jump to navigation

Daniel’s 70th Week: The Correct View? June 22, 2010

Posted by Henry in Eschatology & End Times.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

I have sourced the below article from the following website. In my view and based on my previous postings concerning the problems with the traditional |(futurist)  interpretation, I believe the below tends to lean towards the correct interpretation of Daniel’s 70th week.

http://www.keithhunt.com/Dan9_1.html

Daniel 9, 70 weeks Prophecy #1

Is the last half of 70th week still ahead?

                             by

                        Ralph Woodrow

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy
city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in
everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and
prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
"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, and threescore and two weeks:
the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled
times.
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but
not for himself; 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.
"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" (Daniel 9:24-27).

This great prophecy pertaining to Daniel's people and the city of
Jerusalem is linked with a time period of seventy "weeks." Bible
students recognize that these seventy weeks or 490 days are
symbolic of years - each day representing a year - that is, 490
years.
It was this same year-for-a-day principle that was used in
Numbers 14:34. Because of unbelief, the Israelites were to
wander for 40 years in the wilderness, a year for each day that
the spies were absent searching out the land. This same scale was
used in Ezekiel 4:4-6: "I have appointed thee a day for a year, a
day for a year:"

While Christians are generally united in the belief that the
"seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks", that is, 69 weeks
(483 years) measured unto "Messiah", concerning the final week of
the prophecy, the 70th week, there are two entirely different
interpretations that are held today - the FUTURIST interpretation
and the FULFILLED interpretation.
The futurist interpretation is that a huge gap of "2,000 years"
or so separates the 70th week from the other 69 weeks that
measured unto Messiah. The fulfilled interpretation is that no
gap is to be placed between the 69th week and the 70th - that the
70th week followed the 69th in logical sequence.

"The futurist interpretation is that the 70th week refers to the
Antichrist who will make a covenant with the Jews. This covenant
will allow them to offer sacrifices in a "rebuilt" temple at
Jerusalem for seven years, but after three and a half years he
will break this covenant and cause the sacrifices to cease. 

The fulfilled interpretation, on the other hand, is that the 70th
week refers to Christ and that the causing of the sacrifices to
cease was accomplished at Calvary when Christ became the final
and perfect sacrifice for sins.

What differences exist here! One says the 70th week is future;
the other says it is fulfilled! One says there is a huge gap
between the 69th and the 70th weeks; the other requires no gap.
One says the 70th week pertains to Antichrist; the other to Jesus
Christ! In view of such glaring differences, both of these
interpretations can not be correct.

We believe the fulfilled interpretation is the correct view; that
the 69 weeks measured "unto Messiah"; that in the midst of the
70th week - after three and a half years of ministry - he was cut
off in death; that this sacrifice, being the perfect sacrifice,
caused other sacrifices to cease in God's plan. Let us now notice
step by step - all of the basic parts of the 70 weeks prophecy
and how these things were fulfilled.

1. JERUSALEM WAS TO BE RESTORED. We have already seen the
scriptures that explain this.

2. THE STREET AND WALL WERE TO BE REBUILT IN TROUBLOUS TIMES. We
have seen in the book of Ezra some of the troubles that
confronted the people in those years of rebuilding.

3. THE MOST HOLY WAS TO BE ANOINTED. We believe this reference is
to Jesus Christ. Gabriel announced to Mary: "The HOLY thing that
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Lk.1:35).
Peter referred to him as "the HOLY ONE" (Acts 3:14). John
referred to him as "the HOLY ONE" (1 John 2:20). Even demons had
to recognize him as "the HOLY ONE of God" (Mk.1:24).
David spoke concerning Christ: "Neither wilt thou suffer thine
HOLY ONE to see corruption" (Acts 2:27). In Revelation 3:7 he is
called "HOLY" and the heavenly creatures rest not from saying:
"HOLY, HOLY, HOLY" before this one "which was, and is, and is to
come" (Rev.4:8).

From the going forth of the commandment to restore and
build Jerusalem unto Messiah was to be 483 years. When this time
was fulfilled, those who knew this prophecy, were expecting the
appearance of the Messiah, that is, the Christ. (Christ is the
Greek form of the Hebrew word Messiah.) Thus when John came
baptizing, "the people were in EXPECTATION, and all men mused in
their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not" (Lk.
3:15). John plainly told them that he was not the Christ - he was
only the forerunner. When Jesus appeared on the scene, John
cried: "Behold the Lamb of God"! The time had now come that Jesus
should be "made manifest to Israel" (John 1:29-31). He was then
baptized and when he had prayed, "the heaven was opened. And the
Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and
a voice from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee
I am well pleased" (Lk.3:21,22).

He had appeared to Israel right on time! Thus Jesus, in evident
reference to the time prophecy of Daniel, said: "The TIME is
fulfilled"(Mk.1:15) and as the Messiah, the Christ, the "anointed
one", he preached the gospel. When he entered the synagogue of
Nazareth, he announced: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he hath ANOINTED me" (Lk.4:18-22). Acts 4:27 mentioned
Jesus as the "holy"one that the Lord "ANOINTED." And Peter
mentioned that "God ANOINTED Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy
Ghost... who went about doing good, healing all who were
oppressed of the devil" (Acts 10:38).

Daniel's prophecy revealed that the time period unto the Messiah
would be 69 weeks (483 years). This measured to the time when
Jesus was baptized and anointed to begin his ministry as the
Messiah, the Christ, the "Anointed One."

4. MESSIAH WAS TO BE CUT OFF. The 69 weeks (7 plus 62) were to
measure unto Messiah "and AFTER" the 69 weeks "shall Messiah be
cut off." Now "AFTER "69 weeks does not and cannot mean "in" or
"during" the 69 weeks! If Messiah was to be cut off AFTER the 69
weeks, there is only one week left in which he could have been
"cut off" - the 70th week! - after three and a half years of
ministry.
The term "cut off" implies that Messiah would not die a natural
death; he would be murdered! So also had Isaiah prophesied using
an equivalent word: "He was cut off out of the land of the
living" (Isaiah 53:8).
The details about how Messiah was "cut off" are given in the
gospels.

5. "TO FINISH THE TRANSGRESSION", or literally, "to finish
transgression." As Jesus was dying, he cried: "It is FINISHED."
At Calvary, Jesus finished transgression by becoming sin for us.
No future sacrifice can ever finish transgression; it was
finished at Calvary (Heb.9:15). "He was wounded for our
TRANSGRESSIONS" (Isaiah 53:5).

6. "TO MAKE AN END OF SINS." Here the basic thought is repeated.
If we understand the glorious significance of what was
accomplished at Calvary, we know that here there was truly an end
made of sins.
Jesus, who came "to save his people from their sins ",
accomplished this when he "put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself" (Mt.1:21; Heb.9:26). "It is not possible that the blood
of bulls and of goats should take away sins... But this man,
after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever... hath
perfected for ever them that are sanctified... And their sins...
remember no more" (Heb.10:4-17). The old system of sacrifices
could never make an end of sins, but Christ - by the sacrifice of
himself - did make an end of sins, even as the prophecy had said!
John announced him as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the
sins of the world" (John 1:29). "Christ died for our sins"
(1 Cor.15:3). He "bare our sins in his own body on the tree"
(1 Peter 2:24) and "hath once suffered for sins"(3:18). "He was
manifested to take away our sins" (1 John 3:5). This "end of
sins" was accomplished at Calvary.
All of this does not mean, of course, that right at this point
men quit sinning. This was not the case. But what the scripture
does mean is that at Calvary the eternal sacrifice for sin was
made, so that any and all - past, present, or future - who will
be forgiven of sins will be forgiven because our Lord's death
almost 2,000 years ago made an "end of sins"!

7. "TO MAKE RECONCILIATION FOR INIQUITY." The word reconciliation
used here is the same word that is used so frequently in the book
of Leviticus where it is rendered "to make atonement." This, too,
was part of our Lord's redemptive work. Surely "reconciliation"
is a present reality - because of Calvary! Jesus, "our merciful
and faithful high priest" made "RECONCILIATION for the sins of
the people"(Heb.2:17). "Having made peace through the blood... to
RECONCILE all things unto himself... and you, that were sometimes
alienated... hath he RECONCILED... through death" (Col.1:20-22;
Eph.2:16).
"God was in Christ, RECONCILING the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us
the word of RECONCILIATION "(2 Cor.5:19). Plainly, "recon-
ciliation for iniquity" was accomplished by Jesus, for he "gave
himself for us, that he might redeem us from all INIQUITY" (Titus
2:14), and "the Lord hath laid on him the INIQUITY of us all"
(Isaiah 53:6).

8. "TO BRING IN EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS:" This too was
accomplished by the redemptive work of Christ! The great
redemption chapter of Isaiah 53 had prophesied: "My righteous
servant shall make many RIGHTEOUS:" Paul put it this way: "By the
righteousness of one... shall many be made RIGHTEOUS... unto
eternal life by Jesus Christ" (Rom.5:17-21). He who came "to
fulfil all righteousness" (Mt.3:15) and who "loved
righteousness, and hated iniquity", was "anointed" of God (Heb.
1:9) and made unto us wisdom, and RIGHTEOUSNESS, and
sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor.1:30). "Who his own self
bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to
sins, should live unto RIGHTEOUSNESS" (1 Peter 2:24). "Even the
RIGHTEOUSNESS of God... through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith
in his blood to declare his RIGHTEOUSNESS for the remission of
sins" (Rom.3:21-26). "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin; that we might be made the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God in
him"(2 Cor.5:21). "Everyone that doeth RIGHTEOUSNESS is
born(begotten) of him" (1 John 2:29).
Taking all of these verses into consideration, we ask: Did Christ
in his coming to earth provide righteousness through his
redemptive work? All Christians acknowledge that he did. We ask
then: Was not this righteousness that he brought in everlasting?
Of course. Surely no Christians would deny that the righteousness
of Christ is "everlasting righteousness."
"By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having
obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION" - everlasting righteousness - "for
us" (Heb.9:12). This eternal or everlasting righteousness is
contrasted to the old sacrifices under the law which were only
of a temporary nature. But Christ, once for all time, offered
himself - thus providing, as the prophecy of Daniel had said,
"everlasting righteousness."

One only has to read the great redemption passages of
Romans, Corinthians, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews to see
how an "end" of transgressions and sins, "reconciliation for
iniquity", and "everlasting righteousness" were all accomplished
at Calvary by our Lord Jesus Christ!
In view of this, we see no basis for the futurist teaching that
none of these things have yet been fulfilled, but are to be
linked with a supposed seventieth week at the end of the age! To
teach such is contradictory and tends to take away from the glory
of that great redemption of Calvary which so beautifully and
completely fulfilled these prophecies!

9. "TO SEAL UP VISION AND PROPHECY", or literally, "to seal up
vision and prophet." The use of the metaphor "to seal" is derived
from the ancient custom of attaching a seal to a document to show
that it was genuine (See 1 Kings 21:8; Jer.32:10,11; cf.John
6:27; 1 Cor.9:2). Christ "sealed" Old Testament prophecy by
fulfilling what was written of him.

Repeatedly we read concerning him: "... that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets." Acts 3:18 says:
"Those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all his
prophets, that Christ should suffer he hath so fulfilled." Truly
Jesus fulfilled what was written in the visions and prophecies of
the Old Testament concerning him, and thus he "sealed" them
showed that they were genuine. "They are they", he said, "which
testify of me" (John 5:39). "All the prophets and the law
prophesied until John" (Mt.11:13), then John presented Jesus as
he that was to be "made manifest to Israel." Jesus was the one
that was to come - and we look for none other. He is the
fulfillment of vision and prophecy.

10. "HE SHALL CONFIRM THE COVENANT." When Jesus instituted the
Lord's supper, representative of his shed blood for the remission
of sins, he said: "This is my blood of the new testament
[covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins"
(Mt.26:28). The word "testament" here and the word "covenant" are
translated from exactly the same word in the New Testament. "How
much more shall the blood of Christ... purge your conscience from
dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the
mediator of the new testament [covenant]" (Heb.9:14, 5).
Jesus is called the "mediator of the new covenant" (Heb.8:6), the
"messenger of the covenant" (Mal.3;1), and his shed blood is
called "the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb.12:24). Our
Lord Jesus is the one who confirmed the covenant through his
redemptive sacrifice at Calvary. And how beautifully this
harmonizes with what we have already seen.

11. "HE SHALL CAUSE THE SACRIFICE AND THE OBLATION TO CEASE."
This too was fulfilled in the death of Jesus Christ. In the Old
Testament, as we have mentioned, sacrifices were repeatedly made.
Each of these was but a mere type looking forward to the time
when the perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God, would be offered.
Once this would be accomplished, God would no longer require or
accept any other sacrifice.

The perfect sacrifice was Jesus Christ. The old system of
repeated sacrifices (types) could only end at Calvary - when
Christ became the perfect, eternal, and final sacrifice (See Heb.
9 and 10). In addition to Calvary's sacrifice, "there remaineth
no more sacrifice for sins" (Heb.10:18,26).

For a few more years, the Jews continued their sacrifices, but
these were not recognized by God. Such cannot be termed
sacrifices in the true scriptural sense of the word, for the
death of Christ provided the perfect, and therefore, the final
sacrifice for sins forever.
Further proof that this was fulfilled in Christ is seen in the
time element, for the prophecy said that sacrifice would cease in
the middle of the week - the 70th week. This was when Christ
died, for the 69 weeks measured unto Messiah and his death came
after a ministry of three and a half years.
That this was the length of our Lord's ministry may be seen by a
study of the gospel according to John in which mention is made of
four Passovers that occurred during our Lord's ministry: John
2:13; 5:1 (IN this verse the feast is not mentioned by name.
However, by taking John 4:35 about the 'four months' into
consideration, it is possible to determine that this was the
feast of the Passover (See Boutflower, page 208); 6:4; 13:1.
Eusebius, a Christian writer of the fourth century, pointed these
things out: "Now the whole period of our Saviour's teaching and
working of miracles is said to have been three-and-a-half years,
which is half a week. John evangelist, in his Gospel makes this
clear to the attentive (Eusebuis, The Proof of the Gospels, bk,8,
chapter 2).
And so, after three and a half years of ministry as the Christ,
the anointed one - Jesus was cut off in death, in the middle of
the 70th week of seven years. As Augustine said: "Daniel even
defined the time when Christ was to come and suffer by the exact
date."

Understanding this, we can now see real significance in certain
New Testament statements which also speak of a definite
established time at which Jesus would die. For example, we read:
"They sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because
his hour was not yet come" (John 7:30). In John 2:4, Jesus said,
"Mine hour is not yet come." On another occasion, he said, "My
time is not yet come" (John 7:6). Then just prior to his betrayal
and death, he said, "My time is at hand" (Mt.26:18), and finally,
"the hour is come" (John 17:1; Mt.26:45).
These and other verses clearly show that there was a definite
time in the plan of God when Jesus would die. He came to fulfil
the scriptures, and there is only one Old Testament scripture
which predicted the time of his death - the prophecy which stated
that Messiah would be cut off in the midst of the 70th week - at
the close of three and a half years of ministry! How perfectly
the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ!

But those who say that the confirming of the covenant and causing
sacrifices to cease in the midst of the 70th week refers to a
future Antichrist, completely destroy this beautiful fulfillment
and are at a complete loss to show where in the Old Testament the
time of our Lord's death was predicted.

The prophecy of Daniel 9 stated that Messiah would confirm the
covenant (or would cause the covenant to prevail) with many of
Daniel's people for the "week" or seven years. We ask then, when
Christ came, was his ministry directed in a special way to
Daniel's people - to "Israel" (Dan.9:20)? Yes!

John introduced him as he "that should be made manifest to
ISRAEL" (John 1:31). "I am not sent", Jesus said, "but unto the
lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL" (Mt.15:24). And when he first
sent out his apostles, they we re directed: "Go not into the way
of the Gentiles... go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
ISRAEL" (Mt.10:5,6).

The first half of the "week", the time of our Lord's ministry,
was definitely directed toward ISRAEL. But what about the second
half - the final three and a half years of the prophecy - was it
also linked with Israel? Did the disciples continue to preach for
the duration of the remaining three and a half years (as Christ's
representatives) especially to Daniel's people - to Israel? Yes,
they did!
Jesus had told the disciples to go into all the world and preach
the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15; Mt.28:19; Acts 1:8), YET
- and this is significant - after Christ ascended, the disciples
still at first preached only to Israel! Why? We know of only one
prophecy which would indicate that this was to be the course
followed. It is the prophecy of the 70 weeks which implied that
after the death of Messiah there would still be three and a half
years that pertained to Israel!

Bearing this in mind, we can now understand at least one reason
why the gospel went "to the Jew first" and then later to the
Gentiles (Rom.1:16). Peter preached shortly after Pentecost: "Ye
are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant... unto you
first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you,
in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (Acts 3:25,
26). "It was necessary that the word of God should first have
been spoken to you" (Acts 13:46).

In person, Christ came to Israel during the first half of the
"week" - three and a half years. Through the disciples - for the
three and a half years that remained - his message still went to
Israel, "the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with
signs following"(Mk.16:20). In a very real sense of the word, the
ministry of the disciples was a continuation of the ministry of
Christ.
Then came the conversion of Cornelius which completely changed
the missionary outreach, outlook, and ministry of the church.
Though the New Testament does not give an exact date when this
happened, apparently the time for special exclusive blessing upon
Daniel's people had drawn to a close. The gospel which had gone
first to the Jews was now to take its full mission - to be
preached to all people of all nations!

This time of changeover was marked by a number of supernatural
events. Cornelius received a heavenly visitation. An angel
appeared to him and told him to call for Peter "who shall tell
thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved" (Acts
11:14). God showed Peter a vision which caused him to know that
the gospel was now to go to the Gentiles and not to Israelites
only. All of these things were timed perfectly - showing that
God's hand was accomplishing a definite purpose.
Returning to Jerusalem, Peter explained what had happened. "When
they heard these things, they... glorified God, saying, Then hath
God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life"(Acts
11:18). From this very point, more and more, there was a turning
to the Gentiles with the gospel message. God's measurement of 490
years pertaining in a special way to Israel had obviously been
completed.
And finally,

12. THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND THE TEMPLE. This part of the
prophecy was not dated within the framework of the 70 weeks as
was the time of the appearance of Messiah to Israel, the time of
his death, etc. Nevertheless, living on this side of the
fulfillment, we know that the predicted destruction found
fulfillment in 70 A.D. when the armies of Titus brought the city
to desolation.

With Adam Clarke we say: "The whole of this prophecy from the
times and corresponding events has been fulfilled to the very
letter." (Clarke's Commentary, note on Daniel).

                            ...................

Yes, the Old Bible Commentaries like Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes,
Matthew Henry, and some others, all CORRECTLY understood the
prophecy in Daniel chapter 9, the coming of the Messiah and the
final destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

 

Advertisements

Comments»

1. dmcal52 - June 23, 2010

Hello Henry,

I just wanted to respond to the above interpretation regarding the seventieth seven or the last seven year period.

They Said:
“We believe the fulfilled interpretation is the correct view; that the 69 weeks measured “unto Messiah”; that in the midst of the 70th week – after three and a half years of ministry – he was cut off in death; that this sacrifice, being the perfect sacrifice, caused other sacrifices to cease in God’s plan.”

There is a big problem with the view above that seems to be conveniently absent from their interpretation. Their view states that, Jesus is the one who “makes the covenant with many” and not the beast, that is, the antichrist, but the problem is that, the same person who is making the covenant with many is the same person, who after causing the daily sacrifice and evening oblation to cease, is the same person who sets up the abomination in the holy place within the temple, which causes the desolation of Jerusalem. Therefore, in keeping with their interpretation, Jesus would be the one setting up the abomination of desolation in the holy place and causing the desolation of Jerusalem. The abomination is described in Rev.13:14-15 as an “Image” made in honor of the beast who receives the fatal head wound. Jesus also commented on this when he said:

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place’ (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” etc, etc….

So here, Jesus mentions the setting up of that abomination of desolation in a negetive way, that is, when you see this happen, run! Get out of Jerusalem! Why? Because the beast is the one who is setting up the abomination and breaking his covenant and as I mentioned above, the same one who is making the covenant with many for one seven, is the same person who is causing the daily sacrifice to cease and will also be the same person who sets up the abomination in the holy place and therefore, it cannot be Jesus who is making the covenant with many, because that would also mean that he was the one who sets up the abomination and I don’t think that I need to prove my point that Jesus is not going to be the one to set up the abomination in the temple!

Furthermore, that seventieth seven or last seven years is defined in Revelation in two 3 1/2 year periods.

First 3 1/2 years: Begins from the time he makes his covenant with many.

Second 3 1/2 years: Begins from the middle of the seven when the abomination of desolation is set up until the end when Christ returns 3 1/2 years later.

This seven year period is surely yet to come complete with seven seals, trumpets and bowl judgments.

2. Henry - June 24, 2010

Hello Don,

I appreciate your point and that this portion of Daniel 9 is quite problematic for us to decipher. The problem is that when you read the KJV Daniel 9:24-27 refers to the Prince (the Messiah) and the prince (that shall come). Now we have a clear distinction here between the Prince in caps and the prince in lowercase but when it goes on to use the word personal pronoun “he” in lowercase only, this is where the problem arises. The result therefore is for us to read into the text as to who is being referred to at a particular point.

I think we should attempt to first establish when the 70th week occurs then work backwards from there. For example, when the scripture says that after 62 weeks (plus the first 7 weeks – 69 weeks) shall Messaiah be cut off, in terms of timing we have no choice but to conclude that Messiah must be cut off in the 70th week which is the week that follows the 69. Just to paraphrase the scripture then, “70 weeks are determinted unto thy people…. and after 69 weeks shall messiah be cut off”. Stands to reason then that Messaiah must be cut off in the 70th week!

I would just like to point out also that if you read and compare different translations you will see that each renders a different meaning. For example the NIV would imply that the one who makes the covenant is the same as the abominator however if you look at both the ESV and ERV there is a clear distinction between the one who makes the covenant with the many and the desolator.

Another point which I would like to introduce is concerning the covenant. In the KJV it says that “he shall confirm THE covenant” with the many. The word “the” is use instead of “a” I think to refer to a specific covenant which arguably must have been previously proposed as oppose to just any covenant. And we know that just such a covenant was prophesied of by Ezekiel 37 and Jeremaiah 31:31. So again if this is the covenant that was confirm exactly 3 and 1/2 years into Jesus ministry then the 70th week is all in the past and already fulfilled.

Henry - June 28, 2010

Hello again Don,

I wanted you to consider some further points. In response to the question of why there is a gap between the 69 and 70 weeks, most people who hold to the view that the 70th week is in the future would say that because after 69 weeks God had finished in His dealings with Israel for that time? How can someone argue that in light of the Gospel? Was the Gospel not the New Covenant which God had promised to Israel? So after Jesus had ascended and the Holy Spirit came was God not still dealing with Israel on that faithful day at Pentecost when all the Jews had been gathered in Jerusalem to hear the Disciple, Apostles, etc speaking in tongues? Throughout the Book of Acts do we not see the apostles taking the Gospel to the Jews? What about Jesus prophesying to the Jews that the temple would be destroyed, which we know happened in 70 A.D.? Was this not God dealing with the Jews (or Israel) also?

However I do not want to dwell on that too much. Instead what I want to focus on is Jesus’ prophesy concerning the destruction of the temple and the desolation of Jerusalem. Let us first look back on Luke 21:5-7, 20-24:

Luke 21
5And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 7And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be?

20And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

In this passage of scripture Jesus prophesied of the destruction of the temple first in verses 5-7. I think it is clear also that what Jesus is saying here in verses 20 to 24 is connected to the destruction of the temple mentioned earlier. Would we say then that Jesus was not talking about what happened in 70 A.D. and that He is talking instead about a future time period? No we wouldn’t would we?

Now conflating this passage of Luke with Matt 24 what do we learn?

Matt 24
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

If we notice this portion of Matt 24 is more or less identical to Luke 21 except that the writer of Matthew started out by saying, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place” vs Luke who said, “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh”. In both instances however the desolation of Jerusalem was immediately in view and the same warning is given by both writers that, “Let them which are in Judea flee into the mountains”. It is noteworthy to mention here that Jesus did not seem to imply that Daniel made mention of more than one “abominations of desolations” so we know there is only one abomination of desolation, which would come after Christ had ascended. (So the argument that the abomination could be Antiochus Epiphanes setting up an altar to Zesus does not follow as we know he existed many years before Christ.)

As aforementioned then the desolation of Jerusalem which Jesus spoke of in these two passages must be the one and the same and it has to be the desolation which followed the setting up of the abomination which maketh desolate. We know that the desolation took place in 70 A.D when the temple and Jerusalem was destroyed so the abomination of desolation must be in the past. It cannot be a future event. How then can interpreters such as yourself argue that the abomination of desolation will be set up in the middle of the 70th week some time in the future? If that were true then these events that Jesus speaks of as recorded in both Luke and Matthew cannot relate to the 70 A.D desolation and is off into the future as well. In which case the 70 A.D desolation is absent from scripture. But this cannot be the case is it?

Another thing that is worth noting is that there is a contraction of the prophesy from the 70 A.D destruction straight through to the time of the end. This is clearly the case since Luke said in verse 22”For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled” (in reference to the desolation of Jerusalem). We know from scriptures that the days of vengeance are the last days really and so from the time of the destruction of the temple through to the end is being treated in scripture as a single interconnected period although to us it is thousands of years. Maybe this is the reason why many of us are missing the mark when trying to interpret these things, thinking that events that are past were meant to occur in the future. Let me know your thoughts on this.

3. Dick - April 7, 2012

the only problem I have with this interpretation is, Where is the last 31/2 years?

4. Henry - April 9, 2012

Dick,
Thanks for dropping by. The doctrine of a future 70th week is a confusing one. Some say that the 70th week will be fulfilled in the future whilst some say 3.5years of that week is already fulfilled and the other 3.5 will be fulfilled in the future. In my view time does not operate like that though the argument here is that the “prophetic clock” stopped at either 69 weeks or 69.5 weeks with the rest to be fulfilled in the future. We have not seen any other example of this in scripture yet it is being assumed that this is what is happening. If you look at what happened before the commandment to go and rebuild Jerusalem we find that the Lord prophesied via Jeremiah that He would accomplish 70 years in the desolation of Jerusalem. The whole 70 years came to an end at the time of Daniel’s prayer and supplication in Daniel 9. The next period of time that God alloted to Israel was 70 weeks which we know to be 490 years taking a day for a year. Why then should one conclude that part of the period of time is fulfilled and another part will be fulfilled thousands of years into the future? Makes no sense whatsoever. Whilst we do not have all the answer concerning the total fulfilment of the 70th week time does not operate as some are suggesting but this is rather a continuous period.

5. Jerry kelso - April 10, 2012

Henry, Daniels 70th week concerns 70 7’s. Hebrew for week is shabua 7.
Daniel (9:2) This vision was an answer to Daniel’s prayer concerned years and not days.
70X7 is 490 years.
The division of the 70 weeks is split up into 3 periods. The 1st division is: 7 sevens, 49 years of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, verse 25.
The 2nd division is: 62 sevens, 434 years from the completion of the city at the end of the 49 years to the time Messiah is cut off or crucified for men verses 25-26.
The 3rd division is: one seven, the last 7 years of this age, ending with the 2nd advent of Christ to fulfill the events of verse 24.
Daniel 9:24 is where it talks about the 70 weeks which in Jewish terms is reference to seven years, which in this case is 70, 7’s or a total of 490 years is the purpose of the 70 weeks. This was for sure not fulfilled in 70 A.D. for in A. D. 70 the Jewish nation was completely destroyed and scattered. There was no finish to transgressions or end of sins, no bringing in of everlasting righteousness or anointing the most holy at this time.
Verses 25 and 26 have been fulfilled but, not verse 27 which is future. Matthew 24-15-21 shows the abomination of desolation in the future tribulation. Jesus talked earlier about the temple being destroyed which turned out to be 70 A.D. Matthew 24:2 But, he didn’t answer specifically in Matthew but he did in Luke 21: 12-24. Luke 19:34 gives a detailed account of Jerusalem being surrounded and how there wouldn’t be one stone left upon another. That was 70 A.D. Both 70 A.D. are similar but, different intentions and purposes.
One more thing is that the Matthew passage goes into the beginning of sorrows and he is speaking to the jews, specifically. They will have to endure to the end to be saved. This is in reference to the kingdom of which they will be the head of in the millennium. The gospel of the kingdom will be preached for a witnesses to all the nations; and then shall the end come. This could not have been talking about 70 A.D. for the Messianic kingdom did not appear. The gospel of the kingdom is not really the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as it is about (Revelation 11:15). The kingdoms of the world have become Christ. This message was preached in Jesus day and will be in the future and this message was known as a promise to the Jews, not the gentiles. Verse 15 plainly says the abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel. This is future in the tribulation, not 70 A.D. because it continues and leads up to the 2nd advent. In 70 A.D. there was no kingdom preaching and even if there was it still wouldn’t hold up because Christ has to take over all the kingdoms of the world not just the Roman Empire of 70 A.D. This is a preterist belief that is not found in the word of God.
One has to understand that the abomination of Desolation happens according to Matthew 24:15 and Revelation 11:1-3. The desolation of Antioch Epiphanes and Titus or whoever else you want to put in their from the past cannot fit these 2 passages. And that passage is also different from Daniel 8:9-14 which talks about the desolation of the daily sacrifice by the little horn who is the Antichrist.
Daniel 9:27 is the beginning of the tribulation for this is when Antichrist makes the covenant, but, Daniel 8:9-14 and Revelation 24:15 the Abomination of Desolation begins in the middle of the tribulation which is the last 3.5 years of the tribulation. This agrees with 2 Thessalonians 2: 4 where he is in the temple making himself as God.
Israel is now a nation and will be a nation till the antichrist desolates the temple and the daily sacrifice in the middle of the tribulation for he will have power to scatter the holy people. Revelation 12:18. Antichrist will never totally rule the world for Christ the Messiah will come back before he can do that and he will establish the Kingdom of Heaven he promised to the jewish nation forever.
Jerry Kelso

6. Jerry kelso - April 11, 2012

Henry, The assessment of the 70 weeks you have above is spiritualized and not the scriptural context. I wouldn’t say the position is wrong in it’s own context but, certainly not the biblical context.
Daniel 9:24; is determined on the jewish people and the earthly Jerusalem which is the Holy City. The biggest problem in that assessment of that verse is at the end when it says to anoint the most Holy. This is not talking about the Messiah but, rather, the cleansing of the Holy of Holies, the temple, and the city of Jerusalem, from the AoD, the sacrilege of Gentiles and to the anointing of the millennial temple of Ezekiel 40-43, Zechariah 6:12-13.
The Most Holy is never used of a person and would never be used by a Jew to associate with the Messiah. Man will not anoint or crown the Messiah because this has already been done by God the Father; Luke 22:29; Acts 1:7; 2:36; Philippians 2:9-11 Hebrews 1:1–3; Revelation 11:15; 19:11-21; Daniel 7:13-14.
The crucifixion of the Messiah was to be after the 62 7’s and was to follow the 7 7’s or 49 years of restoration of Jerusalem. Daniel 9: 25-26. So Christ was crucified at the end of the 69th week.
You think that this prophecy is all about Christ doing away with the types of blood, bulls and goats and Christ did do that for sure at Calvary. As I say, I don’t dismiss these facts but, this is not the whole of the context. There are plenty of scriptures to prove the abolishment of the law and the shadows and types. Daniel as a whole is all about the nations that persecuted Israel, mainly because of their disobedience and how they come into play as future kingdoms and how that comes into play in the tribulation which is the purging of Israel from their sins as a nation so they can take their place as heirs of the kingdom as the head of the nations with Messiah being their leader and completely in harmony and end to their sinning. So there is no disharmony in the 70th week being future. At best it could only be used as a double reference or historical context to enhance the fact about history repeating itself in similar ways. Ecclesiastes 1:9 and Ezekiel 28:11-26.
Daniel 12 talks about the tribulation, the time and times and a half which is 42 months or 3.5 years. He talks about the AOD and the scattering of the people which are the jews, being in the time of the end. When is the time of the end? It couldn’t have been when Christ was crucified or A.D. 70. It will be at the end of the Great Tribulation known as Jacob’s Trouble.
Even if you want to believe that the 70th week is over you have to surely know that there will be an AOD in the jewish temple in the future as Revelation 11 shows and the jews will be scattered as in Daniel as well as Revelation 12 and 13. There is no way around it and I repeat this passage is about the people and the holy city and their full restoration to their kingdom position not about Christ being crucified to make end to sins, etc. While Christ made an end to sins etc. Israel rejected him and the kingdom has been postponed till the end of time so your assessment is only right in your context but, not the biblical context. Read Daniel again and you will see it is not a book about Christ death to get rid of the shadows and types.
Jerry Kelso

7. Henry - April 19, 2012

Jerry,
In response to your comment of April 10, let me say firstly that I have not attempted to spiritualise anything. In my view you have things completely mixed up. You need to read Daniel 9 by itself ignoring all your preconceptions. Daniel 9 is linear. The angel told Daniel that Jerusalem would be rebuilt unto Messiah and that Solomon’s fallen temple would be rebuilt. He then goes on to ssay that Messiah will be cut off and that following this a people of a prince that will come will destroy the city once again and the sanctuary – and for the overspreading of abominations he will make it desolate.

If this desolation is future to 70 A.D. then the Prophecy skipped over the events of 70A.D. and did not mention them at all. There the santuary that Daniel would have been talking about would be a future one and not the one that was to be rebuilt in the days of Nehimiah the prophet. But this cannot be so. Daniel is clearly telling us that Solomon’s temple would be rebuilt and Jerusalem but after this when Messiah is cut off a people will come and destroy the existing city and sanctuary. We therefore know that the exisiting city and sanctuary was destroyed and made desolate in 70 A.D. Once you get this clear then you can more clearly understand Matt 24. In Matt 24 the events that were to happen in the future as well as at the time of the destruction of the existing temple were conflated and condensed into one. Jesus answered the question of when should the existing temple be destroyed and what shall be the sign of the coming of Christ coming and of the end of the world. How can you say that Jesus did not answer the question of when the temple would be destroyed in Matt 24 but He did in Luke 21? Did Jesus speak a different Olivet Discourse to two separate writers or did He speak once and the writers interpreted the same message and write it down from their own perspective? Jerusalem being surrounded by armies in Luke 21 is therefore a mirror reflection of the abomination which maketh desolate spoken of by Daniel in Matt 24. This was the signal of the the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

A future rebuilt temple in Jerusalem cannot be holy (the most Holy) but an abomination unto the Lord. You need to get this straight. Have you not read in scripture that the Priesthood of Christ has replaced the Levitical priesthood and that the changing of the priesthood necessitated a change in the Law (Heb 7)? This is why a future rebuilt temple with sacrifices cannot be holy nor can it be the temple of God. The temple of God today is the CHURCH. If the man of sin will sit anywhere therefore it will be in high office in the CHURCH.

What you present is not really your own original ideas but what has been propagated since the 1800s if not earlier.

8. Henry - April 19, 2012

Jerry,

You do not seem to understand some basic biblical tenets of the faith yet you like to throw words around like exegisis and hermeneutics. God made a new covenant with whom? Israel! What was the new covenant? The new covenant is written in Christ’s blood. Israel however rejected the covenant the purpose of which was to reconcile both Jew and Gentile into one body. Do you therefore think that with the changing of the law and of the priesthood (Heb 7) that God would sanction a rebuilt temple with revived sacrifices and annoint it? He who rejects Christ has rejected God. Is this not what scripture teach? and that there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek? Isn’t this what Paul preached?

9. Jerry kelso - April 20, 2012

Henry, I have an appointment coming up but, I will answer your last reply.
Exegesis and hermeneutics is important.
I understand that the covenant was made with Israel according to Jeremiah 31 and gentiles had no covenant according to Paul in Ephesians. The gentiles were grafted in.
After the death, burial, and resurrection Jews were saved according to the death, burial, and resurrection. When Peter had the vision of the clean and unclean the gentiles were officially grafted in and part of the body. Paul bears this out in Ephesians because he was given the revelation straight from God.
I understand the law and the priesthood was changed according to Colossians, Galatians and Hebrews and etc.
It is not that God is necessarily sanction a rebuilt temple with sacrifices. But the jews are backslidden and will yearn to rebuild the temple and be searching for the Messiah to bring in the physical Kingdom of Heaven reign. This is what the tribulation and the second advent is all about. When this temple is built, it will also be desolated by the Antichrist and the jews will be scattered and have to go through the refining fire according to Zechariah 13;14 and Malachi too.
In the Kingdom of Heaven there will be the feasts for they are eternal. The jews in the Kingdom will still be Jews and do the feast and sacrifices but, for different reasons than when they were under the law and in the tribulation.
Hebrews 8 talks about this future when the covenant will be accepted by Israel. It wasn’t accepted by Israel in the early church and this is why Paul went to the gentiles and the jews were scattered and Jerusalem destroyed in 70 A.D. There is a difference between jews being saved in the early church and accepting the New Covenant. Technically, Jesus pronounced judgement of the nation of Israel in Matthew 23:37-39.
You have to understand gradual revelation and context to understand the correct interpretation. You seem to get hung up on a point and have an objection that you feel cannot be answered. To understand better would be to study some Messianic Jews position that believe in the death, burial, and resurrection and know that they are part of the church today. God Bless! Jerry Kelso

10. Jerry kelso - April 21, 2012

Henry, When I said you were spiritualizing Daniel it was because you believe Daniel 9:24 and 27 have been fulfilled. The transgressions and purging and etc. have not been fulfilled. The only way you could say that it was fulfilled was at Calvary and I believe you had a post to that effect. However, this is talking about the spiritual condition of Israel as a nation to bring them into the physical Kingdom of Heaven. This has never happened for 3 reasons.
1. They rejected Jesus offer of the Kingdom of Heaven. Matthew 23:37-39.
2. Jesus said in Acts 1:7 that the kingdom wasn’t for the disciples to know when it would be restored.
3. 70 A.D. Jerusalem was destroyed and the jews scattered into the nations so there was no restoration of Israel spiritually or physically.
These are 3 historical facts that cannot be denied.
From the rebuilding of the temple in Nehemiah’s day to the time of the Messiah was 483 years. This means that there is one week which is 7 years for Daniel was speaking in years and the jewish word for week is shabua which means 7.
Verse 25 and 26 have been fulfilled by the Romans. However, you misunderstand that the 483 years was when Christ came, afterwards Christ was crucified. Just because Daniel predicted the Messiah being crucified and the people of the prince destroying the city and the sanctuary doesn’t mean that it is a part of the 70th week. Israel’s end in 70 A.D. desolations would be determined and then verse 27 talks about confirming the covenant after that which would have to be future because when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem there was no one to confirm the covenant.
The Catholics try to show history that there was a seven year covenant historically but, there was not, it is fabricated and they try to engage you in their early church fathers to prove it and muddy up the waters. This is why verse 27 has not been fulfilled.
One of the biggest reasons that 70 A.D. was not the 70th week is because it has nothing to do with the big picture which is Israel coming back to God as a nation and Christ establishing the Kingdom of Heaven reign.
So the conclusion is that Daniel does discuss 70 A.D. which is after the 483 years but, it is not included in the 70th week or the last 7 years which is related to the end of the time of the Gentiles. This is why verse 24 and 27 has not been fulfilled.
Israel was united in 1948 as a nation but, spiritually as a nation they have been dead since Jesus day and even before. In the tribulation Jerusalem will be held by the Jews until the Antichrist desolates the temple and he will have part of Jerusalem. Israel will have to be regathered by Jesus Christ to receive the physical Kingdom of Heaven.
I respectively say once again that you have tunnel vision because you are going to seed on the historical picture of 70 A.D. without understanding the big picture of how it relates to the end times.
I won’t equate you with Catholics but, this is the very reason they believe in replacement theology and that the church has to go through the tribulation. They believe that God is through with the Jews.
The bottom line is that you assume that 70 A.D. has to do with the 70th week because the 69th week ended with the time of the Messiah. You are basing it on the fact of the city and the sanctuary being destroyed, but, you fail to take in the context of the spiritual purging and restitution of the nation of Israel and that is why you spiritualize verse 24 and say that it happened at Calvary.
The fact is that there was no covenant made 7 years prior to 70 A.D. and that there surely could not be one afterwards at that time which means that verse 27 has not been fulfilled.
So I am not talking out of my head but, rather out of the historical context of what happened and it doesn’t match up across the board with what you believe.
One last thing is that the 70 weeks of Daniel has no prophetic significance if it ended at 70 A.D. If it does you please let me know. Jerry Kelso

Henry - April 24, 2012

Jerry, I am not hung up on any particular point but if you are going to make a case be sure that your arguments add up. I have no need of studying what messianic jews believe thank you very much. I would rather stick to scriptures. Again you make the same silly contradictions. One minute you argue that Israel was scattered in 70AD. Then you say they will not be regathered until the 2nd Advent but yet you say they will build the temple before they are regathered and that they will then be scattered before they are actually regathered and you cannot see that you are not making sense here. I can see there is no point discussing with you because you are unable to see the conflicting statements you make. Henry

Henry - April 24, 2012

Jerry, there is nothing to understand here. What you purport is not exactly original thought but something I have seen before. The arguments were popularised by people like John Nelson Darby and which was passed down to you today. Keep believing it if it makes you happy. The prophetic significance of Daniel 9 must be taken in context with the earlier prophesies of Jerimiah who prophesied that God would bring about 70 years in the desolation of Israel. At the time of Daniel 9 that time period had come to an end and Daniel received what was to become of Israel after the 70 years of exile in Babylon. If you open your eyes you will see the prophetic significance. Henry

11. Jerry kelso - April 28, 2012

Henry, I’m sorry you are not understanding or seem to want to be objective. I have never specifically read Darby but, I know he is considered the Father of Dispensationalism which is not really true. Paul said he was given the Dispensation of Grace. One I believe in dispensations but, I don’t agree with everything necessarily said within those confines and I don’t like to be put into a box, but, I know it help us to understand people’s thought patterns and hermeneutics sometimes but, some people protestants think I have Catholic reasonings. We have many things in common with Catholics until you get to some of the extreme doctrines.
I have already stated in the 3rd temple fallacy why you are wrong about Daniel 9. I wouldn’t deny the prophesies in Jeremiah and Daniel that deal with 70 years in the desolation of Israel, I have not disagreed. But, there is a difference between the 70 years and the whole of Daniel’s 70th week.
You believe that Daniel 9 ended in A.D. 70 which is erroneous because there was no one that made and broke a covenant in A.D. 70 with Israel. All Rome did was desolate the temple and destroy the city. How did you miss that point? Did you have your eyes closed? Please give me a direct answer to who you think made a covenant back then for one week? Jerry Kelso

12. Henry - May 1, 2012

Jerry,

A lot of what you believe is based solely on ASSUMPTIONS. For example you said in your last comment here that there is no one that made and broke a covenant with Israel in 70AD. However, the scriptures DID NOT say anything about anyone making a covenant with ISRAEL specifically. The scriptures stated simply that “he shall CONFIRM a covenant with the many for one week”. There is a great deal of difference between “making” a covenant and “confirming” a covenant but since you pride yourself on being such an expert in hermeneutics then I will leave you to work out what those differences are then perhaps you may be able to figure out who it is that confirmed the covenant and therefore what that portion of Daniel 9 is alluding to.

13. Jerry kelso - May 3, 2012

Henry, I do no base on assumptions; if I do I tell you I do.
I wouldn’t argue the point about the difference between confirming and making in your gentile mind but, in the Jewish mindset it can all be the same. Either way it an illogical argument when you realize that the agreement will be mutual and in this way he will confirm it and he will wait 3.5 years before he breaks it and desolates the temple and the sacrifice. If you logically deduce from the big picture then it most likely not assumption. If you just reason one point without understanding the context then you are relying on your own reasoning and not scriptural reasoning and this is why you fail with your confirming vs. making a covenant argument.
This is one of your problems is that you get tunnel vision and go to seed on one point and miss what the big picture is. Get the big picture first and then maybe you can start understanding the details instead of guessing. Jerry Kelso

14. Jerry kelso - May 13, 2012

Henry, I am going to say one more thing. Isaiah 11 talks about God recovering the remnant a second time. If you read the passage you will see it is talking about the future from the phrase; In that day in verse 10. Verses 3-9 also talks about the millennium for the wolf laying with the lamb, etc. has never happened and will not until the Kingdom of Heaven comes on earth. In verse 10 is still in the future because of the phrase in that day. Gentiles will seek in that day and God’s rest will be glorious. This will not be until the second coming of Christ.
1. The 1st dispersion was when Israel was led captive into Babylon.
2. The 1st regathering was after the 70 years all the way into the time of Christ despite being under Roman Rule.
3. The 2nd dispersion was when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. and Israel was scattered into the nations. This was prophesied in Daniel 9:26.
4. God has not regathered Israel since the 1st regathering.
5. The regathering of 1936 till they were made a nation in 1948 was manufactured by man not God. They had to be regathered in order to be scattered again in the end times.
6. God will recover Israel the second time at the second coming, Judah and Israel will be united and the envy of Ephraim will depart.
7. There is a difference between God recovering the remnant and man regathering. So once again this is the context of Isaiah11 and it shows that 70 A.D. though prophesied in Daniel 9 and Luke 21 doesn’t alter the 2nd regathering being at the second coming. That is scriptural and God doesn’t lie so accept it. Sincerely, Jerry Kelso

15. Henry - May 14, 2012

Jerry,

I certainly agree with you that the current regathering is not the prophetic return of Israel although this is what many believe. Therefore the second regathering is future which is what I have always said if you read my posts properly. However, you are still missing a lot of points regarding this subject which I won’t bother to raise again. The reconstituted state of Israel contains but a fraction of world Jewry today and the great majority (about 70%) of the Jews are currently living outside of Israel. There are many Orthodox Jews who believe that they are forbidden from relocating to the Holy Land until Messiah comes. So let us assume therefore that these Jews will not return until the future regathering. Does the 5 million Jews in Israel today constitue all Israel? So if in Rev 12 the dragon standing before the woman is future then this would not make sense because the 5 million does not constitute the 12 tribes of Israel. You need to also know that not all Israel are Jews as the term Jew is derived from Judah or Yehuda only. But because Judah and Benjamin lived together to form the southern kingdom they were all nicknamed Jews. Know therefore that the 10 (lost tribes) are not even numbered amongst those who call themselves Jews today. These 10 tribes lost their identities and no one knows who they are today. These were they that Jesus sent the disciples to as He knew them and where they were. So will all these people be awakended to their identities and enter the Holy Land to live before God gathers them at the second coming? If no how can the dragon stand before the “woman” (which have the 12 stars – signifying the 12 tribes) and cause the “woman” to flee into the dessert? And you say I have tunnel vision?

Henry

16. Jerry kelso - May 15, 2012

Henry, I wasn’t saying you didn’t think the regathering wasn’t in the future. You were talking about 70 A.D. not being counted etc. and the covenant in Daniel 9:27 didn’t have nothing to do with the future tribulation. 70 A.D. was not and is not in the 70th week of Daniel. There was the 1st dispersion into Babylon, the first regathering after coming out of
Babylon all the way to the time of Christ. The Jews rejected Jesus and pronounced the Judgement on Israel and the Holy City and it came to pass in 70 A.D. which Daniel prophesied in Daniel 9:25-26. and Luke 21:21-24. Daniel 9:24 and Daniel 9:27 is prophetic and is unfulfilled. It is the jews that have to be purged and become a nation born in one day Isaiah 66:8 not the body of Christ.
In the tribulation Zechariah says 2/3 of the nation of Israel will be cut off and 1/3 will come through the fire. The church of today called the body of Christ will never be overcome by the gates of hell and it has never been trodden down, but, Israel has. This eliminates the church of the body of Christ going through the tribulation.
Ezekiel 37 talks about the end time of Israel and Judah coming together as the two sticks.
The 10 lost tribes are not necessarily lost if you believe in British Israeli ism. Even in James day and Peter’s they were scattered not lost. It is true that Elijah will come back before the great and dreadful day according to Malachi and he will most likely be the one to reveal the identities of all the tribes and this will be part of the gospel of the Kingdom being preached to all the nations in Matthew 24.
Israel is a country today with Tel Aviv as it’s capitol and in the tribulation it will shift back to Jerusalem or at least eventually. It really has no bearing on what will happen in the tribulation especially when the rapture occurs before that. So your whole misunderstanding about Revelation 12 and the woman in the wilderness makes no sense.
The lost sheep of Israel in Jesus day had nothing to do with identities being lost according to tribes but, it was repentance. There is no real distinction in a jew or an Israelite even, though I understand the argument. Also. the Anglo-Saxon theory just does not hold up at all and they are proponents of that belief if memory serves me correctly.
You still haven’t explained why you think the temple in Revelation 11 and the man child in Revelation 12 would be historical. Do you think there is really a specific purpose or just a spiritualized historical context to try to prove your point?
The whole point of the tribulation and the Day of the Lord is for Christ to conquer the kingdoms of the world Revelation 11:15 and to establish the nation of Israel as the head of the nations of the Kingdom of Heaven Reign on Earth that was promised through their part of the covenants Isaiah 2:2-4; Isaiah 11; Isaiah 9:7-6-7 and Isaiah 66:7-8.
The body of Christ will be in Heaven for 7 years before they come back to earth with Christ to take their proper rulership positions on the earth and we will also have rulership positions throughout the universe. The earthly people will not have this privilege.
What is here today can be gone tomorrow and this includes nations. The conditions will be completely different in the tribulation period than it is now. This is one reason many prophecy teachers end up changing certain things that they believe prophetically. Do you believe that Israel has an earthly calling and the church a heavenly calling. If one don’t keep these things separate one will never understand prophecy correctly. Jerry kelso

17. Henry - May 16, 2012

Jerry,
I will say to you what I have said to others before. Please refrain from rehashing the same arguments you have already put forward because it serves no useful purpose than to clog up the blog. You have not said anything in your last response here that you have not already said before. I also notice your attitude in sidestepping the issues and instead go off on a tangent to post your own beliefs rather than respond directly to questions posed to you.

There is a clear distinction between Jew and Israelite whether you want to acknowledge this or not. All Jews (naturally born) are Israelites (or Hebrew) but not all Israelites are Jews – do your hermeneutics. Abraham was an Hebrew but he was most certainly not a Jew. The term Jew is an English transliteration of the shortened form of the term Yehudah (Judah). This was the term given to the Southern kingdom of Judah and those who lived in it. The tribe of Benjamin lived with the tribe of Judah and therefore they were all nicknamed Jews along with some other people who came to live in the Land who were not Israelites by descent. At the time of Christ only a remnant of the Jews were living in Jerusalem as the Northern kingdom of Israel went into exile. This is why when you look at the prophets such as Isaiah you will see their use of terms such as, “and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah” (Isa 11:12), thus showing two distinct nations.

I have shown clearly on more than one occassion why I believe Revelations 12 is past and also Rev 11:1-2 but you either cannot see it or you refuse to see it so you can keep to your dispensational views if you want but as for me I am certain that this position is false.

The book of Revelations is not a chronological book but one that interweaves backwards and forwards and which also demonstrates repeating patterns. But I wont go into this too much but shall look at some of the reasons I believe Rev 12 is past and also Rev 11:1-2). In Rev 12:9 we read that Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven. I asked you before is this future or is this passed but in true style you ignored it. However if you look at 2 Pet 2:4 and Jude 1:6 does this not clearly show that God casting the angels that sinned, at the time of these prophets writing, had already occurred? Nevertheless consider this point. In Rev 2:13 we read:

13I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

We see here that Satan’s throne is in Pergamos where he already dwells. But if we put Rev 12 into the future we are saying that Satan will be cast down to earth at some point in the future (during the supposed 70th week?) and that this is when his throne will be established. Rev 12:3 shows that Satan is represented as a red dragon which is by definition a kingdom having 7 heads and 10 horns and his kingdom was already at Pergamos. How can Satan be cast to earth in future when in John’s day he was already dwelling in Pergamos where his throne was situated. Can you still argue then that Rev 12 is future?

As for Rev 11:1-2 it seems that whenever you see 42 months all you can see is 3.5 years of tribulation or one half of the supposed 70th week. In prophetic terms a day can be used for a year as in Daniel 9. It seems convenient though that we can move from a week of years in Daniel 9 to say that the 42 months here referred to is measured in literal days rather than prophetic years. Why can we not apply the same principle to get 1260 years (42months of 30 days each day for a year) instead of 3.5 literal years? Talk about changing the goal post. But no, you have to bend this part of scripture to fit your dispensational theories so that it can hopefully fit neatly into your supposed future 70th week (7 year tribulation period). This issue however centers around “the temple of God”. Throughout the Bible there is either a specific command or a prophecy which instructs or foretells the building of the temple ever since the days of the early Tabernacle. Yet there is no prophecy foretelling the re-building of a future temple in Jerusalem of course aside from the spiritual temple and the temple within the New Jerusalem which comes down from heaven. Because of the 42 months reference you automatically assume 70th week and therefore argue that 70 A.D. when the temple was destroyed is not the 70 th week. I agree 70 A.D. is not the 70th week but neither do I agree that Rev 11:1-2 is talking about the 70th week. So for you to establish a theory and then argue in favour of that theory does not amount to proper exegesis.

Luke 21:20-24 speaks specifically of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and of it being trampled under foot by the gentiles yet you are going to ignore this and argue that Jerusalem wasn’t trodden down in 70 A.D. for 3.5 years. The fact that Luke 21 doesn’t mention the lenght of time of the trampling down does not preclude it from being the same event from Rev 11:1-2. A future rebuilt temple could never be classed as “the temple of God”. The temple of God today is the church in which all Christians are priest – the preisthood has changed (Heb 7) and the temple system was only a shadow of what was to come in this dispensation of the church age.

Rest assured if you keep reposting your same old arguments they are going to be unapproved in future.

18. Jerry kelso - May 17, 2012

Henry, I have stated my point much more consistent and clearer than you claim that you have yours. With that said I will touch on your points that you have stated right now in this post.
1. You point out the argument of a distinction between a Jew and Israelite and that is fine because I know that argument. I don’t completely agree with your argument but, it doesn’t make a difference in the big picture of Israel’s earthly calling.
The Bible makes no big distinction between Jew and Israelite in ethnicity. In Romans Paul was talking to ethnic Jews and said everyone that thought they were a Jew wasn’t necessarily the truth. This doesn’t do away with Israel’s ethnicity or calling that is separate than the body of Christ in the millennial kingdom. It does mean the same thing that Jesus proclaimed and that is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven rule and reign with Christ the Jew or Israelite had to repent from their backslidden condition and be holy to God. This is where the replacement theologians go awry in their belief that the body of Christ being grafted are now spiritual Israel completely. We are spiritual Israel spiritually speaking but, not ethnic wise and calling. From Moses time Israel was the whole nation and it was not until later that the factions happened which I believe was in Rehoboam’s day, who was Solomon’s day. Like I said before, Israel and Judah are the two sticks in Ezekiel 37 that will be joined together in the end and the envy of Ephraim will be gone in the end. So the argument of differences of Hebrew and Jew or Israelite is void according to the scriptures and to the big picture in the light of Israel’s earthly calling. Israelites-Hebrew-Jew-ethnic who are believers in Yeshua.
I’m truly sorry if you made a case for Revelation 11 and 12 but, to me it was more of a statement of what you believed more than why or how you come to that conclusion. With that said I will answer your response.
2. I have already and agreed that Revelation is not completely chronological even though it is more than you realize when it is put in the proper perspective.
3. I went through the whole chapter of Revelation 12 and if somehow I skipped over the war in heaven I apologize. The truth is I have said more than once that Revelation 12 is happening in the tribulation and there are no historical contexts in this chapter.
You mention 2 Peter and Jude and try to reference them to this passage and it don’t work. I have tried to explain this to you before of your hermeneutics. You think because this description is basically the same and that Peter and Jude are in the past then Revelation has to be past. As a basic rule that would be true but, it doesn’t fit the time factor and the big picture of the end times.
First of all, Peter and Jude are talking about the angels and the 1/3 estate and Satan when they first sinned before Adam and Eve. Revelation is talking about Michael and his angels against the Dragon, who is Satan or the Devil and his angels in the future because it has to do with being the accuser of the brethren and not having that privilege anymore. There was no man to accuse when they first fell and when they were kicked out of Heaven. Those that messed up later on in the days of Nimrod when the son’s of God intermixed with the daughters of men; Satan was still accusing the brethren in those days and will up to the middle of the tribulation. This accuser of the brethren is part of the actual mystery of God in Revelation 10. I know what you are thinking but, I am not going to get in it right now. If you’ll read Revelation 12 the Devil is kicked out of Heaven being overcome by the blood of the lamb and goes chasing the woman in the wilderness. It is improper hermeneutics to say that the war in heaven is historical when he is kicked out of Heaven from that war and goes chasing the woman in the wilderness in the present tense. So your argument cannot be right.
4. Pergamos was Satan’s seat that had moved from Babylon. As I have said before, the 7 kingdoms were crowned in Revelation 12 and not the 10 horns. In Revelation 13 the ten horns were crowned. I understand your concern but, this is slightly different than what you are thinking. The kingdoms that oppressed Israel was Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. The 7th kingdom will be the ten horns because no one oppressed Israel in the same manner after Rome because they were scattered. You may think this is a contradiction for Revelation 13 because the 10 horns being crowned but it is not. Revelation 12 is the transition from Satan, the Dragon to the Antichrist because Satan gives his seat, power and authority to the Antichrist in Revelation 13. The significance of the 10 horns being crowned in Revelation 13 is that they give their power to the Antichrist after they get rid of the Mystery Babylon, the Whore; read Revelation 17.
This is why your historical argument is not fully correct.
5.I have already said previously that Daniel is talking about years when it comes to the context of the 70 weeks. just like Daniel 9:2 which talks about the 70 years of captivity of Babylonian captivity. If the prophecy was just 70 days or week wouldn’t make no sense. I agree with 42 months which is 3.5 years for the time of Jacob’s trouble. Daniel 12 bears this out. I just happen to believe there is the same amount of time before that. 1260 days of the last half of the tribulation which is 42 months and then there is 1290 days from the same point for the sanctuary has to be cleansed and then there is 1350 days till the consummation of the Kingdom of Heaven rule and reign. This is found in Daniel 12.
If you don’t want to believe in the 1st half of the tribulation with the seals and the trumpets is fine and the way it appears your hermeneutics doesn’t seem to allow for that. Not all, but, most scholars agree that the seals and trumpets are the 1st 3.5 years. But, you cannot account for 7 years but, I can because it is the Antichrist who make the covenant with Israel and breaks it in the middle of the week and this is what Daniel 9:27 says and you have no proof of a historical covenant made and broken. Also, Revelation 6 is the Antichrist coming to power and has the beginning of sorrows which Matthew 24 talks about before the wrath of the Lamb and the Wrath of God are poured out. Revelation 6 and 16. So I am not bending any scripture or making up anything. The 70th week of Daniel is the only week that has not been fulfilled, but, it will be in the end.
6. The future millennial temple is found in Ezekiel 40-48.
7. I believe Luke 21 was the fulfillment of 70 A.D. Jesus didn’t fully give this answer in depth in Matthew 24 because he dealt with the end of the age of the last days more.
8. Once again your assessment is not correct about the temple of God. We as new covenant believers of which is the body of Christ full of jews and gentiles ethnic wise but, none as far as being on the same level in relationship. The temple of God for the jews in the Israelite nation that have an earthly calling will eventually accept the new covenant as a nation and will become a temple of God just like believers today but, that doesn’t forfeit cancel or do away with the fact of them having a physical temple and one that will be a temple of God. Until, you understand what was promised to the Jews as the head of the nations on earth and know that that is separate what was promised to the church you will keep bringing up useless objections and your own human reasoning and never be able to put the puzzle together correctly.
Israel has the law forever and the scripture says the law was abolished. If you don’t know how to reconcile these factors to where there is no contradiction, then you will stay confused.
To recap: 1. Your distinction between Israelite and Jew holds no water in the light of the big picture of the end times and the result that God will bring to pass.
2. We agree that Revelation is not completely chronological.
3. I have shown that Revelation 12 is future because the 7th kingdom crowned is future in the tribulation, the war in heaven is present because of the fact of the accuser of the brethren issue and being in the present tense when kicked out of Heaven and going after the woman in the wilderness.
4.We agree that Pergamos was the historical seat of Satan. I have explained Revelation 12 and 13 and why they are future which are these 2 reasons: The 7th kingdom was future because Israel was scattered after the 6th which was Rome. The 10 horns give their power to the Antichrist in the middle of the tribulation, right after they kill off the Mystery Babylon which is the religious system, the whore of Revelation 17.
5. I proved that Daniel’s time factor was proven and said in years not days or months according to Daniel 9:2. and we agreed on the 3.5 years-1260-42 months, the difference is that you believe the only tribulation is the 3.5 years and I believe that the first half is the beginning of sorrow and the seals and the trumpets. The last 42 months is the time of Jacob’s trouble which pertains to Israel only and in Revelation 12 they are fleeing into the wilderness so the vials are all that is left in the last half of the tribulation outside of the other things mentioned such as the Antichrist Kingdom, the false prophet, literal Babylon etc.
6. The future millennial temple will have to be discussed more and an understanding of the jews earthly calling to be clearer.
7.We agree on Luke 21 but, not Matthew 24.
8. Your objection about being the temple of God and the new covenant already being established has no bearing on the truth of the scriptures that fulfills the promises to Israel in their earthly calling. Israel has the feasts forever according to the scriptures and they will need a temple. The earthly temple was fashioned after the heavenly temple and Heaven does sacrifices though not the same kind as they did before the cross. When you understand the proper perspective you will understand that there is no contradiction of Israel having a temple on earth in the millennial kingdom forever.
Your reasoning is without complete understanding the context and the reconciling of the right scriptures. Because you think that Israel would be going back into the old covenant instead of the new covenant because of what the temple stood for or whatever makes no sense. If it does, you might as well have done away with the heavenly temple. See how ridiculous that reasoning is?
As far as repeating is fine because I don’t necessarily have to keep repeating and sound like I’m beating a dead horse. I will say this, a person has to study and show themselves approved of God, but, they also have to pliable to know when the truth is being spoken when it’s clear and one has to also be careful the perception they give off who is teaching some false especially when they don’t fully understand the other person’s position. We need to contend for the faith and man can be accountable to man for certain things, but, how we rightly divide the word and judge others is accountable to God.
I have not rambled but, I have touched on your points and recapped so feel free to give your response. God Bless!. Jerry Kelso

19. Henry - May 18, 2012

The temple of God for the jews in the Israelite nation that have an earthly calling will eventually accept the new covenant as a nation and will become a temple of God just like believers today but, that doesn’t forfeit cancel or do away with the fact of them having a physical temple and one that will be a temple of God. Until, you understand what was promised to the Jews as the head of the nations on earth and know that that is separate what was promised to the church you will keep bringing up useless objections and your own human reasoning and never be able to put the puzzle together correctly.

Israel has the law forever and the scripture says the law was abolished. If you don’t know how to reconcile these factors to where there is no contradiction, then you will stay confused.

Your reasoning is without complete understanding the context and the reconciling of the right scriptures. Because you think that Israel would be going back into the old covenant instead of the new covenant because of what the temple stood for or whatever makes no sense. If it does, you might as well have done away with the heavenly temple. See how ridiculous that reasoning is?

Jerry,

Nothing that you have said has either been clear or consistent – this is in your own mind only. I wont bother to address all your ramblings but rather the above quotes which demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding on your part concerning the Gospel. From what you have said above you are saying that the Jews are still under the old covenant, which is why they must still have their temple and their sacrifices. So Christ died for nothing? You need to go and study this carefully before you come to my blog to insult me on my knowledge of the truth. You like many others in the evangelical movement are in ERROR concerning the gospel when you claim that the Jews do not need the gospel because they are under the Old Covenant which according to you they have forever. Did God not say that He was going to make a New Covenant with this people Israel, and did Christ not fulfill this New Covenant in His blood? Read Jer 31, Heb 7 and Heb 8 to understand that God has instituted a new covenant with ISRAEL and that with a change in the Law there is change in the priesthood and the old covenant decays and vanishes away. So how can you claim to be speaking biblical truth when you argue these things away by saying that the Jews have the feast forever?

You keep going on about earthly kingdom vs heavenly kingdom and this I believe is what is clouding your mind concerning the purpose and intent of the New Covenant.

Here we read in Rom 10

1Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

What you are therefore arguing in favour of is for the Jews to go about establishing their own righteousness in defiance of the cross which Paul clearly shows here is error. Why? For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. Note also in verse 12 that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Jew and the Greek for the same Lord is Lord over all and whosoever shall call upon His name shall be saved.

When you can understand the nature of the new covenant then hopefully things may fall into the proper perspective for you.

20. Jerry kelso - May 23, 2012

Henry, I don’t know where you got the idea I said Israel was under the old covenant because I never said that and in other posts I have stated that Israel and the Gentiles are in the body of Christ today. So you are the one who that is not understanding for you are the one that said from what I was saying. This means that you don’t understand what I am saying. Now if you picked that up because I said Israel has the Law forever then you are still wrong. They have the law under NEW COVENANT STANDARDS AND NOT THE MOSAIC ETHIC. I don’t have time to go into that. Thus, you are wrong to assume or think that I don’t have a clue about the gospel. Paul said, there is only one gospel and that is the death, burial, and resurrection. That is a plain statement to you, so you can’t truthfully say that I don’t understand the gospel. Ok?
2. I plainly told you that Israel though a nation now, they are still backslidden to God as a nation and they will be in the tribulation. They will have a temple because the prophecy is that the temple will be desolated. 1 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 11.
Whether you like it or not they will have a temple in the Millennium for they have the feasts forever and everything will be as a memorial not because of them being under the Mosaic law. So you need to get rid of the reasoning about those who believe about the temple not being desolated according to your view. It works for you in your view, but it doesn’t in the Bible view. So you have assumed wrong again.
Also, don’t equate me if there are other evangelicals that believe the jews have to believe in the old covenant right now. I am opposed to this view and that is the very reason there is a rift between the jewish community and the gentile community. I have said this before. Also, because of the misunderstanding of the old and new covenants from both sects of Jews and Gentiles there is a rift between them. This is why I said you have to understand what it means that the Jews have the law forever under the new covenant and the gentiles who are not under the law or never were under it have the new covenant also. If you took it at face value then it would be a contradiction, but, in the proper perspective they would not be a contradiction. That is another subject.
Jeremiah 31, was the promise to Israel of a new covenant that would be different from the Mosaic Law. Hebrews 7 talks about the priesthood being changed and it was and the Jews of today are in the body of Christ and so are gentile. Paul said there is no jew or Gentile. Though this seems like a contradiction it is not. The Jews and Gentiles are in the body of Christ today because of race. But, on the other hand there is neither because we are all equal in the body of Christ. Can you not understand this? Context is important so one can reconcile what appears to be a contradiction. Surely you understand this!. Hebrews 8 has to do with Israel as a nation accepting God by believing on the Messiah and given entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven because of the understanding of the prophecies. The 1st time Christ came they didn’t know what the message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ was or meant and Jesus never taught it for he was teaching the law. They had to recognize the Messiah and believe he was the Messiah and he would forgive their sins then they would be eligible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Even after Jesus resurrection and right before he ascended he had to expound of what happened according to Moses and the scriptures and what the death, burial, and resurrection was all about. Peter and the disciples didn’t even have a clue about the body of Christ for the first 8-10 years after Pentecost. The point is about the state of mind that the disciples were before the cross and after the cross. It will be the same way in the tribulation with those people and it is according to what they know and to the gradual revelation of prophecy.
The point is that Jeremiah was a future prophecy of the new covenant promised to the Jews as a nation, because Gentiles had no covenant. At the same time Christ had to die for the whole world and so it came to pass at Calvary; and since Jesus had pronounced judgement on Israel; Matthew 23:37-39 the new covenant for the jews as a nation did not come to pass at Calvary. Can you comprehend this? Hebrews 7 was a future prophecy that was fulfilled at Calvary; with the priesthood being changed and the body of Christ which is the church of today, not the Jewish nation. Hebrews 8 is the promise of the Jews nation fulfilling the new covenant of which they rejected before Calvary. You have to understand these distinctions in there proper context and time factors. Even if you don’t
want to believe these distinctions, surely you have got to understand the possibilities of
them. But, I am fully confident that these are correct because I used to believe how you believe.
As far as Romans 10 you are correct that it about the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new. I do not argue the point of the jews regulating the old covenant. The jews did this because of the law of sin and death that took the advantage of the Mosaic law that was Holy and Good and because of the weakness of the commandment made them live to the frailty of man. Read Romans 7 and you will find this to be true.
Quit trying to stereotyping me like all other dispensationalists. All you are doing is stereotyping the dispensationalist of maybe the majority, but, I can assure I don’t believe everything they do. If I sound like I’m stereotyping someone it is only that the overall census of what they are saying. I could be wrong about the details and if I am then I will admit it and move on.
After this, I will try to be more brief on my answers. This is the overall view to your major points.
You said I didn’t understand the gospel according to the Jews today or in the future and according to the temple.
1. I understand the gospel according to Paul is the death, burial, and resurrection which is the only gospel for the rest of time. The Jews are in the body of Christ right now and those in the tribulation that understand it will be too. However, the temple has to be desolated according to the prophecies like 1 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 11. Also, remember that your statement about Christ dying for nothing is contradicting Israel being under the law is far from the truth. Christ died for all men to be saved and that doesn’t contradict Israel being under the law then anymore than now. Can’t you see that Israel even now as a nation is blinded to salvation period and they will be in the tribulation until they come back to God. Understand?
2. I am sorry if I insulted you but, I believe you were the one that was being condescending to me about my theology first. I’ll try to be more brief and to the point after this.
3. You were wrong in stereotyping me with other dispensationalists which show you didn’t understand what I said. Jews and Gentiles are both in the body of Christ today and are under the new covenant. This is the same standard in the tribulation for many will be saved and baptized in the Holy Ghost, and dream dreams, have visions, etc. Act 2:17-19. Israel as a nation will be blinded at this time and have to turned to God and repent and then God will write it on their hearts afterwards. The death, burial, and resurrection is not mentioned in the passages concerning Israel in the last days. In the end they will have to understand the death, burial, and resurrection but if their revelation that they understand at that time is the same as the 1st time they will only know that they have to repent and look to the messiah to save them. After all, that is what the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS ALL ABOUT: REPENT, FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND! MATTHEW 4:17 AND REVELATION 11:15.
4. Jeremiah 31; New Covenant promised to Israel. The new covenant fulfilled at Calvary. To Israel as a nation it wasn’t fulfilled at Calvary for they rejected him before the cross. Matthew 23:37-39. You may object because Israel being the church mostly the formative years but, it has no ground to stand on because of Matthew 23 and Acts 27 when Paul decided to go to the gentiles cause Israel would not listen and receive the gospel.
5. Hebrews 7: Priesthood changed and the new covenant came and that happened at Calvary.
6. Hebrews 8: Still future for Israel is backslidden today and will be in the future.
7. Read Exodus and Deuteronomy and you will find that the feasts were eternal.
8. A new beginning and that is what the Kingdom of heaven is, which is, the millennial kingdom in the future when Christ reigns on earth with Israel and the church too.
9. You stereotyped me by saying the statement about jews regulating their own righteousness. I never said that and did not imply it in any of my statement. It means that was another of your assumptions that was incorrect.
10. It is interesting you used the word perspective, however I used the term proper perspective and that is what you need to understand what I am saying because, you are trying to figure it out by your perspective and reasoning and assumptions. I understand what and why you are saying but, you keep misunderstanding me and assuming I think and say what every other dispensationalist says or thinks. If you think I am being disrespectful even though, I feel I am not; I will try to do better and expect the same in return. Fair enough!. In the Spirit of Humility; Have a Great Day. Jerry Kelso

21. Henry - May 26, 2012

Jerry,

Firstly let me say that I do not mean to stereotype you and if I have offended you I apologise. However if I draw the wrong conclusions from what you have said it is because you present your arguments in an often wordy and somewhat confusing way. For instance you say in one breadth that the Jews rejected the covenant then say that the Jews and Gentiles are in the body of Christ. I hope you are not suggesting that unbelieving Jews are in the body of Christ but only the remnant according to the election of Grace.

You also said that no covenant was made with Israel at calvary because Israel rejected Christ before calvary yet at the same time argue that they are within the body. Whether or not they rejected Christ the covenant promise was fulfilled at Calvary and this is what the scriptures teach. Though not all Jews accepted Jesus at the time His early followers were Jews and so the early Christians were mainly Jews until the gospel was spread abroad to the Gentiles. Indeed the eyes of the Jews have been blinded but God saved a remnant according to the election of Grace. It is God who makes the covenant irrespective of whether man acknowledges it. In the same way God made the first covenant with Israel, Israel did not abide by it and that is why God kept punishing them and sending them into exile and bringing other nations against them. So in the same way that Israel kept rejecting God in the Old Covenant yet there were some that were righteous the same can be said of the New Covenant at present.

As far as your other dispensational views are concerned I am not going to argue with you on them. If that is what you believe suit yourself but I see no scriptural basis for most of those arguments.

Have a good day.

22. Jerry kelso - May 27, 2012

Henry, I am not really offended but puzzled. I do understand your frustration because when I was trying to figure out the message of the Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God and that Jesus didn’t teach the death, burial, and resurrection to the Jews as we the church are taught, it was hard because of trying to fit my hermeneutics and reasonings into their line of thinking. It is the same way with the covenants etc. Much of it has to do with the dispensations and gradual revelation and terms and definitions and many positions in the scriptures sound like contradictions so they have to be reconciled. With that said I will explain first about the covenants.
1. No unbelievers are children of the covenants. This is made clear in Ezekiel passages like Ezekiel 3:17-21; 18:21-31; 33:7-20.
There are 2 different ways Israel were children of the covenants. One; as the nation of Israel God made them custodians of the covenants and culturally and ethnicity because of Abraham who was born a gentile. 2. If they were disobedient they would die and their righteousness would not be remembered by God. The spiritual aspect determined if they were true children of the covenants eternally with God. This is the same thought as in Romans 2:17-29. The body of Christ is in the body and are children of the covenants unless they apostasize.
2. To answer your question about the rejection you first have to go to Jeremiah 31. Israel was the only one with a covenant, not the gentiles and we know Paul confirms that in Ephesians. In Matthew 23:37-39 they rejected Jesus spiritually as a nation and that dealt with their covenant promises and calling. They forfeited this temporarily and Paul bears this out in Romans 11 and said the gifts and callings are without repentance. This is what the KOH was all about when John the Baptist and Jesus preached. Today much of the church is taught the same message of repentance and this is why the professing church is weak and not living to their full potential. Israel still has the promises of being the head of the nations but, they have to repent collectively as a whole nation. This will happen in the tribulation and then the kingdom will be set up by the Messiah.
3. When Christ died and rose again the new covenant came in for Jews and Gentiles both. This was because Christ had to die for the whole world and because the Jews as a nation had already rejected him before that time according to the prophecies. This means that in one sense the new covenant was prophetically fulfilled for the world but, not for Israel to become the head of the nations and fulfill all their covenant promises. So Jeremiah 31 was not fulfilled in it’s completeness for Israel. New Covenant-fulfilled for-Israel and Gentiles so all could be saved by the blood of Jesus and become one new man in the body of Christ.
4. Overall: New Covenant-to fulfill Israel’s covenant promises for their part in the earthly calling in the millennial kingdom was not fulfilled. Isaiah 9:6-7 will not be fulfilled until the government is literally on the Messiah’s shoulders then Revelation 11:15 will be fulfilled.
If one does not keep the distinction between Israel’s earthly calling in the millennium and forever they will always be confused and will not be able to put the puzzle together.
5. The church has a heavenly calling which means we are being trained to judge right now for our part in the earthly rule and reign as well as universal positions. 2 Timothy 2:12.; 1 Corinthians 6:2-3; Colossians 1:16.
6. The biggest mistake that some make is that they believe Israel has been replaced by the church and no longer has any promises concerning their earthly calling as head of the nations. The reasoning is because it makes no sense that God has put Israel and the Gentiles in one body today. If this was true then there would be no reason for Paul to be sad for his fellow brethren and the nation and no reason to say there gifts and calling are without repentance and that they would eventually be restored to their covenant promises when the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled and Christ comes back to restore the physical earth. The jews were the only ones promised the earthly calling all through the old testament. These gifts and callings are without repentance. The church is also promised to be judges throughout the earthly kingdom and judge angels but, they are not promised to be the head of the nations as Israel; Isaiah 2:2-4; 1Corinthians 6.
7. I don’t like to be called a dispensationalist because of being boxed in because of not believing every single jot and tittle. However, Paul was given the dispensation of Grace which means stewardship. Dispensations are scriptural and follows with how God judges the different ages of people in Romans 2:12-16. On the other hand; Covenant Theology says there is an old covenant and new covenant; covenant of works and a covenant of grace. However, Abraham was not under the law and symbolizes much of the new covenant; Galatians 4:21-31 that started with Abraham and came through Isaac. So dispensation is nothing to be snubbed at by any means anymore than covenant theology even though they don’t have everything perfect in their theology either.
8. In conclusion; The new covenant was established at Calvary for the whole world which is made up of Jews and Gentiles. The new covenant was not instituted for Israel as a nation concerning their gifts and callings at Calvary. It will be at the 2nd advent when the Kingdom of Heaven will begin. This is when Jeremiah 31and Hebrews 8 will be fulfilled at Israel and this is why Israel has an earthly calling as a nation which includes being the head of the nations etc. Their calling as a nation is to the earthlings. Their gifts and calling are without repentance.
Jeremiah 31:34 has never been fulfilled and this is why Jesus said in Acts 1:6-7 that the kingdom being restored wasn’t for them to know.
The church has a heavenly calling which includes judging the world and angels which incorporates other worlds. 1 Corinthians 6:2-3; Colossians 1:16. never the head of the nations of the earthly community. I trust this helps you. God bless! Jerry Kelso

23. Henry - May 28, 2012

Jerry,

Your last response was anything but short despite your promise. You just can’t resist can you? I will concentrate on just two points in reply. Firstly, and this is just an aside, you claimed that Abraham was born a gentile. This is an inaccurate statement because according to Genesis 10:2-5 the descendants of Japheth formed the nation of the gentiles. Abraham was a Shemite (note not a Jew) from where the term Semite comes. I raised the point because it pertains to hermeneutics which you are clearly not applying here.

Moving swiftly I have seen you make the claim repeatedly that Jesus did not teach the Jews about the death, burial and resurrection. I find this statement hard to believe. What did Jesus come to teach and to whom? Jesus came to declare the message of salvation to the Jew first and then to the Greek (or gentiles). Jesus taught the desciples (who were mostly Jewish) who in turn were commissioned to go and teach the lost sheep of the houses of Israel and later the whole world.

Jesus, speaking to the Scribes and Pharisees we read in Matt 12

40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

In Matt 16 we read:

21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

In John 2 we also read:

18Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21But he spake of the temple of his body. 22When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Here we again see Jesus speaking of His death and resurrection to the Jews but though the Jews did not understand, the desciples did understand. In the face of such evidence how can you make the claim that Jesus did not teach the Jews about the death, burial and resurrection? These are not the only evidence however as there is more.

John 13
33Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.

John 14
28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Contrary to what some belive also, the Old Testament does speak of the resurrection as we can see in Job 19:25-27, Psl 16:10 and Psl 49:15. The Jews were privy to these scriptures. How then can you claim that Jesus did not teach the Jews about the death, burial and resurrection? If Jesus did not teach these things to the Jews then we would be saying that Jesus did not deliver the gospel to the Jews and this is clearly not true.

24. Jerry kelso - May 29, 2012

Henry, First, You have to understand dispensations and how God dealt with men for a certain period of time before a change. ie mosaic law only for the Jewish nation; grace for all men in the new covenant.
1. The bible only speaks of gentiles and jews. Whether you are shemite, american, bohemian or gypsy etc, you are a gentile not a jew. If you are a jew, then you are not a gentile.
2. All the scriptures you gave have to be understood in their proper context. For instance, when Jesus said, Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days; this was a question by the Pharisees who thought Jesus was talking about the physical temple, not him dying and rising again. The truth is these statements were prophetic from that time.
The plainest he ever spoke was in John about eating his body and drinking his blood. This and the time that Jesus started telling them he was to die was after the Jews as a nation had rejected him. Before the rejection, the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God message was only to the Jews because they were promised to be head of the nations on earth in the kingdom. The church does not have these promises.
Jesus told Nicodemus, ye must be born again; born of water and of spirit. Born of water to a Jew had significant to the Red Sea deliverance. God said the second time he would sprinkled them and would have deliverance by the spirit. All the old testament types pointed to the death, burial, and resurrection including in Jesus days which was right before the actual transition from law to grace.
3. If Jesus would have taught the death, burial, and resurrection plainly like the church of today they would have been ready to kill him to have the kingdom. Peter said the day or so before he was to die that he wouldn’t let anyone kill Jesus and Jesus said; Get behind me Satan cause you don’t savor the things of God. Before the nation’s rejection Christ never required anyone to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection; it was to believe in him as the Messiah and that is why he had to be manifested to Israel.
4. John 13 and 14 were said after the rejection of Jesus so he spoke those things prophetically. You have to understand statements in their proper context according to gradual revelation, and dispensations not, just the statement itself. Exegesis takes into account all these things to get the proper meaning of what was and is intended. This is why many people misunderstand and go to seed; ie the 7th day Adventists belief in upholding dietary laws. I wouldn’t say that was a bad idea but, it is not a requirement for New Covenant believers.
5. The bottom line is that sometimes a plain statement can stand alone such as John 3:16 but, other times it cannot, such as 1 Corinthians 15:1-32: I die daily. It has to be understood in the context of the chapter. Other things have to be understood in its fullness by reading the whole book and etc. The disciples didn’t fully understand the death, burial, and resurrection until afterwards, and he went back over what the law and the prophets had said.
In conclusion, your argument from what you believe is the same as most dispensationalists. Jesus taught the death, burial, and resurrection and the Kingdom of Heaven and God and since the Jews rejected it he gave it over to the gentiles or the church. This is true and truly happened as far as the death, burial, and resurrection after he arose, but, it is not true pertaining to the message of the Kingdom of Heaven in the jewish dispensation. We are translated in the Kingdom of his dear son. The Kingdom of Heaven is the millennial kingdom rule and reign. Jesus fulfilled the law and he taught the law and then the law was abolished at Calvary.
One last note on gradual revelation; as an example. Jesus was a prophet, priest, and king. He was not a levite, but, of the Melchizadek priesthood. Jesus couldn’t have been a priest in his day because he was still in the levitical priesthood. This didn’t happen till Calvary and the new covenant was not instituted till then. If Jesus taught the death, burial, and resurrection at the beginning he would have been stoned by the jews for false doctrine and he would have never been able to carry out the prophecies as a suffering Messiah. Jerry Kelso

25. Henry - May 30, 2012

Jerry,

I have seen the argument before that the world is divided into Jews and Gentiles. This is according to man but not according to the scriptures. The term Gentile was ascribe specifically to the descendants of Japheth – the European peoples including the Greeks and Romans. At the time of Christ the Jews were living amongst the Gentiles. If all non-Jews were Gentiles then why did Jesus make a distinction between the Gentiles and the Samaritans?

“Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. Matt 10:6

This supposed biblical division of the world between Jews and Gentiles is a recent myth that is propagated throughout Christendom so try to convince someone else. Don’t waste your time on me with this one.

With regards to Jesus teaching death, burial and resurrection – we could look at it in two ways and your claim would still be false. The original apostles were Jews and Jesus taught them about His death, burial and resurrection. The Jews expected a kingdom of this world which they thought the Messiah was supposed to fulfill. When John taught that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand perhaps the Jews felt that this was going to be an earthly kingdom but then Jesus told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world. Jesus also told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God cometh not by observation in Luke 17

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Jesus came to earth to deliver the message of salvation to the Jew first and then to the Greek. Whether Jesus taught them at the beginning or at the end – the context is the same. He came to fulfill the new covenant and the desciples were meant to propagate it. He performed the works the Father gave Him to do so that these would testify of who He was and then after His death He appeared before witnesses so that they would not be in any doubt as to who He claimed to be.

26. Jerry kelso - June 1, 2012

Henry, 1. Samaria used to be the capitol of Jerusalem You’d have to understand the Assyrian conquest and the northern tribes in the days of Rehoboam and Jereboam and intermarriage, etc. Because of slightly different beliefs from pure jews the southern kingdom of Judah recognized the Samaritans as half breeds. This caused a big rift in the true place of worship between the Samaritans and the Jews. So this is the reason for not going into the towns of Samaria. The Bible only specifies Jews, Gentiles, and the Church of God. You have to believe the truth and this is the truth.
2. You are still failing to understand gradual revelation. For example, do you believe that the antedulvians which were from Adam to Noah was preached or had revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection at all or at least to the point of us today? The answer is no!.
Genesis 3:15 was the 1st Messianic prophecy about calvary but, they could not fully understand what this meant. Romans 2:12-13 shows they understood things from their conscience. What was contained in the Mosaic law later that they did according to their conscience was a law unto themselves. Cain killed Abel and there was no law for murder, but, it was still sin for it was contained in the Mosaic law later, but there was no written mandatory punishment for it even though he knew people would be going after him and this is why he asked God to protect him. With that said; you know the jews had a conscience, as well as the written law which, contained the types pointing to the death, burial, and resurrection. In Jesus day would be a turning point because the law and the prophets prophesied until John. This is because the reality had come to live with them and Christ had to be manifested to Israel and Israel had to recognize them as the Messiah and when they believed they could be forgiven directly by the Messiah and be eligible for the Kingdom. In the old testament sins were forgiven not by works but, by grace. Romans 4. The act of Salvation has never been by works ever in any age.
John the Baptist was the last of the old testament prophets and he was the forerunner of Christ according to Malachi. Jesus taught the law in its perfect sense and he had to live the law perfectly which he did to be the perfect sinless sacrifice. The Jews were still doing the sacrifices, etc throughout Jesus life.
3. The whole point is that the revelation plan of God from the very beginning has been about the death, burial, and resurrection, but, the mechanics of the covenant changed. To be saved today we have to know that our lives are based directly according to the full revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection in the context of his finished work. If Jesus would have taught his finished work then they would have killed him immediately to have the plan of God come to pass. Jesus told Peter he didn’t savor the plan of God because he wasn’t going to let anyone kill him.
4. Luke 17:20: the kingdom of God without observation is talking about the spiritual kingdom in their hearts which dealt with salvation, not the physical kingdom. The literal physical kingdom cannot be inside a person. The message of salvation is different from the Kingdom of Heaven message which is the physical kingdom rule and reign of the Messiah with his people Israel as the head of the Kingdom over the nations. So, yes; salvation is to the Jew first and then to the Greek, etc. but, not the Kingdom of Heaven according to Israel’s covenant blessings which, the church doesn’t have and our role in the Kingdom of Heaven is different than theirs.
5. I’m sorry to have to inform you, but, until you start understanding dispensations which is a stewardship you will never comprehend the correct gradual revelation of the redemptive plan of God from beginning to end.
In conclusion, if you don’t understand the distinctions in the Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God for the jews you will never understand the churches role in the Kingdom of Heaven in the future. The church is not in the Kingdom of Heaven reign and rule today as what was proclaimed by John the Baptist and Jesus. Feel free to give your objections because they can be answered by the context of the word of God. Jerry Kelso

27. andydoerksen - July 28, 2015

Hi, guys – 3 years later! There’s another option, one with a dual fulfillment. (1) Daniel 9 appears to be an elaboration on the prophecy of ch. 8. If that’s the case, then the 70 Weeks were fulfilled between Daniel’s time and 165 BC, when the temple was rededicated after the terrifying reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

However, I would argue that this ancient fulfillment is just a *type/template* of a future fulfillment, or perhaps a fulfillment that began with the first coming of Christ and finishes with his return.

Daniel 11 is yet another elaboration of the very same prophecy, because it again features Antiochus, in vv. 21-35. However, v. 35 is also a transitional verse, using the pivotal phrase “until the time of the end.” There’s no way to know how much time that covers! But it marks a huge transition, because Antiochus didn’t fulfill 11:36-12:13, a passage that gives as a glimpse of an end- time ruler, unprecedented persecution, and the resurrection of the saints.

Therefore the prophecy as a whole shifts from an initial focus on Antiochus to a subsequent focus on the End-Times. And I believe that’s exactly what happens in chs. 8-9 as well.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s