- A Historical Critique of
- and Daniel's Prophecy of
By Mark Dankof
Any historical analysis and consideration of the
Dispensational perspective on prophecy must take into account the
paramount importance of the “Prophecy of Seventy Weeks” in Daniel 9:
24-27, particularly the 19th century historical developments
which facilitated the creation of the “gap” or “parenthesis” theory
between the 69th week and an allegedly futuristic 70th
week; the recency of the doctrine of the pre-Tribulation rapture before
the onset of the 70th week
; and the derivative idea of the bifurcation of the
coming of Jesus Christ into two stages, one involving His return for
the saints before the Great Tribulation, the second involving His return
with His saints after the expiration of the 70th week.
After due consideration of these topics, the practical outworking
of the “parenthesis” theory and the two-stage coming of Christ in
Dispensational piety and action will be examined historically, both in
terms of the 19th century and the 20th.
special significance is the Dispensational religious/political alliance
with the modern State of Israel and political Zionism, a development
which has had profound impact on much of modern Protestant
Evangelicalism’s understanding of the Kingdom and the role of the Church
in political alliances and activism based on an eschatological belief
The Dispensational position on Daniel 9 must first be understood
in contrast to the two (2) other major exegetical schools of thought on
the passage which have developed in history.
The first of these is the Maccabean; the second is the
Traditional. The former
position is often associated with higher biblical critical assumptions
about the dating and interpretation of the prophecy specifically, and
the book of Daniel generally.
The Dispensationalist Emerson writes
If Daniel were written 165 B. C. or thereabouts, how
could a literary and religious writer have achieved complete anonymity
among a people suffering persecution when any encouragement alleged to
come from Jehovah would have been like a ray of light on a dark night?
If such a book achieved its purpose, someone (its author or its
alleged discover) must certainly come to popular attention.
The Maccabees were not in the least anonymous. Therefore why would the author of Daniel be, if he professed
to have discovered a prophecy or to have written one?
We might ask ourselves what kind of a book should we
expect from the exile period.
The two books of the Maccabees would be the types of books one naturally
would expect to come out of the great persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes.
But Daniel shows sufficient evidence of belonging to the
Babylonian Exile. It has
been rightly said:
“If the Exile has that importance in relation to the
development as already described, then the whole progressive development
of the divine revelation as it lies before us in the Old and New
Testaments, warrants such as are found in the book of Daniel.
Since miracles and prophecies essentially belong not only in
general to the realization of the divine plan of salvation but have also
been especially manifested in all the critical periods of the history of
the kingdom of God neither the miracles in the historical parts of the
book nor its prophecies, consisting of singular predictions, can in any
respect seem strange to us.” [Emerson quoting C. F Keil, Bible
Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 20]
As we compare First Maccabees with the book of
Daniel, we have in the former, the kind of book that embodies most of
the elements that the book of Daniel should have had, had it been
written in the Maccabean period.
To be more specific, Daniel should have been anti-Hellenic and shown
zeal for the temple and temple worship and a holy indignation for those
The book should have been full of zeal for the law and
denunciation of those not so zealous.
First Maccabees is full of Palestinian places, names, local color
and glorification of the Hasmonean exploits.
This we do not find in Daniel.
Even Montgomery [Emerson quoting J. A. Montgomery.
The Book of Daniel.
ICC Series. Edinburgh: T.
and T. Clark, 1926, p. 90] says, “Further the historical background of
these chapters is Babylonian.
Again their sumptuous barbaric scenery is obviously not that of
one need only compare the arid scenery of the later chapters.”
Since 400 years had elapsed between the Babylon of
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and the Babylon of the Maccabean period,
conditions utterly different had come into being with reference to the
whole city and area. The city had lost its preeminent position and was under Greek
control. What a wonderful
research staff and what a wonderful source library the pseudo Daniel
must have had. He seems to
have avoided the pitfalls into which Herodotus fell only a century after
the events about which he wrote.
How could the Jewish high priest in 332 B. C. have
shown Alexander the Great the prophecy of Daniel as pertaining to his
own conquests when, according to the theory, the book was not (to have
been) written for another 164 years?
Josephus could hardly have imagined the dream that Alexander related to
the high priest. How also do we explain Jerusalem’s escape from destruction
after its refusal to surrender?
And how do we explain its switch in loyalty from a nearly monotheistic
Persia under which the Jewish people had peace, prosperity and
governmental friendliness, to a polytheistic Macedonia?
How could a book with such uncertain antecedents have
ever become a part of the Canon of Scripture?
It was not the Jewish custom to select the canonical books carelessly or
at random [Emerson quoting Edersheim, The Life and Times of the
Messiah, New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1931, Volume 2, App. 5]. Even though Daniel is listed in the “writings” rather than in
the “prophets”, we have no record of any hesitancy of including his book
in the sacred Scripture until the time of Porphyry (233-304 A. D.).
It was the Jewish belief and criterion that all Scripture had a
If the Maccabean authorship and the date of 165 B. C.
for Daniel are rejected, when was it written?
If we were to accept the internal evidence aside from the evident
familiarity of the author with the life and time of Nebuchadnezzar, we
have two hints in the book itself.
The first chapter ends with the words, “And Daniel continued even
unto the first year of King Cyrus.”
If this is to be taken at face value, this chapter at least, may
have been written 537-536 B. C.; i. e., in the first year of Cyrus.
On the other hand, Daniel’s final vision (Daniel 10: 1) dates the
vision in the third year of Cyrus; that is 534-533 B. C., which would
also be the dating of the last three chapters since they all are a part
of the same vision. The
problem would thus be simple if we could be sure that all of the
remaining chapters were written in the intervening two years. We note that each chapter has a unity of style–in fact, all
of the chapters together have a unity of style that would suggest that
they were at least taken from notes put down on the spot at the time of
the occurrence. Since these
were all written under inspiration and since the Holy Spirit brings to
our minds not only from our own human experience but beyond our
experience the things which he wills, there is nothing to prevent our
dating the actual writing from 537-533 B. C.
After all, if John could write another apocalypse during a
comparatively brief stay on Patmos, Daniel might well have written his
prophecy in what could have been the last few years of his life.
Both books are the product of a long walk with God, and both are
The non-Dispensational scholars, R. K. Harrison and E. J. Young,
also take issue with the higher Biblical criticism and late dating
approach of the Maccabean school of interpretation.
Harrison notes the seminal role of Porphyry (3rd
century A. D.) in denying a 6th century date for Daniel, and
assigning to it the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
Harrison also underscores the anti-supernaturalistic assumptions
of the neo-Platonic philosopher, who “. . .
commenced his reasoning from the a priori assumption that
there could be no predictive element in prophecy, so that the work could
only be historical in nature, and therefore of a late date.
This formidable heathen antagonist of the Christian faith
maintained that the author of Daniel had lied in order to revive the
hopes of contemporary Jews in the midst of their adversities. . . .
The German literary-critical movement seized avidly upon the
supposition that the prophecy could contain no predictive element, and
repudiated the Jewish and Christian tradition of a sixth-century B. C.
date of composition for the book. . . .
At the outset it has to be stated that there can be no question
whatever as to the influence that the views of Porphyry exercised over
the minds of scholars who denied a predictive element to Hebrew
prophecy. For them,
prophecy consisted in forth telling rather than foretelling, so that any
aspect of the latter could have no place in true prophecy.” 
agrees with this specifically
where the dating of the entire book of Daniel is
concerned, as well as in the case of the “Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks”
in chapter 9. 
Thus, both Dispensational and non-Dispensational evangelical
scholars dismiss the Maccabean school of interpretation of Daniel 9 as
rooted in a presuppositional anti-supernaturalism which either distorts
or ignores internal evidences which point to the unity of the entire
book under the authorship of the 6th century prophet.
The higher critics, who almost uniformly adhere to the
interpretation, assert their position with equal vehemence:
This chapter [chapter 9 of Daniel] consists, not of a
symbolic vision, as in chs. 7-8, but of a revelation made directly by an
In answer to Daniel’s prayer for a solution to the problem of why
Jeremiah’s prophecy of a restoration of Israel after 70 years has not
been fulfilled, the angel Gabriel explains to him that the prophecy
means 70 weeks of years–i. e., 7 times 70 years.
Moreover, Gabriel divides these 490 years into three very unequal
periods of 49, 434, and 7 years, respectively.
Because the writer’s calculations are only approximate and his
historical references not always clear, there is still some difference
of opinion in interpreting certain details in Gabriel’s explanation.
But practically all
exegetes now agree that the 490 years terminate in the end of Antiochus
IV Epiphanes’ persecution; the once common opinion that saw in vv. 26-27
a reference to the death of Jesus Christ is now abandoned by almost all
exegetes [emphasis mine].
The Catholic exegete, Hartmann, provides an excellent synopsis of
the Maccabean summary of the prophecy.
translates the “Seventy Weeks” as “seventy Sabbatical periods.”
The change from the 70 years of Jeremiah to 7 times 70 years is
based not only on the fact that Israel’s lack of complete repentance
merited this sevenfold punishment (Lv. 26: 34-35) but also on 2 Chr. 36:
21, where Jeremiah’s prophecy is connected with the Sabbatical years
spoken of in Lv. 26: 34-35.
Verse 24, for Hartmann, involves a brief summary of the whole period of
490 years. If reckoned at
its longest, from the time that Jeremiah first spoke his prophecy (605)
to the end of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ persecution (164), this period
would be “only 441 years.
But the writer, who no doubt knew little of the chronology of the early post-exilic
period, would not be disturbed by this discrepancy between his symbolic
numbers and the historical facts.”
Hartmann indicates that the reference to the “most holy will be
anointed” almost certainly refers to the consecration by Judas Maccabeus
of the restored Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple, although he
acknowledges that the Church Fathers often applied it to Jesus, “the
25-27, the three main periods of the 490 years are acknowledged to
exist. Hartmann takes the
reference to the anointed one of verse 25 as “probably” Cyrus the Great;
less likely as Zerubbabel or the high priest Joshua.
“Only if one reckons from the second utterance of Jeremiah’s prophecy
(ca. 595) to the anointing of Cyrus as king of Persia (558–a date the
writer of Dn 9 would hardly know!) could the required 49 years be
approximately obtained. But
the following words imply that the first period extends to the beginning
of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which would embrace much more than seven
weeks of years.”
He then indicates that the 62 weeks of years, or 434 years, allowed for
the rebuilding of Jerusalem are “too
many by far; from 538-171 (the next date) is only 367 years.” 
In verse 26, Hartmann assigns to the “anointed shall be cut down”, the
historical referent of the deposed high priest, Onias III, and his
murder in Antioch in 171 B. C., thus his failure to possess the city of
Jerusalem. Also in verse
26, “the people of a leader” is linked to the Syrian army of Antiochus
IV Epiphanes, which plundered the Jerusalem Temple in 169 and 167.
The phrase, “for one week” in verse 27 is the period after Onias’ death
(170-163), with the accompanying theory that the writer of the chapter
was writing a few months before the persecution ended in December, 164.
The “firm pact with the many” is allegedly Antiochus IV Epiphanes’
alliance with renegade Jews who favored the Hellenization of their
culture. “‘Half the week”
is for Hartmann, the second half of the seven year period beginning in
170, although he insists that the Temple desecration actually lasted
only three years–from December, 167, to December, 164.
Young and O. T. Allis, comprising the best of what Reiter calls
the “Princeton-Westminster tradition,”
offer an interpretation of the prophecy which
simultaneously rejects higher critical anti-supernaturalism while
affirming the historical fulfillment of the 70th week in the
events surrounding the first advent of Jesus Christ.
These respective schemas are representative of the
Traditionalist, or what Reiter would term the Historicist school of
deals most extensively with Daniel 9: 24-27 in Prophecy and the
Church, chapter five, entitled, “Old Testament Prophecies Concerning
the Kingdom,” where he begins by stating:
The effect produced on the interpretation of prophecy
by the “parenthesis” doctrine of the Church as set forth by
Dispensationalists is one of the clearest proofs of the novelty of that
doctrine as well as of its revolutionary nature.
In 1835 an article appeared in the Christian Witness, the
earliest organ of the Brethren, in which the claim was made that all of
the prophecies of Daniel are still unfulfilled, that they do not relate
to the Church age but are to be fulfilled in the future kingdom age.
At the time this article was written the view was generally held
that the Christian Church or dispensation was the great theme of Old
Testament prophecy. Today in
Dispensational circles it is regarded as axiomatic that the Church is
completely ignored by the prophets.
Consequently, the prophets have a very important role in deciding
the issues raised by Dispensationalism.
And since the Dispensational doctrine that the Church was unknown
to them was first applied to the Book of Daniel, we shall confine
ourselves largely to it in testing the correctness of this method of
interpreting the prophecies of the Old Testament.
Allis continues by saying that the importance of the “Prophecy of
70 Weeks” in Dispensational teaching can:
hardly be exaggerated.
It is often appealed to as the conspicuous proof that the entire
Church Age is a parenthesis in the prophetic program which is to be
discovered between vvs. 26 and 27 of Dan. ix. . .
Since Dispensationalists hold that the prophecy of the Seventy
Weeks is directly Messianic, it is not necessary for us to discuss the
various anti-Messianic interpretations that have been proposed.
Our concern is to defend the form of the Messianic interpretation
which has been called the “traditional” one because it has been so
widely accepted, and to show its superiority over this “parenthesis”
interpretation, the discovery of which has furnished, so
Dispensationalists tell us, the key to the interpretation of prophecy.
Allis begins his summation of the Traditional perspective by
acknowledging the points of agreement with Dispensationalism, chiefly
that the seventy weeks represent weeks of years, a total of 490 years;
that only one period of weeks is described, as is proved by the fact
that the subdivisions (7+62+1) when added together give a total of 70;
that the “anointed one, the prince” of verse 25 and the “anointed one”
of verse 26 are the same person, the Messiah; and that the first 69
weeks or 483 years had their terminus in the period of the first
advent–their fulfillment is long past. 
focuses on the two chief differences between the Traditional and
Dispensational schools of interpretation.
First, the question of whether or not the great events described
in vs. 24 have been fulfilled, or are yet future; second, the issue of
whether or not the 70th week is past or future.
Dispensationalists take the futurist perspective on both questions, a
development Reiter freely acknowledges to be of 19th century
The latter locates the genesis of the futuristic position on
Daniel’s 70th week to a time just subsequent to the
introduction of the futuristic approach to the Apocalypse in 1826 by
Samuel R. Maitland. 
Nelson Darby, the central figure in Brethrenism and “founder of
dispensationalism,” then advanced the position that a “gap existed
between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks, with the result that the
seventieth week is still future.” 
Allis’ presentation of the “Traditional” interpretation begins on
page 113 of Prophecy and is as follows.
First, that according to the view, all of the great transactions
referred to in vs. 24 are to be regarded as having been fulfilled at the
first advent and, more specifically, in what is to be regarded as the
“climactic event of the prophecy, the redemption at Calvary, which is
referred to literally in verse 26 and figuratively in vs. 27.”
words, “to finish transgression and to make an end of (or seal up) sins
and to make reconciliation for iniquity” are to be regarded as referring
to that atonement for sin which was accomplished once and for all on the
Cross. This interpretation
is in accord with many New Testament statements, e. g., Heb. x. 12-14.
Thus Allis reminds us that Paul says that:
. . .
Jesus has “abolished death.” (2 Tim. 1. 10).
Death was a very real thing to Paul.
He was living under its shadow, when he wrote these words to Timothy.
But the fear of death and the power of death had been destroyed,
because Christ had brought life and immortality to light through the
Gospel. For Paul, death was
indeed “abolished.” Sin is,
likewise, very much alive; it is very active in the world.
But sin was finally dealt with (“made an end of”) and
reconciliation brought about through the death of Christ, His passive
obedience as a sufferer for sin.
It only remains that the benefits of that finished work be applied to
all those for whom it was performed.
The same applies to the three other matters referred to in this verse.
An “everlasting righteousness” was provided for all the redeemed
through the active obedience of Christ, His perfect keeping of the law
of God. Prophecy was
“sealed,” i. e., authenticated in a unique way by the life and death and
resurrection and ascension of Christ; and prophetic gifts ceased in the
Christian Church with the close of the apostolic age.
The “anointing of a most holy” may refer either to a person or to
a place. If to a person, the reference may be to the descent of the
Holy Spirit on Jesus to fit Him for His Messianic work (Lk.
iii.22; iv. 18); if to a place, it may refer to the entrance of
the risen Christ into heaven itself, when “through his own blood he
entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption” (Heb. ix. 12) for all His elect.
In a word we have in vs. 24 the prophecy of the “satisfaction of
Christ,” of His obedience and sufferings, by virtue of which the sinner
obtains forgiveness and acceptance with God.
According to this view, the 69th week
ended with the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist and the
baptism of Jesus; and the 70th week followed immediately upon
Consequently, the “cutting off” of the Anointed One which
occurred, “after the threescore and two weeks” must be regarded as
having taken place in the 70th week; and a reference to it is
to be found in the words, “In the midst [half] of the week, he [the
Messiah] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”
That Christ by His death put an end to the Jewish ritual of
sacrifice, substituting for bulls and goats “a sacrifice of nobler name
and richer blood than they,” is the great argument of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. So interpreted, it
is the Messiah who makes firm or confirms the covenant for the one (the
70th) week; and the crucifixion which takes place in the midst of it is
the great event of that week and may be regarded as the climax of the
Allis admits that the Traditional interpretive scheme is not
without problems, simply that the problems posed are far less
exegetically and historically problematic than those posited by the
Dispensationalist grid. He
does concede that one difficulty resides in the fact that the
Traditional interpretation does not clearly define the “terminus of the
the midst” is taken in its natural sense to refer to a half week, or 3 ½
years, the latter 3 ½ years must be accounted for.
regards as “possible”
the options that either the last half refers to the
period of the founding of the Church and the preaching of the Gospel
exclusively to the Jews, a period ending with or about the time of the
martyrdom of Stephen; or that the time in question was “graciously
extended to some 35 years, to the date of the destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus, a reference to which is found in vs. 26.”
point continues to be that if Calvary took place “in the midst of the
week,” there can be “no interval between the 69th and the 70th
It is to
be noted that the scheme of E. J. Young, another Traditionalist, is not
without its mathematical problems.
In a summation which coincides with that of Allis, Young notes:
The traditional Messianic interpretation entails less [emphasis mine]
difficulty than do the others and at the same time does justice to the
language of the text. Upon
this view the seventy sevens serve as a symbolical number for the period
that has been decreed for the accomplishment of the Messianic salvation
(v. 24). In v. 25 we are
taught that two segments of time elapse from the issuing of a word from
God to rebuild Jerusalem until the appearance of Christ.
After these two segments have elapsed, the Messiah will be cut
off by death and Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed by the Roman
armies of Titus. The
Messiah, however, will cause the Jewish sacrifice to cease by means of
His death, and He will do this in the midst of the seventieth seven.
As a consequence, the Temple will be destroyed, and the
destruction will continue until the end appears which has been appointed
The precise point of termination of the period of seventy sevens is not
revealed. The emphasis, rather, is not so much upon the beginning and
termination of this period as it is upon the great results which the
period has been set apart to accomplish. [emphasis mine] 
Finally then, must come a summation of the basic position of the
best representatives of the Dispensational “gap” or “parenthesis” theory
regarding Daniel 9: 24-27.
These representatives include modern exegetes John Walvoord,
and Charles Ryrie,
as well as the classic, older Dispensational scholars,
including Sir Robert Anderson,
Arno C. Gaebelein,
and William Bell Riley.
summation, the basic outline of the Dispensational interpretation of the
passage, beginning with Darby, is as follows–first, in contrast to the
Traditional perspective, verses 24 and 27 are deemed to be future in
their fulfillment. 
“Prophecy of 70 Weeks” is part of the division of Daniel’s book
(chapters 7-12) that records visions of future earthly kingdoms, both
human and divine.
continues the summary of the Dispensational position
by mentioning the six restoration goals
of 9: 24, which are outlined by the remainder of
chapter 9, in terms of events which will unfold in Israel’s subsequent
history. As Price notes, Dispensationalism joins with most Christian
scholarship in holding that the seventy weeks are to be interpreted as
seventy weeks of years; the resulting period of 490 years (70 x
7) is divided, according to the text (vv. 25-27), as periods of
seven weeks (49 years), sixty-two weeks (434 years), and one week (7
is also in agreement with most evangelical scholarship in interpreting
the context of the passage as messianic, with the coming of Messiah
taking place after the sixty-nine weeks.
follows with Price is the crux of the Dispensational view of the
However, dispensationalism (classical) is distinct in
its interpretation of Daniel’s Seventieth Week (v. 27) as future.
With Israel’s rejection of the Messiah and His death taking place
after the sixty-ninth week (v. 26), the completion of the six
restoration goals for Israel (v. 24) is left for the Seventieth Week. If the Seventieth Week
immediately succeeds the sixty-ninth week historically, then the
expected restoration must be applied spiritually to the church as a new
Israel [emphasis mine].
Because dispensationalism adheres to the principle of
literal interpretation and recognizes the
scriptural distinction between God’s program for Israel and for the
church, it understands the historical completion of Israel’s
restoration must take place in a
future week [emphasis mine]. During this time (as described in v. 27), there is a
resumption of the messianic program for Israel with the overthrow of the
Antichrist (the apocalyptic prerequisite to the establishment of the
messianic kingdom). This
interpretation requires [emphasis mine] a
prophetic postponement [emphasis mine] (older writers referred to
this as a “gap” or “parenthesis” [emphasis mine])
between the events of verses 26 and 27. The revelation of a prophetic postponement in the fulfillment
of the eschatological aspect of the messianic program is in harmony with
numerous passages in the Old
Testament [emphasis mine]
that reveal the two [emphasis mine] advents of Christ [numerous passages cited]. . .
The six restoration goals of Daniel’s seventy-weeks prophecy (v.
24) may have a near fulfillment in the experience of the nation
(Messiah’s redemptive advent)
but must wait for its complete fulfillment in the future (Messiah’s
restorative advent [emphasis mine]). The
postponement understood between verses 26 and 27 is the consequence of
partial and complete fulfillment in the messianic program. The first phase of the messianic program accomplished
spiritual redemption for ethnic Israel in the First Advent (Matthew 1:
21; cf. Luke 2: 11).
National rejection of Messiah (Matt. 23: 37; cf. Acts 3: 13-15, 17; 4:
25-27), while fulfilling the promise of Gentile inclusion (Acts 15:
14-18; Rom. 11: 11, 25, 30), necessitated a second phase of the
messianic program to apply spiritual redemption to Israel nationally
(Acts 3: 18-21; Rom. 11: 26-29, 31) and complete the promise of national
restoration (Matt. 23: 39; Acts 1: 6-7; 3: 22-26; 15: 16), which will be
fulfilled at the Second Advent (Zech. 12: 10-13: 2; 14: 3-11).
The dispensational view
depends on the validity of interpreting the Seventieth Week
eschatologically [emphasis mine]. 
This then, is the summation of the Dispensationalist exegesis of
the passage. In a review of
different commentators in the literature, there are minor revisions and
differences in emphasis, but the basic adherence to the parenthesis
theory and the futuristic fulfillment of the 70th week is
absolute. One variance
worth mentioning is the occasional difference over the dating of the
beginning of the prophecy.
Most of the Dispensational commentators begin the 70 weeks at either 458
or 444 B. C. (Nehemiah 2), utilizing one of two decrees of an Achaemenid
king of Persia to the Jews as the commencement of the allotted time for
the unfolding of events in Israel’s prophetic program.
Occasionally, one will see reference to 538 B. C. as the
commencement (Cyrus’ decree), but this is rare in comparison to the
other two beginning points noted.
What then, are the historical considerations presented by the
Dispensational system, with particular reference to the futuristic view
of Daniel 9, and the way in which 1 Thessalonians 4; 2 Thessalonians 2,
the Olivet Discourse, and Revelation 4-22 are woven around it?
It would seem that the initial paramount consideration would be
the establishment of the genesis of the position in history; secondarily
would be an examination of the way in which the Dispensational system
has impacted American Evangelicalism, particularly in its understanding
of the Kingdom, its historical pessimism about society and the Church,
and the fascinating, often paradoxical character of the
political/religious link it has forged with modern Zionism and the State
What are the sources, in terms of individuals and historical
epochs, which enable the Dispensational theories of a parenthesis
Church, a pre or mid-Tribulational Rapture, a Great Tribulation
corresponding to Daniel’s 70th week, and a two stage coming
of Christ, to be traced to their provable origins?
The absolute answers to these questions are a matter of debate,
but ongoing historical research provides some clues, the meaning of
which is in dispute between adherents of the Dispensational system and
At a bare minimum, it can be reliably asserted that the
Dispensational distinctives aforementioned are 19th century
developments, a developing system of Biblical interpretation that was
unknown in earlier epochs and especially in the early Church.
It is true that Dispensational adherents attempt to maintain that
their system is a continuation of historic premillennialism
, yet Ladd maintains that, “For all practical purposes,
we may consider that this movement–for dispensationalism has had such
wide influence that it must be called a movement–had its source with
Darby and Kelly.”
Robert Cameron in 1896, had reacted with some others in the Niagara Bible
Conference to some of the dispensational elements, blaming the movement
completely on the Darbyists, saying that they had introduced “a theory
absolutely without a single advocate in the history of the Church, from
Weber, whose work, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming–American
Premillennialism 1825-1982, is probably the most definitive
historical appraisal of Dispensationalism since C. Norman Kraus’ 1958
book, Dispensationalism in America, agrees that futurism made its
way into the English-speaking world in the early nineteenth century,
with Darby its most creative innovator in the development of the
Dispensational distinctives which subsequently received further
refinement from such contributors as James Brookes and C. I. Scofield.
Interestingly enough, Weber traces the modern futurist movement
to a Jesuit named Ribers, who proposed as early as 1590 that the
prophecies concerning Antichrist would not be fulfilled until the very
end of the church age, all in an attempt to undermine the Protestant
claims that the papacy was in fact the Antichrist. 
This late 16th century historical source for futurism
made a contribution uniquely suited to the gifts of Darby in his seminal
development of the classic Dispensational system, first in the British
Isles, then through his travels to the United States in post Civil War
America, where the distinctives of the system received further
refinement and promulgation in the 19th century American
prophecy conferences, which both Weber and Kraus provide historical
documentation of. 19th
century America was in the midst of radical shifts in its culture,
economy, and political structure subsequent to the Civil War. Historicism had suffered a setback through the date-setting
disaster of William Miller, a Baptist preacher from Vermont, who had
calculated a foolproof arrival date for Jesus Christ of October 22,
1844. Miller and his
followers became the “laughing stocks” of American Evangelicalism when
Christ failed to appear.
“Great Disappointment” resulted in the Millerite formation of the
Seventh-Day Adventists, many of whom wrote off the rest of Protestantism
and Roman Catholicism as the great whore of biblical prophecy (Rev. 17).
Premillennialism had fallen on hard times through Miller’s catastrophic
mistake–yet by 1875 had rebounded in a new form called Dispensationalism,
which held that no “last days” prophecy will be fulfilled until just
before the return of Jesus Christ; which rejected the historicists’
“year-day theory” for dating prophetic events, and the idea that the
Papacy was the Biblical Antichrist.
As Weber notes, the Dispensational denial that the prophecies
were intended for the Church Age as a whole, served to relieve them of
the “dangerous and often embarrassing task of matching biblical
predictions with current events, and the task of setting dates for the
adds that a key distinctive in the new system was the conviction that
God has two completely different plans operating in history, one for an
earthly people (Israel) and one for a heavenly people (the church).
“Rightly dividing the Word of Truth,”came to mean, in particular
the maintenance of the distinction between the two people of God.
Mackintosh, whose popularizations of Darby’s theology sold well in the
United States, gave a clear exposition of the new, novel idea of the
“parenthesis” or “gap” theory based on Daniel 9 to the 19th
seizes upon the emerging radical implications and derivatives of this
In essence this meant that the Christian church had
no prophecies of its own.
It occupied a mysterious, prophetic time warp, a “great parenthesis,”
which had no place in God’s original plans.
. . . This perspective left
dispensationalists, to say nothing of the church, in a difficult
position. According to their reasoning, the church is in the world but
can lay claim to none of the prophecies of future earthly events.
As we have already seen, dispensationalists blushed at the
thought of assigning earthly prophecies to God’s heavenly people.
Furthermore, as every dispensationalist knew, the Bible bulged
with predictions of future events.
Daniel’s seventieth week, postponed for the time being, must
occur sometime. This time of trouble, called the great tribulation by all
pre-millennialists, was described in great detail in Revelation and
other places (e. g. Matt. 24 and II Thess. 2).
To complicate matters even further, dispensationalists believed
that God was unwilling or unable to deal with his two peoples or operate
his two plans at the same time.
it seemed necessary to remove the
church [emphasis mine] before God could proceed with his final plans
for Israel. This rather difficult problem was easily solved by dispensationalism’s
most controversial and distinctive doctrine–the secret, pretribulational
rapture of the church [emphasis mine]. . . .
Up to the early 1830's it seems that all futurist
premillennialists had seen the rapture in conjunction with the second
coming of Christ at the end of the tribulation.
But dispensationalists, taking their cues from the creative
teaching of John Darby, separated them.
At the rapture, they said, Christ will come
for his saints, and at the second coming, he will come with his saints.
Between these two events will occur the tribulation, which
dispensationalists equated with Daniel’s seventieth week and the reign
In this way the church
will be removed from the scene so that God can resume his prophetic
countdown and his dealings with Israel. 
The charge that a preconceived ecclesiology was forcing novel
exegetical schemes and conclusions upon Daniel 9 and other Biblical
texts proved irresistable to opponents of Dispensationalism.
Incredibly, some of its adherents, including John Walvoord, have
agreed that the bifurcation of Israel and the Church is even more
important than eschatology itself.
Richard Reiter writes:
Additional evidence for the importance of the
doctrine of the church came from the vigorous and capable presentation
of pretribulationism carried on throughout the early 1950s by John F.
Walvoord, president of Dallas Theological Seminary, in Bibliotheca
Published in 1957 as The Rapture Question, the series of
essays that preceded The Blessed Hope by Ladd in 1956 picked up
and answered Ladd’s criticisms along with those of earlier
Walvoord clearly established that “the rapture question is determined
more by ecclesiology than eschatology” for the definition of “church”
and “the doctrine of the church is. . .
determinative in the question of
whether the church will go through the tribulation” [Reiter
quoting Walvoord, The Rapture Question page 50].
This line of analysis mirrors Darby himself, who claimed that the
doctrine [of the pre- Tribulational rapture] “virtually jumped out of
the pages of Scripture once he accepted and consistently maintained the
distinction between Israel and the Church.”
It is this conviction, that the Church is properly
heavenly in its calling and relationship with Christ, forming no part of
the course of events of the earth, which makes its rapture so simple and
clear; and on the other hand, it shows how the denial of its rapture
brings down the Church to an earthly position, and destroys its whole
spiritual character and position.
Prophecy does not relate to heaven.
The Christian’s hope is not a prophetic subject at all.
Kraus duly notes the prior importance of the ecclesiology issue
for Darby, noting that, “It was not until several years after his break
with the Anglican Church in 1827 that he became specifically interested
in prophecy. His interest
in this subject is at least second handedly traceable to the Albury
Conferences, out of which grew the Irvingite movement.”
also quotes James Bear as indicating that the Albury Conferences, and
the subsequent Powerscourt House conferences, were the traceable
location and genesis of the Dispensational distinctives, where the
“truths of the distinctive nature of the Church and the ‘rapture’ were
discovered, which led to the development of a new complex of ideas which
we know today as ‘Dispensationalism.’” 
When the significance of Darby’s trips to Canada in
1859, 1864, and 1866, and his trips to the United States in 1870,
1872-1873, and 1874 are duly noted,
it is clear that Kraus is correct in demonstrating
that all of the key figures in American Dispensational thought were
merely repristinating and further developing and systematizing the basic
ecclesiology and eschatology of Darby himself:
Even a casual review of these outlines and
explanations makes it clear that the American writers were influenced by
Darby. Their outlines are essentially repetitions; at best they are
variations on a theme. The
differences in the outlines grow out of the relative emphasis placed on
the definition of a dispensation as a historical or theological concept. In each case a dispensation is a combination of both
elements, the theological superimposed upon the historical. However, dispensationalism is basically theological rather
than historical in its orientation.
It is not primarily an attempt to trace the rise and fall of
political, social, or religious movements in the passage of time.
It is, rather, a philosophy of history–an attempt to interpret
history according to a theological norm.
Thus the differences which appear in the outlines are not
essential, but are merely individual applications of the accepted
dispensational norm. When
this point is clearly recognized it is immediately apparent what Darby’s
relation is to those who follow.
He expounded the norm. 
These American writers included S. H. Cox (1793-1880), Henry M.
Parsons (1828-1913), the Christian Zionist William E. Blackstone
(1841-1935), A. J. Frost, James Hall Brookes (1830-1897) who is termed
by Kraus the “outstanding leader of the Bible conference movement from
1875 to the time of his death,” 
and G. Campbell Morgan (1864-1945).
names were accompanied by pulpit presences influenced by Darbyism which
included A. J. Gordon at the Clarendon Street Baptist Church in Boston;
D. L. Moody in Chicago; and of course, Brookes himself at the Walnut
Street Presbyterian Church in St. Louis.
notes the significance as well, of the early division in the Plymouth
Brethren movement over Darby’s Dispensational distinctives, coming
chiefly from Benjamin Wills Newton (1805-1898) and Samuel Prideaux
Tregelles (1813-1875), who became increasingly marginalized in Darby’s
takeover of the mainstream of the movement, and in the latter’s
exportation of the distinctives to a waiting American audience:
Early in the Brethren movement two viewpoints
concerning eschatology emerged. As Darby developed his dispensational
concepts he met with opposition within his own group.
Benjamin Wills Newton (1805-1898) and the great textual scholar, Samuel
Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875), disagreed with his dispensational
George Muller who had joined the Plymouth Brethren in 1830 also
felt, as he told Robert Cameron, that he had to make a choice between
Mr. Darby and the Bible, and that he had chosen the Bible.
But it was the “exclusive
Brethren” under the leadership of Darby that made the initial contacts
in America [emphasis mine]. Probably the two most popular writers, and the widest read by
American ministers, were William Trotter and Charles Henry Macintosh,
although the writings of William Kelly and Darby also circulated widely.
Until about 1880 the
literature of Tregelles, Newton, and George Muller had very little
influence upon the Bible conference movement; and when it did become
known it did not turn the tide of dispensationalism [emphasis mine].
Thus, a historical line of development in the development and
promulgation of Dispensational Distinctives may legitimately be drawn
from Darby and his “exclusive Brethren” to his most distinguished 19th
century exponents, including Brookes, Trotter, Macintosh, and
Blackstone; subsequently to C. I. Scofield and his most significant
editor for his early 20th century Scofield Reference Bible,
Arno C. Gaebelein;
later to the more recent responsible refinements of
the Dispensational system through the work of Lewis Sperry Chafer,
Charles Ryrie, and John Walvoord; and finally to the Sensational
Dispensationalism of Hal Lindsey and the Late Great Planet Earth
in 1970, whose 18 million copies in sales popularized a position whose
lineage is traceable to the Irishman Darby and his disenchantment with
the Anglican communion. In
all of these writers, the futuristic 70th week of Daniel, the
two-stage coming of Christ, and the secret, “at any moment” pre-Tribulational
Rapture predominate, in the interest of maintaining the Church/Israel
But is there any conclusive historical evidence for how or where
Darby received his inspiration for the doctrine of the pre-Tribulational
Rapture of the Church?
According to Weber, “historians are still trying to determine how or
where Darby got it.” 
opponent, Tregelles, charged that the idea originated in about 1832
during an ecstatic utterance in the congregation of Edward Irving, where
the charismatic gifts of the Spirit were alleged to have been poured
A newer though still not totally convincing view
contends that the doctrine initially appeared in a prophetic vision of
Margaret Macdonald, who was a teenager from Glasgow, Scotland, in the
early part of 1830.
According to some recently discovered (and confusing)
manuscripts, Miss Macdonald claimed special insight into the second
coming and may have even advocated a pretribulation rapture of the
church. Shortly after her
vision of the end, Margaret began speaking in tongues and became, along
with other members of her family, one of the main attractions of a
charismatic type of revival in western Scotland.
Deeply disturbed by the reports of a new Pentecost, the Plymouth
Brethren commissioned Darby to investigate.
He arrived in the middle of 1830 and, according to his own
testimony twenty-three years later, actually met and heard Miss
Macdonald. According to
recent theory, Darby returned home totally against the so-called
outpouring of the Spirit, but borrowed Margaret Macdonald’s view of the
rapture, modifying it at a number of points and fitting it into his
system, without ever acknowledging his debt to her.
The riposte between Dave MacPherson
and John Walvoord is apropos here.
MacPherson, in the Great Rapture Hoax, states definitively
that Margaret MacDonald’s revolutionary revelation of a two-stage Second
Coming came to her as she studied various Scripture passages in the
spring of 1830 in Port Glasgow, Scotland.
He develops this line of argument by claiming in Appendix A,
entitled, “Margaret’s Revelation,” that:
One of her unique thoughts was that the first stage
(the Rapture) would take place
before the revealing of the Antichrist–an idea that had never been
heard of in Church history before she expressed it!
Not long after her revelation, she wrote down her account of
everything and sent handwritten copies of it to a number of Christian
leaders. The Morning
Watch, a leading British publication, quickly copied some of her
distinctive notions. Her
revelation was first published in Robert Norton’s Memoirs of James
and George Macdonald, of Port Glasgow (1840), pp. 171-176. Norton
published it again in The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; In
the Catholic Apostolic Church (1861), pp.
MacPherson then reproduces the text of Macdonald’s “two-stage
revelation” with numbered
lines of 1-117 for easy reference.
divides the 117 line revelation into three (3) basic divisions entitled,
1) Preparation for the Rapture [lines 1-60]; 2) The Revealing of
Antichrist [lines 60-87]; and 3) General Exhortations [lines 87-117].
extremely detailed and difficult analysis of the 117 lines follows on
pages 133-180 of Hoax, where MacPherson draws certain conclusions
about Darby based on a written communication of the latter allegedly
penned in 1833:
I trust many have been aroused since I have been
here, and the Lord’s coming looked for by many, and some brought to
peace. We have also some very nice scripture reading meetings, to
which any of the clergy who hold the truth, have fallen in, though quite
mixed, and every one at liberty to speak.
It is chiefly, of course, on what may be called first principles,
but I trust thorough ones practically.
It is a remarkable circumstance, that a dear young lady, who was
instrumental in setting them afloat for me, and at several members of
whose family they were held–who had been only called about a year by the
Lord, but was very decided ever since–was suddenly called away the other
day in the midst of it all.
The people in Limerick felt it a good deal, and I trust it may be the
instrument of good to many. The whole family, which was a principal one here, had been
all thoroughly worldly a year ago, and herself and her sister at the
head of all idleness. [MacPherson quoting Darby in Letters, vol.
1, p. 15)
MacPherson then concludes that:
Why did Darby admit such things about a young Irish
lady (written three years after Margaret’s revelation) and not give
Margaret any credit for her prior Rapture?
Surely he must have known that sooner or later someone could discover
the real Pre-Trib origin.
The answer, as I see it, is that Darby was a well-read, knowledgeable
opportunist, one who had studied to be a lawyer.
He had been in Margaret’s home in mid-1830 and knew that her
distinctive views had been picked up quickly by The Morning Watch
and also by other Irvingites and his own Plymouth Brethren.
He knew that, in time, memories and personalities would fade away
and that he could well be regarded as the Pre-Trib Rapture’s great
systematizer and promoter, if not immediately its originator.
In appendix C of Hoax, MacPherson provides the complete
text of a letter he penned to Dr. Robert H. Gundry of Westmont College
in Santa Barbara, California.
Gundry, after receiving the letter dated January 21, 1980, allegedly
changed his book The Church and the Tribulation, deleting his
previous support for Edward Irving as the pre-Tribulation Rapture
originator, and substituting MacPherson’s evidence about Margaret
Macdonald as the historical explanation for the doctrine’s origin. The corrected text appeared in Gundry’s sixth printing in
December of 1980.
letter to Gundry, MacPherson continues his conclusions about Darby:
No one disputes the fact that modern Pre-Tribism can
be traced back to John Darby.
In the Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol.
II, p. 102, Darby claimed in an 1850 work of his that II Thessalonians
2: 1-2 was the passage that gave him a seal of approval for believing in
Pre-Trib. His statement
follows: “It is this passage which, twenty years ago, made me understand
the rapture of the saints before–perhaps a considerable time before–the
day of the Lord (that is before the judgment of the living.”
Darby, unlike many of today’s Pre-Tribs, rightly held that the day of
the Lord starts at the end of the Tribulation.
Note that in the early development of his Pre-Tribism Darby
didn’t dogmatically see a big gap between the Rapture and the end of the
Tribulation; he did say “considerable” (whatever that meant) but tied in
that word with “perhaps.”
Note also the reference to “twenty years ago”–which
brings us back to 1830. But
was he figuring precisely or only approximately?
Where, in his 1830 writings, did he give evidence of such a
doctrinal change-over? In
the Dec 1830 Christian Herald Darby’s article entitled, “On
‘Days’ Signifying ‘Years’ in Prophetic Language,” was a defense of
historicism and the year-day theory, with not even a hint of a two-stage
coming. It should be
remembered that Margaret was teaching a two-stage coming in the spring
and summer of 1830, that the Irvingite journal I’ve already mentioned
printed the same concept in its Sept 1830 issue, and that the Plymouth
Brethren were preaching a two-stage coming in 1831.
Existing evidence indicates that Darby was clearly a Post-Trib
prior to 1830 (as he indicated in his 1850 work), the earliest moment he
could have derived it from anyone else (and I’m taking all available
documentation into consideration) was when he visited Margaret in her
home in Scotland in the middle of 1830.
Walvoord evaluates the MacPherson evidence in The Rapture
and The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation
citing five specific reasons for casting aspersion on
the historical accuracy and motives of some of MacPherson’s sources, not
to mention the latter’s conclusions that Darby definitively received any
of his ideas or positions on the Rapture from Margaret Macdonald.
His points are cogently argued, and underscore Weber’s description of
the manuscripts in question as “confusing.”
more revealing, however, than Walvoord’s well crafted response to
MacPherson, are the former’s admissions that:
“One of the strongest arguments of the
posttribulational view is the claim that pretribulationism is a new
doctrine. . . . He [Alexander Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ, pp.
30-33] went on to trace the rise of pretribulationism.
“About 1830, however, a new school arose within the fold of
Pre-millennialism that sought to overthrow what, since the Apostolic
Age, have been considered by all pre-millennialists as established
results, and to institute in their place a series of doctrines that had
never been heard of before.
The school I refer to is that of ‘The Brethren’ or ‘Plymouth Brethren,’
founded by J. N. Darby.” . . .
The assertion that pretribulationism in its modern form can be traced to some extent [emphasis mine]
to Darby is supported by Darby’s own writings.
In his search for premillennial truth, Darby
arrived at the position that the church is a special work of God
distinguished from His program for Israel.
This in turn led, to the position that the Rapture is a special event
for the church itself. 
. . . The statement of Ladd
[George Eldon Ladd] that pretribulationism until the nineteenth century
is a half truth.
Pretribulationism as it is known today is comparatively recent [emphasis
mine], but the concept of
imminency of the Lord’s return–which is the important point–clearly
dates to the early church.
So the recency of the Pre-Tribulational Rapture, the Two-Stage coming of
Christ, and a futuristic view of the 70th week of Daniel
would appear to be on solid ground historically, dating back to Darby
and the 19th century, regardless of the question of the
legitimacy of the evidence surrounding the Margaret Macdonald
allegations by MacPherson.
Weber, in the course of his work, Living in the Shadow of the Second
Coming–American Premillennialism 1825-1982, surveys other items of
historical concern and significance in any survey of Dispensationalism.
These include the pivotal importance of the American Civil War
and World War I in facilitating the societal turbulence and uncertainty
which created fertile soil for the apocalyptic pessimism associated with
Dispensationalism; the theological crisis created by German higher
critical Biblical scholarship in the 19th and 20th
centuries which saw Dispensationalism increasingly perceived as the
“conservative” alternative to anti-supernaturalism and rationalism (a
perception aided and abetted by the effective development of
Dispensationally oriented publishing houses and the Dispensationally
oriented Bible Institute movement); and the developing, often
paradoxical, political alliance between modern Zionism and a
Dispensationally oriented Protestant Evangelicalism. In this last regard, Weber’s October 5, 1998 Christianity
Today article chronicles the amazing career of William E. Blackstone
as the premier American Dispensationalist in energizing the
Zionist-Dispensationalist alliance for the purpose of creating the
modern State of Israel, an alliance made possible only by the
Dispensationalist “postponement of the Kingdom for Israel” theory based
on its exegesis of Daniel, chapter 9:
No American dispensationalist beat the drum for a
Jewish state more than William E. Blackstone (1841-1935).
Born in New York and reared in an evangelical Methodist home,
after the Civil War Blackstone settled in Oak Park, Illinois, and
established himself as a successful businessman and lay evangelist to
the Chicago business community.
He became a dispensationalist and a close friend of D. L. Moody. In 1878, he published Jesus is Coming, which went
through three editions, was translated into 42 languages, and was
dispensationalism’s first bestseller in America.
In the late 1880s, Blackstone visited new Jewish
settlements in the Holy Land and returned to Chicago committed to
helping the restoration of the Jews.
In 1890 he organized the first conference of Christians and Jews in
Chicago and used the occasion to push for a new Jewish state.
Most participants, including the Jews, were not interested.
Undeterred, in 1891 Blackstone drew up a petition (or
“memorial”) advocating the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
In short order, he collected 413 signatures from leading
Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the speaker
of the House, the mayors of Chicago, New York, and Boston, and business
leaders such as Cyrus McCormick, John D. Rockefeller, and J. Pierpont
forwarded the memorial to President Benjamin Harrison, who ignored it,
and later he sent others to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
In spite of his ongoing efforts to convert Jews to
Christ, he became good friends with Zionist leaders and regularly sent
them the results of his prophetic study.
In 1918, at a Zionist conference in Philadelphia, organizers hailed
Blackstone as a “Father of Zionism”; and in 1956, on the seventy-fifth
anniversary of his memorial to President Harrison, the citizens of
Israel dedicated a forest in his honor.
The historical import of the Blackstone activities on behalf of the
Zionist movement cannot be exaggerated, either for Israel or the
Evangelical movement in America.
In the case of the latter, Blackstone set the foundation for the
subsequent development of what Weber terms the “pro-Israel network,”
encompassing much of the televangelist community,
including Jerry Falwell, John Hagee of Cornerstone Church in San
Antonio, Texas, and Pat Robertson; the burgeoning number of pro-Zionist
Evangelical para-church organizations, ranging from Jan Van Der Hoeven’s
International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, to the Tulsa based Bridges
for Peace, the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI),
the Restoration Foundation of Atlanta, the Arkansas Institute of Holy
Land Studies, and the First Fruits of Zion Ministries.
examination reveals the foundation of the Fundamentalist/Pentecostal
political/religious network–the belief that the second coming of Jesus
Christ is tied, eschatologically, to the reestablishment of a Jewish
state in Palestine, and the resumption of Jewish control of the united
city of Jerusalem. As Weber
states, “Obviously, the key to this entire prophetic plan is the
re-founding of Israel as a nation state in Palestine.
Without Israel the whole plan falls apart.” 
The paradoxes of this alliance are legion. The cooperative
relationship between Protestant Evangelicals of Dispensational ideology
and Israel has muted the former’s criticism of the obvious political and
financial links of the American Jewish lobby with many of the far
political left’s most recognizable names, movements, and organizations,
including the disturbing amount of Jewish money generated for the
homosexual rights nexus, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil
Liberties Union, and Norman Lear’s People for the American Way, the last
of which underscores the acknowledged, but downplayed role of American
Jews in the financial underpinning of the Hollywood establishment and
the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and its
disbursement of money for Presidential, Senatorial, and House campaigns
reveals a similar curiosity–the contribution of cash to politicians
across the ideological spectrum from port to starboard, ranging from
Bella Abzug to Jesse Helms–politicians who share in some cases only one
position in common–the desirability of maintaining a Jewish state in
The Evangelical-Liberal alliance is not without its tensions.
Earlier in this decade, Abraham Foxman, the executive director of
the Anti Defamation League of B’nai Brith, mailed a fund-raising letter
to his national constituency, energizing their desire to contribute
money by raising the red herring of the alleged threat to Jewish civil
liberties and freedom in America inherent in the existence of the
politically oriented Religious Right in America.
The letter specifically cited the threat to the homosexual rights
movement and the continued legalization of abortion in America as
definitively Jewish concerns.
It then proceeded to suggest that the appeal of televangelists like Pat
Robertson and Jerry Falwell–two of Israel’s biggest supporters within
Evangelicalism–was suggestive of a latent, burgeoning anti-Semitism in
the United States.
This amazing attack upon two of Protestant Evangelicalism’s
biggest heavyweights in the pro-Israel network by Foxman, was considered
sensational, ill-advised, and without historical context by many
Evangelicals familiar with his communication.
The latter were amazed that the media access and popularity of The Old Time Gospel Hour and
The 700 Club could possibly invoke images of hatred and anti-Semitic
progroms. Behind Foxman’s
visceral attack, however, could have lurked a historical context
unfamiliar to most modern Evangelicals–the curious, tragic, ill-advised
linkage of several prominent Dispensationalists in the early part of the
20th century with the benchmark of international
anti-Semitism, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Protocols articulated an alleged international Jewish linkage and
foundation for a global ideological, political program, which included
the extermination of Christianity and the sponsorship of International
Communism, particularly through the control of international finance and
banking, the manipulation and overthrow of existing governments, and
subversive utilization of the print media.
The Jewish Student Online Research Center (JSOURCE)’s web site on
the Protocols reveals the extent of the ongoing relevance of the
Protocols for Jewish fears of an international resurgence of
anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish violence.
Its synopsis of the Protocols states:
The “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the most
notorious and most successful work of modern antisemitism, draws on
popular antisemitic notions which have their roots in medieval Europe
from the time of the Crusades.
The libels that the Jews used blood of Christian children for the Feast
of Passover, poisoned the wells and spread the plague were pretexts for
the wholesale destruction of Jewish communities throughout Europe.
Tales were circulated among the masses of secret rabbinical
conferences whose aim was to subjugate and exterminate the Christians,
and motifs like these are found in early antisemitic literature.
The conceptual inspiration for the Protocols can be
traced back to the time of the French Revolution at the end of the 18th
At that time, a French Jesuit named Abbe Barruel, representing
reactionary elements opposed to the revolution, published in 1797 a
treatise blaming the Revolution on a secret conspiracy operating through
the Order of Freemasons.
Barruel’s idea was nonsense, since the French nobility at the time was
heavily Masonic, but he was influenced by a Scottish mathematician named
Robison who was opposed to the Masons.
In his treatise, Barreul did not himself blame the Jews, who were
emancipated as a result of the Revolution.
However, in 1806, Barruel circulated a forged letter, probably
sent to him by members of the state police opposed to Napoleon
Bonaparte’s liberal policy toward the Jews, calling attention to the
alleged part of the Jews in the conspiracy he had earlier attributed to
This myth of an international Jewish conspiracy reappeared later
on in 19th century Europe in places such as Germany and
The direct predecessor of the Protocols can be found
in the pamphlet, “Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and
Montesquieu,” published by the non-Jewish French satirist Maurice Joly
in 1864. In his “Dialogues,” which make no mention of the Jews, Joly
attacked the political ambitions of the emperor Napoleon III using the
imagery of a diabolical plot in Hell.
The “Dialogues” were caught by the French authorities soon after
their publication and Joly was tried and sentenced to prison for his
Joly’s “Dialogues,” while intended as a political
satire, soon fell into the hands of a German anti-Semite named Hermann
Goedsche writing under the name of Sir John Retcliffe.
Goedsche was a postal clerk and a spy for the Prussian secret
police. He had been forced
to leave the postal work due to his part in forging evidence in the
prosecution against the Democratic leader Benedict Waldeck in 1849.
Goedsche adapted Joly’s “Dialogues” into a mythical tale of a
Jewish conspiracy as part of a series of novels entitled, “Biarritz,”
which appeared in 1868. In
a chapter called “The Jewish Cemetery in Prague and the Council of
Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel,” he spins the fantasy of
a secret centennial rabbinical conference which meets at midnight and
whose purpose is to review the past hundred years and to make plans for
the next century.
Goedsche’s plagiary of Joly’s “Dialogues” soon found
its way to Russia. It was
translated into Russian in 1872, and a consolidation of the “Council of
Representatives” under the name “Rabbi’s Speech” appeared in Russian in
1891. These works no doubt
furnished the Russian secret police (Okhrana) with a means with which to
strengthen the position of the weak Czar Nicholas II and discredit the
reforms of the liberals who sympathized with the Jews.
During the Dreyfus case of 1893-1895, agents of the Okhrana in
Paris redacted the earlier works of Joly and Goedsche into a new edition
which they called the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
The manuscript of the Protocols was brought to Russia in 1895 and
was printed privately in 1897.
The Protocols did not become public until 1905, when
Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War was followed by the Revolution
in the same year, leading to the promulgation of a constitution and
institution of the Duma.
In the wake of these events, the reactionary “Union of the
Russian Nation” or Black Hundreds organization sought to incite popular
feeling against the Jews, who they blamed for the Revolution and the
Constitution. To this end
they used the Protocols, which was first published in a public edition
by the mystic priest Sergius Nilus in 1905.
The Protocols were part of a propaganda campaign that accompanied
the pogroms of 1905 inspired by the Okhrana.
A variant text of the Protocols was published by George Butmi in
1906 and again in 1907. The
edition of 1906 was found among the Czar’s collection, even though he
had already recognized the work as a forgery.
In his later editions, Nilus claimed that the Protocols had been
read secretly at the First Zionist Congress at Basle in 1897, while
Butmi, in his edition, wrote that they had no connection with the new
Zionist movement, but, rather, were part of the Masonic conspiracy.
In the civil war following the Bolshevik Revolution
of 1917, the reactionary White Armies made extensive use of the
Protocols to incite widespread slaughters of Jews.
At the same time, Russian emigrants brought the Protocols to western
Europe, where the Nilus edition served as the basis for many
translations, starting in 1920.
Just after its appearance in London in 1920, Lucien Wolf exposed the
Protocols as a plagiary of the earlier work of Joly and Goedsche, in a
pamphlet of the Jewish Board of Deputies.
The following year, in 1921, the story of the forgery was
published in a series of articles in the London Times by Philip
Grave, the paper’s correspondent in Constantinople.
A whole book documenting the forgery was also published in the
same year in America by Herman Bernstein (The Truth About the
“Protocols of Zion”; reprinted with an introduction by Norman Cohn.
New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971).
Nevertheless, the Protocols continued to circulate widely.
They were even sponsored by Henry Ford in the United States until
1927, and formed an important part of the Nazis’ justification of
genocide of the Jews in World War II.
As Weber has documented,
the endorsement of the Protocols by James M.
Gray, the president of Moody Bible Institute, and Arno C. Gaebelein, a
key editor of the Scofield Reference Bible, was most problematic;
the promulgation of the document by Gerald Winrod, documented by both
Weber and Norman Cohn, 
and William Bell Riley, was further linkage of
recognizable first and second tier Dispensationalists and
Fundamentalists with the dynamite represented by the Protocols, a
situation that reached its peak with their publication by Henry Ford in
the Dearborn Independent in the early 1920s.
From that time on, the Protocols became “exhibit A” in the
propaganda campaign of the American anti-Semitic right. 
magnitude of the historical irony cannot be lost–that those accused by
their non-Dispensational brethren in Evangelical Protestantism of
affording present day ethnic Israel a premier place in God’s
redemptive-historical plan that was obviated by the events of 30-33 A.
D. and 70 A. D., are simultaneously stained in the historical record of
the 1920s and 1930s over the issue of anti-Semitism through the
involvement of Gray, Gaebelein, Winrod, and Riley in the quagmire posed
by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Gaebelein’s writings reveal this paradox.
In his commentary on Daniel
, he makes clear his complete endorsement of the
classic Dispensational scheme on the “Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks” and
its “parenthesis” and “postponement” theories designed to enable the
fulfillment of all of God’s promises to ethnic Israel for the
restoration of their earthly Kingdom. One hint, however, of what would come in his controversial
endorsement of the Protocols in the 1933 work, The Conflict of
occurs in the Daniel commentary attached as an
addendum to page 150, where a full page chart on the “Prophecy of the
Seventy Weeks” is printed.
In the portion of the chart entitled, “The Great Unreckoned Period,”
(between the 69th and 70th weeks), Gaebelein
places the repristination of ethnic Israel in Palestine.
The reference to this event is entitled, “Part of the Jewish
nation returns to the land in unbelief [emphasis mine] (Zionism) [emphasis mine].”
However correct this statement may be theologically, it may have
had unfortunate consequences for both Gaebelein personally and the
Dispensational movement historically, when coupled with his writings in
chapter six of The Conflict of the Ages, a chapter entitled, “The
Russian Revolution–Marxism Triumphant–World Revolution.”
Here Gaebelein makes specific linkage of the global Jewish
constituency to the International Communist Conspiracy, with his
documentation of the allegedly disproportionate percentage of Jewry
involved in the Bolshevist Revolution in Russia.
Then comes the climax–his endorsement of the Protocols:
And now we have to say something about that extremely
mysterious document known as “The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
This document first came to light about 16 years before the first
Russian Revolution. It was
published by a Russian, Serge Nilus in 1901 and passed through a number
of editions. A copy was deposited in the British Museum in 1907.
The information as to Nilus is meager.
We have seen the title page of one of these original editions and
that page gives a strong
indication that the man was a believer in the Word of God, in prophecy,
and must have been a true Christian [emphasis mine].
The title is “It is Near at the Door.”
Then we noticed the following Scripture passages printed on the
title page: Matthew xxiv: 33; Mark xiii: 29;
Luke 21: 31; Revelation i: 3; xxii: 10; Daniel xii: 4.
On the rest of this page we find the following statements:
“Concerning something people do not wish to believe and which is so near
Fourth edition of the book “Near is the Coming of Antichrist and the
Kingdom of the Devil on Earth.”
Revised and considerably augmented by later Researches and
investigation. “Dedicated to the
Small Herd of Christ. [emphasis original]” Finally two other
passages are quoted in full: I Thessalonians v: 4 and Matthew xxiv: 13. [notice all of the
Scripture passages cited by the document are classic eschatological
Furthermore in reading these “Protocols” as contained
in the book of Nilus, one becomes
deeply convinced that an humble man of the stamp of Nilus could not
possibly have written such a deeply worded statement.
The reading of these Protocols impress one rather that they are
the work of a set of very able men, students of history, of economics,
and world politics [emphasis mine].
But the most important fact is that throughout the twenty-four
Protocols we have a very pronounced re-statement of the principal theories of Illuminism
and Marxism [emphasis original].
They have been branded a forgery by Jews and
The authorship of this serious document will, in the opinion of
the writer, never be ascertained. The words of the father of modern Zionism, Dr. Theodor Herzl,
advocating a Jewish state, saying–“When we sink we become a
revolutionary proletariat,” are insufficient to link Zionism with the
Protocols, as it has been attempted.
But the advocated plan of World Domination and World Revolution
is a most sinister one. And
here is the most astonishing fact,
nearly all that these Protocols advocate, the destruction of Christian
civilization [emphasis mine], has at least been partially been
brought about by the Revolution and Sovietism.
The work of undermining is still followed.
A painstaking and deeper study of the Protocols, compared with
present day world conditions, must lead, and does lead,
to the conviction, that the plan of the Protocols, who ever concocted
it, is not a crude forgery [crude forgery emphasis in original].
Behind it are hidden, unseen actors, powerful and cunning, who
follow the plan still, bent on the overthrow of our civilization
(Quotes from the Protocols follow in the text).
Gaebelein, and other well meaning Dispensationalists like Gray, had no
idea at the time that their eschatology, designed to uphold and redeem
ethnic Israel as the apple of the eye of God the Father, would be
forever linked in many Jewish scholarly circles with both anti-Semitism
generally and Nazism specifically.
This mental association is documented by Jewish scholar Norman Cohn in
Warrant for Genocide in 1981, a work undertaken for the Brown
University Judaic Studies Series in volume 23, a series with a Board of
Editors comprised of leading Jewish historians and academics from George
Washington University, Emory University, the University of
California/Berkeley, Haifa University, the University of Texas, Ohio
State University, et. al.
Cohn’s work explicitly takes Scriptural texts given a particular slant
of interpretation by Dispensationalists and states the following:
This extraordinary fact is that even these weird
extravagances found believers.
It is certain that many twentieth-century devotees of the Protocols
really have imagined the secret Jewish government as composed of
oriental sorcerers–one has only to look at the commentary on the
Protocols published in Madrid in 1963 to find pages upon pages about
Nor is this the only respect in which des Mousseaux provides the
link between the Protocols and archaic, half-forgotten religious
beliefs. One of the most unexpected features of the Protocols is that
Jewish world domination is to be exercised through a Jewish king, whom
all nations will accept as their savior [emphasis mine].
This figure is taken straight from the end of the last chapter of
Gougenot des Mousseaux. As
he nears his 500th page the industrious author allows himself
a flight of prophetic frenzy in which he foretells how, in the midst of
a great European war, the Jews will raise up ‘a man with a genius for
political imposture, a sinister bewitcher, around whom fanatical
multitudes will cluster.’
The Jews will hail this man as the Messiah, but he will be more than
After destroying the authority of Christianity he will unite
mankind in one great brotherhood and bestow on it a superabundance of
material goods. For these
great services the Gentile nations too will accept him, exalt him,
worship him as a god–but in reality, for all his apparent benevolence,
he will be Satan’s instrument for the perdition of mankind [Cohn
references Gougenot des Mousseaux, Le Juif, le Judaisme et la
judaisation des peuples chretiens, Paris, 1869, pp.
Gougenot des Mousseaux states repeatedly that what
inspired him to write this passage was the prophecy of Antichrist.
According to this prophecy in the second chapter of the Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians, the second coming of Christ and the Last
Judgement will be immediately preceded by the appearance of Antichrist,
‘the man of sin, the son of perdition’.
He will demand to be worshiped by God; and by the miracles which
he will perform with the Devil’s help he will deceive all who are
willing to be deceived. He will establish his rule over the whole world until the
returning Christ destroys him with the breath of his mouth.
So far the New Testament–but in the second and third centuries
after Christ, as the Church and the Synagogue came more and more sharply
into competition and conflict with one another, Christian theologians
began to give a new interpretation to this prophecy.
They foretold that Antichrist would be a Jew and would love the
Jews above all peoples; while the Jews for their part would be the most
faithful followers of Antichrist, accepting him as the Messiah.
As to what would happen next, the theologians were divided.
If some expected the Jews to be miraculously converted to
Christianity, others expected that they would follow Antichrist to the
end and on the return of Christ would be sent, along with Antichrist, to
endure the torments of hell for all eternity.
It has been argued elsewhere that the Nazi belief is
a Jewish world-conspiracy represents a revival, in a secularized form,
of certain apocalyptic beliefs which once formed part of the Christian
world-view (see Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium,
revised editions, London and New York, 1961-2, pp. 62-3, 310).
In this instance one can trace the precise way in which an
apocalyptic belief–in the coming of Antichrist–contributed to the making
of the Protocols, which were to become part of the Nazi
scriptures. And indeed the connexion between the Protocols and the
Antichrist prophecy does not stop there.
In later chapters we shall see how the first important edition of
the Protocols appeared in a Russian book about the imminent
coming of Antichrist; and how something of the same apocalyptic
atmosphere appears even in the thinking and writing of Hitler and
Rosenberg as soon as they touch on the Protocols and the Jewish
Thus, a novel interpretation of the book of Daniel and the “Prophecy of
Seventy Weeks,” which originated in the early 19th century in
the British Isles and later became prominent in post Civil War America
through the ministry of Darby and his “exclusive Brethren” to key
American Evangelicals, has had a turbulent history in the 20th
century. To its
non-Dispensational Evangelical detractors, it has embodied a
non-Biblical view of the Kingdom and the Church which ascribes to ethnic
Israel a significance and importance in world history thought to have
ceased in God’s redemptive-historical time line with the destruction of
the Temple in A. D. 70 at the hands of the Romans; to a secular
political world and news media, it has provided the only interpretive
key to understanding the improbable alliance of many Protestant
Evangelicals with Israel and many of its Jewish allies and supporters on
the political port side of the spectrum; to others, its eschatological
scheme suggests the historical opposite of what its adherents claim,
namely an ideological foundation for world anti-Semitism and virulent
The “Prophecy of 70 Weeks” is to some what Churchill suggested of
Russia, “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia.
It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” 
Reiter, Historicism and Futurism in Historic Premillennialism:
1878-1975. M. A.
Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois: 25 and 74-97.
. C. Norman
Kraus, Dispensationalism in America–Its Rise and Development.
Richmond: John Knox Press, 1958; Timothy P. Weber, Living in
the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Premillennialism 1875-1982,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983;
“How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend.”
In Christianity Today, October 5, 1998: 39-49; “Happily
at the Edge of the Abyss:
Popular Premillennialism in America,” in Ex Auditu, Volume 6,
. Dr. Wallace
Emerson, Unlocking the Mysteries of Daniel, Orange: Promise
Publishing Co., 1988:
vi-vii of Introduction.
Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1969: 1110-1111.
 . E. J. Young,
Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 8th
printing 1977: 362-363.
. E. J. Young,
“Daniel.” In The New
Bible Commentary Revised, edited by Donald Guthrie, Alec
Motyer, Alan M. Stibbs, and Donald J. Wiseman.
Inter-Varsity Press, 1970: 699-700.
. Louis F.
Hartman, “Daniel.” In
the Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968: 457.
. ibid., 457.
. ibid., 457.
. ibid., 457.
. ibid., 457.
. Reiter, op.
. O. T. Allis,
Prophecy and the Church, Phillipsburg, Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1945: 111.
. ibid., 112.
. ibid., 112.
. ibid., 112.
. ibid., 112.
. ibid., 27.
. Allis, op.
. ibid., 114.
. ibid., 114.
. ibid., 115.
. ibid., 115.
. ibid., 115.
“Daniel”, op. cit., 700.
Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19th
printing 1979; The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation, Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1976; The Nations, Israel and the Church in
Prophecy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 988 [Reprint (1st
work) of The Nations in Prophecy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1967. Reprint (2nd
work) of Israel in Prophecy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962. Reprint (3rd work) of The Church in Prophecy,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
. Leon Wood,
A Commentary on Daniel, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973; The
Prophets of Israel, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
. Herman Hoyt,
“Dispensational Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the
Millennium–4 Views, Robert G. Clouse, editor, Inter-Varsity
Press, 1977: 63-92.
Feinberg, “The Case for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Position,” in
The Rapture–Pre, Mid, or Post Tribulational?, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1984: 45-86.
Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.
. Sir Robert
Anderson, The Coming Prince, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 11th
reprint 1984. An excellent
modern essay which corroborates Anderson’s view of 360 day
“prophetic years” is found in the work of Harold W. Hoehner,
“Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ–Part VI: Daniel’s
Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology,” in Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 132, Number 525, January-March 1975: 47-65.
. Arno C.
Gaebelein, Daniel, New York: Our Hope Publications, 1911;
The Conflict of the Ages, New York: Our Hope
. William E.
Blackstone, Jesus is Coming, New
York/Chicago/London/Edinburgh: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1898, 1908, 1932.
. William B.
Riley, The Evolution of the Kingdom, New York: The Book
. Allis, op.
. J. Randall
Price, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, Dispensational Interpretation,”
Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, Grand Rapids, Kregel,
. ibid., 77.
Curiously, J. Barton Payne, a post-tribulationalist, also affirms
these six goals from Daniel 9: 24, referring to
them as “six
infinitival phrases of purpose,” in “The Goal of Daniel’s Seventy
Weeks”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21/2,
June 1978: 97-115. The
quotation is from page 97 and includes Payne’s citation of E. J.
Young’s idea that the six items presented in 9: 24 settle the
terminus ad quem of the prophecy, while the termination of
the 70 sevens coincides with the first advent of Christ.
See. E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, a Commentary,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949: 201.
. ibid., 77.
. Kraus, op.
. ibid., 45,
quoting George Ladd in Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1952: 49.
45-46, quoting Robert Cameron in “Prophetic Teachers,” The
Watchword, Vol. XVIII, October, 1986: 258.
Living in the Shadow, op. cit., page 247, footnote 9 to chapter
. ibid., 16.
. ibid., 16.
. ibid., 16.
. ibid., 18.
. ibid., 20.
. ibid., 21.
. Richard R.
Reiter, “A History of the Development of the Rapture Positions,” in
The Rapture–Pre, Mid, or Post
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984: 35-36.
Living in the Shadow, op. cit., 22.
. ibid., 22.
Weber quotes Darby in his Collected Works, XI, 156.
On page 248 of Living in the Shadow, in footnote 23 for chapter 1, Weber observes that, “John Walvoord, a present-day
dispensationalist, similarly states that one’s doctrine of
church is more important for the doctrine of the pretribulation
rapture than is any particular scriptural passage.
John Walvoord, The Rapture Question (Findlay, O.: Dunham
Publishing, 1957), p. 16.”
. Kraus., op.
. ibid., 28
quoting James Bear in “Historic Premillennialism”, Union
Theological Seminary Review, Vol. LV, May 1944, p. 215.
. ibid., 46.
. ibid., 36.
. ibid., 41.
. ibid., 46.
. ibid., 48.
. ibid., 113.
Living in the Shadow, op. cit., 21.
. ibid., 21.
Weber quotes Samuel Tregelles in The Hope of Christ’s Coming
(London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1864), p. 35. In his own footnote 21 for chapter 1 (p. 248), Weber notes
that Ernst Sandeen thinks the charge to be “pernicious and totally
Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, p.64.
. ibid., 22.
In his footnote 22 for chapter 1 (p. 248), Weber cites David
McPherson as a leading advocate of this theory in The Incredible
Cover-Up: The True Story of the Pre-Trib Rapture (Plainfield, N.
J.: Logos International, 1975).
MacPherson, The Great Rapture Hoax (Fletcher, N. C.: New
Puritan Library, 1983) and The Rapture Plot (Simpsonville, N.
C.: Millennium III Publishers, 1995).
The Great Rapture Hoax, op. cit., 125.
. ibid., 125-128.
. ibid., 132.
. ibid., 178.
. ibid., 187.
The Rapture Question, op. cit., 150-155.
The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation, op. cit., 42-48.
Living in the Shadow, op. cit., 22.
The Rapture Question, op. cit., 150-151.
The Blessed Hope, op. cit., 42.
. Weber, “How
Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend,” Christianity Today,
October 5, 1998: 41.
Noteworthy supplemental reading to buttress Weber’s point here is
found in Blackstone’s own Jesus is Coming (New York/Chicago/London/Edinburgh: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1898, 1908,1932),
pages 236-242 which comprise
a section entitled, “Zionism.”
. ibid., 42.
. ibid., 47.
. ibid., 41.
42-43. See also Weber’s discussion of this tragedy in chapter 8 of
his Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming, pp. 177-203.
. The Jewish Student Online Research Center (JS.)
Living in the Shadow, op. cit., 154-157 and “Israel’s Best
Friend” in Christianity Today, op. cit., 42-43.
. Norman Cohn,
Warrant for Genocide, Chico: Scholars Press, Brown University
Judaic Studies 23,
“Israel’s Best Friend,” op. cit., 43.
. Arno C.
Gaebelein, Daniel, New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911,
. Arno C.
Gaebelein, The Conflict of the Ages, New York: Our Hope
Daniel, op. cit., addendum to page 150.
Conflict, op. cit., 99-100.
. Cohn, op.
Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, edited by Angela Partington, Oxford
and New York: Oxford University Press, 4th edition 1992, page 202.
Quoting Churchill in his 1 October 1939 radio broadcast, later reprinted
Into Battle (1941),
Books, Commentaries, and
- Allis, O. T.
Prophecy and the Church.
Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945.
- Anderson, Sir
The Coming Prince.
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1986 (10th reprint).
- Archer, Gleason
L., Feinberg, Paul D., Moo, Douglas J., Reiter, Richard R.
The Rapture–Pre, Mid, or Post
- Tribulational? Academie Press. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
On Behalf of Israel: American Fundamentalist Attitudes Toward Jews,
Judaism, and Zionism,
Chicago Studies in the History of American Religion 1.Brooklyn:
- Bass, Clarence.
Backgrounds in Dispensationalism.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.
Blackstone, W. E. B.
Jesus is Coming.
New York/Chicago/London/Edinburgh: Fleming H. Revell Company,
- Canfield, J. M.
The Incredible Scofield and His Book.
Clouse, Robert G., editor.
The Meaning of the Millennium–4 views.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977.
- Cohn, Norman.
Warrant for Genocide–the myth of
the Jewish world-conspiracy and the “Protocols of the
Elders of Zion”.
Brown University Judaic Studies Number 23.
Scholars Press, 1983.
- Couch, Mal,
Dictionary of Premillennial Theology.
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996.
- Ehlert, Arnold
A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965.
- Emerson, Dr.
Unlocking the Mysteries of Daniel.
Orange: Promise Publishing, 1988.
- Enns, Dr. Paul.
The Moody Handbook of Theology.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.
- Gaebelein, Arno
The Conflict of the Ages.
New York: Publication Office “Our Hope”, 1933.
Daniel. New York: Publication Office “Our Hope”, 1911.
- Gerstner, John.
A Primer on Dispensationalism.
Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982.
- Harrison, Roland
Introduction to the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.
Hartman, Louis F.
In The Jerome Biblical Commentary.
Editors Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, and Roland E.
Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1968.
The Bible and the Future.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
- Hudson, Winthrop
Religion in America.
New York: Scribners, 3rd edition, 1981.
- Ironside, H. A.
A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement.
Grand Rapids, 1942.
The Prophecy of 70 Weeks of the Book of Daniel. Lanham: University Press of America,
Kraus, C. Norman.
Dispensationalism in America–Its Rise and Development.
Richmond: Knox, 1958.
- Lindsey, Hal.
The Late Great Planet Earth.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.
The Great Rapture Hoax.
Fletcher: New Puritan Library. 1983.
The Incredible Cover-Up: The True Story of the Pre-Trib Rapture. Plainfield: Logos International,
The Rapture Plot.
Simpsonville: Millennium III Publishers, 1995.
- Marsden, George
Fundamentalism and American Culture–The Shaping of Twentieth Century
- Evangelicalism 1870-1925.
New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.
Marsden, Victor E., translator,
Protocols of the Meeting of the Learned Elders of Zion. London: Britons
Matheny, James F. and Marjorie B.
The 70 Weeks of Daniel: An Exposition of Daniel 9: 24-27.
- McClain, Alva.
Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1940.
Millard, A. R.
In The New Layman’s Bible Commentary.
Editors G. C. D. Howley, F. F. Bruce, H. L.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979, 901-926.
Pentecost, J. Dwight.
In The Bible Knowledge Commentary–An Exposition of the
Dallas Seminary Faculty–Old Testament.
Editors John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck.
3rd Printing 1994: 1323-1377.
Reiter, Dennis L.
Historicism and Futurism in Historic Premillennialism: 1878-1975.
Riley, William B.
The Evolution of the Kingdom.
New York: The Book Stall, 1913.
Ryrie, Charles C.
Chicago: Moody, 1965.
Sandeen, Ernest. The
Roots of Fundamentalism.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
- Scofield, C. I.
The New Scofield Reference Bible. Editorial Committee,
E. Schuler English, et. al., New York:
Oxford University Press, 1967.
The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
The Nations, Israel, and the Church in Prophecy.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.
The Rapture Question.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
- Weber, Timothy P.
Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American
- Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1983. (excellent
Wood, Leon J.
A Commentary on Daniel.
Regency Reference Library.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.
The Prophets of Israel.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
Young, Edward J.
An Introduction to the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 8th printing 1977.
- Butler, Jonathan M. “A
Review of Timothy P. Weber’s, ‘Living in the Shadow of the Second
- Premillennialism 1875-1982'.” Church History 58, Dec 1989: 546.
- Davis, Moshe. “American
Christian Devotees in the Holy Land.”
Christian Jewish Relations 20, Winter 1987:
“The 70 Weeks of Daniel : An Exegetical Study”.
Andrews University Seminary
Ehlert, Arnold D. “A
Bibliography of Dispensationalism.”
Bibliotheca Sacra, Vols. 51, 52, 53 (in series), 1944-
Francisco, Clyde T.
“70 Weeks of Daniel.”
Review and Expositor 57, Ap 1960: 126-137.
“Fundamentalists, Israel, and Theological Openness.”
Christian-Jewish Relations 19
No. 3, S
Gurney, Robert J. M.
“The 70 Weeks of Daniel 9: 24-27.”
Evangelical Quarterly 53, Ja-Mr 1981:
Handy, Lowell K.
“A Review of Michael Kalafian’s ‘The Prophecy of 70 Weeks of the Book of
Spring 1992: 197-199.
Hannah, John D.
“A Review of ‘The Incredible Scofield and His Book’ by J.
M. Canfield.” Bibliotheca Sacra
Hasel, Gerhard F. “The
Hebrew Masculine Plural for ‘Weeks’ in the Expression ‘70 weeks’
in Daniel 9: 24.”
University Seminary Studies 31, Summer 1993: 105-118.
Hoehner, Harold W. “Chronological
Aspects of the Life of Christ–Part 6: Daniel’s 70 Weeks and New
Testament Chronology.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 132, Ja-Mr 1975: 47-65.
Kennedy, Earl W. “A Review
of Timothy P. Weber’s ‘Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming:
Reformed Review 41, Autumn 1987: 76-77.
McComiskey, Thomas. “The 70
‘Weeks’ of Daniel Against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern
Theological Journal 47 No. 1, Spring 1985: 18-45.
Newman, Robert C.
“Daniel’s 70 Weeks and the Old Testament Sabbath Year
Cycle.” Journal of the
16, Fall 1973: 229-234.
Payne, J. Barton. “Goal of
Daniel’s 70 Weeks.” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 21:
Poythress, Vern Sheridan. “Hermeneutical
Factors in Determining the Beginning of the Seventy Weeks
Journal No. 2, Autumn
Russell, C. Allyn.
“Adoniram Judson Gordon: 19th Century
Baptist Quarterly 4 No.
1, Mr 1985:
Saucy, Robert L.
“Contemporary Dispensational Thought.”
Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 7 No. 4,
Scaer, David P.
“Lutheran Viewpoints on the Challenge of Fundamentalism–Eschatology.” Concordia Journal
Smalley, W. F. “Another
View of the Palestine Situation.”
The King’s Business, XXI (June 1930):
Weber, Timothy P. “A Review
of Yaakov Ariel’s ‘On Behalf of Israel: American Fundamentalist
Toward Jews, Judaism, and Zionism, 1865-1945'.”
Church History 62: Mr 1993: 138-141.
________. “Happily at the
Edge of the Abyss: Popular Premillennialism in America.” Ex Auditu 6, 1990:
________. “How Evangelicals
Became Israel’s Best Friend.”
Christianity Today, October 5, 1998: 39-49.
“Daniel’s Great 70 Weeks Prophecy: An Exegetical Insight.”
2, Fall 1981:
Witmer, John A. “A Review
of James and Marjorie Matheny’s ‘The 70 Weeks of Daniel: An
Daniel 9: 24-27.”
Bibliotheca Sacra 149, Oct-Dec 1992: 491.