Day-Age Theories
Islam in the End Times – Ellis Skolfield (2007)
There is a lot to be said for Skolfield’s interpretations. He dares to challenge the mainstream views of Dispensationalists, and especially Pre-tribulation Rapturists, with their Revived Roman Empire theories. This is appropriate as such are problematic both scripturally and in terms of events and developments of the past few centuries, and especially in the present. He recognizes Islam as a major player in both Daniel’s and John’s prophecies. He understands that the end-times empire, the 7th beast of Revelation, is very much associated with Islam. This is major, and in fact seems to be rapidly becoming a mainstream view as we see so much fulfillment of prophecy today.
However, he is very typical in his approach, as he obviously starts with a theory based on a few selective passages of scripture, and relates them to historic events sometimes forcing them to fit his interpretations. He ignores, or overlooks, many of the very relevant prophetic passages, and prophetic details, that don’t fit his template and his timelines and scenarios. He derives very convenient but forced interpretations of numerous passages of scripture, while just dismissing other more viable interpretations with the slightest amount of rationale for doing so, and that often somewhat less than entirely rational, or convincing. And he engages in circular reasoning, which may sound convincing to the unsuspecting, but is of no value in proving or substantiating the validity or logic of his views.
This is not to question his sincerity or motivations, but merely to examine critically his methodology, and thus his conclusions. The following are just a few examples of the problems with his approach to interpreting scripture as well as the record of history.
- The “weeks” of Dan. 9 are periods of 7 years, thus days=years.
The word translated “weeks” in Dan. 9:26-27 is just “sevens” in the Hebrew, not seven days, as per Skolfield’s interpretation. They are correctly interpreted as referring to years as is clear from the part that had already been fulfilled. But this is not rational basis for interpreting days as meaning years, as in the 1290 or 1335 days of Dan. 12. His other references to substantiate his claim that days=years in the Bible completely fail to do so. They are not saying that to God days meant years, but only that Israel would be punished a year for each day she was disobedient (Numbers 14:34), or a day for each year in the case of Ezekiel 4:5-6. Interesting in the one case it is one day equals a year, and in the other one year equals a day (to his credit he does not take 2 Peter 3:8 out of context to make his point here, though he does some fancy manipulation of the wording there to define “time”).
- The seventh head of the Beast in Revelation is the Islamic Empire from AD 688 to 1967.
John tells us in Rev. 17:10 that when the 7th head/Empire (“king”) comes “he must remain a little while” – 2500 years is probably not what is meant by “a little while”. Contrary to Skolfield’s claim, 1278 years of the Islamic empire is not a “little while”, if that expression is to mean anything to us. He also seems to ignore key elements, that help define what this 7th Beast will be, such as: the Harlot Babylon, the ten kings that will be the 8th beast of the Antichrist, and his spiritualized 666 mark of the beast ignores the specific detail that it will be on the hand and forehead – to name just a few. His puzzle has missing many pieces.
- “The same generation that was alive… in 1948 would still be alive when Jesus returns to stand on Mount Zion” (p.118, end of Chapter 13). That means 1948 + 70 = 2018
Skolfield interprets a generation as either 70 yrs, or 40 years. He says the generation of Matthew 24:34 that will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled, is that generation alive in 1948. However, 40 years from that date is only 1988, and 70 years just passed in 2018. It seems difficult to contend that all those things about which Jesus was prophesying in Matthew 24, which correspond to the prophecies in Revelation, including the rapture of the church (Matt. 24:31) and the second coming of Christ, have already been fulfilled as of 2018. This also smacks of date setting, which we are warned against by Jesus Himself.
- “abomination of desolation” is the Dome of the Rock – AD 688
The “abomination of desolation” is mentioned, or alluded to 3 times in Daniel, and once by Jesus in Matthew 24:15. In Daniel 9:27 it is related to the prince who is to come making a covenant with Israel. The prince is distinguished from “the people of the prince”, and we are told that “he” will make this covenant, not his people. If this is Islam building the Dome of the Rock at the old temple site in 688 AD, who is the prince and what is the covenant? It seems that Skolfield misses or overlooks this entirely. Furthermore, the outcome at the end of that week is “complete destruction” of this “one who makes desolate” – when has that happened to Islam? Certainly not in either 1948 nor 1967.
In Daniel 11:31 we have an account which matches up incredibly to the historic account of Antiochus Epiphanies IV in 167 BC, as his people not only destroyed the temple, but stopped the sacrifice, and desecrated the temple. He also set himself up as God. Skolfield simply rejects this rather clear and well substantiated interpretation, because of his presuppositions. According to his theory all this detail is irrelevant, just meaningless noise apparently, since this abomination of desolation was just about the building of the Dome of the Rock on the temple site.
There is very little correspondence between Daniel’s detailed prophecy in chapter 11, and Skolfield’s interpretation. His interpretation is mostly derived from Dan. 12:11, and his very contrived and forced interpretation of the time Daniel is referring to as the “time the regular sacrifice is abolished”, as addressed in the following. Again, he rejects the most obvious explanation given in 11:31, to “run it up and down the framework of history” (his words) to find a date that fits his preconceived scenario, 1290 years before the 688 AD building of the Dome of the Rock. His date of 583 BC is a perfect example of forcing scripture to fit his preconceptions and predetermined timelines.
Jesus reference to this “abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15 is in a definite context, and relates it to Daniel’s prophecies, telling us again to what Daniel was referring. This “Olivet Discourse” is about “[His] coming at the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3). It matches up to what we see prophesied in Revelation, which is what is most often referred to as “the Tribulation Period”, or the “70th Week of Daniel”. It is about a time which Jesus referred to as the time of “great tribulation” (24:21). It is the time leading up to the “sign of the Son of Man”, when the much prophesied day of the Lord darkening of the Sun, moon and stars will happen just before Jesus appears, and sends His angels to gather the Saints from the earth. It is a very far-fetched and forced interpretation to have Jesus referring to an event in 688 AD, long before His coming back and the rapture of the Saints, and the end of the world, as that “abomination of desolation”. Again, Skolfield seems to be missing some key parts of this biblical puzzle, in his interpretation, picking selectively the scriptures and historic events that match his scenario, rather than letting his scenario be driven by all the relevant scripture, and historic events, that are necessarily part of the actual intended picture.
Another very relevant passage is 2 Thessalonians 2, and 2:1-4 in particular, which clearly matches up to both Daniel’s description of this abomination of desolation, and what we see described in Revelation 13 about the end-times beast, the Antichrist.
- “time, times, and half of time” = 2500 years (in Daniel) – 552BC to get AD 1948; 1290 days in Dan 12 is 1290 years.
The “time, times and half a times”, the 1260 days, and the 42 months, in Revelation, are all referring to the same period or lengths of time. Letting scripture interpret scripture we see that what we don’t already know from Daniel becomes clear from their use in Revelation. While men can, and Skolfield does, speculate about what they mean, especially in Daniel, it is totally unnecessary when we see how they are used in Revelation.
When we go to Revelation (which interprets Daniel), we see the two witnesses in chapter 11 prophesying for 1260 days, then being killed and laying in the streets for 3 ½ days. Days make sense, 1260 years and 3 ½ years do not. His interpretation that the 2 witnesses are the saved Jewish church, and the Christian church is incredibly convoluted with respect to interpretation of scripture, and logic. The 1260 years from the “abomination of desolation”, the Dome of the Rock, only takes us to 1948. Virtually nothing John describes in Rev. 11 as what happens at the end of those 1260 days (“years” per his theory) has any correlation to anything in 1948, without some very forced and unnatural interpretations of his words there, and history.
Similarly, we see 1260 days and “time, times and half a time” in Rev. 12 where “the Woman”, obviously Israel, is protected during that time. According to Skolfield the time, times and half a time is 2500 years from 533 BC to 1967 AD, but the 1260 is 1260 years from 688 AD to 1948 AD. Yet it is clear from the text that both are referring to the same period of time when Israel is to be supernaturally protected by God. In what way can we say that Israel has been so protected by God from either 533 BC, or 688 AD – a time during which she was completely decimated as a nation in AD 70, and went through the holocaust of the mid 20th century? His numbers don’t match, nor does history. Many problems with his interpretations.
On the other hand, if the times are years thus 3 ½ years, interpreted as prophetic years of 360 days, that equals 1260 days, which also equals 42 months at 30 days/month – no contradictions or disconnects.
As is always the case with the day-age theorists, there has to be a lot of manipulation of the periods, changing from one calendar to the other, to fit the predetermined timeline. Given the Bible has actually only one author, it is doubtful God would make it so confusing. On the other hand, a 360 day prophetic year is not only logical, but also born out in scripture, as in Daniel’s first 69 weeks. Similarly, we see both 1260 days and 42 months used to refer to the same period of times as the time, times and half a time. The Bible is consistent, many men’s interpretations not so much.
- “times of the Gentiles” = 1948 AD – 2500 yr. = 552 BC (2500-1948 = 552) 552 is 1st year of Belshazzar.
To interpret the “times of the Gentiles”, referring to the period of Gentile domination of Israel and Jerusalem (which he relates to Rev. 11:2), Skolfield starts with the terminus date of 1948, when Israel declared its statehood. Then applying his day-year definition of “times” as the 2500 years, subtracting it from 1948 AD, he lands on 552 BC. Now he has to find something in the historic record which he can identify as the year when this time of Gentile domination began. He does not go to the most obvious time when Nebuchadnezzar conquered and destroyed Jerusalem, as that doesn’t fit his template. Instead he picks a time several generations later when the last king of record was ruling that Empire, Belshazzar, who was killed when the Darius the Mede took over the empire. How arbitrary is that? If we are to interpret this “time, times, and half a time” as a historic period when the Gentiles were dominating God’s people Israel, surely it would begin with Nebuchadnezzar conquering her and taking her people captive, would it not? However, picking that year of 552 BC, when supposedly according to him (with little if any real historical evidence) Belshazzar’s reign began, allows him to get to the key date of 1948, 2500 years later. Then he makes the emphatic claim that this is undeniable proof of his day-age theory – a classic case of circular reasoning at best.
- The stopping of the sacrifices in Jerusalem Dan 9:27 and 12:11 and thus the “times”, or 1290 years, begin with deportation of 745 captives in Jerusalem to Babylon in 533 BC. Thus 1967 AD – 2500 yrs. = 533 BC (2500-1967 = 533).
- 583 BC the date of the stopping of sacrifices beginning the 1290 days till the “abomination of desolation” of Dan. 12:11.
One needs to examine his own proof texts and let the scripture speak, using a modicum of common sense and logic. Here is the actual timeline given by Jeremiah:
Timeline per Jeremiah:
32:1 Jerusalem already under siege: 8th yr. of Nebuchadnezzar, 10th yrs of Zedekiah;
39:1- Siege of Jerusalem began: 9th year of Zedekiah (10th yr of Nebuchadnezzar)
39:2-9 – walls broken down, royal palace destroyed: 11th yr. of Zedekiah (12th yr. of Nebuchadnezzar)
52:1 – Jerusalem under siege, Zedekiah captured: 9th yr. of Zedekiah (10th yr. of Nebuchadnezzar)
52:12 – Jerusalem completely destroyed, including temple: 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
52:28-30 deportations from Jerusalem to Babylon:
7th yr. of Nebuchadnezzar – 3023 captives
18th yr. – 832 captives
23rd yr. – 745 captives (Skolfield’s 583 BC)
According to Skolfield’s theory: sacrifices stopped when the last group were deported in Nebuchadnezzar’s 23rd year, which he calculates to be 583 BC.
According to Jeremiah 52:12, the temple was completely destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year, which would be 587 BC.
His explanation is that there were still sacrifices being made even though the temple was gone, until those authorized to perform such sacrifices were deported, then they must have stopped (pure speculation) – he picks the last deportation of only 745, because it fits his presupposed timeline.
His argument is that according to Jer. 41:5 men came to Jerusalem with sacrifices, which was after the destruction of 52:12. However, nothing there tells us that sacrifices were still going on after the destruction of the temple. We are told that these men in 41:5 came from the northern sites which were formerly worship centers (Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria) – which had previously refused to recognize the temple in Jerusalem as the only site where God authorized sacrifices. The sacrifices they brought were not blood sacrifices, but only grain and incense. While the actual “house of the Lord” had been destroyed, the site was still revered as a holy site. It is very possible that they did not even know how complete the destruction was in Jerusalem, since they were coming from the North. However, to cite this as proof that this last deportation mentioned is that critical event to which Daniel was making reference, is very weak scriptural evidence, mostly speculation, given the clearly stated destruction of 52:12.
This is a very pivotal point upon which much of Skolfield’s whole day-age theory rests. However, even if his interpretation of the 1290 days as 1290 years were correct, his timeline is off by 4 years. The starting point of Daniel’s 1290 years would be 579 BC, not 583 BC, putting the “abomination of desolation” at AD 684, four years before construction began on Dome of the Rock. That then also throws off his perfect timing of the last 1260 years (now using the current Gregorian calendar), to take us up to 1944, not 1948 when Israel declared itself a state.
Skolfield acknowledges that there are three possibilities scripturally with respect to when the sacrifices were stopped: 2 Chronicles 28:24-25 (before Daniel’s time), 2 Chronicles 36:19, which corresponds to Jeremiah 52 discussed above, and “once four hundred years later by the Greek king Antiochus Epiphanes” (p. 37). This last instance is the one prophesied in Daniel 11:31, where the “abomination of desolation” is explicitly mentioned. This last most obvious possibility is dismissed or ignored, with little explanation, other than his presupposition that Daniel could not have been prophesying an event that would not occur until 2500 years later. Yet, Daniel himself repeatedly tells us what he was prophesying was about the “distant future” (Dan. 8:26) and “the time of the end” (Dan. 8:17, & 19; 11:35; 12:9) – which Skolfield recognizes elsewhere.
Skolfield also seems to virtually ignore the part in Dan. 9:27 about the “covenant” for one seven (translated “week”), which the “Prince who is to come” will make with “many”, but will break after half way through that period. Even according to his day-age theory this should be a 7 year covenant, broken after 3 ½ years, which is usually associated with the end-time 7 year tribulation period. That in turn is associated with the time, times, and half a time (a time being a year), and the 42 months, and 1260 days mentioned repeatedly in both Daniel and Revelation. Skolfield makes little logical connection between Daniel’s times, and their equivalent corollaries in Revelation, which seems to fail the test of letting scripture interpret scripture. His approach is to begin with an assumption, namely that the Dome of the Rock is the “abomination of desolation”, then using his day-age theory “run [it] up and down the framework of history and see what it fits” (p. 71). In the process he has to do a lot of manipulation of dates and calendars, and cherry-picking of scriptures to make his pieces fit together, ignoring many pieces of the puzzle biblically and historically – but he manages it.
It is a little too obvious how and why he lands on 533 BC as the starting point for his 2500 year timeline. Doing reverse engineering, starting with his predetermined date of 1967 when Israel took control of Jerusalem again after winning the 6 day war, going back 2500 years, it has to be 533 BC (unlikely as that actually is given the biblical record and historic dates). His interpretation is that 1967 could be understood as a deliverance from Gentile domination, and thus a fulfillment of the 42 months of Rev. 11:2. However even that takes considerable manipulation of numbers: “42 months X 30.44 days gives us roughly 1278.5 days”, thus “1967 AD – 1278.5 = 688.5 AD” (the 30.44 being 365.24/12). But then in the following verse we are told that the two witnesses will be there prophesying for 1260 days, which most scholars see as referring to the same time period – the most natural interpretation of the text. But according Skolfield the 1260 days are 1260 years, which then conflicts with his calculated 1278.5 years for the same period.
Alternatively, seeing this passage in Rev. 11 as prophetic about the coming Antichrist in the last half of the 7 year covenant period of the 70th week of Daniel, also known as the time of Great Tribulation (per Jesus in Matt. 24:21), letting the 42 months be literal months of 30 days, and 1260 days be literal days, they both agree with no discrepancy. One might say, do the math!
- The actual temple site is 300 ft. south of the Dome of the Rock.
Skolfield is to be applauded for not taking the widely believed myth about the Moslem Dome of the Rock being built on the original temple site of either Herod’s or Solomon’s temple. However, since he appeals to archeology and history, he probably needs to do a little more research on the actual location of that original temple versus what is now known as the Dome of the Rock. This is especially important since he places so much emphasis on this Muslim Mosque as being the “abomination of desolation”, because biblically, according to his view, it represented the desecration of the temple of God.
Dr. Robert Cornuke, a “biblical archeologist” (his claim), has published a book entitled: Temple – Amazing New Discoveries that Change Everything About the Location of Solomon’s Temple. Therein he provides very convincing evidence, first from scripture, and then from archeological finds that are not well known by the general public, that refute the long standing belief that the Dome of the Rock was built on the original site of Solomon’s Temple. From scripture we learn that the temple was erected in the old city of David, the former Jebusite city. This city of David was also referred to in scripture as “Zion”, or “the stronghold of Zion”. It was “strategically located with a high walled castle-looking complex rising majestically from the Kidron Valley” with “a spring [which] flowed abundantly inside…” (from Temple, Kindle Locations 1073-1075, LifeBridge Books. Kindle Edition). That spring is identified with the Gihon Spring, which was a vital part of the original temple, for washing away the animal wastes from the animal sacrifices constantly being offered on the altar there. Recent archeological digs there have found the buried remains of that city and that spring, and evidence of the temple site having been there.
The
so-called temple mount of today however, is North of that original temple site.
It is actually the site of an old Roman fort known as Antonia, which was built
like a castle with walled fortifications and bulwarks, typical of Roman
fortresses. The fortress was as large as several cities, and would have housed
around 10,000 personnel, according to Cornuke. The “temple mount” would
accommodate such a fort, but there are no other known sites in the city that
would have, yet we have an eye-witness account of Josephus that such existed
there. Dr. Cornuke gives us this quote from Josephus: “…the temple was a
fortress that guarded the city (Zion) as was the tower of Antonia a guard to
the temple”
(Temple: Kindle Location 801, LifeBridge Books. Kindle
Edition). Thus if Cornuke’s findings are correct, neither of the sites
Skolfield identifies as Muslim shrines would actually be on the old temple
site. How then could the Dome of the Rock be what Daniel wrote about, and Jesus
referred to as “the abomination of desolation”.
This
also means that when the time comes to rebuild that temple, it will not take
risking an all-out war with the Islamic nations in the region to begin to do
so. The old city south of the so-called temple mount could be excavated, or
just built over as was done in the past on the original site of Solomon’s
temple.
This is by no means a complete list of the problems with Skolfield’s interpretations, as there are many other elements which are part of the whole picture which he does not address in this book. In fairness, he may address them in his other works, but given these discrepancies in his whole approach, and his driving presuppositions, it does not seem likely that it would be worth a great deal of time and effort to study them.
However, that said, it is interesting that when it comes down to who the end-times beast will be, and what we should be looking for and recognizing as the coming Antichrist, his conclusions about the role of Islam may be more accurate than most of the former mainstream views against which he is making his arguments.
end times revisited 