Changed from Israel to 70 weeks
Chris Foster (cf01@zeus.odyssey.net)
Fri, 26 Apr 1996 04:25:03 -0400 (EDT)
> CF> You will have to argue your post-70 AD point with Jesus, for He
> CF> said to those disciples standing there hearing his answer to
> CF> thier question...This generation shall not pass till all these
> CF> things be fulfilled.
>
> Not really.
Jesus was not talking to his disciples in Matthew 24? I just reread that
chapter and it seems to me that he is addressing the disciples. Pray tell
who is he speaking to? Someone that is not present? =20
The point of Daniel 9:24 and the 70 week must be
>harmonized with all this. The time period from 445 BC when the decree
>was issued to 70 AD is 75 weeks not 70. You have stated repeatedly
>that the 70 weeks were consecutive from beginning to end.
Okay, let's see if we can find the harmony. =20
What is suppose to take place within this 70 week Determination? =20
1. finish the transgression
2. make an end of sins
3. make reconciliation for iniquity
4. bring in everlasting righteousness
5. seal up the vision and prophecy=20
6. anoint the most Holy.
All these things took place within the scope of Jesus Christ's ministry. I
believe the scriptures were truely fulfilled. He made reconcilliation for
iniquity for the *JEWS AND GENTILES*. You are want to deny that He really
did this because the Jews did not accept His provision, and therefore
reconcilliation for the Jews is yet future. But I believe He provided all
these things by the efficatious sacrifice of Himself on the cross within a
natural progression of 490 years (no gaps).
=20
Daniels prophecy was given in the year 538 BC During the Babylonian Empire,
the world power. One year later in 539 BC Persia becomes the world power.
In 331 BC Greece, and then in 63 BC Rome. These powers are in harmony with
Daniels interpretation of ol' Neb's dream in Daniel 2. Notice verse 44 and=
45.=20
44 *And in the days of *these* kings* (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome. No
historic gap here as far as I can tell) shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom,
(the kingdom of God) which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall
not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all
these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Isaiah 9:7)
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain
without hands,(Jesus Christ) and that it brake in pieces the iron, the
brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to
the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and
the interpretation thereof sure.
Second, as to the date, you have surmized it to be 445 BC. This IMHO could
not be the date for the simple reason that the completion of the walls fall
within the year 409 BC. This date would harmonize with Dan 9:25 while yours
would not...
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment
to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven
weeks, (49 years) and threescore and two weeks:(434 years) the street shall
be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
The break in sequence between the seven weeks (49 years) and the sixty-two
weeks (434 years) is not for a time gap to be inserted. From the command to
restore until the completion of the project was 49 years, marking the first
seven weeks (49 years) in which the restoration of Jerusalem took place, and
the walls were rebuilt even in troublous times. This historic *fact* took
place in 409 BC. If you are want to find the date of Artaxexes decree, you
must be SURE you do so with this date in mind. Otherwise you render the
prophecy void at the outset.=20
We now proceed to the birth of Christ rendered by many to be 4 BC. Since
the progression of time must be consistant and orderly (without stop gaps
and insertions) We count from the year 409 BC, 434 years coming to the date
26 AD. Jesus Christ is thirty years old (I'm sure you know the
significance) he is baptized and the spirit like a dove lights upon him.
John the Baptist recognizes this as a sign that this is Messaih (annointed).
Are we still in harmony with the prophecy? Yes of course.
We now come to the last week in which you are want to stop time from
progressing in any manner of normalcy. The passing of the weeks have been
without gap nor pause but with marked events that follow the natural
progression of history.=20
Please observe that Daniel says 'And after threescore and two weeks shall
Messiah be cut off, but not for himself' I believe that this is speaking of
Jesus Christ crucified, not for himself, but for the world, don't you? =20
I also believe that this cutting off must take place *AFTER* the 69th week,
which would place it within the 70th week. And all the while you are want
to place the 70th week in the future.
Reading on we come to : and the people of the prince that shall come shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a
flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Daniel tells us when Messiah is cut off then 'the people of the prince that
shall come' are going to destroy the city and the sanctuary (*FACT* 70 AD)
harmonizing with 'the end of the war desolations (stunned, stupified,
devestate) are determined' AND in complete harmony with the statement Jesus
Christ made in Matthew 24:15 as he was explaining why He said you see these
stones not one will be left upon another. =20
Now verse 27 of Daniel 9 gives us insight into what will transpire during
the 70th week in which Messiah must be cut off. =20
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst
of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for
the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the
consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
If you have Messiah cut off in the 69th week I can readily see how that you
can have another someone confirm some other kind of covenant. But you must
argue with Daniel that Messiah was cut off in the 69th week for he says
*AFTER* the 69th week Messiah is cut off. You can not possibly believe
Messaih is cut off in the future can you?
Nevertheless the scriptures are sure. He (Jesus Christ) confirmed the
covenant with many for one week and in the midst (3 1/2 years which is in
harmony with his ministry) He was crucified and the veil was rent, the Lamb
of God had purchased our salvation making the Old sacrificial system
obsolete. For He (Jesus Christ) died once and for all, causing the
sacrifice and oblation to cease. Cease in the sense of being efficatious
for we read in Hebrews....
Hebrews 10:1-10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not
the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they
offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For
then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers
once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those
sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is
not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering
thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and
sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in
the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above
when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for
sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by
the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the
first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Lets continue to harmonize time. There were 50 days between the time of the
crucifiction and the birth of the church. The centerpiece of Judahism is
the seder or the passover supper. This is celebrated in commemoration of
the deliverance of God from the bondage of slavery. I don't have to tell
you of all the implications of these events, I know you understand them. =20
My point is that the passover events coincide with Jesus' death. Jesus is
the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world. Just as he caused
the seder supper to become obsolete even though it is still practiced, He
also is the only one that can cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease in
any viable sense whether or not it is still practiced. 50 days after He
caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease once and for all, the New
Testament Church was founded. Just as the Law was given to Moses on the Mt
Sinia on tables of stone so the law was written in the hearts by the spirit
on the day of Pentecost. =20
I said all that to say this. We still have 3 1/2 years to deal with before
we have a total of 70 weeks. Daniels prophecy rests upon the foundation
that 70 weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city. We are
agreed that this means the Jews and Jerusalem. The things listed that must
take place within the 70 weeks you deny have happened while I affirm they
have taken place.
1 to finish the transgression
2 to make an end of sins
3 to make reconciliation for iniquity
4 to bring in everlasting righteousness
5 to seal up the vision and prophecy=20
6 to anoint the most Holy.
You do not believe that Jesus fulfilled these absolutely and completely
within His earthly ministry, while I do. I believe He came unto his own to
accomplish each and everyone of these things. I believe He is the
fulfillment of all of these and they took place within a time of 490 years
from the command of Artaxerxes without gaps, glitches, stopings and
startings and hog pog puzzels.
Since the 70 weeks have to do with the Jews and Jerusalem then there must be
a scripture that tells us of the ending of the 70 week period with the Jews
and Jerusalem in view. The year in question is 33 AD in which the dispersal
of the Church takes place leaving the Jews of Jerusalem desolate, for they
have denied the provision of God and are left to face destruction. Acts
7:51-8:5.
If the sacrifice and oblation ceased with the death of the Lamb of God then
it follows
'... and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,
even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the
desolate.'
This speaks of the overspreading of abominations until the consumation (70
AD) which is determined upon the desolate. There is no place in Daniel that
speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem happening withing the 70 week period
(as you so affirm). Daniels prophecy concerns itself with the fulfillments
of Messiah and then points toward the destruction afterwards, not with in
the 70 weeks.
> It Jesus returned in 70 AD why did John (John 85-90 AD, 1,2,3
>John 90-95 AD, Revelation 95 AD)=20
We are not speaking of Jesus return, but the (parousia) coming about of His
prophecy that not one stone would be upon another. Words have specific
meaning. =20
Nevertheless, this shows you have very good insight. I have found that a bit
of study will yield a little known fact that these dates can not be
confirmed. Without getting into a disertation of dates, I can say there is
but *one* and only *one* historical reference that can be pointed to, and
not without a good degree of uncertainty, that the gospel of John, 1,2,3
John, and Revelation may have been written in the late first century. I
have found that those who insist on an 85-95 AD dating have no foundation
upon which they build, just a guess that is tainted by the predisposition of
a doctrine. Would you like to base your doctrine on several foundational
truths or upon one arbitrary historic reference? If you will insist upon
these dates then you will have to produce the authority to confirm, not an
opinion of a commentary or qoute of theologians, but an historic record
(there is one by Ignatius, Bishop of Lyons).
May I suggest the book by Dr. Gentry ''Before Jerusalem Fell, a study of the
dating of the book of Revelations'' Not only is this an excellent read, but
He shows without equivocation the empty surmizing of such dates as you have
affirmed.
>
> Why then did the preaching of imminence continue beyond 70 AD?
Because those who were insistant that God is going to return to the Jews
based upon some sort of reason they have some kind of favor bestowed upon
them through nothing more than progenitry.
>The early church held to the doctrine of imminency. Clement wrote in
>the FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS:
> Again, Clement writes:
> In the DIDACHE we read:
> Cyprain says:
Do you rely on the 'Church Fathers' who also have also given us the doctrine
of the Trinity? Let's stick with the scriptures please and not traditions
of men :-)
> > Nor is there a record of astronomical events which would fulfill
> > the sun being darkened and the moon not shinning.
>
> CF> When Peter used the words of verse 29 in Acts 2 while preaching
> CF> salvation to 'ye men of Israel', and after they responded in
> CF> verse 41, they began to sell all of their things, Lands, houses,
> CF> etc. Why?
>
>Probably because God knew what was coming and moved on them to do so.
Where is this knowing of God and his moving on them to do so recorded in
scritpture? I'll answer... Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. They knew because
Jesus told then it would happen.
Matt 24:17-21 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any
thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back
to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them
that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the
winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation,
such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever
shall be.
>When the time came they had no worldly possession such as land and
>houses to hold them back. They left the city and were not killed in
>the destruction of Jerusalem.
WE AGREE!!
>
> CF> Because they were expecting some thing.... something imminent
> CF> ......What was it?......The prophecy of Jesus Christ recorded
> CF> in Matt 24, Luke 21, Mark 13.
>
> Possibly. It is also possible that little thought was given to
>the prophecy until the event became imminent. They then remembered the
>prophecy and evacuated the city and were thus saved.
>
The coming of the Lord was as much on thier minds as it is on yours. It
seems to me that you have rendered your opinion as a much more informed one
than thiers. Being an Apostolic I can only answer by saying I believe that
the Apostles knew what they were about. I don't think they needed to be
reminded of something as cataclysmic as this. After all, they were with
Jesus, and Peter knew exactly what He was preaching
> CF> Each record of Jesus' prophecy in the gospels ends with, 'This
> CF> generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled'.
>
> This would also fit if there is to be another destruction of the
>city.=20
This is your paradigm and although I do not agree, let us say it makes good
sense if a double meaning is possible. I do not hold to a double meaning to
a single prophetic utterance but I believe this prophecy is concerned with
one historic event, not two.
> CF> There are already too many kooks that are preaching the end is=7F
> CF> near sell all you have. We both agree that is stupidity at it's
> CF> highest!
>
> I certainly agree. However, this should not deter us from seeking
>the truth of Scripture in the matter. Rather we should be cautious
>about any conclusion reached instead of attempting to make it instant
>doctrine.
>
Is Acts 2:38 one of *many* answers to the command of Matthew 28:19? Or is
it the conclusion that one is forced to accept? I may not like what the
scriptures say but I am forced to accept the simple truths they project.
> I certainly agree. And the events will be (or were) literal in
>nature. However, 24:30-31 must be questioned. Did this event occur.
>Did ALL the tribes of the earth morn? No. Did they (all the tribes of
>the earth) see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with
>power and great glory? There is no record either scriptural or histor-
>ical which indicates that such a momentous event happened. Why? Surely
>such an important event would leave a scriptural record (John wrote
>all his books 85 AD to 95 AD). Why did he ignore such an important
>event and reman silent about it.
We must certainly look for the answer in the scriptures and not in Time
magazine nor the Wall Street Journal nor yet the Readers Digest.
> One of the questions asked of Jesus was what would be the signs
>of His coming. Why MUST that coming be at the same time as when Jeru-
>salem was destroyed? There are clearly other factors stated in the
>Olivet Discourse which have yet to be fulfilled i.e., 25:31-32.
>
Because the discourse that follows the questions answers in details of why
not one stone would be upon another. When this would take place. What
signs to look for when this would take place. AND The consumation of the
ending of the OT (world-aeon). =20
> CF> c. Whatever Daniels prophecy is that must take place, it must be
> CF> in tune with the words of Jesus when he said *this generation
> CF> shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.*
>
> I agree. How is 25:31-32 to be reconciled with "this generation
>shall not pass...?"=20
We have shown repeatedly that Matthew 24:1-33 must be fulfulled within that
generation. We are not dealing with the subject matter of Matthew 25:31-32
yet. Our discussion is with these scriptures. Lets stick to these at hand
until we have answered them in full.
> CF> Your argument is not with me.
>
> The argument is actually one of interpretation. I have interpret-
>ed it one way and you another. Therein is the rub. We do not disagree
>over what the Scripture say we disagree over interpretation of what
>they say.
Good answer, I stand corrected.
>
> CF> You hold that the Son of man has not come in the glory of his
> CF> Father with the angels.
>
> This is correct. There are some other passages that amplify this
>event. For instance, when He returns in power and glory He will do so
>at the head of an army and the mount of Olives will be split in twain.
>(Revelation 19:11-14; Zechariah 14:4).
>
> CF> Do you also hold they did not *see* the Son of man coming in his
> CF> kingdom? Are you want of a gap here also?
>
> Not in 70 AD because ALL the tribes of the earth did not mourn.
>The Romans rejoiced that they had achieved a great victory.
>
> CF> If I understand your theory correctly, you will answer the above
> CF> by having the scriptures predict a double fulfillment.
>
> WC> Rather I would expect a complete fulfillment rather than a par-
> WC> tial fulfillment.
>
> CF> The destruction of Jerusalem was not complete?
>
> The destruction of Jerusalem was complete. However, the Mount of
>Olives did not split in two. The nations of the earth were not gath-
>ered to be judged. All the tribes of the earth did not mourn. Thus if
>one part of the prophecy fails the whole is a false prophecy. The
>other explanation is that the events were not the events of the proph-
>ecy.
>
This is where we are very far apart. You have made an argument about the
star being a sun. (see re: post on star) You and I are agreed that a star
is outrageaously bigger than the earth, but instead of searching the
scriptures for the use of stars, like in Genesis 37:9, you have surmized
these stars (plural) to be something else i.e. meteors. In your quest for
the literal interpretation you ignor the word star only when it is an
impossible rendering. Then you now insist on the literal spliting of the
Mount of Olives. Do you further hold that people will rush into this
fissure in order to be 'saved' like our friend Hal Lindsey?
> CF> Are you promoting Sabelianism who said Jesus was not Messaih un-
> CF> til his baptism and that he knew not who he was before the dove
> CF> set upon him?
>
> I made no such statement. I said that He was not recognized
>(except by John the Baptist) as being the Messiah. We have the advan-
>tage of 20-20 hindsight.
>
So what if He was not recognized or not as being Messaih (except by John the
Baptist) it would not matter one iota concerning who He was.
Let me share with you a truth. It would not matter if anyone responded to
the provision of God when He paid the price on the cross for the sins of the
world. He would have provided it to mankind no matter what mankind did with
the provision. Why is it that you must always measure the truth by the
position of men? Your statement above infers as strongly as possible
without saying the words that because He was not recognized as Messiah then
it was not *really* so. I strongly disagree.
He who sows is nothing but a sowing sower.