Seventy Weeks Are Determined Upon Thy People!

[BABerean2]

Because many of the critics of the literal interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 insist that it is unreasonable to have gaps in that 490-year period.

The "literal" interpretation is not the one taken by Dispensationalists.

They ignore the fact that the summary found in Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled by Christ during the first century.

Act 10:38　 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

　
Heb 10:16　 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;　
Heb 10:17　 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.　
Heb 10:18　 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.　


They also add an antichrist not found in the passage.

They ignore the fact that Christ is the New Covenant Messiah, as revealed by Hebrews 8:6-13, and seem to think that the angel Gabriel forgot to mention the New Covenant.
They ignore the link between the covenant with many in Daniel 9:27 and the covenant with many in Matthew 26:28.

Mat 26:28　 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.　


Then they add a "gap" of time not mentioned by the angel Gabriel, and yet at the same time claim they hold a "literal" interpretation of the passage.

All of this is designed to produce a future time period when modern Jews will come to salvation outside of the Church, even though the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant has become "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.

.

 

[Quasar92]

The "literal" interpretation is not the one taken by Dispensationalists.

They ignore the fact that the summary found in Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled by Christ during the first century.

Act 10:38　 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

　
Heb 10:16　 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;　
Heb 10:17　 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.　
Heb 10:18　 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.　


They also add an antichrist not found in the passage.

They ignore the fact that Christ is the New Covenant Messiah, as revealed by Hebrews 8:6-13, and seem to think that the angel Gabriel forgot to mention the New Covenant.
They ignore the link between the covenant with many in Daniel 9:27 and the covenant with many in Matthew 26:28.

Mat 26:28　 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.　


Then they add a "gap" of time not mentioned by the angel Gabriel, and yet at the same time claim they hold a "literal" interpretation of the passage.

All of this is designed to produce a future time period when modern Jews will come to salvation outside of the Church, even though the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant has become "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.

.

The above post is the opinionated epitome of misrepresentation of Dan.9:27, through the denial of the time gap between verses 26 and 27, and identification of who confirms a covenant with many. FYI, there isn't a post more literally delineated than the OP and #25!

The first installment of rebuke follows:

The Making of a Covenant

What is it that "he" will do? The antichrist will "make a firm covenant with the many for one week," that is seven years. Non-literal interpreters of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy usually attempt to make this covenant a reference to Christ’s covenant to save His people, usually known as the covenant of grace. "This, then, is a confirming of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace that Christ confirms (Rom. 15:8)," claims Dr. Gentry. Dr. Gentry and those advocating a similar view, must resort to a non-textual, theological interpretation at this point since there was no seven-year covenant made by Christ with the Jewish people at the time of His first coming. They must back off from the specifics of the text in verse 27 and import in a theological interpretation, thus providing us with a classic example of spiritualization or allegorical interpretation.

If this is supposed to be a reference to the covenant of grace, then "it may be observed first that this would be a strange way to express such a thought," notes Dr. Wood. Christ’s salvation covenant is not limited to seven years rather it is an eternal covenant. Daniel 9:27 says the covenant is to be made with "the many." This term always refers in some way to Israel throughout the book of Daniel (Daniel 11:33, 39; 12:3). Thus it is a narrow term, used in a specific context. It is not a broad term, synonymous with the language of global salvation. Further, "it is evident that the covenant is subsequent to the cutting off of Messiah and the destruction of the City and the Sanctuary, in the twenty-sixth verse; therefore, it could not have been confirmed at the First Advent," says G. H. Pember. Such an interpretation does not fit this text and it does not account for the seven years that Gabriel says this covenant will be in place. Dr. Wood further explains:

Since a covenant as described in verse 27 has not yet taken place in reference to the nation of Israel, it must therefore follow that this will be a yet to occur future event. This then, demands a postponement of the seventieth week with a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of years.

For One Week

This passage clearly says that the length of the covenant that "he" will make will be for one week or seven years. I suppose that this could mean either that the covenant will be predetermined to last seven years or that it does not specify a length of time when made, but as it turns out, is only in existence for seven years. Many of those who believe that the entire prophecy of the seventy weeks has already been fulfilled around the time of Christ’s first coming teach that the first half of the seventieth week was fulfilled by Christ’s ministry. "We know Christ’s three-and-one-half-year ministry," says Dr. Gentry, "was decidedly focused on the Jews in the first half of the seventieth week (Matt. 10:5b; cf. Matt. 15:24)." G. H. Pember objects to such a view with the following:

Conclusion

Once again we have seen in this installment on the seventy weeks that the text of this passage supports a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the seventieth week is still future to the time in which we now live. "Israel has now been reestablished as a nation (1948), suggesting that the seventieth seven may soon begin." Maranatha!

From: http://www.raptureme.com/featured/70-weeks-9.html


The second Installment:

Who makes the covenant with many in Dan.9:27 ?

Daniel 9:27 (HCSB) He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.”

The question is, who is the he? The traditional view of this passage is that "he" here refers to the Antichrist. The Antichrist will a covenant and stop sacrifices that at some point a future will resume, and set up the Abomination of Desolation.

Preterists say that he refers to the real Christ; Jesus Christ is actually the one that causes sacrifices to stop by sacrificing himself. As far as the overspreading of abominations I don't know how they explain that.

Confirmer of the Covenant Confirmed Elsewhere

So how do we know who the he is? We can know for sure who he is. The he of Daniel 9:27 does three things: he first confirms the covenant, he stops the daily sacrifices, and he sets up the Abomination of Desolation.

In Daniel 11 we have a discourse about the King of the North. When you get to verse 31, it talks about the Antichrist and his partners placing a abomination that makes desolate and stopping the sacrifices. This is absolute proof that the he of Daniel 9:27 is the Antichrist not the real Christ.

Daniel 11:31 (KJV) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

If you're not sure this is the Antichrist, read on what else this man does:

Daniel 11:36 (KJV) And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

For the complete article:

http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/...n-covenant.htm

Annotation from the 1967 edition of the Scofield Bible:

The proof that this final week has not yet been fulfilled is seen in the fact that Christ definitely relates its main events to His second coming [Mt.24:6-15]. Hence, during the interim between the 69th and the 70th weeks there must lie the whole period of the Church set forth in the N.T. but not revealed in the O.T. The interpretation which assigns the last of the 70th weeks to the end of the age is found in the Church fathers. When this 70th week was referred to during the first two and one-half centuries of the Christian Church, it was almost always assigned to the end of the age. Irenaeus places the appearance of the Antichrist at the end of the age in the last week: in fact, he asserts that the time of the Antichrist's tyranny will last just one-half of the week, three years and six months. So likewise Hippolytus states that Daniel "indicates the showing forth of seven years which shall be in the last times."
Endorsed by the Editorial Committee:

1. Frank L. Gaebelein, A.M., Litt.D., Headmaster Emiritus, The Stoney Brook School; 2. William Culbertson, D.D., L.L.D., President, Moody Bible Institute; 3. Charles L. Feinberg, ThD., PhD., Dean, Talbot Theological Seminary; 4. Allan A. Mac Rae, A.M., PhD., President, Biblical School of Theology; 5. Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Th.M., D.D., Dean, Philadelphia College of Bible; 6. Alva J. Mc Clain, Th.M., D.D., President Emeritus, Grace Theological Seminary; 7. Wilbur M. Smith, D.D., Editor, Peloubet's Select Notes; 8. John F. Walvoord, A.M., Th.D., President, Dallas Theological Seminary; 9. C.I. Scofield, D.D., Editor, Scofield Bible; 10. Editorial Committee Chairman, J. E. Schuyler English, Litt.D.


Quasar92

 

[Biblewriter]

It is absolutely clear that the interpretation of the seventieth week as coming a significant time after the sixty-ninth one, is not only the uniform interpretation of the early Christian writers on the subject, as I have already demonstrated. It is also the only possible interpretation, if the wording is taken literally.

This is because the seventy weeks were revealed to Daniel in the following words. “Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.” (Daniel 9:24)

First, we need to understand that, although most of our English translations say seventy weeks, the Hebrew word translated weeks was shabuwa' (word number 7620 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary) This word was used in the Old Testament for both a period of seven days and a period of seven years. Only the context could show whether days of years was meant. An in this case, the context clearly shows that the meaning could not even possibly been days. So it is not simply interpretation to take seventy weeks as meaning 490 years. This is a fully legitimate meaning of the Hebrew words used here.

Daniel was told, “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.” (Daniel 9:25) Here we have sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, from the going forth of the command until Messiah the Prince. Some claim that there is historical evidence that the triumphal entry occurred exactly 483 years, to the day, after the signing of this order. I cannot personally testify as to the accuracy of this claim. But history indeed confirms that it occurred at approximately that time.

But now the Divinely inspired account contains a break. We read, “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.” (Daniel 9:26)

Two things were to happen after the sixty-two week second part of this account. And we know that both of them indeed happened exactly as explicitly stated. “Messiah” would “be cut off,” and “the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Messiah was indeed cut off, and the city and the sanctuary were indeed destroyed. We know from history that these two events did not happen within a seven year period. Most historians feel that our calendar is in error, and the actual date of Jesus’ birth was 4 BC. Since Jesus lived thirty-three years, that puts his death in 29 A.D. But according to history, the city was not destroyed until 70 A.D., forty-one years after that. So even if there are small errors in the accepted dates of history, we absolutely know that “the city and the sanctuary” were not destroyed in the same week (seven year period) that our Lord was crucified. But we need to notice that both of these events are presented before the last week is even mentioned. So here we see an absolutely undeniable break in the scriptural account of the seventy weeks.

But the last week is treated differently. It does not even say that this is the seventieth week. The only reason we know that it is the seventieth week is because all the rest of the weeks had already been used up. So this week had to be the seventieth one. We read, “Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.” (Daniel 9:27)

Now many imagine that this verse speaks of the cross. They want to interpret the word “for” in this verse as “in,” and claim that this was speaking of Jesus confirming God’s covenant with us “in” the seventieth week, and claim that Jesus was crucified at the middle of the seventieth week. But even if history were wrong by so many years, this interpretation does violence to the structure of the prophecy. For the last week is not even mentioned until after the two events that were to take place after the sixty-ninth week.

But an end time covenant that will not be fulfilled is clearly mentioned in other Old Testament prophecies. One of these is Isaiah 28:14-18, where we read, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem, Because you have said, ‘We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we are in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, It will not come to us, For we have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves.’ Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily. Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place. Your covenant with death will be annulled, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing scourge passes through, Then you will be trampled down by it.”
Again, in Isaiah 57:7-9 we read, “On a lofty and high mountain You have set your bed; Even there you went up To offer sacrifice. Also behind the doors and their posts You have set up your remembrance; For you have uncovered yourself to those other than Me, And have gone up to them; You have enlarged your bed And made a covenant with them; You have loved their bed, Where you saw their nudity. You went to the king with ointment, And increased your perfumes; You sent your messengers far off, And even descended to Sheol.”

So we see that the scriptures indeed clearly foretell a future covenant that God will not allow to be fulfilled. Daniel 9:27 is only one of several places where this covenant in mentioned.

 

[Quasar92]

The "literal" interpretation is not the one taken by Dispensationalists.

They ignore the fact that the summary found in Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled by Christ during the first century.

Act 10:38　 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

　
Heb 10:16　 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;　
Heb 10:17　 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.　
Heb 10:18　 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.　


They also add an antichrist not found in the passage.

They ignore the fact that Christ is the New Covenant Messiah, as revealed by Hebrews 8:6-13, and seem to think that the angel Gabriel forgot to mention the New Covenant.
They ignore the link between the covenant with many in Daniel 9:27 and the covenant with many in Matthew 26:28.

Mat 26:28　 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.　


Then they add a "gap" of time not mentioned by the angel Gabriel, and yet at the same time claim they hold a "literal" interpretation of the passage.

All of this is designed to produce a future time period when modern Jews will come to salvation outside of the Church, even though the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant has become "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.

.

The third Installment to post #42:

A Close Look at Daniel 9:26, 27: Antichrist’s Reign of Terror

by Anthony Buzzard

A flood of light has been thrown on the famous “70 WEEKS” prophecy of Daniel 9 by the German expositor, Keil, in the celebrated Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament. Keil was professor of oriental languages as well as biblical exegesis. He believed that Daniel wrote genuine prediction. A detailed analysis of the whole of the 70 WEEKS prophecy is important for an understanding of Matthew 24 (Jesus’ Olivet prophecy, the “anchor of prophecy”) and the book of Revelation. Both these sections of Scripture draw heavily on the material revealed to Daniel. Jesus and Paul assume that we recognize that Daniel provides the basic outline of events destined to happen just before the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom at Jesus’ return. In this study we concentrate on the activity of the “wicked ruler who is to come” (Dan. 9:26).

Keil begins by pointing out (Comm. p. 362) that the “ruler who is to come” is a leader “whose coming is known, of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God.” Does Daniel elsewhere speak of such an evil tyrant of the last days? It is well known that he does. In 7:8 he had already described “another little horn, possessing eyes like a man and a mouth uttering great boasts.” This evil person “will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law [inaugurate a new ‘Messianic’ era?]; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times and half a time” (7:25). This period is taken up again in Revelation 12:14, where it is defined as three and a half years (12:6). Revelation 13:5 reveals that “the Beast” will operate for 42 months. The same period of persecution under the Antichrist is described in Daniel 12:11 as 1290 days, to be dated from the setting up of the Abomination of Desolation (Dan. 11:31; cp. Matt. 24:15).

THE LITTLE HORN OF DANIEL 8

In Daniel 8:9-12 more is said about the final monster of evil. He is to be “a small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east and toward the Beautiful Land. And it grew up to the stars of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of the sanctuary was thrown down. And on account of the transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper.”

Further details follow in verse 8:23. The tyrant is to arise “in the latter time” of the Syrian kingdom which arose out of the divisions of the Greek kingdom of Alexander the Great.Jamieson, Fausset and Brown are right to insist that the reference to the “‘latter time of their kingdom when the transgressors are come to the full’...does not hold good of the time of Antiochus, but of the closing times of the Christian era” (Comm. on Dan. 8:23). This is confirmed by the very clear time markers of 8:17, 19: “The vision pertains to the time of the end...the final period of indignation...the appointed time of the end.” This data should lay to rest any doubts that this eighth chapter takes us to the time of the end of the age, just as Daniel’s other prophetic chapters do. Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not reign at the “acherit” (the closing days) of the Syrian dynasty. He lived a little past the middle of the Syrian period. A major mistake of much traditional exposition of Daniel has been to limit chapter 8 to history, when it has in fact a clear reference to the times just preceding the Kingdom of God to be inaugurated at Jesus’ return.

Of the end-time tyrant Gabriel says: “A king will arise, insolent and skilled in intrigue. And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power, and he will destroy to an extraordinary degree and prosper and perform his will; he will destroy mighty men and the people of the saints. And through his shrewdness he will cause deceit to succeed by his influence; he will magnify himself in his heart, and he will destroy many while they are at ease. He will even oppose the Prince of Princes [i.e. act as anti-Christ], but he will be broken without human agency. And the vision of the evenings and mornings is true. But keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future “ (Dan. 8:23-26).

THE SAME EVIL PRINCE OF DANIEL 9:26

With this information in mind we proceed to Daniel 9:26 where we again find the ultimate evil ruler on the rampage, destroying the sanctuary and God’s people. “The people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And his end will come in the flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.”

In the clause “and his end will come with the flood,” Keil points out most helpfully that the Hebrew suffix “his” “refers simply to the hostile prince, whose end is emphatically placed over against his coming.” Confirmation that this is the most natural rendering may be found in the Jewish Publication Society Translation of the OT, The (Jewish) Soncino Commentary, The International Critical Commentary, the Revised Version, and the Jerusalem Bible, as well as the NASV margin.

Keil maintains that preconceived ideas about a historical fulfillment of the destruction of the evil prince have influenced some translators. They have not wished to render the text “his end shall come in the flood,” because Titus, to whom they thought this ought to refer, did not come to his end in AD 70. However, grammatically and naturally the suffix “his” on the word “end” refers back to its nearest masculine antecedent, the evil prince. The word order of the Hebrew appears as follows: “The city and sanctuary will be destroyed by the people of the prince who is to come; and his end will come in the flood.” Keil concludes after surveying all the evidence that “there remains nothing else than to apply the suffix to the evil prince” —his end will come with the flood. The evil leader will perish at the end of a military campaign. He will be destroyed by the flood (the Hebrew has the definite article). Now Jesus spoke of the judgment at his Second Coming as a deluge parallel to the cataclysm brought on the world in Noah’s day (Matt. 24:39).

THE FINAL “WEEK” OF YEARS

Daniel 9:26 then states that “to the end there will be war.” Keil is again logical and helpful: “The end is the end of the period in progress, the seventy weeks, and corresponds to ‘the end of all things’ in 7:26 [NASV, margin] and 12:13, ‘the end of the days.’” Keil concludes: “To the end war shall be = war shall continue during the whole of the last week” (Comm. p. 364). The detail of the translation is critically important. Not only does the evil prince come to his end (Titus did not in AD 70), but war will be a feature of the last — the seventieth — “week” of years. But no war occurred in ca. AD 27-34. The system which places the seventieth “week” in about AD 27-34 cannot be made to fit with the data presented by Daniel 9:26. Nor will it fit the events of AD 70. It is to the future end of the age to which the revelation points.

THE TRANSLATION OF VERSE 27

Verse 27 opens with the personal pronoun “he.” Keil shows that the “he” refers naturally and easily to the evil prince just mentioned. “The connection much more indicates that the (evil) prince is the subject of ‘will confirm,’ since the prince who was to come is named last, and is also the subject in the prefix ‘his end.’ Also the ‘taking away of the sacrifice’ combines itself in a natural way with the destruction of the city and the temple brought about by the prince who is to come. The reference of ‘he will confirm’ to the ungodly leader of an army is therefore according to the context and the parallel passages of this book which have been mentioned [i.e. 8:13, 11:31, 12:11], as well as in harmony with the natural grammatical arrangement of the passage, and it gives also a congruous sense, although by the prince Titus cannot naturally be understood... Therefore the thought is: That ungodly prince shall impose upon the mass of the people a strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him as their God” (Comm. pp. 366, 367).

In the light of these facts, we must agree with Keil “that the reference of the words under consideration to the desecration of the temple before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is untenable” (p. 371). Completing his analysis of Daniel 9:27, Keil concludes that it is natural to link the desolator of verse 27 with the evil prince just mentioned. Furthermore the evil prince is also the subject of the desolation described in the latter half of verse 27, which should be rendered: “On the wings of abomination he (the evil ruler) comes desolating,” agreeing in sense with the King James Version: “He shall make it desolate.”

KEIL’S VERSION OF DANIEL 9:26, 27

Keil’s resultant version of the message of Gabriel to Daniel in 9:26, 27 is as follows:

“The city, together with the sanctuary, shall be destroyed by the people of the prince who shall come, who shall find his end in the flood; but war shall continue to the end, since destruction is irrevocably decreed. That prince shall force a strong covenant for one week on the mass of the people, and during half a week he shall take away the service of sacrifice, and borne on the wings of idol abominations [cp. Ps. 18:10, where the true God is also borne on wings] shall carry on a desolating rule, till the firmly decreed judgment shall pour itself upon him as one desolated” (Comm. p. 373).
For the complete article:

A Close Look at Daniel 9:26, 27: Antichrist's Reign of Terror



Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

You're barking up the wrong post(s). Go back and review the sequence.

What I posted is very relevant to remarks you had made, it was in response to,


Quasar92

 

[jgr]

It is absolutely clear that the interpretation of the seventieth week as coming a significant time after the sixty-ninth one, is not only the uniform interpretation of the early Christian writers on the subject, as I have already demonstrated. It is also the only possible interpretation, if the wording is taken literally.

First off, apologies for the Justin Martyr quote error earlier; my oversight.

In 18 centuries of true Church history, there are only two who wrote of a decapitated 70th week -- Irenaeus and his protege Hippolytus. The error was subsequently pointed out by Jerome.

There is no "uniform interpretation of the early Christian writers."

 

[jgr]

It is obvious that he did not state this. But he clearly put it in his own future, and spoke of it as being the length of time that a particular future evil individual would reign.

Instead of stating that this meant thee and a half years, he simply said that we knew how long it would be from the scripture he quoted, and then demonstrated the obvious error in the interpretation being used at the time by the Jews.

In stating that we know how long it would be from this scripture, Justyn was referring to the fact that in scripture, this is period is variously specified as "a time, times, and half a time," half a week, forty two months, and 1260 days. And when we remember that an ancient Jewish year consisted of 12 months of 30 days each, all these periods work out to be exactly the same amount of time.

Martyr was the only early Church father to refer to the "time, times, and dividing of time" in Daniel 7. No one else did, nor did any of them identify when the apostasy would begin, or what its duration would be.

It was not until the post-Reformation period that the fulfillment of the duration specified in Daniel 7 became evident in retrospect. The 1260 years of the papacy, from 538 to 1798, was recognized as another example of the day-year correspondence of prophetic time described and applied in Ezekiel 4:4-6, and again by Christ in Luke 13:32.

Daniel's prophecy of a war on the saints that would wear them out is a more-than-accurate description of 50 million or more deaths over 1260 years.

 

[jgr]

1. Frank L. Gaebelein, A.M., Litt.D., Headmaster Emiritus, The Stoney Brook School; 2. William Culbertson, D.D., L.L.D., President, Moody Bible Institute; 3. Charles L. Feinberg, ThD., PhD., Dean, Talbot Theological Seminary; 4. Allan A. Mac Rae, A.M., PhD., President, Biblical School of Theology; 5. Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Th.M., D.D., Dean, Philadelphia College of Bible; 6. Alva J. Mc Clain, Th.M., D.D., President Emeritus, Grace Theological Seminary; 7. Wilbur M. Smith, D.D., Editor, Peloubet's Select Notes; 8. John F. Walvoord, A.M., Th.D., President, Dallas Theological Seminary; 9. C.I. Scofield, D.D., Editor, Scofield Bible; 10. Editorial Committee Chairman, J. E. Schuyler English, Litt.D.

Why no Reformers?

 

[Quasar92]

Why no Reformers?

The Scriptures need no "reformers."


Qusar92

 

[jgr]

The Scriptures need no "reformers."


Qusar92

And no "dispens".

 

[Biblewriter]

First off, apologies for the Justin Martyr quote error earlier; my oversight.

In 18 centuries of true Church history, there are only two who wrote of a decapitated 70th week -- Irenaeus and his protege Hippolytus. Their error was subsequently pointed out by Jerome.

There is no "uniform interpretation of the early Christian writers."

This is factually incorrect on multiple counts:

First, the "early" period of which I spoke, is the first two centuries of the church.

Second, three, not two writers of this period wrote of a the seventieth week being fulfilled at a time later than the end of the sixty-ninth week. And not even one writer from this period clearly taught otherwise.

Third, Jerome repeated a teaching that the seventieth week was fulfilled long after the end of the sixty-two weeks, noting that "I shall set it forth summarily and within a brief compass, leaving the credibility of their assertions to those who asserted them."

And fourth, multiple writers from the two centuries preceding Darby's writings clearly taught Dispensational concepts, including a future fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies.

 

[jgr]

This is factually incorrect on multiple counts:

First, the "early" period of which I spoke, is the first two centuries of the church.

Second, three, not two writers of this period wrote of a the seventieth week being fulfilled at a time later than the end of the sixty-ninth week. And not even one writer from this period clearly taught otherwise.

Third, Jerome repeated a teaching that the seventieth week was fulfilled long after the end of the sixty-two weeks, noting that "I shall set it forth summarily and within a brief compass, leaving the credibility of their assertions to those who asserted them."

And fourth, multiple writers from the two centuries preceding Darby's writings clearly taught Dispensational concepts, including a future fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies.

The epistle of Barnabas with a contiguous week pre-dates all.

The inadmissibility of unvetted doctrine has been established earlier.

 

[Biblewriter]

The epistle of Barnabas with a contiguous week pre-dates all.

The inadmissibility of unvetted doctrine has been established earlier.

I already demonstrated that the comment you are citing from the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas" was based in some writing other than Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, for it quotes a passage that is not even from the Bible.

And you most certainly did not establish "the inadmissability of unvetted doctrine." You only alleged it. And your allegation was, and is, serious bad doctrine. This was the concept used by "the church" in an attempt to silence "the Reformers," whose opinions you so highly value.

 

[jgr]

Was the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas not permitted to quote something from a source other than the Bible?

 

[jgr]

Third, Jerome repeated a teaching that the seventieth week was fulfilled long after the end of the sixty-two weeks, noting that "I shall set it forth summarily and within a brief compass, leaving the credibility of their assertions to those who asserted them."

Whose teaching did he repeat?

 

[Biblewriter]

Was the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas not permitted to quote something from a source other than the Bible?

Of course he could. But it is invalid to claim that a quotation that obviously did not come from the Bible, was about a specific passage in the Bible.

 

[jgr]

The Scriptures need no "reformers."


Qusar92

Neither do cults.

 

[Biblewriter]

Whose teaching was that?

He attributed the teaching to "the Jews." And he made it very clear that he neither confirmed nor denied its validity.

My point in mentioning this was that it is incorrect to say that "The error" of Irenaeus and Hipolytus "was subsequently pointed out by Jerome."

 

[Biblewriter]

Neither do cults.

All "cult" leaders are "reformers" of some kind.

 

[jgr]

And you most certainly did not establish "the inadmissability of unvetted doctrine." You only alleged it. And your allegation was, and is, serious bad doctrine. This was the concept used by "the church" in an attempt to silence "the Reformers," whose opinions you so highly value.

The apostle Paul was also guilty of "serious bad doctrine" for admonishing the Corinthians to emulate himself, the chief of sinners.

There was no such thing as "the church". By the advent of the Reformation, and well before, there was the true church, and the apostate church. Never did either attempt to vet doctrine with the other.