Eschatological and Millennial Theories and their problems.

[Dave L]

How do you get verse 27 from three sentences?
The translation (?) you are using has altered the meaning of the text.

The KJV says "and" and your version says "but" - which convey two different meanings.



_________________________________________________________________

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament = and; also, even; together with; that is; or; even so; as well as, both... and; but; then; and then

 

[Davy]

If you want to recreate the nations that no longer exist. Replace Christ's atonement with cattle sacrifices, and have a try at packing billions into Jerusalem once a year.....go for it. But there is no way you can Physically fulfill the ancient prophecies without the nations, the primitive technology and conditions they spoke of.

Doesn't take a lot of brain power to realize Rev.20 with the nations coming upon the "camp of the saints" at the end of the "thousand years" means those nations had to have existed 'during' that "thousand years" also.

 

[Dave L]

Doesn't take a lot of brain power to realize Rev.20 with the nations coming upon the "camp of the saints" at the end of the "thousand years" means those nations had to have existed 'during' that "thousand years" also.

This is true, but not possible in the Dispensational or Premillennial version of the Millennium. Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, you end up with resurrected saints in glorified bodies being seduced by satan and attacking the rest of the glorified saints towards the end of the 1000 years.

 

[DavidPT]

“He [Jesus] will confirm a covenant [the New Covenant] with many for one week. But in the middle of that [70th] week he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt [offering himself as the atonement for sin, thereby abolishing the Old Covenant]. On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys, [Titus] until the decreed end is poured out [Rome's fall] on the one who destroys.”” (Daniel 9:27)

Verse 27 is SOLELY ONLY in regards to the 70th week. The 70th week only involves 7 years, yet this translation of yours inserts a gap here of at least 40 years. There is no gap in the 70th week itself. But there is a gap though. It belongs between the 69th and 70th week, and not in the 70th week instead like your translation has it.

 

[Dave L]

Verse 27 is SOLELY ONLY in regards to the 70th week. The 70th week only involves 7 years, yet this translation of yours inserts a gap here of at least 40 years. There is no gap in the 70th week itself. But there is a gap though. It belongs between the 69th and 70th week, and not in the 70th week instead like your translation has it.

You are forcing an interpretation on to the verse without warrant.

“Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.” (Daniel 9:24)

All completed as planned.

 

[DavidPT]

You are forcing an interpretation on to the verse without warrant.

“Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.” (Daniel 9:24)

All completed as planned.

What you did have correct in that other post though----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate----that this is meaning Daniel 9:26. Exactly. Therefore verse 27 is expanding further on this part in verse 26----and the people of the prince 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---therefore placing that part in verse 26 being fulfilled during the 70th week itself, and not outside the 70 weeks like many are wrongly concluding.

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease----which then leads to this---and the people of the prince 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---which in turn is meaning this---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate

What many aren't grasping though, the city and the sanctuary in verse 26 is not meaning in the literal sense. But since many are taking these things in a literal sense, they are then wrongly applying that part to 70 AD. Yet that part couldn't possibly be meaning 70 AD since that part has to occur within 70th week itself. The 70th week did not involve 70 AD.

 

[Biblewriter]

“He [Jesus] will confirm a covenant [the New Covenant] with many for one week. But in the middle of that [70th] week he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt [offering himself as the atonement for sin, thereby abolishing the Old Covenant]. On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys, [Titus] until the decreed end is poured out [Rome's fall] on the one who destroys.”” (Daniel 9:27)

But, since Messiah was to be cut off after the 62 weeks, which were after the seven weeks, and Titus did not come within 3-1/2 more years, or even seven more years. So Titus did not come within the specified 70 weeks, and thus, this interpretation simply cannot be forced into the 70 weeks of the prophecy.

 

[Dave L]

What you did have correct in that other post though----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate----that this is meaning Daniel 9:26. Exactly. Therefore verse 27 is expanding further on this part in verse 26----and the people of the prince 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---therefore placing that part in verse 26 being fulfilled during the 70th week itself, and not outside the 70 weeks like many are wrongly concluding.

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease----which then leads to this---and the people of the prince 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---which in turn is meaning this---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate

Did you ever consider this? Circumcision made one a covenant member of Abraham's seed. At the time over 300 servants became Abraham's covenant seed through circumcision when only Ishmael was his blood relative.

And God told Abraham, any not circumcised was to be cut off. This meant they were not his covenant seed.

So when Jesus abolished circumcision on the cross, he broke off all physical unbelieving members of Israel. This left only the believers in Christ who like Abraham had circumcised hearts.

So all of your theories and prophetic interpretations lead nowhere. The Only biblical Israel today is Christendom. And the State of Israel is nothing more than the gentiles, calling themselves Jews, who trample down Jerusalem until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled.

 

[Dave L]

But, since Messiah was to be cut off after the 62 weeks, which were after the seven weeks, and Titus did not come within 3-1/2 more years, or even seven more years. So Titus did not come within the specified 70 weeks, and thus, this interpretation simply cannot be forced into the 70 weeks of the prophecy.

All of the Messianic fulfillments happened in the 70th week.

 

[DavidPT]

Did you ever consider this? Circumcision made one a covenant member of Abraham's seed. At the time over 300 servants became Abraham's covenant seed through circumcision when only Ishmael was his blood relative.

And God told Abraham, any not circumcised was to be cut off. This meant they were not his covenant seed.

So when Jesus abolished circumcision on the cross, he broke off all physical unbelieving members of Israel. This left only the believers in Christ who like Abraham had circumcised hearts.

So all of your theories and prophetic interpretations lead nowhere. The Only biblical Israel today is Christendom. And the State of Israel is nothing more than the gentiles, calling themselves Jews, who trample down Jerusalem until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled.

Yet none of that matters though, in regards to Daniel 9:26 and 27. The city and the sanctuary are destroyed during the 70th week itself. The only way that can be logical, there has to be a gap between the 69th and 70th week. If Christ is meant per the 70th week in verse 27, the city and the sanctuary were not destroyed at that time. Per that interpretation that places some of the events recorded in verse 26 and 27 taking place outside of the 70 weeks altogether. Yet it is the 70 weeks what are in view here, and in verse 27 it is the 70th week that is in view, and that in the midst of the week it leads to the AOD, where Daniel 8, Daniel 11, and Daniel 12, all shed more light on this. Not to mention, the NT as well, since there are numerous passages shedding more light on these things. The Discourse being one of those places. 2 Thessalonians 2 being another. And Revelation 13 being yet another one.

 

[Davy]

This is true, but not possible in the Dispensational or Premillennial version of the Millennium. Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, you end up with resurrected saints in glorified bodies being seduced by satan and attacking the rest of the glorified saints towards the end of the 1000 years.

Your confusion is with not understanding what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15 about the resurrection, and also with not wanting to recognize the John 5:28-29 Scripture. Because of this you are thinking that the idea of resurrection is ONLY for those in Christ Jesus. You have not understood the differences Paul taught about two types of bodies (i.e, outward images).

1 Corinthians 15 References:

OUTWARD BODIES
'body of corruption' = flesh body. It is mortal, gets sick, dies. Apostle Paul's "image of the earthy". Both the Just and the unjust are borne with this body through woman in this present world.

'body of incorruption' = Paul's "spiritual body". A body of spirit. Doesn't get sick, is semi-immortal because it can still be subject to the "second death" of being cast into the "lake of fire" after Christ's future Millennium reign. It is also called by Paul, "the image of the heavenly". Both the resurrection of life, and the resurrection of damnation will have this kind of body in the heavenly dimension. It is the resurrection body. To this type body all alive on earth will be 'changed' to. So all will have this "spiritual body" outward image after Jesus returns to end this present world of flesh and blood. This is the type body 'as the angels' Jesus hinted at for the resurrection.

STOP, SELAH, consider the differences of the two types of bodies.


SOUL, OUR PERSON, ID
"this mortal" = the soul, which is attached to our spirit, and manifests in the heavenly with the "spiritual body" or "image of the heavenly". Our soul is mortal until... it puts on immortality through Faith on The Father through His Son Jesus Christ, becoming the "new creature" Paul taught.

"put on immortality" = an immortal soul that can NEVER die, nor be subject to the "second death". This is the "first resurrection" of Rev.20, only those in Christ Jesus who remain faithful to the end of this world, and those in Christ in times past that died.


After Christ's Return:

TWO TYPES EXISTING THROUGHOUT THE 1,000 YEARS:

1. Those who put on immortality in Jesus; incorruptible spiritual bodies with souls that are immortal and cannot ever die. Cannot be subject to the "lake of fire." THE RESURRECTION OF LIFE, the "camp of the saints" on earth.

2. Those in spiritual bodies who do NOT put on immortality that still do not accept Jesus. These will still be subject to the "second death", their souls still mortal and liable to die. THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION, the nations of Rev.20.

Whether our soul/spirit is in this present world, or in the heavenly, it must have an OUTWARD IMAGE TO MANIFEST.

On earth, that outward image is our flesh body. At flesh death our soul with spirit casts that flesh body off. In the Heavenly, that outward image is the "spiritual body" Paul taught. It is a body of the Heavenly dimension. The flesh is a body of the earthly dimension. There is, like Paul taught, a natural body and there is a spiritual body (1 Cor.15).

 

[DavidPT]

All of the Messianic fulfillments happened in the 70th week.

That assuming this part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease---is meaning in regards to Christ.

But what if it is meaning in regards to the following instead?

Daniel 11:31 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.

Imagine that, in this same context this speaks of taking away the daily, and concerns abominations as well, and is most def not meaning Christ here.

Daniel 9:27 And he 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.

Imagine that, in this same context this, too, speaks of taking away the daily, and concerns abominations as well. Why would anybody chalk that up as only coincidental, thus no relation here?

 

[Dave L]

That assuming this part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease---is meaning in regards to Christ.

But what if it is meaning in regards to the following instead?

Daniel 11:31 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.

Imagine that, in this same context this speaks of taking away the daily, and concerns abominations as well, and is most def not meaning Christ here.

Daniel 9:27 And he 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.

Imagine that, in this same context this, too, speaks of taking away the daily, and concerns abominations as well. Why would anybody chalk that up as only coincidental, thus no relation here?

Keep in mind that Jesus abolished the sacrifices on the cross but they continued as an empty form until 70 AD. And Antichrist (Nero and later the Papacy) was already present in John's' day. But you should not turn Jesus into Antichrist in Daniel 9 as you attempt to do here.

 

[DavidPT]

This is true, but not possible in the Dispensational or Premillennial version of the Millennium. Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, you end up with resurrected saints in glorified bodies being seduced by satan and attacking the rest of the glorified saints towards the end of the 1000 years.

Who can literally inherit the kingdom of God once Christ has returned, and then lose that inheritance? Those that attack the city after the thousand years are living outside of the city meant here. They haven't inherited anything. Therefore, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, does not apply to surviving mortals post the 2nd coming. If they had also inherited the kingdom of God, they would be living inside the city, and not outside the city instead, then eventually attacking the city. That really sounds like something one would do who had inherited the kingdom of God literally, once Christ has returned----not.

 

[BABerean2]

Imagine that, in this same context this, too, speaks of taking away the daily, and concerns abominations as well. Why would anybody chalk that up as only coincidental, thus no relation here?

Joh 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
(The feast of Hanukkah celebrates the re-dedication of the temple after Antiochus Epiphanes had pig slaughtered on the altar, and set up a statue in the Jewish temple, and killed thousands of Jews during 167 BC, and stopped the temple sacrifices for a period of about 3 years.)


Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

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.
(from Jeremiah 31:31-34)
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Antiochus Epiphanes took away the daily sacrifices during 167BC and Christ took away the need for the daily sacrifices at Calvary.
Therefore, the passages are related in that manner.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

All of the Messianic fulfillments happened in the 70th week.

You are twisting the prophecy to fit what you wish it aid, instead of what it actually said.

 

[jgr]

“To the period of four hundred and ninety years the wicked deeds are to be confined as well as all the crimes which shall ensue from those deeds. After these shall come the times of blessing, and the world is to be reconciled unto God at the advent of Christ, His Son. For from the coming forth of the Word, when Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, to the forty-ninth year, that is, the end of the seven weeks, [God] waited for Israel to repent. Thereafter, indeed, from the eighth year of Claudius Caesar [i.e., 48 A.D.] onward, the Romans took up arms against the Jews. For it was in His thirtieth year, according to the Evangelist Luke, that the Lord incarnate began His preaching of the Gospel (Luke 1) [sic!]. According to the Evangelist John (John 2 and 11), Christ completed two years over a period of three passovers. The years of Tiberius' reign from that point onward are to be reckoned at six; then there were the four years of the reign of Gaius Caesar, surnamed Caligula, and eight more years in the reign of Claudius. This makes a total of forty-nine years, or the equivalent of seven weeks of years. But when four hundred thirty-four years shall have elapsed after that date, that is to say, the sixty-two weeks, then [i.e. in 482 A.D.] Jerusalem and the Temple shall be rebuilt during three and a half years within the final week, beginning with the advent of Elias, who according to the dictum of our Lord and Savior (Luke 1) [sic!] is going to come and turn back the hearts of the fathers towards their children. And then the Antichrist shall come, and according to the Apostle [reading apostolum for apostolorum] he is going to sit in the temple of God (II Thess. 2) and be slain by the breath of our Lord and Savior after he has waged war against the saints. And thus it shall come to pass that the middle of the week shall mark the confirmation of God's covenant with the saints, and the middle of the week in turn shall mark the issuing of the decree under the authority of Antichrist that no more sacrifices be offered. For the Antichrist shall set up the abomination of desolation, that is, an idol or statue of his own god, within the Temple. Then shall ensue the final devastation and the condemnation of the Jewish people, who after their rejection of Christ's truth shall embrace the lie of the Antichrist.” (Jerome’s translation of the comments of Apollinarius of Laodicea on the seventy weeks, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” by Jerome, pp. 104-105, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., pub. by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

Jerome himself, who published this translation (into Latin,) declined to give his opinion on this passage, saying, “I realize that this question has been argued over in various ways by men of greatest learning, and that each of them has expressed his views according to the capacity of his own genius. And so, because it is unsafe to pass judgment upon the opinions of the great teachers of the Church and to set one above another, I shall simply repeat the view of each, and leave it to the reader's judgment as to whose explanation ought to be followed.” (pg. 95 in the volume cited.)

He then went on to summarize the views of many who commented on this, but omitting Irenaeus. In addition to the translation above, he summarized the views of Hippolytus (pp. 103-104). In addition, he summarized the views of Eusebius, (pp. 98-103) Clement of Alexandria, (pg. 105) Origen, (pp. 105-106) and Tertullian (pp. 106-108)., all of which interpreted the seventieth week to be already fulfilled. He also gave he views of “the Hebrews,” (pp. 108-110) and included what he claimed was a “verbatim” translation of the comments on the subject by Julius Africanus, who taught that the seventieth week was already fulfilled. But his comments are significant to this discussion because, like modern Dispensationalists, he taught the concept of calculating the seventy weeks on the basis of “Hebrew years.”

Thanks.

You did, however, neglect to include the final two sentences of Jerome's commentary regarding Apollinarius:

"Moreover this same Apollinarius asserts that he conceived this idea about the proper dating from the fact that Africanus, (p. 549) the author of the Tempora [Chronology], whose explanation I have inserted above, affirms that the final week will occur at the end of the world. Yet, says Apollinarius, it is impossible that periods so linked together be wrenched apart, but rather the time-segments must all be joined together in conformity with Daniel's prophecy."

From other commentary by contemporary authors, it appears that Apollinarius' dating and methodology considered the 70 weeks to be contiguous, with the final week corresponding to the end of the world, at a date very approximately two centuries in the future from when he wrote. There is thus some similarity to the methodologies of Irenaeus and Hippolytus.

We know that the 70 week end dates postulated by all of these brethren passed uneventfully.

 

[Biblewriter]

Thanks.

You did, however, neglect to include the final two sentences of Jerome's commentary regarding Apollinarius:

"Moreover this same Apollinarius asserts that he conceived this idea about the proper dating from the fact that Africanus, (p. 549) the author of the Tempora [Chronology], whose explanation I have inserted above, affirms that the final week will occur at the end of the world. Yet, says Apollinarius, it is impossible that periods so linked together be wrenched apart, but rather the time-segments must all be joined together in conformity with Daniel's prophecy."

From other commentary by contemporary authors, it appears that Apollinarius' dating and methodology considered the 70 weeks to be contiguous, with the final week corresponding to the end of the world, at a date very approximately two centuries in the future from when he wrote. There is thus some similarity to the methodologies of Irenaeus and Hippolytus.

We know that the 70 week end dates postulated by all of these brethren passed uneventfully.

NO, rather, we know that their theory that it would all end in the earth's six thousandth year was erroneous. This was 100% pure interpretation, not based upon a single statement of scripture. All such baseless interpretations are sure to fail.

 

[Dave L]

You are twisting the prophecy to fit what you wish it aid, instead of what it actually said.

Daniel's 70th week is about Christ, not antichrist. So in essence, all of what you believe calling Jesus the Antichrist is a lie.

 

[Dave L]

Who can literally inherit the kingdom of God once Christ has returned, and then lose that inheritance? Those that attack the city after the thousand years are living outside of the city meant here. They haven't inherited anything. Therefore, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, does not apply to surviving mortals post the 2nd coming. If they had also inherited the kingdom of God, they would be living inside the city, and not outside the city instead, then eventually attacking the city. That really sounds like something one would do who had inherited the kingdom of God literally, once Christ has returned----not.

The saints in Revelation 20 lose nothing. But your eschatology calls for them to be deceived by Satan and to attack the rest of the believers towards the end of the 1000 years. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom so you have no other choice, as misguided as it is.