"70 Weeks" of lunar years

NumberOneSon · Apr 27, 2002

A very orderly and respectful discussion. I am enjoying it immensely.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

aChristian · Apr 28, 2002

GW,

I carefully read all you wrote, including the article you linked us to at "Preterist Planet." You answered my question quite thoroughly and well. Thank you. I notice in the article at PP that you mentioned a second part of the article was coming. Was it there somewhere or is it now being written?

Thanks for your help.

Mike

GW · Apr 28, 2002

Hi Mike.

Part II of that article will probably be posted in the next few weeks. I shared some of it with you in my previous posts.

With you in the victory of Christ and the saints,
GW (BJ)

p.s., here are some other very worthwhile resources:

The Parousia
James Stuart Russell

The Great Tribulation -- FREE ONLINE READING!
by David Chilton

The Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem (1787)
- N. Nisbett

Apocalypse of the Gospels
--Milton Terry

aChristian · Apr 28, 2002

GW,

What do you say to those who remind us that God often used "types" in the Old Testament to point to then future people and events. (Elijah was a "type" of John the baptist. Abraham's having children with the slave woman Hagar prefigured God's later having spiritual children who would be slaves to the Mosaic Law, and with the free woman Sarah, spiritual children who would be free in Christ. - Gal. 4 ) Obviously I could go on and on with this. "Typology" is a major field of Old testament studies, especially of the many Old Testament "types" which prefigured Christ Himself. That being the case, isn't it a reasonable possibility, since the same God inspired the writing of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, that He would have also used "types" in the New Testament to point to then future people and events?

I suspect your response to this will be that we have no evidence that this is the case. Of course, before the Old Testament types were shown to be types by the appearance of their "antitypes" the same could have been said. You may also point out, as you already have, that the scritures do not really leave anything for a second coming of Christ to accomplish. That is, of course, a matter of interpretation which many would argue with you. Bringing complete peace to the earth would be nice, along with a couple other things they would mention.

Some also point to some ancient people and events which they believe were too "big" not to have been designed by God to serve as "types" of future events, seeing how nearly all other major characters and events referred to in the Old Testament served as types. For instance, it is said that Antiochus Epiphanes must have prefigured an "antichrist" who is yet to come. For Antiochus' taking over the Jewish temple for exactly three years, at the end of which pure worship was completely restored, and during that time outlawing all practices of the Jewish religion under penalty of death, and having the Jewish High Priest serve as his "bagman" all during that time, are activities that were not closely mirrored by persons or events during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 66-70.

Again, the question is asked, "Since God used 'types' so often in the Old Testament, why should we not believe that the same God would likely have designed and arranged New Testament historical events in the much same way?"

Oh, thanks for the resources. I plan on reading them tonight when I get a bit more time.

Mike

aChristian · Apr 28, 2002

GW,

Getting back a bit closer to this thread's title subject. I noticed in your article that one of the reasons you seem to favor an AD 30 dated for Christ's death is that it gives us a biblical "40" year period of time between Christ's death and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

However, I prefer to see that 40 year period as being that which passed between Christ's birth in the fall of 5 BC (which date I think I showed to be both historically and biblically correct in a previous post here that was entitled "Elijah, John and the time of Christ's birth") and the time God's Spirit was first poured out on the Gentiles in the fall of AD 36. This chronology also reveals a biblcal "70" year period of time between Christ's birth and the initial siege of Jerusalem in AD 66.

Mike

GW · Apr 28, 2002

Originally posted by aChristian
What do you say to those who remind us that God often used "types" in the Old Testament to point to then future people and events. (Elijah was a "type" of John the baptist. Abraham's having children with the slave woman Hagar prefigured God's later having spiritual children who would be slaves to the Mosaic Law, and with the free woman Sarah, spiritual children who would be free in Christ. - Gal. 4 ) ...That being the case, isn't it a reasonable possibility, since the same God inspired the writing of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, that He would have also used "types" in the New Testament to point to then future people and events?

Hi Mike.

Typology is a timebound heremeneutic. Those shadows of the O.T. foretold the story of the Messianic Advent via things familiar to the Jews' way of life. Once Christ is come the shadows are done away (Col 2:16-17). The heavenly things that arrived in Christ's advent are the object for which the types only were shadows (Heb 8:4-5). These heavenly New Covenant things are the final destiny. The Law contained the shadow but not the very image of such great things (Heb 10:1-2). We have the heavenly things now. They have been delivered and they are the END product, not the mere means to some future and better end product. The eternal New Covenant IS the destination. One could say that the entire book of Hebrews, from chapter 1 to chapter 13, argues this exact point. The biblical answer answering this whole question is written down as the book of Hebrews (all).

Originally posted by aChristian
I suspect your response to this will be that we have no evidence that this is the case. Of course, before the Old Testament types were shown to be types by the appearance of their "antitypes" the same could have been said. You may also point out, as you already have, that the scritures do not really leave anything for a second coming of Christ to accomplish.

We not only have no evidence of such an application of N.T. things, we have explicit teaching to the contrary. The book of Hebrews answers this question. The writer argues persuasively that the Old Covenant things were types for the New Covenant priesthood, people, and atonement. That eternal covenant is heavenly and fully effectual. It is the end, not the means to an end.

Also, the article I wrote was designed to illustrate what happens when we apply a TYPOLOGICAL reading to New-Covenant-Age things as if they were mere types (i.e., as if they were the MEANS to some end and not the end itself). What happens is that the Cross and blood of Jesus then becomes a mere TYPE of some future and TRUE salvation for the whole world that hasn't happened yet. The many other N.T. fulfillments are then made TYPES as well. This runs exactly contrary to the understanding of the writer of Hebrews and Paul (assuming they are not the same). To them, the New Covenant consists in and of the TRUE HEAVENLY THINGS for which all prior earthly types merely pointed to.

Originally posted by aChristian
Again, the question is asked, "Since God used 'types' so often in the Old Testament, why should we not believe that the same God would likely have designed and arranged New Testament historical events in the much same way?"

Because the apostles teach just the opposite is true. To the apostles, the New Covenant is the end goal. It is Messiah. It is the HEAVENLY THINGS and, therefore, the final state. The Old Testament Era was the earthly administration where the many types were not effectual in accomplishing the salvation they pointed to. Once the effectual Messianic religion came and atonement was made, there is no more need for types and shadows. The object has come and the shadows are passed away.

Finally, I believe Jesus Christ truly addressed the issue clearly when he instructed the apostles that ALL things written concerning Him MUST be fulfilled (Luke 24:44-47)...and then Jesus actually gives THE terminus for WHEN all those things written would be fulfilled -- namely, the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-22). So the shadows are fulfilled in the present, eternal, New Covenant Age that was ushered in during the last days period of the typological Old Testament Age. The New Covenant delivered REALITIES, and not mere types and shadows.

God bless,
BJ

GW · Apr 28, 2002

Originally posted by aChristian
I noticed in your article that one of the reasons you seem to favor an AD 30 dated for Christ's death is that it gives us a biblical "40" year period of time between Christ's death and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Heya Mike. That is not the reason I favor AD 30/31 for Christ's crucifixion. All scholarship I have seen has led me to adopt that date. Did I see that we agree that Christ was born in about 5BC, just before Herod the Great's death?

Originally posted by aChristian
However, I prefer to see that 40 year period as being that which passed between Christ's birth in the fall of 5 BC (which date I think I showed to be both historically and biblically correct in a previous post here that was entitled "Elijah, John and the time of Christ's birth&quot and the time God's Spirit was first poured out on the Gentiles in the fall of AD 36. This chronology also reveals a biblcal "70" year period of time between Christ's birth and the initial siege of Jerusalem in AD 66.

Interesting. I never thought of the 70 years notion. One thing preterists know for sure is that the N.T. Church believed and taught it was the TRUE wilderness generation on the way into the promised land. They explicitly taught this -- namely, that the generation that Moses led out of bondage and into the land of Israel was the TYPE for the true exodus and entrance into the promised land via Christ and his followers (see: 1 Cor 10:1-12; Heb 3:7-4:11 (all); Heb 2:2-4; Heb 12:25-29). A very good chart illustrates this here:

"40 Years in Typology and Fulfillment"
http://www.preteristarchive.com/images/Charts/im-40yrs.gif

Here's the common--but not the only--preterist understanding of the 70 weeks as applied to the Messianic Advent.

"Daniel's 70 Weeks and Time of the End"
http://www.prophecyrefi.org/timeline.htm

Many preterists like Philip Mauro do not see Daniel stretching into the 1st century, except by typology. Just thought you'd enjoy the charts.

Cheers,
GW

aChristian · Apr 29, 2002

GW,

You wrote: I favor AD 30/31 for Christ's crucifixion. All scholarship I have seen has led me to adopt that date.

From everything I have read on the subject, and that's a lot, AD 30 and AD 33 are by far the two most preferred dates. And of the two AD 33 is the most favored for a number of reasons by those who have engaged in thorough studies of this issue. Jack Finegan is considered by many to be the world's foremost authority in the field of Bible chronology. His 1964 "Handbook of Biblical Chronology" was long considered this field of study's standard reference work. In 1999 he revised and enlarged it greatly. However in both the '64 and '99 edition he tells us AD 33 must have been the year Christ died. The '64 edition gives many reasons for this. His '99 edition several more. "Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels" (1992) has a very long and thorough article on the chronology of the life of Christ which also makes a very strong case for AD 33. So does "Nelson's illustrated Bible Dictionary" and several other popular reference works I can name. Though most of them do not explain all their reasons for providing us this date, I'm sure their authors had good reasons to do so. For there are plenty.

You asked: Did I see that we agree that Christ was born in about 5 BC, just before Herod the Great's death?

Yes, I mentioned that I have written an article on the subject I hope to have published. It establishes the date for Christ's birth in a new and fascinating way. By the way, the date for the eclipse that has long been used to establish the date of Herod's death is now a matter of some controversy among serious Bible scholars and New Testament historians. Some now make a strong case that the lunar eclipse Josephus referred to must have been one that occurred in AD 1, not 4 BC. This has allowed some to conclude that Christ may have been born in 1 or 2 BC. Finegan discusses this issue in his revise work. However, if they are right, the date of Herod's death would then be irrelevant to this discussion. For the Bible does not say how long before Herod's death he ordered the deaths of the male infants two years of age and under.

My article can be read here: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10815

An article I wrote giving a very interesting take on the Bible's use of the number 40 can be read here:
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9752

By the way, I understand what you say about the dangers of seeing types in the New Testament. However, the same could be said about turning all people and events in Old Testament history into "types." Any way of interpreting the Bible can be abused. Simply because some things were obviously not meant to serve as types that does not mean that some other things may not have been.

As of now, my mind remains open on this subject. I will read the articles you recommended. I'm sure you too were a bit slow in becoming a "full preterist."

GW · Apr 29, 2002

Originally posted by aChristian
By the way, I understand what you say about the dangers of seeing types in the New Testament. However, the same could be said about turning all people and events in Old Testament history into "types."

The apostles turned the people and events in Old Testament history into types seemingly at every turn. From Matthew 2:15 and Gal 4:22-31 to 1 Cor 10:1-12 and Revelation 11:3-8, the apostles saw in their ancient history the story of the Messianic Advent/generation.

Originally posted by aChristian
Any way of interpreting the Bible can be abused. Simply because some things were obviously not meant to serve as types that does not mean that some other things may not have been.

Agreed. In fact, while we can learn much about the apostles and Christ's "Messiah Hermeneutic" by tracking their citation of O.T. passages and studying their method of application, we are at a loss to extend their system of interpretation in areas where the apostles or Christ did not speak. When reading through the Old Testament books, we 21st century folk may be able to come up with some general applications of typology that seem to make good sense in light of the apostles' pattern. However, without any direct citation and application from the apostles on a given O.T. passage we cannot dogmatically assert that we have rightly used the Messiah Hermeneutic. I am currently interested in finding books that study Old Testament eschatology since those books are dedicated to exploring the emerging Messianic notions that developed within exilic and 2nd Temple Judaism.

Originally posted by aChristian
As of now, my mind remains open on this subject. I will read the articles you recommended. I'm sure you too were a bit slow in becoming a "full preterist."

The journey has been a most life-changing experience for me. The renewing of the mind/circumcision of heart that occurs when one adopts even a partial-preterist covenantal approach is astounding. One's sense of how God has worked, how He works, and how He WILL continue to work in and among His people for aeons to come gets transformed radically from the preterist perspective on the last days. The journey has been truly amazing, and the implications for God's people who live by faith are vast, expansive, and neverending.

GW

davo · Apr 29, 2002

Originally posted by GW

The journey has been a most life-changing experience for me. The renewing of the mind/circumcision of heart that occurs when one adopts even a partial-preterist covenantal approach is astounding. One's sense of how God has worked, how He works, and how He WILL continue to work in and among His people for aeons to come gets transformed radically from the preterist perspective on the last days. The journey has been truly amazing, and the implications for God's people who live by faith are vast, expansive, and neverending.

GW

Yes indeed!! Coming to the realisation that "the end-time" was about the end of the old covenant world of Judaism -and NOT the end of our physical planet, and that the Bible is NOT about the history of the world, BUT the history of REDEMPTION has for me been revolutionary -yes, what a journey .

davo

NumberOneSon · Apr 29, 2002

...that the Bible is NOT about the history of the world, BUT the history of REDEMPTION has for me been revolutionary -yes, what a journey.

Hey - did you steal that from my signature?!

In Christ,

Acts6:5

davo · Apr 29, 2002

Originally posted by Acts6:5

Hey - did you steal that from my signature?!

In Christ,

Acts6:5

G'day Acts6:5! -no mate, but it sure looks like it -great signature, love it

davo

postrib · May 11, 2002

...no man is ever again going to be sitting down in any rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem...

Never say never.

...That site is now occupied by the Moslem Dome of the Rock. It is one of the Moslem world's most holy sites. Any attempt to rebuild a Jewish temple there would start World War III...

Or possibly the war of Daniel 11:13-19.

...the bottom line is, it aint gonna happen! End of story...

Time will tell.

"70 Weeks" of lunar years

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

Active Member

Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency