Matthew 24:32: "Now learn the parable from the fig tree..." para sabihing ang "fig tree" ay Israel, at ang pag-bloom nito (1948) ay sign na malapit na ang summer (the End).

Pero, let's be real sa context:

Walang exclusivity: Sa Bible, ang Israel ay tinatawag ding vine, olive tree, at cedar. Ang fig tree ay hindi exclusive code for Israel.

Luke’s Account: Sa Luke 21:29, sabi ni Jesus, "Look at the fig tree and all the trees." Kung "Israel" ang fig tree, ano naman ang "all the trees"? Bakit hindi ’yon pinapaliwanag?

Nature Lesson: Simply put, Jesus was giving a nature lesson. Kapag nakita mong nagkakadahon ang puno, alam mong malapit na ang summer. It’s a general observation of the seasons, not a secret code about 1948.

The Better View: Kingdom Growth 

Instead of living in fear, waiting for a "sign" to escape via Rapture, bakit hindi natin tingnan ang Kingdom of God sa paraang ginagawa ng mga Reformed theologians?

Ang kingdom ni Kristo ay hindi "naka-pause" habang naghihintay ng Rapture. It is currently growing. As a Partial Preterist, I believe that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) had their primary fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

And as a Postmillennialist, I believe the Great Commission is actually working! The gospel is conquering nations. The Kingdom is not waiting for a political state in the Middle East to "start" the clock; the clock is already ticking, and the Kingdom is advancing through the preaching of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Real Talk Reflection

Bible Verse:

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (Matthew 24:36)

Call to Action: Stop obsessing over the newspaper headlines as if they are the "Bible" for our generation. Stop waiting for a "sign" to escape. Instead, focus on the here and now. The mandate is clear: go and make disciples of all nations.

If we are truly living in the "last days" (which the New Testament authors described as the time starting from the early church), then our job is not to track geopolitical signs, but to track how well we are living out the Gospel. How are you influencing your community for the Kingdom today? Huwag kang mag-abang ng signs; mag-abang ka ng opportunities to serve.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think the obsession with "end times signs" actually distracts us from the work God has for us today? Let me know in the comments!

FAP BIBLE PROPHECY Q&A: Myth-busting: Yung Akala Nating "Only for Israel" Prophecy

FAP BIBLE PROPHECY Q&A: Myth-busting: Yung Akala Nating "Only for Israel" Prophecy

Let’s be real: dito sa atin sa Pilipinas, usong-uso ang mga prophecy conferences. Madalas, ang focus ay ang future ng Israel, at madalas din, it’s framed in a way na parang kung hindi ka Dispensationalist, kung hindi ka naghihintay ng "secret rapture" o Third Temple, hindi mo "sineseryoso" ang mga promises ng Diyos sa mga Judio.

I’ve had a few friends ask me about John MacArthur’s 2007 talk sa Shepherds’ Conference titled “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist.” Nakikinig ako, and honestly? Medyo out of character siya. The tone felt a bit sharp, at may pagka-desperateparang he’s feeling the foundation of Dispensationalism shaking.

Sabi ni Pastor John, kung naniniwala ka sa "sovereign election" ng individual para sa salvation, dapat naniniwala ka rin sa "sovereign election" ng Israel, at ang tanging way daw para gawin yun ay maging Dispensationalist. Sabi niya, election cuts both ways.

Pero wait. Let’s pause and check the history and the Scriptures. Kasi, hindi naman tama na sabihing ang Dispensationalism lang ang may "hope" para sa Israel.

The Historical Reality Check

Marami sa atin ang nakalimot na bago pa sumikat ang modern Dispensationalism (na nag-start lang talaga nung late 19th century, lalo na nung lumabas ang Scofield Reference Bible noong 1909), ang mga Reformers at ang mga Puritans ay may malalim na paniniwala tungkol sa future ng Israel.

Hindi sila Dispensationalists, pero look at their history:

The Puritans: Figures like Bucer, Beza, Peter Martyr, at the editors of the Geneva Bible sila lahat ay naniniwalang may "fullness" o conversion na mangyayari sa mga Judio.

Westminster Confession: Kahit hindi ito explicit sa Confession mismo, makikita mo ang paniniwalang ito sa Westminster Larger Catechism (Q191) at sa Westminster Directory of Worship.

Ang great majority ng mga Reformed thinkers noon, they expected the Gospel to spread worldwide, the conversion of the Jews, the fullness of the Gentiles, and the eventual fall of the Antichrist. Ito ang matagal nang Reformed eschatology.

So, to claim that only Dispensationalists take Israel seriously? That’s historical revisionism. Pinapalabas na bago lang ang konsepto ng future para sa Israel, pero history tells us otherwise.

The "Remnant" Logic (What Paul Really Said)

Balikan natin ang Bible. Ang argument ni MacArthur ay parang kailangan ng isang "national state" para maging "elected" ang Israel. But let’s look at Romans 9-11.

Paul says:

“THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED” (Rom. 9:27).

Paul makes it clear: ang election ng Diyos ay laging tungkol sa remnant. Noong panahon ni Elijah, akala niya siya lang mag-isa, pero ang sagot ng Diyos ay, "I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal" (Rom. 11:4).

Ang logic ni Paul ay simple: Ang "All Israel" (Rom. 11:26) ay hindi tumutukoy sa bawat Israelite sa bawat henerasyon, o sa isang political state. It refers to the elect of Israel at a certain point in history.

Di ba nakaka-excite isipin na ang mga Judio ay nasasalba na noon pa sa panahon ng diaspora, at nasasalba pa rin sila ngayon? We don't need a reconstituted, nationalistic state to "save a remnant." The Gospel of the Kingdom is already doing that.

Why This Matters for Us

Bilang mga Filipino na lumaki sa isang religious landscape na laging naghihintay ng "end times" signs sa news, madali tayong mabudol ng idea na ang Israel ay kailangang maging isang political power para matupad ang prophecy.

But as we look at the Reformed tradition, yung mga Reformers na matibay ang kapit sa sovereign grace, nakikita natin na ang future ng Israel ay hindi hiwalay sa future ng Church. It is the victory of the Gospel.

Hindi kailangan ng Dispensationalism para magkaroon ng "redemptive future" ang Israel. Ang kailangan lang natin ay maniwala sa kapangyarihan ng Gospel, the fullness of the Gentiles, at ang katapatan ng Diyos sa Kanyang tipan, the New Covenant, that covers all His people, Jew and Gentile alike.

Reflection Note:

It’s easy to get caught up in the latest prophecy chart or the latest headline about the Middle East. Pero, let’s trust in the bigger picture. God is sovereign over history, and His plan is neither failing nor dependent on human political systems. It is dependent on Christ, who is the King of kings right now.

Ano sa tingin niyo? Do you think we’ve been over-emphasizing a political view of Israel instead of the spiritual reality of the Remnant? Let’s chat in the comments.

"The Third Temple Trap: Why Rebuilding It Is Actually an Insult to the Cross"?

Introduction

I watched this Facebook video recently, and honestly, it’s the same old story we always hear in certain Christian circles. Every time there’s news about the Temple Institute in Israel, red heifers arriving from Texas, or tensions at the Temple Mount, people get super excited. They say, "Look! The Third Temple is coming! Prophecy is being fulfilled!"

But real talk: this excitement is actually based on a very shaky foundation. If we look at history and study the Bible properly (exegesis), we will see that the obsession with rebuilding a physical temple is not just unnecessary, it’s actually absurd and dangerous to the Gospel.

The History and Origin of the Theory

Many people think this "Rebuild the Temple" doctrine has been around since the Apostles. Wrong.

For the first 1,800 years of Church history, almost no major theologian believed that God wanted the Jews to rebuild a physical temple to resume animal sacrifices. The early Church Fathers, the Reformers (like Luther and Calvin), and the Puritans all believed the "Temple" in the New Testament referred to Jesus or the Church.

The idea that there must be a physical Third Temple for the "Antichrist" to sit in is a modern invention. It started in the 1830s with a man named John Nelson Darby (the father of Dispensationalism). His ideas were popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible and later by sensational books like The Late Great Planet Earth and the Left Behind series. Basically, this is a 19th-century theory that got marketed very well, until many Christians today think it is the "only" way to read the Bible.

The Absurdity: A Historico-Grammatical Critique

If we use the historico-grammatical method (reading the Bible in its original context and language), this theory falls apart.

1. The Hebrew Exegesis: Daniel 9:27

The entire "Third Temple" timeline relies heavily on Daniel 9:27. Dispensationalists say "He" (the Antichrist) will make a peace treaty for seven years and then stop the sacrifices.

But in the Hebrew text, the grammar points to the Messiah, not an Antichrist.

"He shall confirm a covenant": The word used is often linked to God’s covenant. Who confirms the covenant? Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:17, Romans 15:8).

"He shall bring an end to sacrifice": Jesus did this by offering Himself once and for all (Hebrews 10:12). At the Cross, the veil was torn. The sacrificial system was spiritually finished by Jesus and physically destroyed in AD 70.

Conclusion: Daniel 9 isn't about a future Antichrist in a future temple; it was about Jesus fulfilling the Old Covenant in the 1st Century.

2. The Greek Exegesis: Naos vs. Hieron

People love to quote 2 Thessalonians 2:4, saying the Man of Lawlessness will sit in the "temple of God."

In Greek, there are two words for temple: Hieron (the physical complex of buildings) and Naos (the inner sanctuary/dwelling place). In the Gospels/Acts, when referring to the physical building, the word Hieron is often used. However, Paul almost exclusively uses the word Naos to refer to the Church, the body of believers.

"For we are the naos of the living God" (2 Cor 6:16).

"You are God’s naos" (1 Cor 3:16).

So, when Paul speaks of the "Temple of God" in the New Testament, he is usually talking about the Church. If the Man of Lawlessness sits there, it likely refers to a spiritual apostasy within the Church (which we have seen plenty of in history), not a guy sitting in a concrete building in Jerusalem.

3. The Partial Preterist Reality

We must understand that the prophecies about the "destruction" and the "abomination of desolation" (Matthew 24, Luke 21) were fulfilled in AD 70. Jesus said, "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matt 24:34). The word genea (generation) meant the people living then.

The Roman armies led by Titus surrounded Jerusalem, destroyed the Second Temple, and ended the Jewish age. That was the judgment. God wiped the slate clean to establish the New Covenant fully. Why would He want us to go back to the shadows of the Old Covenant?

The Theological Absurdity

From a New Covenant Theology perspective, the idea of rebuilding the temple is actually blasphemous. The Book of Hebrews makes it clear: The Old Covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). Jesus is the final Lamb. If you build a temple to slaughter goats and bulls again, you are basically telling God, "Jesus' blood was not enough; we need more animal blood." That is a total insult to the Cross!

God destroyed the physical temple to show that the location of worship has shifted. As Jesus told the Samaritan woman, we worship in Spirit and Truth, not on this mountain or in Jerusalem (John 4:21).

Conclusion

We need to stop obsessing over bricks and mortar in the Middle East. That is "Old Covenant" thinking. As Postmillennialists, we believe the Kingdom of God is advancing now through the preaching of the Gospel, not waiting for a disaster or a new building. The True Temple is being built right now; it’s us, the Church, growing worldwide (Ephesians 2:21).

Let’s stop looking for a Third Temple of stone and start building the Spiritual Temple by spreading the Gospel and discipling the nations. That one is the real deal.