The Ten Horns from a Preterist view point.

[Nilloc]

Hi Nilloc,
You may realize that what you said in the first quote also shows that Hebrew Parallelism exists in chapter form, expecially in Daniel and some say in Isaiah. The chapters and dreams speak of different visions, but of the same (parallel) ideas.

Heb Par is very evident in simple form in the proverbs and psalms. Understanding them there is almost a training ground for seeing them in the prophets books.

I believe it would be beneficial for every child of God to understand at least the basics of these patterns and to be aware of their being designed into the stanzas, chapters and books.

http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/6_20-26.htm

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=67&letter=P

http://www.ovrlnd.com/Teaching/Hebrew_Poetry.html

Interesting links. I've heard of one commentator who believed that the whole Book of Daniel runs parallel to itself and the Ten Commandments. The idea is that the 70 years of exile parallel the 70 weeks and that the book is divided up into ten sections that parallel the Ten Commandments.

I haven't read the commentary, but one of the examples of parallelism between the 70 years of exile and the 70 weeks is that Daniel being thrown into the lions den parallels the death of Christ. Then Daniel being raised out of the den parallels the Resurrection.

 

[HarrisonS]

Why treaty? Is not the word "covenant". It is the same word used when Jeremiah talks of the new Convenant. Surely Jesus (God) did have the power to make the new covenant and to make it stick. Praise God.

Keep in mind, we are discussing and exposing Hebrew Parallelism of vs 26 and 27 which would cause the subject of vs 27 to also be the Messiah. Hope your with us. ... If not, check out the links on Hebrew Parallelism for examples.

I think our common usage of the word 'confirm' is not in agreement with it's old english usage. We use the word as if it meant to 'double check' an order. But, even in Strongs, it's noted to mean "firm up" or establish. Thus I dont' have a problem with saying "confirm" or prevail, or strong and mighty.... etc.

The translation of the Hebrew word b'rith all depends on the context. In a "religious" context, it would be "covenant"; in a political context "treaty"; in a business context "contract". The authoritative Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon (BDB) has an excellent in-depth discussion of this.

You are absolutely right about the meaning of the word "confirm". In modern usage, it simply means "to affirm or reaffirm that something is true or valid". For this reason, I feel that it should be avoided here, since it "waters down" considerably the meaning for modern readers. The word "enforce" captures the meaning of the Hebrew here exactly.

Thank you for the three references on Hebrew parallelism; they are all excellent. However, if there is parallelism here, it can work both ways; it could equally well be an antithetic parallelism showing parallels between the subjects of verses 26 and 27, for example, Christ versus Antichrist (See your references). It all depends on the identity of the "he" in verse 27. Logically it should be "the prince who is to come" nagid habba, since (1) it would have been pointless to mention him here unless Daniel (or rather the angel) was not going to say anything about him here and (2) he comes chronologically after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (v. 26). Also, the sacrifice and offering were not stopped after Messiah was cut off, but continued for nearly forty years. The writer to the Hebrews still uses the present tense in referring to the sacrifices (Heb. 10:11). Only the validity of the sacrifices came to an end then.

I really appreciate your intelligent and insightful comments, unlike some I have encountered in these forums. It is important sometimes to be able "to think outside the box" and always to think analytically as you have done here, and I think we can use more of this!

 

[Notrash]

The translation of the Hebrew word b'rith all depends on the context. In a "religious" context, it would be "covenant"; in a political context "treaty"; in a business context "contract". The authoritative Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon (BDB) has an excellent in-depth discussion of this.

You are absolutely right about the meaning of the word "confirm". In modern usage, it simply means "to affirm or reaffirm that something is true or valid". For this reason, I feel that it should be avoided here, since it "waters down" considerably the meaning for modern readers. The word "enforce" captures the meaning of the Hebrew here exactly.

One can't really define this word one way or another without being given over to one perspective or another concerning who the 'he' is or what is meant by the covenant or treaty. Being predisposed to the meaning of the covenant can changes ones perspective of this word. But even using the word "enforce" to define it, I can apply that idea to how Christs atonement on the Christ fully "EN-FORCED" the power of the eternal Covenant.

Thank you for the three references on Hebrew parallelism; they are all excellent. However, if there is parallelism here, it can work both ways; it could equally well be an antithetic parallelism showing parallels between the subjects of verses 26 and 27, for example, Christ versus Antichrist (See your references). It all depends on the identity of the "he" in verse 27.

Since the last part (section 3 below) uses the same words such as desolation or desolate, it seems more likely to me that it would be a synonomous parallelism which would make the 'he' in vs 27 the same as the Messiah.

Logically it should be "the prince who is to come" nagid habba, since (1) it would have been pointless to mention him here unless Daniel (or rather the angel) was not going to say anything about him here and (2) he comes chronologically after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (v. 26).

Again the chronological reading is empty and unbased if this is parallel literature. And since it is in Daniel and a prophecy, one way the Spirit used to hid the meaning of prophecy was to hide it in the poetry of literature.

Consider this below;

Part 1 talks of the Messiah,
Part 2 talks of Titus, Vespacians son,
and Part 3 talks of the war and desolation of Jerusalem, and judea.


26"And after the sixty-two weeks;

Part A.
1.Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

2.And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The end of it shall be with a flood,
3.And till the end of the war desolations are determined.


27
Part B.
1. Then (after the 62 weeks, actually 69 weeks) he shall confirm a covenant (new covenant) with many for one week (IN JERUSALEM; vs 24); But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering (he shall be cut off).

2. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,

3. Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate."

Also, the sacrifice and offering were not stopped after Messiah was cut off, but continued for nearly forty years.

Remember your causative verbs?

It says; The destruction of the temple and the desolation was on the wing of abominations. I can read this as saying that the destruction was caused by the continued sacrifices. AS they were now an abomination to God being types pointing towards the reality of Christ.

The writer to the Hebrews still uses the present tense in referring to the sacrifices (Heb. 10:11). Only the validity of the sacrifices came to an end then.

Yes, and in reading Heb 10, I get the picture that these continued sacrifices were sins which the writer cautions against falling back into.

Heb 10; Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.

For if we sin wilfully (those in 60 AD who become rejudaized and choose again to offer old covenant sacrifice) after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (it is already ineffectual)

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, (by re-offering sacrifice of animal to God for sins) and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.

For yet a little while, (in 60 AD) and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.(is this not referring to Titus as the Prince to come in Dan 9;26 and 27??)

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Now, because of the fullfilled the eternal Covenant of the just dying for the unjust, continued sacrifice is an abomination against God and animal.

2 Cor 3 talks of this;
3:14, And not as Moses, [which] put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which IS abolished: (even before the desolation, the old covenant was said to be abolished)

Dan 8:19;And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end [shall be].

This verse of Dan 8:19, plus the record of Daniels 4th beast of Dan 7 being the Roman kingdom, plus Jesus' confirming the opening of the seals of Daniels visons which talk of the abomination of Daniel to the people of that generation; all these give the understanding that Daniels visions refer to the end of the old covenant, and the establishment and confirming of the Eternal "New" Covenant.

I think the 'indignation' refers to the old covenant and it's animal sacrificial system as well as the 'indignation' that individuals of other nations would have felt during the old covenant system.
I am not solidified on these perspectives. However, the individual bible interpreter MUST ask and answer the question, What does the 'end of the indignation" refer to. It is not saying "end times' and in fact none of the times that the phrase 'time of the end" is used in Daniel seem to refer to "end of the earth", but rather says things like; the end (of the vision) shall its understanding be.

Jesus said to his disciples concerning the establishment of his kingdom.....For it is not for you to know (ginosko) the times and the seasons.... and none of the disciples except John were alive at the destruction of Jerusalem and the freeing of the Jewish Christians living there.

The transition between the old and new covenants occured and was confirmed in the times and the seasons that were established by the old covenant from when Moses led them out of Egypt. (Jeremiah 31:31) The transition period to continue to confirm the new covenant were between the Crucifiction and the desolation of Jerusalem and cooresponds to the transition period between the Passover and the crossing of the Jordan. The church of believers were solidified and established free of Judaic oppression in Pella; east of the Jordan where the other nations were first called 'not a people' when Moses said that the Jewish group was now a people of God.
Deut 27:9; And Moses and the priests the Levites spake unto all Israel, saying, Take heed, and hearken, O Israel; this day thou art become the people of the LORD thy God.

Back to 2 Cor 3.
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.

But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

Nevertheless when it (the yet elected jewish heart of 60 AD) shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
Consider Rom 11, where the remaining elect of the then blinded jews would be made jealous by the filling of the nations is coming in, beginning with Cornelius.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi,I understand what your saying PROPHECYKID, but I disagree. Again, it says nothing to support the idea that the feet and toes are seperate from the legs. Daniel 2
39 "After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others.

Iron is only mentioned 1 time outside of revelation, and is also one of the metals shown in the "Great City" in Revelation 18. Intereresting.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7249947


Revelation 2:27 And he shall shephered them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Revelation 9:9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who shall be shepherding all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto

, and to his throne.

Revelation 18:12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall shepherd them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of El-Shaddai

4603. sidereos sid-ay'-reh-os from 4604; made of iron:--(of) iron.

 

[HarrisonS]

One can't really define this word one way or another without being given over to one perspective or another concerning who the 'he' is or what is meant by the covenant or treaty. Being predisposed to the meaning of the covenant can changes ones perspective of this word. But even using the word "enforce" to define it, I can apply that idea to how Christs atonement on the Christ fully "EN-FORCED" the power of the eternal Covenant.

This is true, but I think it is wise to avoid words that are ambiguous and can be misunderstood.

Since the last part (3 below) uses the same words such as desolation or desolate, it seems more likely to me that it would be a synonomous parallelism which would make the 'he' in vs 27 the same as the Messiah.

Antithetic parallelisms can also use similar words. Also the parallelism, if it exists at all, is quite weak, because the verb in 26a is in the passive voice “shall be cut off”, while the verb in 27a is active “shall enforce” (or “confirm&#8221 is active.
Your interpretations of the events described in verse 26 are all correct and I am in full agreement with them, so I will not comment further on this. This brings us back to the question of who is the subject of verse 27. Again, the very fact that “the coming prince” nagid habba is even mentioned in verse 26 almost demands that we find some further mention of him in the immediate context, and the only possible place would be in verse 27. The chronological argument, while not as conclusive, remains strong, since the parallel pattern is rather weak, if present at all.
The subject of verse 27a also cannot be the Messiah, since the covenant (or treaty) mentioned here has a statute of limitations of only one “week”, i.e., seven years. When did He make such a covenant? This cannot be the New Covenant, which you said yourself was eternal!
Even if the Aktionsart of the verb yashbith, “shall cause to stop” is causative, I do not see a delayed effect here. The sacrifice and offering will be stopped in the mid-point of the “week”.

Dan 8:19;And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end [shall be].

This verse of Dan 8:19, plus the record of the time period of Daniels 4th beast of Dan 7 being the 4th kingdom upon the face of the earth (Roman kingdom) plus Jesus' confirming the opening of the seals of the text that talks of the abomination of Daniel to the people of that generation; all point towards Daniels visions as referring to the end of the old covenant, and the establishment and confirming of the Eternal "New" Covenant.

I think the 'indignation' refers to the old covenant and it's animal sacrificial system as well as the 'indignation' that the other nations felt during the old covenant system, but I am not solidified on these perspectives. However, the individual bible interpreter MUST ask and answer the question, What does the 'end of the indignation" refer to. It is not saying "end times' and in fact none of the times that the phrase 'time of the end" is used in Daniel seem to refer to "end of the earth", but rather things like; the end (of the vision) shall its understanding be.

Jesus said to his disciples concerning the establishment of his kingdom.....(For it is not for you to know the times and the seasons.)... The transition between the old and new covenants occured and was confirmed in the times and the seasons established by the old covenant from when Moses led them out of Egypt. The transition period to continue to confirm the new covenatn were between the Crucifiction and the desolation of Jerusalem. The church of believers being solidified and established free of Judaic oppression in Pella; east of the Jordan where the gentiles were first called 'not a people'.

You must not confuse anything in Daniel’s vision of chapter 8 with either the fourth beast of chapter 7 or with anything in chapter 9. Chapter 8 is a self-contained passage containing an entirely separate vision dealing exclusively with the second and third kingdoms of chapter 7 (and chapter 2). You do not even need a commentary to understand the meaning of chapter 8. The correct interpretation of this chapter is given right there in the prophecy itself (Dan 8:20,21) immediately following the verse you referenced! It deals exclusively with the Medo-Persian and Greek empires during the inter-testament period and is parallel with Dan 11:1-34 just as the visions of chapters 2 and 7 are parallel. The interpretation of these two passages is so clear and obvious, that even unbelieving, secular historians have correctly understood their meaning, and thus declared Daniel to be a forgery written after the fact in the second century BC.

The generation mentioned in the Olivet Discourse cannot possibly be the one living when it was given or the generation at the time of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, because “all these things” (Matt. 24:34) must also include the second coming of Christ (v. 30) as well as signs in the heavens (v. 29) and a worldwide regathering of the elect (v. 31). None of these things happened in the first century, nor has it happened since then.

Seen in context, the indignation would refer to the violence perpetrated against the Jews during reign of Antiochus Epiphanes during the second century BC. However, many do also see a secondary fulfillment in the “coming prince” in the future. I do not believe God would have used such a pejorative term to refer to the old covenant, especially during the time it was in force.

In Acts 1:7 “the times and the seasons cannot possibly refer to the transition from old to new covenants. He just got through telling them “the times and the seasons” for that event back in verse 5, “not many days hence”! Note also the strong Greek adversative alla sets off the beginning of the church (Acts 1:8) in stark contrast to the restoring of “the kingdom to Israel” in verse 6, so that latter event cannot possibly be equated with either the church or the new covenant.

 

[Notrash]

This is true, but I think it is wise to avoid words that are ambiguous and can be misunderstood.
Antithetic parallelisms can also use similar words. Also the parallelism, if it exists at all, is quite weak, because the verb in 26a is in the passive voice “shall be cut off”, while the verb in 27a is active “shall enforce” (or “confirm&#8221 is active. Your interpretations of the events described in verse 26 are all correct and I am in full agreement with them, so I will not comment further on this. This brings us back to the question of who is the subject of verse 27. Again, the very fact that “the coming prince” nagid habba is even mentioned in verse 26 almost demands that we find some further mention of him in the immediate context, and the only possible place would be in verse 27. The chronological argument, while not as conclusive, remains strong, since the parallel pattern is rather weak, if present at all.
The subject of verse 27a also cannot be the Messiah, since the covenant (or treaty) mentioned here has a statute of limitations of only one “week”, i.e., seven years.

In the context of vs 24, 70 wks (490 yrs) was given to Daniels People and the Holy city. Thus within the context of those 70 weeks (490 yrs), and in the final week, Christ's teaching ministry after the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the disciple teaching ministry up to the stoning of Stephen occured primarily to the Israelitish people and within the city of Jerusalem.
Thus the 70 weeks happenings to Daniels poeple and the city of Jerusalem would be the theme, not the covenant itself which transcends the 70 weeks. The perspective of a 'statute of limitations' is again through a futurist colored lenses. Remember Johns teaching of who the anti-christ is. "Anyone" who does not acknowledge that Christ has come in the flesh".

When did He make such a covenant? This cannot be the New Covenant, which you said yourself was eternal!

Now your using the word "make". You falling into the treaty language. The word is enforce or 'establish' or confirm. IMO he enforced, established or 'confirmed' the eternal covenant of the lamb who was slain from before the foundation of the world. The climax was passover/crucifiction, right in the middle of the 70th week. The law of sin/death incurred in the garden is overthrown by the law of grace through faith. He 'confirmed' and established, and "enforced' (through his death/resurrection) and sealed forever that covenant that was pre-spoken to Eve (Gen 3:15) and to Abraham (through you will all the nations of the earth be blessed)

Even if the Aktionsart of the verb yashbith, “shall cause to stop” is causative, I do not see a delayed effect here. The sacrifice and offering will be stopped in the mid-point of the “week”.

This is spoken through futurists lens glasses and your contradicting your own emphasis on the causative verbs. I ask you also, where the indication is that this was to be a postponed or interupted 70 "week" 490 yr period. That idea is foreign to the imagery that was given to Daniel. Furthermore, Jesus is saying to those around him; when YOU (those believers standing withint his earshot) see the abomination that causes desolation spoken of in Daniel, YOU know that it's desolation is nigh, and be prepared to run for the hills..(pella) Jesus himself noted that it was time to unseal Daniels visions when he spoke to those around him concerning these things.

I see a very strong cause and effect principle of the verb. Christ's sacrifice as the anti-type

Some try to key on the word 'generation" as meaning a continual group. The word is genea, not gennema. Genea is always seen in the context of a group living in a particular lifetime... 40-70 yrs.

You must not confuse anything in Daniel’s vision of chapter 8 with either the fourth beast of chapter 7 or with anything in chapter 9. Chapter 8 is a self-contained passage containing an entirely separate vision dealing exclusively with the second and third kingdoms of chapter 7 (and chapter 2). You do not even need a commentary to understand the meaning of chapter 8. The correct interpretation of this chapter is given right there in the prophecy itself (Dan 8:20,21) immediately following the verse you referenced! It deals exclusively with the Medo-Persian and Greek empires during the inter-testament period and is parallel with Dan 11:1-34 just as the visions of chapters 2 and 7 are parallel. The interpretation of these two passages is so clear and obvious, that even unbelieving, secular historians have correctly understood their meaning, and thus declared Daniel to be a forgery written after the fact in the second century BC.

Seen in context, the indignation would refer to the violence perpetrated against the Jews during reign of Antiochus Epiphanes during the second century BC. However, many do also see a secondary fulfillment in the “coming prince” in the future. I do not believe God would have used such a pejorative term to refer to the old covenant, especially during the time it was in force.

Thanks for the clarification of the "end of the indignation". I'll check into that; At the very least we cannot attribute that "end of the indignation" to "end times". So it is also with many of the "ends" in Daniel. Many are speaking of the 'end' of the visions when the meanings would be disclosed. Those ends occured within the time frame of the next 4 kingdoms and within the 490 yr prophecy and the direct effects of those time periods.

The generation mentioned in the Olivet Discourse cannot possibly be the one living when it was given or the generation at the time of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, because “all these things” (Matt. 24:34) must also include the second coming of Christ (v. 30) as well as signs in the heavens (v. 29) and a worldwide regathering of the elect (v. 31). None of these things happened in the first century, nor has it happened since then.

I and many others have different perspectives and different interpretation and laws of interpretation than what you express, some of which have been posted under my posts. If 'this generation" does not refer to that very generation, then it must either be continually occurring to every single generation who read the passages or as some alledge, it is to the generation that sees the supposed fig tree (and all the trees) pushing their leaves. But if we attribute the leaf pushing fig tree with "Israel" we also must attribute the eternally cursed fig tree to "Israel". Thus, the restored 'Israel" would never bear fruit.

Personally, I dont' feel the 'fig tree' is symbolic or intended to be symbolic of Israel or a re-statehood' of Israel, but is simply saying that when those sitting there saw things such as the Roman armies circling Jerusalem or a abomination that causes desolation, they should recognize these as signs of the very near desolation and be prepared to flee Jerusalem. I tried to search to find where this association between Israel and a fig came from. The association is very weak or nonexistent.

Hos 9:10; I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time: [but] they went to Baalpeor, and separated themselves unto [that] shame; and [their] abominations were according as they loved.

Both of these things are signifying the pleasant and sweet choice fruit,
Note though that they went to Baalpeor............. Note also that it is not the fig tree itself, but the firstripe fruit of it's first time. And it is the grapes (another fruit) that are Israel and the fathers.
Note also, that in the Olivet discourse, it is the fig tree pushing leaves, not fruit, that is the context of summer being nigh. Likewise when you see the armies, the signs in the heavens, the son of man in the clouds, know that Jerusalems destruction is nigh.


If anything, Jesus referal to 'all the trees' pushing their leaves is more closely associated with Judges 9:7-15 when the olive, the fig, the vine and the bramble are intercoursed with the 'trees who wanted someone to rule over them'.

In Acts 1:7 “the times and the seasons cannot possibly refer to the transition from old to new covenants. He just got through telling them “the times and the seasons” for that event back in verse 5, “not many days hence”! Note also the strong Greek adversative alla sets off the beginning of the church (Acts 1:8) in stark contrast to the restoring of “the kingdom to Israel” in verse 6, so that latter event cannot possibly be equated with either the church or the new covenant.

It is possible/probable that the disciples were still confused or uncertain about the nature of the 'kingdom' (David's kingdom} being restored to Israel. This was before the giving of the Holy Spirit and the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Holy Spirit. Remmember also, "the kingdom of God is within believers".... That should be the end of any discussion about a external judaic kingdom.

I still hold my perspective despite what you say that it "cannot possibly" refer to the transition period... but thanks for your comments.

I'd invide you to http://www.pretertistarchive.com and http://www.endtimesmadness.com and http://www.americanvision.com

You may find that some of the 'signs in the heavens" and the 'son of man' in the clouds just may have been fulfilled and then quietly hidden by some groups within the churches to suppress some of these ideas and promote the futurist ideas.

 

[HarrisonS]

… and in the final week, Christ's teaching ministry after the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the disciple teaching ministry up to the stoning of Stephen occured primarily to the Israelitish people and within the city of Jerusalem. Thus the 70 weeks happenings to Daniels poeple and the city of Jerusalem would be the theme, not the covenant itself which transcends the 70 weeks. The perspective of a 'statute of limitations' is again through a futurist colored lenses. Remember Johns teaching of who the anti-christ is. "Anyone" who does not acknowledge that Christ has come in the flesh".

While it is true that the theme here is Daniel’s people and the city of Jerusalem, the language here, as I see it, demands that the “one ‘week’”, shavu` ehad pertain to the implementation of the covenant itself. This has nothing at all to do with “futurist colored lenses”; the language itselfdemands it. This covenant thus has to be a one-week (seven year) covenant and thus cannot be eternal. Therefore this cannot refer to the New Covenant which is eternal. Also you cannot identify the final 3 ½ years with the period between Pentecost and some other event in the book of Acts such as the stoning of Stephen or the conversion of Cornelius, as you seem to be suggesting here. Israel’s relationship to the New Covenant was not terminated at any of those times, nor has it ever been terminated, and there are many Jewish believers in the church even today. Moreover to date one of these events in Acts as being exactly 3 ½ years after Pentecost would be pure speculation; we simply do not know the exact dates of those events.

Your comments regarding the term “antichrist” are largely correct. Although the absence of the definite article on anticristos in I John 2:18 may raise questions as to whether John is speaking of any personage at all, most expositors do see this isolated reference as such. In any case, it has come into popular usage to refer to what many see as the final world dictator.

The law of sin/death incurred in the garden is overthrown by the law of grace through faith. He 'confirmed' and established, and "enforced' (through his death/resurrection) and sealed forever that covenant that was pre-spoken to Eve (Gen 3:15) and to Abraham (through you will all the nations of the earth be blessed)

This is true. But the covenant mentioned in Daniel 9:27 was a seven-year covenant and thus cannot be identified with the New Covenant.

This is spoken through futurists lens glasses and your contradicting your own emphasis on the causative verbs. I ask you also, where the indication is that this was to be a postponed or interupted 70 "week" 490 yr period. That idea is foreign to the imagery that was given to Daniel with Jesus saying to those around him; when YOU (those believers standing withint his earshot) see the abomination that causes desolation spoken of in Daniel, YOU know that it's desolation is nigh, and be prepared to run for the hills..(pella) Jesus himself noted that it was time to unseal Daniels visions when he spoke to those around him concerning these things.

I see a very strong cause and effect principle of the verb.

Some try to key on the word 'generation" as meaning a continual group. The word is genea, not gennema.

I see no contradiction here. In the middle of the “week” he will cause the sacrifice and offering to cease; in other words, he shall stop the sacrifice and offering. The postponement of the 70th week is not at all surprising: The Old Testament also makes no distinction between the times of the first and second comings of Christ. One example of this is Isaiah 61:1,2 which refers to the first coming, up to the last part of verse two “and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all that mourn”. In Luke 4:18,19, for example, Jesus reads this passage in the synagogue in Nazareth up to the last part, and then adds in verse 21 “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears.” All of this was, understandably, confusing to the Jews, and some even suggested that there would be two Messiahs, a suffering Messiah, and a reigning one.

The seventieth “week” extends up to the second coming of Christ and also ends with the final consummation and fulfillment of all of the six items listed in verse 24. Since the OT makes no distinction between times of the first and second comings of Christ, and verse 26 deals Messiah being “cut off” right after the end of “week” 69 (first coming) and week 70 extends up to the second coming, we should expect a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks.

Another big problem with placing the crucifixion at the middle of the 70th “week” is the timing. In his now classic book The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson showed over a century ago that the 69th “week” ended on Palm Sunday. Later Harold Hoehner confirmed that, even with more modern dating, this timing still held true. The 70 “weeks” begin with the command by Artaxerxes Longimanus to restore and rebuild Jerusalem in 444 BC. (Neh. 2:1-8) Some have sought an earlier date, but correct readings of the texts involved preclude this.

You need to realize that the destruction of Jerusalem described in the Olivet Discourse has, like many prophecies, a double fulfillment. Thus the use of the pronoun YOU can refer to the disciples personally in the near fulfillment, but refer to Jewish believers, who will no doubt be familiar with this passage of scripture, in the far fulfillment. Again, remember that Christ did not return in 70 AD, nor were there any unusual celestial phenomena, nor a re-gathering of the elect (Matt. 24:29-31)! I find the idea of a “cover up” of unusual celestial events by futurists in the early church to be far-fetched, to say the least.

Some try to key on the word 'generation" as meaning a continual group. The word is genea, not gennema. I and many others have different perspectives and different interpretation and laws of interpretation than what you express, some of which have been posted under my posts. If 'this generation" does not refer to that very generation, then it must either be continually occurring to every single generation who read the passages or as some alledge, it is to the generation that sees the supposed fig tree (and all the trees) pushing their leaves. But if we attribute the leaf pushing fig tree with "Israel" we also must attribute the eternally cursed fig tree to "Israel". Thus, the restored 'Israel" would never bear fruit.

A word of clarification needs to be made here. I did not base my statement that “the generation mentioned in the Olivet Discourse cannot possibly be the one living when it was given or the generation at the time of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, because ‘all these things’ (Matt. 24:34) must also include the second coming of Christ” on the meaning of the word translated “generation” at all. I based the statement on the phrase “when you shall see all of these things”. The word genea used here can mean “race, tribe or family”, or it can mean “generation”, either a generation of people or a generation of time. If the first meaning is the one intended here, it may be referring to the survival of the Jewish people (Isa. 66:22, Jer. 31:35-37); with the second meaning, it would refer to time in which “all these things” take place. In any case, the phrase “when you shall see all of these things” makes all of this moot.

Personally, I dont' feel the 'fig tree' is symbolic or intended to be symbolic of Israel or a re-statehood' of Israel, but is simply saying that when those sitting there saw things such as the Roman armies circling Jerusalem or a abomination that causes desolation, they should recognize these as signs of the very near desolation and be prepared to flee Jerusalem. I tried to search to find where this association between Israel and a fig came from. The association is very weak or nonexistent.

You are absolutely right here! I also did the same search some time ago, and came to the identical conclusion. If there is any plant that represents Israel, it is the grape vine, not the fig tree (Isa. 5; Isa 27:2,3; Ezek 15, etc.) Still there must be some sort of restored state of Israel and rebuilt temple in order for the scenarios described in Dan.9:27 and Rev. 11:1,2, etc. to take place, but this is clearly not what Matt. 24:32-35 means. Also there is no time restriction. It could happen within a few years or not for many centuries.

It is possible/probable that the disciples were still confused or uncertain about the nature of the 'kingdom' (David's kingdom} being restored to Israel. This was before the giving of the Holy Spirit. Remmember also, "the kingdom of God is within believers".... That should be the end of any discussion about a external judaic kingdom.

The disciples were not confused. They had every reason to expect a physical kingdom. There is a vast amount of scripture throughout the Old Testament which unmistakably promised this. To barely scratch the surface see Isaiah 2:1-4; 11:6-9; 35:1-12; 65:20-25; Amos 9:11-15; Zechariah 8:22-23; 14:16-21. In addition, note Matt. 19:28 and Luke 22:29,30. Moreover our Lord’s answer in Acts 1:7-8 to their question in verse 6 contains a clear and unambiguous implication that there IS a kingdom of the type they were looking for. It is also clear that it would not be fulfilled in the Church: He already told them “the times and seasons” for the coming of the NT Church “mot many days hence” back in verse 5. This is further driven home in verse 8 by the strong Greek adversative alla “but” that sets this kingdom in sharp distinction to the Church. This passage in Acts is so clear and unambiguous, that it is inconceivable that anyone could see any other meaning here.

A comment needs to be made about the term “Kingdom of God”. Actually, the expression is self-defining; it is anything over which God rules. It can exist both in spiritual realms and in physical realms. You are right in saying that “the kingdom of God is within believers”, i.e., is spiritual in the context of the New Testament Church. (But be careful using this quotation; it comes from Luke 17:21, where Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees!) Those who suppose that the kingdom of God is only spiritual, have always reminded me of the story of the blind men and the elephant; each felt a different part of the animal and concluded that that was what an elephant was. Scripture is clear: the Kingdom of God can also have physical manifestations. The notion that the spiritual is somehow “superior” or “better” has its roots in pagan Greek thought and has given rise to all sorts of aberrant teachings within nominal Christianity, such as Gnosticism. Remember the principle told to Peter in the vision, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (Acts 10:15).

I too remain convinced of my perspective on all of these issues.

 

[GW]

Like so much of prophecy, the first application is usually located within the O.T. period. That OT figure then applies to Christ typologically. So it is with Daniel's prophecy. The Book of Daniel is one united prophecy that links to itself so much that it cannot possibly be treated as having many separate ages and people in mind. Daniel has Antiochus in mind, as the primary sense. The parallels within Daniel are clear and unmistakable:

The "Little Horn" in Daniel is Antiochus:
(Compare 8:9-12,23-25 --to--> Dan 7:8,24-26)


The daily sacrifice taken away by Antiochus
(Compare 8:11-12 --to--> 11:31 --->12:11 ---> 9:27)


"Transgression of Desolation" refers to Antiochus
(Compare Dan 8:13 --to--> 11:31 ---> 12:11 -->9:27)


The period for the power of Little Horn (Antiochus)
(Compare 8:13-14 (1150 days) --to--> 12:7 (time, times & half = 3.5 years)


The end for Antiochus and the restoration of the kingdom to the Jews
(Compare Dan 7:26 --to--> 8:17,19 ---> 9:26 ---> 11:40 ---> 12:4,9)
​

Since all scholarship on Daniel agrees that Antiochus is meant in chapter eight and eleven, then the undeniable parallels to chapter eight demand Antiochus as well. His destruction of the power of the holy people at 8:24 is the same as 12:7. His taking away the daily sacrifice at 8:11-12 is the same as 11:31 and 12:11 and 9:27. His abomination of desolation at 8:13 is the same as 11:31 and 12:11. His time frame for doing this is discussed at 7:25, 8:14, 12:7 and 9:27. Finally, the time for the end of that event is given at 8:17,19; 7:26; 11:40; 9:26; and 12:4,9. These are all the same "end."

The four empires mentioned in chapter two and seven are approximately as follows: Babylonian (head of gold/the lion), Median (breast and arms of silver/the bear), Persian (belly and thighs of brass/the leopard) and Grecian (legs of iron and feet of iron and clay/beast with ten horns). The "little horn" (Antiochus) arises out from the ten horns (Alexander and his successors) as described in chapter seven and thus out of the four notable ones (the rulers of the four divisions of Alexander's empire) as described in chapter eight.

The parallels internal to the book itself are weighty and must not be avoided simply because of usual precommitments and presuppositions imposed upon the book. I say it again: The unity of Daniel's vision cannot and must not be avoided.

The link that Daniel has to Jesus is one of typology, as was the link so commonly asserted by the apostles in their teaching.

.

 

[Nilloc]

Hey GW, good to see ya.

Since all scholarship on Daniel agrees that Antiochus is meant in chapter eight and eleven, then the undeniable parallels to chapter eight demand Antiochus as well.

Antiochus is without a doubt in mind in chapters 8 and 11. But I would disagree that he is the only one in mind in the latter chapters of Daniel. Just because similar language is used, doesn't require that its all speaking of the same person/event/ect...

The "Little Horn" in Daniel is Antiochus:
(Compare 8:9-12,23-25 --to--> Dan 7:8,24-26)

The little horn of chapter 7 cannot be the same as 8 (Antiochus). The little horn of chapter 7 (who I now believe is Nero Caesar) comes up from the ten kings (the first ten Caesar's: Julius (1), Augustus (2), Tiberius (3), Caligula (4), Claudius (5), Nero (6) Galba (7), Otho (8), Vitellius (9), and Vespasian(10)) where as Antiochus comes from Alexander's four generals (Dan. 8:8-9). From my studying on some sites, I've never found any connection with Greece to the ten horns; it fits first century B.C. and first century A.D. Rome perfectly.

Nero does fulfill the little horn role in chapter 7. He did subdue three kings (Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were killed to get Nero on the throne) and he, like all the Caesar's, "spoke boastfully." Verse 25 speaks of the saints being handed over to him for a time, times, and half a time (three and a half years) which was the amount of time the persecution of Christians by Nero lasted: from A.D. 64 to Nero's death in A.D. 68.

The daily sacrifice taken away by Antiochus
(Compare 8:11-12 --to--> 11:31 --->12:11 ---> 9:27)


"Transgression of Desolation" refers to Antiochus
(Compare Dan 8:13 --to--> 11:31 ---> 12:11 -->9:27)


The period for the power of Little Horn (Antiochus)
(Compare 8:13-14 (1150 days) --to--> 12:7 (time, times & half = 3.5 years)

No disagreements.

Since all scholarship on Daniel agrees that Antiochus is meant in chapter eight and eleven, then the undeniable parallels to chapter eight demand Antiochus as well.

Again, just because similar language is used doesn't require it all to be Antiochus. Also, there are too many difficulties trying to make the little horn of chapter 7 fit Antiochus.

The four empires mentioned in chapter two and seven are approximately as follows: Babylonian (head of gold/the lion), Median (breast and arms of silver/the bear), Persian (belly and thighs of brass/the leopard) and Grecian (legs of iron and feet of iron and clay/beast with ten horns).

Mede and Persia, historically speaking, were not seperate kingdoms, they were one. One arm of the statue represents Mede and the other represents Persia. As for the bear, that clearly is describing Medo-Persia; the bear is raised up on one side, which refers to how Persia was stronger than Mede and the three ribs in it's mouth refer to the three conquests of Medo-Persia: Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt. In Daniel 8 Mede and Persia are shown as one kingdom, not two. Sorry GW, but making the breast & arms of silver/bear Mede alone does not work; it fits perfectly with Medo-Persia. Also, if it was only Mede alone, then Daniel was a false prophet, because historically, Mede and Perisa were a united kingdom. He can't have made the two seperate and be a true prophet.

Persia can't be the leopard either; it fits better with Greece. The four wings and four heads would refer to Alexander's kingdom divided into four parts (Macedon, Asia Minor, Seleucid, and Egypt) and Alexander's four generals.

ten horns (Alexander and his successors)

I have never found any connection between Greece and the ten horns. Can you please explain this; Alexander did not have ten successors to my knoweledge, only his four generals. The ten horns sound more like the ten Caesar's.

The parallels internal to the book itself are weighty and must not be avoided simply because of usual precommitments and presuppositions imposed upon the book.

No, they shouldn't, but we should not rule out that the fourth kingdom is Rome (especially because of the many problems with making Greece the fourth as I pointed out above) or that the little horn of chapter 7 is different from the little horn chapter 8.

Please, as a brother in Christ, consider the points I made GW. I got much of my info here, so please check it out.

God Bless.

 

[Notrash]

While it is true that the theme here is Daniel’s people and the city of Jerusalem, the language here, as I see it, demands that the “one ‘week’”,
shavu` ehad pertain to the implementation of the covenant itself. This has nothing at all to do with “futurist colored lenses”; the language itselfdemands it. This covenant thus has to be a one-week (seven year) covenant and thus cannot be eternal. Therefore this cannot refer to the New Covenant which is eternal.

Is the covenent itself a one week (7 yr) event or is it's implementation and it's confirmation a 7 yr event?
Confirmation can refer to the "implementation" of the new covenant in the mind of the jews by it's replacement of the old covenant. That it is also the centerpiece and fullfillment of the Edenic and Abrahamic promises of the blessing of the nations through faith is quite possible and to be understood later (as Paul's letters define).

Also you cannot identify the final 3 ½ years with the period between Pentecost and some other event in the book of Acts such as the stoning of Stephen or the conversion of Cornelius, as you seem to be suggesting here. Israel’s relationship to the New Covenant was not terminated at any of those times, nor has it ever been terminated, and there are many Jewish believers in the church even today. Moreover to date one of these events in Acts as being exactly 3 ½ years after Pentecost would be pure speculation; we simply do not know the exact dates of those events.

Agreed that the exact dates are yet unknown, and it is agreed that the new covenant was never terminated to the jewish or or other peoples. It is the final and everlasting kingdom of all peoples, nations and languages spoken of in Dan 7:14.

We do not see eye to eye due to your insistence that this is a 7 yr only covenant between a man and some jews, rather than the Messiah's and Holy Spirits confirming, establishing and defining of a pre-determined or pre-made Covenant for 7 years. It was primarily "CONFIRMED" within Jerusalem and primarily to the Jewish (Daniels people) (first) all within the 70 weeks (490 yrs) mentioned in Dan 9:24 and primarily in the final 7 wk/yr period.

This brings us to another point, and that being that the futurists rendering of a delayed final week do not fit into the introductory theme of Dan 9:24 where all those things are said to be accomplished within the next 490 yrs. The verses following vs 24 go into some description of how those things will be accomplished within those years.

Your comments regarding the term “antichrist” are largely correct. Although the absence of the definite article on anticristos in I John 2:18 may raise questions as to whether John is speaking of any personage at all, most expositors do see this isolated reference as such. In any case, it has come into popular usage to refer to what many see as the final world dictator.

Popular usage is an accurate terminology and assessment. However, the 'popular usage' of the phrase antichrist still a very wrong application of the phrase anti-christ as found in 1st and 2nd john. In fact, from that meaning of Johns usage: those who hope for a second visitiation to the earth seem to deny the importance and the finished work Christ accomplished during his first (and I believe only) physical (in the flesh; humbling himself in the form of a man) visitation to the earth. The verses in first and second John that tell of "the anti-christ" seem to be the verses that speak against a second "in the flesh" coming. In fact in the olivet discourse, his second coming is said to be (or have been) "in the clouds", which may contrast with "in the flesh".

If anything, the phrase to be used for this supposed 'evil guy with red eyes covered with blue contact lenses would be 'man of sin'. And after that naming is made, we could then deal with the specific meaning of that term.

Anti-christ in it's biblical usage does not refer to a future ruler. Antichrist is already (and has been for 2000 yrs) anyone who does not beleive and profess that the Messiah has already come "in the flesh" for for all of mankind and the jews first. That perspective and the verses in I and 2 John lead one to consider that those who believe in a future second coming of Messiah "in the flesh" for a judaic kingdom have denied the true Messiah and his accomplished and finished work. John even mentions a play on words where some people were apparently speaking of an anti-christ saying that because they speak of anti-christs, we know that the Christ has already come.

This is true. But the covenant mentioned in Daniel 9:27 was a seven-year covenant and thus cannot be identified with the New Covenant.

Again, were in disagreement, but I dont' expect to convince your perspective but to plant thoughts of a diffferent perspective than what you've been taught by man.

The 'new covenant' is only a 'new' covenant' to distinguish it and contrast it against the weak, inferior and temporary "old covenant'. Otherwise the 'new covenant' is an expansion and continuation of ideas found in the Edenic and Abrahamic promises. All of these promises being fulfilled in Christ and "ESTABLISHED", 'CONFIRMED' and even 'implemented' during the 70th 7 yr period.

I see no contradiction here. In the middle of the “week” he will cause the sacrifice and offering to cease; in other words, he shall stop the sacrifice and offering.

Re-read the above sentence. Your "stopping of the sacrifice" does not equal "causing that sacrifice to stop"..
To cause something to cease, and for it to cease are two different things. A draught can occur that lasts for 7 years. After 7 years, the source where the people are getting their water it is totally dried up, but the stoppage of water was CAUSED by the lack of rain which begun 7 yrs earlier.

In baseball, when a player hits a HR, the umpire is supposed to hold the next ball from the pitcher until the runner has crossed home plate. The effect of the pitchers last pitch and the HR caused by the batters swing upon the baseball is not complete until the batter crosses home plate. Thus the "cause" on that ball is still being played until the "effect" is accomplished. It is also a picture of how our sins and interaction with our fellow man do not only have a primary effect, but often has secondary effects.

This is how I picture and read vs 27 where in the midst of the week he "causes' the sacrifice and offering to cease. You seem to be denying your own emphasis of the significance of the verb tenses. The death of Christ and the implementation of the new covenant was and is the cause of the ceasing of the old covenant sacrificial types. There was a 40 yr "grace" period to accomplish the preaching of the gospel in Jerusalem, judea, and the uttermost parts of the world and as Paul says in Rom 10 and 11, even allowing for a time according to Moses prophecy in 10:19 when the elect part of remaining unbelieving Israel could be made Jealous unto salvation by the Holy Spirit filling of individuals of all the inter-nationals.

The postponement of the 70th week is not at all surprising: The Old Testament also makes no distinction between the times of the first and second comings of Christ. One example of this is Isaiah 61:1,2 which refers to the first coming, up to the last part of verse two “and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all that mourn”. In Luke 4:18,19, for example, Jesus reads this passage in the synagogue in Nazareth up to the last part, and then adds in verse 21 “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears.” All of this was, understandably, confusing to the Jews, and some even suggested that there would be two Messiahs, a suffering Messiah, and a reigning one.

I have heard of the two Messiah ideas but it seems more of a non-believing Jewish/talmudic centered teaching. I also disagree with your assesment and what you've been taught about Isaiah 61. The Isaiah 61 passage which Jesus reads is another perfect example of Hebrew Parallelism. Consider the similarity of the two (or 3) lines color coded together below.

What a great opening line in verse 1 after coming from his baptism in the Jordan.

Isa 61:1"THE Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me

To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,

To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

Isa 61:2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
And the day of vengeance of our God;

To comfort all who mourn,
Isa 61:3To console those who mourn in Zion,

To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;

That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified."


There is a similitude between the like colored words:

Just as the other stanzas talk of identical ideas, so also the "acceptable year of the Lord" is also identical and inseperable with "the day of vengeance of our God" to those who do not believe. First against those who killed the prophets and those who unrepentantly disbelieved in Christ in Jerusalem. Jesus repeatedly told the Pharisees of the woes to come on that generation. Secondarily, to not accept Christ, is to remain in the darkness and seperation of the wrath of God to each person who does not believe. John 3:18;36. That Jesus included vs 21 was perhaps his way of identifying the point of where they were precisely in the continual chronology of the whole chapter.

The rest of Isaiah 61 I believe refers to the new covenant jewish church (intermingled with ingrafted Gentiles of all nations) that was formed from the ashes and the mourning for zion. They were given "the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness" and were the planting (church) of the Lord that He may be glorified. This was the church that escaped Jerusalem to Pella and it sounds as though their descendants rebuilt Jerusalem and lived in Judea perhaps several generations after the Bar Kohkba revolt in 135 AD.

Another big problem with placing the crucifixion at the middle of the 70th “week” is the timing. In his now classic book The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson showed over a century ago that the 69th “week” ended on Palm Sunday. Later Harold Hoehner confirmed that, even with more modern dating, this timing still held true. The 70 “weeks” begin with the command by Artaxerxes Longimanus to restore and rebuild Jerusalem in 444 BC. (Neh. 2:1-8) Some have sought an earlier date, but correct readings of the texts involved preclude this.

Although this may remain in debate, Anderson used ptolemy's chronology which the two men below and others say are off by some 80 yrs. Ptolemy was said to be a secular historian which in itself would not be wrong, but that he is claimed to be erroneous in those dates. Thus Andersons work is not such a 'classic' to other persons as some have found faults with not only his system, but other aspects of the work.

The work of Dr. Martin Anstey (The Romance of Bible Chronology) and Philip Mauro (The Wonders of Bible Chronology) stand out in other peoples minds and date the command from the one in Ezra 1:1-4 which is seemingly ampliphied for effect even in the text. This date is found by these men to be 457.3 BC. which places the crucifiction smack in the middle of the 70th week.
http://www.chcpublications.net/bibchron.htm
http://crownrights.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=70
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/daniel/daniel-09.htm

 

[Notrash]

You need to realize that the destruction of Jerusalem described in the Olivet Discourse has, like many prophecies, a double fulfillment. Thus the use of the pronoun YOU can refer to the disciples personally in the near fulfillment, but refer to Jewish believers, who will no doubt be familiar with this passage of scripture, in the far fulfillment. Again, remember that Christ did not return in 70 AD, nor were there any unusual celestial phenomena, nor a re-gathering of the elect (Matt. 24:29-31)!

I reject that "I need to realize" the above twisting of scripture into a "double fulfillment".
You need to ask, seek and knock to see if your statements stand true and if they glorify the words and works of Jesus. A simple search of Josephus and ealry writings (Eusebius) show that there were many phenomenon during the last years and months in the city of Jerusalem. Among those were formations of Roman Chariots and soldiers "in the clouds", a light in the shape of a sword appearign over the temple for a full hour (I think), a light and voices emmitting from the temple, a lamb being born from a cow in the temple, strong winds forcing doors of the temple shut, and a country man named "jesus" who for years before the desolation cried daily, "a voice from the east, a voice from the west, north and south"... woe to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (and many other "phenomenon") If you have trouble finding them, let me know.

I find the idea of a “cover up” of unusual celestial events by futurists in the early church to be far-fetched, to say the least.

Perhaps 'cover up' is a little strong, but I think there is a jewish/zionist influence in the dispensational works. For example, why does no dispensational Bible college that I know have an extensive course on Josephus' works where these phenomenon are revealed or on works such as Endersheims" life and times of Jesus the Messiah or other similar works by Mauro, Anstey and others. The greatest time of history should be exhaustively researched and studied, but rather it is selectively indoctrinated.

The word genea used here can mean “race, tribe or family”, or it can mean “generation”, either a generation of people or a generation of time. If the first meaning is the one intended here, it may be referring to the survival of the Jewish people (Isa. 66:22, Jer. 31:35-37); with the second meaning, it would refer to time in which “all these things” take place. In any case, the phrase “when you shall see all of these things” makes all of this moot.

We need to first claify the words surrounding Genos, Genea, Genemma,etc and then address you claims of 'all things' not being seen or accomplished. It seems that your partially defining 'generation' due to the belief that 'all these things' have not come to pass in the first century.

We can start by doing a word use study of Genea;
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Strongs=G1074&Criteria=generation%2A&t=KJV

In every time it seems (although arguably depending on ones interpretaion) to be referring to a group of people living at one lifespan.

Genea means:
1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years


Genea does not mean “race, tribe or family”, as you say; That is the definition of Genos. It has entirely different meanings.
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1085&t=KJV
Genos means:
1) kindred
a) offspring
b) family
c) stock, tribe, nation
1) i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people
d) the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort

Then there is the word Gennema which many people substitued the definition for genea;
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1081
Genemma means:
1) that which has been born or begotten
a) the offspring or progeny of men or animals
b) the fruits of the earth, the produce of agriculture

It's translation is generation, and it would be the word that the author would use if a continued kind or progeny of Jews would have been meant by Jesus. Jesus used Genea, meaning those living in that lifespan, not Genos or Gennema.

Now, having defined the meaning of Jesus' intention of the use of the word Genea and limiting the events that he described to those people whom he was talking to, now we must search to discover if "all these things" could have possibly happened. Your saying that they didnt' all occur or happen seems to contradict what Jesus just said. Thus you might want to reconsider that you might just not know of "all these things" yet, just as I did not know of 'all these things".

Again, searching on google or pretertist archive yields lots of new information.

The disciples were not confused. They had every reason to expect a physical kingdom. There is a vast amount of scripture throughout the Old Testament which unmistakably promised this. To barely scratch the surface see Isaiah 2:1-4; 11:6-9; 35:1-12; 65:20-25; Amos 9:11-15; Zechariah 8:22-23; 14:16-21. In addition, note Matt. 19:28 and Luke 22:29,30. Moreover our Lord’s answer in Acts 1:7-8 to their question in verse 6 contains a clear and unambiguous implication that there IS a kingdom of the type they were looking for. It is also clear that it would not be fulfilled in the Church: He already told them “the times and seasons” for the coming of the NT Church “mot many days hence” back in verse 5. This is further driven home in verse 8 by the strong Greek adversative alla “but” that sets this kingdom in sharp distinction to the Church. This passage in Acts is so clear and unambiguous, that it is inconceivable that anyone could see any other meaning here.

A comment needs to be made about the term “Kingdom of God”. Actually, the expression is self-defining; it is anything over which God rules. It can exist both in spiritual realms and in physical realms. You are right in saying that “the kingdom of God is within believers”, i.e., is spiritual in the context of the New Testament Church. (But be careful using this quotation; it comes from Luke 17:21, where Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees!) Those who suppose that the kingdom of God is only spiritual, have always reminded me of the story of the blind men and the elephant; each felt a different part of the animal and concluded that that was what an elephant was. Scripture is clear: the Kingdom of God can also have physical manifestations. The notion that the spiritual is somehow “superior” or “better” has its roots in pagan Greek thought and has given rise to all sorts of aberrant teachings within nominal Christianity, such as Gnosticism. Remember the principle told to Peter in the vision, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (Acts 10:15).

Some good perspectives here about the kingdom of God. It is possible that we do not manifest or take hold of the physical aspects of the kingdom of God in the manner that we should. I am learning some things about an act of expatriation whereby some persons leave whatever allegience that they are born under and can become physically and politically part of a domicile of the kingdom of God and proclaim subjectiveness to that jurisdiction at whatever costs.

 

[GW]

NILLOC: Antiochus is without a doubt in mind in chapters 8 and 11. But I would disagree that he is the only one in mind in the latter chapters of Daniel.

GW: The parallels I listed show that all the chapters are a united whole, not a scattered piecemeal patchwork of different people times and places. The internal evidence (study the parallel passages closely) demands Antiochus, and history lines up naturally with it too, as even liberal scholars have been forced to admit. (The Antiochus view of Daniel's prophecy fits history so closely that liberals scream and howl that the book had to be written at or near the death of Antiochus, so that the book is actually history and not prophecy! Imagine that.)

NILLOC: Just because similar language is used, doesn't require that its all speaking of the same person/event

GW: Reading Daniel as a unified whole works with history (as even liberal scholars admit) and is demanded by the internal parallels. We're not talking about mere "similar language"---the parallels I listed are the same events and language used to describe those events.

Study the internal evidence closely to see a united whole is meant:


The "Little Horn" in Daniel is Antiochus:
(Compare 8:9-12,23-25 --to--> Dan 7:8,24-26)


The daily sacrifice taken away by Antiochus
(Compare 8:11-12 --to--> 11:31 --->12:11 ---> 9:27)


"Transgression of Desolation" refers to Antiochus
(Compare Dan 8:13 --to--> 11:31 ---> 12:11 -->9:27)


The period for the power of Little Horn (Antiochus)
(Compare 8:13-14 (1150 days) --to--> 12:7 (time, times & half = 3.5 years)


The end for Antiochus and the restoration of the kingdom to the Jews
(Compare Dan 7:26 --to--> 8:17,19 ---> 9:26 ---> 11:40 ---> 12:4,9)

 

[Notrash]

NILLOC: Antiochus is without a doubt in mind in chapters 8 and 11. But I would disagree that he is the only one in mind in the latter chapters of Daniel.

GW: The parallels I listed show that all the chapters are a united whole, not a scattered piecemeal patchwork of different people times and places. The internal evidence (study the parallel passages closely) demands Antiochus, and history lines up naturally with it too, as even liberal scholars have been forced to admit. (The Antiochus view of Daniel's prophecy fits history so closely that liberals scream and howl that the book had to be written at or near the death of Antiochus, so that the book is actually history and not prophecy! Imagine that.)

NILLOC: Just because similar language is used, doesn't require that its all speaking of the same person/event

GW: Reading Daniel as a unified whole works with history (as even liberal scholars admit) and is demanded by the internal parallels. We're not talking about mere "similar language"---the parallels I listed are the same events and language used to describe those events.

Study the internal evidence closely to see a united whole is meant:


The "Little Horn" in Daniel is Antiochus:
(Compare 8:9-12,23-25 --to--> Dan 7:8,24-26)


The daily sacrifice taken away by Antiochus
(Compare 8:11-12 --to--> 11:31 --->12:11 ---> 9:27)


"Transgression of Desolation" refers to Antiochus
(Compare Dan 8:13 --to--> 11:31 ---> 12:11 -->9:27)


The period for the power of Little Horn (Antiochus)
(Compare 8:13-14 (1150 days) --to--> 12:7 (time, times & half = 3.5 years)


The end for Antiochus and the restoration of the kingdom to the Jews
(Compare Dan 7:26 --to--> 8:17,19 ---> 9:26 ---> 11:40 ---> 12:4,9)

Hi GW. Good research that I can be in agreement with; except for the inclusion of Dan 7 and 9.

How does the 490 yrs from the command to rebuild the temple coincide with Antiochus in the final week of Dan 9:27?

Also, how do you associate Jesus' telling the people in 30 Ad that when they see the abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel the Prophet, that they should run for the hills if this was all referring to Antiochus.?

 

[Nilloc]

Hi GW,

The parallels I listed show that all the chapters are a united whole, not a scattered piecemeal patchwork of different people times and places.

The Scriptures, history, and context of the passages, show they are not.

The internal evidence (study the parallel passages closely) demands Antiochus,

No it doesn’t, especially when the fourth kingdom being Greece is so hard to prove and actually contradicts Jesus’s application of Daniel 7:13 (which you say happened over a hundred years before Christ) to Himself (Matt. 24:30, 26:64; Mark 13:26, 14:52; Luke 21:27) and the fact that making the fourth kingdom Greece contradicts history, which makes Daniel a false prophet.

and history lines up naturally with it too,

History lines up well with Medo-Persia being the second kingdom, Greece the third, and Rome the fourth. It doesn’t line up “naturally” if the Medes and Persians are split or that the ‘ten horns’ belong to Greece (which I have found no historic fulfillment of).

as even liberal scholars have been forced to admit. (The Antiochus view of Daniel's prophecy fits history so closely that liberals scream and howl that the book had to be written at or near the death of Antiochus, so that the book is actually history and not prophecy! Imagine that.)

Then why do you agree with them? They say Daniel screwed up by splitting the Medes and Persians and made a false prophecy about Greece Empire having ten horns. Even the Book of Daniel itself says plainly that the Medes and Persians were one kingdom (Dan. 5:29, 8:20). In Revelation, the sea Beast (Rome) is the same as the fourth Beast in Daniel.

Reading Daniel as a unified whole works with history (as even liberal scholars admit)

Actually they don’t; they say Daniel messed up in his counting of the empires.

and is demanded by the internal parallels. We're not talking about mere "similar language"---the parallels I listed are the same events and language used to describe those events.

You haven’t proven they are and I showed that Nero fulfilled the little horn of chapter 7 and that it could not possibly have been referring to Antiochus. Just because language is “similar” or even the exact same, does not mean it’s referring to the same thing. That’s not the way to interpret the Bible; to just assume that the events are the same because the same language is used does not do justice to Daniel. When closely examined, the fourth kingdom does not fulfill the role of Greece, nor Antiochus, the third kingdom does.

God Bless.

 

[Nilloc]

Hi GW. Good research that I can be in agreement with; except for the inclusion of Dan 7 and 9.

Same here.

How does the 490 yrs from the command to rebuild the temple coincide with Antiochus?

Also, how do you associate Jesus' telling the people that when they see the abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel the Prophet, that they should run for the hills if this was all referring to Antiochus.?

Excellent points Notrash, Jesus clearly stated that not all the prophecies of Daniel are refering to Antiochus.

 

[HarrisonS]

Genea does not mean “race, tribe or family”, as you say; That is the definition of Genos. It has entirely different meanings.
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/l...gs=G1085&t=KJV

1) kindred
a) offspring
b) family
c) stock, tribe, nation
1) i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people
d) the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort

I am going to comment on the rest of your posts later, but let me jump in here to comment briefly on your last post.


I really cannot believe what I am reading here! First you state here that I was incorrect in saying that the first definition of genea as “race, tribe or family”, and then immediately you give a link that proves that I was right! All three words, “race”, “tribe” and “family” appear in the definitions shown in this link. Then, as if that was not enough, you immediately go on to give a list of definitions that further corroborates what I had said! The most respected Greek lexicons, Arndt & Gingrich and Abbott-Smith as well as the TDNT are all in essential agreement on these definitions, as is your link. Aside from you puzzling statement that my definition was wrong, we are in 100% agreement on all of these definitions.


All of this being said, this whole issue is moot anyway, and we do not even need the reference to “generation” in Matt. 24:34 at all to draw our conclusion. It only reaffirms what we are already saying. If you will reread my last post you will see that I said, “In any case, the phrase “when you shall see all of these things” in verse 33 makes all of [the definition of genea] moot.”


You keep on ignoring the fact that “all of these things (verses 33 and 34) MUST INCLUDE the Second Coming of Christ in verse 30. Here is another interesting observation: Matt. 24:2 states that “there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down.” Most teachers, including those with whom I would find essential agreement will be quick to tell you that this was literally fulfilled in 70 AD. It was not. The Wailing Wall is still standing, even today! “not … one stone upon another” sounds very thorough. This can only mean that the final fulfillment of this passage is still in the future!


I will return later with further comments.

 

[GW]

NoTrash and Nilloc:

I, too, used to treat Daniel in a piecemeal fashion as you are doing. But then I discovered two things that utterly forced me to shift to the Antiochus interpretation:

(1) Daniel's book ties itself to Antiochus using parallels that cannot be denied without tossing sound exegesis out the window (see the parallels below)

(2) Scholars have repeatedly proven that Daniel's prophecy fits the history leading up to and including Antiochus. (This is so clear that liberals insist that Daniel had to be written at about the time of Antiochus' death. In other words, liberals don't believe in the possibility of prophecy, so they say the book *has to be history disguised as prophecy.* That's how much the book fits history culminating in Antiochus.)


The parallels once again demand Antiochus:

The "Little Horn" in Daniel is Antiochus:
(Compare 8:9-12,23-25 --to--> Dan 7:8,24-26)


The daily sacrifice taken away by Antiochus
(Compare 8:11-12 --to--> 11:31 --->12:11 ---> 9:27)


"Transgression of Desolation" refers to Antiochus
(Compare Dan 8:13 --to--> 11:31 ---> 12:11 -->9:27)


The period for the power of Little Horn (Antiochus)
(Compare 8:13-14 (1150 days) --to--> 12:7 (time, times & half = 3.5 years)


The end for Antiochus and the restoration of the kingdom to the Jews
(Compare Dan 7:26 --to--> 8:17,19 ---> 9:26 ---> 11:40 ---> 12:4,9)
​

I wish I had more time to go through the whole study. But for now simply note that Daniel's writings themselves link to each other in such a fashion as to require that Antiochus is meant throughout.

The link to Christ is a typological one only.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I, too, used to treat Daniel in a piecemeal fashion as you are doing. But then I discovered two things that utterly forced me to shift to the Antiochus interpretation:

I would disagree and I may put up my Translation of Daniel 11 on the Christian Scriptures board verse by verse. I do not believe it has anything to do with antiochus/macabees otherwise all of Dan 11/12 will appear to be a false prophecy.
One could be a type of "gentile" King and the other a type of "Jewish" king.

Remember that the Judeans in the NT were playing "kissy face" with the Romans?

Daniel 11:27 and Two of them, the Kings, heart of them to evil-mischief, and on a table one lie they shall speak. And not she shall prosper, that further End/07093 qets to appointed-time/04150 mow`ed.

Matthew 27:64 Oder thou! then to be secured the sepulcher till the third day lest then coming His disciples should be stealing Him and may be saying to the people 'He was roused from the dead-ones' and shall be the last deception worst of the first.

 

[Notrash]

[/font][/color]

I am going to comment on the rest of your posts later, but let me jump in here to comment briefly on your last post.

I really cannot believe what I am reading here! First you state here that I was incorrect in saying that the first definition of genea as “race, tribe or family”, and then immediately you give a link that proves that I was right! All three words, “race”, “tribe” and “family” appear in the definitions shown in this link.

Re-read the post. The place that race, tribe and family appear is the definition for the word Genos, not Genea. Jesus chose the word Genea. Also there is importance is in the new testament usage of the words where each usage of Genea is almost unchallangingly refereing primarily to a group of people living at that time.

Then, as if that was not enough, you immediately go on to give a list of definitions that further corroborates what I had said! The most respected Greek lexicons, Arndt & Gingrich and Abbott-Smith as well as the TDNT are all in essential agreement on these definitions, as is your link. Aside from you puzzling statement that my definition was wrong, we are in 100% agreement on all of these definitions.

Re-read the links and especially the meaning of the words in their usage of the verses given. There are differences in the meanings of the words Genos, Genea and Gennema. Jesus chose the word Genea. I have found it beneficial to not trust every "scholarly work" as even Hort and Westcott were known to belong to occultic and homosexual groups. I trust the scholarlyiness of the Holy Spirit and the level of education Ihave been given thus far, not the character and motives of men who write twisting and sometimes contradicting from others information. That they may collaborate or be in agreement with each other is of little importance as there are always other "scholarly men' who may be in disagreement with some of thier points.
Hal Linseys perspective of the fig tree is a perfect example. There are hundreds of 'scholarly men' who view 1948 as the fig tree pushing it's leaves. But Israel is the fruit, not the leaves. And you and I as two other "scholarly men" disagree even with Lindsey. Thus scholarly men can be wrong, even if other scholarly men concurr.

All of this being said, this whole issue is moot anyway, and we do not even need the reference to “generation” in Matt. 24:34 at all to draw our conclusion. It only reaffirms what we are already saying. If you will reread my last post you will see that I said, “In any case, the phrase “when you shall see all of these things” in verse 33 makes all of [the definition of genea] moot.”


You keep on ignoring the fact that “all of these things (verses 33 and 34) MUST INCLUDE the Second Coming of Christ in verse 30. Here is another interesting observation: Matt. 24:2 states that “there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down.” Most teachers, including those with whom I would find essential agreement will be quick to tell you that this was literally fulfilled in 70 AD. It was not. The Wailing Wall is still standing, even today! “not … one stone upon another” sounds very thorough. This can only mean that the final fulfillment of this passage is still in the future!

You've said this 'moot' idea before.

Your perspective of the 'second coming' of Christ is based on Premillenial despensationalism and is followed by a supposed millenial reign. My perspective of the 'second coming' is not parametered or boxed by those indoctrinated beliefs or interpretations.

The wailing wall is said from one source to be from the outer support of the temple mound west of herods temple and not from the temple itself. And even this is debateable as others say that it is from a Roman fortress Antonia. Thus, the jews are praying to a Roman fort.

What is known now as the wailing wall seems in all likelihood to actually be the Western Wall of an early Roman fortress (finally built and enlarged by Herod the Great). King Herod called it Fort Antonia, after the famous Mark Anthony who lived at the end of the first century before Christ. http://mikeblume.com/wailing.htm

The gold of 2nd temple melted down between the cracks of the temple stones causing the Roman soldiers to pry them apart down at least as far as the gold had melted. This would have certainly been beneath ground level and the stones that the disciples saw would have all been pried apart of any sitting one on another. Thats' good enough for me to give indication of the intent of Jesus' words, but I think it goes further.

You can argue against how deep the stones of the temple needed to be unturned or which parts of the temple mount Jesus had in mind in order for Jesus words to be effectual, but your actually arguing as to which temple the context of Jesus words were referring to; the temple that he pointed to and spoke about to his disciples, or some future mystical rebuilding of a similar temple? Common sense language and faith in Jesus honesty seem to indicate that it was the temple that he and they saw and pointed to.

This is becoming oh so typical of the interaction between pro-Israel dispensational futurists and pro-Christ Israelites. I may not hang in the discussion much longer as it seems to be gearing towards reliance on one sides evidence vs another.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your perspective of the 'second coming' of Christ is based on Premillenial despensationalism and is followed by a supposed millenial reign. My perspective of the 'second coming' is not parametered or boxed by those indoctrinated beliefs or interpretations.

What do you think of the Catholics and some other denominations saying they are already in that "millineum" now. I find that view just as false and deceptive.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6813701&page=37
Question time. Jesus returns before or after 1000yrs