The 70th Week
Several years ago I began to question some long held assumptions/beliefs that affected my worldview, specifically, in the area of eschatology. By worldview I mean the way I function in life based on the beliefs I held – how I saw my world. I had always been dissatisfied with my former way of thinking. It had no practical value. As early as high school I had written off eschatology saying that it would all work out in the end. The domino that started the great effect for me was Daniel 9 and the 70 weeks.
I did have questions about Jesus’ time statements in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I knew that the Greek is a very expressive language and the disciples asked a very specific question. Why would Jesus muddy the water by throwing a term that is rare at best to describe something? He was speaking to His disciples. They understood what He was saying. So, I was not satisfied with the scholars’ answer of “generations” and put it aside in the pile of stuff that I just don’t get. Maybe I’ll write on this sometime. This however, was not the crucial pin that held everything together. The floating 70th week was.
I am a seeker of Truth. I am a seeker of Jesus. These statements are synonymous. I don’t want to settle for the status quo. That doesn’t mean I throw everything out but I want to look at everything with fresh eyes depending on the Holy Spirit “to give insight with understanding.” My prayer and hope is that you would consider what is said, study the passages, and present it before the Lord for personal revelation. After all, revelation means Divine disclosure. The idea is that Father wants to make known. “Now we have received… the Spirit who is from God, so we may know the things freely given to us by God.” (I Cor. 2:12)
I venture on this site to speak nothing that Father is not working in me by revelation. I have opinions that I don’t hold too strongly because I know I have limited insight. Father does not have limited insight. I will endeavor to listen to Him and represent what I believe He is telling me. Can I miss it? Of course. Growth is a process of learning. I want to represent Him in the integrity of my heart. It is not for my own pat on the back. I find that growth usually comes in time, not all at once. It is a process in harmony with others. We are the body of Christ for a reason. So here is my story for you to question, critique, heckle, but most importantly to think about and allow my growth to affect yours - one way or the other. You don’t answer to me but to our Lord and the ones you are in relationship with. You are responsible for maintaining your own integrity.
I had several questions in my study.
First let me say that dispensationalists/futurists (of which I was one) require in their hermeneutics to treat Scripture literally if the text could be understood and explained from a literal standpoint. If the text can be understood in a literal sense, then it should stand on its own merit and not some other interpretation read into it. It was my literalist teaching that led me into looking closer at Daniel 9.
The gap theory?
There is no exegetical or hermeneutical principle that allows for the gap between the 69th and 70th week. The Genesis gap, you say? This was developed to combat current, secular teaching that the earth went through several stages of development that lasted millions of years. No one taught gap theory prior to Darwin. No other time prophecy has experienced a gap. The previous brake in this passage after 49 years has no gap.
The prophecy recognized the cutting off of Jesus by the Jews and therefore understood and planned for this. There was no parenthesis because the Jews rejected Jesus. It was in the prophecy. If this was in the prophecy, why wasn’t the parenthesis? Jesus alluded to this rejection in his parable of the land owner sending servants to collect rent and then sending his son who they killed. The land owner then came in force and uprooted the wretched tenets.
As far as time perspective, above all, Scripture should interpret Scripture. If the Scripture plainly puts a time frame, say 70 years, then that is what can be expected. If the Scripture says the time is far off and another place says it is near, it will be consistent in determining the time frame. It won’t mean one thing in one place and another thing in another place. I am referring to Michael telling Daniel, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the time of the end.”( Dan. 12:9) And in 8:26, “The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future.” (490 years from the time of Artaxerxes’ decree to be exact.) In contrast to Revelation 22: 10, “And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.’”
Daniel was to have clear insight and understanding, 9:22.
My dispensationalist grandparents?
Dispensationalism was founded in 1585 by a Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591). He was countering the protestant attack on the papacy. The Protestants were preaching that the Pope was the beast of Revelation. (We’ve been doing this a long time now, haven’t we?) This is where the first teaching of the 70th week in the future began.
And the centuries pass when a protestant, S.R. Maitland of England (1792-1866) printed Ribera’s writings in 1826 for the purpose of historical study. He produced several pamphlets in which John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) digested and reproduced throughout the Plymouth Brethren, which he founded. His writings influenced C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) who in turn produced the Scofield Bible. Scofield, in turn affected my denomination and then me. I remember when I read a pamphlet about Scofield’s false teaching. I was horrified. I rejected it for some time – years, actually. However, the Holy Spirit’s gentle nudging to look deeper softened my heart. Becoming aware of the origins of dispensationalism helped me recognize that this teaching hasn’t always been around – only around 180 years in the protestant history of the Church. That’s less than 10% of overall church history.
Confirmation of fulfilled prophecy?
There is no better apologetic than prophecy fulfilled. This confirms the validity of the Word of God. God spoke over 500 years prior to the fulfilled prophecy. It unfolded just as He said it would.
Dan. 9:24 Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
The year of the decree: 457 B.C.
Dan. 9:25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven week and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with street and moat, even in times of distress.
When the decree started is a big question among scholars. Some say with Cyrus in 538 B.C. However, this would produce an 81 year mistake. Even the futurists acknowledge that the prophecy was fulfilled up to the 70th week. I don’t think they would acknowledge this as being the starting point.
Forty-nine years later: 408 B.C.
Ezra and Nehemiah fulfilled this portion of the prophecy. Even to the building of the wall in troubled times (Nehemiah 4:7 & 17).
Four hundred, thirty-four years later: A.D. 27
Jesus is baptized by John and is anointed for ministry (Luke 3:21-23). Dionysius Exiguus’ (16th century) calendar messed up the dating. It was during this approaching time that the people started looking for the Messiah. Remember the “the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ” (Lk 3:15) and “the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who are you?’” (Jn1:19) Of all the books in the Septuagint Daniel was copied most. It seems that had a propensity for end time prophecy. After all, it was their “time of the end.”
Three and one-half years later: A.D. 30
Dan. 9:26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing…
This is a beautiful picture of Father God “cutting a covenant” with us. Remember v. 24 are the terms of the Covenant and v. 27 states, “He will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering.” God is the great king making covenant with Himself on our behalf for all those who will enter in Christ. A completion of the covenant He made with Abraham when He put Abraham to sleep and made a covenant with Himself on Abraham’s behalf. (Gen. 15)
Mid-week Jesus is crucified just as it was prophesied.
Dan. 9:26 …and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
“people” – implies an army.
“prince” – Titus was son of Vespasian, emperor of Rome. Four years prior, with the death of Galba, Vespasian went back to Rome leaving Titus in charge to finish the work and allowing for perfect accuracy of Biblical prophecy. They utterly destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. like a flood. The second half of verse 27 speaks of Titus.
“desolations are determined” – This was set in motion during the 70th week. It is not required by the text to be completely fulfilled during the 70th week (same word used in 11:36, “for what has been determined must take place”). The same Hebrew word is used in verse 27 when speaking of the destruction. The final ultimate destruction occurred 34 years later with the fall of Jerusalem the harlot.
Three and one-half years later: A.D. 34
Dan. 9:27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week
The covenant was established with the Jews for three and a half years prior to taking the gospel into Samaria. Shortly after the stoning of Steven the Spirit led Phillip into Samaria (Acts 8:5) and later to the Gentiles.
Context of Daniel?
Daniel was praying for revelation based on Jeremiah’s specific time prophecy that was soon approaching (Dan. 9:1-3). Michael came to Daniel by commandment of the Lord that Daniel would understand (spoken twice in v. 22 and again in v. 23 emphasizing Daniel was to understand the prophecy). This was not some vague, cloudy prophecy that was hard to understand. God spoke it and it came to pass.
References:
Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative by Robert Caringola
Whose Right it is: A Handbook of Covenantal Theology by Kelley Varner
Beyond the End Times by John Noe
Well, there it is. This is my first drafting so I will review in time and make corrections as needed. Feel free to critique and assist in the smoothing out process. I am open to the Lord for revelation; He may very well use you to do it. One request, please. Only present what Father has made revelation to you. I know dispensational teaching, so let’s not rehash the obvious. Start with the premise that I know where you are coming from and then let’s have an intelligent conversation. I don’t argue or debate. Dialog is my game with mutual respect. I am not attacking anyone’s character. I believe that all come to the table with a sincere heart, desiring the truth, and open to the Holy Spirit.
Peace and blessings.
I did have questions about Jesus’ time statements in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I knew that the Greek is a very expressive language and the disciples asked a very specific question. Why would Jesus muddy the water by throwing a term that is rare at best to describe something? He was speaking to His disciples. They understood what He was saying. So, I was not satisfied with the scholars’ answer of “generations” and put it aside in the pile of stuff that I just don’t get. Maybe I’ll write on this sometime. This however, was not the crucial pin that held everything together. The floating 70th week was.
I am a seeker of Truth. I am a seeker of Jesus. These statements are synonymous. I don’t want to settle for the status quo. That doesn’t mean I throw everything out but I want to look at everything with fresh eyes depending on the Holy Spirit “to give insight with understanding.” My prayer and hope is that you would consider what is said, study the passages, and present it before the Lord for personal revelation. After all, revelation means Divine disclosure. The idea is that Father wants to make known. “Now we have received… the Spirit who is from God, so we may know the things freely given to us by God.” (I Cor. 2:12)
I venture on this site to speak nothing that Father is not working in me by revelation. I have opinions that I don’t hold too strongly because I know I have limited insight. Father does not have limited insight. I will endeavor to listen to Him and represent what I believe He is telling me. Can I miss it? Of course. Growth is a process of learning. I want to represent Him in the integrity of my heart. It is not for my own pat on the back. I find that growth usually comes in time, not all at once. It is a process in harmony with others. We are the body of Christ for a reason. So here is my story for you to question, critique, heckle, but most importantly to think about and allow my growth to affect yours - one way or the other. You don’t answer to me but to our Lord and the ones you are in relationship with. You are responsible for maintaining your own integrity.
I had several questions in my study.
First let me say that dispensationalists/futurists (of which I was one) require in their hermeneutics to treat Scripture literally if the text could be understood and explained from a literal standpoint. If the text can be understood in a literal sense, then it should stand on its own merit and not some other interpretation read into it. It was my literalist teaching that led me into looking closer at Daniel 9.
The gap theory?
There is no exegetical or hermeneutical principle that allows for the gap between the 69th and 70th week. The Genesis gap, you say? This was developed to combat current, secular teaching that the earth went through several stages of development that lasted millions of years. No one taught gap theory prior to Darwin. No other time prophecy has experienced a gap. The previous brake in this passage after 49 years has no gap.
The prophecy recognized the cutting off of Jesus by the Jews and therefore understood and planned for this. There was no parenthesis because the Jews rejected Jesus. It was in the prophecy. If this was in the prophecy, why wasn’t the parenthesis? Jesus alluded to this rejection in his parable of the land owner sending servants to collect rent and then sending his son who they killed. The land owner then came in force and uprooted the wretched tenets.
As far as time perspective, above all, Scripture should interpret Scripture. If the Scripture plainly puts a time frame, say 70 years, then that is what can be expected. If the Scripture says the time is far off and another place says it is near, it will be consistent in determining the time frame. It won’t mean one thing in one place and another thing in another place. I am referring to Michael telling Daniel, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the time of the end.”( Dan. 12:9) And in 8:26, “The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future.” (490 years from the time of Artaxerxes’ decree to be exact.) In contrast to Revelation 22: 10, “And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.’”
Daniel was to have clear insight and understanding, 9:22.
My dispensationalist grandparents?
Dispensationalism was founded in 1585 by a Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591). He was countering the protestant attack on the papacy. The Protestants were preaching that the Pope was the beast of Revelation. (We’ve been doing this a long time now, haven’t we?) This is where the first teaching of the 70th week in the future began.
And the centuries pass when a protestant, S.R. Maitland of England (1792-1866) printed Ribera’s writings in 1826 for the purpose of historical study. He produced several pamphlets in which John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) digested and reproduced throughout the Plymouth Brethren, which he founded. His writings influenced C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) who in turn produced the Scofield Bible. Scofield, in turn affected my denomination and then me. I remember when I read a pamphlet about Scofield’s false teaching. I was horrified. I rejected it for some time – years, actually. However, the Holy Spirit’s gentle nudging to look deeper softened my heart. Becoming aware of the origins of dispensationalism helped me recognize that this teaching hasn’t always been around – only around 180 years in the protestant history of the Church. That’s less than 10% of overall church history.
Confirmation of fulfilled prophecy?
There is no better apologetic than prophecy fulfilled. This confirms the validity of the Word of God. God spoke over 500 years prior to the fulfilled prophecy. It unfolded just as He said it would.
Dan. 9:24 Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
The year of the decree: 457 B.C.
Dan. 9:25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven week and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with street and moat, even in times of distress.
When the decree started is a big question among scholars. Some say with Cyrus in 538 B.C. However, this would produce an 81 year mistake. Even the futurists acknowledge that the prophecy was fulfilled up to the 70th week. I don’t think they would acknowledge this as being the starting point.
Forty-nine years later: 408 B.C.
Ezra and Nehemiah fulfilled this portion of the prophecy. Even to the building of the wall in troubled times (Nehemiah 4:7 & 17).
Four hundred, thirty-four years later: A.D. 27
Jesus is baptized by John and is anointed for ministry (Luke 3:21-23). Dionysius Exiguus’ (16th century) calendar messed up the dating. It was during this approaching time that the people started looking for the Messiah. Remember the “the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ” (Lk 3:15) and “the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who are you?’” (Jn1:19) Of all the books in the Septuagint Daniel was copied most. It seems that had a propensity for end time prophecy. After all, it was their “time of the end.”
Three and one-half years later: A.D. 30
Dan. 9:26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing…
This is a beautiful picture of Father God “cutting a covenant” with us. Remember v. 24 are the terms of the Covenant and v. 27 states, “He will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering.” God is the great king making covenant with Himself on our behalf for all those who will enter in Christ. A completion of the covenant He made with Abraham when He put Abraham to sleep and made a covenant with Himself on Abraham’s behalf. (Gen. 15)
Mid-week Jesus is crucified just as it was prophesied.
Dan. 9:26 …and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
“people” – implies an army.
“prince” – Titus was son of Vespasian, emperor of Rome. Four years prior, with the death of Galba, Vespasian went back to Rome leaving Titus in charge to finish the work and allowing for perfect accuracy of Biblical prophecy. They utterly destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. like a flood. The second half of verse 27 speaks of Titus.
“desolations are determined” – This was set in motion during the 70th week. It is not required by the text to be completely fulfilled during the 70th week (same word used in 11:36, “for what has been determined must take place”). The same Hebrew word is used in verse 27 when speaking of the destruction. The final ultimate destruction occurred 34 years later with the fall of Jerusalem the harlot.
Three and one-half years later: A.D. 34
Dan. 9:27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week
The covenant was established with the Jews for three and a half years prior to taking the gospel into Samaria. Shortly after the stoning of Steven the Spirit led Phillip into Samaria (Acts 8:5) and later to the Gentiles.
Context of Daniel?
Daniel was praying for revelation based on Jeremiah’s specific time prophecy that was soon approaching (Dan. 9:1-3). Michael came to Daniel by commandment of the Lord that Daniel would understand (spoken twice in v. 22 and again in v. 23 emphasizing Daniel was to understand the prophecy). This was not some vague, cloudy prophecy that was hard to understand. God spoke it and it came to pass.
References:
Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative by Robert Caringola
Whose Right it is: A Handbook of Covenantal Theology by Kelley Varner
Beyond the End Times by John Noe
Well, there it is. This is my first drafting so I will review in time and make corrections as needed. Feel free to critique and assist in the smoothing out process. I am open to the Lord for revelation; He may very well use you to do it. One request, please. Only present what Father has made revelation to you. I know dispensational teaching, so let’s not rehash the obvious. Start with the premise that I know where you are coming from and then let’s have an intelligent conversation. I don’t argue or debate. Dialog is my game with mutual respect. I am not attacking anyone’s character. I believe that all come to the table with a sincere heart, desiring the truth, and open to the Holy Spirit.
Peace and blessings.
posted by brent at 12:45 PM
25 Comments:
If you haven't done so, you might like to travel on over to Yahoo and insert "Pretrib Rapture Diehards." It's recently uncovered facts re dispensationalism and especially the pretrib rapture. Another different Yahoo item is "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)." Lord bless.
Greetings B -
I don't have time or references right now to go into detail - I've made some initial points where you are factually in error, as I see it (but interpretations may differ - I'll send it sometime todnight). But consider:
457 BC to 408 BC is the seven weeks; 408 to 27 AD is your sixty-two weeks. So that's the 69 weeks. The events described for the last week must end by 34 AD. What has been clean and precise, becomes muddy and sloppy, by pushing the fulfillment into the days of Trajan. It's not that it can't be so. It's just inelegant. Very. To excuse it by saying it's "not required by the text to be completely fulfilled during the 70th week" is a saving device, but not a good one.
I don't have the text in front of me. I'll look at it later, and be more specific.
As I say, prophecy isn't really my thing.
J
J
Some initial observations, still not specific:
"this generation" is not "this chronological cohort" but rather "this race" - "the Jews shall not pass away." ...if that's the time statement you refer to.
To speak through “revelation” seems a risky proposition, to me. What is the heart, aside from deceitful? Which is the Lord's voice, and which your own? Yeah, "revelation" is a really big word. I prefer "insight" - into something that's already there, that I finally get - rather than some new thing, revealed.
Re literalism: well, yes, given context and the uses of figures of speech.
"There is no exegetical or hermeneutical principle that allows for the gap between the 69th and 70th week." Yes there is. When Jesus is reading to the synagogue, he stops in the middle of a sentence and says something like "I tell you, this has been fulfilled today" but the rest of the sentence is a long time coming. (I'm doing this without references - forgive the vagueness.) This establishes the principle of gaps. The gaps in the genealogy of Jesus - the skipping of years of oppression during the era of Judges - are other examples.
"The land owner then came in force and uprooted the wretched tenets." When did he come? Doesn't say. Certainly doesn't say, 'immediately.' In any case, parables are not allegories.
"As far as time perspective..." Argument of paragraph is: for Daniel end times are far off and closed, for John, at hand and open. I read this as not imminent for Daniel - not possible - but near, possible, in John's day. Possible does not mean 'will happen now' - just 'could'.
I've never had a problem with the RCs or the Pope. Don't agree, but not essential. The history of Dispensationalist is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. Prior to Luther, it would have been hard not to be Catholic. Truth and clarity can be lost and reclaimed. Consider Josiah and the re-discovery of the Book of the Law - Deuteronomy - and the ensuing revival. (Again, from memory.)
I can't address the details of chronology without some research. But re the calendar, there’s a typo - you mean 6th, not 16th century. Luke doesn't say JC started teaching at age 30 - ABOUT age 30. Herod died Passover of 4 BC, Jesus born before that, probably Fall of 5 BC. I have Crucifixion at 32 AD, for reasons evident in my Easter Chronology.
I'll crack open the book later. For now, consider this: Dn 9:24 has it that "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, [1] to finish the transgression, and [2] to make an end of sins, and [3] to make reconciliation for iniquity, and [4] to bring in everlasting righteousness, and [5] to seal up the vision and prophecy, and [6] to anoint the most Holy."
So, [1] what is the transgression that is finished at the end of week 70? [2] Has there been an end of sins? [3] Has iniquity been reconciled? [4] Has everlasting righteousness been brought in? [5] Have visions and prophecies been sealed up? [6] Has the most Holy been anointed.
If the answer to any single one of these is no, then the 70th week has not been fulfilled, and so has not occurred. We can interpret any of these in all sorts of ways. Thus, what is “the” transgression [1]? Could be some specific sin of the First Century. Has iniquity been reconciled [3]? We could say Jesus’ death did that. Has everlasting righteousness been brought in [4]? Well, Jesus was brought in, I suppose, somehow. Has the most Holy been anointed [6]? Jesus feet were anointed – is that what is meant? Or is it some sacred artifact? – I don’t know.
Can we say that visions and prophecies have been sealed up [5]? I don’t have problem with that, although my more charismatic brethren may differ. But can we say an end has been made of sin [2]? Certainly not, unless we choose the redundancy of supposing “sin” is meant in the same limited sense as “the” transgression. Doubtful. Or we may suppose that sin has ended in the same manner that death has lost its sting … yet death still stings.
So take a look at all this, and see if more questions are answered, than raised, by one or the other of our interpretations. Upshot is, this is a non-essential. Someone is wrong, but does the error involve the nature of salvation? Of course not. That's why I don't get all bothered by prophecy.
Anyone who’s all wrapped up in Tribulations and Beasts and 666s needs to get a life. If they’re right, it is no excuse to be less righteous. If they’re wrong, perhaps they’ve also focused on leading as sanctified a life as they can. What more might we hope?
As I say, I’ll look at this more specifically, when time allows.
Best,
J
I suspect these will be my final remarks and observations. Unless new developments arise.
“I knew that the Greek is a very expressive language and the disciples asked a very specific question. Why would Jesus muddy the water by throwing a term that is rare at best to describe something?” Jesus was speaking Aramaic, an expressive but not very specific language. The issue isn’t whether a word is rare, but precise. I am disinclined to venture into the kingdom of dust and spiders, to dig out my lexicons, but perhaps you’ll do a study of the word “generation”. Off hand, I’d expect it to be very closely associated with monogenes – “only begotten”, ie, one of a kind … the operative concept being “kind” – type, race. It bears the sense of “nation” in Phil 2:15, as the AV translates it.
I’m just recalling that I’ve interpreted the passage, “this generation shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled” as meaning “this end times generation of which I am currently prophesying about.” Context allows it, and only interpretation forbids it. (I just looked it up, Mt 24:34.) The context is given in v. 3, when the specific question is posed, “What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” That is the context. I think it supports my position. I don’t think Jesus has come, yet, that second time at the end of the age. Perhaps I’m too literal? But no. I’m just literal enough.
Re the “Genesis gap” – it is, we agree, a saving device – a compromise that honors Darwin as much as God. Not my cuppa. As an aside, I’ll say that I’ve written voluminously on the topic, and my conclusion is that there was a creation event mere thousands of years ago. I know, I must be an ignoramus. And there was a world Flood. I know, insane. What about the dinosaurs and the Big Bang and the ice ages and distant super novas and australopithecines and background radiation and vestigial organs and radiometric dating and the saltiness of the ocean? Oh. Well, I guess I never thought of all that. I must be wrong. How embarrassing for me. But I’ve already addressed the fact that there are “gaps.”
“The year of the decree: 457 B.C.” No. The year of the second of three decrees was 457. Is that the right one? I take the decree of Neh (2:1,7,8) in 445/4, as the starting point. From memory, if the years are reckoned according to Hebrew calendar years (360 days), the finishing point is 29/30 AD – the commencing of Jesus ministry. Dn 9:26 says “after the 62 weeks (69 all told) Messiah will be cut off.” So, Jesus was cut off either in your 70th week, or in my gap between the 69th and 70th. Indeed, my Whom the Lord Loves allows for both. If Jesus had been accepted, then his death would have marked the chronologically near 70th week. Since he was not accepted, Israel has yet to look upon Whom they have pierced and mourn as for an only child. This is obviously a complex subject, and I cannot do it justice at this time.
Well, I’ve found the gap. In Dn 9:26-27. “After the 62 weeks, Messiah will be cut off … and the people of the prince who is to come will come shall destroy…. The end of it shall come as a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. THEN he [the prince to come] shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week…” So it reads: week 7 + 62 ends, and after it ends some things happen - Messiah is cut off, a prince comes, flood, determined desolations, etc. THEN, after all these things, week 70 commences with a covenant. Even if you have the prince as, um, God (!?!), there is still a gap. (One of us is seriously wrong here in v 27, to mistake the Beast for God, or God for the Beast.)
Where do you get the date for the stoning of Stephen? Why 34 AD? Is it derived from clear evidence in the NT, or simply a requirement to have something happen three and a half years later? The only time reference I find is Acts 6:1, “In those days…” Hardly rigorous, eh? You say, “This was not some vague, cloudy prophecy…” I agree. But Stephen’s date is vague and cloudy. Won’t do.
FYI, take a look at this site:
http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/5.1.htm
I haven’t studied it, but it seems quite rigorous. I’ve read some of the source materials, and they seem to treat them with respect. As I said, I’ve used the 445/4 BC date to arrive at my dating for the Crucifixion. It is by far the most convincing, to me.
So here’s my conclusion. I have found no objection of yours to be without an answer that satisfies me. I have found your interpretation to be less satisfying, and in conflict with what I consider to be the best and most elegant dating. More personally, I read you as meaning that your problem wasn’t so much with the idea of a future Trib, but that it interfered with your own functioning – you expected it so imminently that you relied on it, perhaps at a specific time. I suggest that a more balanced, a more mature approach will allow you to return to this interpretation, should it suit you. We are not about the observance of days, nor the setting of dates. That is the snare of the legalist and the immature prophesy faddist. But just because fools get it wrong, doesn’t mean the whole interpretation is wrong. If so, what of the Church itself? - full of fools, but containing Truth.
Pax
J
Reading "The 70th Week" plus the four comments contunues to enforce what I believe (by faith) that God has shown me about what one believes about anything, whether it be bubblegum or eschatological matters. That is, no one has ever believed a single thing without first wanting to, and that one of Holy Spirit's main functions is to cause one to want to believe the truth. It simply will not happen apart from that wanting to having first taken place. While "The 70th Week" is a place to start to present substance for the Holy Spirit to use to cause one to believe the truth, there are so many more facets to display in order for that one facet, in context with the others, to be more believable. But remember, believable only if the desire for belief is present. Pride becomes a critical factor in the whole process, but the Holy Spirit has broken pride in the best of them. Saul of Tarsus, for one.
ML - you say "no one has ever believed a single thing without first wanting to..."
I suggest it's more complex. Consider the fact that boys who are molested are significantly more likely to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. Not a PC observation, but verifiable. Generally, those who live thus, convince themselves that it is normal, for them. Point is, some people are made to want to believe a thing.
Under coercion, being forced to choose between two evil things, or a greater evil will occur, we choose. We do it, because we *want* to do it - given that we want the alternative less. Wanting is a form of believing.
My point is that there are forces at play that influence us in ways we cannot even perceive, let alone understand. You believe it is the HS that has led you to your belief, that you have wanted to believe. I cannot say, as to that. But I think the HS has more to show you.
J
JH-The Holy Spirit surely has many more things to show all of us and will -- when we are able to bear them.
Bring the sovereignty of God into the mix, things become less complex than they seem, and you (JH) have made my point exactly.
From the vantage point of looking back at futurist dispensationalism with all its various twists and contortions, this Scripture often comes to mind:
But I fear, lest somehow as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor.11:3).
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I have had friends in town and am now just getting back in my routine. I've copied the posts and will respond as I have time. Suffice it to say at this time that I appreciate all your comments and will give each consideration and respond appropriately. You help me in my own processing of information. Thanks.
M ... ouch. Of course, the 1Cor verse refers to the Christ of salvation, not to the overall outworking of God's plan. While the outcome of that may be clear, the process has many twists indeed. It's call "history." The complexity is found in the plot, not in the theme.
Obviously, we think the people we disagree with are wrong. Insofar as a wrong believe does NOT distract us from IMPORTANT truth, it doesn't really matter. I suggest all this professy stuff is need not distract us. Immature minds may chase after the bright pretty ball, but we need not. Point being, we disagree, cordially.
You might take a look at my own wonderful blog,
http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com
I just got done posting a 7 part series.
J
Comments to Anonymous:
I haven’t had a chance to look at the sites extensively but have looked at it casually. The feel I get is that it is coming from the same approach as some futurists. I’m sure that a lot of what they say is accurate however the spirit of the presentation is my problem. I can say the right thing but in the wrong way. Both are wrong. I’m not saying that you are doing this but I believe anytime we approach the Word and others it must be done in respect and love. What is our purpose except to edify and gain insight.
Comments to J: 2nd paragraph
I will do some more study on this. I’ve read what you’ve written and will look at it closer. I’ve noticed the references and will track them down in time.
2nd entry, 1st paragraph:
I disagree with your greek. I think it “is a saving device, but not a good one.” This was not the focus of my writing and will spend some time in the future to express my thoughts.
2nd paragraph
I agree with your premise on revelation – I don’t believe what I’m after is some new revealed thing but insight. The Holy Spirit wrote the words. I believe He works through us to interpret as He worked through the writers to write. If we do not maintain an openness to Him, how can we understand, seeing that the heart is deceitful? How can we even know the heart is deceitful? God’s big enough to help me understand if I’m submitting myself to Him.
4th
I can agree with you on some time delays. My problem is that this is a specific time prediction. It needs to be fulfilled as it said it would be. Just before the false prophet would be stoned, he didn’t say, “oh, I meant that this would be fulfilled later.” Jesus gave a specific time when the second half of the Is. would be fulfilled. If He is a true prophet, then it must be fulfilled as He said it would. He was communicating to specific people a specific word. I believe they understood what He was saying.
Also, Paul gave interpretation to O.T. Scripture. Some of it looks as if He is taking it out of context. However, Scripture must interpret Scripture, not circumstances interpret Scripture. I may not feel or seem or for all practical purposes act righteous. But Scripture declares me righteous right now. So do I believe my circumstances or the Word? I choose the Word and let my emotions and practice line up with the Word.
5th
True.
6th
My problem with this thinking is that it doesn’t allow the text to stand on its own, that is, it was written to some specific people to clarify issues. This muddies the water. We cannot look at the current times and interpret Scripture written to people that lived 1900 years ago. Scripture was not written to us but for us, a slight but significant difference.
7th
I feel where something begins is important. I know that truth can be reclaimed. I call into question something that was started to refute a standard belief. Luther had revelation. Ribera was trying to refute his revelation.
8th
Thanks for the info on the typo. I’ve noticed some others that I will change.
10th
I believe it is helpful that this be viewed through the eyes of a covenantal Jew. [1] I believe the transgression is the covenant people final breaking of the covenant in the rejection of Jesus. [2] Jesus put an end to sin. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God. [3] There is a difference between ending sin and reconciling. We are reconciled to God. Sin had to end before our reconciliation could begin. [4] The vision and prophecy of Christ has been completed and [5] Christ is anointed Lord of lords and King of kings.
13th
I agree with you. My difficulty with prophecy issues is that it places too much power on satan and too little responsibility on the church and individuals. Here in the Bible belt I see how the escapism mentality affects people on a practical basis. It has an expectation of failure and fear with the hopes of Jesus sweeping in to save the day. In society and politics it has directed policy. We have allowed liberals a foothold because we didn’t want to fix the roof of our cabin because we had a mansion over the hilltop. Now our cabin is in disrepair. It establishes a subtle belief system that is unhealthy at best.
14th
I can’t agree with you more.
3rd entry:
2nd paragraph
It was written in Greek. The Holy Spirit breathed the words to the writers. The Holy Spirit knows what was said and ordered it written.
3rd
I must say that I too blew off the cobwebs and got lost in nostalgia land. I used to love this. It’s been so many years. I disagree with your interpretation. I think you are reading into the text your own belief system. It was these verses that didn’t settle with me as I was interpreting them. At the time, I interpreted them the same way. It just didn’t seem to fit.
4th
I don’t have as hard a time as you at being a fool. But I’m a dumb hillbilly that just doesn’t know any better. You on the other hand are from the enlightened West.
5th
“O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Lk 24: 25-26 I believe that this was the predicted happening. The Jews were going to reject Jesus – plan A – with no plan B.
6th
I’ll continue to look into this.
7th
It is not a firm date. There is no evidence as to exactly when Steven was stoned. It seems to be prior to the going out from Jerusalem. Some have it shortly after the crucifixion but there is little internal evidence as to the exact date.
8th
I have looked at the site but not extensively. I will look into it when I have more time.
9th
My specific dating was in general terms: first 10 years, then 20, then 50. I was interpreting Scripture based on “the signs of the times” and not allowing Scripture to speak for itself. This is a process for me that I believe the Holy Spirit will direct me into the truth. I’m ok where I’m at knowing that I will remain open and look into these issues. I appreciate your insight. I am a very practical person and grow tired of the impractical rather quickly.
Comments to M:
I look at this like change. No one can change without first wanting to. Now we can force external change but can never force internal change. I agree that we must approach the Word with a spirit of humility, open to truth. If we do this the truth will eventually come. I say this because it is not all dependant on me. I am responsible to study and He is responsible to help me understand.
Again, thanks to all who have commented. I'm not a quick processor. Things have to digest with me over time - prayer and study. I'm not a big endtimer but believe that it can have impact on the way we view ourselves and our world. Frankly, I get bored with the study after a while. That may measure my maturity but I'm very pragmatic. I am but a child at play, growing but still a child in understanding.
Greetings. Cut to the chase: “I disagree with your Greek.” No, I’m right about the Greek. It’s *genea*, our genus, a kind or type, a race, as well as generation, a cohort.
“If we do not maintain an openness to Him, how can we understand, seeing that the heart is deceitful? How can we even know the heart is deceitful?” It’s a problem, isn’t it. Every fool thinks he’s right. Anyone who can read, thinks he can understand. Everyone thinks they’re “open” to truth. That’s why we bring some humility to the matter. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you’re wrong. If we interpret the evidence in good faith, only circumstances will reveal who’s right.
“I can agree with you on some time delays.” Oh, you sly dog. “Time delays.” I like that. Not “gaps” anymore, but “time delays.” Hahahaha!!!! Gotcha!!!! So. Since there are, ahem, time delays, it’s just a matter of where they are. “It needs to be fulfilled as it said it would be.” Well, yes, but on the other hand, Jesus didn’t seem to meet the requirements of the Pharasees. Seems the problem is your, or my, expectation, not fulfillment “as it said it would be.” “Jesus gave a specific time when the second half of the Is. would be fulfilled.” Really? Where did he do that? Not when he interrupted himself. Some other later time? What is the SPECIFIC time? Chapter and verse, please. In any case, I cited that gap to demonstrate the fact that there were gaps.
“I believe they understood what He was saying. ” I believe they did not understand. Hence, their constant wonder and amazement and queries about what he could possibly mean by his statements.
“Scripture must interpret Scripture, not circumstances interpret Scripture. I may not feel or seem or for all practical purposes act righteous. But Scripture declares me righteous right now.” Well, wouldn’t teach my grandmother to suck eggs. As you know, we are justified, we are sanctified, and we are glorified. The three legs of the tripod of salvation. So when you say scripture declares you righteous, it must have a limited meaning. You are not glorified, and your sin nature mitigates, somewhat, against your ACTUALLY being righteous. If I sin, I’m not righteous. Period. Yet if I’m saved, I am righteous. Hmm. Perhaps context must reveal the nuances of this word. Context, or might we say, circumstance.
:-)
“Scripture was not written to us but for us, a slight but significant difference.” Disagree. Prophesy is written for whatever future generation it was written for. Dn 9 didn’t do any good for Daniel. If the Prince to come was 500 years in the future, or 2500, that’s still a long time to wait. As Scripture, it is written for us, but as prophecy it is written to us, or them, or someone else. As to exactly who that is, well, that’s the issue at hand.
“I call into question something that was started to refute a standard belief. Luther had revelation. Ribera was trying to refute his revelation.”” Flawed methodogy. Many of the prophets arose to refute the standard false religious practices of their day. They were refuters – therefore you would question them? I don’t believe Luther had “revelation”. I think he had insight. Nothing new, in what he taught. I say this as a Scandinavian, and thus raised Lutheran. As I recall, his heart was gripped by the passage, “You are saved by grace.” Nothing new, there. Insight comes to the individual. Revelation come to the world. Luther refuted what came before him; Ribera refuted what came before him. Stalemate.
“I believe it is helpful that this be viewed through the eyes of a covenantal Jew.” And you are correct. That’s what v. 24 says: “Seventy weeks are determined upon THY PEOPLE and upon THY HOLY CITY”. The prophecy is specific to the Jews and to Jerusalem. Comes right out and says it.
“[1] I believe the transgression is the covenant people final breaking of the covenant in the rejection of Jesus.” Problem with that is, the prophecy doesn’t talk about breaking the covenant, but about FINISHING the TRANSGRESSION, which we both agree is the rejection of Jesus. Tell me, have the Jews finished the transgression of rejecting Jesus? [1] Not fulfilled.
“[2] Jesus put an end to sin. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God.” Yet sin is not finished. Could this mean that sin’s *power* is finished? Just as there are degrees of salvation, as we’ve seen, so are there stages to the finish of sin. This cannot be a new idea to you.
“[3] There is a difference between ending sin and reconciling. We are reconciled to God. Sin had to end before our reconciliation could begin.” And yet we sin. Jesus met his responsibility in ending sin. We haven’t. As long as there is sin in the world, how can we maintain that sin is ended? But come the Millennium....
“4] The vision and prophecy of Christ has been completed.” Well, what of the Revelation of John the Beloved? That, it seems to me, is when the vision and prophecy of Christ was completed – I mean, Jesus does appear and prophesy, in that vision. And you discount all the visionaries since then – nuns and the like. So you would extend Dn 9 into the end of John’s lifetime? Rather beyond the 70 AD you’ve alluded to, no? We’ve used the word “muddy,” but it seems to fit here.
“[5] Christ is anointed Lord of lords and King of kings.” Well that just hasn’t happened yet. Consider 1Tim 6:14-15. Keep “blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing, which He will manifest in His own time, the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords.” Question is, has the ceremony of anointing into kingship taken place? Memory fails, and this seems important. Anointed with the HS, anointed with gladness, anointed feet, anointed for death, but anointed to kingship? Anointing is a public act. He IS king, he DID sit on the right hand of the father, but has he been anointed? If not, then [5] has not yet to be fulfilled.
“My difficulty with prophecy issues is that it places too much power on Satan and too little responsibility on the church and individuals.” That’s pretty much the theme of my seven parter. It’s not about Satan, but there IS a Satan. Gotta deal with reality as it is. “Jesus sweeping in” – might be nice to be around people like that. Here in the dens of Sodom, I get another perspective. If it’s not one kind of fool, it’s another.
“It was written in Greek.” Point was, however perfectly the HS causes things to be translated, it was spoken in Aramic, and the right word, common or obscure, is the right word. (I don’t know that the HS “ordered” it written.)
“I think you are reading into the text your own belief system.” Um, well, yes. And back at you, bucko. “It just didn’t seem to fit.” If we all had the same opinions, we’d get tired of hearing one another.
“You on the other hand are from the enlightened West.” Oh! The radiance emitting from all these brilliant people surrounding me! It’s blinding! So blinding!!!
“I believe that this was the predicted happening. The Jews were going to reject Jesus – plan A – with no plan B.” We’ll just disagree, here. Free will is not sovereign, but it is real. I am God’s agent, not his puppet. The HS doesn’t possess men, he moves them. Ships can tack against the wind. I’ve posted enough on this idea to not need to support it here. However many choices we make, God has a plan to get us where he would have us. That’s more than one plan, since we have more than one choice. So yes, plan B and C and D … until we run out of alpha-numeric combinations.
“I’ll continue to look into this.” Well, it is after all the theme of the discussion. Seems VERY clear, to me. Time reference and everything.
“It is not a firm date.” Then it’s not evidence and not support for your timing. It is an incident.
Long, isn’t it.
J
And I'm curious. Just what do you take Revelation to mean? All this blood on the moon and a third of the seas dying - symbolic? Of what? Not looking for a long disquisition ... unless you've got time ... but in brief?
Say, what of Zec 12:10? When did or will Jerusalem mourn for Jesus?
What of Jesus returning? Does he return? How? - if not literally. And if literally, than why not pre-Trib?
I'm not arguing, here. Just looking for your view.
J
Jack,
Wow, I show a concession and you clobber me. You are such a motivator. Thanks, Coach.
"genea" is only clearly (by context) race once in I Peter 2:9. This is the only reference in the N.T. Whenever it is used in the Gospels, Acts, Col., and Hebrews it is refering to "this generation" the ones living at that time. One time certainly doesn't set a precedent. Matthew uses it twelve times to mean the ones living at the time of Jesus.(10 if you remove the references we are talking about) Mark uses it five (4) times. Luke uses it 12 (11) times. Acts 2:40 could be loosely translated as race but I don't translate it that way myself nor do the translaters of the modern versions. Context seems to indicate that Peter was preaching to a specific people at a specific time which was received by those who heard as such. You know Peter? Who heard Jesus that day when He declared these things happening to the ones currently living. And this was the prophecy fulfilling the rest of Isa. to occur in the distruction of Jerusalem. The question is how to translate these specific verses standing on their own and not through the lense of my bias.
On some other issues we clearly see things differently. A couple of thing I would like to point out. I no longer have a sinful nature. According to 2 Pet. 1 I am a partaker of His divine nature. I am no longer a sinner saved by grace. I do sin on occasion. There is residue of the old nature that Father is working out of me. I find when I focus on what he has made me to be sin becomes less of a problem. Also I tend to be strong on the sovereignty of God. I believe He is in control. We do have choices but through his sovereignty He uses our choices to accomplish His purposes.
Finally, (I'll write more later) I believe we are saying the same thing about revelation/insight. When I say revelation, I mean that the Holy Spirit breaks into my awareness something in His word or something I should do. The Holy Spirit never contradicts the Word. This is not some new word or teaching. I believe He helps me to understand the Word. This does not aleviate my responsibility to read, study, and think. I must be open to Him and be aware of my bias or agenda. I believe He helps me identify this in me. My chief aim is to glorify Him.
Jack I really do appreciate your thoughts and input. I will share my views in time. They are, however, still in process. I'm still learning and haven't got everything figured out. It will worry me if I think I have it all figured out. I've been there before.
Greetings. Would it be rude of me to point out that you’re going “Higher Criticism” on me? How very Welhousian. It is by such word counts and vocabulary analyses that we have been blessed with Deutero- and Tertio-Isaiah. (Pardon my inevitable misspellings.) We must both agree that our paradigms will shape our interpretations. But claims that diction (vocab choice) mandates only a favored meaning is question begging. (I am seriously being tempted to go rifling through a pile of boxed books. Oh, tempt me not, thou villain! And big trouble for you, if I do. Tremble!) I can’t address your broader statement re genea, since I can’t test it right now. That’s a word study that must await the boxes.
Consider though that the whole context of Mt 24 is of a culmination. If that culmination was completed by c. 70 AD, will you cite the v. 7 “nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom?” What historical wars were there, in this time frame? – especially specific to Israel, which was not a kingdom? For your view to be correct, the evidence of history must support it. I’m not saying it doesn’t, but I am unaware that it does.
The bigger issue is this: v 34 taken by itself most naturally reads as you read it. No argument there. But you do refer to context, and here we must disagree. V 35 has a cosmological and eternal context. Hmm. All of a sudden, things get bigger. But that’s hardly conclusive. V. 36 talks about a great big mysterious secret – whatever the context is, this must really be super dooper important. V. 37 gives the exact context: “the coming of the Son of Man.” V. 42 repeats it: “on what day your Lord is coming.” V. 44 does it again: “the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour.” I read that all that as the Second Coming. Don’t you? You’d give up a literal return of Jesus, because fools make asses of themselves by setting dates and being pie-in-the-sky impractical? Bad bargain, my friend.
Jesus came as a literal baby in a physical body to die an actual death. He still has that body, holes and all. Did he leave it behind, when he came in 70 AD? Cause I read nothing about any Jesus coming in 70 AD. I must be getting your interpretation wrong, but this is how I see it at this point. Jesus comes again, physically, to rule a real kingdom physically. Literal, I know, but not any more literal than the Crucifixion.
“I no longer have a sinful nature.” Well, maybe you don’t, but Paul did. “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Rom 7:23-24) This is what I mean by sin nature. It’s more than just “sinning occasionally.” “There is residue of the old nature” – a little tap-dancing, here. You’ve just said, *I don’t have a sin nature, just the residue of a sin nature.* My poor brain is too unsubtle to apprehend the distinction. For my part, I have a sin nature, same as Paul, and yet the HS dwells within me. What you mean is that you are not a “sinner.” “I am a partaker of His divine nature.” Partaker, not possessor. He shares a bit with us. We don’t own it.
So. Jesus did not have a sin nature. We have one, transferred through every father since Adam. Jesus had no father descended from Adam, hence no sin nature. I go into this briefly, in “First Adam.” As long as we have a body subject to entropy, we will have a sin nature. When we are re-created, restored into the pre-Fall bodies we were meant to have – the “Resurrection body” – we will no longer have a sin nature. Cf. Paul’s wretchedness. (Again, there is a distinction between having a sin nature, and being a sinner.)
“It will worry me if I think I have it all figured out. I've been there before.” It isn’t that you thought you had all the answers. It’s just you had answers that weren’t important. I have all the answers – and there’s only one - to the one thing that’s important. Guess Who? :-) All the rest of it is just for fun. Some folks are sustained by pure faith. Others need the crutch of understanding. It’ll only carry you so far – but it carried me to faith. So it turned out to be necessary.
J
Dearest Jack,
Years ago my friend Keith Arminius and I Brent Calvin used to go round and round. O, it was fun and somewhat worth while and most of all we remained friends with different perspectives (paradigms), accepting and respecting one another.
I think the heart of the issue is, are we willing to examine beyond our perspectives – be open to other points of view. See, this is the test for me. I enjoy our conversation but am I really open to truly examining my own views? Are you? I’m not looking for agreement or validation. I know this will be hard for you to take, but this really isn’t about you. It’s like chess. We’re playing against ourselves here. I answer to God and those he has put me in covenant with. Will I be open to Father and His Word or will I doggishly clamp down on my prescribed set of beliefs? Will I revert back to lazy thinking by relying on the status quo – never challenging myself?
The Scripture is not that clean that I could understand it in myself. I’m not talking about anything new here but that He breaks into my awareness and gives me understanding as I study. He’s hidden these from the wise and reveals them to babes. So then, my Greek friend in search of knowledge and I, the Jewish seeker of signs, can both miss it if we don’t remain open, all the while shaking our heads at the other.
And I have my box of books as well, cabinet actually, lower right along with the saber I used to rattle, back when I beat my chest a lot.
I read a lot of Mt 24 as figurative, prophetic language. The question remains of what do we take figurative or literal? How do we tell? Who is the final authority? (No Jack, it’s not you. Sorry to break that to you.) I know that a good dispensationalist will say interpret everything literal unless the text dictates differently. But is this reliable? It sounds good.
Why must we have a literal return of Jesus? I’m not necessarily saying we’re not. You read it right if I take this to the logical conclusion. I’m still working on this one. There are some passages that seem to indicate a literal return. I can see it both ways. I am more of a historisist than a preterist but not far off. I don’t feel I have revelation (you know, the word that scares you) as of yet but am slowly working through.
A.D. 70 – Prophetic language can have Jesus coming in judgment using the Roman army. Look at the language when it was prophesied that the Jews would be carried off to Babylon and their city destroyed.
No, He owns us. As I gain understanding of my identity and position in Christ, I walk victoriously over the flesh, the world, and satan. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God. (II Cor. 5:21) The sanctification process is becoming who I already am. Read the greater context of Rom. 7 (6, 7, and 8), Paul was describing life under the law. The law can’t save/make whole but there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus… for what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending Jesus… so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Rom. 8:1ff)
It’s foolishness to think it was your understanding that got you anywhere. You were dead and Jesus made you alive and quickened your understanding. I know you put this pride persona out there and your egocentricism is endearing, but pride will lead you into deception.
Well. A change in tone.
It is complex.
I won't bother going point by point. That discussion seems to be completed. And of course I am a deeply flawed man. You will note, though, that I do modify my statements about the human element of salvation with something like (as man understand it) or the like. It's just that I don't see the point in arguing the mind of God. It's outside our understanding. I should pretend I understand what's outside my understanding? We communicate with words - we don't exchange packets of spirit, that we may know, face to face. I'm integrated with this fact.
My point: You're uncomfortable with a literal return. Okay. I think you are deeply, deeply wrong. But so what. I think it's profoundly dishonoring to Jesus, to say that he is not or will not be the king he came to be. But maybe it isn't deeply dishonoring. I suppose you get the essential right, re the person and saving power of Jesus. The rest of it is debate.
I do trust I haven't been percieved as rattling a sabre, though. I like clarity, because the option is murkiness, and who needs that? Do I come off as arrogant? Wouldn't be the first time. I think you've got my number, though.
:-)
Best,
J
Jack,
Not at all. I was speaking on my behalf because this was an issue for me. It was not for the purpose of edification and I was convicted that I was not being Christ-like. Now perhaps, Father is re-relating me to discuss issues in a more mature manner. I'm learning to ride the bike again after several years off the tour. What I feel I've got from this is that I have to lay everything before the Holy Spirit without my pre-judged thinking. I will continue to study but this is a slow process for me. Well, sometimes it's quicker. You have helped me think in clearer terms. This is about self-examination for me. I believe I will arive at truth eventually because I have this attitude.
Bottom line: Jesus is Lord, period. He is Lord, reigning King right now. As far as the world is concerned, I believe the stone is becoming a mountain and the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the seas. My problem is that the Church doesn't, by and large, recognize Jesus' Lordship and Kingship in their practice/realitiy. I believe we should look at things from God's reality and point of view.
I pray for you quite regularly. Not that you will see things my way. How boring! (My habit of prayer is to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit as He brings people to mind and pray as I feel led.) My prayer for you is that you will know Christ(experience His daily presence, I know you know Him) beyond your knowledge/understanding. That He would expand your intimacy with Him.
Blessings.
Jack,
I've been reviewing the dating site you recommended. Very impressive. I will continue to explore this. I recommend this site for any who would like to research further in a veriety of areas:
http://www.bibarch.com/
Thanks.
"I pray for you quite regularly." Thank you. I've made no secret of my own struggle, and it touches my heart to know that someone is calling for fierce angels to stand between me and darkness.
"I will continue to explore this." Indeed. It's important to reach our conclusions not as a reaction to some prior false belief, but on the merits of the issue. Like a teenager's rebellion. Eventually they see that the older they get, the smarter dad becomes. If we've held a wrong idea about a right idea, well, we should come back to it with humility and courage and determination to find truth. You and me both.
You left unsaid what the specifics of your view might be - prudence, since they are still unformed - re the Second Coming or the end times and all that. Consider this (recalled to mind when I read it in my HS study): Acts 1:11. Not just literal. Explicit. FYI
Best,
J
And while you're at it, you may add "KC" (the former "anonymous" - if you looked at the Lefty blog comments) to your prayer list. Did you notice the change in his tone? Encouraging, isn't it. Complexity sucks them in, simplicity gets them. Dazzle him with erudition, then tell them what's really important.
:-)
J
Jack,
I have been reading your and libby's conversation. I believe heart speaks to heart. When there is nothing to fear or prove genuine dialog occurs and perhaps insight.
Much of my view is unformed. I feel safe to say I'm more historisist in that I believe in past fulfillment with possible continuing fulfilments. The Acts 1 passage is at the top of my list why I have some difficulty with preterism. There are some others. I have my dispensational list to. I have not found any theory (catch the word) that is fool proof. I do believe that all the N.T. was written prior to A.D. 70. Hey, I got out "the books," first time in 15 years. My how I used to enjoy the Greek language. You really need to look at Mt. 24 again. I have a hankering to do a study. This will take some time since it's been so long since I've done one. I'm working on Luke 17 which will come shortly. I've had company and it is turkey season after all.
I haven't finished all the H.S. study yet but what I've read so far is really good. It's funny. I invited mormons over for a conversation. They came four times then their leader came and determined I was not a good canidate for their time.
Peace.
"Turkey season" - took me a second to cotton on to the reference. Out here on the left coast, the term means Thanksgiving - thanks to the Indians I mean Native Americans, not God, of course.
Re JWs and Mormons, they have to give up more than their damnation, if they get saved. Family, social life, culture. It's a big sacrifice.
"The Acts 1 passage is at the top of my list why I have some difficulty with preterism" - Acts 1:11, you mean? Could not possibly be clearer or more literal. If you get around to it, check out Pentecost's "Things To Come"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310308909/qid=1147572592/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-8920512-0733434?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
If you recall any specific problems with "dispensationalism," I'd be edified to know them. I've heard some folks have a problem with aspects of the theology of some dispensationalists, but I'm not using the term as a sect, but a theory.
J
Jack,
My questioning of dispen came before my questioning of pre-trib. I actually moved around on the tribs quite a bit before I became pan-trib/end times persuasion. I came quite accidentally into the partial pret camp. It started with my view of the kingdom and covenantal theology. I had problems with the Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever changing the way he dealt with mankind depending on the period of time. I don't believe that is Biblically based. I believe God has always dealt relationally with His creation and more specifically covenantally. Before all this conversation started, I was working on an article related to our covenantal relationship with the Father. I believe He always had Jesus in mind from the foundation of the world. I believe that we are currently living in the kingdom which is becoming a mountain. I don't believe things are getting worse. (No this is not me living in denial, please don't send a social worker.) I believe in the scheme of history things are better today than when the Paul was here. There are more Christians today than ever. I believe as the church grows in unity it will increase. This is more than membership but doing business God's way - learning and practicing His ways. Another issue with dispen is identity in Christ. As I've understood who I was in Christ, it revelutionized my thinking and understanding. The Jews have no special place except in that they are re-grafted into the Tree. I believe that the church is not a parenthesis. Those who are in Christ are Abraham's seed. It is all of faith. This is what God had in mind all the while. So, these are some thoughts that I can get chapter and verse in time. Over the years I've assimulated these thoughts resulting in my current belief system. Above all, Jesus is Lord. I submit to Him and I also have some accountable relationships to make sure I don't fall off a cliff. I've never really had a driving interest in escatology. I have sat through hundreds of teachings as well as classes. It's been a long time, but I am familiar with Pentecost. That may have been a text book at one point in my studies. I went rifling through some boxes and didn't find much. Lehman Strauss was one I came across. When I have time I'll focus on some difficulties I have with dispensationalism as it relates to futurism. But for now I've got a couple of articles burning in me that I want to finish. Things don't just role off my fingers as they do for you. I'm a better talker than writer.
"I had problems with the Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever changing the way he dealt with mankind depending on the period of time." But you don't have a problem with God being both merciful and just? The Dispensationalists (and I like the theory, but I wouldn't really want to call myself by the name) may come off as too precise, too utterly organized, and of course God is a bit too intangable for that, I thing. But there is no confusion as to the roles we play, while remaining true to ourselves. We are fathers, and sons, and husbands (well, you are), and we relate to the world through these roles without confusing them (yuck!).
It cannot be denied that at one time in history God DID relate to the world through animal sacrifice.
That time is past. If we call that former time a dispensation, or just a past time, the effect is the same. If you look through the OT, you find on every page, some type, foreshadowing the Antetype. They are shadows of the substance of Christ. My point is that God utterly, absolutely and clearly has a plan. He planned it all. What then would be wrong with attempting to recognize that plan, and calling its phases by the term "Dispensations"? I'm not dogmatic about the point. It just seems very clear. I like clarity. Have you noticed? As I've stated here and there, I don't mind necessary ambiguity, but unnecssary is just laziness.
"God has always dealt relationally with His creation and more specifically covenantally." I think they're almost the same things: convinents are the charters of the corporations that are dispenstions - as it were. Pentecost (again) wrote a book called Thy Kingdom Come dealing with covenents, as I recall - baught it bout got sidetracked years ago and never got paste the first few chapters.
http://withchrist.org/mjs/pente.htm
A link critiquing dispensationalism. The big objection seems to be to equate the kingdom with both Israel and the Church. Yawn. Some people seem to have emotions about this. Seems that I don't care. Whichever. I'm sure I don't think the Church is any kind of Kingdom. Maybe that's why I didn't read it. I think I'll go find some of these books again.
When you say you believe things are better and so on - materially, yes. Spiritually, I think Christianity has had a salt/light influence on the world, but only socially, not in hearts. Institutions are set up to make the world better, but people are the same monsters as always. When we remember that Germany was the most educated nation on the planet, and see how easily they became Nazis - or Holy Mother Russia, with its seven decades of atheism - the most we can say is that these things run in cycles.
"The Jews have no special place" That's plainly not true. What did Paul have to say about this? He'd have given up his salvation, for them. I'd have to do a study to refresh it, but it's the gentiles who are grafted in (and the Jews too, regrafted). The Jews are very special indeed, as, but not only as, God's oracle people.
"It is all of faith." True. But not all are the Bride. Only the Chruch is the Bride. What then of John the Baptist? Greatest of all the OT prophets - least in the Kingdom Mt 11:11. Why? Becauase he was still under the law. Mt 5:19. (I just put that together now, so haven't pondered it. But it's an arguement for dispensationalism. Won't go into the subtleties.)
Ah well.
J
Jack,
"But you don't have a problem with God being both merciful and just?"
Apples and Oranges. In relationship with Jesus, it is no contradiction. I am both merciful and just with my children. It is wisdom that applies what is needed for the child. I believe that the covenant God made with Abraham was one of faith. It was the law that ultimately taught faith. Works never saved anyone. I used to live under the law of my parents but now I am free to the law of my parents but still live with the principle of the law - fulfilling the purpose of the law. We cannot segment God systematically. You said it, "of course God is a bit too intangable for that."
"I like the theory, but I wouldn't really want to call myself by the name"
Why not? If that identifies you go with the terminology. There are a lot of dispensationalists that I admire and read. I dissagree with their understanding in this area. I do believe it ultimately effects the power of God for today. This is probably why a grew away from dispen.
"We are fathers, and sons, and husbands (well, you are), and we relate to the world through these roles without confusing them (yuck!)."
I didn't understand the yuck part.
"It cannot be denied that at one time in history God DID relate to the world through animal sacrifice."
My problem is not that God did relate this way but that dispen tends to limit God and box Him into that is the only way He can relate. God is not limited in what He does. And where does it say that He is limiting Himself in a certain way at a certain time.
"What then would be wrong with attempting to recognize that plan, and calling its phases by the term "Dispensations"?"
I don't have a problem with terminology. My experience with the practical out-working of this is that we try to buttonhole God.
"I think they're almost the same things"
You picked up my redundence. They are absolutely the same thing.
"I'm sure I don't think the Church is any kind of Kingdom"
We differ on this. Jesus told Pilot His kingdom was not of this world or else His followers would fight for Him. I believe the reason old line dispen fights over this is because of their understanding of the kingdom. I used to be an old liner. If you read some of the links - Miles Stanford - you get the feel of that spirit. It's different now. At least in those I read after now. This petty straining over a knat and swallowing a camel debate is what drove me away. There was no life in that for me. By the way, Stanford's "Green Letters" is excellent. At least it was when I read it 20 years ago. I've read some of the link and intend to read it when I have more time.
"Spiritually, I think Christianity has had a salt/light influence on the world, but only socially, not in hearts."
How can the social be effected if not through the heart? Education? It is all spiritual. Education and wealth are low on the totum pole as to the advancement of Christianity. Yes education. Yes, health care. Yes, politics. But more importantly the advancement is spiritual and this is the battle we face today in our society. I believe it is one that will win out at the end of the day. Set backs? Of course. But always advancement. It's evolution designed by God. (I don't believe in Darwin's ideas, that's not the point.)
"That's plainly not true."
I agree. I was not very articulate here. I belive that they have their special place. My point was to stress that there is now neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor freeman, male nor female... This is spiritual perspective. God sees us either in Christ or not. I believe this is what God had in mind in Abraham - a life of faith, children of faith.
"What then of John the Baptist?"
I'm not sure on this one. I'll have to study this out a bit. Dr. Skinner (old hebrew teacher) would say that he and all the old testement saints were a part of the bride. He believed that they were said by faith in Christ looking forward as we look back. I'm not sure.
"least in the Kingdom"
I'll have to look at the verses some more. Could you be reading too much into the verses? Stretching an application?
So...How does dispensationalism effect us in a practical sense? Are we second string? Step-children? Belonging but not. Subtletly effecting our identity and thus our beliefs and our actions.
B
Post a Comment
<< Home