The Easter Debate ~ Lion and DDW on Eschatology (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Lion
- Start date
- Status
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Lion:
Well as you can see, I busted out a response to Gavin pretty quickly because it is the weekend, so I will be working on a response to you soon.
Well as you can see, I busted out a response to Gavin pretty quickly because it is the weekend, so I will be working on a response to you soon.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Lion:
I SO appreciate your response and time, and am enjoying this discussion. I am going to now get pretty darn specific and chase down certain issues which I do not believe you have fully dealt with in your response. I know you do not consider yourself a futurist (I would assert for all practical purposes though you may be), but as an example, I have found with the many futurists I have debated, that they have varying levels of success in explaining away isolated passages, but it is the “big picture” (as Knight likes to assert that I need to see) that is fatal to any eschatological system other than preterism. I know I sound irritatingly confident (I wouldn’t be Dee Dee if I didn’t), but I have dedicated years to this issue, and am pretty darned sure I have got the contours correct. Now on to your comments….
Okay, but I think you may have misunderstood me or are being imprecise in your terminology. Precision is very important in this discussion. I firmly believe the Discourse is about the end of the “age,” (which came in the first century) but not the end of the “world.” However, your comment made the two terms equal. They are not. Certainly we can go into that later, and I am eager to do so because I have an unassailable argument using that idea to prove that premillennialism utterly fails.
Ah Lion my fine feline friend (smile), imprecision rears its ugly head (double-smile). That is not exactly what I said… but rather I said this:
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
Thus, my point is that Daniel is given very specific goals that must be accomplished within the 70 weeks, and the destruction of the Temple is not one of them, and each of the goals for the 70 weeks were in fact accomplished during Christ’s earthly ministry; thus there is no reason, either textually or practically, to push any portion of this prophecy into the future. Your answer assumed what is yet to be proven and cannot be proven, and that is that every single detail of the remainder of Daniel 9 falls within the 70 week time frame. So while of course the destruction of the Temple is mentioned in 9:26, I have maintained this event does not fall within the 490 years but rather is a consequence of the 490 years.
This is born out by the New Testament record which teaches that the soon coming (to them) desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple were a result of their rejection and murder of Christ:
Matthew 23: 31-36: Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate.
The desolation of their house (i.e. Temple) was a consequence of their crimes.
Matthew 22:2-7 - The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
in, the destruction of their city was a consequence of their earlier crimes.
Absolutely…. And I will demonstrate why….
I meant that we are probably pretty close on the dating of the decree that started the countdown… I still believe that. There is only a three and one-half year difference in our placement of the end of the 69th week.
Yes, let’s look at the text for it will show that your interpretation is anti-contextual and (grimace) forced.
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.
No problem here. I agree that they are not necessarily in order (but would argue that they are deliberately set up in a specific Hebraic phrasing consisting of three couplets), and that ALL of these items are the GOALS to be accomplished within the 70 week time frame. The destruction of the city and the Temple are thus only noticeable by their absence from this list.
Exactly, and you are proving my point. The events mentioned to be accomplished for Israel and Jerusalem do not mention its destruction whatsoever…. And every single one of these events was accomplished in the first century during the earthly ministry of Christ, so thus in addition to the fact that there is not textual reason to thrust them into our future, there is also no pragmatic reason to do so either.
No objection here.
Daniel 9:25 – Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks (49 years) and sixty-two weeks (434 years) (49 + 434 = 483 years); The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
No problem here.
Daniel 9:26 – And after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed), but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
No, I am afraid you are mistaken… and again, precision is very important. First you object that verse 26 does not say that the Messiah will be baptized only murdered…. but you are neglecting that the anointing of the Most Holy (Christ’s baptism) was already mentioned in verse 24 as one of the explicit goals of the 70 weeks. It has to happen at some point, despite no explicit reference following verse 24 in anyone’s scheme. But it is pretty easy to prove my case in any event. Let’s get precise here and back up once again to verse 25.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.
Look very, very carefully at that verse. It says that there will be 483 years UNTIL Messiah the Prince. Until Messiah the Prince what? Is born? No, that is much too late for that. Crucified? Possible in isolation though the next verse, as I will demonstrate, rules that out and would be even more unlikely in your particular dispensational view. What then this verse is referring to is the public presentation of the Messiah to Israel, and that happened at His baptism when John the Baptist, the harbinger, publicly announced Him, and God publicly anointed Him.
John 1:29-34 – The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”
Matthew 3:16 - When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”[/I]
After His baptism, Christ preached that the time was fulfilled (what time? – an obvious reference to Daniel 9 and Daniel 2 – the only places in the OT where the timing of Messiah and His kingdom are laid out) Mark 1:15.
Now we can go back to verse 26 for I want to point out something interesting with this background in mind….
And after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed), but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
That little word “after” renders your view impossible. The Messiah’s being cut off does not END the 69th week, it happens AFTER the 69th week is already ended. And what is the only week left? The 70th week, thus, the Messiah is cut off AFTER the 69th week, i.e. in the 70th week. Well when in the 70th week? That is what the rest of the passage tells us.
You continue….
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.
Well here is something else that is very embarrassing to a view in opposition to mine. (smile – yes I can be irritating can’t I?). There is the pronoun “he.” Well who is the “he”? – simple rules of grammar inform us. A pronoun will refer back to the last dominant character. Well who was that? Simple, there has only been one dominant character introduced in this whole prophecy… the Messiah! It cannot be “the people,” that is not a “he,” that is a “they.” It cannot be the “prince who is to come” for the noun “prince” is NOT the last dominant figure, it is not a dominant figure at all, but rather is the subject of a prepositional phrase! On a side note, even if the last dominant figure were the “prince who is to come,” it would not matter since that is ALSO the Messiah, the ONLY Prince that has been mentioned. The insertion of an anti-christ in this passage is an anti-contextual forced intrusion indeed. So as to further prove Christ’s confirming of the covenant for many (an idiomatic expression in Daniel for Isael)–
Romans 15:8 – Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.
Christ sealed the confirming, and using the same language as the LXX of Daniel 9 said in Matthew 26:28, “This is My blood of the new covenant, shed for MANY for the remission of sins.” Isaiah also places this at the atonement, “My Servant shall justify many for He shall bear their iniquities.”
So, then the Messiah shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week but in the midst of the week will bring an end to sacrifice and offering….. that is exactly what was accomplished by His being cut off. The two phrases are synomous and set in Hebrew parallelism within the passage. The timing of the crucifixtion is in the middle of the 70th week. It is ironic how your dispensational view converges much more tightly under my interpretation of this passage. Christ came, first, for ethnic Israel….the Gospel (and I maintain there is only one Gospel – but we can do that dance later) was first for the Jews, with a special focus upon them during Christ’s earthly ministry and in His words before His ascension (Acts 1:8)….. With the conversion of Paul, three and one-half years later, the focus changed, the 490 years had run their course.
This is a mere assertion which I do believe I defeated with the points already made. Anywhere else a time period is explicitly mentioned with regards to the Great Tribulation it is three and one-half years… not seven years.
I believe I have disproven the first part with the points already made… and as to the second part, see comments I will make below.
Actually not, as I have shown.
Well that is a tremendous problem. First, of all, if things can possibly not happen as prophesied as to timing, there is absolutely no justification for believing that they will ever happen at all. For example, using an favorite OV passage, Jonah’s prophecy to Ninevah was not postponed due to their repentance, it was completely annulled. You have not provided one piece of New Testament evidence that the Tribulation started and was stopped and will start up again. In fact the whole New Testament testifies as to it’s rapidly approaching status in passages written after the period of time where you hold that the Great Tribulation was allegedly stopped.
Big problems. First, I agree that there are numerous signs, not of the Great Tribulation, but of the approaching Great Tribulation in the Book of Acts… Remember Jesus said:
Matthew 24:6 – For all these things must come to pass but the end is not yet.
The Discourse makes it clear that the Tribulation was not something to happen immediately but to be preceded by a lengthy interval of “signs.”
I am sorry but that is nonsensical and no evidence to support the stoppage was proffered.
Here is the major point I alluded to where I felt you did not deal with my point. I did aptly point out something in the Jeremiah 18 passage and that is that judgment is ONLY averted or conditional when the nation which is subjected to the threatened judgment repents (and their reaction is not also the subject of said propohecy)! You have turned this concept on its head without any substantive defense or interaction with my response on this point.
…..which book also declares it is near and soon with such time indicators which you have conceded in the Gospels places such prophetic fulfillment squarely within the first century. You cannot have it both ways. As of the time of the writing of Revelation (which of course I place prior to 70AD) the Great Tribulation was near, and soon, and at hand for them, not us or anyone else. You cannot concede in the Discourse that those timing statement do place the events within the first century, but after the prophesy was given, the prophesy was aborted, and then deny the implication of the near timing phrases uttered after said near time fulfillment was already allegedly aborted.
Again this is an assertion without any proof thus far.
With all due respect, this is also an assertion without any proof and tremendous hurdles to traverse as already said above.
As an interesting supplement to this whole issue, I find that a lot of interpretations of the Daniel 9 passage go awry because the Jubilee pattern and imagery is neglected.
Daniel’s prayer that prompted the giving of the revelation is a covenant prayer to his covenant God. In fact, in this chapter (9) is the only place where the covenant name of God (YHWH) is used in the Book of Daniel. Gabriel’s answer is given in highly covenantal form expressing the highest vision of Messianic hope. The time frame is 70 groups of sevens. That is very, very important because it is an allusion back to the Jubilee cycle. After every seven groups of seven sabbatical years (49 years), there was the fiftieth year, the Jubilee. During the Jubilee, slaves were freed, debts were forgiven, etc., it is a rich portrait of redemption. In Jewish thought, numbers were very, very important. The number 10 signified a multiplier of “quantitative completeness.” The number 3 indicated perfect amplification. That is why we have God saying that He owns the cattle on a thousand hills (10 x 10 x 10) and why God is praised as holy, holy, holy. It is an idiomatic way of expressing a very large and complete number. So in Daniel’s vision, we have not seven sevens, a normal Jubilee, but seventy (7 x 10) sevens, the Ideal Jubilee, the Perfect Jubilee (49 x 10).
That is Christ. The Jubilee was but a shadow of the reality in Christ (Col. 2:17). Christ claimed this for Himself when He read from Isaiah 61:
“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound.”
And interestingly for our discussion, He omits the ending phrase “and the day of vengeance of our God” because that is NOT part of the Jubilee or Messianic redemption, but is a consequence of the rejection of same.
The allusion to the Jubilee here is undeniable. This ideal Jubilee is God’s ultimate ministry to ALL people, not just the Jews. The problem is that we so often treat the Scriptures as if they are man-centered, specifically Jew-centered, but they are not, they are Christ-Centered. The perfect Jubilee, redemption, of God came in the first century. It is not postponed waiting for the ethnic Jews to repent. God can raise up children of Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9).
This is available to the remnant, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), made up a believing Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12). That was the mystery, that Jews and Gentiles would be equal, all in the Israel of God (Ephesians 3:3-7). You see, if someone claims that they are not part of Israel, denying such a thing as “replacement theology” (when in fact it is not replacement, but rather expansion), then they have removed any Scriptural claim to have a part in the New Covenant, which was prophesied only specifically to be given to Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
Okay, okay…. No dissertation…..
I SO appreciate your response and time, and am enjoying this discussion. I am going to now get pretty darn specific and chase down certain issues which I do not believe you have fully dealt with in your response. I know you do not consider yourself a futurist (I would assert for all practical purposes though you may be), but as an example, I have found with the many futurists I have debated, that they have varying levels of success in explaining away isolated passages, but it is the “big picture” (as Knight likes to assert that I need to see) that is fatal to any eschatological system other than preterism. I know I sound irritatingly confident (I wouldn’t be Dee Dee if I didn’t), but I have dedicated years to this issue, and am pretty darned sure I have got the contours correct. Now on to your comments….
Okay, but I think you may have misunderstood me or are being imprecise in your terminology. Precision is very important in this discussion. I firmly believe the Discourse is about the end of the “age,” (which came in the first century) but not the end of the “world.” However, your comment made the two terms equal. They are not. Certainly we can go into that later, and I am eager to do so because I have an unassailable argument using that idea to prove that premillennialism utterly fails.
Ah Lion my fine feline friend (smile), imprecision rears its ugly head (double-smile). That is not exactly what I said… but rather I said this:
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
Thus, my point is that Daniel is given very specific goals that must be accomplished within the 70 weeks, and the destruction of the Temple is not one of them, and each of the goals for the 70 weeks were in fact accomplished during Christ’s earthly ministry; thus there is no reason, either textually or practically, to push any portion of this prophecy into the future. Your answer assumed what is yet to be proven and cannot be proven, and that is that every single detail of the remainder of Daniel 9 falls within the 70 week time frame. So while of course the destruction of the Temple is mentioned in 9:26, I have maintained this event does not fall within the 490 years but rather is a consequence of the 490 years.
This is born out by the New Testament record which teaches that the soon coming (to them) desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple were a result of their rejection and murder of Christ:
Matthew 23: 31-36: Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate.
The desolation of their house (i.e. Temple) was a consequence of their crimes.
Matthew 22:2-7 - The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
in, the destruction of their city was a consequence of their earlier crimes.
Absolutely…. And I will demonstrate why….
I meant that we are probably pretty close on the dating of the decree that started the countdown… I still believe that. There is only a three and one-half year difference in our placement of the end of the 69th week.
Yes, let’s look at the text for it will show that your interpretation is anti-contextual and (grimace) forced.
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.
No problem here. I agree that they are not necessarily in order (but would argue that they are deliberately set up in a specific Hebraic phrasing consisting of three couplets), and that ALL of these items are the GOALS to be accomplished within the 70 week time frame. The destruction of the city and the Temple are thus only noticeable by their absence from this list.
Exactly, and you are proving my point. The events mentioned to be accomplished for Israel and Jerusalem do not mention its destruction whatsoever…. And every single one of these events was accomplished in the first century during the earthly ministry of Christ, so thus in addition to the fact that there is not textual reason to thrust them into our future, there is also no pragmatic reason to do so either.
No objection here.
Daniel 9:25 – Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks (49 years) and sixty-two weeks (434 years) (49 + 434 = 483 years); The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
No problem here.
Daniel 9:26 – And after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed), but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
No, I am afraid you are mistaken… and again, precision is very important. First you object that verse 26 does not say that the Messiah will be baptized only murdered…. but you are neglecting that the anointing of the Most Holy (Christ’s baptism) was already mentioned in verse 24 as one of the explicit goals of the 70 weeks. It has to happen at some point, despite no explicit reference following verse 24 in anyone’s scheme. But it is pretty easy to prove my case in any event. Let’s get precise here and back up once again to verse 25.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.
Look very, very carefully at that verse. It says that there will be 483 years UNTIL Messiah the Prince. Until Messiah the Prince what? Is born? No, that is much too late for that. Crucified? Possible in isolation though the next verse, as I will demonstrate, rules that out and would be even more unlikely in your particular dispensational view. What then this verse is referring to is the public presentation of the Messiah to Israel, and that happened at His baptism when John the Baptist, the harbinger, publicly announced Him, and God publicly anointed Him.
John 1:29-34 – The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”
Matthew 3:16 - When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”[/I]
After His baptism, Christ preached that the time was fulfilled (what time? – an obvious reference to Daniel 9 and Daniel 2 – the only places in the OT where the timing of Messiah and His kingdom are laid out) Mark 1:15.
Now we can go back to verse 26 for I want to point out something interesting with this background in mind….
And after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed), but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
That little word “after” renders your view impossible. The Messiah’s being cut off does not END the 69th week, it happens AFTER the 69th week is already ended. And what is the only week left? The 70th week, thus, the Messiah is cut off AFTER the 69th week, i.e. in the 70th week. Well when in the 70th week? That is what the rest of the passage tells us.
You continue….
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.
Well here is something else that is very embarrassing to a view in opposition to mine. (smile – yes I can be irritating can’t I?). There is the pronoun “he.” Well who is the “he”? – simple rules of grammar inform us. A pronoun will refer back to the last dominant character. Well who was that? Simple, there has only been one dominant character introduced in this whole prophecy… the Messiah! It cannot be “the people,” that is not a “he,” that is a “they.” It cannot be the “prince who is to come” for the noun “prince” is NOT the last dominant figure, it is not a dominant figure at all, but rather is the subject of a prepositional phrase! On a side note, even if the last dominant figure were the “prince who is to come,” it would not matter since that is ALSO the Messiah, the ONLY Prince that has been mentioned. The insertion of an anti-christ in this passage is an anti-contextual forced intrusion indeed. So as to further prove Christ’s confirming of the covenant for many (an idiomatic expression in Daniel for Isael)–
Romans 15:8 – Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.
Christ sealed the confirming, and using the same language as the LXX of Daniel 9 said in Matthew 26:28, “This is My blood of the new covenant, shed for MANY for the remission of sins.” Isaiah also places this at the atonement, “My Servant shall justify many for He shall bear their iniquities.”
So, then the Messiah shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week but in the midst of the week will bring an end to sacrifice and offering….. that is exactly what was accomplished by His being cut off. The two phrases are synomous and set in Hebrew parallelism within the passage. The timing of the crucifixtion is in the middle of the 70th week. It is ironic how your dispensational view converges much more tightly under my interpretation of this passage. Christ came, first, for ethnic Israel….the Gospel (and I maintain there is only one Gospel – but we can do that dance later) was first for the Jews, with a special focus upon them during Christ’s earthly ministry and in His words before His ascension (Acts 1:8)….. With the conversion of Paul, three and one-half years later, the focus changed, the 490 years had run their course.
This is a mere assertion which I do believe I defeated with the points already made. Anywhere else a time period is explicitly mentioned with regards to the Great Tribulation it is three and one-half years… not seven years.
I believe I have disproven the first part with the points already made… and as to the second part, see comments I will make below.
Actually not, as I have shown.
Well that is a tremendous problem. First, of all, if things can possibly not happen as prophesied as to timing, there is absolutely no justification for believing that they will ever happen at all. For example, using an favorite OV passage, Jonah’s prophecy to Ninevah was not postponed due to their repentance, it was completely annulled. You have not provided one piece of New Testament evidence that the Tribulation started and was stopped and will start up again. In fact the whole New Testament testifies as to it’s rapidly approaching status in passages written after the period of time where you hold that the Great Tribulation was allegedly stopped.
Big problems. First, I agree that there are numerous signs, not of the Great Tribulation, but of the approaching Great Tribulation in the Book of Acts… Remember Jesus said:
Matthew 24:6 – For all these things must come to pass but the end is not yet.
The Discourse makes it clear that the Tribulation was not something to happen immediately but to be preceded by a lengthy interval of “signs.”
I am sorry but that is nonsensical and no evidence to support the stoppage was proffered.
Here is the major point I alluded to where I felt you did not deal with my point. I did aptly point out something in the Jeremiah 18 passage and that is that judgment is ONLY averted or conditional when the nation which is subjected to the threatened judgment repents (and their reaction is not also the subject of said propohecy)! You have turned this concept on its head without any substantive defense or interaction with my response on this point.
…..which book also declares it is near and soon with such time indicators which you have conceded in the Gospels places such prophetic fulfillment squarely within the first century. You cannot have it both ways. As of the time of the writing of Revelation (which of course I place prior to 70AD) the Great Tribulation was near, and soon, and at hand for them, not us or anyone else. You cannot concede in the Discourse that those timing statement do place the events within the first century, but after the prophesy was given, the prophesy was aborted, and then deny the implication of the near timing phrases uttered after said near time fulfillment was already allegedly aborted.
Again this is an assertion without any proof thus far.
With all due respect, this is also an assertion without any proof and tremendous hurdles to traverse as already said above.
As an interesting supplement to this whole issue, I find that a lot of interpretations of the Daniel 9 passage go awry because the Jubilee pattern and imagery is neglected.
Daniel’s prayer that prompted the giving of the revelation is a covenant prayer to his covenant God. In fact, in this chapter (9) is the only place where the covenant name of God (YHWH) is used in the Book of Daniel. Gabriel’s answer is given in highly covenantal form expressing the highest vision of Messianic hope. The time frame is 70 groups of sevens. That is very, very important because it is an allusion back to the Jubilee cycle. After every seven groups of seven sabbatical years (49 years), there was the fiftieth year, the Jubilee. During the Jubilee, slaves were freed, debts were forgiven, etc., it is a rich portrait of redemption. In Jewish thought, numbers were very, very important. The number 10 signified a multiplier of “quantitative completeness.” The number 3 indicated perfect amplification. That is why we have God saying that He owns the cattle on a thousand hills (10 x 10 x 10) and why God is praised as holy, holy, holy. It is an idiomatic way of expressing a very large and complete number. So in Daniel’s vision, we have not seven sevens, a normal Jubilee, but seventy (7 x 10) sevens, the Ideal Jubilee, the Perfect Jubilee (49 x 10).
That is Christ. The Jubilee was but a shadow of the reality in Christ (Col. 2:17). Christ claimed this for Himself when He read from Isaiah 61:
“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound.”
And interestingly for our discussion, He omits the ending phrase “and the day of vengeance of our God” because that is NOT part of the Jubilee or Messianic redemption, but is a consequence of the rejection of same.
The allusion to the Jubilee here is undeniable. This ideal Jubilee is God’s ultimate ministry to ALL people, not just the Jews. The problem is that we so often treat the Scriptures as if they are man-centered, specifically Jew-centered, but they are not, they are Christ-Centered. The perfect Jubilee, redemption, of God came in the first century. It is not postponed waiting for the ethnic Jews to repent. God can raise up children of Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9).
This is available to the remnant, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), made up a believing Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12). That was the mystery, that Jews and Gentiles would be equal, all in the Israel of God (Ephesians 3:3-7). You see, if someone claims that they are not part of Israel, denying such a thing as “replacement theology” (when in fact it is not replacement, but rather expansion), then they have removed any Scriptural claim to have a part in the New Covenant, which was prophesied only specifically to be given to Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
Okay, okay…. No dissertation…..
Whoa... come on Dee Dee does the term "bite size" mean anything to you?
Sorry, but simply way too long for good point vs. counter point debate.
Sorry, but simply way too long for good point vs. counter point debate.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Sorry Knight.... some points take longer than others...
Sorry for the break but clarification needed.
Sorry for the break but clarification needed.
Woah! DD, I’m a little confused here. I am anxious to answer your last post, but first I need to know something.
Please tell me, (in as few words as possible) when you believe the 70th week ended?
You seem to be saying that the 69th week ended at the Baptism of Christ, and that there was no gap between the 69th week and the 70th week, so please tell me when it ended, (no explanation necessary at this time so we don’t get off track).
Thanks.
Sorry for the break but clarification needed.
Woah! DD, I’m a little confused here. I am anxious to answer your last post, but first I need to know something.
Please tell me, (in as few words as possible) when you believe the 70th week ended?
You seem to be saying that the 69th week ended at the Baptism of Christ, and that there was no gap between the 69th week and the 70th week, so please tell me when it ended, (no explanation necessary at this time so we don’t get off track).
Thanks.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Lion:
LOLOLOLOLOL..... ack, ack, ack!!! That was good!!! Okay, okay I get the hint....
The 69th week ended at the baptism of Christ. The crucifixition took place at 69 and 1/2 weeks (i.e. midway through the 70th week). The 70th week ended with the conversion of Paul or thereabouts (ie Acts 8/9).
LOLOLOLOLOL..... ack, ack, ack!!! That was good!!! Okay, okay I get the hint....
The 69th week ended at the baptism of Christ. The crucifixition took place at 69 and 1/2 weeks (i.e. midway through the 70th week). The 70th week ended with the conversion of Paul or thereabouts (ie Acts 8/9).
Ahhh young grasshopper, someday I will teach you the fine art "point vs. counter point" debate.Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Sorry Knight.... some points take longer than others...
It is a rare talent.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I have mastered the art of bulldozing debate though
And thats something to brag about???Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
I have mastered the art of bulldozing debate though
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
It works for me
I will take quality of quantity any day.Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
It works for me
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
And then you are doubly blessed with me... man are you lucky!! You get both in one package.....
First things first. I believe, as do you, that Christ was speaking about the end of the age, not the world, in the Matthew passage cited, (although there will eventually be an end to our world,
Next, you go on to argue that the prophesy in Daniel 9:24; shows all the goals for the 70 week prophesy. And that the destruction of the temple is not one of them, and is instead, a by-product of Israel’s crimes. You try and use Matthew 23 as well as Matthew 22 to bolster your argument that the destruction of the temple falls outside of the prophetic timeline, stating that it is a result of their crimes. To which I say; So what? Of course it is a result of their crimes, or rather their rejection of Messiah, but so what? The entire prophecy is because of their rejection. That in no way sticks the destruction of the temple outside of the prophecy.
The verses read exactly as they would to a common reader, taking verses 24-27 as literal and all within the 70-week time frame. Showing an overall view of the entire 70 weeks in verse 24 and then going on and detailing the events within those 70 weeks in the next three verses. Just as God did in Genesis when He explained the six-day creation in chapter one and then goes into greater detail about just what He did in chapter two.
And just as it is correct to take biblical verses in the literal and chronological manner in which they read, unless instructed to do otherwise, the reading of Dan 9:26 follows suit stating that after the 483 years (that would read immediately after, or at the direct end of the 483 years) Messiah shall be cut off. The verbiage in no way infers a three and one half year interjection but instead flows smoothly to the 70th week where it continues to state what will happen during the last 7 years.
Therefore your entire argument of the destruction of the city and temple being outside the prophecy are void. So why didn’t it happen during the 70th week as prophesied but several decades later?
In reference to my bringing up the Jeremiah 18 passage, you said;
So I ask you… why would God continue with the tribulation and be forced to give unbelieving Israel her kingdom, (as you believe), while she was still (and is still to this day) in utter rejection of her Messiah?
That goes completely against Jeremiah 18.
You state that the anointing of the Most Holy, refers to the time of the baptism of Christ? I see no place in scripture that places anointing and baptism as one and the same. They are sometimes performed at the same time, but clearly are not the same thing. Or perhaps you are stating that Christ was anointed not when He was baptized but rather when God said in Matthew 3:17 after His baptism; “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” If that is the case, was He anointed for the second time when God said in Matthew 17:5, after the transfiguration; “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” ?
There are many theories as to what the anointing of the Most Holy means, and you have in no way proven, or even given an argument that it happened at Christ’s baptism.
I like this one myself;
As to my statement that the Tribulation will still happen, as is shown in the book of Revelation, you said;
But this does bring up another sticking point for you. I realize that you believe that the book of Revelation was completed prior to 90 AD, even prior to 70AD. I think I read something you wrote that stated it might have been written as early as 40 AD, but I could be wrong about that. In any case, how could the Book of Revelation be written for future events when according to your belief, these events had already occurred, or at best were occurring at the same time?
After all, if the 70th week, (the week of tribulation), ended at the conversion of Paul, as you state, then when did John have the time to pen his last book? And wouldn’t it be out of date as soon as it hit the shelves, since everything had already happened?
One last point-I know that I haven’t given proof that the tribulation was stopped, nor have I even shown that the tribulation began after the death of Christ (although I would think you would already agree that some of the tribulation signs were at work after the crucifixion, from your view). However we are not arguing my Acts 9 Dispensational, open view. We are arguing the Preterist, Calvinistic view and I do not want to slow the discussion unnecessarily at this time. I will go into our theology as needed, otherwise I will try to stay on track.
and new heavens and a new earth made. And that his predictions were for the first century, or even better, for that generation, (meaning the generation present with Him at that time, exactly as the wording implies.).
Next, you go on to argue that the prophesy in Daniel 9:24; shows all the goals for the 70 week prophesy. And that the destruction of the temple is not one of them, and is instead, a by-product of Israel’s crimes. You try and use Matthew 23 as well as Matthew 22 to bolster your argument that the destruction of the temple falls outside of the prophetic timeline, stating that it is a result of their crimes. To which I say; So what? Of course it is a result of their crimes, or rather their rejection of Messiah, but so what? The entire prophecy is because of their rejection. That in no way sticks the destruction of the temple outside of the prophecy.
The verses read exactly as they would to a common reader, taking verses 24-27 as literal and all within the 70-week time frame. Showing an overall view of the entire 70 weeks in verse 24 and then going on and detailing the events within those 70 weeks in the next three verses. Just as God did in Genesis when He explained the six-day creation in chapter one and then goes into greater detail about just what He did in chapter two.
And just as it is correct to take biblical verses in the literal and chronological manner in which they read, unless instructed to do otherwise, the reading of Dan 9:26 follows suit stating that after the 483 years (that would read immediately after, or at the direct end of the 483 years) Messiah shall be cut off. The verbiage in no way infers a three and one half year interjection but instead flows smoothly to the 70th week where it continues to state what will happen during the last 7 years.
Therefore your entire argument of the destruction of the city and temple being outside the prophecy are void. So why didn’t it happen during the 70th week as prophesied but several decades later?
In reference to my bringing up the Jeremiah 18 passage, you said;
You are completely missing the point here. God did not repent of the harm He planned to do to Israel because of their rejection, but rather He repented of the good He said He would do. Remember that the time of tribulation is a good (although painful) thing for Israel, because it purges her and brings her back to God, so that He can bring the times of refreshing,
and establish and give to them the Kingdom.
So I ask you… why would God continue with the tribulation and be forced to give unbelieving Israel her kingdom, (as you believe), while she was still (and is still to this day) in utter rejection of her Messiah?
That goes completely against Jeremiah 18.
You state that the anointing of the Most Holy, refers to the time of the baptism of Christ? I see no place in scripture that places anointing and baptism as one and the same. They are sometimes performed at the same time, but clearly are not the same thing. Or perhaps you are stating that Christ was anointed not when He was baptized but rather when God said in Matthew 3:17 after His baptism; “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” If that is the case, was He anointed for the second time when God said in Matthew 17:5, after the transfiguration; “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” ?
There are many theories as to what the anointing of the Most Holy means, and you have in no way proven, or even given an argument that it happened at Christ’s baptism.
I like this one myself;
"Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.” Except maybe in the Preterist’s camp?
As to my statement that the Tribulation will still happen, as is shown in the book of Revelation, you said;
Not true at all. Since the plan has been put on hold. And since there are no prophesies to indicate when God will resume working with Israel, (except for the passage concerning the fullness of the gentiles), no one knows when it will happen. None of the apostles knew, including Paul or John, and neither do we. So they adopted the attitude that it would be soon, just as we should adopt the same attitude, acting as if it will come tomorrow so that we will be ever watchful.
But this does bring up another sticking point for you. I realize that you believe that the book of Revelation was completed prior to 90 AD, even prior to 70AD. I think I read something you wrote that stated it might have been written as early as 40 AD, but I could be wrong about that. In any case, how could the Book of Revelation be written for future events when according to your belief, these events had already occurred, or at best were occurring at the same time?
After all, if the 70th week, (the week of tribulation), ended at the conversion of Paul, as you state, then when did John have the time to pen his last book? And wouldn’t it be out of date as soon as it hit the shelves, since everything had already happened?
One last point-I know that I haven’t given proof that the tribulation was stopped, nor have I even shown that the tribulation began after the death of Christ (although I would think you would already agree that some of the tribulation signs were at work after the crucifixion, from your view). However we are not arguing my Acts 9 Dispensational, open view. We are arguing the Preterist, Calvinistic view and I do not want to slow the discussion unnecessarily at this time. I will go into our theology as needed, otherwise I will try to stay on track.
Last edited:
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Lion:
Thank you for your response, and I am glad that you have gotten almost as wordy as I (though not as wordy for that might be almost impossible – I wrote a fifty-something page response in ten point font to a few email inquiries I had by someone). I wanted to comment for clarification though on one thing before we move on:
Of course, but since that is the counter-view you are proposing, there are times when it will necessarily veer there, but I appreciate your focus. But just so that you are clear, and there is no misunderstanding here, I am not Calvinist. I am adamantly nonCalvinist in a lot of things (though I am an individual predestinatarian).
Thank you for your response, and I am glad that you have gotten almost as wordy as I (though not as wordy for that might be almost impossible – I wrote a fifty-something page response in ten point font to a few email inquiries I had by someone). I wanted to comment for clarification though on one thing before we move on:
Of course, but since that is the counter-view you are proposing, there are times when it will necessarily veer there, but I appreciate your focus. But just so that you are clear, and there is no misunderstanding here, I am not Calvinist. I am adamantly nonCalvinist in a lot of things (though I am an individual predestinatarian).
Huh? come on Dee Dee Lion's post was short, sweet and to the point. All content and ZERO obfuscation.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Knight... sigh. It is obvious what horse your money is on. And that is cool. But I will point out in my next post some major problems with Lion's answer. I know you are waiting with baited breath.... LOLOLOL...... admit it, you love me like an annoying little sister. I know it must be so hard to watch me defeat all these points. I feel bad, really I do. But not bad enough not to do it ; :kiss:
But not bad enough not to do it ; :kiss:
Of course! Only an idiot would intentionally bet on the losing horse!
You continue...
Dee Dee all I am saying is your last response (regarding the topic at hand) was 25,963 characters long, which is certainly pushing the envelope as to what we even allow here at TOL let alone a reasonable length for effective and entertaining debate.
Then you have the audacity to make the claim that Lion is being "as verbose" as you are.... yet his response was an extremely reasonable 8,885 characters long.
I am merely trying to do what I have done for 6 years at TOL... and that is attempting to keep the debates in a "point vs. counter point" style. Its more fun and profitable that way.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Knight:
I was joking in that claim that Lion was being as verbose as I was. Sheesh. No one is as verbose as I.
I was joking in that claim that Lion was being as verbose as I was. Sheesh. No one is as verbose as I.
Ah ha! I have effectively moved you into the realm of those who make sense!
- Status