[email protected]











At the beginning of each page of the Prophecy Section of this journal I ask this question, and explain God's timetable for the second coming of Jesus Christ. That timetable is Daniel's '70th Week'.

The first four pages of my Prophecy Section correspond to four links in a divine 'prophetic chain':

A side-by-side comparison of the three versions of Jesus' Olivet Discourse (from Matthew, Mark and Luke), combined with an examination of the four visions of John's Little Book (in Revelation chapters 11-13), leads to the undeniable conclusion that Daniel's 70th Week is the 'Great Week of the Abrahamic Covenant'.

If John's 'Little Book' did not exist, I myself would feel compelled to embrace one of the other two major views on Daniel's 70th Week; either Post-Millennialism or Dispensationalism. But John's Little Book does exist. I present the four visions from that 'Little Book' in the four diagrams below:

1) THE TEMPLE AND THE COURTYARD (Revelation 11:1-2)

2) THE TWO WITNESSES (Revelation 11:3-12)


4) THE BEAST FROM THE SEA (Revelation 13)

While I encourage my visitor to examine each of my first four prophecy pages, I also offer a condensed PDF version of their combined message in the following link:



DISCLAIMER: I am not a student of church history. What I know about the history of the church has been picked up in small amounts over the years. Hence what I am writing here in regard to the history of Christian prophetic thought is largely drawn from 'bits and pieces' of information that I have gathered over the course of my life. I have an abiding interest in these subjects, but I am not an expert.

For much of the history of the 'Christian Church' a great many Christians have understood that Rome's destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was Daniel's 'Abomination of Desolation', referred to by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. They have reached this conclusion through a simple, side-by-side comparison of Matthew, Mark and Luke's versions of Jesus' message. And by allowing Luke's version to shed light upon Matthew and Mark, they have rightly concluded that 70 AD marks the midpoint of Daniel's 70th Week.

It might be fair to say that, up until the rise of Dispensationalism in the late 1800's, this view of the Olivet Discourse was the majority opinion both in Protestant churches, as well as in the Latin and Greek churches. In fact, it may still be the majority opinion throughout the 'Christian World', despite Dispensationalism's widespread adoption.

But while many Christians have correctly identified the midpoint of the Week, they often have not gone on to consider John's Little Book, and what its four visions reveal about the entire Week. Instead, they have operated on the assumption that the 70th Week is just like the first 69 Weeks of Daniel's '70-Weeks Prophecy'; a 'week' of 7 regular calendar years.

And so by combining their belief that 1) 70 AD marks the midpoint of that Week, and 2) that the 70th Week is only 7 years long (or something close to that), they have concluded that 3) we are now living in the next phase of God's prophetic schedule; the Millennium.

Some of these Christians believe that Jesus already came a second time, invisibly, at the end of the 70th Week. They believe that He came to complete the judgment of Israel and to strengthen the Church as the Millennium began. They believe, however, that the visible bodily return of Christ will not come until after (post) the Millennium. Hence the label: 'Post-Millennialism'.

Several beliefs are often associated with Postmillennialism:

    1) National Israel has now been forsaken by God, and replaced with the 'true Israel'; the Christian church. This has come to be known as 'Replacement Theory'.
    2) Christ will not come back until the Church has 'Christianized' and subdued the world. Many Postmillennialists believe that they must 'conquer the world for Christ' before He will come back to assume His rightful throne and leadership. This has come to be known as 'Dominionism'. And rather than observe a clear separation between 'church and state', this view tends to blur that distinction. Indeed, some Postmillennialists believe that God wants them to 'become the state'.
    3) Inherent within this idea, that God has ordained that the Church will subdue the world, is an inclination toward optimism about the future. Postmillennialists are confident that a better world will come about through their efforts. Such optimism fuels their enthusiasm for Christian service.

However, even though Postmillennialism (and an associated Millennial view known as A-Millennialism) became common within Protestant churches in Great Britain and Europe, there were Protestants who disagreed with the Postmillennial view. Some of those Protestants were found among the 'Plymouth Brethren' of Ireland and England. And in the mid-1800's one of their leaders was a man named John Nelson Darby.

Darby was correctly convinced that...

    1) The Millennium will follow the physical, bodily second coming of Christ; to conquer and judge a rebellious world. Hence the return of Christ will be Pre-Millennial.
    2) National Israel had not been cast off and forgotten by God. The scriptures definitely foretell a restoration of national Israel under Christ, as the promised Son of David and joint heir of the 'promised land' with Abraham.
    3) Premillennialists hold a more pessimistic view of the days before Christ's second coming; days characterized by increasing moral deterioration and overt hostility toward God. Because of this Dispensational expectation, some Postmillennialists refer to Premillennialists as 'Pessi-millennialists'. But the question needs to be asked: 'Is it reasonable to label anyone who believes that Christ will ultimately conquer sin and death, and rule the world, a pessimist?'


In pursuit of a different explanation of Daniel's 70th Week, one supporting a future Millennium, Darby developed a systematic theology called 'Dispensationalism'. Simply put, Darby sought a way to place a gap between the first 69 Weeks of Daniel's 70-Weeks prophecy, and the final 70th Week.

Darby claimed that Israel's 'prophetic clock' stopped with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And he taught that Israel's 'prophetic clock' would not start again until the beginning of the 70th Week. Darby called his gap a 'dispensation of time'. And he labeled this dispensation 'the Church Age'.

The Dispensation of the 'Church Age' represents the cornerstone of 'Darbyism' or 'Dispensationalism'. But in order to give their 'Church Age' credibility, Dispensationalists have gone on to divide all of human history into several 'dispensations'. And so Dispensationalism has become a 'systematic theology'. This has served two purposes:

    1)  To add credibility to the 'Church Age', by portraying it as only one of many 'divine dispensations' ordained by God.
    2)  To distract from the fact that the 'Church Age' is in fact the single defining characteristic of Dispensationalism.

In order to handle the problem of Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse (where in Luke 21:20-24 Jesus was obviously describing Rome's approaching desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD), Darby proposed a concept called 'Dual Fulfillment'. He claimed that this 'spiritual insight' allows us to see that while Jesus was talking about 70 AD in Luke's Gospel, He was referring to something different in Matthew and Mark's versions; another 'desolation' at the midpoint of a far-future '70th Week'.

This is the primary claim of Dispensationalism; that three historical Bible accounts of ONE message, given by ONE Man, on ONE day, to ONE group was somehow communicating TWO very different things.

Matthew and Mark's versions of the Discourse include a warning to the reader to be careful to understand what Jesus was talking about. But Luke's version contains no such warning. This is because Luke was writing to a largely Gentile audience. And so Luke was more plainspoken and straightforward.

But instead of allowing Luke's version to shed light upon Matthew and Mark's versions, Dispensationalists blatantly disregard Matthew and Mark's warnings about being careful. Instead they have chosen to complicate the passage, and to insist that the testimony of its three witnesses do not agree with each other. And they have insisted upon making the Son of God talk out of both sides of His mouth when giving the most important prophetic message in history!

However well-intentioned Darby may have been, and correct about the Pre-Millennial return of Christ and the errors of 'Replacement Theology' and 'Dominion Theology', Darby's decision to bend God's word in order to support his fictional '70th Week' was a terrible mistake. Darby's 'ends' do not justify his 'means'. Instead of handling God's word carefully, Darby made three mistakes:

    1)  Darby rejected the one thing that Post-Millennialists understood correctly; that 70 AD is indeed the midpoint of Daniel's 70th Week.

And having mishandled this 'keystone' of Bible prophecy, Darby went on to repeat the two mistakes that Post-Millennialists were making:

    2)  To not recognize the plain meaning of 'John's Little Book'. And then as a result...
    3)  To assume that Daniel's 70th Week must be like the first 69 weeks; comprised of 7 regular calendar years.


Dispensationalism's falsehoods have left many in darkness. It has left millions unaware that we are now in the very last days of the second half of Daniel's 70th Week. It has hidden the fact that both world history and the time of Christ's second coming are wonderfully explained in the Bible.

And maybe worst of all, rather than accurately describing the 'Great Tribulation' as having begun when Satan was cast out of heaven and down to earth (around 70 AD), Dispensationalists teach that the Great Tribulation still lies ahead; and that Christians may not have to face it.

Many Dispensational churches teach a 'pre-Tribulation rapture'; where Christians will supposedly be removed from the earth before the Tribulation. Thus the claim is that Christians will not have to suffer the severe persecution and difficult eternal choices associated with the 'Mark of the Beast'.

And many of these same churches teach the 'Once Saved, Always Saved' heresy; the claim that once a person has become a Christian there is no way that he can lose his salvation. Thus a deadly combination of spiritual poisons is fed to many churches in these 'end times'.

So now, even though they can see and hear 'he train of the Mark of the Beast' approaching upon the tracks, Dispensational pastors are telling church members not to worry; because God is going to remove (rapture) them before the train arrives. Some church members will no doubt continue to stand steadfastly between those tracks (as a proof of their faith); until in their 'unraptured disappointment' and unpreparedness they take the 'Mark', and are eternally destroyed.

Today's Protestant church in America is full of 'foolish virgins'. They have been unwilling to fearfully consider the possibility of their own unpreparedness. And so their spiritual carelessness deprives them of the 'extra oil' that they need in these last days (Matthew 25:1-13).

I am not condemning Dispensationalist people here. I am condemning Dispensationalism. I have known Dispensationalists who have been good and godly people; who did not leave their 'first love'. They put Jesus, His cross and the Gospel above everything else. And God used them in evangelism.

Two of the most holy men that I have known were devoted Dispensationalists. And both men had a tremendous positive spiritual impact upon me in my youth. But Dispensationalism was not their 'calling card'. 'Jesus Christ, and Him crucified' was (1 Corinthians 2:2).

But a proper understanding of prophecy cannot be separated from the Gospel. Today prophecy is the Gospel. We no longer live in the 'peaceful days' of the 20th century. Now the battle between God's people and Satan is fully joined. And a true grasp of prophecy is an essential part of the 'whole armor of God'. Today Christians who enter the battle without an accurate understanding of prophecy, go into the battle unprepared.


I believe that I have provided the correct explanation of Daniel's 70 Week in the previous pages of this journal. And building upon that underlying framework, I believe that I have also provided accurate (if not totally complete) prophetic explanations of Israel, the Beast, the False Prophet, Rome and the United States.

In those pages I have had much to say about Dispensationalism and its claims, and I do not repeat those comments in this page. So I would encourage my visitor to see what I have said about Dispensationalism in my pages titled Daniel's 70th Week, Jesus' Olivet Discourse, and John's Little Book. But there are some prophetic 'players' in the Bible that I have not mentioned yet. And they are misused by Dispensationalists to 'populate' their 70th Week. And so I discuss them below.

In order to be credible, Dispensationalism's 70th Week must incorporate the three things that are said about that Week in Daniel 9:27:

Then 1) he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week (the 70th Week). But in the middle of the week 2) he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing (or overspreading) of abominations 3) shall be one who makes desolate; even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.

I have already explained my own conclusion, that the 'He' who confirms a covenant and brings an end to sacrifices is the resurrected Messiah; Jesus Christ. And depending upon one's understanding of the Bible, the 'one who makes desolate' could be the armies of Rome in 70 AD. Or it could be the Dragon, Satan, coming upon 'the wings of abomination'. Satan is the ultimate 'abomination'. When he was cast out of heaven around 69 AD, and arrived on earth upon his 'dragon wings', he immediately began to bring wrath and desolation upon Israel and the Jewish people (Revelation 12:7-17).

But the question I address now is 'Who confirms a covenant, ends sacrifices, and is an 'Abomination of Desolation' according to Dispensationalists? And the answer is that for Dispensationalists 'the Antichrist' (from the epistles of the apostle John), and Paul's 'Man of Sin' (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12) are that person. For Dispensationalists these two persons are the same man.

It's important to begin with Paul's 'Man of Sin' first; because he is the cornerstone of the Dispensational 'story'.


Paul's 'man of sin' is described in 2 Thessalonians:

Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first. And that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped. So that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

For centuries Protestant Christians have understood Paul's 'man of sin' to be the Roman Catholic priesthood. The Roman Catholic priesthood steals the three divine offices of the Son of God: Prophet, Priest and King.

Rome's priests portray themselves as God in three ways:

    1) Beginning with Constantine, and his Council of Nicea, Rome began to confer upon itself the prophetic authority to not only decide what the Bible says, but also eventually to add to the Bible.
    2) Beginning with Constantine, priestly authority to administer 'saving sacraments' began to be embraced (a concept called 'sacramentalism). Eventually Roman priests would claim that they are offering the living body and blood of Christ to God in the Catholic Mass; as an atonement for people's sins. The author of Hebrews tells us that this is a Priesthood reserved for the Son of God alone; that He alone is God and has entered into the heavenly Temple of God with His own blood (Hebrews 9:24). The Bible says that we must come directly to Jesus to be saved. Rome says that we must come to Rome to be saved.
    3) Beginning with Constantine, Rome's leadership has claimed kingly authority to declare and wage 'holy war' under the banner of the cross; thus making Rome 'king of kings, and lord of lords'.

But Darby departed from this Protestant understanding, because there was an attribute of Paul's 'man of sin' that would enable Darby to claim that this 'man' was an 'abomination of desolation'. Darby wanted to assert that standing in the Temple and calling one's self 'God', amounts to desolating the Temple.

Contrary to Darby's definition, it should be understood that the term 'desolation' means outright and complete destruction, often as a judgment from God. The world experienced desolation in the flood of Noah's day. Sodom and Gomorrah experienced desolation. Jerusalem experienced desolation at the hands of Babylon in 586 BC, and again at the hands of Rome in 70 AD. But Darby believed that he had found an Old Testament precedent that would allow him to call Paul's 'man of sin' an 'abomination of desolation'; by simply standing in God's Temple and calling himself 'God'.


After the famous Greek leader, Alexander the Great, finished conquering much of the world, he died a short time later in 323 BC. After his death his Greek Empire was divided among his generals into four smaller kingdoms. The people of Israel found themselves living between two of those kingdoms; the Seleucid kingdom to the north, and the Ptolemaic kingdom (in Egypt) to the south.

In the 11th chapter of the book of Daniel, God gave the people of Israel very specific prophecies regarding the interactions and wars that these two kingdoms would have with each other. This very accurate foretelling of events was given by God because Israel would be trampled upon by these two kingdoms. These prophecies would be needed to strengthen, encourage and reassure the people of Israel during those difficult times.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (A4E) is the last Seleucid king mentioned by Daniel. His father, Antiochus III (Antiochus the Great), had been defeated and conquered by the Romans. As a result of that defeat, A4E had learned much about Rome and its power firsthand. The Bible describes A4E as a 'vile' man who would not rise to power in a manly way, but through deceit and treachery (Daniel 11:21).

It is important to remember two things at this point:

    1) God's prophetic words about A4E were given within the larger context of Israel's subjection to four Gentile powers. Israel had already passed through Babylonian and Persian domination. And A4E was a Greek king. But what God was foretelling was that A4E would bow and submit to the Roman Empire.
    2) After first coming to power, A4E made three trips to Egypt. And with each of those trips, God made it plain to Israel that He was very much in control of what was happening. Regarding A4E's first trip to Egypt, God said "He shall devise his plans against the strongholds, BUT ONLY FOR A TIME (Daniel 11:24).
    Upon A4E's second trip to Egypt, God said "Both of the kings hearts shall be bent on evil, and they shall speak lies at the same table. But it shall not prosper, for THE END WILL STILL BE AT THE APPOINTED TIME (Daniel 11:27).
    And then God gave His description of A4E's third and final trip to Egypt:

AT THE APPOINTED TIME he shall return and go toward the south. But it shall not be like the first or second time. For ships from western lands shall come against him. Therefore he shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy Covenant (of Israel), and do damage. Daniel 11:29-30a

Historians tell us that when A4E approached Egypt for the third time in 168 BC, the Ptolemaic dynasty called upon Rome for protection. And as A4E was preparing for conquest, he was confronted by a Roman ambassador; Gaius Popilius Laenas.

This Roman ambassador ordered A4E to retreat. And when A4E said that he wanted 'to think about it', the ambassador drew a circle around him in the dirt and told him that if he did not provide an answer before leaving the circle, it would be seen as a declaration of war against Rome.

These are the humiliating circumstances in which A4E bowed to Rome, and then did damage in Jerusalem on his way home. He may even have been told while on his way to Egypt that the God of Israel had foretold his failure. If so, this would explain his rage against God's Covenant during his return home.

ROME: THE 'HE' OF DANIEL 11:30b-31

I have divided Daniel 11:29-31 at the middle of verse 30 (dividing that verse into parts '30a' and '30b'), and present this passage as two halves (below). It is my belief that as God repeatedly referred to 'the appointed time', He was telling Israel and the world that the transition from Greek to Roman dominance over Israel would take place when A4E was confronted by Rome in Egypt:

At the appointed time he (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) shall return and go toward the south. But it shall not be like the first or second time. For ships from western lands shall come against him. Therefore he shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy Covenant (of Israel), and do damage.   Daniel 11:29-30a

And thus shall he (ROME) do. He shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. And arms shall stand on his part. And they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice. And they shall place the abomination that makes desolate.   Daniel 11:30b-31

The numbering of Bible verses is not divinely inspired. People have created numbered verses for the convenience of finding things easily within the Bible. Therefore we are not obligated to assume that the 'he' in the first half of verse 30 is the same as the 'he' in the second half of the verse.

All of the things mentioned in the second half of this passage were done by the Roman Empire. Rome did return to Israel and exercise influence through people who were not faithful to God's covenant. Herod the Great is an example of this.

And arms (military power) was established in Rome's hands against Israel. Eventually Rome would pollute the Temple, take away the daily sacrifices, and ultimately desolate (destroy) the Temple in 70 AD. And I believe that the rest of Daniel 11 goes on seamlessly to describe the remainder of Rome's history; leading right up to Christ's second coming.


Dispensationalists desperately claim that the 'he' of the entire passage above (Daniel 11:29-31) is A4E. This is because they need A4E to be the 'abomination that makes desolate' in verse 31.

Dispensationalists make much of A4E's last name; 'Epiphanes'. It means 'God revealed' or 'God manifested'. And it is certainly reasonable to believe that A4E was arrogant, and may have even called himself 'God' as he stood in Jerusalem's Temple. It was not uncommon for kings and rulers in his day to attribute divinity to themselves, and to demand reverence or worship from others.

But the name 'Epiphanes' is especially important to the Dispensational concept. This is because if they can claim that in Daniel 11:31 God describes A4E as an 'abomination of desolation' (simply because he stood in the Temple and called himself 'God') then they can claim that Paul's 'Man of Sin' can also be an 'abomination of desolation' (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

For Dispensationalists this question is about more than an objective examination of history and the scriptures. For them it is a matter of 'life and death'. If they cannot call Paul's 'Man of Sin' an 'Abomination of Desolation', and place him at the midpoint of their fictional '70th Week', then the central pillar of their prophetic story collapses.

History tells us that A4E did indeed return through Jerusalem on his way home and 'do damage'. But after DEFILING the Temple and returning home, A4E died 4 years later in 164 BC. Contrary to verse 31, 'arms' (military power) was never established on his behalf.

And to this day the witness of the Jewish people is not that A4E desolated (destroyed) the Temple, but that he DESECRATED (polluted) it. And they still celebrate the cleansing of the Temple, and its restoration for worship in traditions like Hanukkah.


The Antichrist is mentioned in only four verses, all written by the apostle John, and found only in two of his letters. The word 'antichrist' never appears anywhere else in the scriptures. It means what it appears to mean; one who is against or opposed to Christ.

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.   1 John 2:18-19

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.   1 John 2:22

And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.   1 John 4:3

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.   2 John 8

As we examine John's words, the one thing that defines the antichrist is false doctrine. More specifically, John defines antichrists as...

    A) Those who profess faith in Christ, but have departed from biblical Christianity.
    B) Those who deny the Father and the Son (the Trinity).
    C) Those who deny that the Son of God has come into the world in human flesh.

John's description of an antichrist could apply to any one of a number of people, religions or cults that have claimed to be Christian (or to respect Christ), but have departed from the true Christian faith.

It should be observed that John never says anything about the Antichrist establishing covenants, ending sacrifices, claiming to be God, having miraculous powers, cooperating with the Beast or being destroyed at the second coming of Christ. Nor does he link 'the Antichrist' with any other passage of scripture. The term 'antichrist' is not even found in the great prophetic book which John himself wrote; Revelation.

Rather than take caution from this, many have taken advantage of it. Because of his sinister name, and because so little is said about him, many have felt free to plug the Antichrist into their end-times scenario wherever they please. For Luther and the Calvinists the Antichrist was the Pope. For others the Antichrist has been 'the Prince who is to come' (of Daniel 9:26), the 'Abomination of Desolation', Paul's 'Man of Sin', and 'the Beast'. One cannot count all of the books, articles and movies that have flowed out of John's very limited words about 'the Antichrist'.

Although John says that there are many antichrists, in 1 John 2:18 he seems to refer to one specific person; 'the Antichrist', who maybe surpasses all other antichrists in his opposition to God. So who is this Antichrist? I do not know. One candidate to consider would be Mohammad. Islam claims Biblical roots and speaks well of Jesus, but fiercely denies that God has a Son, and that Jesus was 'Emmanuel'; 'God with us' in a human body. There is no other religion that more directly and forcefully denies the deity of Christ than Islam.

Muslims have written 'God has no son' inside their mosque, the 'Dome of the Rock', sitting on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This will ultimately prove to be a profound embarrassment to them. It was this One who declared Himself to be the Son of God, and who predicted the desolation of the Temple and its possession by the Gentiles, whose words they now fulfill through their occupation of the Temple Mount.


This is the City of Rome, beginning as a very small power on the edge of the Greek Empire. Rome first expelled Greece from the Italian peninsula in 'The Pyrrhic War'. It then defeated its southern enemy, Carthage, in 'The Punic Wars'. And finally it proceeded to move east, conquering Greece and Asia Minor (defeating Antiochus the Great) before eventually taking over the rest of the East (including Israel).

This Little Horn exalted itself against the Prince of God's host, the Lord Jesus Christ. It then brought an end to the daily sacrifices, destroying Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 AD. Because of Israel's transgressions the Roman Empire was allowed to continue its dominance over the Jews, and to establish a religion (Roman Catholicism) that casts truth to the ground. This is a striking combination of brevity and accuracy regarding Rome's history.

But needing to reinforce their claim that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was an 'abomination of desolation', Dispensationalists have claimed that this 'little horn' (who brought an end to sacrifices and destroyed the Temple in verses 11 and 12) is also A4E. But this is obviously untrue.

In verse 9 the 'little horn' is described as not just great, but 'exceedingly great'. But A4E is described as a 'vile', unworthy person; who obtained power through craftiness and deception (Daniel 11:21). And so, not being great at all, A4E died four years after his humiliation by the Romans.







[email protected]