I was hanging out with some friends the other evening, and something came up about international events, and Israel and Bush and peace in the Middle East. It was generally agreed that it was a bad idea for Bush to work for peace in that area, because peace wouldn’t happen, or Bush would be flirting with becoming the Antichrist. I have a tendency to challenge anything that is held as Orthodoxy, but doesn’t immediately commend itself to my reason, and reasonable understanding of the Bible. So, I challenged them on it, and then the discussion passed on while I dug through Revelation for a verse I thought maybe I’d heard about the Antichrist bringing peace. I didn’t find it right away. I did a quick search on the topic and came up with a couple articles. This one is rather critical of the Dispensational view that peace will heralded in the coming of the Antichrist. It also attempts to show that it’s scriptural support is nebulous at best. It seems that this connection between the Antichrist and peace is built on this verse in Daniel 9:
26″Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
27″And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”
See, by “week” it means “seven yeaSaturday, January 12th, 2008
I was hanging out with some friends the other evening, and something came up about international events, and Israel and Bush and peace in the Middle East. It was generally agreed that it was a bad idea for Bush to work for peace in that area, because peace wouldn’t happen, or Bush would be flirting with becoming the Antichrist. I have a tendency to challenge anything that is held as Orthodoxy, but doesn’t immediately commend itself to my reason, and reasonable understanding of the Bible. So, I challenged them on it, and then the discussion passed on while I dug through Revelation for a verse I thought maybe I’d heard about the Antichrist bringing peace. I didn’t find it right away. I did a quick search on the topic and came up with a couple articles. This one is rather critical of the Dispensational view that peace will heralded in the coming of the Antichrist. It also attempts to show that it’s scriptural support is nebulous at best. It seems that this connection between the Antichrist and peace is built on this verse in Daniel 9:
26″Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
27″And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”
See, by “week” it means “seven years” and the “prince who is to come” is the Antichrist in Revelations, and the “firm covenant” means “Peace in the Middle East”. That was the NASB version. The NIV uses “’sevens’” but with a note that an alternate reading is “weeks”.
So, there is some room for different interpretations, just from the Hebrew to English. But, it doesn’t say “And the Antichrist will bring peace between the Jews and the Arabs, and then will break off that peace” Not is so many words. And, if you read the chapter, this is a direct answer to Daniel’s cry to God about the devastation and destruction and disaster that came upon Israel as a just consequence of their sin. I really get the feeling that what Gabriel is talking about has to do with the destruction that Daniel is currently praying about. Not some event still in our future.
What does this mean for us? It’s not like I’ll try and egg on Hamas if I believe that only the Antichrist brings peace (albeit fake peace). We all want peace in the world, in our neighborhoods, and in those of the Jews. But, if Bush can’t be a peacemaker without us worrying about the sinister implications, something may be wrong. But we don’t have to interpret it that way. In this article, the author holds to the Peace==Antichrist view, but he sees peace as a good thing—if the Antichrist is coming, the Real Christ can’t be far behind.
I think it is safe to work for peace. Jesus says “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God”. And even if you somehow fulfill some prophecy in Daniel, that doesn’t mean you are THE Antichrist—-there is more to earning that title than just helping some people stop lobbing rockets at each other. We can work for peace for quite a while before we are in “danger” of bringing peace. Right now, “uneasy diffidence” would be way better than what we’ve got, and it still isn’t the dreaded “strong covenant” that we are supposedly warned about.
So, don’t believe that “peace is of the devil”, and therefore subconsciously (or even consciously) sabotage any efforts to make the world a better place. And go ahead and read the passages before agreeing with theology that doesn’t fit with themes like “Love your neighbor.”rs” and the “prince who is to come” is the Antichrist in Revelations, and the “firm covenant” means “Peace in the Middle East”. That was the NASB version. The NIV uses “’sevens’” but with a note that an alternate reading is “weeks”.
So, there is some room for different interpretations, just from the Hebrew to English. But, it doesn’t say “And the Antichrist will bring peace between the Jews and the Arabs, and then will break off that peace” Not is so many words. And, if you read the chapter, this is a direct answer to Daniel’s cry to God about the devastation and destruction and disaster that came upon Israel as a just consequence of their sin. I really get the feeling that what Gabriel is talking about has to do with the destruction that Daniel is currently praying about. Not some event still in our future.
What does this mean for us? It’s not like I’ll try and egg on Hamas if I believe that only the Antichrist brings peace (albeit fake peace). We all want peace in the world, in our neighborhoods, and in those of the Jews. But, if Bush can’t be a peacemaker without us worrying about the sinister implications, something may be wrong. But we don’t have to interpret it that way. In this article, the author holds to the Peace==Antichrist view, but he sees peace as a good thing—if the Antichrist is coming, the Real Christ can’t be far behind.
I think it is safe to work for peace. Jesus says “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God”. And even if you somehow fulfill some prophecy in Daniel, that doesn’t mean you are THE Antichrist—-there is more to earning that title than just helping some people stop lobbing rockets at each other. We can work for peace for quite a while before we are in “danger” of bringing peace. Right now, “uneasy diffidence” would be way better than what we’ve got, and it still isn’t the dreaded “strong covenant” that we are supposedly warned about.
So, don’t believe that “peace is of the devil”, and therefore subconsciously (or even consciously) sabotage any efforts to make the world a better place. And go ahead and read the passages before agreeing with theology that doesn’t fit with themes like “Love your neighbor.”
