The Seven Year Peace Treaty in Israel Has Been Signed.......... |

Many students of bible prophecy have missed the signing of the 7 year peace treaty in Israel simply because they have not taken God's word literally. Before I go on let me quote the 2 main verses that reveal this event in prophecy.

Daniel 9:26, 'And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself: And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end shall be with a flood, and until the end of the war desolations are determined.

Daniel 9:27, 'Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week: but in the midst of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. and on the wing of abomination shall be one who makes it desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined is poured out on the desolate.

For those who are fairly new to bible prophecy I will be giving a little bit of boring information that is commonly accepted as truth during this presentation.

The word week here can easily be proved to mean weeks of years. One way to prove this is to go back to Genesis where Laban gives his daughters to Isaac for a week and it is revealed that he fulfills his 7 years. As well, the first 7 and 62 weeks where fulfilled exactly to the day when the Messiah was cut off and died when using the one day equals a year formula or the weeks of years rather than week. So then 7 and 62 weeks of years is equal to 483 years.

The 70 weeks in Daniel 9: 24 equals 490 years. The remaining 7 years that is the difference has never been fulfilled.

Note that it is not uncommon for scriptures to have undetermined allotments of time dividing one event from another. This is the case in this 490 years. Though the first 483 were fulfilled to the exact day when Jesus the Christ was crucified, the last 7 years has never in history been fulfilled to the letter until recently.

Now to understand who will make this covenant we must unravel Daniel 9:26. Here we are told that the prince of the people who destroyed the city will make the covenant.

In 70 A.D. Titus was given orders from Rome to take Israel into captivity and to destroy the city of Jerusalem. Judging from this then it was the Roman Empire that destroyed the city. So then the prince who will make the covenant is to be a prince of Rome.

Well many would say that the Roman Empire does not exist today, however , that is not entirely true. The Western Roman Empire fell to Germanic hordes in about 400 A.D. but the Eastern Empire remained in Constantinople until the 1400s. The main religion in Rome became Christianity by order of Emperor Constantine around 200 A.D.

At some point it was declared the Holy Roman Empire and popes were given rule over Rome. Though it is true that the Roman Empire did not exist after the 1400s, the Holy Roman Catholic Monarchy existed to this day. Now in our time we have the European Union whose 10 full member states all rule under the Holy Roman Catholic Monarchy, hence the Empire still exists to this day.

If you will do a study of the kingdoms that were to rule according to dreams and visions throughout Daniel you will learn that Rome was to be the final kingdom before the end of this age.

In Daniel 2 the statue with the head of gold was to be followed by the kingdom of silver and then bronze, then iron and then iron and clay. We know from Daniel 8 that the Gold represented Nebuchadnezzar, the silver was the Medes and the Persians, the bronze was the Greeks and history proves that the final kingdom was the Roman Empire.

Though there are 27 nations that belong to the European Union, there are only 10 that are full members with veto rites. The other 17 nations are lesser states. So then the prince that must confirm the covenant must come out of the EU.

Now the word 'prince' in Daniel 9:26 can be translated prince, commander, chief or any other title that could be considered an authority. This prince is to make a covenant with many nations so we see that he has something to do with foreign affairs.

The word covenant can be translated covenant or agreement. However, it does not mean 'peace treaty' as so many teach. This teaching stems from the idea that because first Thessalonians 5:4 says, 'And when they cry peace and safety, sudden destruction comes upon them'. If you study the context of Thessalonians you will find that it pertains to the time of the rapture at the end of the 7 years and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No, in order top recognize the 7 year covenant you must realize that it is not necessarily a peace treaty.

Joveir Solana, whose office was Secretary General of the Western European Union, made separate agreements with many Middle Eastern countries over several years prior to 2007. These agreements would give each country the right to receive loans from the EU for the purpose of bringing stability in many areas of their governments. These loans would require substantial financial commitments from EU full member states and therefore had to be fixed into the EU upcoming budget. The term of the EU budget is 7 years and was due for renewal on Jan. 01/2007.

On this date Jovier Solana made a quick trip to the required office and gave his signature 'confirming' the agreements that he had set up prior to this date and therefore fulfilled all of the requirements that are called for in Daniel 9:26,27.

Now according to Daniel 9:27 he is to bring an end to the daily sacrifice in Jerusalem. Many have argued that there has to be a temple built in Jerusalem before he can do this. I believe you will find that this is not true if you pay close attention to the scriptures surrounding this issue. We know from second Thessalonians 2 that the wicked sits in the temple as god, however this event does not take place until the end of the 7 year covenant. Therefore it does not require a temple in the midst of the 7 years. Some say that he sits in the temple in the midst of the seven, but scripture says they set up an abomination and this is better translated an idol and cannot be translated as a person.

All that is required in the temple grounds for Daniel 9:27 is a place to do sacrifice. Israel has this now. They have just finished building an alter of sacrifice recently that fits requirements laid down in old testament law. As we speak Israel is calling on Jews world wide to send money to purchase lambs for sacrifices they are planning this June. Sometime in mid June is the middle of the 7 year covenant. They exact date is unknown because scripture tells us that the sacrifice will be stopped 'around' the middle of the 7 years.

From Daniel 11:21-31 we know that the king of Syria is responsible for the command to take away the daily sacrifice. According to history the king of the North in this scripture is this king of Syria. We are told in the verses mentioned that he will move against the king of the south, which history and the scriptures tell us is Egypt. Scripture tells us that he is stopped by ships from Kittim, which today is Cyprus.

He will be angry at the covenant, probably because if the covenant was not in place these ships would not be there. We are told that he has intelligence against those that transgress the covenant. This is very likely the fact that they are doing sacrifices of thousands of lambs which I am sure is contrary to UN laws governing the handling of sheep. The EU is tied to the laws of agriculture put forward by the UN. Daniel 11:31 then tells us that 'arms rise up on his part and take away the daily sacrifice and set there the abomination that causes desolation.

Notice that arms rise up on his part. In other words he squeals but someone else does the dirty work. In Daniel 8:11 we find that it is the Little Horn that actually takes away the daily sacrifice and sets up the abomination that causes desolation.

Recently Syria has been trying to mend fences with Egypt, however, more recently they have had a parting of ways. We can only watch and see how this drama unfolds. But know this, that we are approaching the midst of the 7 years. Everything is in place for prophetic scriptures to unfold as we speak.

Now concerning the Little Horn there is much debate on who this could be but if we look at scripture we can narrow it down quite a bit and I believe his identity is obvious once you have the right information. First of all Daniel 8 :8,9 points you at the geographic region that he must come from.

The male goat here is said to come from Greece in verse 21. It followed the Medes and the Persians in verse 20. History tells us that this goat was Alexander the Great and that 8:9 is speaking of the 4 generals that divided his kingdom. So from here we can see that the Little Horn is not the president of the USA or an up and coming king of England etc... He is coming out of the Middle East. There are a couple of clues here that could not have been recognized many years ago but are now definite give aways.

Now understand that the main countries today that should be watched, considering the 4 generals territories, are Greece, Turkey, Syria, Assyria, Iran, Palestine and Egypt.

First the Little Horn waxes great toward the east, south and the pleasant land. In recent months Turkey has been calling on Muslim nations to form what I will call a union. If he succeeds it could be said that he has waxed great toward Iran, Egypt and Syria and Palestine.

Second he rises up among the 10 horns of the EU. For several years Turkey has been trying very hard to be accepted as a full member of the EU and if he does will be the first Muslim member. He will also have risen up among them as 'another Little Horn'. It should also be noted that he is the only country in the territories of the 4 generals who is even trying. 9 out of 10 of the existing members support his membership.

Now once he joins he must devour three of the former horns. This has been taught to mean that he forces himself on three members but what if he rather is supported by three members and is handed their support through intrigue and a silver tongue?

You were asking ...

Would it fit with a post-tribulational model?

Well, I'm not sure what the "it" -- is ... :-) ... but will continue anyway...

First, in regards to the Tribulation itself, and especially since this particular article treats the 490 years allocated to Israel with 7 years still remaining, in approximately the same way as some other prophecy teacher -- one can say that the Rapture can be discussed (somewhat...) in a bit of separation (of "thought") from the issue of the 7-year Tribulation (although many things do overlap, though).

So, for the Rapture (in a discussion), you may have those who keep to the same eschatological interpretation and still may vary on the Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib and Pre-Wrath versions of the Rapture.

BUT, you find that those who are saying that there is a "Post-Tribulation Rapture" -- really don't come into an "authentic Rapture discussion" -- because the "Rapture" is totally separated (in a discussion on it) with the ones discussing Pre-, Mid- and Pre-Wrath versions -- from those who are "off to themselves" and discuss the Post-Trib Rapture.

That's why only those who are Pre-Tribulational, Mid-Tribulation and Pre-Wrath -- can discuss the Rapture in the "Rapture Caucus" -- as they are the only ones considered to be "legitimately" (if you will) discussing the "Rapture"...

Post-Tribulationists are simply discussing the "one event" of the Lord coming back to the earth -- which is a different matter than those who discuss the Rapture as a completely separate event than that.

That's where it pays to know what one is talking about in the eschatological systems that people can have and where one doesn't fit into the other.

AND..., if anyone is trying to "make a smorgasbord meal" of eschatology -- all they get is a bunch of "trash thinking" that others can tear them apart, in regards to this "mish-mash" of thinking (the "pick and choose" eschatology that makes absolutely no sense at all and is not "cohesive" in the least).

It would be good for people to be aware of where "they themselves" are "coming from" -- if they don't already know that for themselves... :-)

End Time Viewpoints

Why are there so many? How do they differ? Does it matter?

by Dr. David R. Reagan

I almost gave up studying Bible prophecy the very first week I started. I was turned off by the vocabulary. I kept running across terms like premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial. It sounded to me like much of prophecy was written in tongues!

Thankfully, the Holy Spirit encouraged me to stick with the task, and before long I began to realize that the terms really were not all that difficult to understand.

Basically, there are four major end time viewpoints. Or, to put it another way, there are four different interpretations about what the Bible says concerning end time events.

Historic Premillennialism
The oldest viewpoint is called historic premillennialism. It is termed "historic" for two reasons: to differentiate it from modern premillennialism and to indicate that it was the historic position of the early Church.

It is called "premillennial" because it envisions a return of Jesus to earth before (pre) the beginning of the Millennium. The word, millennium, is a combination of two Latin words mille annum which simply means one thousand years.

A diagram of this viewpoint is presented below. It divides the future of the world into four periods: 1) the current Church Age; 2) a seven year period called the Tribulation; 3) a reign of Christ on earth lasting one thousand years (the Millennium); and 4) the Eternal State when the redeemed will dwell forever with God on a new earth.

This view is based on a literal interpretation of what the Bible says will happen in the end times. One of its distinctive features is that it places the Rapture of the Church at the end of the Tribulation.

According to this view, the Church will remain on earth during the Tribulation. At the end of that period, Jesus will appear in the heavens and the Church will be caught up to meet Him in the sky. The saints will be instantly glorified, and then they will immediately return to the earth to reign with Jesus for a thousand years.

The Church Fathers
This is the only view of end time events that existed during the first 300 years of the Church. With one exception, all the Church Fathers who expressed themselves on the topic of prophecy were premillennial until A.D. 400. Justin Martyr, who was born in A.D. 100, went so far in his writings on the subject as to suggest that anyone with a different viewpoint was heretical.

Those today who disagree with this view respond to the near unanimity of the early Church Fathers by saying they were simply wrong in their interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures.

It certainly should be noted that these early church leaders were not prophetic scholars. They wrote very little on prophecy, and what they wrote was sketchy. Their main concern was not prophecy, but the deity of Jesus, the oneness of God, the practical problems of church organization, and survival amidst persecution.

Yet their concept of end time events should not be dismissed out of hand as crude and primitive, for anyone who has studied the prophetic Scriptures will have to admit that the Church Fathers' viewpoint presents a plain sense summary of the Bible's teachings about the end times.

The one exception to the consensus opinion among the early Church Fathers was Origen (185-254 A.D.). Origen's approach to all of Scripture was to spiritualize it. He therefore denied the literal meaning of prophecy. He looked upon its language as highly symbolic and expressive of deep spiritual truths rather than of future historical events.

Although Origen could not accept the premillennial viewpoint, he did not develop an alternative. That task fell to the Church Father named St. Augustine (358-434 A.D.) who ultimately had the greatest impact on the development of church doctrine. He conceived an alternative viewpoint at the end of the fourth century.

Amillennialism
The concept formulated by Augustine is illustrated below. It is called amillennialism. This strange name derives from the fact that in the Greek language a word is negated by putting the letter "a" in front of it. Thus, amillennial literally means "no thousand years."

The term is misleading, however, because most amillennialists do believe in a millennium, but not a literal, earthly one. They argue that the Millennium is the current spiritual reign of Christ over the Church and that it will continue until He returns for His saints. They thus interpret the thousand years as a symbolic period of time.

One appealing aspect of the amillennial view is its simplicity. The Church Age comes to a screaming halt as a result of the Rapture of the Church. There is no Tribulation, no literal earthly Millennium, and no eternity on a new earth. Augustine spiritualized everything, arguing that the kingdom is the Church, the Millennium is the current Church Age, and the new earth is symbolic language for Heaven.

Augustine's view of end time events was adopted by the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. and has remained Catholic dogma to this day. It is also the current majority viewpoint among mainline Protestant denominations. In other words, the amillennial viewpoint is the one that is held today by the vast majority of all those who profess to be Christians.

Postmillennialism
The third view of end time events, called post-millennialism, did not develop until the mid-seventeenth century, long after the Reformation. The Reformation had little impact on prophetic views because the Reformation leaders had their attention riveted on the questions of Biblical authority and justification by faith.

The postmillennial view was a product of the rationalistic revolution in thinking. It was developed in the mid-1600's by a Unitarian minister named Daniel Whitby. It was immediately dubbed "postmillennialism" because it envisioned a return of Jesus after (post) a literal thousand year reign of the Church over all the earth. This view is illustrated below.

Postmillennialism spread quickly within the Protestant world, probably for two reasons. First, it gave Protestants an opportunity to differ from the Catholic position. More importantly, it was a theological expression of the prevailing rationalistic philosophy of the age, a philosophy that boldly proclaimed the ability of mankind to build the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The postmillennial view holds that the Church Age will gradually evolve into a "golden age" when the Church will rule over all the world. This will be accomplished through the Christianization of the nations.

To its credit, it can be said that this viewpoint served as a mighty stimulus to missionary efforts during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Missionaries were seized with the vision of speeding up the return of the Lord by preaching the gospel to all the world.

A Sudden Death
By 1900 nearly all segments of Protestant Christianity had adopted the postmillennial viewpoint. But the view was to be quickly dropped.

Postmillennialism died almost overnight with the outbreak of the First World War. The reason, of course, is that this great war undermined one of the fundamental assumptions of the postmillennial viewpoint the assumption of the inevitability of progress. This had always been a fatal flaw in the postmillennial concept, due mainly to its birth in rationalistic humanism. Its visions of the perfectibility of man and the redemption of society were destroyed by the atrocities of the war.

Another fatal flaw of the postmillennial viewpoint was its lack of a consistent Biblical base. To expound the view, it was necessary to literalize some prophecies (those concerning the Millennium) while at the same time spiritualizing other prophecies (the personal presence of the Lord during the Millennium). Also, it was necessary to ignore or explain away the many prophecies in the Bible that clearly state that society is going to get worse rather than better as the time approaches for the Lord's return (Matthew 24:4-24 and 2 Timothy 3:1-5).

The sudden death of postmillennialism left a prophetic vacuum among Protestant groups. Since the postmillennial view was based to a large extent upon a spiritualizing approach to Scripture, most Protestant groups returned to the spiritualized amillennial viewpoint they had abandoned in the 1700's.

However, a new choice of prophetic viewpoint presented itself on the American scene about this same time, and some of the more fundamentalist Protestant groups opted for it. This view was technically called "dispensational premillennialism" because it originated with a group who had been nicknamed "Dispensationalists." I call it the modern premillennial viewpoint.

Modern Premillennialism
The modern premillennial viewpoint crystallized in the early 1800's among a group in England known as the Plymouth Brethren. The view is illustrated below.

As can be readily seen, this viewpoint revives the historic premillennial view except for its concept of the Rapture of the Church. The Plymouth Brethren envisioned two future comings of Jesus, one for His Church and one with His Church. Their concept of the Rapture has since come to be known as the "pre-Tribulation Rapture."

This viewpoint has been attacked as being "too new to be true." But its advocates are quick to point out that the Bible teaches the principle of "progressive illumination" regarding prophecy (Daniel 12:4 and Jeremiah 30:24). What they mean by this is that the Bible itself indicates that end time prophecy will be better understood as the time nears for its fulfillment.

Comparisons
Looking back over these four views of the end times, we can see some significant differences. But let's not overlook the similarities.

1. All agree that Jesus is coming back for His saints.
2. All agree that the redeemed will spend eternity in the presence of God.

These two points of agreement are far more important than the many points of disagreement.

Still, the areas of disagreement are significant. Two of the views (the amillennial and postmillennial) deny that Jesus will ever manifest His glory before the nations in a world wide reign of peace, justice and righteousness. The postmillennial view also denies the soon coming of the Lord, for according to this view, the Lord cannot return until His Church has ruled over the world for a thousand years.

The key to the differences is the approach to Scripture. If you tend to spiritualize Scripture, you will end up with an amillennial or postmillennial viewpoint. If you tend to accept Scripture for its plain sense meaning, you will have a premillennial viewpoint.

A Plea
I urge you to accept the plain sense meaning of Scripture. Don't play games with God's Word by spiritualizing it. When you do so, you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean, but in the process you will lose the true meaning that God intended.

Remember, the First Coming prophecies meant what they said. That should be our guide for interpreting the prophecies of the Second Coming.

This is concerning just the "Millennium" and then you're dealing with the Rapture, and that varies as to how it's considered, according to the "Millennial Viewpoint" that one takes.

So, if one doesn't really know "where they [themselves] are coming from" and they attempt to do a "smorgasbord" of choosing some "particulars" regarding (1) the Millennial viewpoint, and then (2) the Rapture, and then in regards to (3) Israel and the church (as to how the one relates to the other) and then (4) the nature of the "Kingdom", and (5) elements of Covenant theology and/or Dispensationalism -- and puts that "smorgasbord" all together into some "presentation" of what they think of the "eschatology of the Bible" -- they will really have a mess on their hands that makes absolutely no sense at all, in regards to what the Bible says and falls competely and totally apart when others start "picking it apart" with various Scriptures.

And then others who are sitting around just "looking at this discussion" get more and more confused (because of some of the "confused smorgasbord eschatalogy" being presented and discussed and argued about) that they just throw up their hands and walk away from it all ... :-)

One reason why I'm always presenting the Dispensational viewpoint is because it's organized, it's "tight" and it fits, across the board, with the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and it is a "cohesive whole" and works perfectly with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which I also maintain, too...

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics

You were saying ...

Is there really a Rapture Caucus? Didn’t know that.

Yes indeed ... :-) It's not a high volume thread and it just "keeps on ticking"... doncha know... and keeps on discussing the Rapture until it happens...

The Rapture [RAPTURE CAUCUS]

And for that thread (i.e., the Rapture Caucus thread, not "this thread" ...) the following applies ...

To make sure that any new poster is "up-to-speed" on the rules for the Rapture Caucus, I post that here again.

In short they say, "post here in this thread if you support the Pre-trib, Mid-trib and/or Pre-wrath Rapture [not Post-trib]. Otherwise, if you don't -- don't post here.

The Religion Moderator's home page ...

Types of threads and guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum:
[Threads listed are "Prayer", "Devotional", "Caucus" and "Ecumenical"; included here is the "Caucus" definition.]

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.

For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.

Caucus threads.

Who can post? Members of the caucus and those specifically invited
What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus
What will be pulled? Reply posts mentioning the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus. If the article is inappropriate for a caucus, the tag will be changed to open.
Who will be booted? Repeat offenders.

Now, back to my own comments...

Some FReepers may have gotten jumped on (in other threads) for posting their belief in the Rapture, from what the Bible says. But -- here -- we're in support of the Rapture.

You are a member of this RAPTURE CAUCUS if you are in support of the Biblical Doctrine of the Rapture, as a separate event from the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (which is to establish the Kingdom on earth). This is defined per Post #78 (the Religion Moderator) and Post #79 (my affirmation of the same), which says we are talking about a Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib and Pre-Wrath Rapture, and not a Post-Trib Rapture (which happens at the same time as the return of Jesus Christ to the earth, i.e., His Second Coming).

Those who await the Rapture, are looking for that "Blessed Hope", Jesus Christ coming in the clouds, for His Bride, the Church.

So, feel free to join in the discussion -- in support of the Rapture -- as we talk about what information you have from the Bible, seminaries, church, pastors, books, friends and so on.

We can discuss the pertinent Bible verses, who are the pastors and/or churches who support it, what books are good to read, what is the purpose of the Rapture, the reason you find some compelling, or whatever else may be enlightening and helpful to the rest of us, in regards to edifying, exhorting and comforting one another, in support of the Biblical Doctrine of the Rapture.

Also, another "given" here is the Inspiration of Scripture from God, an inerrant and infallible Word from Him. Please refer to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" for a fuller explation of it. Although we can discuss what other pastors, preachers, teachers, churches, people, etc. explanations are, it all does come back to the final authority of the Word of God and not writers, pastors, theologians, churches or any other temporal entity (although we do use those for some help and understanding, just not the final authority on the matter). Remember, all these others are also appealing to the Word of God, in their explanations and understandings.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
[this part gives guidelines for interpretating the Word of God]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.