THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE DOES NOT FIT LAST DAYS PROPHECY ABOUT NOAH
- Thread starter DP
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It wasn't abcdef that wrote that about Ahwatukee. It was me, DP. Ahwatukee did a major false witness against me in an earlier post (you apparently missed), and he did it blatantly, because we've had many discussions before, so he well knows my theological position, yet he purposefully LIED. I don't go around hap-hazardly calling people liars, but when the shoe fits, wear it I say.
Then on top of that, he tries another smear campaign with trying to pin the Catholic label on me, when he well knows I'm a Protestant. I have complained to the forum adminstrators about it, but they're not going to do anything about it.
Now, I will respond to your accusations...
In my later post where I showed that Ahwatukee was not following Scriptures, but doctrines of men instead, I revealed those things distinctly, while not making personal insults like calling him a LIAR (that he is). I gave clear Scripture examples that weighed against his words. Now if you believe it is not possible for anyone... to be able to do this, i.e., Biblicaly disprove another's theological position, then you made all those posts showing the falseness of the Pre-trib Rapture movement for nothing.
Brother Ahwatukee,
In order not to wrestle over words.
Let's pick a translation and stay with it. If you have found a better translation, please tell me, I'd like to know.
If you want to use the New International, fine, KJV, fine.
If you want to point out problems with the KJV, great.
You've already shown me a few, Thanks
In order not to wrestle over words.
Let's pick a translation and stay with it. If you have found a better translation, please tell me, I'd like to know.
If you want to use the New International, fine, KJV, fine.
If you want to point out problems with the KJV, great.
You've already shown me a few, Thanks
No, we cannot use the same pattern of sequence, only that the eighth king belongs to the lineage of the previous seven kings. You see, according to Daniel and Revelation, the eighth king has other characteristics attached to him that put him as emerging in the future. For example,
"The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction."
Below is where and how he goes to his destruction:
"But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
Those first seven kings come in chronological order and I might add that only seven kings are mentioned. The eighth king is that beast that comes up out of the Abyss. And since he is destroyed at Christ return to the earth to end the age, his time of ruling would necessarily have to be in close proximity to when Christ returns.
By the way, it is at the 5th trumpet when this beast comes up out of the Abyss, when it is opened to let those demonic beings out. He is the angel of the Abyss whose name is Abaddon and Apollyon in the Hebrew and Greek, respectively.
If you have a problem with God fulfilling scripture in gaps of time, let me know and I will show you another one that has a 2,700 year gap in partial fulfillment.
"The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction."
Below is where and how he goes to his destruction:
"But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
Those first seven kings come in chronological order and I might add that only seven kings are mentioned. The eighth king is that beast that comes up out of the Abyss. And since he is destroyed at Christ return to the earth to end the age, his time of ruling would necessarily have to be in close proximity to when Christ returns.
By the way, it is at the 5th trumpet when this beast comes up out of the Abyss, when it is opened to let those demonic beings out. He is the angel of the Abyss whose name is Abaddon and Apollyon in the Hebrew and Greek, respectively.
If you have a problem with God fulfilling scripture in gaps of time, let me know and I will show you another one that has a 2,700 year gap in partial fulfillment.
I am curious enough to ask --- what, specifically, are you referring to? 
Hello GaryA,
Well, since you asked, I'd be happy to share. While Jesus was in the Synagogue in Nazareth, the following took place:
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
In the scripture above, Jesus quotes Isaiah 61:1-2. Below is the actual scripture that Jesus quoted:
"The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,[SUP]a[/SUP]to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God,to comfort all who mourn,
If you compare the scripture from Luke 4:18 and Isaiah 61:1-2, when Jesus read the scripture, He left off reading the last part of the verse which says "and the day of vengeance of our God." And the reason that He didn't quote that part of the scripture, is because that part of the prophecy had not been fulfilled and in fact it still has not been fulfilled. For the "day of vengeance of our God" is referring to the wrath of God, which is the time when the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments will be poured out and specifically the time of Jacob's trouble which is that last 3 1/2 years of that last seven year period when the antichrist puts a stop to the sacrifices and offerings and sets up that abomination and proclaims himself to be God.
The last 3 1/2 years are not what is separated, But the seventieth seven or that last seven years that was decreed upon Israel and their holy city, Jerusalem. No, it does not all fit together. We have no fulfillment of the antichrist making his seven year covenant nor do we have the abomination being set up nor the antichrist capturing Jerusalem and standing in the temple proclaiming himself to be God. Also, that last seven years is directly related to the Lord's return to end the age and establish his millennial kingdom. During that seven years is also when the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, which are the wrath of God, will be poured out and that certainly hasn't happened.
That last seven years will begin after the church has been removed from the earth and will be initiated when the the AC will make his seven year covenant with Israel. It's not a matter of twisting it apart, but is a matter of fulfillment.
That last seven years will begin after the church has been removed from the earth and will be initiated when the the AC will make his seven year covenant with Israel. It's not a matter of twisting it apart, but is a matter of fulfillment.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The following is not exactly an insult, but an attempt to dramatize the [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]point for clarity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Regarding earlier comments about not caring what dead men have had to say about about a Bible topic: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Making such such a statement indicates a presumption that such men have not studied the Bible as thoroughly as the one making the statement. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]When I made the original posts, I thought it best to post one paragraph condensing the conclusion of each scholar rather than expecting the reader to wade through countless pages of minute Bible study that led to the conclusion I posted.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Someone declaring all of their conclusions invalid because they are all dead and/or because I did not include the hundreds of pages they produced to explain the results of their Bible study is, in my opinion, a self-righteous excuse to ignore what they had to say.[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Self-righteous” because one is presuming that the depth of ones own understanding of the Bible is so far superior to the scholars quoted, that one has no need to even read what they said, let alone respect the conclusions of their countless years of in depth Bible study.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Someone who is sincerely seeking the truth of a Bible topic will not be quick to discredit the conclusions of two millenia worth of highly respected orthodox evangelical Bible scholars in favor of ones own far more limited opinion of what a few verses might mean when he reads them a few times to himself.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In my reading of such a blanket denial of the value of well respected theologians throughout the centuries, I cannot help but wonder if such a denier thinks that only he can understand the Bible correctly (the provable presumption of all Dispensationalists), or if he is simply trying to discredit the fact that his position is contrary to that of the historic orthodox evangelical church of the last 2,000 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]point for clarity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Regarding earlier comments about not caring what dead men have had to say about about a Bible topic: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Making such such a statement indicates a presumption that such men have not studied the Bible as thoroughly as the one making the statement. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]When I made the original posts, I thought it best to post one paragraph condensing the conclusion of each scholar rather than expecting the reader to wade through countless pages of minute Bible study that led to the conclusion I posted.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Someone declaring all of their conclusions invalid because they are all dead and/or because I did not include the hundreds of pages they produced to explain the results of their Bible study is, in my opinion, a self-righteous excuse to ignore what they had to say.[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Self-righteous” because one is presuming that the depth of ones own understanding of the Bible is so far superior to the scholars quoted, that one has no need to even read what they said, let alone respect the conclusions of their countless years of in depth Bible study.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Someone who is sincerely seeking the truth of a Bible topic will not be quick to discredit the conclusions of two millenia worth of highly respected orthodox evangelical Bible scholars in favor of ones own far more limited opinion of what a few verses might mean when he reads them a few times to himself.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In my reading of such a blanket denial of the value of well respected theologians throughout the centuries, I cannot help but wonder if such a denier thinks that only he can understand the Bible correctly (the provable presumption of all Dispensationalists), or if he is simply trying to discredit the fact that his position is contrary to that of the historic orthodox evangelical church of the last 2,000 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]PART ONE[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The following is a rough outline of a chapter of a book I was trying to write some 25-30 years ago. I don’t apologize for the formalized style of the writing. The target audience was something other than a few folks on a Christian chat website.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]1 Cor 4:6b "'Do not go beyond what is written.' Then you will not take pride in one man over against another."[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Daniel's Seventieth Week[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The seven year time period taught by Dispensationalists comes from a specific interpretation of one verse found in Daniel 9:27. The verse reads, "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven,' [or week] but in the middle of that 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And one who causes desolation will place abominations on a wing of the temple until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The dispensational interpretation of Daniel's 70th week says that this is a seven year period which will be fulfilled by anti-Christ making a seven year covenant with the Jews. This view says that the 70th week is as yet unfulfilled, therefore the various mentionings of 3 1/2 year periods (Dan. 7:25; 12:7; 12:11-12; Rev 11:2b-3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5) must in some way complete the seven year period of Dan. 9:27. However, Dispensationalists have no agreement on which passages apply to which half of the seven years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Determining which periods coincide and which follow generally seems to be a function of the specific scholar's personal opinion. Thus we have equally competent and respected scholars holding substantially divergent views on the nature and sequence of events of the final period of this earth's history before our Lord's glorious return. Is there a way to reconcile these variances and reach a scholarly, historical, and unequivocally biblical view?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]When one seeks other Bible verses [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]other than[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] Dn 9:27 to confirm the length of the tribulation and the reign of antichrist he finds a complete absence of anything referring to either a seven year period of distress or of an end time covenant. Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that anti-Christ makes a covenant with anyone, nor is there any reference anywhere to anti-Christ doing anything for a seven year period. He is only mentioned in the context of three and a half years. (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:5) In these passages his interest is directed toward the saints, which according to New Testament theology, is simply another name for Christians, i.e. the church. He does appear to take some interest in the Jews in Rev. 12, (for 3 1/2 years incidentally) but it certainly can't be construed as confirming a covenant with them, seven years or otherwise.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]How historic is this popular opinion? It is possible to determine where this view originated and, thereby, determine its historic orthodoxy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The Dispensationalist author Henry Ironside gives us a clue about who came up with the idea of Daniel’s 70[SUP]th[/SUP] week being reinterpreted to apply to the anti-Christ instead of Christ.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]When at the Powerscourt meetings the idea of the canceled seventieth week of Daniel, beginning after the rapture of the church, was suggested by Sir Edward Denny and Mr. Darby, it was readily accepted as the key to the prophecies... [Ironside, p.32][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]However, like the pre-trib rapture, this too seems to have come from the Albury Prophesy conferences.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]1827 edition of Dialogues on Prophecy:[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Theologus - It appears, likewise, that the state of the Jews, just previous to their final establishment, i.e. between their first partial, and subsequent complete settlement, is expressed by Daniel, when he says that the covenant shall be restored for one week; and it is during this interval that, in all probability, the Jewish fullness will be completed. [Dialogs on Prophecy V2, p50][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]This may be the first time Daniel's 70th Week was ever applied to the antichristian tribulation period. Heretofore, it seems - from the author’s research so far - that anytime this "week" was applied in a relatively literal sense to a period of time, it was applied to Christ who set up the New Covenant with many.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]What has been the historic interpretation for Daniel's seventieth week? Are there historic and respected alternative views of to whom, or what, the seventieth week might apply? If so, a seven year tribulation must be reevaluated.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]A common historic and orthodox interpretation is to view Daniel's seventieth week as applying to Christ. Those who hold this view say that the sixty-nine weeks that are also a part of this prophecy ended with the baptism of Jesus, and that the seventieth week began with the Holy Spirit anointing him at his baptism. This view says that the purpose of Christ's ministry was to confirm the God's new covenant of grace with many, and that after three and a half years he put an end to sacrifice and offering.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](The Dispensationalists have strongly taught against covenentalism because the more one understands what the Bible teaches about the New Covenant, the more one sees how Danial 9:27 applies to Messiah, not the Darby dispensationalism antichrist.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]A very few of the many scholars of the past who have suggested this interpretation include: [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]John Calvin (1509-1564): Now, therefore, we understand why the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week, and why that week was placed last in order. In this week will he confirm the covenant with many. [Meyers, p.225] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Matthew Henry (1662-1714): He shall introduce a new covenant between God and man, a covenant of grace... By offering himself a sacrifice once for all he shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices. [Henry, p.1094-5] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Irah Chase D.D.: The whole period of which we are treating is distributed into three portions. The first consists of seven year-weeks; the second, of sixty-two; and the third, of one. The first ends with the complete restoration of the city; the second with the public appearing of the Messiah; and the third with the full confirming of the new covenant. This last portion is divided into two parts. In the midst of it the great propitiatory sacrifice was offered, which, in effect was to supersede all the offerings of the Jewish ritual. [Chase, p.76][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Edward B. Pusey: At a time within the 490 years, but after the first 483, i.e. in the last 7, Messiah was to be cut off; in the midst of those 7, he was to make sacrifice to cease, but to confirm a covenant, not with all, but with the many; transgression, sin, iniquity were to be effaced: everlasting righteousness was to be brought in;... He is to confirm the covenant with many; and this covenant must be plainly a new covenant, since the typical atonements for sin were to be abolished. [Pusey, p.201] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He speaks not of a temporary suspension of sacrifices, but of the entire abolition of all which had been offered hitherto, the sacrifice, with the shedding of blood, and the oblation, the unbloody sacrifice which was its complement. These the Messiah was to make to cease three years and a half after that new covenant began. [Pusey, p.192][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]W.S. Auchincloss, C.E.: This "one week" was divided into 2 parts of 3 1/2 years each. The first half covered the Ministry of the Messiah. [Auchincloss, p.70] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Edward J. Young, Th.M. Ph.D.: For the period of the 70th seven the Messiah causes a covenant to prevail for many, and in the half of this seven by His death He causes the Jewish sacrifices and oblation to cease. His death is thus seen to belong within the 70th seven. [Young, p.220][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]John Cumming D.D.: In the first seven weeks the city was to be built, in the sixty-two weeks the Messiah was to be manifested, in the middle of the remaining week the Messiah was to be cut off. [Cumming, p.381] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]But the best proof of it is, that when he should thus die and be cut off, the prophecy was fulfilled that the offering and the oblation should cease. It is said, "And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease," [Cumming, p.391] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]H. Deane: ...in the midst of the last week, Messiah shall make a firm covenant with many, and make the sacrifices of the Law cease. ... The Messiah shall, says Daniel, "confirm the covenant with many for one week." Need we doubt what this covenant is? It is the covenant of Grace, the promise of the Holy Spirit foretold by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. [Deane, p.157] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]J. Barton Payne: (Christ is the) embodiment of the redemptive testament of God. As the Servant of Yahweh, He proclaimed the gospel to Israel during his 3 1/2-year ministry (Isa 42:1-4, Mt 12:17-21), thus confirming to them the grace of the divine testament [covenant] (Isa 42:6). Next, upon Calvary, He brought to a close the OT economy of redemption, rending the veil of the temple (Mt 27:51) and causing legitimate typical sacrifice once and for all to cease (Heb 9:12). [Payne, p.388][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]According to the above, it is not necessary to dogmatically assume that Daniel's 70th week applies exclusively to the tribulation before the return of Christ. It is possible for responsible theologians to consider Daniel's 70th week to apply to Christ's confirmation of the new covenant. This is an historic position of the orthodox Christian church supported by theologians for two millennia and can be considered a reasonable possibility. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The following is a rough outline of a chapter of a book I was trying to write some 25-30 years ago. I don’t apologize for the formalized style of the writing. The target audience was something other than a few folks on a Christian chat website.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]1 Cor 4:6b "'Do not go beyond what is written.' Then you will not take pride in one man over against another."[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Daniel's Seventieth Week[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The seven year time period taught by Dispensationalists comes from a specific interpretation of one verse found in Daniel 9:27. The verse reads, "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven,' [or week] but in the middle of that 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And one who causes desolation will place abominations on a wing of the temple until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The dispensational interpretation of Daniel's 70th week says that this is a seven year period which will be fulfilled by anti-Christ making a seven year covenant with the Jews. This view says that the 70th week is as yet unfulfilled, therefore the various mentionings of 3 1/2 year periods (Dan. 7:25; 12:7; 12:11-12; Rev 11:2b-3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5) must in some way complete the seven year period of Dan. 9:27. However, Dispensationalists have no agreement on which passages apply to which half of the seven years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Determining which periods coincide and which follow generally seems to be a function of the specific scholar's personal opinion. Thus we have equally competent and respected scholars holding substantially divergent views on the nature and sequence of events of the final period of this earth's history before our Lord's glorious return. Is there a way to reconcile these variances and reach a scholarly, historical, and unequivocally biblical view?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]When one seeks other Bible verses [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]other than[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] Dn 9:27 to confirm the length of the tribulation and the reign of antichrist he finds a complete absence of anything referring to either a seven year period of distress or of an end time covenant. Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that anti-Christ makes a covenant with anyone, nor is there any reference anywhere to anti-Christ doing anything for a seven year period. He is only mentioned in the context of three and a half years. (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:5) In these passages his interest is directed toward the saints, which according to New Testament theology, is simply another name for Christians, i.e. the church. He does appear to take some interest in the Jews in Rev. 12, (for 3 1/2 years incidentally) but it certainly can't be construed as confirming a covenant with them, seven years or otherwise.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]How historic is this popular opinion? It is possible to determine where this view originated and, thereby, determine its historic orthodoxy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The Dispensationalist author Henry Ironside gives us a clue about who came up with the idea of Daniel’s 70[SUP]th[/SUP] week being reinterpreted to apply to the anti-Christ instead of Christ.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]When at the Powerscourt meetings the idea of the canceled seventieth week of Daniel, beginning after the rapture of the church, was suggested by Sir Edward Denny and Mr. Darby, it was readily accepted as the key to the prophecies... [Ironside, p.32][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]However, like the pre-trib rapture, this too seems to have come from the Albury Prophesy conferences.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]1827 edition of Dialogues on Prophecy:[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Theologus - It appears, likewise, that the state of the Jews, just previous to their final establishment, i.e. between their first partial, and subsequent complete settlement, is expressed by Daniel, when he says that the covenant shall be restored for one week; and it is during this interval that, in all probability, the Jewish fullness will be completed. [Dialogs on Prophecy V2, p50][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]This may be the first time Daniel's 70th Week was ever applied to the antichristian tribulation period. Heretofore, it seems - from the author’s research so far - that anytime this "week" was applied in a relatively literal sense to a period of time, it was applied to Christ who set up the New Covenant with many.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]What has been the historic interpretation for Daniel's seventieth week? Are there historic and respected alternative views of to whom, or what, the seventieth week might apply? If so, a seven year tribulation must be reevaluated.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]A common historic and orthodox interpretation is to view Daniel's seventieth week as applying to Christ. Those who hold this view say that the sixty-nine weeks that are also a part of this prophecy ended with the baptism of Jesus, and that the seventieth week began with the Holy Spirit anointing him at his baptism. This view says that the purpose of Christ's ministry was to confirm the God's new covenant of grace with many, and that after three and a half years he put an end to sacrifice and offering.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](The Dispensationalists have strongly taught against covenentalism because the more one understands what the Bible teaches about the New Covenant, the more one sees how Danial 9:27 applies to Messiah, not the Darby dispensationalism antichrist.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]A very few of the many scholars of the past who have suggested this interpretation include: [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]John Calvin (1509-1564): Now, therefore, we understand why the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week, and why that week was placed last in order. In this week will he confirm the covenant with many. [Meyers, p.225] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Matthew Henry (1662-1714): He shall introduce a new covenant between God and man, a covenant of grace... By offering himself a sacrifice once for all he shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices. [Henry, p.1094-5] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Irah Chase D.D.: The whole period of which we are treating is distributed into three portions. The first consists of seven year-weeks; the second, of sixty-two; and the third, of one. The first ends with the complete restoration of the city; the second with the public appearing of the Messiah; and the third with the full confirming of the new covenant. This last portion is divided into two parts. In the midst of it the great propitiatory sacrifice was offered, which, in effect was to supersede all the offerings of the Jewish ritual. [Chase, p.76][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Edward B. Pusey: At a time within the 490 years, but after the first 483, i.e. in the last 7, Messiah was to be cut off; in the midst of those 7, he was to make sacrifice to cease, but to confirm a covenant, not with all, but with the many; transgression, sin, iniquity were to be effaced: everlasting righteousness was to be brought in;... He is to confirm the covenant with many; and this covenant must be plainly a new covenant, since the typical atonements for sin were to be abolished. [Pusey, p.201] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He speaks not of a temporary suspension of sacrifices, but of the entire abolition of all which had been offered hitherto, the sacrifice, with the shedding of blood, and the oblation, the unbloody sacrifice which was its complement. These the Messiah was to make to cease three years and a half after that new covenant began. [Pusey, p.192][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]W.S. Auchincloss, C.E.: This "one week" was divided into 2 parts of 3 1/2 years each. The first half covered the Ministry of the Messiah. [Auchincloss, p.70] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Edward J. Young, Th.M. Ph.D.: For the period of the 70th seven the Messiah causes a covenant to prevail for many, and in the half of this seven by His death He causes the Jewish sacrifices and oblation to cease. His death is thus seen to belong within the 70th seven. [Young, p.220][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]John Cumming D.D.: In the first seven weeks the city was to be built, in the sixty-two weeks the Messiah was to be manifested, in the middle of the remaining week the Messiah was to be cut off. [Cumming, p.381] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]But the best proof of it is, that when he should thus die and be cut off, the prophecy was fulfilled that the offering and the oblation should cease. It is said, "And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease," [Cumming, p.391] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]H. Deane: ...in the midst of the last week, Messiah shall make a firm covenant with many, and make the sacrifices of the Law cease. ... The Messiah shall, says Daniel, "confirm the covenant with many for one week." Need we doubt what this covenant is? It is the covenant of Grace, the promise of the Holy Spirit foretold by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. [Deane, p.157] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]J. Barton Payne: (Christ is the) embodiment of the redemptive testament of God. As the Servant of Yahweh, He proclaimed the gospel to Israel during his 3 1/2-year ministry (Isa 42:1-4, Mt 12:17-21), thus confirming to them the grace of the divine testament [covenant] (Isa 42:6). Next, upon Calvary, He brought to a close the OT economy of redemption, rending the veil of the temple (Mt 27:51) and causing legitimate typical sacrifice once and for all to cease (Heb 9:12). [Payne, p.388][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]According to the above, it is not necessary to dogmatically assume that Daniel's 70th week applies exclusively to the tribulation before the return of Christ. It is possible for responsible theologians to consider Daniel's 70th week to apply to Christ's confirmation of the new covenant. This is an historic position of the orthodox Christian church supported by theologians for two millennia and can be considered a reasonable possibility. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]PART TWO[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]What does the Bible say about this idea?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one. - Heb 8:6[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; - Heb 8:13[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. - Heb 9:15[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif][Christ] has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. - Heb 9:26b [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. - Heb 10:8[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]These verses show that Christ confirmed the new covenant during his time on earth (three and a half years) and through the sacrifice of himself, he "put an end to", or as stated in Hebrews 10:8 "set aside", sacrifice and offering.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]If Daniel's seventieth week is prophesying Christ, which is a valid, historically held view, then to dogmatically demand a seven year long tribulation is unjustified. Other than this one verse [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]there is nothing else in the entire Bible whatsoever to indicate a seven year tribulation,[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] or a seven year covenant in any way relating to the antichrist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]There is therefore no need, indeed, no justification, to position some of the three and one half year periods in front of others in order to arrive at a seven year tribulation. The Darby dispensationalist assumption that the tribulation is seven years long is just that, an assumption, and a “new teaching” that, as best as this author can tell, was never heard of before the 1820's. (Corrections are invited if someone can point to it ever existing previous to the Albury Confrences.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]How long might the tribulation period be? The scholars cited earlier generally explain the fulfillment of the second half of Daniel's seventieth week as either applying to a period immediately following Jesus' death when the gospel was heard only by the Jews and ending approximately 3 1/2 years later with the stoning of Stephen or with the conversion of Cornelius whereby the gospel was then made available to the Gentiles, or, they might say that it was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]This writer suggests that these explanations of the second half of the week may be a bit inadequate in that the second half of Daniel 9:27 can be reasonably held to refer to antichrist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]To read Daniel 9:27b in the New International Version (NIV), one might consider this a reasonable possibility. The NIV reads: "And one who causes desolation will place abominations on a wing of the temple until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The Bible is consistent in predicting a three and a half year reign of Antichrist after he proclaims himself God in the holy place, but the question remains, "Is there a three and a half year period before Antichrist proclaims himself God to be worshiped?" [Where does it say he will proclaim himself to be God?] If so, then some argument for a seven year tribulation might be presented. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]However, nothing in the Bible indicates any event to precede the Antichrist's proclamation, nor is there any indication of a seven year tribulational period anywhere in the Bible.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The seven year concept is a misinterpretation of one obscure passage that allowed John Darby to justify his new teaching of a pretribulation rapture.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]John, the author of Revelation, said: [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. (Rev. 13:5-7)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]This indicates that the beast will have authority for forty-two months, but there is no indication of any prior or subsequent 3 1/2 year period taking place.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Another mentioning of 3 1/2 years is found in Rev. 11:3. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth."[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In view of the plagues that these two witnesses call down upon the earth and their similarity with some of the events found in the trumpets and bowls described in Revelation, it's reasonable to consider that this too is a description of the final three and a half years before Christ's return. Nothing in context would require it to precede the three and a half year reign of antichrist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]If John, speaking by supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said nothing about a seven year end times period, why should should we submit to the teachings of Irving and Darby claim that it must be so?[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Should we not let the Bible speak for itself? Should we not ourselves study what the Bible teaches instead of mindlessly accepting the teachings of two “confused” teachers from nearly 200 years ago?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Daniel also spoke to this subject in Chapter 7, verse 25. [/FONT]
“[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Again, only three and a half years are depicted under antichrist,[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] notice also that it's the same three and a half years as described by John because during both the saints are given over to antichrist. [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](Which is, incidentally, a strong argument against a pre-tribulation rapture.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Paul discusses the matter in 2 Thessalonians 2. He says the first thing we'll see in the end of times scenario is the revealing of the man of sin, the man doomed to destruction, i.e., antichrist. As we know, there are only 3 1/2 years after the revealing. [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Paul said nothing about any prior 3 1/2 year period.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In Matthew 24 the disciples ask [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] In response, Jesus describes the deterioration of society and the spread of the Gospel, and then, in verse 15, tells the disciples the sign to look for - "'the abomination that causes desolation' spoken of through the prophet Daniel." [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Jesus, himself, said that the first thing the disciples would see would be 'the abomination that causes desolation'. He said nothing about any prior 3 1/2 year period.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Dispensationalists immediately argue that this verse applies to the Jews and therefore doesn't contradict their "precious hope" of a pre-trib rapture. In Chapter 7 ( or 8?) we show[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]ed[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] that Darby knew that Mt 24 contradicted his pre-tribulational rapture teaching so he came up with the “Jewish interpretation” of Mt 24. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In short, the Darby dispensational teaching that there are “two peoples of God” - the Jews and the Church – is a direct result of Darby needing to disqualify this passage from applying to the Christians during the tribulation.[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif][BETTER TRANSITION??][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Thus, there are at least 3 1/2 years left of Bible prophecy to be fulfilled in the reign of antichrist, before the return of Christ, but no justification, outside of John Darby's mis-interpretation of Daniel 9:27, to propose a seven year tribulation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Since there are still 3 1/2 unfulfilled years left of Daniel's 70th week, and since the second half of the verse that speaks of Daniel's 70th week is speaking of antichrist, it is quite reasonable to consider the possibility of the second half of the week being fulfilled in the 3 1/2 year reign of antichrist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Since many respected scholars hold that the Seventieth week applies to Christ and many just as well respected scholars hold that the Seventieth week applies to Antichrist, is it heresy to suggest that they might both be half right?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Furthermore, since Jesus, himself, and John, and Paul, and Daniel only indicate a three and a half year tribulation followed by the "Harvest of the Saints", this author considers it to be the most likely possibility.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In Mark 13:23b Jesus outlined the end times events and then said, "I have told you everything." But John Darby and his dispensational theologians say he didn't tell us everything, but that he left half of it out, including the most significant event since his Ascension, their pre-tribulation rapture. One would think the more logical position would be to believe Jesus, and Daniel, and John, and Paul, not John Darby and Edward Irving.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]What does the Bible say about this idea?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one. - Heb 8:6[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; - Heb 8:13[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. - Heb 9:15[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif][Christ] has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. - Heb 9:26b [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. - Heb 10:8[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]These verses show that Christ confirmed the new covenant during his time on earth (three and a half years) and through the sacrifice of himself, he "put an end to", or as stated in Hebrews 10:8 "set aside", sacrifice and offering.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]If Daniel's seventieth week is prophesying Christ, which is a valid, historically held view, then to dogmatically demand a seven year long tribulation is unjustified. Other than this one verse [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]there is nothing else in the entire Bible whatsoever to indicate a seven year tribulation,[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] or a seven year covenant in any way relating to the antichrist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]There is therefore no need, indeed, no justification, to position some of the three and one half year periods in front of others in order to arrive at a seven year tribulation. The Darby dispensationalist assumption that the tribulation is seven years long is just that, an assumption, and a “new teaching” that, as best as this author can tell, was never heard of before the 1820's. (Corrections are invited if someone can point to it ever existing previous to the Albury Confrences.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]How long might the tribulation period be? The scholars cited earlier generally explain the fulfillment of the second half of Daniel's seventieth week as either applying to a period immediately following Jesus' death when the gospel was heard only by the Jews and ending approximately 3 1/2 years later with the stoning of Stephen or with the conversion of Cornelius whereby the gospel was then made available to the Gentiles, or, they might say that it was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]This writer suggests that these explanations of the second half of the week may be a bit inadequate in that the second half of Daniel 9:27 can be reasonably held to refer to antichrist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]To read Daniel 9:27b in the New International Version (NIV), one might consider this a reasonable possibility. The NIV reads: "And one who causes desolation will place abominations on a wing of the temple until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The Bible is consistent in predicting a three and a half year reign of Antichrist after he proclaims himself God in the holy place, but the question remains, "Is there a three and a half year period before Antichrist proclaims himself God to be worshiped?" [Where does it say he will proclaim himself to be God?] If so, then some argument for a seven year tribulation might be presented. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]However, nothing in the Bible indicates any event to precede the Antichrist's proclamation, nor is there any indication of a seven year tribulational period anywhere in the Bible.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The seven year concept is a misinterpretation of one obscure passage that allowed John Darby to justify his new teaching of a pretribulation rapture.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]John, the author of Revelation, said: [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. (Rev. 13:5-7)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]This indicates that the beast will have authority for forty-two months, but there is no indication of any prior or subsequent 3 1/2 year period taking place.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Another mentioning of 3 1/2 years is found in Rev. 11:3. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth."[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In view of the plagues that these two witnesses call down upon the earth and their similarity with some of the events found in the trumpets and bowls described in Revelation, it's reasonable to consider that this too is a description of the final three and a half years before Christ's return. Nothing in context would require it to precede the three and a half year reign of antichrist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]If John, speaking by supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said nothing about a seven year end times period, why should should we submit to the teachings of Irving and Darby claim that it must be so?[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Should we not let the Bible speak for itself? Should we not ourselves study what the Bible teaches instead of mindlessly accepting the teachings of two “confused” teachers from nearly 200 years ago?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Daniel also spoke to this subject in Chapter 7, verse 25. [/FONT]
“[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Again, only three and a half years are depicted under antichrist,[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] notice also that it's the same three and a half years as described by John because during both the saints are given over to antichrist. [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](Which is, incidentally, a strong argument against a pre-tribulation rapture.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Paul discusses the matter in 2 Thessalonians 2. He says the first thing we'll see in the end of times scenario is the revealing of the man of sin, the man doomed to destruction, i.e., antichrist. As we know, there are only 3 1/2 years after the revealing. [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Paul said nothing about any prior 3 1/2 year period.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In Matthew 24 the disciples ask [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] In response, Jesus describes the deterioration of society and the spread of the Gospel, and then, in verse 15, tells the disciples the sign to look for - "'the abomination that causes desolation' spoken of through the prophet Daniel." [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Jesus, himself, said that the first thing the disciples would see would be 'the abomination that causes desolation'. He said nothing about any prior 3 1/2 year period.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Dispensationalists immediately argue that this verse applies to the Jews and therefore doesn't contradict their "precious hope" of a pre-trib rapture. In Chapter 7 ( or 8?) we show[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]ed[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] that Darby knew that Mt 24 contradicted his pre-tribulational rapture teaching so he came up with the “Jewish interpretation” of Mt 24. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In short, the Darby dispensational teaching that there are “two peoples of God” - the Jews and the Church – is a direct result of Darby needing to disqualify this passage from applying to the Christians during the tribulation.[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif][BETTER TRANSITION??][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Thus, there are at least 3 1/2 years left of Bible prophecy to be fulfilled in the reign of antichrist, before the return of Christ, but no justification, outside of John Darby's mis-interpretation of Daniel 9:27, to propose a seven year tribulation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Since there are still 3 1/2 unfulfilled years left of Daniel's 70th week, and since the second half of the verse that speaks of Daniel's 70th week is speaking of antichrist, it is quite reasonable to consider the possibility of the second half of the week being fulfilled in the 3 1/2 year reign of antichrist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Since many respected scholars hold that the Seventieth week applies to Christ and many just as well respected scholars hold that the Seventieth week applies to Antichrist, is it heresy to suggest that they might both be half right?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Furthermore, since Jesus, himself, and John, and Paul, and Daniel only indicate a three and a half year tribulation followed by the "Harvest of the Saints", this author considers it to be the most likely possibility.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In Mark 13:23b Jesus outlined the end times events and then said, "I have told you everything." But John Darby and his dispensational theologians say he didn't tell us everything, but that he left half of it out, including the most significant event since his Ascension, their pre-tribulation rapture. One would think the more logical position would be to believe Jesus, and Daniel, and John, and Paul, not John Darby and Edward Irving.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]PART THREE[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]But is this an historically consistent position? Can any support of this position be found in the writings of the church fathers?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Irenaeus (120-202) was a[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] disciple of Polycarp [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif][confirm][/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] who was a disciple of the apostle John, [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]who most likely wrote the book of Revelation. [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](How much closer to the original source must one get to understand John's teaching?)[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Irenaeus only wrote of a 3 1/2 year tribulation.[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]And then he [Daniel] points out the time that his [Antichrist's] tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: "And in the midst of the week," he says, "the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete." Now three years and six months constitute the half-week. [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p.554][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Irenaeus did not say Antichrist would be in power for seven years. He said Antichrist's tyranny would last 3 1/2 years. He does not say the tribulation will be seven years long. He quotes part of Daniel 9:27 in order to establish a time frame within which to identify the length of the second half of the week, the tribulation. This is obviously the time of the abomination of desolation, the antichrist. He said nothing about a seven year tribulation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]His disciple Hippolytus (160-240) seemed to say the same thing. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Now concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary ...That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church. [Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 60,61). / Gundry, p.176][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](What's the full quote?)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Another church father who seems to support this position is Justin Martyr, (110-165). [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High. But you being ignorant of how long he will have dominion, hold another opinion. For you interpret the 'time' as being a hundred years. But if this is so, the man of sin must, at the shortest, reign three hundred and fifty years, in order that we may compute that which is said by the holy Daniel. [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p.210][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Here Justin is speaking with the Jew, Trypho, and makes it very clear that he expects antichrist to reign for three and a half years, instead of 350 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]These early church fathers were anticipating only a 3 1/2 year period of tribulation under antichrist. They weren't looking for a tribulation twice as long, as John Darby and Edward Irving taught 1500 years later.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In conclusion, this writer submits that the only support for a seven year tribulation is found in the debatable interpretation of one verse, which comes from the questionable theology developed by John Darby who got the idea from Edward Irving.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Many responsible theologians, including Justin Martyr, John Calvin and Matthew Henry, have considered Daniel's seventieth week to apply to Christ, not antichrist. Therefore, one need not unconditionally assume a seven year tribulational period. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Furthermore, it is reasonable and acceptable to consider the possibility of a three and a half year period as the time of the Great Tribulation, which is what the Old and New Testament verses seem to indicate and also appears to be what several of the early church fathers have taught. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]But is this an historically consistent position? Can any support of this position be found in the writings of the church fathers?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Irenaeus (120-202) was a[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] disciple of Polycarp [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif][confirm][/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] who was a disciple of the apostle John, [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]who most likely wrote the book of Revelation. [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](How much closer to the original source must one get to understand John's teaching?)[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Irenaeus only wrote of a 3 1/2 year tribulation.[/FONT][FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]And then he [Daniel] points out the time that his [Antichrist's] tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: "And in the midst of the week," he says, "the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete." Now three years and six months constitute the half-week. [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p.554][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Irenaeus did not say Antichrist would be in power for seven years. He said Antichrist's tyranny would last 3 1/2 years. He does not say the tribulation will be seven years long. He quotes part of Daniel 9:27 in order to establish a time frame within which to identify the length of the second half of the week, the tribulation. This is obviously the time of the abomination of desolation, the antichrist. He said nothing about a seven year tribulation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]His disciple Hippolytus (160-240) seemed to say the same thing. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Now concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary ...That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church. [Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 60,61). / Gundry, p.176][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](What's the full quote?)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Another church father who seems to support this position is Justin Martyr, (110-165). [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High. But you being ignorant of how long he will have dominion, hold another opinion. For you interpret the 'time' as being a hundred years. But if this is so, the man of sin must, at the shortest, reign three hundred and fifty years, in order that we may compute that which is said by the holy Daniel. [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p.210][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Here Justin is speaking with the Jew, Trypho, and makes it very clear that he expects antichrist to reign for three and a half years, instead of 350 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]These early church fathers were anticipating only a 3 1/2 year period of tribulation under antichrist. They weren't looking for a tribulation twice as long, as John Darby and Edward Irving taught 1500 years later.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In conclusion, this writer submits that the only support for a seven year tribulation is found in the debatable interpretation of one verse, which comes from the questionable theology developed by John Darby who got the idea from Edward Irving.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Many responsible theologians, including Justin Martyr, John Calvin and Matthew Henry, have considered Daniel's seventieth week to apply to Christ, not antichrist. Therefore, one need not unconditionally assume a seven year tribulational period. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Furthermore, it is reasonable and acceptable to consider the possibility of a three and a half year period as the time of the Great Tribulation, which is what the Old and New Testament verses seem to indicate and also appears to be what several of the early church fathers have taught. [/FONT]
P
You miss the point.
1) there was error amongst them. So your assertion of " early saints can not be wrong" is absurd.
2) no matter what quotes you can come up with,just as all error from every source,a bible Berean is going to test it. That is what we do.
3) you saw where Wycliffe MISQUOTED SCRIPTURE. I showed you that.
That right there should be a massive red flag to any Berean.
BTW,why do post tribs take that strategy over the word?
1) there was error amongst them. So your assertion of " early saints can not be wrong" is absurd.
2) no matter what quotes you can come up with,just as all error from every source,a bible Berean is going to test it. That is what we do.
3) you saw where Wycliffe MISQUOTED SCRIPTURE. I showed you that.
That right there should be a massive red flag to any Berean.
BTW,why do post tribs take that strategy over the word?
Last edited: