Closing the Gap in Dispensationalism.

[Dave L]

Closing the Gap in Dispensationalism.
Making sense out of Daniel’s 70 weeks using the Septuagint. The bible translation Jesus and the disciples used.

“And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations. And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.” Daniel 9:25–27 (Brenton LXX En)

1) Notice how easy it is to understand this passage when we show how Christ fulfilled it. It simply says Jesus the prince will come after the 62 + 7 weeks. That is after the 69th week, which is another way of saying at the beginning of the 70th week.

2) They will destroy (crucify) him. And he will destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince (Titus) that is coming.

3) And one week shall establish the [new] covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away [on the cross]: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations [continued animal sacrifice]; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.”

If we compare the Dispensational version, it does not fit and even contradicts the Septuagint translation. Using the English bible, the Dispensationalists turn Jesus into the Antichrist found somewhere in the distant future.

“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

H. A. Ironside writes: “The moment the Messiah died on the cross (v26), the prophetic clock stopped. There has not been a tick upon that clock for nineteen centuries [when he wrote this]. It will not begin to go again until the entire present age has come to an end, and Israel will once again be taken up by God.”[ii]

So they start by inserting a gap after the crucifixion. And turn Jesus who fulfilled the prophecy into to Antichrist sometime in the future. With thousands of years now passed and counting.

[A]nd the people of the prince (Antichrist) that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he (Antichrist) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Daniel 9:25–27 (KJV 1900)

But, for this to happen things must happen before the severed 70th week begins.

One, Antichrist supposedly contracts or covenants with the Jews, and in the middle of the 70th week when he will cause the sacrifice and the oblation to end.

So they think this must mean there will be a rebuilt temple and animal sacrifices before this can happen. So they take it upon themselves to prophecy this will happen. Even though scripture doesn’t mention it.

Also since the people of the prince are Romans, they take it upon themselves to prophesy a restored Roman Empire. Again based on a gap scripture never mentions and doesn’t allow for in the Septuagint. It is all guesswork about what might happen if there were such a gap. And then arrogantly prophesying it will happen.

Based on the idea of what might happen if there were such a gap, the bible scavenger hunt begins. Prophecy buffs world-wide looking for proof texts to support a third temple, a restored Roman Empire and a return to animal sacrifices. Something contextual scripture knows nothing of and, the book of Hebrews rejects.

And more scavenger hunting with many obsessing over the media for clues about a rebuilt temple, a revived Roman Empire, or anything mentioning Russia. And who the Antichrist might be. In my lifetime it was Henry Kissinger, Gorbachev, and President Obama who were prime suspects. Before that it was Stalin, Hitler, or any other tyrant who captured the media. With everything from SS numbers to microchips being the Mark of the Beast.

Often they assign new interpretations to already fulfilled prophecies to bolster their views. The Great Tribulation of AD 70 reassigned to the missing 70th week. The “rapture” on the last day after the resurrection according to Jesus and Paul, moved to the 70th week 1007 years before the end, or there about.

And it influences US foreign policy, tipping the scales towards nuclear war.[iii] Becoming self-fulfilled prophecy based on what might happen if there were such a gap.

Everything from Russia marching on Israel according to a heavily re-written Ezekiel 38. Fulfilled long ago in the book of Esther by nations of the Persian Empire. Now imported into modern times with Ezekiel’s horses, swords, and spears, originally aimed at stealing Israel’s cattle. Turned into submarines, aircraft carries, missiles, tanks, and modern Warcraft[iv] to destroy Israel, not to steal their cattle.

Where did Dispensationalism come from? A brief sketch shows the Jesuits borrowed from an old heresy that inserted a gap in Daniel’s prophecy. Why? Because the Protestants identified the Papacy as Antichrist, and people were leaving the church in droves. The Jesuits countered this trying to prove the Papacy is not the Antichrist. If people would accept the gap version of Daniel, the Antichrist could not be the Pope. Because the Antichrist would not appear anytime soon, but in the distant future.[v]

In time this Counter Reformation lie caught on to where it now covers the world.








[1] This is the Bible Jesus Used

What Bible Did Jesus Use? - Bible Study Tips

[ii] Harry A. Ironside, The Great Parenthesis: Timely Messages on the Interval Between the 69th and 70th Weeks of Daniel’s Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1943).

[iii] Prophecy and Politics Grace Halsell

[iv] The Battle of Gog and Magog Fulfilled in Esther By Phillip G. Kayser · Esther 9:1-32 · 2002-3-1

[v] Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The bible translation Jesus and the disciples used.

As Jesus Said, The Heavenly Father Jesus Praised Revealed Salvation to them, for this was and is His Good Pleasure so to do.
Any translation they used or that is used today will not change Jesus' Father's Revelation to His "little children".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It seems by the logic used here,
that Jesus says the prince will come after the 62 + 7 weeks.
Is that correct so far ?

1) Notice how easy it is to understand this passage when we show how Christ fulfilled it. It simply says Jesus the prince will come after the 62 + 7 weeks. That is after the 69th week, which is another way of saying at the beginning of the 70th week.

 

[Biblewriter]

The first and greatest error in the OP is basing an opinion on the scriptures upon a TRANSLATION of the scriptures, rather than upon the actual words used by the Holy Spirit. Translations are good and important, and make the general gist of the scriptures available to those who do not know the ancient languages used by the Holy Spirit. But ALL translations are works of mere men, and thus, NECESSARILY contain errors. So when we want to get technical about what a given passage actually means, we ALWAYS have to go back to the actual words used by the Holy Spirit.

But there is an associated error in the OP, which the poster tried to sneak in. And that is that, rather than basing the contention upon the actual words of the translation being used, it was actually based on the poster's INTERPRETATION of the MEANINGS of even those words.

Finally, although the poster condemns the concept of interpreting the seventy weeks to include a gap, he himself does that very thing. For he interprets the events that took place in or near the year A.D. 70 as included in the seventieth week, even after admitting that our Lord was crucified after the sixty-ninth week. Now, although we cannot determine such dates with mathematical precision, we know of a certainty that our Lord was crucified sometime around the years 29 to 33 A.D. So the events that took place around the year 70 A.D. took place around 37 to 41 years later. This is SIGNIFICANTLY more than one week (seven years) after the end of the sixty-ninth week. So the poster himself interprets the seventy weeks of the prophecy to include a gap. He just interprets this gap to be shorter than that in our interpretation of the prophecy.

 

[Dave L]

The first and greatest error in the OP is basing an opinion on the scriptures upon a TRANSLATION of the scriptures, rather than upon the actual words used by the Holy Spirit. Translations are good and important, and make the general gist of the scriptures available to those who do not know the ancient languages used by the Holy Spirit. But ALL translations are works of mere men, and thus, NECESSARILY contain errors. So when we want to get technical about what a given passage actually means, we ALWAYS have to go back to the actual words used by the Holy Spirit.

But there is an associated error in the OP, which the poster tried to sneak in. And that is that, rather than basing the contention upon the actual words of the translation being used, it was actually based on the poster's INTERPRETATION of the MEANINGS of even those words.

Finally, although the posted condemns the concept of interpreting the seventy weeks to include a gap, he himself does that very thing. For he interprets the events that took place in or near the year A.D. 70 as included in the seventieth week, even after admitting that our Lord was crucified after the sixty-ninth week. Now, although we cannot determine such dates with mathematical precision, we know of a certainty that our Lord was cricified sometime around the years 29 to 33 A.D. So the events that took place around the year 70 A.D. took place around 37 to 40 years later. This is SIGNIFICANTLY more that one week (seven years) after the end of the sixty-ninth week. So the poster himself interprets the seventy weeks of the prophecy to include a gap. He just interprets this gap to be shorter than that in our interpretation of the prophecy.

Let's be honest, it's one of the best and most recognized translations of the scriptures we have.

 

[Biblewriter]

Let's be honest, it's one of the best and most recognized translations of the scriptures we have.

If we were ACTUALLY being honest, we would admit that even the LXX itself is only a translation. So you are basing your opinion on your interpretation of the meaning of a translation of a translation. Thus, instead of using the actual words of the Holy Spirit, you have imposed upon those words three layers of possible error.

 

[Dave L]

If we were ACTUALLY being honest, we would admit that even the LXX itself is only a translation. So you are basing your opinion on your interpretation of the meaning of a translation of a translation. Thus, instead of using the actual words of the Holy Spirit, you have imposed upon those words three layers of possible error.

But Jesus, Paul and the early Church used it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As Jesus Said, The Heavenly Father Jesus Praised Revealed Salvation to them, for this was and is His Good Pleasure so to do.
Any translation they used or that is used today will not change Jesus' Father's Revelation to His "little children".

 

[Biblewriter]

But Jesus, Paul and the early Church used it.

They used it sometimes. But not all the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament come from the LXX.

 

[Dave L]

They used it sometimes. But not all the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament come from the LXX.

Many do.....

 

[Biblewriter]

Many do.....

That is ten thousand percent inconsequential. The HARD FACT is that neither our Lord himself nor the Apostles quoted exclusively from the LXX.

 

[Dave L]

That is ten thousand percent inconsequential. The HARD FACT is that neither our Lord himself nor the Apostles quoted exclusively from the LXX.

Not according to many who study the subject.

 

[Biblewriter]

Not according to many who study the subject.

Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation

 

[Dave L]

Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation

What's your point?

 

[Biblewriter]

What's your point?

The point is that, although the Holy Spirit often quoted the LXX, when He quoted the Old Testament, He often translated the passage directly, instead of simply stating it in the words used in the LXX.

 

[Dave L]

The point is that, although the Holy Spirit often quoted the LXX, when He quoted the Old Testament, He often translated the passage directly, instead of simply stating it in the words used in the LXX.

But we are talking about Daniel in the LXX.

 

[Biblewriter]

But we are talking about Daniel in the LXX.

You were falsely claiming that we should rely upon the LXX version of Daniel, because you incorrectly imagined that the New Testament writers based their doctrines on THAT translation.

 

[Dave L]

You were falsely claiming that we should rely upon the LXX version of Daniel, because you incorrectly imagined that the New Testament writers based their doctrines on THAT translation.

Not so. I only said the LXX was the bible of Jesus and the Church.

 

[Biblewriter]

Not so. I only said the LXX was the bible of Jesus and the Church.

You said they quoted it. I answered, yes, but not always. And you argued the point.

 

[Dave L]

You said they quoted it. I answered, yes, but not always. And you argued the point.

So what's your point?