7 weeks 62 weeks 1 week

[Trout]

Does this make any sense?

70 weeks

Broken down into 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week.

The seven weeks begin at the decree of Atraxerxes (Daniel 9:25a-Ne 2:5-8) about 457 B.C.

The seven weeks end upon completion of the restoration of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25b)

The 62 weeks begin as the 7 weeks end.

The 62 weeks end at the baptism of Jesus AD 27. The 1 week begins as the 62 weeks end.

The 1 week is broken into two parts, 3 1/2 "days" of the week end with the crucifiction of Christ, and the other 3 1/2 "days" end with the Death of Stephen.

[Hitch]

Well,,, thats got to be a lot closer than inserting an unlimited GAP.

[Trout]

Well,,, thats got to be a lot closer than inserting an unlimited GAP.

I never bought in to the gap theory, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one.

[Hitch]

Remember in Yellow Submarine when the had a hole which could be moved about at will? GAPs are like that, and they are addictive.

[Trout]

Hmm. . .a portable hole, very handy indeed.

[Just The Facts]

Hi

Well yes that makes sense if you are a Futurist.

Does it match up with scripture and what is actually said in these verses NO IT DOES NOT.

There are many things that have been altered to make this chapter look like it is about Jesus.

First of the 62 Weeks and seven Weeks ARE NOT combined. It says

[25] Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

The Above is the proper translation of this verse. You will notice

1. The word Messiah is not in the text it says anointed one everywhere else in the bible where this word is used. Jerome altered the meaning and truth of this prophecy to fit is own belief and understanding by translating anointed one as messiah.

2.The seven weeks and the 62 weeks are not combined ........the Anointed one comes after 49 years not after 483 years. This totally eliminates Jesus as the Anointed one being spoken of in this verse.

Now there are many other problems with the understanding you posted.

The decree that this starts from is not that of Atraxerxes...........Daniel is considering Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years of desolation. There is only one Decree that GOD SAYS fulfilled this prophecy.

Ezra 1:1: Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 2: Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

You can not go OH that does not fit with my doctrine so I will ignore God's plain word and use some other King and some other decree. Cyrus made this decree in 538 BC that is the start date.

Now for those who are going to come back and say of that was just for the Temple Daniel says the city will be built....................Please allow me to preempt you with Gods words.

4: Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, 5: And hired counsellers against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. 6: And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. 7: And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. 8: Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort: 9: Then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites,10: And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, and at such a time.11: This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time.12: Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations.13: Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings.

Now as we can plainly see the city and walls were being built. You can not have 40,000 some odd people go to a place and not build a city that is just ......................well it is just ridiculous.


the Decree you refer to WAS NOT to start building the city it was TO CONTINUE Building the City. The Arabs were attacking the Jews and hampering their efforts to build the city walls and Temple. They wrote a letter to the King saying that the Jews were building the city. the King orders the work Stopped. Then at the request of Nehemiah finds out Cyrus had issued the decree for them to do so. So he sends his Nehemiah WITH SOLDIERS and Letters to the local Governor to allow this construction and to stop happening it.

So what does all this mean for the Futurist understanding of Daniel 9:.............Well it send it crashing into the ground in a flaming pile of smoke.

So what is the Truth of Daniel 9: It is this

1. At 49 Years after Cyrus's Decree A prince will sit on the Throne of reformed Judea.....................

2. His line will rule for another 62 weeks ...............

3. At the end of that 62 weeks this Line of Priests/Kings over Judea will be cut off and Have Nothing.

4. The prince of the people that cut off the Priest/Kings from the throne will then sack the Jerusalem and its end will come like a flood.

Historical Record.

1. Joshua is Anointed first Priest King of reformed Judea.

Zech 6:11: Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest; 12: And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:13: Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

2. This stays in Place until Rome puts Herod an Arab as king of Judea.........................Hey guess who many weeks of years it was from Joshua.................... .come on guess. 63 weeks of years latter in 48 BC. 538BC - 490 years = 48BC

3. Read this carefully

[26] And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed.

This is very clearly the end of the 490 years .....the so called "Final week" is not at the end of the seventy it is back during one of the Priest kings during the 62 weeks. It is a week that is given special note because it is the start of MANY desolation not one single desolations but many. This week is the Maccabean war starting in 168 BC it is the start of Many desolations please allow me to list them for you.

Here are the dates of the desolation’s 167BC, 162 BC, 63BC, 47BC, 27BC down to 17 AD is the longest as pictures or plaques of Augustus where set up in every wall of the wing of the Temple and upon the wing of abominations. Tiberius pictures or busts replaced Augustus and were there when Jesus taught in the temple about 26AD.

It is this week of years in 168 BC that starts the desolations and it is A Priest King who pays the Greeks to place him on the throne that makes the deal that cause the sacrifice to stop in the middle of the week. It is Jason, the brother of the reigning high priest's who made the Greek king a proposal he couldn't refuse. He offered to pay to be appointed high priest, plus an additional sum "if he were given the authority to set up a gymnasium and a training place for the youth and to enroll the people of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch." It is Jason who makes the Covenant and this pact ends up stopping the sacrifice.

Hope that helps you see the Truth of this prophecy.

[Trout]

Hi

Well yes that makes sense if you are a Futurist.

Does it match up with scripture and what is actually said in these verses NO IT DOES NOT.

There are many things that have been altered to make this chapter look like it is about Jesus.

First of the 62 Weeks and seven Weeks ARE NOT combined. It says

[25] Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

The Above is the proper translation of this verse. You will notice

1. The word Messiah is not in the text it says anointed one everywhere else in the bible where this word is used. Jerome altered the meaning and truth of this prophecy to fit is own belief and understanding by translating anointed one as messiah.

2.The seven weeks and the 62 weeks are not combined ........the Anointed one comes after 49 years not after 483 years. This totally eliminates Jesus as the Anointed one being spoken of in this verse.

Now there are many other problems with the understanding you posted.

The decree that this starts from is not that of Atraxerxes...........Daniel is considering Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years of desolation. There is only one Decree that GOD SAYS fulfilled this prophecy.

Ezra 1:1: Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 2: Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

You can not go OH that does not fit with my doctrine so I will ignore God's plain word and use some other King and some other decree. Cyrus made this decree in 538 BC that is the start date.

Now for those who are going to come back and say of that was just for the Temple Daniel says the city will be built....................Please allow me to preempt you with Gods words.

4: Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, 5: And hired counsellers against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. 6: And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. 7: And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. 8: Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort: 9: Then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites,10: And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, and at such a time.11: This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time.12: Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations.13: Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings.

Now as we can plainly see the city and walls were being built. You can not have 40,000 some odd people go to a place and not build a city that is just ......................well it is just ridiculous.


the Decree you refer to WAS NOT to start building the city it was TO CONTINUE Building the City. The Arabs were attacking the Jews and hampering their efforts to build the city walls and Temple. They wrote a letter to the King saying that the Jews were building the city. the King orders the work Stopped. Then at the request of Nehemiah finds out Cyrus had issued the decree for them to do so. So he sends his Nehemiah WITH SOLDIERS and Letters to the local Governor to allow this construction and to stop happening it.

So what does all this mean for the Futurist understanding of Daniel 9:.............Well it send it crashing into the ground in a flaming pile of smoke.

So what is the Truth of Daniel 9: It is this

1. At 49 Years after Cyrus's Decree A prince will sit on the Throne of reformed Judea.....................

2. His line will rule for another 62 weeks ...............

3. At the end of that 62 weeks this Line of Priests/Kings over Judea will be cut off and Have Nothing.

4. The prince of the people that cut off the Priest/Kings from the throne will then sack the Jerusalem and its end will come like a flood.

Historical Record.

1. Joshua is Anointed first Priest King of reformed Judea.

Zech 6:11: Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest; 12: And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:13: Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

2. This stays in Place until Rome puts Herod an Arab as king of Judea.........................Hey guess who many weeks of years it was from Joshua.................... .come on guess. 63 weeks of years latter in 48 BC. 538BC - 490 years = 48BC

3. Read this carefully
is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed.

[26] And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who
This is very clearly the end of the 490 years .....the so called "Final week" is not at the end of the seventy it is back during one of the Priest kings during the 62 weeks. It is a week that is given special note because it is the start of MANY desolation not one single desolations but many. This week is the Maccabean war starting in 168 BC it is the start of Many desolations please allow me to list them for you.

Here are the dates of the desolation’s 167BC, 162 BC, 63BC, 47BC, 27BC down to 17 AD is the longest as pictures or plaques of Augustus where set up in every wall of the wing of the Temple and upon the wing of abominations. Tiberius pictures or busts replaced Augustus and were there when Jesus taught in the temple about 26AD.

It is this week of years in 168 BC that starts the desolations and it is A Priest King who pays the Greeks to place him on the throne that makes the deal that cause the sacrifice to stop in the middle of the week. It is Jason, the brother of the reigning high priest's who made the Greek king a proposal he couldn't refuse. He offered to pay to be appointed high priest, plus an additional sum "if he were given the authority to set up a gymnasium and a training place for the youth and to enroll the people of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch." It is Jason who makes the Covenant and this pact ends up stopping the sacrifice.

Hope that helps you see the Truth of this prophecy.


Thanks for the critique.

But doesn't verse 24 tell us that the weeks are consecutive?

[Just The Facts]

Hi

First off I did not mean to say you wee a futurist and I see that you believe the last week was that of jesus to stephen. I meant to say from a traditional view.

"Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

No I do not see where it says that it just says seventy weeks it is verse 25 and 26 that lay out how the weeks apply. Besides I say it did all happen in a row starting in 538 ending in 48 and having a special week of note in which the Desolations start.

Here try this maybe it will help you see I speak the Truth. look at the dates you have given.

457 BC - 483 years = leaves us at 27AD now add your 7 years and that puts us at 34AD.

Jesus died Before 29 AD FOR SURE and I Believe he died in 26 AD as we know much more about the date of Jesus's birth today. Either way it is a long way from 31 AD that is for sure.

The Numbers do not add up at all.......in addition if you check older Writings you will find that those who espouse this understanding have had to change the date of the decree of Artaxerxes no less then three times trying to make it match up to Jesus life. IT DOES NOT WORK because it is not the Truth of this prophecy.

[Ted]

Troutk13,

Your schema for Daniel 9 is excellent, with one very minor correction. The Hebrew of 9:25 does not specify a 7-week period with some concluding event followed by a 62-week period. The anthnach in that sentence is a late (Masoretic) addition, and is argued about by scholars as to whether it is disjunctive or non-disjunctive. In fact, there is no historical evidence for any date signifying the completion of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. We can readily argue that no city ever reaches that point. I discuss Daniel 9 in detail in:
http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/dan/69wks.html
http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/dan/week70.html and
http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/dan/stephen.html.

I also discuss it in chapter 3 of I Want to be Left Behind. (Shameless commercial plug. Available almost everywhere. ISBN 0972599606.)

[25] Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

The Above is the proper translation of this verse.
Unless you are a Hebrew scholar, don’t make such an assertion. While the ESV is generally a good translation, several other good translations contradict it. Numerous scholars have argued this at length. Further, unless the decree was issued in the first century BC (when no such decree was issued) it presents a clear contradiction in scripture. Thus, the ESV is clearly incorrect here.

I have proposed that the proper translation is:

"So you are to understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and to establish Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty two weeks; it (Jerusalem) will be restored and established, square and decision making, even in times of distress."

Not being a Hebrew scholar, I had this vetted by several Hebrew scholars. All replied that it is faithful to the original, and is thus an acceptable translation. Some noted that it provides better harmonization of scripture than any other, and thus could be regarded as a preferred translation. The details surrounding this are found in http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/dan/69wks.html.

Cyrus made this decree in 538 BC that is the start date.
Then Jesus came in 491BC. Right.

I’m not going to go through the rest of your errors. It’s not worth my time. I’ve done this a number of times in a number of threads. If you want the full discussion, I’ve given the links.

Ted

[Just The Facts]

Hi Ted

Did you read my post I said this prophecy is not about Messiah the word is not in the text the word is anointed one.

Anointed one does not mean Messiah just because Jerome said it did.


Quote
Unless you are a Hebrew scholar, don’t make such an assertion. While the ESV is generally a good translation, several other good translations contradict it. Numerous scholars have argued this at length. Further, unless the decree was issued in the first century BC (when no such decree was issued) it presents a clear contradiction in scripture. Thus, the ESV is clearly incorrect here.
End Quote

Please just because a whole bunch of Christians scholars say it is so does not make it so.

In fact if you go to NON Christian scholastic sources they all say it the way the RSV does.

As we all know Hebrew has no punctuation. So here it is with no punctuation word for word.

9:25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Anointed One the prince shall be seven weeks sixty-two week it shall be built again with street and moat even in troubled times.

Now since Hebrew has no punctuation the reality is someone had to put in the punctuation and that someone was Jerome. Now when we look at the above we can see where the punctuation should go and that is to divide the two separate things the time before the Prince and the Time for the building in trouble times.

Here is a Jewish site it has a Jewish translation of that text ......not influenced by Christian doctrine.

Jewish Publication Society -- 1917 Translation

25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.

As we can see this is how the Jews translate their own Language .....why Because that is how you punctuate two separate statements.

Look at verse 26

26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

As we can see it does not imply it is the same anointed one as in verse 25 it just says an anointed one.

No the Jerome altered the Translation of these words to fit his understanding and as he plainly stated “to make their meaning clearer” Well Thanks Jerome But I thought it was very plain with out your adding and taking away from the word of God.

I have shown the Truth of this.

[Etcetera]

Just The Facts:

Greetings.

Did you read my post? I said this prophecy is not about Messiah. The word is not in the text; the word is anointed one.

The word is in the text. The word is משיח, mashiyach, of which messiah is just our modern pronunciation. And משיח means anointed one. Those versions that use anointed one are translating. Those that use messiah are transliterating.

Anointed one does not mean Messiah just because Jerome said it did.

Quite right. Messiah means anointed one, not because Jerome said so, but because that is simply the Hebrew word for anointed one.

Jerome, by the way, was the finest ecclesiastical Hebrew scholar of his day. Even where he may be mistaken he deserves our respect.

Etcetera.

[Just The Facts]

Hi

Quote
The word is in the text. The word is משיח, mashiyach, of which messiah is just our modern pronunciation. And משיח means anointed one. Those versions that use anointed one are translating. Those that use messiah are transliterating.
End Quote

That is simply not true the word is indeed Mashiyach but it means Anointed one.

It is used 39 times in the OT and 37 of those times it was translated as Anointed one . Then in Daniel 9: Jerome changes it to Messiah.

That is why Strong shows messiah as a meaning for this word because Jerome purposely translated it in error to fit his understanding. If he had just left the Hebrew word as it was instead of adding to the word of God then Strong would not even list Messiah as a possible translation for Mashiyach.

The Word means Anointed One NOT Messiah.


Quote
Jerome, by the way, was the finest ecclesiastical Hebrew scholar of his day. Even where he may be mistaken he deserves our respect.
End Quote

I disagree His job was to TRANSLATE the word of God NOT ALTER IT. He clearly purposefully added and took away from the word of God. The damage he has done to the Word of God is so all encompassing that the Truth and amazing fulfillment of this prophecy is totally lost in the doctrines of Men.

[Etcetera]

Just The Facts:

The word is in the text. The word is משיח, mashiyach, of which messiah is just our modern pronunciation. And משיח means anointed one. Those versions that use anointed one are translating. Those that use messiah are transliterating.

That is simply not true the word is indeed Mashiyach but it means Anointed one.

It is used 39 times in the OT and 37 of those times it was translated as Anointed one . Then in Daniel 9: Jerome changes it to Messiah.

We are speaking of the Vulgate, right? The Latin translation that Jerome made of the Bible? When the Hebrew word משיח shows up in the OT, Jerome tends to translate with christus, especially if the anointed one is of royal (and not priestly) stock. For example, 1 Samuel 24.11 (Vulgate), in which king Saul is the anointed one (the משיח in Hebrew, the christus in Latin):

Ecce hodie viderunt oculi tui quod tradiderit te dominus in manu mea in spelunca et cogitavi ut occiderem te sed pepercit tibi oculus meus dixi enim non extendam manum meam in domino meo quia christus domini est.

So... when we come to Daniel 9.25-26, what do we find in the Vulgate?

Scito ergo et animadverte ab exitu sermonis ut iterum aedificetur Hierusalem usque ad christum ducem ebdomades septem et ebdomades sexaginta duae erunt et rursum aedificabitur platea et muri in angustia temporum. et post ebdomades sexaginta duas occidetur christus et non erit eius et civitatem et sanctuarium dissipabit populus cum duce venturo et finis eius vastitas et post finem belli statuta desolatio.

Now, what exactly is the inconsistency here? There is a Latin transliteration for משיח, and that is messias, but Jerome does not use this transliteration in Daniel, indeed does not use it in the entire OT; he uses it only in the gospel of John (1.41, 4.25), where it is most appropriate because the original Greek uses the transliteration too, before translating it with Christ.

I disagree His job was to TRANSLATE the word of God NOT ALTER IT. He clearly purposefully added and took away from the word of God.

Jerome used christus (which means anointed, and gives us our English word christen) of Saul, of David, and of the fellow in Daniel 9. What exactly is the problem?

Etcetera.

[Just The Facts]

Hi

You used this as a quote for the Vulgate verse 25 & 26....................I am curious where did you get it from............... that is what is the source.

Scito ergo et animadverte ab exitu sermonis ut iterum aedificetur Hierusalem usque ad christum ducem ebdomades septem et ebdomades sexaginta duae erunt et rursum aedificabitur platea et muri in angustia temporum. et post ebdomades sexaginta duas occidetur christus et non erit eius et civitatem et sanctuarium dissipabit populus cum duce venturo et finis eius vastitas et post finem belli statuta desolatio.

I am noticing some variances in this version and I am wondering what is the source and year of its authorship.


Quote
Jerome used christus (which means anointed, and gives us our English word christen) of Saul, of David, and of the fellow in Daniel 9. What exactly is the problem?
End Quote


Now you are just plain wrong here Christus means Christ not anointed................what are you talking about.

Look at this Title to this Catholic Church Document

SEMPITERNUS REX CHRISTUS (Eternal King Christ)

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN, THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE [1]

Main Entry: Christ
Pronunciation: 'krIst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English Crist, from Old English, from Latin Christus, from Greek Christos, literally, anointed, from chriein
1 : MESSIAH
2 : JESUS
3 : an ideal type of humanity

And the Latin for "Christen" is .........."Baptizare"


The origin is here

Main Entry: chris·ten
Pronunciation: 'kri-s&n
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): chris·tened; chris·ten·ing /'kris-ni[ng], 'kri-s&n-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English cristnen, from Old English cristnian, from cristen Christian, from Latin christianus
1 a : BAPTIZE b : to name at baptism
2 : to name or dedicate (as a ship) by a ceremony suggestive of baptism
3 : NAME
4 : to use for the first time

Jerome took the Hebrew word for anointed one and translated it as Christ.

One Word he uses elsewhere when the same Hebrew word “Mashiyach” is used is unctionis this is true in Leviticus 6: 20 and 8:10

or a variance of it like unctus. In Leviticus 4: 16 and 1Chron 14:8

1Chron 14: 8 is a very good example of what Latin word should have been used.

1Chron:14:8: And when the Philistines heard that David was anointed king over all Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David. And David heard of it, and went out against them.

Now compare with Daniel 9:

[25] Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

It is very obvious that this is the same meaning in these two verses. You are wrong about so many things I would suggest you look deeper if you have the interest and the Time.

Once Again I say ………………. I have shown the Truth of Daniel 9: in this thread.

[Etcetera]

Just The Facts:

You used this as a quote for the Vulgate verse 25 & 26....................I am curious where did you get it from............... that is what is the source.

The source is the Latin Vulgate (author: Jerome) on my BibleWorks 5 software.

Jerome used christus (which means anointed, and gives us our English word christen) of Saul, of David, and of the fellow in Daniel 9. What exactly is the problem?

Now you are just plain wrong here Christus means Christ not anointed................what are you talking about.

Let us drop the insults (just plain wrong), shall we?

Lewis and Short Latin dictionary, under christus, emphasis mine:

Christus , i, m., = Christos (the Anointed, Heb. ; cf. Lact. 4, 7, 7)

The Latin christus is a tranliteration (note, not a translation!) of the Greek word χριστος. Since χριστος means anointed one in Greek, christus means anointed one in Latin, although it can certainly be turned into a title easily enough.

The Septuagint frequently uses the Greek word χριστος to translate the Hebrew משיח, whose modern scholarly transliteration would be mashiyach. The ancient Latin transliteration was messias; the ancient Greek transliteration was μεσσιας.

Note how these various words work together. The Hebrew word משיח could be transliterated into Greek or Latin (μεσσιας and messias, respectively), or it could be translated into Greek (χριστος) or Latin.

Look at this Title to this Catholic Church Document

Your Catholic Church document shows that Christ, christus, and χριστος (christos) all mean anointed one. Emphasis mine:

Main Entry: Christ
Pronunciation: 'krIst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English Crist, from Old English, from Latin Christus, from Greek Christos, literally, anointed, from chriein

English Christ < Latin christus < Greek χριστος. All of these mean anointed one, because their Greek source word χριστος means anointed one.

One Word he uses elsewhere when the same Hebrew word “Mashiyach” is used is unctionis this is true in Leviticus 6: 20 and 8:10
or a variance of it like unctus.

You said in another post that the Hebrew משיח is used some 39 times in the Old Testament. I find only 38; but even if your count is correct a difference of one is not going to change the following stats very much....

You also brought up the Latin term unctus (which means smeared, and is used for anointing actions; think Rafiki and Simba in The Lion King) as a viable translation for משיח. Let us see how Jerome treated the Hebrew word משיח overall. Here is a list of those verses in which Jerome found the Hebrew משיח and translated it as unctus:

Leviticus 4.3, 5, 16; 6.15.

Four times.

Now, in how many verses did Jerome find the Hebrew משיח and translate christus? Here is the list:

1 Samuel 2.10, 35; 12.3, 5; 16.6; 24.7 (twice), 11; 26.9, 11, 16, 23.
2 Samuel 1.14, 16; 19.22; 22.51; 23.1.
1 Chronicles 16.22.
2 Chronicles 6.42.
Psalm 2.2; 18.51; 20.7; 28.8; 84.10; 89.39, 52; 105.15; 132.10, 17.
Isaiah 45.1.
Lamentations 4.20.
Daniel 9.25, 26.
Habakkuk 3.13.

Thirty-four times. Let me emphasize this for good measure: Jerome found the word משיח a total of 38 times in the OT. He translated it as unctus 4 times. He translated it as christus 34 times.

Again I ask, what exactly is the problem? Why should he not have used the word christus in Daniel 9.25-26? That is the word that he usually uses to translate משיח when it is used substantively.

1Chron 14: 8 is a very good example of what Latin word should have been used.

Why is 1 Chronicles 14.8 a good example of which Latin word should have been used? The Hebrew (substantive) adjective משיח does not even appear in that verse. What appears is the Hebrew verb משח, and there is no Latin verb cognate with christus. Jerome virtually had to use the Latin verb unctus esset (3rd person singular subjunctive passive). (There is no Latin verb christus esset).

The Word means Anointed One NOT Messiah.

This is like saying that a certain word means big (English), not grande (Spanish). Our term messiah comes from the Hebrew משיח. The transliteration mashiyach is simply the modern scholarly version of messiah. Both are derived from משיח. I am not certain how to state this any more plainly. This information is (almost) common knowledge.

Now, you made this bold statement in post #12:

It is used 39 times in the OT and 37 of those times it was translated as Anointed one. Then in Daniel 9: Jerome changes it to Messiah.

Time to either defend this statement or abandon it (and I am not referring to your total of 39 as opposed to my total of 38).

Show me how the Hebrew word משיח is used 38 or 39 times in the OT, and Jerome translated it consistently until he came to Daniel 9. I have shown you the stats above. Check them out. Look them up. You will see that his translation of the two instances in Daniel 9 is very consistent with how he usually translates משיח. He usually uses christus, and Daniel 9 is no exception.

I conclude with a few quotations from the Vulgate. Each of these verses applies the Hebrew word משיח to a different person. How does Jerome translate this Hebrew word? The boldfacing will answer that.

1 Samuel 12.3 (Saul):

Loquimini de me coram domino et coram christo eius utrum bovem cuiusquam tulerim an asinum si quempiam calumniatus sum si oppressi aliquem si de manu cuiusquam munus accepi et contemnam illud hodie restituamque vobis.

2 Samuel 19.21 (David):

Respondens vero Abisai filius Sarviae dixit numquid pro his verbis non occidetur Semei quia maledixit christo domini.

Psalm 2.2 (the king of Israel, or the eschatological messiah):

Consurgent reges terrae et principes tractabunt pariter adversum dominum et adversum christum eius.

Isaiah 45.1 (Cyrus king of Persia):

Haec dicit dominus christo meo Cyro cuius adprehendi dexteram ut subiciam ante faciem eius gentes et dorsa regum vertam et aperiam coram eo ianuas et portae non cludentur

Daniel 9.25-26 (the prince):

Scito ergo et animadverte ab exitu sermonis ut iterum aedificetur Hierusalem usque ad christum ducem ebdomades septem et ebdomades sexaginta duae erunt et rursum aedificabitur platea et muri in angustia temporum. et post ebdomades sexaginta duas occidetur christus et non erit eius et civitatem et sanctuarium dissipabit populus cum duce venturo et finis eius vastitas et post finem belli statuta desolatio.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Ted]

Hi Ted

Did you read my post I said this prophecy is not about Messiah the word is not in the text the word is anointed one.

Anointed one does not mean Messiah just because Jerome said it did.
Let’s get real here. This prophecy is clearly about the Messiah. Yes, maschiach merely means “anointed” and is applied to kings as well. But there is too much in this prophecy that speaks to the arrival and life of Jesus to be ignored. For example, it is the only prophecy that identifies the time that Jesus would appear on the scene. It is the only prophecy that allows the magi to make the statements they do in Matthew 2 (http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/dan/magi.html). It is the only prophecy that allows Paul to say that Jesus was born at the right time (Gal 4:4). It is the only prophecy that allows the woman at the well to know that it was time for the Messiah (John 4:25). It is the only prophecy that allows the chief priests to know that it was time for the Messiah (Matt 2:4-6). I could go on for a while. There are several such NT confirmations of fulfillment of the 69 weeks, but the most important is Jesus in Mark 1:15, when he declares that “the times are fulfilled.” This is a statement of conclusion of a predicted time period. If Daniel 9 is not about Jesus, then Jesus couldn’t make that statement.

Note: I don’t care what Jerome said. I care what the Bible says.

As we all know Hebrew has no punctuation. So here it is with no punctuation word for word.

9:25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Anointed One the prince shall be seven weeks sixty-two week it shall be built again with street and moat even in troubled times.
Actually, that is not a good translation. First, banah (to build) is also literally translated “build up” in at least ten OT places. So, a priori, you cannot declare whether it is “to build” or “to build up” (establish) without further investigation. Verb/object agreement virtually requires “to build up” since sub (restore) never acts on physical structures in the OT. Further, the word translated “street” is far better translated “plaza” or “square” since rehob refers to a widely open space, while streets are very narrow in ancient walled cities. Finally, charus does not mean “moat.” Daniel uses the same word in the next two verses to speak of “decision making.”

Your assertion is hereby denied emphatically.

In order for you to hold to your position, you must ignore a considerable body of scriptural material. I prefer to accept the testimony of scripture.

Ted

[Just The Facts]

Hi Ted

Quote
Let’s get real here. This prophecy is clearly about the Messiah. Yes, maschiach merely means “anointed” and is applied to kings as well. But there is too much in this prophecy that speaks to the arrival and life of Jesus to be ignored. For example, it is the only prophecy that identifies the time that Jesus would appear on the scene. It is the only prophecy that allows the magi to make the statements they do in Matthew 2 (http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/dan/magi.html). It is the only prophecy that allows Paul to say that Jesus was born at the right time (Gal 4:4). It is the only prophecy that allows the woman at the well to know that it was time for the Messiah (John 4:25). It is the only prophecy that allows the chief priests to know that it was time for the Messiah (Matt 2:4-6). I could go on for a while. There are several such NT confirmations of fulfillment of the 69 weeks, but the most important is Jesus in Mark 1:15, when he declares that “the times are fulfilled.” This is a statement of conclusion of a predicted time period. If Daniel 9 is not about Jesus, then Jesus couldn’t make that statement.

Note: I don’t care what Jerome said. I care what the Bible says.
End Quote


Well Ted I am very real.......and My understanding does not disallow Jesus to come at the right time as you suggest it is plain that Jesus is NOT the Anointed one in these verses. You can make him so by twisting the words changing that natural punctuation and adding words. Yes the Times of this prophecy were fulfilled and it does not have to be about Jesus.

Daniel main reason for asking his question in Daniel 9: is he wants to know when the Jewish half of the Promise will be fulfilled that is when Messiah will come....................he is told that there is another 490 years of troubled Times at the end of this period the Messiah will come. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. Jesus can still say that even thought I have not twisted and added words like Jerome did.

You say you don't care what Jerome did you only care about the Bible well the KJV is Jerome he changed soooooo many thing .to as he stated "make their meaning clearer" what he should have said is to make MY MEANING clearer.


Quote
Actually, that is not a good translation. First, banah (to build) is also literally translated “build up” in at least ten OT places. So, a priori, you cannot declare whether it is “to build” or “to build up” (establish) without further investigation. Verb/object agreement virtually requires “to build up” since sub (restore) never acts on physical structures in the OT.
End Quote

Well build .....build up it is the same thing really......................one is just poor English but since this was Hebrew Build up is fine.



Quote
Further, the word translated “street” is far better translated “plaza” or “square” since rehob refers to a widely open space, while streets are very narrow in ancient walled cities. Finally, charus does not mean “moat.” Daniel uses the same word in the next two verses to speak of “decision making.”
End Quote

Actually the phrase Broad Places is the proper translation I believe, and most scholars equate that with street....................Now it can also mean "The Halls of Justice" and Yes Maot can mean decision making ........So the last bit could be said to have a figurative meaning in the Halls of Juctice and your decision making.

However that is not the usage here which is defined by the other words in the sentence.


Quote
our assertion is hereby denied emphatically.

In order for you to hold to your position, you must ignore a considerable body of scriptural material. I prefer to accept the testimony of scripture.
End Quote



No I don't have to ignore anything. what I have to do is NOT have to do is change words add words and change the structure of the sentence to fit my Man made Doctrine and put to no avail the plain words of God. Then I can read GODS WORDS as he Gave them to Daniel.

As far as you denying the Truth of this so be it……………. it is a free Country for now. Believe what you wish but I have shown the Truth of this if you care to believe a false understanding so be it..

[Ted]

Well build .....build up it is the same thing really......................one is just poor English but since this was Hebrew Build up is fine.
This is NOT the same thing. “To build up” means to make more permanent or prominent. It has nothing to do with construction.

Actually the phrase Broad Places is the proper translation I believe, and most scholars equate that with street....................Now it can also mean "The Halls of Justice" and Yes Maot can mean decision making ........So the last bit could be said to have a figurative meaning in the Halls of Juctice and your decision making.

However that is not the usage here which is defined by the other words in the sentence.
I’m sorry, but there is nothing in the verse that deals with physical structures. Therefore your referent to an issue relating to physical structures is simply incorrect. We have to look at how Daniel records Gabriel’s words in the next two verses to see what the hrs root means here. We end up with an idiom that refers to Jerusalem having both the place and power to execute the functions of autonomous government.

Next, we should remember that the decree is defined in 9:25 as one that will specify certain things. Only the decree of Ezra 7 specifies them. In fact, it specifies them in considerable detail. The only thing in Ezra 1 is for Jews who want to to go back to Jerusalem to build a temple. There is nothing in that chapter about self-government, which is an implicit part of “build up.”

Ted

[Etcetera]

Ted:

Your point on the Hebrew for build and build up, as well as restore, is well taken. If your stats are correct (and I have not checked), then I am a believer.

However, you may wish to soften your hard English distinction between building (edifices) and building up (people or populations). This distinction does not seem at all obvious (to me, at any rate) in English. I have often heard areas with large buildings referred to as built-up areas (certain old Avalon Hill games come to mind, for example).

This is not a critique of your view on the Hebrew vocabulary; it is an observation on the English presentation of what seems to be an important distinction. Surely there is a clearer way to distinguish between the two concepts in English. Perhaps simply observing that English melds two concepts together (construction and repopulation) under one umbrella word (building) where Hebrew offers different words would do it.

Just a thought.

Etcetera.

[Goose]

I have proposed that the proper translation is:

"So you are to understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and to establish Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty two weeks; it (Jerusalem) will be restored and established, square and decision making, even in times of distress."

Not being a Hebrew scholar...
Since there is no definate article in the Hebrew for Daniel 9:25, I propose a better translation of the verse should be rendered as such:


"...and to build Jerusalem till an anointed prince..."

[dizzle]

I have always said Ted is most excellent on Daniel 9

[Goose]

A great title for his book, no doubt. It made me laugh.

[Sheepdog]

Hmm. . .a portable hole, very handy indeed.

oh wow i'm haveing flashbacks of Who Framed Roger Rabbit :lol:

[Ted]

DeeDee,

Many thanks.

Ted

[Just The Facts]

Hi Ted

Haven't forgotten Just been very busy. I will post latter today of Tomorrow.

[Ted]

Etcetera,

The reason I use "build up" is that many modern translations use that English equivalent for banah in the places where it is used to say that something (typically a "house" or legacy) is to be made more permanent or prominent. The clearest of these may be the prescription on levirate marriage in Deut 25:9.

Modern translations are inconsistent in this application, just as they are on many words. So you will get a different count of usage depending on which translation you search. And as you search banah, you are likely to find places where the translators could have used "build up" but didn't.

Ted

[Tim C.]

Does this make any sense?

70 weeks

Broken down into 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week.

The seven weeks begin at the decree of Atraxerxes (Daniel 9:25a-Ne 2:5-8) about 457 B.C.

The seven weeks end upon completion of the restoration of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25b)

The 62 weeks begin as the 7 weeks end.

The 62 weeks end at the baptism of Jesus AD 27. The 1 week begins as the 62 weeks end.

The 1 week is broken into two parts, 3 1/2 "days" of the week end with the crucifiction of Christ, and the other 3 1/2 "days" end with the Death of Stephen.That view has its problems. I have articulated them here:

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=10689&mesg_id=10695&page=

-Tim

Argument by web link is a violation of TWeb policy. Please present the main substance of your argument here. Thanks

[Tim C.]

Well,,, thats got to be a lot closer than inserting an unlimited GAP.Oh sure, invisible "fulfillments" that went completely unnoticed by the ancient church is certainly a more likely view than the "gap" taught by Irenaeus and Hippolytus.

lol!

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Well since someone deleted my link, then I'll just paste in the info here.

The 62 weeks end at the baptism of Jesus AD 27.Possibly. Or, it could end at the triumphant entry (Matthew 21).

The 1 week begins as the 62 weeks end. The 1 week is broken into two parts, 3 1/2 "days" of the week end with the crucifiction of ChristTwo problems here.

1.) A straightforward chronology of the prophecy does not allow for your view. Messiah is cut off after the 69 weeks, not during the 70th week. Verse 9:26 describes events which occur between the completion of the 69 weeks and the start of the 70th week. This according to a straigtforward chronology of the prophecy. The opposing view would seem to contain a few leaps back and forth, and a bit of "double coverage" of certain events. For example, the cutting off of Messiah (v.26a) and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (v.26b). Then, the prophet leaps back to the cutting off of Messiah (v.27a) and discusses it again, and leaps ahead to the AD 70 events (v.27b) and discusses that again?

2.) The theme of "put a stop to sacrifice" in the book of Daniel does not refer to the atoning work of Christ upon the cross. Compare Daniel 8:11-13, 11:31, 12:11. It always refers to a tyrant who puts a stop to Israel's temple worship.

The "put a stop to sacrifice" is one of three major issues in Daniel 9:27 which are defined elsewhere in the book of Daniel. The other two issues are:

a.) The "abomination of desolation" (see Daniel 11:31, 12:11).

b.) The three and one half year period. (see Daniel 7:25, 12:7).

When these three issues in Daniel 9:27 are understood according to the rest of the book of Daniel, it becomes pretty unlikely that Daniel 9:27 is referring to the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

and the other 3 1/2 "days" end with the Death of Stephen.This significance is never given in Scripture to Stephen's martyrdom. However, Peter recalls the formation of the church on a few occasions in the book of Acts, and he places the going forth of the gospel to Gentiles at the time of Cornelius' conversion (see Acts 11:15-18, 15:7-11).

-Tim

[Trout]

Thanks people, I'm very much enjoying the thread.

[Ted]

Verse 9:26 describes events which occur between the completion of the 69 weeks and the start of the 70th week.
This is simply not true. 9:26 says “after” the 69th week, the Messiah will be cut off. To insert a gap is eisegesis. The verses say nothing about a gap. You insert it because your eschatology demands it, not because the text does. It's just as reasonable (and in fact correct) to say that "after" means "during the 70th week." The very language of 9:24 declares that the 70 weeks are a single, unitary block of time. Until you address that, your statement is merely hot air.

The theme of "put a stop to sacrifice" in the book of Daniel does not refer to the atoning work of Christ upon the cross. Compare Daniel 8:11-13, 11:31, 12:11. It always refers to a tyrant who puts a stop to Israel's temple worship.
Again false. You are making an apples and oranges comparison. While your cites from 8 and 11 do refer to a desecrating sacrilege, 9:27a does not. The antecedent to “He” is very clear, and it is the Messiah. Until you deal with the grammar and syntax of this passage, your statements will remain hot air.

This significance is never given in Scripture to Stephen's martyrdom.
Actually, scripture does. It’s just implicit rather than explicit. The entire scene in Acts 7 is a court. Stephen is God’s prosecuting attorney bringing the covenant lawsuit against the rebellious Jews. The council clearly understood its significance. That’s why they stoned him.

Dan 9:24 declares 490 years of probation for the Jews. At the end, the probation will be tested. That’s what the lawsuit did. And the Jews were guilty. Their birthright (cf. Exod 4:22) privelege as God’s missionaries (cf. Gen 12:3) was OVER, and they lost the ministry of prophets and miracles forever.

Ted

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

This is simply not true. 9:26 says “after” the 69th week, the Messiah will be cut off. To insert a gap is eisegesis. The verses say nothing about a gap. You insert it because your eschatology demands it, not because the text does. It's just as reasonable (and in fact correct) to say that "after" means "during the 70th week." The very language of 9:24 declares that the 70 weeks are a single, unitary block of time. Until you address that, your statement is merely hot air.


Again false. You are making an apples and oranges comparison. While your cites from 8 and 11 do refer to a desecrating sacrilege, 9:27a does not. The antecedent to “He” is very clear, and it is the Messiah. Until you deal with the grammar and syntax of this passage, your statements will remain hot air.


Actually, scripture does. It’s just implicit rather than explicit. The entire scene in Acts 7 is a court. Stephen is God’s prosecuting attorney bringing the covenant lawsuit against the rebellious Jews. The council clearly understood its significance. That’s why they stoned him.

Dan 9:24 declares 490 years of probation for the Jews. At the end, the probation will be tested. That’s what the lawsuit did. And the Jews were guilty. Their birthright (cf. Exod 4:22) privelege as God’s missionaries (cf. Gen 12:3) was OVER, and they lost the ministry of prophets and miracles forever.

Ted
:yeahthat:

[Tim C.]

Dear Ted,

There was no substance in your post.

me: Verse 9:26 describes events which occur between the completion of the 69 weeks and the start of the 70th week.

Ted: This is simply not true. 9:26 says "after" the 69th week, the Messiah will be cut off. To insert a gap is eisegesis. The verses say nothing about a gap. You insert it because your eschatology demands it, not because the text does. It's just as reasonable (and in fact correct) to say that "after" means "during the 70th week." The very language of 9:24 declares that the 70 weeks are a single, unitary block of time. Until you address that, your statement is merely hot air."So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." - Daniel 9:25-27

I see no reason to question the straightforward chronology of this prophecy. Verse 26 (bolded above) describes events which occur between the completion of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week. Its so obvious from the chronology of the text, that I don't really need to defend it much. Your view has Gabriel leaping back and forth through history, giving "double coverage" to certain events, and etc.

me: The theme of "put a stop to sacrifice" in the book of Daniel does not refer to the atoning work of Christ upon the cross. Compare Daniel 8:11-13, 11:31, 12:11. It always refers to a tyrant who puts a stop to Israel's temple worship.

Ted: Again false. You are making an apples and oranges comparison. While your cites from 8 and 11 do refer to a desecrating sacrilege, 9:27a does not. The antecedent to "He" is very clear, and it is the Messiah. Until you deal with the grammar and syntax of this passage, your statements will remain hot air."False"? Lets see here...

"It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down. And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper. Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, 'How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?' He said to me, 'For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.'" - Daniel 8:11-14

This text prophesies the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (as recorded in Josephus and 1Maccabees). It refers to a tyrant who puts a stop to Israel's temple worship.

"At the appointed time he will return and come into the South, but this last time it will not turn out the way it did before. For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation. By smooth words he will turn to godlessness those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will display strength and take action." - Daniel 11:29-32

Again, a prophecy of the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, in which this tyrant put a stop to Israel's temple worship. The clear parallel of this passage (v.11:31) to Daniel 9:27 is hard to miss!

"As for me, I heard but could not understand; so I said, 'My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?' He said, 'Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time. Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand. From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days! But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age.'" - Daniel 12:8-13

This prophecy concerns the Roman tyrant. Again, the abolishing of the regular sacrifice is an action of a Gentile tyrant whom puts a stop to Israel's temple worship.

And now we come to Daniel 9:27:

"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." - Daniel 9:25-27

All of a sudden, we are expected to believe that this "put a stop to sacrifice" is a special reference to the atoning work of Christ upon the cross.

Problems:

1.) The sacrifice of Christ already occurred in v.26 ("Messiah will be cut off"). Thus the "double coverage" and "leaping around history" problems.

2.) This denies the meaning of the "put a stop to sacrifice" theme found elsewhere in the book of Daniel.

3.) This ignores the presence of two other important themes in Daniel 9:27, namely the "abomination of desolation" and the "times, time and half a time" of severe persecution against Israel.

me: This significance is never given in Scripture to Stephen's martyrdom.

Ted: Actually, scripture does. It’s just implicit rather than explicit. The entire scene in Acts 7 is a court. Stephen is God’s prosecuting attorney bringing the covenant lawsuit against the rebellious Jews. The council clearly understood its significance. That’s why they stoned him.No substance.

"And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea. The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man's house. And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?' When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, 'Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.'" - Acts 11:11-18

"After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." - Acts 15:7-11

The Gentiles were not grafted in until the Acts 10 events surrounding the home of Cornelius.

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Per above, here is some embarrasing church history which has never been sufficiently explained by those who reject futurist premillennialism.

"The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: 'I have come in my Father's name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,' calling Antichrist 'the other,' because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one 'who feared not God, neither regarded man,' to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,-that is, the earthly Jerusalem,-to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that (city), and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: 'And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously.' And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: 'And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding (dark) questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath (round their neck); deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs.' And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: 'And in the midst of the week,' he says, 'the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation (shall be brought) into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.' Now three years and six months constitute the half-week." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch.25:4

"For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested, viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world. And when he comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the nations. These things being thus recounted, the prophet again describes another vision to us. For he had no other care save to be accurately instructed in all things that are to be, and to prove himself an instructor in such. . . . Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every god, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: 'And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.' As also it was announced to Daniel: 'And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed'-that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the test of the week, and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: 'And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days'. . . . By the stretching forth of His two hands He signified His passion; and by mentioning 'a time, and times, and an half, when the dispersion is accomplished,' He indicated the three years and a half of Antichrist. For by 'a time' He means a year, and by 'times' two years, and by an 'half time' half a year. These are the thousand two hundred and ninety days of which Daniel prophesied for the finishing of the passion, and the accomplishment of the dispersion when Antichrist comes. In those days they shall know all these things. And from the time of the removal of the continuous sacrifice there are also reckoned one thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Then) iniquity shall abound, as the Lord also says: 'Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.'" - Hippolytus, On Daniel, ch. 2:22,39,43

"With respect, then, to the particular judgment in the torments that are to come upon it in the last times by the hand of the tyrants who shall arise then, the clearest statement has been given in these passages. But it becomes us further diligently to examine and set forth the period at which these things shall come to pass, and how the little horn shall spring up in their midst. For when the legs of iron have issued in the feet and toes, according to the similitude of the image and that of the terrible beast, as has been shown in the above, (then shall be the time) when the iron and the clay shall be mingled together. Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, 'And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease.' By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1, 260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations." - Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, sec.43

-Tim

[Etcetera]

Tim:

Quick question: Are you pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib?

Thanks.

Etcetera.

[Tim C.]

Tim:

Quick question: Are you pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib?

Thanks.

Etcetera.Pretribulational.

-Tim

[Etcetera]

Tim:

Which fathers would you say were pretribulational?

Etcetera.

[Tim C.]

Which fathers would you say were pretribulational?See post #14 here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41774

-Tim

[Etcetera]

Tim:

Thanks for the link.

I appreciate that you affirm at the end of that post that you regard historic premillennialism with respect. I do too.

What interests me is that you seem quite concerned that amillennialists and postmillennialists would go against the grain of early patristic teaching; you appear to regard the early patristic chiliasm as a powerful argument in and of itself for premillennialism (note that I am not claiming that it is your only argument, just a strong enough one to stand on its own two feet), yet you are posttribulational, and none of those fathers were that.

You deflect some of the implications of this by reference to an incomplete systemization of chiliast thought before the notions of amillennialism and postmillennialism got in the way. But surely you must realize that the latter two groups can do much the same thing, id est, chalk up the chiliastic interpretation to pretty much a single basic cause as you do for tribulationalism. Right?

You might say that millennialism is of a higher order than tribulationalism, and I might agree with you, but the point remains that those same fathers to whom you refer as rootedly premillennial were also rootedly posttribulational. You agree with them on the former, but not on the latter. There are others who agree with them on the latter, but not on the former. Only a true historic premillennialist agrees with, say, Papias on both counts.

Furthermore, if you are relying on apostolic connections with the likes of Papias for the transmission of reliable teaching on premillennialism, how do you explain those same apostolic connections with regard to postribulationalism?

What is your evaluation, then, of the patristic argument? How heavily do you rely upon it for your own doctrines?

In him.

Etcetera.

Post-script: Have you come to terms yet with the Jewish notion of the two ages? What is your verdict on that? As I recall you had found several examples which could go either way, but none in which the messianic period logically had to be the so-called age to come.

[Tim C.]

Tim:

Thanks for the link.

I appreciate that you affirm at the end of that post that you regard historic premillennialism with respect. I do too.

What interests me is that you seem quite concerned that amillennialists and postmillennialists would go against the grain of early patristic teaching; you appear to regard the early patristic chiliasm as a powerful argument in and of itself for premillennialism (note that I am not claiming that it is your only argument, just a strong enough one to stand on its own two feet), yet you are posttribulational, and none of those fathers were that.Etcetera, I have addressed this issue here:

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=157&topic_id=7408&mesg_id=7702&page=3

In that post, I say this:

"Dispensationalism, with the pretribulational timing of the rapture, is a systematization of the futurist premillennialism held by the ancient Christians. . . . I find it amusing that covenant amillennialists are so concerned about pretribulational timing of the rapture. Here we have people who have apostatized from the futurist premillennialism of the ancient church. They have redefined the kingdom, in a manner which directly violates the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. They have taught the ridiculous idea that the kingdom is somehow already going on today. They have "cut off" and discarded the nation of Israel. They deny the fact that resurrected believers will participate in the future kingdom age (1Corinthians 15:50-53). They have bumped the return of the Lord to the end of the kingdom age, rather than at the begining as is clearly spelled out in Daniel 7. They have denied the two-fold resurrection as specifically taught in Revelation 20 and as held by the earliest Christians, and have replaced it with an unscriptural "single and universal" resurrection/judgment event at the end of the world. They find themselves needing to speculate that the earliest Christians were ignorant or stupid (for example see Eusebius, History of the Ecclesia, book 3, 39:11-13). Sometimes they even find themselves needing to dispute the rightful place of the Apocalypse in the cannon!. . . . Yet, these people pretend as though they are "concerned" over the pretribulational timing of the rapture! Lets get our priorities straight, folks. If you are not premillennial, and if you are not a futurist, then there are a WHOLE LOT OF IMPORTANT PROBLEMS WITH YOUR VIEW which need addressed before we can move on into fruitful discussion of the timing of the rapture."

The distinction of Israel and the church, and the pretribulational timing of the rapture of the church, comes as a result of systematizing. The same cannot be said of these other beliefs. Amillennialism. Historicism. Preterism. Etc. These are not systematized forms of the ancient Christian teaching. Rather, they are radical departures from clear and central Christian teachings of the earliest church.

You deflect some of the implications of this by reference to an incomplete systemization of chiliast thought before the notions of amillennialism and postmillennialism got in the way. But surely you must realize that the latter two groups can do much the same thing, id est, chalk up the chiliastic interpretation to pretty much a single basic cause as you do for tribulationalism. Right?It is not the same. The right-minded Christian teaching of the earliest centuries included futurism and premillennialism. It also included the deity of Christ and plural nature of Yahweh, though "Trinitarianism" would not be systematized until later.

You might say that millennialism is of a higher order than tribulationalism, and I might agree with you, but the point remains that those same fathers to whom you refer as rootedly premillennial were also rootedly posttribulational. You agree with them on the former, but not on the latter.The earliest Christians believed in a four-fold dispensational scheme, in which the church age consisted of both (a) the gap period in Daniel's prophecies, and (b) the few years of tribulation immediately preceding the return of the Lord and establishing of the kingdom, as described in Daniel's prophecies. This view is very good, yet it needs improvement due to the fact that it (a) does not properly understand the nature of the Great Tribulation period, (b) it does not quite express the "interruption" nature of the present church age, (c) it does not quite draw a clear distinction between Israel and the church, and etc.

There are others who agree with them on the latter, but not on the former.Actually, they agree with them on neither. If they happen to be posttribulational, it certainly is not reached via the same means of the futurist chiliasts of the ancient church.

For example, I believe that a believer cannot lose salvation. Does this make me a calvinist? No. There is a similarity in our view, but we reach our conclusions by completely different means. My belief in eternal security is drawn from certain Scripture passages. It does not come about due to my adherance to a few points of the TULIP.

Only a true historic premillennialist agrees with, say, Papias on both counts.Most "Historic Premillennialists" do not agree with them. Most Historic Premillennialists teach historicism and reject futurism. So, yes, only a "true historic premillennialist" would agree with them right down the line. But I don't know many Historic Premillennialists today who teach a four-fold dispensational scheme, a septa-day theory concerning the six thousand years of apostasy and the Sabbath thousand year kingdom, and etc.

Furthermore, if you are relying on apostolic connections with the likes of Papias for the transmission of reliable teaching on premillennialism, how do you explain those same apostolic connections with regard to postribulationalism?I've already explained that in the previous post linked to you. A clear distinction between Israel and the church, and a pretribulational timing of the rapture, comes about due to systematizing the futurist premillennialism of the ancient church.

What is your evaluation, then, of the patristic argument? How heavily do you rely upon it for your own doctrines?I think it demonstrates, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the ancient church DID NOT believe they were living in the kingdom age. They DID NOT believe that the Great Tribulation period had been fulfilled. They DID NOT believe that the Lord had returned and smashed Antichrist. They didn't believe anything like that at all. The problem for non-premillennialism is that they are forced to the conclusion that the ancient church did not happen to notice that the Great Tribulation had been fulfilled, that the Lord had returned, and that the kingdom had been established. Views which teach that the ancient church "didn't notice" the fulfillments of these important events, are views which need to be immediately called into question.

-Tim

[Etcetera]

Tim:

I apologize in advance for being so obtuse, but there are times at which I am not following the logic of your arguments. Many of them seem completely reversible to me; perhaps you can demonstrate how they are not. For instance, when I wrote...:

You deflect some of the implications of this by reference to an incomplete systemization of chiliast thought before the notions of amillennialism and postmillennialism got in the way. But surely you must realize that the latter two groups can do much the same thing, id est, chalk up the chiliastic interpretation to pretty much a single basic cause as you do for tribulationalism. Right?

...you responded:

It is not the same. The right-minded Christian teaching of the earliest centuries included futurism and premillennialism.

But why could we not as well write: The right-minded Christian teaching of the earliest centuries included futurism, premillennialism, and posttribulationalism?

If we use the patristic statements to weed out amillennialism and postmillennialism, leaving premillennialism, what is to prevent us, as we further hone it all down, from using the patristic statements to weed out pretribulationalism? What, in other words, prevents your own methodology against amillennialists from being turned against you by posttribulationists?

If you answer that you are merely correcting posttribulationalism against the text of scripture, well, that is what amillennialists are doing (whether rightly or wrongly) with premillennialism. They say that the earliest fathers were wrong on that one, just as you say that they were wrong about the timing of the first resurrection vis-a-vis the tribulation.

In other words, whatever you do to counteract the statement: The right-minded Christian teaching of the earliest centuries included posttribulationalism (such as turning to biblical interpretation), somebody else is certainly allowed to do to counteract the statement: The right-minded Christian teaching of the earliest centuries included premillennialism. If there was a chance that the fathers misinterpreted such a grand thing as the respective roles of the church and Israel, then there is surely a chance that they misinterpreted the millennium.

Fill in the missing premise:

Premise 1. The early fathers were premillennial.
Premise 2. __________________.
Conclusion: Therefore, premillennialism is correct.

The earliest Christians believed in a four-fold dispensational scheme, in which the church age consisted of both (a) the gap period in Daniel's prophecies, and (b) the few years of tribulation immediately preceding the return of the Lord and establishing of the kingdom, as described in Daniel's prophecies. This view is very good, yet it needs improvement due to the fact that it (a) does not properly understand the nature of the Great Tribulation period, (b) it does not quite express the "interruption" nature of the present church age, (c) it does not quite draw a clear distinction between Israel and the church, and etc.

Again, this seems quite reversible:

The earliest Christians believed in a redemptive scheme that consisted of both (A) a second coming of Jesus in glory and (B) a great tribulation beforehand, through which the church must suffer. This view is very good, yet it needs improvement due to the fact that it (A) does not properly understand the nature of the millennium and (B) thus misreads the timing (and placement, for the amillennialist) thereof.

For example, I believe that a believer cannot lose salvation. Does this make me a calvinist? No. There is a similarity in our view, but we reach our conclusions by completely different means. My belief in eternal security is drawn from certain Scripture passages. It does not come about due to my adherance to a few points of the TULIP.

A good Calvinist (and I am not one) does not believe in eternal security simply because it appears as the P in TULIP. He has a ream of scriptures that he interprets as supporting his position. And, I wager, many of the scriptures that a Calvinist uses to support eternal security are the same ones that you would use to support that doctrine.

No, you are not a Calvinist for believing in eternal security, but you and the Calvinists share that doctrinal feature, and probably for many of the same scriptural reasons.

I've already explained that in the previous post linked to you. A clear distinction between Israel and the church, and a pretribulational timing of the rapture, comes about due to systematizing the futurist premillennialism of the ancient church.

Yes, I saw that explanation, and it again seems reversible: A clear understanding of the millennial period comes about due to systematizing the eschatological expectation of a second coming of Jesus Christ and the early and nascent view that the church had replaced Israel.

In fact, church history favors this statement. The more systematic eschatology got in the pre-Nicene church, the more it led to something other than premillennialism.

I think it demonstrates, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the ancient church DID NOT believe they were living in the kingdom age.

Again reversible: It demonstrates, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the ancient church did not believe that they would avoid the great tribulation.

The problem for non-premillennialism is that they are forced to the conclusion that the ancient church did not happen to notice that the Great Tribulation had been fulfilled, that the Lord had returned, and that the kingdom had been established.

Yes, those are problems to be resolved. But they are problems to be resolved in the same way that you resolve your departure from posttribulationism, by referring back to the founding documents of the church.

If you are more than willing to let your opponents do that, then all is well. What gives me pause, however, is your characterization of your opponents as apostates, and your clear position that they have apostasized precisely from the doctrine of the early chiliasts (which of course you ground in apostolic teaching). It looks to me like your patristic quotations and characterizations of your opponents as apostates are meant to head off the argument before it ever gets down to exegesis. (I am not denying that you will engage in exegesis when debating, but it sure looks like your patristic approach is a way of dismissing the opposing argument before it gets to court, which would turn trial by scripture into a kangaroo court.)

Views which teach that the ancient church "didn't notice" the fulfillments of these important events, are views which need to be immediately called into question.

Agreed. Indeed, every view needs to be called into question, not just those that do not conform to this or that litmus test.

By the way, I am granting your premise that every one of the apostolic fathers was a premillennialist only for the sake of argument. It is no secret that I would dispute that Polycarp was a premillennialist (and there are others).

One last thing: Am I an apostate, Tim?

In him.

Etcetera.

[Ted]

Tim,

Where shall I start? I’ve written so much on this, and I feel like I’m rewriting my book each time.

Verse 26 describes events which occur between the completion of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week.
This is simply not true. We have to start in verse 24. There the Hebrew literally says that 70 weeks “have been amputated” for Daniel’s people and holy city. This is a single block of time. Further, the structure of 24 identifies that time as probationary. The Jews have 490 “weeks” to get six things done.

These are only two of the evidences for the fact that the 70 weeks is a unitary block of time. While the later descriptions subdivide the block for descriptive purposes, they never sever segments from the block. When verse 26 says that “after” the 69th week something happens, this is not western thinking. This is ancient Hebrew thinking. Verse 27 fills in details, and shows that “after” is “in the middle” of the 70th week. There is no justification whatever for your assertion that the cross is between weeks. There is no “between” available in which to put the cross.

"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." - Daniel 9:25-27

All of a sudden, we are expected to believe that this "put a stop to sacrifice" is a special reference to the atoning work of Christ upon the cross.
Your problem is that you are unwilling to use the rules of Hebrew grammar. First, the question is, “Who is ‘he’?” This requires that we look backward to find the antecedent. That antecedent is in verse 26, and is the Messiah. You don’t have to like it, but that is the grammatical answer.

Next, “make a firm covenant” is a bad translation. In every example, “make a covenant” in the OT is karath berith (“cut a covenant”). The language here is higbir berith. This literally means that the Messiah will “strengthen an exisitng covenant.” Again, you don’t have to like it, but that’s what the Hebrew says.

Next, when Jesus died on the cross, “in the middle of the 70th week” (remember, His ministry was 3 1/2 years), He did put an end to all sacrifices in God’s eyes (Matt 27:51, Heb 9:24-28). Once again, you don’t have to like it, but it’s explicit in scripture.

No, God’s approach isn’t as sensational as the Darby/Lindsay/LaHaye approach, since it doesn’t have all the secular spills and chills of geopolitical machinations. But it is the only one that matters.

This ignores the presence of two other important themes in Daniel 9:27, namely the "abomination of desolation" and the "times, time and half a time" of severe persecution against Israel.
No, it doesn’t ignore them at all. Those are different subjects. And if you want to discuss Dan 7:25 and 12:7, we can do that. But you are demonstrating a knack for assembling items with superficial resemblance, all the while ignoring the explicit statements of scripture.

The Gentiles were not grafted in until the Acts 10 events surrounding the home of Cornelius.
Again, you show how little you know of scripture. The earliest account of such grafting is in Genesis 17:13-14. It continues in Exodus 12:38 & 48. It would be impossible for Jesus to be a Jew with Rahab and Ruth in His ancestry if they hadn’t been grafted in.

Ted

[Starkman]

We have to start in verse 24. There the Hebrew literally says that 70 weeks “have been amputated” for Daniel’s people and holy city. This is a single block of time. Further, the structure of 24 identifies that time as probationary. The Jews have 490 “weeks” to get six things done.
Ted,

You're the only person I've seen reference vs 24 to a contingency: if the Jews don't do x, then y. Could you please explain your reasoning for this? I've only seen this read as an indicative: "There's 430 years before x happens."

Thanks,

Keith

[Ted]

Keith,

The language is very ordinary. Let me give a trivial parallel.

"Johnny, you've got 30 minutes to clean up your room!" ("Before Supper" left unstated.) Johnny has a 30 minute period to perform this task. At the end of the time, his room will be checked. If it's not clean, he doesn't get supper.

That's the language of Dan 9:24. The Jews get "70 weeks" to get 6 things done. At the end, they get checked. In this case, God uses Stephen as His prosecuting attorney to bring a covenant lawsuit. (They were guilty.)

9:25 simply defines when the 70 weeks of probation start.

9:26a & 27a include details of the 70th week.

9:26b and 27b detail the penalty for failure to comply.

It's pretty simple.

Ted

[Tim C.]

Tim:

I apologize in advance for being so obtuse, but there are times at which I am not following the logic of your arguments. Many of them seem completely reversible to me; perhaps you can demonstrate how they are not. For instance, when I wrote...:

"You deflect some of the implications of this by reference to an incomplete systemization of chiliast thought before the notions of amillennialism and postmillennialism got in the way. But surely you must realize that the latter two groups can do much the same thing, id est, chalk up the chiliastic interpretation to pretty much a single basic cause as you do for tribulationalism. Right?

...you responded:

"It is not the same. The right-minded Christian teaching of the earliest centuries included futurism and premillennialism."

But why could we not as well write: The right-minded Christian teaching of the earliest centuries included futurism, premillennialism, and posttribulationalism?You could if you wish. But then we would be right back to square one, you see. I know darn well that the nature of the Great Tribulation period does not play well into this ancient eschatology. The Great Tribulation period is not the final few years of the church age. The "gap" is the church age, not the "gap + the rest of Daniel's prophecies." Our view is more consistent with Scripture.

On the other hand, our opponents would suggest that the ancient church was radically WRONG in even the BASICS. According to our opponents, the ancient church did not know what the kingdom was. They did not know what the Great Tribulation was, nor did they understand that it had already taken place. They did not understand that the return of the Lord had already occurred. They didn't understand that they were already living in the kingdom age. And etc. These are more than slight disagreements with the basic teaching of the ancient church. They are radical departures from the ancient Christian doctrine, and they can not be explained away as "the result of systematizing." They clearly are not the result of systematizing.

If we use the patristic statements to weed out amillennialism and postmillennialism, leaving premillennialism, what is to prevent us, as we further hone it all down, from using the patristic statements to weed out pretribulationalism?You can do that if you wish. But, as I said in my original post linked to you, there is definately a need to systematize the chiliasm of the ancient church. And some problems which arise in so doing will show that a covenantalist premillennialism is impossible, and that a posttribulational rapture of the church is unlikely.

What, in other words, prevents your own methodology against amillennialists from being turned against you by posttribulationists?It seems to me this has already been explained, Etcetera. It is not likely that the Great Tribulation period is the final few years of the church age. I have every Scriptural reason to argue this.

If you answer that you are merely correcting posttribulationalism against the text of scripture, well, that is what amillennialists are doing (whether rightly or wrongly) with premillennialism.No, that is not a valid comparison. You have used one slight difference between dispensationalism and the futurist chiliasm of the ancient church, to justify the multiple and radical departures from the ancient eschatology done by covenant amillennialists? Surely you cannot be serious.

They say that the earliest fathers were wrong on that one, just as you say that they were wrong about the timing of the first resurrection vis-a-vis the tribulation.Wrong on "that one"? Actually, they teach that they were perfectly WRONG on every single point pertaining to eschatology, that they didn't notice that they were already living in the kingdom age, and that they didn't notice that the Great Tribulation had already occurred. This CLEARLY is not a valid comparison, Etcetera. Dispensationalism is a revision to the futurist chiliasm of the ancient church. But Covenant Amillennialism is a radical departure from the basics of the ancient Christian eschatology.

Btw, this alleged "agreement in posttribulationism" is no real agreement at all. Amillennialists place this event at the close of the kingdom. This is not what the ancient church taught. Amillennialists think this event is part of a universal resurrection of all men for judgment. That is not what the ancient church taught. So this "similarity" ends up being no similarity at all.

In other words, whatever you do to counteract the statement: The right-minded Christian teaching of the earliest centuries included posttribulationalism (such as turning to biblical interpretation), somebody else is certainly allowed to do to counteract the statement: The right-minded Christian teaching of the earliest centuries included premillennialism. If there was a chance that the fathers misinterpreted such a grand thing as the respective roles of the church and Israel, then there is surely a chance that they misinterpreted the millennium.The difference, of course, is that dispensationalists would agree that the right-minded teaching of the ancient church was also posttribulational. We would simply point out that their primitive system needs systematized. But amillennialists do not have this option. And the "sneering" attitudes of fourth century amillennialists proves it. See here for example:

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=157&topic_id=7941&mesg_id=8043&page=4

my opponent: (Premillennialism) was later condemned.

me: lol! Fourth century amillennialist apostates running around "condemning" chiliasm! What a hoot!

Lets also mention the other dubious means they used to "prove" their new-fangled kingdom concept:

1.) They badmouthed the early Christians and belittled their intelligence and credibility (see Eusebius, History of the Ecclesia, book 3, ch.39). Thus, in attacking the essential 1st and 2nd century link between the Apostles and the orthodox church, they divorce the church from the Apostles.

2.) They disputed the rightful place of the Apocalypse in the cannon (see Eusebius, History of the Ecclesia, book 3, ch.28). The Apostolic authoriship of the Apocalypse and its rightful place in the canon was never once questioned in the slightest bit until the rise of amillennialism.

3.) They made up falsehoods about our beliefs, such as:

3a.) The idea that the Gnostic Cerinthus was the author of premillennialism (see the same citation of Eusebius as listed in point #2). (For those who may not be familiar with Gnosticism, it is an absurdity to suggest that Gnostics believed in premillennialism and material blessings in a future restored material creation. This is perfectly opposed to the essentials of Gnosticism. It is the amillennial view which bears a strong resemblance to Gnostic heresy - see below. It is also an absurdity to suggest that a Gnostic was the author of premillennialism, for that understanding of the Covenanted Kingdom stretches back into the earliest days of orthodox Judaism.)

3b.) The idea that premillennialism is "carnal" by nature (see the same citation of Eusebius as listed in point #2). Premillennialism is not a "carnal" teaching concerned with pleasures of the belly, and sexual pleasures. These sorts of character assasinations against our doctrine are obviously deceptive and non-Christian tactics.

Our fourth century amillennial friends did not seem to think their amillennialism was a systematizing of the chiliasm of the ancient church.

me: The earliest Christians believed in a four-fold dispensational scheme, in which the church age consisted of both (a) the gap period in Daniel's prophecies, and (b) the few years of tribulation immediately preceding the return of the Lord and establishing of the kingdom, as described in Daniel's prophecies. This view is very good, yet it needs improvement due to the fact that it (a) does not properly understand the nature of the Great Tribulation period, (b) it does not quite express the "interruption" nature of the present church age, (c) it does not quite draw a clear distinction between Israel and the church, and etc.

Again, this seems quite reversible:

The earliest Christians believed in a redemptive scheme that consisted of both (A) a second coming of Jesus in glory and (B) a great tribulation beforehand, through which the church must suffer. This view is very good, yet it needs improvement due to the fact that it (A) does not properly understand the nature of the millennium and (B) thus misreads the timing (and placement, for the amillennialist) thereof.Wishful thinking. It just is not sound reasoning, Etcetera, to attempt to use pretribulationism as some sort of excuse for the MULTIPLE and RADICAL revisions made by amillennialism. It is quite ridiculous for you to suggest it.

me: For example, I believe that a believer cannot lose salvation. Does this make me a calvinist? No. There is a similarity in our view, but we reach our conclusions by completely different means. My belief in eternal security is drawn from certain Scripture passages. It does not come about due to my adherance to a few points of the TULIP.

A good Calvinist (and I am not one) does not believe in eternal security simply because it appears as the P in TULIP. He has a ream of scriptures that he interprets as supporting his position. And, I wager, many of the scriptures that a Calvinist uses to support eternal security are the same ones that you would use to support that doctrine.

No, you are not a Calvinist for believing in eternal security, but you and the Calvinists share that doctrinal feature, and probably for many of the same scriptural reasons.The point is, your "similarity" between amillennialism and chiliasm, on the basis of posttribulationism, is quite unlikely and weird. It doesn't make any sense. They didn't even believe in it for the same reasons.

me: I've already explained that in the previous post linked to you. A clear distinction between Israel and the church, and a pretribulational timing of the rapture, comes about due to systematizing the futurist premillennialism of the ancient church.

Etcetera: Yes, I saw that explanation, and it again seems reversible: A clear understanding of the millennial period comes about due to systematizing the eschatological expectation of a second coming of Jesus Christ and the early and nascent view that the church had replaced Israel.Don't be silly. That position suggests that the ancient church didn't notice they were already in the kingdom age, and etc. Not to mention resurrected Christians are to participate in the kingdom age, but since only full preterist heresy suggests the resurrection was at AD 70, then amillennialists don't even ATTEMPT to treat that issue!

In fact, church history favors this statement. The more systematic eschatology got in the pre-Nicene church, the more it led to something other than premillennialism.That is purely ridiculous. Amillennialists are stuck attempting to explain why all those stupid early Christian leaders of the ancient church didn't hold a view that resembles amillennialism in the slightest bit whatsoever.

The rest of the post is simply repetitive.

-Tim

[Starkman]

Keith,

The language is very ordinary. Let me give a trivial parallel.

"Johnny, you've got 30 minutes to clean up your room!" ("Before Supper" left unstated.) Johnny has a 30 minute period to perform this task. At the end of the time, his room will be checked. If it's not clean, he doesn't get supper.

That's the language of Dan 9:24. The Jews get "70 weeks" to get 6 things done. At the end, they get checked. In this case, God uses Stephen as His prosecuting attorney to bring a covenant lawsuit. (They were guilty.)

9:25 simply defines when the 70 weeks of probation start.

9:26a & 27a include details of the 70th week.

9:26b and 27b detail the penalty for failure to comply.

It's pretty simple.

Ted
That it seems so simple, Ted, is why I ask why you interpret the verse as you do. I see it in almost every version I look at as simply saying, in the indicative, that it is appointed that there will be x years before things are finished. There isn't anything present (at least not in the English) to lead otherwise. It simply says that x years are allocated before things are finished. And, in fact, those things finished up exactly as they were supposed to:

Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place (ESV).

I don't have to take the "to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin" as literal, for Jesus has triumphed over sin and over transgressions and over Satan...that near/far thing again...right on time, in the midst of the 3 1/2 years. Seems like it went beautifully, if you ask me. I don't see a conditional issue here at all.

Thanks,

Starkman

[Tim C.]

me: Verse 26 describes events which occur between the completion of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week.

Ted: This is simply not true. We have to start in verse 24. There the Hebrew literally says that 70 weeks "have been amputated" for Daniel’s people and holy city. This is a single block of time. Further, the structure of 24 identifies that time as probationary. The Jews have 490 "weeks" to get six things done.You have yet to disprove the straightforward chronology of the prophecy, which, in v.26, would suggest that the cutting off of Messiah and destruction of the temple occurs between the completion of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week.

These are only two of the evidences for the fact that the 70 weeks is a unitary block of time. While the later descriptions subdivide the block for descriptive purposes, they never sever segments from the block.They "never sever segments from the block"? Thats funny, when I read Daniel 9 I see that verse 26 describes several events over a forty year period which occur between the close of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week.

When verse 26 says that "after" the 69th week something happens, this is not western thinking. This is ancient Hebrew thinking. Verse 27 fills in details, and shows that "after" is "in the middle" of the 70th week. There is no justification whatever for your assertion that the cross is between weeks. There is no "between" available in which to put the cross.Nonsense. My view is drawn straight from the chronology of the prophecy. Your view is not, and demands leaping around history and giving double coverage to certain events. Your view clearly is not the likely view here.

me: "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." - Daniel 9:25-27

All of a sudden, we are expected to believe that this "put a stop to sacrifice" is a special reference to the atoning work of Christ upon the cross.

Ted: Your problem is that you are unwilling to use the rules of Hebrew grammar. First, the question is, "Who is ‘he’?" This requires that we look backward to find the antecedent. That antecedent is in verse 26, and is the Messiah. You don’t have to like it, but that is the grammatical answer."Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week" - Daniel 9:26-27a

The antecedent is "the prince who is to come," whose people (the Romans) destroyed the temple. This refers to a Roman tyrant. You don't have to like it, but that is the grammatical answer.

Next, "make a firm covenant" is a bad translation. In every example, "make a covenant" in the OT is karath berith ("cut a covenant"). The language here is higbir berith. This literally means that the Messiah will "strengthen an exisitng covenant." Again, you don’t have to like it, but that’s what the Hebrew says.Strengthen an existing covenant. Well then, I guess that rules out you folks with the "New Covenant" interpretation.

I am already well aware of this, Ted, and it plays perfectly into my interpretation. See here:

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=10689&mesg_id=10695&page=2

"There is no evidence that the 'New Covenant' is the covenant referred to as being 'strengthened' or 'put into effect' in Daniel 9:27. The context seems to relate the 'covenant' to the sacrifices and offerings which are halted half way through the 70th week. So, my opinion is that the text teaches that a tyrant will 'strenthen' the Mosaic Covenant, allowing Israel to practice her temple worship. This is what is halted half way through the week."

So this text plays perfectly into my favor, and causes problems for folks with the "New Covenant" interpretation.

Next, when Jesus died on the cross, "in the middle of the 70th week" (remember, His ministry was 3 1/2 years), He did put an end to all sacrifices in God’s eyes (Matt 27:51, Heb 9:24-28). Once again, you don’t have to like it, but it’s explicit in scripture.As I've already pointed out, your view is not consistent with the rest of the book of Daniel. Apparently, you think this occurrance of "put a stop to sacrifice" in Daniel 9:27 has a special meaning of Messiah's atonement, and is unlike the rest of the book of Daniel. I think it is clear that your view is inconsistent, and I don't see any need for me to continue arguing this point until you offer an actual rebuttal to this fact. You don't have to like it, but its explicit in Scripture.

No, God’s approach isn’t as sensational as the Darby/Lindsay/LaHaye approach, since it doesn’t have all the secular spills and chills of geopolitical machinations. But it is the only one that matters.Ho hum. "My view is God's view, and your view is not!" lol! I find it amazing that you people seem to think you can "bully" us into agreement with your unscriptural views.

me: This ignores the presence of two other important themes in Daniel 9:27, namely the "abomination of desolation" and the "times, time and half a time" of severe persecution against Israel.

Ted: No, it doesn’t ignore them at all. Those are different subjects. And if you want to discuss Dan 7:25 and 12:7, we can do that. But you are demonstrating a knack for assembling items with superficial resemblance, all the while ignoring the explicit statements of scripture.These three themes are CLEARLY actions of the Man of Sin, not Christ. I really don't see any need to argue this fact further, Ted, since you haven't offered any sort of refutation. Until you can refute the facts already presented, there is no real need for further discussion.

me: The Gentiles were not grafted in until the Acts 10 events surrounding the home of Cornelius.

Ted: Again, you show how little you know of scripture. The earliest account of such grafting is in Genesis 17:13-14. It continues in Exodus 12:38 & 48. It would be impossible for Jesus to be a Jew with Rahab and Ruth in His ancestry if they hadn’t been grafted in.Oh? So the termination of the 70th week was at Genesis 17? lol! Lets get back on track here and discuss the issues at hand. I am obviously referring to the formation of the church as taught in the book of Acts. The Gentile segment of the church did not come into existence at Stephen's stoning. It came into existence with Peter's preaching in the home of Cornelius, in which the Spirit was poured out upon Gentile believers. So, as mentioned already, the termination of the 70th week at Stephen's stoning is not a Scriptural teaching. It is an assumption based upon other preexisting opinions.

-Tim

[Etcetera]

Tim:

Wrong on "that one"? Actually, they teach that they were perfectly WRONG on every single point pertaining to eschatology.

No, the chiliasts were right, or nearly so, about Israel and the church. They were right about Jesus returning as final judge. They were right about the church going through the tribulation. The only thing that they were really mistaken about is the nature of the kingdom; they thought that the kingdom statements had to be fulfilled literally instead of in Christ. That alone led to the other errors.

Think about it. Imagine for a moment that preteristic amillennialism or postmillennialism is right. (Hard, I know, but try....) The OT prophecies were fulfilled (symbolically, allegorically, figuratively, what have you) in Christ, and there is little left to fulfill besides the second advent and general resurrection.

Now, suddenly take a literalistic approach to the OT prophecies. What do you have? This one change (A) postpones the kingdom, moving it forward in time because it must be literal and is certainly not literal in the present, (B) places a physical resurrection at the beginning of the kingdom because all those kingdom-come-equals-resurrection passages must mean a literal resurrection, and (C) turns the thousand years into a countable millennium, because the thousand years must be literal.

One change in interpretative allowances, and amillennialism suddenly becomes a rudimentary historic premillennialism.

Literalism is the one thing that genuinely separates a chiliast from an amillennialist. The rest is window dressing. The early chiliasts were not alone in their heightened literalism. The rabbis did it too.

Or look at it this way: Take your average chiliast who believes (A) that there will be a thousand years in Jerusalem and (B) that the church has replaced Israel. With the millennium and the tribulation you can justly argue that one casts a longer shadow than the other (I myself have admitted as much). But not with A and B here! If anything, the relationship of Israel to the church casts a longer shadow than any millennial view. But it will suffice to say at this point that they are roughly equal in scope and importance.

Take that chiliastic view and lose B. What do you have? Something akin to your view, I think. Take that same view and l