Bible Question: Most conservative protestant churchs use parts of Daniel 9:24-27 to support their belief that at some unknown time the saints will be raptured and then a seven year period will set in and the anitchrist will arise. As these text are prophecies about the first coming of Christ, what rule of Bible interpertation allows them to be used to identify the antichrist? And please don't say it is a "dual" prophecy. Because if that is the case then all 350 prophecies in the Bible that reference Christ would there also reference the antichrist, and we know no one wants to go there. |
Bible Answer: Only churches that hold the pre-millennial, pre-tribulation view will make such statements. For the record, I hold these views myself. Three terms that are relevant are Millennium, Tribulation, and Rapture. 1) Millennium is a period when Jesus Christ reigns over the earth. It is stated to be 1000 years long. 2) Tribulation is a period when God will pour judgment upon the earth in a manner that he has not yet done. It is stated to be seven years long. 3) Rapture is the removal of the members of the Body of Christ (The Church) from the earth. The pre-millennial view states that there will be a literal 1000 year rule by Jesus Christ on this earth at some future time and that Jesus will return to earth physically immediately before this. The pre-tribulation view -- a subdivision within the pre-millennial view -- states that there will be a literal seven year period of distress upon the earth immediately before the Millennium. This period is referred to as the "seventieth week" of Daniel which relates it to the passage you cite. The view further states that "The Church," that is all those who have received Jesus Christ as their personal savior, will be spared this time of tribulation which God will pour out on the earth by being "caught up" in the Rapture. The Tribulation is outlined through most of the book of Revelation. The passage you cite does not mention the Rapture. Here are some passages of scripture that have been taken to refer to the Rapture: 1) Just before John starts describing the events of the Tribulation, he is told, "Come up here" (Rev 4:1). Some see this as the rapture of the Church since there is no further reference to the Church until after the completion of the description of events that occur during the Tribulation. 2) Jesus, in Matt 24:40-41 while talking about things yet to come makes some statements that are generally interpreted at pertaining to the Rapture. 3) Paul, in I Thess 4:16, while comforting the believers who were concerned that their loved ones who had already died would miss the return of Jesus Christ, discloses that there will be a major event in the future in which both the living and the dead believers will be caught up -- or away. Some who hold this view make statements that are rather sensationalistic declaring dates for the event and identifying the Antichrist with some current leader with whom they disagree. This has a negative effect on their credibility. One thing that they _must not_ do is go about setting dates. IMHO, identifying certain individuals as the Antichrist is also unwise. My understanding of what Scripture has to say is that the Antichrist will not be revealed until after the Church has been taken out of the earth. As I say, this is a debated subject. There are those who hold that the Church will go through the first half of the seven year tribulation period. They make a distinction between the Tribulation (the first 42 months) and the Great Tribulation (the last 42 months). And there are those who hold that the Church will go through the entire seven years though, IMHO, how the Church can come with Christ when he returns to set up His millennial kingdom if the rapture occurs at the same time escapes me. There are also those who hold that the events in the book of Revelation (the tribulation and the millennium) are not meant to be taken as literal events. I will make no attempt to explain their positions. I believe that Hank Hanegraaff of Christian Research Institute tends to hold this view; though to my knowledge, he has not yet declared his position firmly. IMHO, this is a teaching which we may debate vigorously but it is not one over which we should separate ourselves. |