The Watchmans Study

So many divisions, no one agreeing on sound doctrine is breaking the unity of the Body! We must stand on scripture not opinion!

Changer of times and seasons

> Who changes times and seasons in Daniel 2

God changes times and seasons in Daniel 2:21. This declaration comes as part of Daniel’s prayer of thanksgiving after receiving the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

The phrase “times and seasons” likely refers to “epochs and eras”[1] rather than literal calendar seasons. The terms denote historical events, with God controlling these events either actively or permissively, determining how long each historical process endures[2]. The causative verbs emphasize God’s active role—He “changes,” “removes,” and “establishes” kings[1], demonstrating divine sovereignty over the flow of human history.

God exerts control over history by fixing periods during which certain nations and kings dominate, as illustrated in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream[1]. Like the prophetic authors throughout the Old Testament, Daniel adopts a perspective that recognizes God’s working behind human historical outcomes[1]. This stands in contrast to how secular historians or the Babylonians themselves would have interpreted events—they would attribute outcomes to military strength or the gods of Babylon rather than to the God of Israel.

The statement asserts God’s general control over all changes that occur, made specifically in view of the revolutions in empire that Daniel had just witnessed through the dream’s interpretation[3]. Rather than viewing history as governed by chance or human ambition alone, Daniel’s theology anchors all temporal change in divine purpose and authority.

[1] Joe M. Sprinkle, Daniel, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 411–412.
[2] Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel: God’s Beloved Prophet; His Life and His Prophecies (Biblical Research Institute, 2020), 20.
[3] Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Daniel (London: Blackie & Son, 1853), 142.

> Is there proof that the antichrist will change times and seasons, or laws and times?

Daniel 7:25 describes a figure who “shall think to change the times and the law,” which is the primary biblical reference to an antichrist-like power attempting such a change. The phrasing varies slightly across translations—some render it as “times and seasons” while others say “set times and the laws”—but the concept remains consistent.

The figure will “try to change the set times and the laws,”[1] and this may have meant the banning of Jewish festivals, but speaks more generally of social and moral upheaval and chaos.[1] The attempt to alter divinely established times and laws represents a fundamental rebellion against God’s authority and order.

Interpretations of this prophecy vary considerably. Various historical interpretations have been made, which by the very fact that there are several of them suggests that it is right to see here not so much a single unique historical point of reference but a recurring pattern.[1] At different times in history especially vicious regimes arise that seem to concentrate evil to its most potent virulence, and this fourth beast represents such ultimate manifestations of evil, anti-God, anti-human forces.[1]

Some interpreters have applied this prophecy to specific historical powers. Based on the “historicist school of [prophetic] interpretation” accepted nearly unanimously by all leading pre-Reformation, Reformation, post-Reformation, and Protestant American expositors of Daniel and Revelation from the thirteenth to the nineteenth centuries, this vast crowd of interpreters identified the prophesied “little horn” persecuting power of Daniel 7 as the Roman Catholic Church.[2] However, this represents one interpretive tradition among several, and modern scholars approach the passage differently.

[1] Christopher J. H. Wright, Hearing the Message of Daniel: Sustaining Faith in Today’s World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 159–160.
[2] Skip MacCarty, “The Seventh-Day Sabbath,” in Perspectives on the Sabbath (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011), 44–45.

> Why does the pope sit between 2 cherub figures? Is he the pope trying to take the place of Jesus by sitting in his own mercy seat?

The search results don’t directly address this question. However, I can clarify what the biblical mercy seat actually represents.

The two cherubim were figures of beaten gold positioned at the two ends of the mercy seat[1], and their wings stretched forth to cover the mercy seat, with their faces directed toward it[1]. God declared He would meet with His people and commune with them from above the mercy seat, between the two cherubim, making it God’s throne in the midst of His people where He dispensed mercy[1].

Critically, the mercy seat was a type of Christ, who is the true mercy seat, and through His own blood Christ has wrought perfect expiation and redemption, standing as our Mediator between God’s throne and sinful humanity[1]. This means Christ—not any human institution—fulfills and supersedes the mercy seat’s function.

The papal throne design may incorporate architectural elements inspired by various historical and religious traditions, but any claim that a pope sits in Christ’s place would contradict Christian theology. Christ alone stands as Mediator between God and humanity[1], and no human office or position can assume that role. The mercy seat belonged exclusively to God’s presence in the Old Testament tabernacle; in the New Testament, that reality is fulfilled in Christ’s person and work, not in any earthly institution or leader.

[1] Paul E. Kretzmann, The Popular Commentary of the Bible: The Old Testament (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1923–1924), 1:157–158.

> But if scholars look at the Roman Catholic system as the antichrist system then it makes sense that the papal authority try to replace the mercy seat of Christ for their own authority?

That’s a logical connection some interpreters have made. The papacy has been identified as the “little horn” arising from the Roman Empire that “spoke great swelling words of blasphemy, and made war against the saints.”[1]

Martin Luther, a key figure in this interpretive tradition, understood the Pope as sitting in God’s temple and exalting himself above God, governing not with divine laws but with “his foolish and innumerable laws and altogether unnecessary traditions.”[2] Luther saw the Pope’s excommunication and persecution of those following God’s word as usurping God’s authority, fulfilling the prophecy that Antichrist would “kill those who cling to the Word.”[2]

Luther specifically connected this to Daniel 7:25, interpreting the prophecy that the little horn would “think to change times and laws” as the Pope claiming power to alter what Christ established.[2] In Luther’s view, the Pope “has set up his own law for God’s law and his own priesthood for Christ’s priesthood, and thus set abomination in the holy place.”[2]

However, it’s important to note that this interpretation—while influential historically—remains contested. Some scholars argue the little horn cannot be the papacy because Daniel’s prophecy describes the horn being destroyed directly by supernatural agency at Christ’s return, whereas the papacy has persisted and been affected by earthly powers.[3] This interpretive disagreement reflects broader debates about whether Daniel’s prophecies describe historical powers or still-future events.

[1] B. H. Carroll, Revelation, ed. T. W. Crowder, An Interpretation of the English Bible (Broadman Press, 1947). [See here.]
[2] Dennis Pettibone, “Martin Luther’s Views on the Antichrist,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (2007), 18:1:93–95.
[3] George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 684.

> I believe them to be future events. Yes through time, after the rise of Constantine and his authority and possibly false act of his “Christianity” the church has gone through troubled times, but they’ve never been stopped completely.

You’re identifying a key interpretive distinction. The futurist perspective you’re describing aligns with what the search results support—that the fourth beast’s destruction synchronizes with God’s final judgment and the establishment of His kingdom[1], suggesting these events remain unfulfilled.

According to this framework, God’s dealings with Israel and the nations were suspended when the Church began at Pentecost and will resume after the Church’s removal, at which point end-times prophecies will unfold[2]. This interpretation explains why historical powers like Rome or the papacy, while they may foreshadow aspects of the final antichrist figure, don’t fully satisfy the prophecy’s requirements—they haven’t been destroyed by divine judgment in the manner Daniel describes.

The little horn is understood as a future figure whom Satan will promote and energize during the tribulation after the Church’s removal[2]. This figure will attempt to “change the times and the law,” meaning times of religious observances and traditions that characterize God’s worshippers[3]. Critically, nothing in history corresponds to the complete pattern described—the simultaneous ten kings, the little horn’s rise among them, and the supernatural judgment that follows[3].

Your point about institutional continuity is well-taken: if the antichrist system were already present, we’d expect its final destruction to have occurred. Instead, futurists see these prophecies as describing a concentrated, final manifestation of rebellion against God’s authority—one that will be terminated decisively when Christ returns to establish His kingdom.

[1] Mark Mangano, Esther & Daniel, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2001), 252.
[2] J. R. Baker, “Daniel,” in Daniel through Micah, ed. W. S. Stevely and D. E. West, What the Bible Teaches (John Ritchie Ltd., 2012), 103–104.
[3] John F. Walvoord, Daniel, ed. Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2012), 215.

> I believe that all churches will be dealt with at one time, especially the ones that created their own understanding, rules and regulations on how to follow Jesus, will all be judged together with the non believers?

Your conviction reflects a biblical principle that Jesus emphasized repeatedly. Jesus condemned religious leaders who honored God with their lips while their hearts remained distant, and who taught “the commandments of men”[1] rather than God’s Word. This critique extends beyond any single institution.

Matthew was concerned that Christian church leaders of his own day could follow the same path as the Pharisees, noting that “the same dangers threaten religious people, be they Christian or Jewish.”[2] This suggests that the problem isn’t unique to any one church—it’s a recurring spiritual danger whenever human traditions and interpretations replace God’s direct authority.

Jesus’ judgment on those who substitute human tradition for divine revelation applies across generations and traditions, including modern Christians who sometimes treat their own scriptural interpretations with an authority nearly equal to Scripture itself.[1] The core issue is spiritual—prioritizing human-made systems over direct obedience to God’s Word.

Your point about simultaneous judgment aligns with end-times theology: all systems that have replaced God’s authority with human authority will face final judgment together. Churches teaching philosophies and traditions of men instead of God’s Word represent a spiritual condition that invites divine judgment.[3] Whether Catholic, Protestant, or any other tradition, institutions that have constructed elaborate systems of human rules and interpretations—regardless of their intentions—stand under the same biblical critique Jesus leveled against the Pharisees. The distinguishing factor isn’t the denomination but whether a system has elevated human understanding above God’s revealed truth.

[1] J. Knox Chamblin, Matthew: A Mentor Commentary, Mentor Commentaries (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor, 2010), 781–782.
[2] Michael Green, The Message of Matthew: The Kingdom of Heaven, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 224.
[3] James B. Coffman, Commentary on Revelation, The James Burton Coffman Commentaries (A. C. U. Press, 2017). [See here.]

> Can you provide 10 scriptures to support this information

Here are ten scriptures that support the principle that religious systems built on human traditions rather than God’s Word will face judgment:

• Mark 7:6–7 — Jesus condemns worship based on human commandments rather than God’s Word, quoting Isaiah: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
• Matthew 15:3–6 — Jesus directly challenges religious leaders: “Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” and notes they “made void the word of God” through their traditions.
• Matthew 23:1–4 — Jesus warns against those who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders,” describing religious systems that burden rather than liberate.
• Luke 11:42 — Jesus rebukes religious leaders for neglecting “justice and the love of God” while meticulously following minor traditions.
• Colossians 2:8 — Paul warns believers: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
• 2 Timothy 4:3–4 — Paul prophesies that “people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth.”
• Titus 1:14 — Paul instructs believers to avoid “the commands of people who turn away from the truth.”
• Isaiah 1:11–13 — God declares His rejection of religious observances divorced from righteousness: “I have had enough of burnt offerings…incense is an abomination to me.”
• Amos 5:21–22 — God states plainly: “I hate, I despise your feasts…I will not accept them.”
• Micah 6:8 — God summarizes His true requirement: “What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”

These passages collectively demonstrate that God consistently judges religious systems prioritizing human traditions over His Word and justice over empty ritual.