Lion.. have I lulled you to sleep yet?
Lion.. have I lulled you to sleep yet?
Dear Lion:
Phew! I have finally found the time to dedicate to answering your post.
Dee Dee, excellent points made so far, and thanks for the definition of your views.
Thank you very much
It’s funny how close our theologies are. The Acts 9 dispensational, open view theology agrees with your first and third points completely.
To recap that would be:
PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.
PROOF NUMBER THREE:The other “near” temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for “this generation,” specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23.
I do have a problem with point number three however.
I believe you mean point number two as follows:
PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.
and as an aside.. you did not comment on point number four which was:
PROOF NUMBER FOUR: The context of the Olivet Discourse is a clear first century Judean context, NOT the “end of the world” it is made out to in modern prophecy thought.
And might I add that point number two is the kicker, so I think that any disagreement on that point really renders any agreement that you and I have on points one and two merely academic.
The problem comes with the idea that the destruction of the Temple limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame. If the tribulation period was stopped prior to the destruction of the temple, then the later destruction of the temple has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the timeline. However the destruction of the temple does prove problematic for your side, as I will show in a moment.
I will reserve comment so that the flow of your point is not missed.
We Acts 9, dispe, OVer’s believe that the tribulation period began immediately following the crucifixion, but was discontinued due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah.
Again, comment is reserved.
Here’s the problem with the destruction of the temple that I referred to earlier. I assume you believe in the 70 week prophesy stated by Daniel? If so, how do reconcile that the 69th week was to be immediately followed by the 70th week. In other words, Why didn’t the 7 year tribulation begin immediately after the death of Messiah as prophesized?
Okay there are several issues packed in here that I will need to tackle. The big one is the idea that the destruction of the Temple falls
within the 70th week of Daniel which should follow immediately after the 69th week. However, since the destruction of the Temple did not happen until about 40 years or so after the 69th week, how do I extricate myself out of this
pickle without inserting an arbitrary gap in the weeks?? The other issue would be the assumption contained within your response that the 70th week of Daniel is synonymous with the period of the Great Tribulation… an idea which I reject.
First a caveat… I readily confess that while I am familiar with dispensationalism in general, having once been a dispensationalist myself, I am honestly not that familiar with the particular “flavor” of dispensationalism that you hold to, so I may make some improper assumptions, and I beg your forgiveness in advance if I do. I understand that a copy of the seminal book expounding upon this view is on its way to me, and I am grateful for that.
Judging by your comments, you appear to not be so enamored with the insertion of a gap into the weeks as well. That though, seems to be in conflict with the implied assertion in your post to me that the destruction of the Temple must fall
within the 70th week, and that the 70th week represents the period of the Great Tribulation, for then even in your view..
it appears that you must posit some sort of gap, though you may entitle it an “interruption”… a
rose by any other name…
So briefly… here is my chronology of the 70 weeks… I will provide further defense and detail as needed (I am not going to deal with the dating of the beginning of the countdown, unless you find that necessary.. we are probably pretty close in agreement on that). To start… here are the “goals” of the 70 weeks, i.e. the objectives to be accomplished
within that time frame:
Daniel 9:24 –
“Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.”
The first thing we notice here is that nowhere is the destruction of the Temple mentioned as one of the goals of the 70 weeks, it simply isn’t there However, the things that are mentioned as the goals
were accomplished within the specified time frame all in the first century, in and surrounding Christ’s ministry. I was going to post specific proofs of those, but decided against it unless those are at issue.
Thus in my view, the 69th week
ends with Christ’s baptism (the anointing of the Most Holy).
The 70th week immediately followed without delay. Christ’s ministry lasted three and one-half years, and then He was cut off in the midst of the 70th week. The completion of the remaining three and one-half years of the 70th week after the Cross marked the end of the specific focus of the Gospel preaching to ethnic Israel (
“You shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samarian and to the end of the earth.” Acts 1:8). The focus from that point on became the Gentiles and the opening of the Kingdom to them en masse. Acts records this progression. The opening chapters focus on Jerusalem, rippling out into Judea, and then Samaria, and then out into Gentiles with the conversion and ministry of Paul.
Thus in short, I see the destruction of the city and the Temple of the first century as a
consequence of the 70 weeks, but
not falling within the 70th week at all. I abbreviated this response, opting instead to see what areas you specifically question.
Now on to the other issue of your post which was your objection to my point that the destruction of the Temple then standing
limits the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse to the first century. I frankly don’t see any way you can’t meaningfully get around this issue. Here is specifically what you said:
The problem comes with the idea that the destruction of the Temple limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame. If the tribulation period was stopped prior to the destruction of the temple, then the later destruction of the temple has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the timeline.
We Acts 9, dispe, OVer’s believe that the tribulation period began immediately following the crucifixion, but was discontinued due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah.
With all due respect, both of these statements are impossible. I have to tighten up some terms here so that both of us are clear on what is being said. When I use the phrase “tribulation,” I am
not going to be referring to general tribulation (which is with us always) or the various tribulative (is that a word?) precursors to the Great Tribulation, but rather I will use the word specifically to refer to the three and one-half year period of time which I hold occurred from 66AD-70AD. It appears that you
may be using a looser definition of the word in your comments, but at this point, it is difficult for me to discern.
The Great Tribulation was the judgment
response of God to the Jewish rejection of, and murder of, their Messiah. That being said, there would be
no reason to
discontinue this punishment because they
continued along the same path of rejection that was brining the punishment in the first place! That would be akin to a parent suspending the grounding of their children because they continued to be bad while confined to their room.
I do not deny that there is implied conditionality to all prophecies of judgment (and of blessing); however, this conditionality is logical, just, and clearly defined in Scripture.
Let’s take a look at the passage from this is derived.
Jeremiah 18:7-11 –
The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”
There are a lot of interesting things here.
The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
This portion teaches that the threats to destroy and pull down and pluck up are
God’s response to the evil that a nation has done. If that nation then turns from its evil, God will not bring the disaster upon it.
And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
God here speaks conversely to the truth already taught. Just as he will prosper an “evil” nation that turns from its evil, he will destroy a “good” nation” that turn from its good. In other words in this passage God is not talking about blessing an evil nation… it is presumed that when the blessing is pronounced, the nation is good, but if it turns evil, then the blessing is withdrawn.
The relevance to this discussion is apparent. At the time that Jesus spoke the Olivet Discourse, He was
not speaking of a “good” nation upon whom He was now going to pronounce some blessing, He was speaking of an evil nation that would soon demand that He be crucified rather than a murderer (
Mark 15:11 Matthew 27:21), cried out for His blood to be upon them and upon their children (
Matthew 27:25), and pledged allegiance to no king but Caesar (
John 19:15). They did not repent from those ways but continued in them, thus, even under the rubric of conditionalism
there is no way out. The Great Tribulation was a first century event.
And continuing on the “escape” clause in prophecy, it is also apparent that this is
only valid when the reaction of the people prophesied about
is not also the subject of the prophecy. For example, when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, not only did He tell Moses what to say, and what the consequences of Pharaoh’s refusal would be, He also told Moses that Pharaoh would in fact refuse. That closes any escape hatch. God has spoken the whole thing. Likewise, the rejection of Christ by the Jews (except for a Remnant, which is all that ever really existed as the people of God to begin with) was also foretold.
Their rejection was certain and prophesied. I can see no way out of this fact.
This then brings us back full circle to my contention that that the destruction of Temple then standing completely and irretrievably limits the fulfillment of the Discourse (at least up to
Matthew 24:34), and if my points above are correct, this point still stands. Of course, there are other ways I can argue that point as well (i.e. the fact that Jesus made it undeniably clear what Temple was in view in His prophecy making any future “fulfillment” impossible) but at the admonition of Knight that I was not asked to write dissertation (smile), I shall stop here, and so look forward to your comments and interaction.
