1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Great Tribulation

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Christopher, Feb 23, 2002.

  1. LP

    LP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your treatise here rests upon certain ASSUMPTIONS stemming from your own theological culture on what the Biblical passages mean, not on what the...what the Biblical passages actually mean and meant to thiose it was originally addressed to. Consider the following:
    Jesus seems to be saying that the Second Coming will occur immediately after the Tribulation. Did the Second Coming occur in A.D. 70? Have we missed it? First, let us be clear about one thing at the outset: there is just no getting around that word immediately. It means immediately. Acknowledging that the tribulation took place during the then-living generation, we must also face the clear teaching of Scripture that whatever Jesus is talking about in these verses happened immediately afterward. In other words, these verses describe what is to take place at the end of the Tribulation—what forms its climax.

    In order to understand the meaning of Jesus' expressions in this passage, we need to understand the Old Testament much more than most people do today. Jesus was speaking to an audience that was intimately familiar with the most obscure details of Old Testament literature. They had heard the Old Testament read and expounded countless times throughout their lives, and had memorized lengthy passages. Biblical imagery and forms of expression had formed their culture, environment, and vocabulary from earliest infancy, and this had been true for generations. The difference between their outlook and ours can be illustrated by the fact that while much of the present book's discussion of the Paradise theme was probably very new to you, it would have been old hat for the disciples.

    The fact is that when Jesus spoke to His disciples about the fall of Jerusalem, He used prophetic vocabulary. There was a "language" of prophecy, instantly recognizable to those familiar with the Old Testament (some of which we have covered already in our study of the Garden). As Jesus foretold the complete end of the Old Covenant system—which was, in a sense, the end of a whole world—He spoke of it as any of the prophets would have, in the stirring language of covenantal judgment. We will consider each element in the prophecy, seeing how its previous use in the Old Testament prophets determined its meaning in the context of Jesus' discourse on the fall of Jerusalem. Remember that our ultimate standard of truth is the Bible, and the Bible alone.

    The Sun, Moon, and Stars

    At the end of the Tribulation, Jesus said, the universe will collapse: the light of the sun and the moon will be extinguished, the stars will fall, the powers of the heavens will be shaken. The basis for this symbolism is in Genesis 1:14-16, where the sun, moon, and stars ("the powers of the heavens") are spoken of as "signs" which "govern" the world. Later in Scripture, these heavenly lights are used to speak of earthly authorities and governors; and when God threatens to come against them in judgment, the same collapsing-universe terminology is used to describe it. Prophesying the fall of Babylon to the Medes in 539 B.C., Isaiah wrote:

    Significantly, Isaiah later prophesied the fall of Edom in terms of de-creation:

    Isaiah's contemporary, the prophet Amos, foretold the doom of Samaria (722 B.C.) in much the same way:

    Another example is from the prophet Ezekiel, who predicted the destruction of Egypt. God said this through Ezekiel:

    It must be stressed that none of these events literally took place. God did not intend anyone to place a literalist construction on these statements. Poetically, however, all these things did happen: as far as these wicked nations were concerned, "the lights went out." This is simply figurative language, which would not surprise us at all if we were more familiar with the Bible and appreciative of its literary character.

    What Jesus is saying in Matthew 24, therefore, in prophetic terminology immediately recognizable by his disciples, is that the light of Israel is going to be extinguished; the covenant nation will cease to exist. When the Tribulation is over, old Israel will be gone.

    The Sign of the Son of Man

    Most modern translations of Matthew 24:30 read something like this: "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky…." That is a mistranslation, based not on the Greek text but on the translators' own misguided assumptions about the subject of this passage (thinking it is speaking about the Second Coming). A word-for-word rendering from the Greek actually reads:

    As you can see, two important differences come to light in the correct translation: first, the location spoken of is heaven, not just the sky; second, it is not the sign which is in heaven, but the Son of Man who is in heaven. The point is simply that this great judgment upon Israel, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, will be the sign that Jesus Christ is enthroned in heaven at the Father's right hand, ruling over the nations and bringing vengeance upon His enemies. The divinely ordained cataclysm of A.D. 70 revealed that Christ had taken the Kingdom from Israel and given it to the Church; the desolation of the old Temple was the final sign that God had deserted it and was now dwelling in a new Temple, the Church. These were all aspects of the First Advent of Christ, crucial parts of the work He came to accomplish by His death, resurrection, and ascension to the throne. This is why the Bible speaks of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Church and the destruction of Israel as being the same event, for they were intimately connected theologically. The prophet Joel foretold both the Day of Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem in one breath:

    As we will see in Chapter 13, Peter's inspired interpretation of this text in Acts 2 determines the fact that Joel is speaking of the period from the initial outpouring of the Spirit to the destruction of Jerusalem, from Pentecost to Holocaust. It is enough for us to note here that the same language of judgment is used in this passage. The common dime-store interpretation that the "pillars of smoke" are mushroom clouds from nuclear explosions is a radical twisting of the text, and a complete misunderstanding of Biblical prophetic language. It would make just as much sense to say that the pillar of fire and smoke during the Exodus was the result of an atomic blast.

    The Clouds of Heaven

    That, appropriately, brings us to the next element in Jesus' prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction: "and then all the tribes of the land will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." The word tribes here has primary reference to the tribes of the land of Israel; and the "mourning" is probably meant in two senses. First, they would mourn in sorrow over their suffering and the loss of their land; second, they would ultimately mourn in repentance for their sins, when they are converted from their apostasy (see Chapter 14).

    But how is it that they would see Christ coming on the clouds? Those who have read Chapters 7 and 8 of this book should have little trouble answering that question. In the first place, all through the Old Testament God was coming "on clouds," in salvation of His people and destruction of His enemies: "He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind" (Ps. 104:3). When Isaiah prophesied God's judgment on Egypt, he wrote: "Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud, and is about to come to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence" (Isa. 19:1). The prophet Nahum spoke similarly of God's destruction of Nineveh: "In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet" (Nah. 1:3). God's "coming on the clouds of heaven" is an almost commonplace Scriptural symbol for His presence, judgment, and salvation.

    More than this, however, is the fact that Jesus is referring to a specific event connected with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant. He spoke of it again at His trial, when the High Priest asked Him if He was the Christ, and Jesus replied:

    Obviously, Jesus was not referring to an event thousands of years in the future. He was speaking of something that His contemporaries—"this generation"—would see in their lifetime. The Bible tells us exactly when Jesus came with the clouds of heaven:

    We noted in Chapter 8 that it was this event, the Ascension to the right hand of God, which Daniel had foreseen:

    The destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that the Son of Man, the Second Adam, was in heaven, ruling over the world and disposing it for His own purposes. At His ascension, He had come on the clouds of heaven to receive the Kingdom from His Father; the destruction of Jerusalem was the revelation of this fact. In Matthew 24, therefore, Jesus was not prophesying that He would literally come on the clouds in A.D. 70 (although it was figuratively true). His literal "coming on the clouds," in fulfillment of Daniel 7, had taken place about 40 years earlier. But in A.D. 70 the tribes of Israel would see the destruction of the nation as the result of His having ascended to the throne of heaven, to receive His Kingdom.

    The Gathering of the Elect

    Finally, the result of Jerusalem's destruction will be Christ's sending forth of his "angels" to gather the elect. Isn't this the Rapture? No. The word angels simply means messengers (cf. James 2:25), regardless of whether their origin is heavenly or earthly; it is the context which determines whether these are heavenly creatures being spoken of. The word often means preachers of the gospel (see Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:24; 9:52; Rev. 1-3). In context, there is every reason to assume that Jesus is speaking of the worldwide evangelism and conversion of the nations which will follow upon the destruction of Israel.

    Christ's use of the word gather is significant in this regard. The word, literally, is a verb meaning to synagogue; the meaning is that with the destruction of the Temple and of the Old Covenant system, the Lord sends out His messengers to gather His elect people into His New Synagogue. Jesus is actually quoting from Moses, who had promised: "If your outcasts are at the ends of heaven, from there the LORD your God will synagogue you, and from there he will take you" (Deut. 30:4, Septuagint). Neither text has anything to do with the Rapture; both are concerned with the restoration and establishment of God's House, the organized congregation of His covenant people. This becomes even more pointed when we remember what Jesus had said just before this discourse:

    Because Jerusalem apostatised and refused to be synagogued under Christ, her Temple would be destroyed, and a New Synagogue and Temple would be formed: the Church. The New Temple was created, of course, on the Day of Pentecost, when the Spirit came to indwell the Church. But the fact of the new Temple's existence would only be made obvious when the scaffolding of the Old Temple and the Old Covenant system was taken away. The Christian congregations immediately began calling themselves "synagogues" (that is the word used in James 2:2), while calling the Jewish gatherings "synagogues of Satan" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). Yet they lived in anticipation of the Day of Judgment upon Jerusalem and the Old Temple, when the Church would be revealed as the true Temple and Synagogue of God. Because the Old Covenant system was "obsolete" and "ready to disappear" (Heb. 8:13), the writer to the Hebrews urged them to have hope, "not forsaking the synagoguing of ourselves together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the Day approaching" (Heb. 10:25; cf. 2nd Thess. 2:1-2).

    The Old Testament promise that God would "synagogue" His people undergoes one major change in the New Testament. Instead of the simple form of the word, the term used by Jesus has the Greek preposition epi prefixed to it. This is a favorite New Covenant expression, which intensifies the original word. What Jesus is saying, therefore, is that the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 will reveal Himself as having come with clouds to receive His Kingdom; and it will display His Church before the world as the full, the true, the super-Synagogue.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Quotes excerpted from Paradise Restored by David Chilton.
     
  2. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    LP:

    You'll find your posts get interacted with better if they are kept much shorter. Usually answering one or two points at a time is best. :D
     
  3. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    LP, cut and paste jobs contribute nothing to the conversation. Why don't you just number your own thoughts and give Scripture as to why you believe what you do.

    1. This Generation - Jesus uses the phrase "this generation" many times throughout the gospels to speak of 1st century Israel/Jews (Matt.23). In this case however, it is speaking of those who see all of Matt 24 fulfilled. Jesus did not say that this current generation will see all these signs. He said that the generation that sees these signs will not pass away until it is all fulfilled. Israel becoming a nation in 1948 has nothing to do with Matt 24. They could be scattered again and then reformed at a later time.

    2. Nowhere does it say that the last days refer to the end of judaism or the old covenant. The old covenant was done away with at Calvary. If anyone was operating the old covenant after Calvary, he/she was under a curse. The buildings of the O.C. were destroyed in 70 AD. The system was made desolate when the Lord shed His own blood.

    3. In the clouds - I recognize that this phrase is symbolic for judgment. In fact, the Jews of the 1st century knew exactly what Jesus was talking about when He said the phrase. What you fail to recognize though is that Christ is the completion of Old Testament typology and symbolism. Just because the O.T. uses a phrase a certain way, doesn't mean that the N.T. uses it the exact same way. Jesus Christ will fulfill the O.T. judgment language by actually coming Himself "in the clouds". This is the belief of Matthew, Mark, Luke, the angels (Acts 1:11), and John (Revelation 19).

    Please, no more cut and paste. If you do, please keep it short; it is terribly painful to read that stuff all at once. I have to go back and read the Bible just to cleanse my mind from it. ;)
     
  4. LP

    LP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    For those who wish things in sound bytes and not substance, just forget about the posts. But why not forget about the whole subject, as well?

    If one will not take time to read viewpoints that counter their own, thay have lost qualifications to discuss the issue. If one will not take time to counter such viewpoints with their own, they also have no qualifications to discuss the issue. What do I mean?

    To date, I have heard little more than mere counter assertions to what Chilton has said. But that is just mere statement of opinion that differs. It is of no value, except perhaps if we were taking a poll. No one has engaged Chilton's text in its major points and details, and countered his interpretations as false, based upon superior interpretations of the texts. The vast bulk of what I have seen here is simple "no, it really says such and so." But I have seen little "and here is why," with that based soldily upon Scriptural evidence from the Scripture itself. The non-engagement speaks loudly. It makes me think Chilton's main assertions cannot be countered on Scripture interprets Scripture grounds. Anyone want to prove me wrong?

    And remember: Scripture interprets Scripture, and Scripture was written, first, to its original audience in a specific time period in specific circumstances; so we MUST understand it in terms of all that to truly understand it and its applications to us today.

    Yet, it was said, "Just because the O.T. uses a phrase a certain way, doesn't mean that the N.T. uses it the exact same way." On what basis do you assert that? Where do you get that statement from? If you truly accept your own statement, you are left with nothing other than subjectivism. It is a relativistic standard, not an objective one. "Well, from all its prior uses in the Scripture it meant x. BUT NOW, it means y." You expect that to be a superior interpretation to Scripture??? In actual fact, it is how "the traditions of men" get started, and then parroted in the guise of Biblical truth. As it is today.

    And why waste time resaying things that someone has already well said? In my view, little needs to be added to what Chilton has said, though I diagree with him on minor points--actually, he would agree on the points I disagree over, and the disagreements I would have were really more oversights that he failed to include (he is dead now, so cannot correct and improve his books). For example, Chilton sometimes fails to distinguish between "the entire world, known and unknow" and "the then-known geographical world" in Biblical texts.

    [ March 04, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: LP ]
     
  5. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    LP:

    You're missing the point brother :eek:

    Most people perusing this board simply do not have the time to read or write a lengthy treatise. Discussions are best kept to one or two point interactions. I'm sympathetic to your position but I simply don't want to read a lenghty article when I get here :D

    Short, cogent comments are best, and then provide a link to a pertinent article someone can read in their free time, should they so choose to do.
     
  6. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    LP, I have demonstrated the folly of thinking that "this generation" in Mt 24 must definitely refer to 1st century Jews. Once that was shown, the rest of the theory falls apart. I have no need to respond to the other points. They all hang on that first one. You are the one who will not respond to my charge that "this generation" in Mt 24 doesn't refer to 1st century Jews.

    Also, just to give an example of how something could be used consistently in the O.T. and then take a different meaning would be the word TEMPLE. In the O.T., it refers to a particular building built by Solomon and then rebuilt later. In the N.T. it can refer to that or the body of Christ or the church or a particular believer. Don't just throw stuff out becuase you don't understand.
     
  7. LP

    LP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the sum total of what you have "demonstrated" about the "this generation" in Mt. 24.

    And,

    That is hardly, hardly, demonstrating anything. In fact, it is not demonstrating anything at all. Rather, as I said earlier,

    Now, your whole premise in QUOTE #2 above hangs upon, "In this case, however...."

    Your position appears to be exactly the one Chilton referred to. He stated,

    To the position Chilton replied by citing EVERY instance where "generation" (in Greek, genea) appears in the gospels (Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 16:8; 17:25; 21:32).

    He then asserts,

    Chilton then informs, "Those who say it means "race" tend to acknowledge this fact," as you indeed do. However, such persons then "explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24!" as you, in fact, have. To this Chilton warns, "We can smile at such a transparent error, but we should also remember that this is very serious. We are dealing with the Word of the living God."

    So, PreachtheWord, on what exact basis is it that you maintain that the word generation suddenly changes meaning here?

    I suppose you will reply, "Because the 'sign of the Son of Man' and 'the coming on the clouds' and 'gathering together of the elect' is not fulfilled; so it all simply MUST be for a later time--for 'the last days'."

    If that is your reply, then that will put you solidly in the position of having to deal with the details in the posted Chilton text that answer that reply. Chilton interprets those phrases--"the sign of the Son of Man," "the coming on the clouds," the "gathering together of the elect," and "the last days"--in an objective, Scripture interprets Scripture hermenuetic. Now, if we are to depart from that hermenutical standard, we are left with a hermenuetic of subjectivism, relativism, and extra-Biblicism. That's shaky ground. Real, real shaky ground.

    But it is worse. If that is indeed your reply and its basis, your argument will be seen for what it is: presumptuious and circular. It starts at an assumption about what certain passages ("the sign of the Son of Man," "the coming on the clouds," and the "gathering together of the elect") mean, and these assumptions themselves comprise the first principle and starting point, though organically unfounded in Scripture. The rest of the body of Matthew 24 is then understood in and by those assumptions, and any problems are "answered" by reference to the starting point--a presumptuious, circular argument, and a horrid way to do theology. And an even more horrid way to ascertain how to live.

    BTW, your assertions about the temple "changing meaning" are not changes at all but were the whole point of the OT system all along, which is clearly and in the greatest detail explained in the NT, especially in Hebrews. There is wonderful and perfect continuity, and repeated use of the word "temple" in the senses you mentioned. Not so--not even remotely nearly so--with "generations."

    [ March 05, 2002, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: LP ]
     
  8. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    LP, since there is a difference in interpretation, let us go directly to the words of Christ.

    "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."

    As I have said before, Jesus said that "this generation" will see all these events. Jesus did not say that "this current generation" WILL see all these events. He said that the generation that sees them will not pass away until it is complete. That is a big difference. Stop force feeding one use into the rest of the interpretation.

    After Chilton and I suppose yourself force feed "this current 1st century Jewish generation" oh wait, "current 1st century Jewish" aren't in the text (at least not mine), you proceed to interpret the rest of Matthew 24 into that meaning. In other words, you are working backwards.

    I have mentioned that Christ used Noah as an illustration. What is described in Matthew 24 is supposed to be the worst events the world will/has ever known. How can the destruction of a few buildings and a small city be worse than the Noahic flood that destroyed the whole world?

    I did deal with Matt 24 and this generation. I answered Chilton and yourself. It is you that are lacking anything authoritative to stand on (besides Chilton of course who is demonstrably no authority at all).

    As Dilbert has said, "Since when did ignorance become a point of view."

    [ March 05, 2002, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]
     
  9. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    PreachtheWord said:

    As I have said before, Jesus said that "this generation" will see all these events. Jesus did not say that "this generation" WILL see all these events.

    To quote that great sage, Homer Simpson: Huh?
     
  10. LP

    LP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are all the instances of "generation" and "this generation" in Matthew:

    So, you are wanting us to believe that, in all those instances, from Matthew 11 through Matthew 23, that Matthew used "generation" in its normal sense of the sum total of all those living at the given time, as you admit, but that suddenly, in Matthew 24:32, that Matthew would have had to qualify his meaning with the word "current" in order to retain the same meaning of the word, as well as the phrase "this generation," that he had been using all along?

    Wow. I hope others can see that for what it is without my making any comment.

    I am just glad that we can still be brothers--that I can shake your current hand, and you my current hand, and that we need to use our current legs to seperate fellowship over eschatology.

    Your concomitant basis for your belief is that Jesus said things would get as bad as it was in Noah's day. Was that really His point?

    Jesus point was not to say that the Great Tribulation would be just like the flood or worse. His point was that there would be a parallel in how people behaved preceding the flood with how people would behave preceding The Great Tribulation. As it says, "For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

    To other people who believe like PreachtheWord do in eschatology: are the arguments he made the best you have in defense of your position?

    If so, no wonder there is as such an enormous, enormous surge in the number of various so-called "preterists." 15 years ago, I used to be a real minority, except maybe in the parachurch organization I served with then. But, boy, I sure find A LOT of people who have rejected dispensational eschatology today! As I once did.

    My story, in short, is that God placed a call on my life to a certain nation to do certain things--dangerous things in a dangerous nation. The call made no sense to me, since it did not "fit" into the "things will get worse and worse till Jesus rescues us" theology I held at the time. But HEB 13:20 happened in me:

    God used a former Sandinista Colonel that He saved, Chilton's Paradise Restored, and Gary North's Liberating Planet Earth to "equip me"--to totally change the way I think about this subject. At once, the puzzle pieces totally fit.

    I hope more and more will also be brought to see how this eschatology "fits"--it is the only way the Bible really makes sense, and the only way it even would have made sense to its original recipients.

    [ March 05, 2002, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: LP ]
     
  11. LP

    LP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    error

    [ March 05, 2002, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: LP ]
     
  12. Christopher

    Christopher New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus Christ emphatically declared that the Old Testament Scriptures contained prophecies He would fulfill (Luke 24:27,44). Biblical scholars have catalogued more than 300 amazing prophecies that find precise fulfillment in the life and labor of the Son of God. One of these predictive declarations is found in Daniel 9:24-27, commonly referred to as the prophecy of “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.” In this article, I would like to consider this important Old Testament oracle.

    A proper analysis of Daniel 9:24ff. involves several factors. First, one should reflect upon the historical background out of which the prophetic utterance arose. Second, consideration should be given to the theological aspects of the Messiah’s work that are set forth in this passage. Third, the chronology of the prophecy must be noted carefully; it represents a prime example of the precision of divine prediction. Finally, one should contemplate the sobering judgment that was to be visited upon the Jewish nation in the wake of its rejection of the Christ. Let us give some attention to each of these issues.

    The Historical Context
    Because of Israel’s apostasy, the prophet Jeremiah had foretold that the Jews would be delivered as captives to Babylon. In that foreign land they would be confined for seventy years (Jeremiah 25:12; 29:10). Sure enough, the prophet’s warnings proved accurate. The general period of the Babylonian confinement was seventy years (Daniel 9:2; 2 Chronicles 36:21; Zechariah 1:12; 7:5). But why was a seventy-year captivity decreed? Why not sixty, or eighty? There was a reason for this exact time frame.

    The law of Moses had commanded the Israelites to acknowledge every seventh year as a sabbatical year. The ground was to lie at rest (Leviticus 25:1-7). Apparently, across the centuries Israel had ignored that divinely-imposed regulation. In their pre-captivity history, there seems to be no example of their ever having honored the sabbath-year law. Thus, according to the testimony of one biblical writer, the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity was assigned “until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths” (2 Chronicles 36:21).

    If each of the seventy captivity-years represented a violation of the sabbatical-year requirement (every seventh year), as 2 Chronicles 36:21 appears to suggest, this would indicate that Israel had neglected the divine injunction for approximately 490 years. The captivity era therefore looked backward upon five centuries of sinful neglect. At the same time, Daniel’s prophecy telescoped forward to a time — some 490 years into the future — when the “Anointed One” would “make an end of sins” (9:24). Daniel’s prophecy seems to mark a sort of “mid-way” point in the historical scheme of things.

    In the first year of Darius, who had been appointed king over the realm of the Chaldeans (c. 538 B.C.), Daniel, reflecting upon the time-span suggested by Jeremiah’s prophecies, calculated that the captivity period almost was over (9:1-2). He thus approached Jehovah in prayer. The prophet confessed his sins, and those of the nation as well. He petitioned Jehovah to turn away His wrath from Jerusalem, and permit the temple to be rebuilt (9:16-17). The Lord responded to Daniel’s prayer in a message delivered by the angel Gabriel (9:24-27). The house of God would be rebuilt. A more significant blessing would come, however, in the Person of the Anointed One (Christ), Who is greater than the temple (cf. Matthew 12:6). This prophecy was a delightful message of consolation to the despondent Hebrews in captivity.

    The Messiah’s Mission
    This exciting context sets forth the primary purpose of Christ’s mission to Earth. First, the Messiah would come to deal with the problem of human sin. He would “finish transgression,” make an “end of sins,” and effect “reconciliation for iniquity.” That theme is developed gloriously throughout the New Testament (see Matthew 1:21; 20:28; 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:20; 1 Peter 2:24; Revelation 1:5 — passages that are but a fractional sampling of the New Testament references to this exalted topic).

    The advent of Christ did not put an “end” to sin in the sense that wickedness was eradicated from the Earth. Rather, the work of the Savior was to introduce a system that could provide effectually and permanently a solution to the human sin predicament. This is one of the themes of the book of Hebrews. Jesus’ death was a “once-for-all” event (see Hebrews 9:26). The Lord never will have to return to the Earth to repeat the Calvary experience.

    It is interesting to note that Daniel emphasized that the Anointed One would address the problems of “transgression,” “sin,” and “iniquity” — as if to suggest that the Lord is capable of dealing with evil in all of its hideous forms. Similarly, the prophet Isaiah, in the 53rd chapter of his narrative, revealed that the Messiah would sacrifice Himself for “transgression” (5,8,12), “sin” (10,12), and “iniquity” (5,6,11).

    It is worthy of mention at this point that Isaiah 53 frequently is quoted in the New Testament in conjunction with the Lord’s atoning work at the time of His first coming. Since Daniel 9:24ff. quite obviously has an identical thrust, it, too, must focus upon the Savior’s work at the cross, and not upon Jesus’ second coming — as is alleged by premillennialists.

    Second, in addition to His redemptive work in connection with sin, Daniel showed that the Messiah would usher in an era of “everlasting righteousness.” This obviously is a reference to the Gospel dispensation. In the pages of the New Testament, Paul forcefully argued that Heaven’s plan for accounting man as “righteous” was made known “at this present season” (Roman 3:21-26) through the Gospel (Romans 1:16-17).

    Third, the angel’s message suggested that as a result of the Messiah’s work, “vision and prophecy” would be sealed up. The Hebrew term denotes that which is brought to a “conclusion” or is finished (Gesenius, 1979, p. 315). It should be emphasized that the major burden of the Old Testament was to proclaim the coming of God’s Son. Peter declared that the prophets of ancient times heralded the “sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow them.” He affirmed that this message now is announced in the Gospel (1 Peter 1:10-12). Here is a crucial point. With the coming of the Savior to effect human redemption, and with the completion of the New Testament record which sets forth that message, the need for “vision and prophecy” became obsolete. As a result, “prophecy” (and other revelatory gifts) have “ceased” (see 1 Corinthians 13:8-13; Ephesians 4:11-16). There are no supernatural “visions” and “prophecies” being given by God in this age. [For further study, see Judisch (1978, Chapter 5), and Jackson (1990, pp. 114-124).]

    Fourth, Daniel stated that the “most holy” would be anointed. What is the meaning of this expression? Dispensational premillennialists interpret this as a reference to the rebuilding of the Jewish temple during the so-called “millennium.” But the premillennial concept is not supported by the facts.

    Any view that one adopts regarding this phraseology must be consistent with other biblical data. The expression “most holy” probably is an allusion to Christ Himself, and the “anointing” a reference to the Lord’s endowment with the Holy Spirit at the commencement of His ministry (Matthew 3:16; Acts 10:38). Consider the following factors.

    While it is possible that the grammar can reflect a “most holy” thing or place (i.e., in a neuter form), it also can yield a masculine sense — “Most Holy One.” The immediate context tips the scales toward the masculine since the “anointed one, the prince” is mentioned in verse 25.

    The “anointing” obviously belongs to the same time frame as the events previously mentioned, hence is associated with the Lord’s first coming, not the second one.

    Thompson has observed that the act of anointing never was associated with the temple’s “most holy” place in the Old Testament (1950, p. 268).

    Anointing was practiced in the Old Testament period as a rite of inauguration and consecration to the offices of prophet (1 Kings 19:16), priest (Exodus 28:41), and king (1 Samuel 10:1). Significantly, Christ functions in each of these roles (see Acts 3:20-23; Hebrews 3:1; Matthew 21:5).

    The anointing of Jesus was foretold elsewhere in the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1), and, in fact, the very title, “Christ,” means anointed.
    Fifth, the Anointed One was to “make a firm covenant with many” (Daniel 9:27a, ASV). A better rendition would be: “Make a covenant firm . . . .” The meaning seems to be: the Messiah’s covenant surely will remain firm, i.e., prevail, even though He is killed. The “covenant,” as E.J. Young observed, “is the covenant of grace wherein the Messiah, by His life and death, obtains salvation for His people” (1954, p. 679).

    Sixth, as a result of Christ’s death, “the sacrifice and the oblation” would cease (9:27a). This is an allusion to the cessation of the Jewish sacrifices as a consequence of Jesus’ ultimate sacrificial offering at Golgotha. When the Lord died, the Mosaic law was “nailed to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). That “middle wall of partition” was abolished (Ephesians 2:13-17), and the “first covenant” was replaced by the “second” one (Hebrews 10:9-10). This was the “new covenant” of Jeremiah’s famous prophecy (Jeremiah 31:31-34; cf. Hebrews 8:7ff.), and was ratified by the blood of Jesus Himself (Matthew 26:28). This context is a rich depository of truth concerning the accomplishments of Christ by means of His redemptive work.

    The Prophetic Chronology
    The time element of this famous prophecy enabled the studious Hebrew to know when the promised Messiah would die for the sins of humanity. The chronology of this prophetic context involves three things: (a) a commencement point; (b) a duration period; and (c) a concluding event.

    The beginning point was to coincide with a command to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” The time span between the starting point and the concluding event was specified as “seventy weeks.” This would be seventy weeks of seven days each — a total of 490 days. Each day was to represent a year in prophetic history. Most conservative scholars hold that the symbolism denotes a period of approximately 490 years (Payne, 1973, p. 383; Archer, 1964, p. 387; cf. RSV). Finally, the terminal event would be the “cutting off,” (i.e., the death) of the Anointed One (9:26). [NOTE: Actually, the chronology is divided into three segments, the total of which represents 486½ years. This would be the span between the command to restore Jerusalem, and the Messiah’s death.]

    If one is able to determine the date of the commencement point of this prophecy, it then becomes a relatively simple matter to add to that the time-duration specified in the text, thus concluding the precise time when the Lord was to be slain. Let us therefore narrow our focus regarding this matter.

    There are but three possible dates for the commencement of the seventy-week calendar. First, Zerubbabel led a group of Hebrews out of captivity in 536 B.C. This seems to be an unlikely beginning point, however, because 486 years from 536 B.C. would end at 50 B.C., which was eighty years prior to Jesus’ death. Second, Nehemiah led a band back to Canaan in 444 B.C. Is this the commencement point for computing the prophecy? Probably not, for 486 years after 444 B.C. ends at A.D. 42 — a dozen years after the death of Christ. However, in 457 B.C., Ezra took a company from Babylon back to Jerusalem. Does this date work mathematically? Indeed. If one starts at 457 B.C., and goes forward for 486½ years, the resulting date is A.D. 30 — the very year of Christ’s crucifixion! This is the common view (Scott, 1975, 5:364).

    The strongest objection to this argument is the claim that Ezra issued no charge to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, and so the starting point of the prophecy could not date from the time of his return. Noted scholar Gleason Archer has responded to this allegation by affirming that Ezra’s commission:

    “. . . apparently included authority to restore and build the city of Jerusalem (as we may deduce from Ezra 7:6,7, and also 9:9, which states, “God . . . hath extended lovingkindness unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of God, and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a wall in Judea and in Jerusalem,” ASV). Even though Ezra did not actually succeed in accomplishing the rebuilding of the walls till Nehemiah arrived thirteen years later, it is logical to understand 457 B.C. as the terminus a quo for the decree predicted in Daniel 9:25” (1964, p. 387, emp. in orig.).
    In “the midst” of the seventieth week, i.e., after the fulfillment of the 486½ years, the Anointed One was to be “cut off.” This is a reference to the death of Jesus. Isaiah similarly foretold that Christ would be “cut off out of the land of the living” (Isaiah 53:8).

    But why are the “seventy weeks” of Daniel’s prophecy divided into three segments — seven weeks, 62 weeks, and the “midst” of one week? There was purpose in this breakdown.

    The first division of “seven weeks” (literally, forty-nine years) covers that period of time during which the actual rebuilding of Jerusalem would be underway, following the Hebrews’ return to Palestine (9:25b). This was the answer to Daniel’s prayer (9:16). That reconstruction era was to be one of “troublous times.” The Jews’ enemies had harassed them in earlier days (see Ezra 4:1-6), and they continued to do so in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. [For further discussion of this circumstance, see Whitcomb (1962, p. 435).]

    The second segment of sixty-two weeks (434 years), when added to the previous forty-nine, yields a total of 483 years. When this figure is computed from 457 B.C., it terminates at A.D. 26. This was the year of Jesus’ baptism and the beginning of His public ministry.

    Finally, the “midst of the week” (3½ years) reflects the time of the Lord’s preaching ministry. This segment of the prophecy concludes in A.D. 30 — the year of the Savior’s death.

    The Consequences Of Rejecting Christ
    No historical revisionism can alter the fact that the Lord Jesus was put to death by His own people, the Jews (John 1:11). This does not sanction any modern-day mistreatment of the Jewish people; it does, however, acknowledge that Israel, as a nation, suffered a serious consequence as a result of its role in the death of the Messiah.

    Daniel’s prophecy depicted the Roman invasion of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish temple. The prophet spoke of a certain “prince that shall come,” who would “destroy the city and the sanctuary” like an overwhelming flood (9:26b). All of this was “determined” (see 9:26b, 9:27b) by God because of the Jews’ rejection of His Son [Matthew 21:37-41; 22:1-7; see Young (1954, p. 679)].

    The interpretation of this portion of the prophecy is beyond dispute. Jesus, in His Olivet discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1-34), talked about “the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet” (24:15). The Lord was alluding to Daniel 9:27. The “abomination that makes desolate” was the Roman army, under its commander, Titus (“the prince” — 9:26b), who vanquished Jerusalem in A.D. 70. [NOTE: The “prince” of verse 26a is not the same as the anointed “prince” of verse 25a. The “prince” of verse 26 comes after the anointed Prince has been cut off.]

    The historical facts are these. In A.D. 66, the Jews, who were subject to Rome, revolted against the empire. This plunged the Hebrews into several years of bloody conflict with the Romans. Titus, son and successor of the famous Vespasian, overthrew the city of Jerusalem (after a five-month siege) in the summer of A.D. 70. The holy city was burned (cf. Matthew 22:7), and the “sanctuary” (temple) was demolished. Christ had informed His disciples that the day was coming when the Jews’ “house” would be left desolate (Matthew 23:38); indeed, not one stone would be left upon another (Matthew 24:2). Significantly, only one stone from that temple, and parts of another, have been identified positively by archaeologists (Frank, 1972, p. 249). J.N. Geldenhuys summarized this situation by noting that Titus

    “. . . overran the city with his army, destroyed and plundered the temple, and slew the Jews-men, women and children-by tens of thousands. When their lust for blood had been sated, the Romans carried off into captivity all the able-bodied remnant of the Jews (for they had done away with all the weaklings and the aged), so that not a single Jew was left alive in the city or its vicinity. Only on one day in the year-the day of remembrance of the destruction of the temple-were they allowed to mourn over the city from the neighboring hill-tops” (1960, 3:141).
    This event was referred to by Daniel as the “abomination of desolation” because the city of David was desolated by the Roman army — an abominable force because of its idolatrous fabric. It is not without considerable interest that apparently even the Jews recognized that the destruction of the Hebrew nation was a fulfillment of Daniel’s remarkable prophecy. Josephus, the Jewish historian, stated that “Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them” (Antiquities, X.XI.7).

    Conclusion
    Daniel’s inspired record regarding the “seventy weeks” isa profound demonstration of the validity of scriptural prophecy. It foretells the coming of the Messiah, and details His benevolent work. The prophecy pinpoints the very time of Jesus’ crucifixion. Finally, it reveals the disastrous consequences of rejecting the Son of God. How thankful we should be to Jehovah for providing this rich testimony.
     
  13. LP

    LP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, he got it. Who wrote that?
     
  14. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The word translated church or assembly is used almost 115 times. Some would say that in every case it means the exact same thing, a local, visible congregation. However, a Biblical analysis will reveal that this definition is primary whereas the truth of the universal, invisible church is used in about 1/6 of the passages. Now, one would say that it must always mean the first definition. They would appeal to the number of times a word is used. This hardly is the test of truth. Given the theological and biblical evidence, one will use the whole of Scripture to deduct that the universal, invisible church does in fact exist. Therefore, the number of times a word is used is irrelevant to the study. They both exist.

    So it is true with "this generation". It is a stretch at best to associate "this generation" in Matt 24 with 1st century Jews. Mere "usage" arguments are just smoke. Context and biblical study is the critical key. According to Luke 21, Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is complete. Paul said in Romans 11 that the grafting in of Israel will be around the time when the times of the Gentiles are complete. We can go two ways with this: if Israel is all believers, then this happened at the cross or pentecost, not 70 AD. If Israel is referring to ethnic Israel, did somebody miss that event? Surely, the destruction of the Temple is not the grafting in of Israel to the natural branch. What buffoonery!

    LP, I choose not to post exhaustive posts. That does not mean that my reasons to believe what I do are all put forth for you to read. I just assume that you have some knowledge in the realm of eschatology.
     
  15. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. LP

    LP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    At this point, do you REALLY think LaHaye, et al, would admit to their stuff being in error? People will pay an awful lot of money to maintan their ability to make more of it. They will make a version of "the truth," and defend it at all costs. Awares or not, it seems Dr. Ice is falling right in line.

    In The Great Tribulation Past or Future? : Two Evangelicals Debate the Question, "Dr. Gentry carefully and persuasively makes a water tight case for preterism, leaving Dr. Ice to melt in a puddle of twisted Scripture, illogic, and unfounded supposition." It seems in the article mentioned in the above quote that Dr. Ice is taking a squeegy to the puddle and trying to mop up some credibility for himself and his allied money grubbers--psuedo-credibility, that is.

    To interested readers, get the above book. Read it. Consider it well. I simply do not have the time to essentially re-write many of its and other points here, nor would you even read them if I were to.

    Nuff said.

    [ March 06, 2002, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: LP ]
     
  17. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I think I am through with this. I think LP has a good suggestion (about the book, not eschatologically ;) ). Get it and read it for yourself. I personally enjoy the books where people of different sides can give their own view and then critique the other view(s).
     
  18. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    873
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would LOVE to get a book(s) on this subject that simply state the case for a given position! I'm tired of reading somebody's ideas that cannot refrain from casting criticism on another's views.

    In other words I want a book that says "This I believe, and here are the Scriptures to back up my belief!" I don't want any refutation of the "other" view; if a person cannot back up their belief, with Scripture, without tearing down another's beliefs, I'm not interested.

    If anybody knows of a(ny) book(s) like this, I would appreciate a listing.

    I'll do my own refuting/accepting of the different views once I know what "they" consider proof!

    I've read many books on this subject, but virtually everyone tells why "his" is wrong, but "mine" is correct!
     
  19. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    JWP, it is more of a dialog than an I'm right your wrong.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    JWP,

    Part of good writing and good argumentation is showing why other people's views are incompatible with Scripture. If you find a book that does not show why other views are wrong, then IMO it is not worth reading. I want to see critical thinking skills in writing. I want someone to show me why their understanding is the best and why other understandings are not in line with Scripture. It is the way you develop your own views.
     
Loading...