The Ten Horns from a Preterist view point.

Notrash said:

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.

Click to expand...

HarrisonS said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Notrash said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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'.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

HarrisonS said:

Notrash said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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”.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Notrash said:

… 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".

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

HarrisonS said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

GW said:

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)

Click to expand...

Notrash said:

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

Click to expand...

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:

Click to expand...

HarrisonS said:

[/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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...