Within the last couple of months, (of the summer of 2007), the book "The False Prophet" by Ellis H. Skolfield has been brought to the attention of those at Five Doves. So, although it is available as a free e-book, I went ahead and bought it, since it was easier, and read it. A little while back someone had posted asking people's views on the book. Below is that review.
First of all, this is a true book on eschatology, which was quite refreshing. And this alone should put it on the to-be-read list of many at Five Doves. This book does not have just one or two fresh ideas regarding biblical endtimes events, with the rest full of fluff to fill out the rest of the book, like so many books one reads. It is chock-full of various ideas on interpreting Daniel and Revelation. And whether or not you agree with all the ideas, they should all stimulate you to think about and examine one's own interpretations of eschatology. However, I would caution against giving it to someone who is not already heavily involved in the study of what the Bible has to say about the end-times. I had read the book half of the way through and thought this would be a great book to give away to friends and relatives to get them more interested in the end times. And I almost did. After reading the rest of the book, I am glad I did not.
Time, Times, and the Dividing of Times
One, I thought novel, interpretation was regarding the interpretation of the phrase, "time" and "times" and the dividing of "time". This language can be found in Daniel and Revelation. Because of other refererences surrounding these verses, the interpretation I'd accepted before reading this book, was of 42 months of years, or 1260 years. (One can debate whether these should be 365.2422 day years or 360 day years.) The three verses where this time, times, and the dividing of times phrase can be found are:
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Daniel 7:25
And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. Daniel 12:7
And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. Revelation 12:14
Mr. Skolfield's interpretation is that "time" is 1,000 years. To add to this interpretation, "times", is not two "times" a "time", but actually just another "time", or another 1,000 years. And, the dividing of times would be 500 years. So the total "time" referred to in these passages is 2,500 years. This is an intriguing interpretation in that Mr. Skolfield adds 2500 years to 533 BC to arrive at 1967. Okay, so it should have been 534 BC to arrive at 1967 but that is a minor point that can be ignored.
I am also intrigued by the fact that Mr. Skolfield gets exactly half this value of 2,500 years or 1,250 years instead of the odd period of 450 years (90 years, a season, plus 360 years, a time), when converting "a season and a time" as found in:
As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. Daniel 7:12
Although, interesting enough, one can start at the Protestant Reformation defining moment in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the church, and low and behold one can add 450 years to 1517 and also arrive at 1967.
The one "fly in the ointment" for me to accept this interpretation though, is that if "time, "times", and the dividing of "times" phrase means one thing in Daniel, then the same turn of phrase must mean the same thing in Revelation 12:14. And Revelation was written well after 533 BC.
To save this interpretation I suppose Revelation could be referring to a different far future event. Assuming that Revelation was written around 90 AD, then the future span of time must be after 90 + 2500 = 2590 AD. Which means it could mark something during the millennium, the end, or the short span of time satan will be loosed afterward. But then it doesn't make sense to me that the woman would be hid after Jesus comes back to rule 1,000 years.
Which brings up the point that Mr. Skolfield doesn't believe Jesus is coming back to rule 1,000 years. But that he is already back. Reminds me of a famous cult that after Jesus failed to return when the leader said He would, the leader "saved face" by saying that Jesus had indeed returned on the fateful day as the leader said he would, just that He had returned only in Spirit.
Mr Skolfield also states that we are already in the millennium and have been since the "Christian Era" began. (Maybe we really shouldn't be calling it the "millennium" now after almost 2,000 years.) Also our watching for His return from what Jesus described as a "long journey" is futile and we Christians who have been watching have been deceived. The next thing on the time horizon which is after the 7th Trumpet, (top of page 183), is for "time" to end.
The Millennium
On page 156 of "The False Prophet" we have:
Rev 20:1-2 And I saw an angel [Jesus] come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years [and thus, the thousand years of Rev 20 is a figure of the Christian Era].1
You know, folks, we have been looking for Jesus' kingdom through the wrong end of our spiritual telescopes, and the Church has been fed "doctrines of demons." Just as Scripture declared three times, we Christians have been ruling with Christ since the cross.
Okay, so let me get this straight. We have Revelation 20:1-2 quoted above which states that Satan will be bound a thousand years. This is followed by Revelation 20:3-7:
And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. [3]
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [4]
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [5]
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. [6]
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, [7]
We have the term, "thousand years" repeated in successive verses, not just in the next verse, or the verse after that, or even just the verse after that, but in five successive verses! Whenever there is something we are supposed to pay attention to in Scripture, it is repeated. God is not just Holy, but He is Holy, Holy, Holy! You can see where I'm going. To summarize:
Ellis H. Skolfield's book, "The False Prophet", puts forth that when the Bible speaks of a "time", as in "time", "times", and the "dividing of times", the Bible is really speaking of a "time" as being "a thousand years", (Dan. 7:25 & 12:7, Rev. 12:14). But when the Bible is speaking of a "thousand years", as in Satan will be bound a "thousand years", and the souls who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus will live and reign with Christ a "thousand years", and the rest of the dead will not live until after a "thousand years", and satan will not be let out of his prison till after a "thousand years", the Bible is not really speaking of a "thousand years" as being a "thousand years", (Rev. 20:2-7). But is really speaking of the whole "Christian Era".
With all the great insights and truths in this book it may seem unfair for me to focus on what appear to me as irreconcilable inconsistancies. The focus of this book is how satan is a murderer from the beginning and Islam puts its followers in submission to satan.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44
And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. Revelation 16:13
No one can deny that as we speak, Christians throughout Islamic countries are being beheaded for their faith. Yet, Revelation 20:4 records that their reward for this is that they lived and reigned with Christ a "thousand years". How would this be possible if the "thousand years", which "really" means the "Christian Era", started long before they were born, let alone died?
Ellis also does some gymnastics on page 188 of "The False Prophet" to convert the 3.5 days in Revelation 11:11:
And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. Revelation 11:11
To convert to years and then to 1278.34 years by multiplying by 365.24. Yet in the context of this story of the two witnesses in Revelation, we have 1260 days mentioned using the same exact greek word for days as found in Revelation 11:11:
And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. Revelation 11:3
Then if this interpretation is correct, does not consistency demand us to multiply 1260 times the same 365.24 to arrive at the ridiculous number of 460,202.4 years for how long the two witnesses WILL prophecy? The "WILL" and "SHALL" being in the future of when Revelation was written.
I'm not saying to "throw out the baby with the bathwater", but there is a lot of "bathwater" here that needs to critically examined in the light of the whole Word of God.
Shalom!
Ted Porter