This is incorrect. The first example is Daniel, who was NOT called to the Jews, but rather the Gentiles. His entire ministry is Gentile specific, -- including ALL prophetic passages, with the exception of the 9th Chapter, where he had to don the mantle of Jeremiah to prophecy to his own people. But everything else in for the nations of the earth and their interactions between themselves and only on approximately four instances where these international actions were directed against Israel.
All Biblical prophecy centers upon Israel and much of that upon the city of Jerusalem.
I have no idea where you got the foundation for your assertion that this is incorrect nor that Daniel was a prophet to the gentiles. There is ample evidence in the N.T. of the apostles being called by God to minister to the gentiles. Evidence that is rather dramatic at times. There is no such evidence in Daniel or about Daniel. None whatsoever.
I do acknowledge that Daniels words can be interpreted to AFFECT gentile nations, but again the point of it all is the ultimate design God has for Israel. It's all about the Jew. Christians, for example, are said to be 'grafted in' to the true vine, meaning the Jewish root. The grafting IN is by faith just as most of the Jews being cut off is because of a lack of faith. The root is still there as is the physical nation, city and Jewish folk.
The end of prophecy, after all, is about the return of the KING OF THE JEWS.
* * *
On the seventh week and back to my info I've shared about al-Mahdi the Islamic antiChrist and a
point of discrepency that ought to be shared.
In Mr. Richardson's book, he states that al-Mahdi will lead an army of the black flags in conquest of Jerusalem. That event prediction is duplicated in Islamic prophecy as well as in the Bible. Islam also states that al-Mahdi will rule for seven years (Daniel's week?). We read in previous posts here about the detailed discussions about the Biblical references and interpretations of that last group of seven years.
Here is the bump in the road.
The Bible seems to indicate that the antiChrist will attain to Jerusalem and suddenly declare himself to be god. He will demand to be worshipped and will exact punishment upon those who do not do so.
Islam forbids that a man should be worshipped or acknowledged as God - including Jesus Christ of course. If al-Mahdi is to be the Islamic messiah and the Biblical antiChrist, how will he then ascend to the throne in Jerusalem, demand to be worshipped as god, and be received as such by his followers? hmmmm
There is another odd passage in the Bible which may play into this scenario. It says that halfway through this seven year period the antiChrist
will be revealed. Revealed to whom? Certainly there will be a large number of Christians that will be onto his deception even from the start. There have been enough movies and books about the antiChrist so that even many unbelievers will have serious intellectual doubts. So what does the Bible mean when it says the antiChrist will be revealed? If Jews, Christians and reasoning non-believers all have misgivings then what is the big shock?
Is the shock perhaps delivered to the supporters of antiChrist? What greater shock would there be to a people and a religion that flatly states 'no man can be god', than to have their big hero of the hour stand up and break their sacred law? Law breaker? hmmmm
Anyway this is just me writing all this. Richardson's idea that al-Mahdi is antiChrist must somehow answer to this fundamental Islamic law; no man can be god. If, on the other hand, the lawless one breaks his own law, that might come as a terrible shock to some. What would happen then?
I tell you truly that some of us would be standing on the side lines saying, "I told you so."
