To many readers, this may seem like a strange question. “Obviously the Romans were not Israelites,” they might say — “they were from the Genesis 10 nations.” We do not disagree. However, there are Christian circles who do indeed believe that the Romans were Israelites — and we would like to address that view in detail.
If anyone is not familiar with this debate, do not feel as though you have nothing to learn from this essay. We will cross a broad range of topics — and who knows — you may come across something new or even be able to contribute to the discussion in some way.
We do not deny that many Christians would be surprised to learn that some nations of people were indeed Israelites. Probably the best and easiest example to prove is the Lacedemonians — the Spartans. After all, God said to Isaac in Genesis 35:11,
I am God Almighty; Be fruitful and multiply; A nation and a multitude of nations shall come from you, And kings shall come from you.
Although we should not confuse the biblical concept of “nations” with modern geopolitical “countries.” No, nations are peoples with common ethnic traits or ancestry — borders and political authority have no bearing on true nations according to the Bible. As such — given the promises to Jacob, we should not be surprised to see Israelite nations in history. We should even expect to see it.
Unfortunately, in the modern day Jews’ attempt to monopolize Israelite identity, they have been forced to make the world forget about the promises God made to Jacob and all his descendants. They make it appear as if only the Jews were ever Israelites — and only Israelites were ever Jews. Jews would have us forget that according to 2 Kings 17, the entire northern Kingdom or House of Israel was deported and dispersed under Assyrian conquest — and they would like nothing better than for us to believe that these dispersed Israelites — the vast majority of the 12 tribes — simply vanished into thin air — which is exactly what the vast majority of Christians today believe.
Those Israelites did not cease to be Israelites merely because they were forced out of their land. An Israelite is an Israelite by their paternal lineage — not by the land they live in. If someone is an Israelite — whether they are aware of it or not — “the gifts and the calling of God [toward them] are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29) — insofar as being a “child of the flesh” (Romans 9:8) affords them.
Conversely, modern day Jews are not Israelites at all — they have no claim to paternal lineage — by their own admission — and them being able to “explain away” Biblical patrilineal truth does nothing to solve this problem for them. Therefore, they are forced to reduce Israelite identity to themselves in the most dishonest way.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have Christian circles who claim that most — if not all — of the “nations” referred to in the New Testament were Israelites. As we have previously explained, this position is merely an attempted solution to a doctrinal quandary they have created for themselves.
They rightly believe that only white people could possibly be the true descendants of Adam and Eve — and as such, only these Adamic people qualify for salvation — and only Adamic people could ever be Israelites. However, we believe that the way they go about trying to prove this is unnecessary — and that they do so because they too have fallen victim to the misunderstanding of what the “nations” in the Bible actually are as we mentioned earlier.
Most — if not all — Christian circles have been indoctrinated since birth to believe that “every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9) means every biped with the ability to speak, read and write from every country across the globe. Christians who believe that the Romans were Israelites have fallen to the same snare.
Yet consider this: Og king of Bashan was a king of the Amorites (Deuteronomy 4:47), a Canaanite tribe living in the land of Canaan (Genesis 10:16). Deuteronomy 3:11 says that “only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim.” The Rephaim were a bipedal giant which lived in the region of the land of Canaan as early as Genesis 14 — and were a trouble for the people of the land since that time already as we can see in Genesis 14 and Deuteronomy 2. Og was the last one in existence.
It’s safe to say that Rephaim were not at all descendants of Adam and Eve — yet Og was clearly intelligent enough to rule a nation of men — the Amorites. In 1 Chronicles 20, we see a narrative about descendants of the Rephaim — or “giants” as they render the word in most translations. If Og was the last of the Rephaim — and if 1 Chronicles 20 refers to descendants of the Rephaim still in existence — then we can only conclude that 1 Chronicles 20 refers to something that is a descendant of the Rephaim, but simultaneously is not a Rephaim.
The only way to reconcile this paradox is to conclude that the giants in 1 Chronicles 20 must have been the product of inbreeding between Rephaim and descendants of Adam and Eve. In the same way that a mule is neither a donkey nor a horse, these hybrids were neither Rephaim nor Adamites — and as such, did not qualify for salvation according to Deuteronomy 23:2. Incidentally, Goliath — whom David slew — was one such an hybrid (1 Chronicles 20:5).
Therefore, intelligence, walking upright on two legs — or even being able to reproduce with a pure Adamic person — does not qualify someone as a descendant of Adam and Eve — and does not qualify someone for salvation — though Marxism has violated our minds into believing anyone with a “human experience” must deserve salvation. Neither does everyone with these traits qualify as being part of the phrase “[every] tribe, language, people, and nation” referred to in Revelation 5:9. We can rest assured that whenever the Scripture refers to tribes, languages, peoples and nations, it is never referring those who are not descendants of Noah (Genesis 10:5, Genesis 10:20, Genesis 10:31) — and by logical extension, to something which is not a pure descendant of Adam and Eve.
We believe that Christians who believe that Romans are Israelites have most likely overlooked these facts in their own studies. If they were to honestly read this paper, they should at least be able to agree up until this point and maybe even learn something — even if they disagree with everything else from here onward. Likewise, they should at least acknowledge that we are not trying to introduce non-Adamites into salvation — a groundless accusation we have heard before.
However, given that they see nations of men in the Scripture possibly referring to peoples who are not pure descendants of Adam and Eve — such as Edomites and Moabites — they have sought to find another way to prove their doctrine. They do so in the following steps:
- Adam and Eve were white.
- Therefore, Israelites were white.
- Only pure descendants of Adam and Eve were eligible for salvation.
- Of those who are eligible, only Israelites will be saved.
- Therefore, only pure descendants of Adam and Eve who are Israelites are eligible for salvation.
- And therefore all Israelites will be saved unconditionally.
Yes, there is more to that doctrine, but we are intentionally narrowing their argument to its logical steps — as opposed to its doctrinal framework. Logically, up through point three we would agree. As for point four, depending on whom you talk to and in what context, some may concede that non-Israelites who are pure descendants of Adam and Eve may qualify for salvation. This still seems to be a matter of debate and consideration among them — and many seem to be unaware of this doctrinal inconsistency. However, the central focus of their doctrine is that God intended on saving only Israel.
This focus conveniently keeps salvation centered on white people. It is a way for them to prove that salvation is limited to white people in a worldview which incorrectly allows for non-whites among the “nations” of Scripture. As a result, they paint themselves into a doctrinal corner — that they must seek to prove that only Israelites are saved and that all Israelites are saved — to keep non-whites — non-Adamics — out of the covenant promises. For them, it naturally follows that the focus of the New Testament can only be Israel — the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude were, therefore, written only to Israelites.
For sure, some of the epistles were indeed written to Israelites — we are not denying that. For example, James addresses his epistle to “the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad” (James 1:1). However, despite agreeing with them that only white people are Adamites — we believe their doctrine takes it too far — and by doing so, this narrow racial doctrine destroys much of the spiritual teachings on righteousness and purity required of every Christian.
One of the cornerstones of this doctrine is that the Romans were Israelites. Of all arguments that the recipients of certain epistles were Israelites, Romans is the most fascinating and broadest in scope. Furthermore, this doctrine relies most on the Romans being Israelites given the nature of Paul’s arguments within the epistle itself.
In showing that the Romans were not Israelites, we will do our best to represent this doctrine as honestly as we can. In this section, we will begin by reviewing their more historical arguments — before moving into doctrinal arguments in later parts.
ZERAH SON OF JUDAH
Naturally, those who claim the Romans were Israelites have an explanation for how the Romans came to be Israelites in the first place. According to 1 Chronicles 2:6, Zerah, son of Judah, son of Jacob, had five sons whose names were Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara. They argue that Dara and Calcol left their family before Jacob moved to Egypt in Genesis 46 — and played a part in founding the ancient city of Troy.
Ignoring the fact that archeologists have found substantial evidence that Troy was originally founded at least 1,000 years before the birth of Zarah and his sons, they cite certain historians where names similar to that of Dara and Calcol are mentioned in connection with Troy, claiming that these names must be one and the same. One of a few Roman founding myths claims that its founders came from the city of Troy after it fell — completing the connection between Zerah’s sons and Rome.
The point at which they attempt to match up Scriptural history with secular history, however, has some serious flaws — and Genesis 46:5-7 clearly witnesses against their view:
5 Then Jacob left Beersheba, and the sons of Israel carried their father Jacob and their little ones and their wives in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him. 6 They also took their livestock and their possessions, which they had acquired in the land of Canaan, and came to Egypt, Jacob and all his descendants [seed] with him: 7 his sons and his grandsons with him, his daughters and his granddaughters, and all his descendants [seed] he brought with him to Egypt.
Jacob brought all of his descendants — and we would logically conclude that if Zerah had sons at that time, they would be certainly be counted among Jacob’s descendants and have gone into Egypt according to Genesis 46:6-7.
Some might be tempted to argue that Genesis 46:7 said, “his sons and his grandsons” — therefore “all his descendants” would be qualified as only “sons and grandsons.” After all, Zerah was Jacob’s grandson — therefore, Zerah’s sons would not be included, because they are great-grandsons — not grandsons.
However, Genesis 46:8 says, “these are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt, Jacob and his sons.” As a part of “the names of the sons of Israel”, Genesis 46:12 includes “Hezron and Hamul” — sons of Perez, Zerah’s brother — and Jacob’s grandson. Thus “all his descendants” definitely includes great-grandsons as well.
If we are to take these verses at face value — that Jacob brought all his descendants, then there were no descendants who left to go elsewhere. In other words, the theory about Calcol and Dara playing a part in founding Troy directly contradicts Genesis 46:6-7 — because if they were alive at that time, they would have gone with Jacob to Egypt. This fact alone should suffice to put the matter to rest — however, for the sake of completeness, we will give account of the full argument.
The Genesis 46 account doesn’t mention that Zerah brought sons with him into Egypt. If Abraham brought all of his descendants — and if Zerah didn’t bring his own sons — then Zerah simply didn’t have any sons at that time.
In Numbers 26, a census is taken of all the sons of Israel 20 years old and upward who came out of the land of Egypt. The sons are numbered according to their tribes and according to their families within those tribes.
Numbers 26:20 mentions the family of the Zerahites — the descendants of Zerah, son of Judah — but does not specifically mention Zerah’s sons — Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara (1 Chronicles 2:6) — by name. Some may postulate again that Zerah’s sons simply weren’t there. Although this doesn’t consider that in Numbers 26:20 there was a family of Zerah — so Zerah must have had sons in order for there to be a family of his own in the first place. We can say for certain then that Numbers 26:20 didn’t mention any of his sons by name, despite him definitely having had sons and a family.
In other words, no matter who Zerah’s sons were who brought about this family in Numbers 26:20, they were not mentioned by name. Therefore, the lack of Zerah’s sons being called by name doesn’t actually prove anything at all. We can then say for sure that Zerah did not have sons when he went into Egypt, but at some point in Egypt he had a family. Now Judges 7:1 says,
But the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully regarding the things designated for destruction, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, took some of the designated things; therefore the anger of the Lord burned against the sons of Israel.
Here we have explicit mention of a son of Zerah — a son by the name of “Zabdi.” Yet 1 Chronicles 2:6 says that the “sons of Zerah were Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara”. How could there be another son — “Zabdi” — not found in the list of 1 Chronicles 2:6? Is Zabdi some unaccounted for son in the first book of Chronicles?
In the Greek Septuagint, where “Zimri” is written in Judges 7:1 and “Zabdi” is written in 1 Chronicles 2:6, it renders each name the same way in the Greek: “Ζαμβρὶ”. It would be interesting to see how these names were rendered in the Dead Sea Scrolls but alas, at the time of writing of this article no scrolls have been found for Judges 7 or 1 Chronicles 2. Given that the Masoretic text dates after the Septuagint — and that both texts come from an even earlier original text, it’s hard to say whether a Greek translator changed the Septuagint to align the names — or whether the scribes of the Masoretic text misaligned the names later on.
Let us recap on the three points covered so far:
- Jacob brought all of his descendants into Egypt — If Zerah had sons at that time, they would have entered Egypt along with the company.
- 1 Chronicles 2:6 gives us all of Zerah’s sons — whoever Zimri (Joshua 7:1) was — if he was a son of Zerah — he must have been one of the individuals from 1 Chronicles 2:6.
- The Greek Septuagint renders Zimri in the same same way in Joshua 7:1 and 1 Chronicles 2:6.
Therefore, “Zabdi” and “Zimri” — according to the Hebrew Masoretic text — are the same person. Zimri was not mentioned in the census of Numbers 26, yet he must have been implicitly included among the Zerahites despite not having been mentioned — because his family was present with Israel in Canaan in Joshua 7:1. Whoever constituted Zerah’s family in Numbers 26:20, it must have been sons from 1 Chronicles 2:6.
For certain then, Zimri was born sometime after Zerah entered Egypt with the rest of his family. We also note that in the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2 the eldest child is always written first. We can see this in 1 Chronicles 2:1 where Reuben is given first. We also see it in 1 Chronicles 2:3 where Er is written first — and is literally called “Judah’s firstborn.” This same pattern can be seen throughout the chapter.
If Zimri was the firstborn — and if Zimri was born after Zerah entered Egypt — then logically all of Zerah’s sons must have been born after they entered Egypt. If we had to take only points two and three in the list above and combine them with the fact that Zimri is the firstborn in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 2:6, we could already prove that Zerah did not have any sons before he moved into Egypt. Therefore, we have proof over and above the fact that Genesis 46:6-7 states explicitly that all Jacob’s descendants entered Egypt with him.
If Zimri was the firstborn sometime after Zerah entered Egypt, then Calcol and Dara most certainly must have also been born sometime after Zerah entered Egypt. Thus it is impossible that any of Zerah’s sons left to found Troy before Zerah entered Egypt.
Though we have not heard this argument, someone might say, “All right, fine, maybe Calcol and Dara left sometime after Zerah entered Egypt, but sometime before Israel received the law of Moses.” Well, hopefully if we’ve highlighted anything at all up until this point, it’s that from within the Scripture itself, the argument regarding Calcol and Dara is an argument from silence. That is, from the Scriptural point of view, we really can’t say anything one way or another regarding Calcol and Dara — except that Zimri — Zerah’s eldest — was definitely born during Zerah’s time in Egypt and that his descendants were with Israel when they entered Canaan.
As such, this argument regarding Calcol and Dara cannot take place at all from within the Scripture. Yes, there are other arguments claiming that the Romans were Israelites which we will address in this series, but none of them intersect with how exactly the Israelites ultimately came to found Rome.
Within the context of secular histories, the argument relies on the superficial similarities between the names of Calcol and Dara and some characters of Greek myth. Calcol is supposedly “Kalchas” — a Trojan seer during the time of the Trojan war with the Greeks. Dara is supposedly none other than “Dardanos” — one of the original settlers of Troy.
By this logic, why shouldn’t we also conclude that Zarah’s son Hemen is actually the Greek god Hermes? Or that Zarah’s son Ethan is the Greek god Eetion? Although sarcastic, we mean to relay an important point: In this context, arguments based solely on a similarity of names don’t actually prove much at all.
However, let us hypothetically concede that a mere similarity of names would somehow constitute “scholarly evidence” that Zerah’s sons founded Troy.
Even from within the secular histories this argument is deeply flawed — there is a vast time gap between Kalchas and Dardanos. Dardanos allegedly founded Troy while Kalchas was one of the refugees who left Troy after it was sacked. If we use Homer’s genealogy from Dardanos until Priam — the king of Troy during the Trojan war — there were around six generations between the two. It’s just not possible that Dardanos and Kalchas were actual brothers. They certainly were not brothers according to the secular histories either — and they didn’t even know each other. How could they have? And obviously, if they were not brothers, then it’s simply not possible that they could have been Zerah’s sons — because Calcol and Dara were indeed brothers.
The argument doesn’t work from within the Scripture or from within the secular histories. Since we cannot successfully argue that the Trojans were Israelites — it therefore follows that we certainly cannot then argue that the Romans — their descendants — were Israelites.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE
Another argument that the Romans were Israelites is found in Daniel 9:25-26,
25 So you are to know and understand that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with streets and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
The argument goes that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary here in Daniel 9:26 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple by the Romans under Titus in 70AD. Therefore, “the people of the prince who is to come” can refer only to the Romans themselves. We do not disagree so far.
This line of argument posits that “Messiah the Prince” in verse 25 and “the prince” in verse 26 are one and the same entity — and that furthermore, “Messiah the Prince” must be the Lord Jesus Himself. If He is the prince of verse 26, then the people are His own people — Israel. If He is “the prince who is to come” and “the people” destroyed the temple in 70AD — and the Romans destroyed the temple in 70AD — then the Romans must be Israelites.
Firstly, we would agree that “Messiah the Prince” indeed refers to the Lord Jesus; however, the argument conveniently oversimplifies the subject of “princes” in the book of Daniel. As if merely being a “prince” — according to Daniel — necessarily all refers to one and the same “prince.”
The angel who delivers the message to Daniel in Daniel 10 — who is none other than the Lord Jesus Himself — says that “the prince of the kingdom of Persia” (Daniel 10:13) was resisting Him and that “the prince of Greece [Javan] is about to come” (Daniel 10:20). He states that only one stands with him in the battle — “Michael your prince.” (Daniel 10:21)
Already we have explicit proof of multiple princes — who are not the same prince as one another — and not the same prince as the Lord Jesus Himself. Therefore — as we mentioned, the claim that “Messiah the Prince” and “the prince who is to come” are the same “prince” — merely because they are both “princes” — grossly oversimplifies the matter.
Jude calls Michael an “archangel” (Jude 1:9) and in Revelation 12:7 Michael can be seen fighting Satan along with his angels. Clearly there was a heavenly battle going on as early as the time of Daniel. As we have explained before, “Satan” is not one entity — but rather he is seven rebellious entities — or princes — who have dominion over the nations of men — and Michael stands against them. Daniel 12:1 calls Michael “the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people.”
The Lord calls Michael Daniel’s “prince” (Daniel 10:21) and the prince who stands guard over the sons of Daniel’s people (Daniel 12:1). Daniel is an Israelite, so if any prince is going to be labelled “prince of the Israelites,” it would be Michael — not the Lord Jesus. Indeed, we would contend that the Lord Jesus is not merely a prince — neither is He just another “chief prince” or “arch-angel”, of which there are more than one (Daniel 10:13) — rather in His office as a “prince”, He is the “Prince of princes” (Daniel 8:25).
Therefore we can conclude that “Messiah the Prince” and “the prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 are not the same prince — or at the very least, if we are being honest, we need to acknowledge there is credible evidence which demonstrates that these two princes could very well not be the same individual.
Furthermore, neither does anything in the book of Daniel suggest that “the prince who is to come” was the archangel Michael. Thus Daniel 9:25-26 cannot be used to prove that the Romans were Israelites.
HOW THE IDENTITY OF THE ROMANS FITS INTO PROPHECY
Having addressed the central point of the argument, we would like to go over and above merely showing that Daniel 9 cannot be used to prove that the Romans were Israelites. We would like to offer a counterargument — and briefly consider a few more points in relation to the prince of the Romans — and Satan in general. Hopefully in so doing, our readers will understand that we do not make this case about Daniel 9:26 lightly — we are not merely disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
If not Michael or the Lord Jesus, then who is “the prince who is to come”? In Luke 4, the Lord Jesus is tempted by “the devil” (Luke 4:2) — who is plainly called “Satan” in Mark 1:13. Luke 4:5-6 says,
5 And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory, for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I want.”
The Greek word for “of the world” is “oikoumené” (Strong’s G3625) — meaning the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks or the Roman Empire. Therefore — according to Luke 4:5-6 — Satan is in control of the whole earth inhabited by the Greeks which basically amounts to the Roman Empire as well.
We can then conclude that Satan — or at the very least, this particular prince in Luke 4 — who was the fifth of the seven princes — or dragon heads (Revelation 12:3) — was the prince of the Roman people. If the Romans destroyed the second temple in 70AD, then “the prince who is to come” was that very same prince who vainly tempted the Lord Jesus in Luke 4.
It’s no wonder that somewhere in the 50s AD Paul would say to the Romans of all people, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” (Romans 16:20) Then when John writes his Revelation some time after 80AD he says, “five [heads] have fallen” (Revelation 17:10) — the princes of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12-13), Persia (Daniel 10:13), Greece (Daniel 10:20), the Seleucid Empire (or “little horn” — Daniel 8:10-11) and Rome (Daniel 9:26).
The prince of Rome must indeed have fallen just as Paul predicted — probably some time between 70AD and when John wrote the Revelation. After all, the prince or “king” who currently “is” — according to the wording of Revelation 17:10 — had his throne in Pergamum (Revelation 2:13) — indicating again that he is not the prince of the Romans (Daniel 9:26).
Furthermore, some time after the Lord was caught up to heaven after His resurrection, the dragon — representing all seven Satanic princes (Revelation 12:3) — was cast down to the earth — along with his own angels — by Michael and his angels (Daniel 12:1, Revelation 12:9). Therefore, Satan’s heavenly authority over the nations would be removed — and the Lord Jesus would “rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Revelation 12:5, Psalm 2:9) — “as the vessels of the potter are shattered” (Revelation 2:27).
Paul may have been referring to the fall of the Roman prince — or to the fall of the whole dragon itself. In all likelihood, he was referring to both simultaneously. In other words, the defeat of the Roman prince would mark the fall of the dragon as a whole.
The remaining two heads — including the sixth prince whom we are currently focused on — would not inherit any Genesis 10 nation. Rather, he would seek only to deceive and destroy them. For example, the prince of the Romans considered the Roman world to be his own domain and glory (Luke 4:6) — whereas the remaining two heads would seek only to “persecute the woman” (Revelation 12:13) and “make war with the rest of her children” (Revelation 12:17).
To this end, he summons “beasts” in Revelation 13 — which “make war with the saints and to overcome them” — and “authority was given to [Satan’s beast] over every tribe, people, language, and nation.” (Revelation 13:7) Satan even goes so far as to cause the nations to worship their very own enemies (Revelation 13:12) — an intensely strange paradox that anyone who has been reading the articles at Christians For Truth would be very familiar with (Read: Evangelical Zionism, God’s “Chosen People” and Revelation 2:9).
Incidentally, even though the remaining two heads are not to inherit any nation, Ezekiel 38-39 show us that one of them is none other than “Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal” (Ezekiel 38:2, Ezekiel 39:1). Magog, Meshech and Tubal are also Genesis 10 nations (Genesis 10:2) — and this prince must formerly have been custodian of them.
As we previously covered in the events of Revelation 6-7 — which occur simultaneous to Satan’s activity in Revelation 12-13 — the Lord Jesus uses the tribulation over the nations to “shatter them like earthenware” (Psalm 2:9, Revelation 2:27) — and to refine His own people, producing the heavenly fulfillment of His bride, body and church.
Much like how King David ruled among his enemies until they were all destroyed, the Father says to the Lord Jesus, “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” (Psalm 110:1, Matthew 22:44, Hebrews 1:3)
Herein lies the solution to the great paradox — on the one hand the Lord would confirm that “the ruler of this world will be cast out” (John 12:31) — and Peter says Jesus Christ is “at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.” (1 Peter 3:22).
Yet on the other hand, Paul tells us still that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12) — and Satan continues to wage war against the saints after having been cast out as we already covered.
In other words, according to the writings of the New Testament, Satan is simultaneously in a state of having been defeated and continuing to be a problem. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus has won, yet His enemies somehow remain. We must acknowledge the situation to be nuanced in such a way that it cannot be explained by a single satanic arch-angel. Neither can it be explained by a “Satan” which is not an arch-angel.
Moreover — and most importantly, understanding this paradox goes a long way in helping us to understand our place in these ends times — and what’s expected of us. The second temple builders — who were commanded to build the temple in spite of adversity — served as a copy and shadow for those who live through the great tribulation. We too must fearlessly build the heavenly temple — focusing on the things above — despite the activities of our own enemies.
If we do not build the heavenly temple, they will serve as the tool by which we are smashed like a potter’s vessel. If we do build the heavenly temple, they will be ash beneath our feet when the Lord Jesus comes to take His Kingdom forever.
In Part 2, we will begin to address Paul’s epistle to the Romans — and how the epistle itself proves that the Romans were not Israelites.