?
1. Dispys say that there is a ‘church age gap’ between verse 26 and 27.
It’s important to note that, although dispensationalism includes the notion of ‘rapture’, ‘tribulation’, and ‘millenial rule’, it is nevertheless not defined by it. Dispensationalism, at its core, believes that the old dispensation (God’s promises to the Israelites) will be fulfilled – but only for Jews – and the new dispensation (Jesus’ promises to Christians) will only then be able to fulfilled.
Essentially, that it’s hogwash. There’s no set of promises to one set of people and a different set of promises to others: Jesus came to fulfill God’s plan, and does so for all humanity.
The best way to combat their views is simply to ask them questions they are unable to answer.
This happened in 70 AD, at least 38 years after the Messiah came and was killed. Jerusalem was destroyed by the “people of the prince that shall come by Emperor Titus Vespasian in 70 AD. Some try to say this prophecy was completed in 70 AD, but that impossible as the temple was destroyed by fire and never desecrated at that time. Also, you have to have a treaty that is enforced, and a seven year period where the Man of Sin in the middle of the week desecrates the Holy of holies. The “prince” that shall come is a descendant of the Emperor who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.
- Dan 9:26
“… and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”
a. The “he” in Daniel 9:27 refers to the previous prince, not Messiah the King Prince. The Messiah the King Prince in the old testament is NEVER REFFERED TO AS A “prince”. Always the “Messiah the King Prince”. For one thing the words for each are totally different Hebrew and Greek words. The “he” is Man of Sin will come from the old Roman Empire (Rome or Constantinople) and has 32 titles in the bible. Many people try to say that the “he” refers to Jesus, but this is not only grammatically incorrect in the Greek, and, but if the “he” were Jesus you have Jesus the enforcing a covenant / treaty between Israel and the “many”, i.e., other countries. Jesus would cause sacrifice and oblation to cease (roman did in 70 AD), commit “Abomination of Desolation”, and so on. You then have many other problems and contradictions elsewhere in scripture to work out. What treaty did Jesus ever enforce / confirm (i.e., does not say create) between Israel and the “many”, i.e., rest of the world?
- Dan 9:27
“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”
b. Jesus Himself validates Dan 9:27 in Matt 24:
Matthew 24 is a dissertation by Jesus to three apostles on the end times. Jesus is talking to the Jews, and says a great tribulation is coming and He says Matt 24:15:
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand…” and so …
Jesus confirms the great tribulation in Matt 24, goes on about the signs of the times and that the Jews are to flee? Jews must flee because there has to be a remnant left to ask Jesus to come back (in Luke NT and other OT books). This event has not yet happened and can only happen when false idol is erected in the Jewish Holy of holies. The “abomination of desolation” spoken by Daniel occurred in history once before around 150 BC before Jesus ever came and spoke about it so yet a future event.
The Great tribulation (by Matt. 24, Daniel, Genesis “time of Jacob’s trouble”, among other places) is 3 and ½ years which is stated in the Bible 3 times as 3-1/2 years or 1260 days. The book of Revelation from chapters 6 through 19 is a detail view of the Great tribulation spoken by Daniel as the last part of the last week and Jesus in Math 24 and other gospels.
QED.
- The Church did not replace Israel and inherit all the promises and covenants.
God made irrevocable covenants and promises to the Jewish, His first born (Deut). The role of the church and Israel are totally different, each has a different destiny, which can be easily shown from a scriptural basis (no space here). The view that the church has replaced Israel and inherited God’s promises to the Jewish people is a major source of anti-Semitism that has existed for centuries. The reason Satan tries to wipe out the Jews is because the remnant nation must seek and ask Jesus to return (i.e., based on NT / OT scripture).- The restoration of the nation of Israel in the “latter days” is prophesied in the Bible in book of Ezekiel.
Ben Gurion in 1948 invoked this scripture when Israel became a nation again. Israel is in the land God promised, they are not occupiers of the land, and they will NEVER be removed from the land again. In fact, one prophecy in Ezekiel still a future event, written about 3,000 years says the Iran (Persia), and its allies, backed by military support and supplies by the Russians (descendants of Gog and Magog) who are after a “prize” are going to attack Israel from the north. Amazing that something written this almost 3000 year ago and it could happen at any moment. Just coincidence?- The rapture is also well documented in the Bible and is not a concept from the 1800’s.
The early church leaders (1st and 2nd century church leaders who I can cite) believed in the “imminent” return of Jesus Christ for His church. Again, there is much scriptural evidence for the rapture and it will occur according to what Paul wrote in the book of Romans. In fact, the church including the Holy Spirit will be removed from the earth when the Man of Sin is revealed. The imminent return early church belief that Jesus Christ could return at any time was squashed after Constantine ordained the Roman Catholic Church as the official state religion after the edict of toleration in 325 AD. The concept was squashed because it was not popular to the Roman Emperors that Jesus was going to come back and reign as a King over everyone. Many church beliefs changed at the time the Roman Catholic Church emerged as an economic and political force. For example, Constantine picked December25 as the birthday of Jesus because that date coincides with the winter solstice and the celebration of other Roman pagan gods.
Just want to note that believing in an imminent return of Jesus and believing in a pre-tribulation rapture are not necessarily the same thing.
Not a fan of Kirk Cameron’s work? Seriously though I once thought it would make a decent movie series if nothing else… and then Nicholas Cage gave it a try.
