Are we Christians really being of “good will” when we make
certain claims about Israel? For example, that the Jewish Temple must be
rebuilt only later to be taken over by the Antichrist who will then lead to
destruction. Or pointing toward gospel sayings (Lk 11:50-51; Mt 22:7),
and then going on to accuse the Jews of not yet fully answering to God for the
murder of the Son of God and thus having to face divine vengeance, because they
did not receive God’s Son, they will receive Antichrist. The second
argument is anti-Semitic and the first may be disingenuous.
It seems there might be some precedent for the first
argument. In the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks to a group of Jews
telling them that they will receive one who comes in his own name (Jn
5:43). In Matthew’s version of the Eschatological Discourse, Jesus speaks
of the coming of false messiahs, the increase in lawlessness, and the
desolating sacrilege in the temple (24:4-28). Moreover, Paul speaks of
the lawless one who will take his place in the temple (2 Thess 2:3-5). In
addition, John speaks often of antichrists (1 Jn 2:18-22). Furthermore,
John refers to the beast that comes from the abyss and who opposes God’s
witnesses (Rev 11:7), and the beast from the sea (13:1), and another beast from
the earth (v. 11), who comes in his own name (v. 18). However, it seems
to me that using these scriptures to advance the above argument might be
disingenuous.
First, recent scholarship has shown that much of the
tribulation spoken of in the Eschatological Discourse in the Synoptic Gospels, and
in the Revelation, have had a historical and literal fulfillment in the first
century CE, which culminated in the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in
70 CE. Secondly, there are a number of early Christian authors who held
the view that the seventy-weeks (490 years) in Daniel 9 were fulfilled in the 1st
century CE.[1] Finally, even a number of Jewish
sources understand the seventy-weeks as already fulfilled. In the Babylonian
Talmud, Dan 9:24 with its seventy-weeks seem to be interpreted in light of the
destruction of the temple and Jerusalem (b. Naz. 5:3, II.1.B). Even
Josephus had associated the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple as
fulfilling the words of Daniel (Wars 6.93-315). Also worth noting is the
modern discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among them is the idea that the
490 years was to be fulfilled during the life time of the community, during
which the expiation or atonement for sins was to be accomplished (11Q Melchizedek).
Having said that, though, there are a number of early
Christian fathers who even after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in the
first century CE still spoke of a coming Antichrist. Unfortunately there
is not a consensus among them concerning events surrounding the rule of this
Antichrist’s and his relationship to Israel, the Jews, and the Jewish
temple. Irenaeus of Lyon speaks of Antichrist who will reign
for three and a half years; he will sit in the temple in Jerusalem (Against
Heresies 5.25.4; 5.30.4). Hippolytus of Rome makes reference to
Antichrist and the abomination desolation to be setup in the temple (Commentary
on Daniel 2.22). Elsewhere he states Antichrist will raise up a temple of
stone in Jerusalem (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 6). Cyril of
Jerusalem speaks of the coming Antichrist who will sit in the temple of the
Jews that was destroyed and while showing great zeal for the temple he will
pledge to restore the temple of Solomon; he will rule for three and a half years
(Catechetical Lectures 15.15-16). Even Augustine held the view that
Antichrist will rule for three and one half years (The City of God 20.13.1),
though Augustine is not certain that Antichrist will sit in the ruins of the
temple built by Solomon, or for that matter in the Church, rather he prefers
the thought that Antichrist will sit within the body of the multitude of those
who belong to him (20.19.2). The Doctor also held the view at one point
that if there shall be tribulation in the time of the Antichrist, if the Jews
are “the first and foremost to receive Antichrist,” they will cause the
tribulation, rather than suffer it (Letter 199.29).
It may well be that these early Church fathers failed to
understand the Eschatological Discourse in the Synoptic Gospels and the
Revelation of John as being fulfilled in the first century CE. However,
they did have a consensus that the Antichrist was yet to come, who also would
be destroyed at Christ’s Second coming. Presently this line of thought still
exists in the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catechismus Catholicae
Ecclesiae states,
Before Christ’s
second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the
faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on
earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious
deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of
apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the
Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God
and of his Messiah come in the flesh.
The Antichrist’s
deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is
made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized
beyond history through the eschatalogical judgment. The Church has rejected
even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name
of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a
secular messianism.
The Church will
enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will
follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled,
then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy,
but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause
his Bride to come down from heaven. God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will
take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this
passing world (CCC 675-677).
Critically, there are at least three negative phrases used
to describe the work of Antichrist ("religious deception,"
"pseudo-messianism," and "a political form of
messianism"). Explicitly nothing is said negatively concerning
Israel, the Jews, or the Jewish Temple. Furthermore the Catechismus
Catholicae Ecclesiae will also speak of the coming time when “all Israel” will
recognize the “glorious Messiah’s coming” and that the “full inclusion” of the
Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of “the full number of the
Gentiles,” will enable the people of God to achieve “the measure of the stature
of the fullness of Christ,” in which “God may be all in all” (CCC 674; Rom
11:12, 20-26; Eph 4:13; 1 Cor 15:28).
And so, are we Christians really being sincere when we make
certain outlandish claims about Israel as introduced above? No we are
not! In fact, we might be reasoning disingenuously and speaking
anti-Semitisms without even knowing it. Perhaps we Gentile Christian
should be more humble and realize that we are only a portion of the olive and
that we run the risk of being cut off if we boast (Rom 11:17-24). Let us
comfort all God's people and pray that God will show his mercy to all Israel
once again (v. 31).
Edited May 8, 2019
[1] There was no universal consensus on
the interpretation of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 among the early Church
Fathers. However, a majority saw the fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks
within the context of the 1st century CE. Such was the case with Clement
of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and
Augustine. One of the Patristic writers, Julius Hilarianus, even argued
for the historical fulfillment during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in the 2nd
century BCE. However, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Apollinaris proposed that
a portion of the Seventy Years is still to be fulfilled at the end of the world
(though Apollinarius mistakenly suggested that the end around the year 500
CE. See Louis E. Knowles, The Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks of
Daniel in the Early Fathers; see also Tanner, Is Daniel’s Seventy Weeks
Prophecy Messianic? Part 1 (Bibliotheca Sacra 166: 2009): 181-200.
