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," February, 2010

Why Sir Robert Anderson's Future Roman Antichrist Idea In Daniel 9:27 Is Not The Proper Concept

Devotees of modern dispensational premillennial end-time Bible prophecy teaching are deceived by a religious hoax that sees: (1) a future seven year great tribulation period, (2) that period dominated by some Jewish "peace deal" making and breaking activities of some personal "one-world government leader" Roman Antichrist, and (3) before all of this the church is presumably to be removed from the earth in a secret pre-tribulational rapture.

This moot construction of ideas, friends, has become so entrenched in the popular evangelical fundamentalist church-world of our modern day that its influence on the worldview/mentality of the masses is absolutely unbelievable!

For those of you with minds to understand, we have just touched the quick of what is fundamentally wrong in the thinking of millions of blinded souls today, and here--right now!--is your help in getting to the bottom of what the absolute Bible truth is.

The following material is taken from one of our revised books now called How To Interpret End-time Bible Prophecy: A Wesleyan View. It is only a small sample of the penetrating logic we employ throughout the book to debunk the dispensational fable of Sir Robert Anderson's Roman Antichrist in Daniel 9:27.

"The antecedent of the `he' who confirms the covenant with many for one week in Daniel 9:27 can logically and rationally be no other than the coming (that is `coming' from the standpoint of Daniel, and not us, now living 2,500 years later!) prince `to whom the people belong' of verse 26, who is the very same person mentioned as the prince and Messiah in verse 25. Strong's and Young's concordances both have the same Hebrew word, nagid, used in both places! Now that ought to tell us something, for how can the same Hebrew word in one instance refer to Christ (as in `Messiah the Prince' in verse 25) and in the very next verse that same Hebrew word (as in `the people of the prince that shall come') be made to refer to some other totally different figure who is supposed to be a foreshadower of Antichrist?

"The text says nothing about foreshadowing, or about Antichrist at all! That is the figment of some modern interpreter's fruitful imagination."

Related Article Links

Daniel 9:27: The Difference It Makes
Shaken Foundations Of Popular Darbyism