(I hope you can see the italics and underlines here - otherwise this is going
to be hard to follow)I could find no way to respond to Pastor McElmurry directly, so I'll respond
here.Here are two paragraphs of his blog:
Is there one single Scripture the Great Evangelical Movement changed, upon
which prophetic teaching is based? There most assuredly is, and I will issue you
a challenge to make my point. Find me one commentary by anyone on Daniel 9:27
prior to 1740 stating the â?oHEâ?? that confirmed â?othe covenantâ?? was the
Antichrist, and I will eat crow. For all I know there may be one out there
somewhere, but I have searched dilligently across the earth and have not yet found it.And the central, and by far the singlemost important Scripture, on which
their seven year tribulation period, and first-of-the-week position hangs, is none
other than Daniel 9:27, and the belief the â?oHEâ?? is Antichrist. But that
teaching on Daniel 9:27 did not exist before 1740, and is the Scripture that
allowed first-of-the-weekers to divide the supposed last seven years of Danielâ?Ts 70
Weeks of Years into two neat little three and one-half year periods, the
first being a 1260 day period of peace, and the second being a 1260 day period of
great tribulation. See if you can find a book, published before 1740, that had
a diagram that showed the last seven years of Darielâ?Ts 70 Weeks of Years
divided into two neat little periods of three and one-half years.Now, I'm not saying he's wrong about his entire premise. However, he is wrong
about no one taking that position. Here is what Hippolytus (AD. 170-236) had
to say about it:
"Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the
Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself
above all kings and above every God, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and
restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the
knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and
forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is
said: 'And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy
a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.' As also it
was announced to Daniel: 'And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and
in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be
removed' - that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two
witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make
war upon the saints during the rest of the week, and desolate the world, that
what is written may be fulfilled: 'And they shall make the abomination of
desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days.'
[Hippolytus, On Daniel, II, 39]Irenaeus (130 - 200 AD), writing even earlier says:
4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: "I
have come in my Father's name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall
come in his own name, him ye will receive," calling Antichrist "the other,"
because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the
Lord mentioned as one "who feared not God, neither regarded man," to whom the
widow fled in her forgetfulness of God -- that is, the earthly Jerusalem -- to be
avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom:
he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of
God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this
purpose Daniel says again: "And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been
given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he
has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously." And the angel Gabriel, when
explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: "And towards the end
of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one
understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he
shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy
people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck];
deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall
also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand
like eggs." And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last,
during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice
unto God: "And in the midst of the week," he says, "the sacrifice and the
libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought]
into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be
complete." Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chp. 25)Although not as clear as Hippolytus, Irenaeus is obviously connecting the
last week to the antichrist, implying that the full amount of the week was still
future to him, which would not be the case if he believed that Jesus had
fulfilled the first half.This doesn't mean that either of these Early Church Fathers was right - but
Pastor McElmurry says he couldn't find anything earlier than 1740. I would say
that second century was considerably earlier.Here are places where you can read more about what some of the Early Fathers
had to say about the antichrist:Irenaeus
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P9242_2690367Justin Martyr (100 - 165 AD)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325Hippolytus - Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-20.htm#P4085_1270570Hippolytus - Treatise on Christ and Antichrist
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-18.htm#P3417_1067439LLee