[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]