Darby vs Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Wesley, et al

[DavidAReed]

Before quickly accepting the "Left Behind" view of the end times, I would encourage fellow Christians to examine the well-established understanding of the 'weeks' in Daniel 9 that was subscribed to by Luther, Calvin, Knox, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Wesley, Spurgeon and others. Unlike Darby, with his 'gap' lasting for centuries, they all saw the 70th week as following immediately after the 69 weeks.

For example, Martin Luther:

“For when Christ sent out the Gospel through the ministry of himself and of the Apostles, it lasted three or three and a half years, that it almost amounts to the calculation of Daniel, namely the 490 years. Hence he also says, Christ shall take a half a week, in which the daily offerings shall cease; that is, the priesthood and reign of the Jews shall have an end; which all took place in the three and a half years in which Christ preached, and was almost completed in four years after Christ, in which the Gospel prospered the most, especially in Palestine through the Apostles (that when they opened their mouth, the Holy Ghost fell as it were, from heaven, as we see in the Acts of the Apostles), so that a whole week, or seven years, established the covenant, as Daniel says; that is, the Gospel was preached to the Jews, of which we spoke before.” (Martin Luther's “Sermon for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity; Matthew 24:15-28” from his Church Postil, first published in 1525)

Calvin understood it in the same way, that the middle of that last ‘week’ came at the time of Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross:

“The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week. ...the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week...” (Lecture Fifty-First)

“In the last Lecture we explained how Christ confirmed the covenant with many during the last week...” (Lecture Fifty-Second)

“The Prophet now subjoins, He will make to cease the sacrifice and offering for half a week. We ought to refer this to the time of the resurrection. For while Christ passed through the period of his life on earth, he did not put an end to the sacrifices; but after he had offered himself up as a victim, then all the rites of the law came to a close. ...This is the Prophet's intention when he says, Christ should cause the sacrifices to cease for half a week. ...Christ really and effectually put an end to the sacrifices of the Law...” (Lecture Fifty-Second, Commentary on Daniel - Volume 2 by John Calvin)

In their view, the Tribulation lasted for centuries, encompassing the suffering of the Jews and/or the Church down through history.

This view lets us see the Holocaust as foretold in Scripture, and the modern state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy -- unlike the "Left Behind" view.

It also lets us see Islam as the antichrist who now sits in God's place on Temple Mount. (Luther viewed Islam as one of the two legs of the Antichrist, and Calvin spoke of Islam as one of the two horns of Antichrist.)

So, with the world today . . .
- filled with violence like before Noah's Flood,
- and filled with the evil conduct that led to destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,
- and with modern science and technology boasting like Babel before the confusion of the languages,
- and with United Nations threatening Israel and Jerusalem (Zech. 12:3)
. . . we have reason to hope for the imminent return of Christ, the rapture of the Church and the destruction of this wicked world.

David

David

 

[ebedmelech]

Great saints...but just as so many other great saints, they had it wrong. We all have it wrong to varying degrees.

God knew that in His infinite wisdom! Who has known the mind of God?

 

[Biblewriter]

You are not going far enough back. The early church most definitely taught a protracted view of the seventy weeks.

Irenaeus wrote the oldest commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length that has survived to the present. We know about older writers whose works have not been preserved, or who only wrote a very little on Bible prophecy. but Irenaeus devoted the last twelve chapters of his famous work titled "Against Heresies," entirely to end time prophecy. (This is thought to have been published between the years 186 and 188.A.D. The vast majority of these twelve chapters sound like they might have been written last week at any large modern dispensational seminary. In this work, Irenaeus said:

“And then he points out the time that his 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.” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 4.)

Hyppolytus wrote much more clearly on this in the very oldest commentary on scripture which has survived to the present day. This was a commentary on Daniel which is thought to have been written between 202 and 211 A.D. Hyppolytus wrote:

“For after sixty-two weeks was fulfilled and after Christ has come and the Gospel has been preached in every place, times having been spun out, the end remains one week away, in which Elijah and Enoch shall be present and in its half the abomination of desolation, the Antichrist, shall appear who threatens desolation of the world. After he comes, sacrifice and drink offering, which now in every way is offered by the nations to God, shall be taken away.” (“Commentary on Daniel”, by Hyppolytus, Book 4, chapter 35, paragraph 3. From the translation by T. C. Schmidt. - available online at http://www.chronicon.net.)

A few chapters later, Hyppolytus further wrote:

“Just as also he spoke to Daniel, “And he shall establish a covenant with many for one week and it will be that in the half of the week he shall take away my sacrifice and drink offering,” so that the one week may be shown as divided into two, after the two witnesses will have preached for three and a half years, the Antichrist will wage war against the saints the remainder of the week and will desolate all the world so that what was spoken may be fulfilled, “And they will give the abomination of desolation one thousand two hundred ninety days. Blessed is he who endures to Christ and reaches the one thousand three hundred thirty-five days!” (“Commentary on Daniel”, by Hyppolytus, Book 4, chapter 50, paragraph 2. From the translation by T. C. Schmidt. - available online at http://www.chronicon.net.)

So Hyppolytus not only taught that Daniel’s seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future. He said “the one week may be shown as divided in two.” And then said, “after the two witnesses will have preached for three and a half years, the Antichrist will wage war against the saints the remainder of the week.”

Clement of Alexandria, who wrote a little on Bible prophecy between the times of these two, also taught a break before the end of the seventieth week, but he thought the last half of the seventieth week was the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman General Titus.

But more light is shed on this subject by Jerome, who wrote in the fifth century that, "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings, ..." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.) Here again we find a doctrine of a future, literal fulfilment of Bible prophecy. But for the present discussion the most significant part of this comment was his allegation that this was “the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian church.”

So we see that a future, literal fulfillment of Bible prophecy was not only taught in the early church, it was taught by the two earliest Christian writers who wrote extensively on the subject and also by an overwhelming majority of the early Christian writers on Bible prophecy.

We have no surviving document teaching Amillennialism or Preterism from earlier than the mid third century, and as we have seen these were not even recognized as true Christian writers as late as the fifth century. And Historism was not invented until well over a thousand years later.

 

[Douggg]

Before quickly accepting the "Left Behind" view of the end times, I would encourage fellow Christians to examine the well-established understanding of the 'weeks' in Daniel 9 that was subscribed to by Luther, Calvin, Knox, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Wesley, Spurgeon and others. Unlike Darby, with his 'gap' lasting for centuries, they all saw the 70th week as following immediately after the 69 weeks.

For example, Martin Luther:

Calvin understood it in the same way, that the middle of that last ‘week’ came at the time of Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross:

In their view, the Tribulation lasted for centuries, encompassing the suffering of the Jews and/or the Church down through history.

This view lets us see the Holocaust as foretold in Scripture, and the modern state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy -- unlike the "Left Behind" view.

It also lets us see Islam as the antichrist who now sits in God's place on Temple Mount. (Luther viewed Islam as one of the two legs of the Antichrist, and Calvin spoke of Islam as one of the two horns of Antichrist.)

So, with the world today . . .
- filled with violence like before Noah's Flood,
- and filled with the evil conduct that led to destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,
- and with modern science and technology boasting like Babel before the confusion of the languages,
- and with United Nations threatening Israel and Jerusalem (Zech. 12:3)
. . . we have reason to hope for the imminent return of Christ, the rapture of the Church and the destruction of this wicked world.

David

David

David, "The" messiah is the promised King of Israel, son of David - the one God sent to be that King was Jesus. But was rejected and crucified.

The Anti-messiah will be the illicit King of Israel, son of David. The last king of Israel, the united country, was Solomon.

The disciples had hoped that Jesus would restore the country to it's undivided prior state, like it had been in Solomon's day. But Jesus was crucified. After being resurrected, as he was about to ascend to heaven - the disciples asked him, are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel at this time?

Jesus told them it was not for them to know the times and season - which since it hasn't happened, is why there is the gap. In 1948/1967, God restored Israel as the one nation - which until then, it was not possible for the Antichrist to arrive, because he has to be the King of Israel, son of David - the undivided country, embraced by the Jews as such, for a short period of time.

Islam, nor the Mahdi, nor the Pope, nor the office of Pope can be the King of Israel, son of David messiah.... therefore, cannot be the Antichrist.

 

[Bible2]

Douggg said in post 4:

The Anti-messiah will be the illicit King of Israel, son of David.

"Anti"-Christ can simply refer to anyone who is "against" the true Christ, as in anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22), or denies that Jesus is the human/divine Son of God (1 John 2:22b), or denies that Christ is in the flesh (2 John 1:7). The spirit of antichrist (1 John 4:3) has been working since the first century AD (2 Thessalonians 2:7), animating many antichrists since that time (1 John 2:18; 2 John 1:7).

Note that nothing requires that the Antichrist will ever claim to be the Messiah/Christ. For his antichrist denial that Christ is in the flesh (1 John 4:3) will disqualify him as a mortal-flesh human (under his mistaken Gnostic doctrine) from being Christ. Instead, the non-mortal-flesh Lucifer (Satan, the dragon) could be the false Christ (i.e. the "Lucifer" Christ, and not the "Jesus" Christ: 1 John 2:22) during the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9), which will be in the latter half of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24.

But none of this means there won't also be multiple, human false Christs who will arise during the tribulation (Matthew 24:24), including one who will be an ultra-Orthodox Jewish false Christ/Messiah. For shortly after the start of the tribulation, the Antichrist could "cut" a peace treaty with an ultra-Orthodox Jewish false "Messiah" (Daniel 9:26a, Daniel 11:22-23a), promising this false Messiah and his ultra-Orthodox Jewish followers that they can keep for at least 7 more years (Daniel 9:27a) a 3rd Jewish temple (Revelation 11:1) which they will have built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

 

[Bible2]

DavidAReed said in post 1:

Unlike Darby, with his 'gap' lasting for centuries, they all saw the 70th week as following immediately after the 69 weeks.

Even in preterism, there was a gap of decades between the first century AD fulfillment of Daniel 9:26a and the first century AD fulfillment of Daniel 9:26b. For first century AD Jerusalem wasn't destroyed until 70 AD, some decades after the Crucifixion. Also, there will be a gap of about 7 years between the future fulfillment of Daniel 9:26a and the future fulfillment of Daniel 9:26b. For the current Jerusalem won't be destroyed until right before and at Jesus' never-fulfilled 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21), about 7 years after the Antichrist "cuts" a 7-year treaty (Daniel 9:26a,27a) with a future, ultra-Orthodox Jewish false "Messiah" (Daniel 9:26a, Daniel 11:22-23a) who will be ruling Jerusalem.

 

[DavidAReed]

When I was researching for the book Left Behind Answered Verse by Verse I concluded that the early church writers views on eschatology were all over the map -- just as varied as the views found among Christians today.

If you compare the end times views of the Didache , Mathetes, The Shepherd of Hermas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, Aristides, Barnabus, Justin, Irenaeus, Polycrates, Aviricius Marcellus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Hegesippus, Melito, Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, Claudius Apollinaris, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Nepos, Origen, Cyprian, Minucius Felix, Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, Commodianus, Lucian Presbyter of Antioch, the Council of Elvira, Bishop of Olympus, and Eusebius, I believe you will find the differences staggering.

Just as when we study eschatology today, we must ultimately rely upon "Scripture alone" as Luther said.

 

[Biblewriter]

When I was researching for the book Left Behind Answered Verse by Verse I concluded that the early church writers views on eschatology were all over the map -- just as varied as the views found among Christians today.

If you compare the end times views of the Didache , Mathetes, The Shepherd of Hermas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, Aristides, Barnabus, Justin, Irenaeus, Polycrates, Aviricius Marcellus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Hegesippus, Melito, Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, Claudius Apollinaris, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Nepos, Origen, Cyprian, Minucius Felix, Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, Commodianus, Lucian Presbyter of Antioch, the Council of Elvira, Bishop of Olympus, and Eusebius, I believe you will find the differences staggering.

Just as when we study eschatology today, we must ultimately rely upon "Scripture alone" as Luther said.

Actually, the views expressed before at least close to the mid third century are relatively uniform. But we cannot rely upon the views of any man. We must always depend on scripture, and scripture alone.

 

[DavidAReed]

Actually, the views expressed before at least close to the mid third century are relatively uniform. But we cannot rely upon the views of any man. We must always depend on scripture, and scripture alone.

Amen to depending on Scripture alone!

And, while we may take different views on the details, we all look forward eagerly to the return of Christ.

David

 

[Dale]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Douggg in post #4:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]<< The Anti-messiah will be the illicit King of Israel, son of David.[/FONT]
&#8230;
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 1948/1967, God restored Israel as the one nation - which until then, it was not possible for the Antichrist to arrive, because he has to be the King of Israel, son of David - the undivided country, embraced by the Jews as such, for a short period of time.

Islam, nor the Mahdi, nor the Pope, nor the office of Pope can be the King of Israel, son of David messiah.... therefore, cannot be the Antichrist. >>[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Huh? Where did that come from? Why would I believe the coming antichrist is a king of Israel? In Daniel 11, the coming antichrist is the King of the North.[/FONT]




[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*[/FONT]

 

[Douggg]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Douggg in post #4:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]<< The Anti-messiah will be the illicit King of Israel, son of David.[/FONT]
…
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 1948/1967, God restored Israel as the one nation - which until then, it was not possible for the Antichrist to arrive, because he has to be the King of Israel, son of David - the undivided country, embraced by the Jews as such, for a short period of time.

Islam, nor the Mahdi, nor the Pope, nor the office of Pope can be the King of Israel, son of David messiah.... therefore, cannot be the Antichrist. >>[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Huh? Where did that come from? Why would I believe the coming antichrist is a king of Israel? In Daniel 11, the coming antichrist is the King of the North.[/FONT]

Dale, in 1John2:18, them who John was speaking to had already heard that Antichrist shall come.

John and the rest of the disciples were out spreading the gospel. John's letter was to one of the churches, but in the text it didn't say which church.

Nonetheless they were aware that the Jews had rejected Jesus as being the long awaited King of Israel, son of David, messiah (christ). The Antichrist is someone those early believers would have understood to be the another that Jesus told Nicodemus that they (the Jews) would accept, instead of him.

What the apostles did not write about was the Antichrist being the king of the north. Nor is "being the king of the north" reasonable to consider of what there already being "antichrists" appearing that denied Jesus was God come in the flesh.

Why would have the early believers have linked the King of the north with being the Antichrist? There was nothing that they were told of him being the King of the north. And there is nothing in the new testament that anyone considered the Antichrist as being the King of the north.

And actually the Antichrist is not the King of the north, but that is another issue.

 

[Biblewriter]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Huh? Where did that come from? Why would I believe the coming antichrist is a king of Israel? In Daniel 11, the coming antichrist is the King of the North.[/FONT]

Many have attached the concept of the Antichrist to any and every "bad guy" they find in Bible prophecy. Most think he is the Roman "Beast," but some, like you, think he is the King of the North. But both are incorrect. The word "Antichrist" does not mean an extremely evil Person. It means someone who is directly opposed to Christ, the anti-messiah, a false Messiah. This has to be the end time king of Judah.

The problem here is failing to distinguish between the different "bad guys" in end time prophecy. There are five of them. They are:

1 "the king." This is the end time king of Judea, which is now called Israel, and is also the "false prophet" of the Revelation. Many think he cannot be the Antichrist because He tells men to worship "the Beast." But they forget that the real Christ told men to worship the Father. So the false Christ also tells men to worship someone else. But even as the real Christ also said He was God, the false Christ also claims to be God, even sitting as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

2 "the prince that shall come." This is the end time ruler of the revived Roman Empire, and is called "the Beast" in the Revelation.

3 "the Assyrian." This is the end time ruler of Assyria, and is also "the king of the north" of Daniel 11. To see this, compare a map of the ancient Assyrian Empire with a map of the much less ancient Selucid Empire ("the king of the north.") You will see that, aside from a few sparsely areas around the edges, these two ancient empires covered the same area, some hundreds of years apart.

4 "the King of the south" This is the end time ruler of Egypt.

5 "Gog." This is the end time ruler of Russia.

Until these different individuals are understood, it will remain impossible to even begin to understand the end time scenario in the Bible.

 

[Dale]

Biblewriter in post #12:
"Many have attached the concept of the Antichrist to any and every "bad guy" they find in Bible prophecy. Most think he is the Roman "Beast," but some, like you, think he is the King of the North. But both are incorrect. The word "Antichrist" does not mean an extremely evil Person. It means someone who is directly opposed to Christ, the anti-messiah, a false Messiah. This has to be the end time king of Judah."

If it has to be a "king of Judah" why isn't there some Biblical prophecy that points to that? Also, "directly opposed to Christ" doesn't necessarily mean coming from the same area.

*

*

 

[Bible2]

Douggg said in post 11:

Dale, in 1John2:18, them who John was speaking to had already heard that Antichrist shall come.

While 1 John 2:18 says, in the singular, "antichrist shall come", the idea of the individual-man Antichrist (which is correct) isn't based on this verse, for it's referring to the singular antichrist spirit (see the original Greek of 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7). Regarding the "ye have heard" part of 1 John 2:18, those originally addressed in 1 John 2:18 could have already heard through non-written, oral apostolic teaching (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:5) that the antichrist spirit would come.

Douggg said in post 11:

The Antichrist is someone those early believers would have understood to be the another that Jesus told Nicodemus that they (the Jews) would accept, instead of him.

Note that nothing requires John 5:43b refers to the Antichrist, instead of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish false "Messiah" whom the Antichrist will "cut" a 7-year peace treaty with (Daniel 9:26a,27a) after the Antichrist defeats him and his followers (Daniel 11:22-23a).

Anyone who receives the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") can never be saved (Revelation 14:9-11), whereas there will be Jews who will be saved after the time of the Antichrist, at Jesus' 2nd coming (Romans 11:26, Zechariah 12:10-14). Therefore, not all Jews will receive the Antichrist. They could survive his reign by hiding from him. And those in Jerusalem could be protected from him by the two witnesses (Revelation 11:3,5).

In Daniel 9:26, the original Hebrew word (karath, H3772) translated as "cut off" can refer to when a peace treaty/covenant is "made" (Genesis 21:27). The first century AD fulfillment of Daniel 9:26a was at the Crucifixion, when the true Messiah, Jesus, made the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17). The future fulfillment of Daniel 9:26a will be when the Antichrist makes a peace treaty, which will be a fulfillment of the covenant in Daniel 9:27 and the league in Daniel 11:23, with a future, ultra-Orthodox Jewish false Messiah in Jerusalem, after he and his followers are defeated by the Antichrist (Daniel 11:22-23). So the future fulfillment of Daniel 9:26a can refer to this false Messiah being "cut off" in the sense of being "covenanted", peace-treatied.

This treaty will allow this false Messiah and his followers to keep a 3rd Jewish temple which they will have built on Jerusalem's Temple Mount (after they or great earthquakes have destroyed the Muslim structures there), and to (mistakenly) continue to perform the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices in front of the temple for at least 7 years (Daniel 9:27a), so long as they give up the outer court of the temple (Revelation 11:2a) to the Muslims so that the Muslims can rebuild the (by that time destroyed) Al Aqsa Mosque on the southern end of the Temple Mount and resume worship there. After "cutting" this treaty (Daniel 9:26a), the Antichrist could appear before the "many" (Daniel 9:27) nations represented at the U.N. General Assembly, and "confirm" (Daniel 9:27) that for at least 7 years he will keep this treaty with the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem, using this as purported proof to the world that he is (in his words) "a man of peace, and no Hitler".

In Daniel 9:27, "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" refers to when, only some 3.5 years after making the peace treaty of Daniel 9:26a,27a and Daniel 11:23a, the Antichrist will break the treaty, attack the 3rd temple, stop the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices, place the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing android image of the Antichrist) in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of the temple (Daniel 9:27b, Daniel 11:31, Matthew 24:15), and then sit himself in the temple and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). Thus could begin the Antichrist's literal 3.5-year Luciferian (Satanic) worldwide reign of terror (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:9).

 

[Douggg]

Many have attached the concept of the Antichrist to any and every "bad guy" they find in Bible prophecy. Most think he is the Roman "Beast," but some, like you, think he is the King of the North. But both are incorrect. The word "Antichrist" does not mean an extremely evil Person. It means someone who is directly opposed to Christ, the anti-messiah, a false Messiah. This has to be the end time king of Judah.

The problem here is failing to distinguish between the different "bad guys" in end time prophecy. There are five of them. They are:

1 "the king." This is the end time king of Judea, which is now called Israel, and is also the "false prophet" of the Revelation. Many think he cannot be the Antichrist because He tells men to worship "the Beast." But they forget that the real Christ told men to worship the Father. So the false Christ also tells men to worship someone else. But even as the real Christ also said He was God, the false Christ also claims to be God, even sitting as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

James, the Hebrew word for messiah means "anointed". Who anointed the first King of Israel, Saul? At the instruction of God. 1Samuel9:16, 1Samuel10:1. Who anointed King David? 1Samuel16:3, 1Samuel16:13.

The Antichrist will be the illicit perceive King of Israel, son of David messiah (anointed). Not the one God sent to be the King of Israel, Son of David messiah (anointed).

Until the time of Saul, it was God ruled Israel from Heaven, through the prophets, until they wanted a human king like all of the surrounding nations. The prophets were not the kings, but the kings were anointed by the prophets.

While the (true) messiah will be a prophet, comparable to Moses; Moses himself was never a king. A prophet is not necessarily centered on issuing prophecies, but provides teachings or messages as God's spokesman to whatever generation the prophet is living in.

 

[Douggg]

Biblewriter in post #12:
"Many have attached the concept of the Antichrist to any and every "bad guy" they find in Bible prophecy. Most think he is the Roman "Beast," but some, like you, think he is the King of the North. But both are incorrect. The word "Antichrist" does not mean an extremely evil Person. It means someone who is directly opposed to Christ, the anti-messiah, a false Messiah. This has to be the end time king of Judah."

If it has to be a "king of Judah" why isn't there some Biblical prophecy that points to that? Also, "directly opposed to Christ" doesn't necessarily mean coming from the same area.

*

*

Hi Dale, actually it is King of Israel, the united country. Solomon was the last King of Israel. The unified country of Israel hasn't existed since the breakup into the northern and southern parts. In Acts 1, the disciples were aware that "the" messiah had to be King of Israel (the one united nation), as they asked Jesus if now was the time he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel.

God, in 1948, re-birthed Israel as a single united nation again, but Israel does not have a king - awaiting "the" messiah. That's what the Jews are looking for. Which for a sort period, they will make the huge mistake of thinking the person we call the Antichrist, as being that hoped for messiah, anointed.

Which technically all the kings were anointeds, messiahs, but when "the" messiah is spoken of it means the special king that God would send them to lead them into the age of peace and harmony.

The prophecies about the Antichrist is the path he goes through to end up being that perceived illicit King of Israel, son David messiah - temporarily embraced by the Jews for a short duration (a little over 3 years, 3 months). And then his fall as he ends up becoming the beast of Revelation.

The things to always keep in mind about the Antichrist is that early on, he will be into the occult, relying on powers from the dark side for his success. Saul sought consulting with the dead for help, which lead to the downfall of Saul, which should give us some insight to the Antichrist - which eventually, by the sway of Satan, will believe that he has reached God hood.

 

[Douggg]

1 "the king." This is the end time king of Judea, which is now called Israel, and is also the "false prophet" of the Revelation.

king of Judea? James, who is the woman in Daniel 12:1, who will be persecuted by Satan for the second half of the seven years?

Who does this represent? 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewriter in post #12:
"Many have attached the concept of the Antichrist to any and every "bad guy" they find in Bible prophecy. Most think he is the Roman "Beast," but some, like you, think he is the King of the North. But both are incorrect. The word "Antichrist" does not mean an extremely evil Person. It means someone who is directly opposed to Christ, the anti-messiah, a false Messiah. This has to be the end time king of Judah."

If it has to be a "king of Judah" why isn't there some Biblical prophecy that points to that? Also, "directly opposed to Christ" doesn't necessarily mean coming from the same area.

*

*

Actually, there are numerous prophecies that say that.

The ·king of revived Judah, which is now called Israel, is first mentioned in Daniel 11:36-40. Many think this blasphemous &#8220;·king&#8221; is the Roman &#8220;prince&#8221; of Daniel 9:26. But the language of Bible prophecy is very precise. Every detail has meaning. The Hebrew word translated &#8220;prince&#8221; in Daniel 9:26 is nagiyd. (word number 5057 in Strong&#8217;s Hebrew Dictionary) We saw in footnote 5 (page 27) that this word means leader or commander. But the Hebrew word translated &#8220;·king&#8221; in this passage is melek. (word number 4428 in Strong&#8217;s Hebrew Dictionary) This word literally means a ·king. Even such an apparently small difference as whether someone is called a melek or a nagiyd is important. This &#8220;·king&#8221; is not the same person as &#8220;the prince.&#8221;

We notice that &#8220;the ·king&#8221; shall not regard &#8220;the God of his fathers,&#8221; (Daniel 11:37) but shall instead honor &#8220;a god which his fathers did not know.&#8221; (verse 38) The term, &#8220;the God of his fathers,&#8221; is not just a generic reference to a god worshiped in past generations. Some form of this term is used of the God of Israel fifty-eight times in the Old Testament. When the Lord sent Moses to the children of Israel He told him &#8220;Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob·, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.&#8221; (Exodus 3:15) Thus we see that the God this ·king shall ignore is none other than the God of Israel; and that in calling Himself &#8220;the God of his fathers,&#8221; the Lord was identifying this &#8220;·king&#8221; as an Israelite.

In Daniel 11:40 &#8220;the ·king&#8221; is attacked by &#8220;the king of the South&#8221; and &#8220;the king of the North.&#8221; The result is that &#8220;the king of the North&#8221; overruns many nations, including Israel, &#8220;the glorious land.&#8221; (verses 41-45) But &#8220;the king&#8221; continues to prosper &#8220;till the wrath has been accomplished.&#8221; (verse 36) How does he escape? We learn this detail in Zechariah 11:17, where, as &#8220;the worthless shepherd,&#8221; he &#8220;leaves the flock!&#8221; We see this again in the missing shepherd of Zechariah 10:2, in the missing ·king of Micah 4:9, and the fainthearted ·king of Jeremiah 4:9. For this crime &#8220;A sword shall be against his arm And against his right eye; His arm shall completely wither, And his right eye shall be totally blinded.&#8221; (Zechariah 11:17)

Our Lord contrasted himself to this &#8220;worthless shepherd&#8221; by saying &#8220;I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.&#8221; (John 10:11-15) In so contrasting Himself to this evil individual, our Lord was pointing him out as "The Antichrist."

The Antichrist is the great false messiah who rises in imitation of the true Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ. He is mentioned by this title only in 1 John 2:18; &#8220;you have heard that the Antichrist is coming.&#8221; Many, if not most, seem to have completely missed the significance of this title. The Greek word transliterated Christ is Christos, (word number 5547 in Strong&#8217;s Greek Dictionary) meaning the anointed one. It is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word mashiyach, (word number 4899 in Strong&#8217;s Hebrew Dictionary) which is transliterated Messiah. This title, though it applies to our Lord Jesus, does not mean God. Its literal meaning, the anointed one, means He is God&#8217;s chosen one. Jesus said &#8220;I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.&#8221; (John 8:42) Even so, the Antichrist will claim to be the chosen representative of God.

But, like the true Messiah, the Antichrist will claim to be more than just a messenger of God. In John 1:1 we read that &#8220;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.&#8221; So in imitating Jesus, the Antichrist makes a similar dual claim. As the ·king of Judah, he will exalt himself above all gods, yet he will honor another as God.

&#8220;He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things. Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory.&#8221; (Daniel 11:37-39)

The Antichrist is the one who will come &#8220;in his own name,&#8221; whom the Jews &#8220;will receive.&#8221; (John 5:43) He has to be a Jew, for many scriptures show that Messiah is a Jew. Though blinded to many prophecies, the Jews know that their Messiah will be one of themselves. It would therefore be impossible to convince them that a gentile was their Messiah.

And since the subject of this thread is the history of Christian doctrines, I will point out that the earliest known application of John 5:43 to the Antichrist was by Irenaeus, in a paper thought to have been written no later than 186 A.D.

 

[Biblewriter]

king of Judea? James, who is the woman in Daniel 12:1, who will be persecuted by Satan for the second half of the seven years?

Who does this represent? 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

If she represented Mary, the mother of Jesus, she would not be “a great sign.” This would simply be an account of the birth of Jesus. Besides, “the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.” (Revelation 12:14) Scripture contains no account of such a flight of Mary into the wilderness. Her flight (with Joseph) was into Egypt, not into the wilderness, and it lasted until Herod died (Matthew 2:19), not for three and a half years. Again, we read that “her child was caught up to God and His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness.” (Revelation 12:5-6) Mary’s flight into Egypt was long before Jesus ascended into heaven. But this woman fled into the wilderness after “her Child was caught up to God and to His throne.”

Alternately, if the woman spoke of mankind as having given birth to Jesus, she would represent the entire human race. If that were the case, who would she be fleeing from, and who would be left to persecute her as we read in Revelation 12:13. Further, no other scripture speaks of such a flight of all mankind.

If the woman represents neither Mary nor mankind, she must represent Israel, the nation that bore our Lord. Many scriptures speak of such a flight of the righteous remnant of Israel. This is further suggested by the “garland of twelve stars” that was on her head. Taken by itself, this might speak either of the twelve tribes of Israel or of the twelve apostles. But if it were the twelve apostles, the woman would be the church. This would not fit the rest of the sign, for the church did not give birth to Jesus. Thus we see it is unreasonable to think the woman represents anything but Israel.

But in this respect it is important to understand that in God’s sight “they are not all Israel, who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called’ That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” (Romans 9:6-8) Thus in the vision of the woman, as in many other scriptures, the righteous remnant of Israel is looked upon as the entire nation. That is, the wicked among them are not recognized as true Israelites. The Lord says of these that “I will purge the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against Me; I will bring them out of the country where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel.” (Ezekiel 20:38)

The period when the woman is nourished, which is “a time and times and half a time,” (Revelation 12:14) speaks again of the half week of trouble for Daniel’s people, the half week mentioned in Daniel 12.

Many think this is the same period as the “time and times and half a time” when “the saints shall be given into” the hand of the little horn in Daniel 7:25. But at this time the woman “is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.” (Revelation 12:14) In the first time period “the saints are given into” the Roman’s hand. In the second they are “nourished... from the presence” of the Roman. Thus we see that these two periods are not the same, even though they have the same length.We remember that a great disturbance will take place “in the middle of the week.” (Daniel 9:27)

 

[Biblewriter]

Hi Dale, actually it is King of Israel, the united country. Solomon was the last King of Israel. The unified country of Israel hasn't existed since the breakup into the northern and southern parts. In Acts 1, the disciples were aware that "the" messiah had to be King of Israel (the one united nation), as they asked Jesus if now was the time he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel.

God, in 1948, re-birthed Israel as a single united nation again, but Israel does not have a king - awaiting "the" messiah. That's what the Jews are looking for. Which for a sort period, they will make the huge mistake of thinking the person we call the Antichrist, as being that hoped for messiah, anointed.

Which technically all the kings were anointeds, messiahs, but when "the" messiah is spoken of it means the special king that God would send them to lead them into the age of peace and harmony.

The prophecies about the Antichrist is the path he goes through to end up being that perceived illicit King of Israel, son David messiah - temporarily embraced by the Jews for a short duration (a little over 3 years, 3 months). And then his fall as he ends up becoming the beast of Revelation.

The things to always keep in mind about the Antichrist is that early on, he will be into the occult, relying on powers from the dark side for his success. Saul sought consulting with the dead for help, which lead to the downfall of Saul, which should give us some insight to the Antichrist - which eventually, by the sway of Satan, will believe that he has reached God hood.

It is important to understand that in the precise language of Bible prophecy, Judah and Israel are not the same. After Judah and Ephraim divided, the term Israel applied either to Ephraim or to the entire twelve tribes, but not to Judah. So Judah does not mean Israel, and Israel does not mean Judah. This makes it possible to understand when many prophecies apply. End time prophecies that speak of Judah&#8217;s rebellion and suffering apply to Daniel&#8217;s seventieth week, before the Lord returns. But like those that speak of Ephraim, prophecies that speak of a victorious Judah, of both Judah and Israel, or only of Israel, apply to the time after the Lord has returned and brought all Israel home.

Those who have now returned to the land are called Jews. The word Jew does not mean an Israelite. It means a descendant of the ancient kingdom of Judah, that is, a member of either the tribe of Judah or the tribe of Benjamin. This can be seen from the Hebrew words translated &#8220;Jew&#8221; in the Old Testament. The most commonly used one is yeudiy. (word number 3064 in Strong&#8217;s Hebrew Dictionary) The meaning of this word becomes obvious when we see the word it is derived from, yehudah. (word number 3063 in Strong&#8217;s Hebrew Dictionary) This is the name transliterated Judah, the name of the tribe and kingdom of Judah. Thus we see that the original form of the word Jew was Judie, or a citizen of Judah.

The return of Judah to her land, which began in the twentieth century, was not directly prophesied anywhere in scripture. But it was a necessary part of the prophetic scheme, for the scene of prophecy opens with Judah in her land, but still rebellious. As this nation had been exiled for nearly two thousand years it could not be in the land until it had returned. Although no prophecy speaks of an unrepentant Judah returning to the land, many speak of absolutely all of Israel, including Judah, returning in true repentance to both the Lord and the land. (see, for instance, Ezekiel 36:10-30, Zephaniah 3:11-14, and Romans 11:26) It is obvious that this has not yet happened.