Go To Home Page | Go To Outlines Index Page |
Go To Articles Index Page

Originally published in "The Lord's Coming Herald & Wesleyan Bible Prophecy Advocate," Fall Edition 2005

The Logical Implications Of Accepting Christ As The
Divinely-Intended Covenant-Maker Of Daniel 9:27

First, it means that we must reject Antichrist as the person involved, for the claims being made here are, in the nature of the case, mutually exclusive ideational constructs. They cannot both stand in the same interpretative place and space at the same time and both be right.

Second, it means that if Antichrist is not the person involved with Daniel's 70th week, then the entire colossus of modern dispensational premillennial end-time Bible prophecy teaching is error--a human fabrication that must tumble.

The logic and strength of this assertion bears directly on the question of the strength and logic of dispensationalism's relationship to the Antichrist identification theory of Sir Robert Anderson and the way that he interpreted Daniel's prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. Because dispensationalism, in high-stakes fashion, has built its air castle of prophetic interpretation on Sir Robert Anderson's premise, if that foundational premise is proven wrong, then the elaborate air castle built upon it must, likewise, at a stroke be logically demolished.

A third implication of our question is this: when we do accept Christ as the divinely intended covenant-maker of Daniel 9:27 then our mind becomes predisposed to open up, and warm up, to the whole Christian revelation.

The Old Testament was a book of promise and hope. The New Testament is a book of fulfillment. At the center of the story of the New Testament we find the Messiah establishing a religion of human redemption based on a covenant (Matt. 26:27-28). It was a "new" covenant, yet not completely detached from the old, for it was both promised in the old covenant book, and was designed to complete and supercede it (Heb 8:13).

Daniel's Seventy Weeks is about the Messiah. It is about the time and purpose of His coming. That Jesus of Nazareth was a covenant-maker no one can successfully dispute (Rom. 15:8; Heb. 8:6-13). That He is the divinely-intended covenant-maker of Daniel 9:27 is likewise well established by the most able exegetes of the Christian church, including John Calvin, John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Edward J. Young, and many more. In fact, nearly all the Protestant evangelical exegetes before the latter half of the nineteenth century held this view. Only in modern times has Sir Robert Anderson's revived Jewish fable of some Antichrist figure being involved with Daniel's 70th week gained the ascendancy.

Daniel's 70th week is about the gospel age, not about some fictional seven year period that is supposed to happen after the church is raptured. The implications for this truth on end-time Bible prophecy interpretation are staggering. Few have explored those implications sufficiently. Those who do explore them soon realize that two very different world view mentalities get to be involved.

The one is Christian. The other is limited to those sectarian bases that motivated many of the Scribes and Pharisees to reject Jesus as their promised Messiah two-thousand ears ago. Such misguided biases, sadly, only serve to generate apostasy from biblical Christianity wherever they are spread today.

The covenant of Daniel 9:27 is never said to be confirmed to national Israel, but with "the many." The New Testament clearly teaches that this "many" includes the Gentiles, as well as the Jews (Acts 2:39; 15:8-9; Rom. 15:9-12).

Why some would want to replace a thing so marvelous as a universal gospel with something so frivolous as the machinations of an imaginary Antichrist can only be explained on the principle that men must love darkness rather than light.

Related Article Links

Daniel's 70th Week: Future Great Tribulation Period Or Present Gospel Age?
Daniel 9:27: The Difference It Makes