Seventy Weeks Are Determined Upon Thy People!

[jgr]

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

The quotation referred to "the week." To what week other than Daniel's 70th could the reference have been?

 

[Biblewriter]

The quotation referred to "the week." To what week other than Daniel's 70th could the reference have been?

If we were to (baselessly) assume that the "week" spoken of here was indeed Daniel's seventieth week, it still would not even imply what you imagine, that is, that the week continues immediately after the sixty-ninth. For if, instead of only quoting past of the passage at hand, we examine the entire passage, we find:

"The Epistle of Barnabas"
Chapter 16
Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple. But learn how the Lord speaks, when abolishing it: “Who hath meted out heaven with a span, and the earth with his palm? Have not I?” “Thus saith the Lord, Heaven is My throne, and the earth My footstool: what kind of house will ye build to Me, or what is the place of My rest?” Ye perceive that their hope is vain. Moreover, He again says, “Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again.” It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it. Again, it was revealed that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be given up. For the Scripture saith, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheep-fold and tower, to destruction.” And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is — where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.” I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How? His word of faith; His calling of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple. He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man, but to Him who dwelleth in him, and speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.

Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

When we examine all this together, we plainly see that whoever wrote this miserable document was clearly teaching that the new temple he was describing was to have been built AFTER the old temple and the people had been destroyed in a war. Now we know that the war he was speaking of did not take place within the seventy weeks following the going forth of the order to restore and to build Jerusalem. Some claim that the seventy weeks were completed before our Lord suffered at Calvary, but most say that only sixty-nine weeks had been completed at that time. But either way, approximately 41 years later, when the city and the temple were destroyed, was clearly not within the entire span of the seventy weeks. So, even if the writer of this document meant the seventieth week, he was clearly not saying that this week flowed continuously from the sixty-ninth week.

There is simply no way to logically argue that this confused document even implies that the seventieth week of Daniel took place immediately after the sixty-ninth week.

 

[Biblewriter]

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

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

The passage you are referring to is: "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1

Here the apostle was telling people to imitate him 'just as he imitated Christ.' He was not telling them, for instance to follow the bad example he made when he continued on to Jerusalem, even when the Spirit warned him repeatedly warned him not to go, and even finally, in Acts 21:4, told him not to go up to Jerusalem. Nor was he telling them to imitate him in appealing to Caesar, even though we are specifically told in Acts 26:32 that he could have been released, if he had not appealed to Caesar. Nor was he telling them to imitate him in purposely throwing the council into an uproar, so that he had to confess in Acts 24:21 that he should not have done that.

But even here you are completely changing, not only the subject, but even the central object of your original contention. For you were contending that no doctrine should be accepted until it has been approved by the recognized leaders of the church. In saying this, you are making the opinion mere men the test of a doctrine, rather than the word of God. This is substituting a false measure for the only true measure, which is the word of God.

The scriptural test is: "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

 

[jgr]

Here the apostle was telling people to imitate him 'just as he imitated Christ.' He was not telling them, for instance to follow the bad example he made when he continued on to Jerusalem, even when the Spirit warned him repeatedly warned him not to go, and even finally, in Acts 21:4, told him not to go up to Jerusalem. Nor was he telling them to imitate him in appealing to Caesar, even though we are specifically told in Acts 26:32 that he could have been released, if he had not appealed to Caesar. Nor was he telling them to imitate him in purposely throwing the council into an uproar, so that he had to confess in Acts 24:21 that he should not have done that.

A straw man. We've been discussing doctrinal authority exclusively. Paul's admonition to imitation was unquestionably an admonition for the saints to recognize his own doctrinal authority, and to reproduce his doctrinal belief and practice in their own lives. It certainly had nothing to do with the behavior you've described.

But even here you are completely changing, not only the subject, but even the central object of your original contention. For you were contending that no doctrine should be accepted until it has been approved by the recognized leaders of the church. In saying this, you are making the opinion mere men the test of a doctrine, rather than the word of God. This is substituting a false measure for the only true measure, which is the word of God.

Who said anything about "approved"? The word I used was "vet". Here's its dictionary (which you would do well to consult more frequently) definition:

make a careful and critical examination of (something).
"proposals for vetting large takeover bids"
synonyms: check, examine, scrutinize, investigate, inspect, look over, screen, assess, evaluate, appraise;
informal check out

Note that "approve" and/or any of its derivations do not appear.

There is no evidence that Killingworth or any of the other sources of putative early dispensational thought ever submitted to such a process.

And a refusal by anyone to submit similarly to such a process is to effectively declare oneself as the ultimate doctrinal authority. The result, as is invariably seen, is doctrinal cultism, chaos, and anarchy.

It must of course be first established that those who perform doctrinal vetting are spiritually qualified to do so, being recognized and respected as doctrinal authorities. In Killingworth's era, these would have been the Wesleys, Whitefield, Edwards, and others like them. God has always raised up leaders within His Church to fulfill such a role.

But only if their counsel is sought and heeded.

 

[jgr]

If we were to (baselessly) assume that the "week" spoken of here was indeed Daniel's seventieth week, it still would not even imply what you imagine, that is, that the week continues immediately after the sixty-ninth. For if, instead of only quoting past of the passage at hand, we examine the entire passage, we find:

"The Epistle of Barnabas"
Chapter 16
Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple. But learn how the Lord speaks, when abolishing it: “Who hath meted out heaven with a span, and the earth with his palm? Have not I?” “Thus saith the Lord, Heaven is My throne, and the earth My footstool: what kind of house will ye build to Me, or what is the place of My rest?” Ye perceive that their hope is vain. Moreover, He again says, “Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again.” It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it. Again, it was revealed that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be given up. For the Scripture saith, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheep-fold and tower, to destruction.” And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is — where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.” I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How? His word of faith; His calling of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple. He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man, but to Him who dwelleth in him, and speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.

Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

When we examine all this together, we plainly see that whoever wrote this miserable document was clearly teaching that the new temple he was describing was to have been built AFTER the old temple and the people had been destroyed in a war. Now we know that the war he was speaking of did not take place within the seventy weeks following the going forth of the order to restore and to build Jerusalem. Some claim that the seventy weeks were completed before our Lord suffered at Calvary, but most say that only sixty-nine weeks had been completed at that time. But either way, approximately 41 years later, when the city and the temple were destroyed, was clearly not within the entire span of the seventy weeks. So, even if the writer of this document meant the seventieth week, he was clearly not saying that this week flowed continuously from the sixty-ninth week.

There is simply no way to logically argue that this confused document even implies that the seventieth week of Daniel took place immediately after the sixty-ninth week.

With complete predictability, you've ignored the obvious and literalized the remainder into incomprehensibility.

From the excerpts below, the temple built in the name of the Lord in the week is a spiritual temple. Its spiritual building blocks are described in 16:9.

The commentator whom the writer of the Epistle is quoting is describing no less than the completed spiritual accomplishments of Christ in Daniel's 70th week.

If you can produce an alternative instance of a spiritual temple being built and completed in the name of the Lord at the end of a week, and that temple is not the edifice built and completed by Christ in Daniel's 70th week, then we're anxious to see what it is.

There are indeed those of us who are miserable and confused. But the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas is not one of them, nor is the commentator whom he quoted, nor am I, nor is anyone who understands Christ's spiritual building project, gloriously accomplished and completed in the name of the Lord, in Daniel's 70th week.

Blessings.


Barnabas 16:6
But let us enquire whether there be any temple of God. There is; in
the place where he himself undertakes to make and finish it. For it
is written And it shall come to pass, when the week is being
accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the
name of the Lord.

Barnabas 16:7
I find then that there is a temple, How then shall it be built in
the name of the Lord? Understand ye. Before we believed on God, the
abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by
hands; for it was full of idolatry and was a house of demons, because
we did whatsoever was contrary to God.

Barnabas 16:8
But it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Give heed then that
the temple of the Lord may be built gloriously.

Barnabas 16:9
How? Understand ye. By receiving the remission of our sins and
hoping on the Name we became new, created afresh from the beginning.
Wherefore God dwelleth truly in our habitation within us. How? The
word of his faith, the calling of his promise, the wisdom of the
ordinances, the commandments of the teaching, He Himself prophesying
in us, He Himself dwelling in us, opening for us who had been in
bondage unto death the door of the temple, which is the mouth, and
giving us repentance leadeth us to the incorruptible temple.

Barnabas 16:10
For he that desireth to be saved looketh not to the man, but to Him
that dwelleth and speaketh in him, being amazed at this that he has
never at any time heard these words from the mouth of the speaker,
nor himself ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple
built up to the Lord.

 

[Biblewriter]

With complete predictability, you've ignored the obvious and literalized the remainder into incomprehensibility.

From the excerpts below, the temple built in the name of the Lord in the week is a spiritual temple. Its spiritual building blocks are described in 16:9.

The commentator whom the writer of the Epistle is quoting is describing no less than the completed spiritual accomplishments of Christ in Daniel's 70th week.

If you can produce an alternative instance of a spiritual temple being built and completed in the name of the Lord at the end of a week, and that temple is not the edifice built and completed by Christ in Daniel's 70th week, then we're anxious to see what it is.

There are indeed those of us who are miserable and confused. But the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas is not one of them, nor is the commentator whom he quoted, nor am I, nor is anyone who understands Christ's spiritual building project, gloriously accomplished and completed in the name of the Lord, in Daniel's 70th week.

Blessings.


Barnabas 16:6
But let us enquire whether there be any temple of God. There is; in
the place where he himself undertakes to make and finish it. For it
is written And it shall come to pass, when the week is being
accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the
name of the Lord.

Barnabas 16:7
I find then that there is a temple, How then shall it be built in
the name of the Lord? Understand ye. Before we believed on God, the
abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by
hands; for it was full of idolatry and was a house of demons, because
we did whatsoever was contrary to God.

Barnabas 16:8
But it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Give heed then that
the temple of the Lord may be built gloriously.

Barnabas 16:9
How? Understand ye. By receiving the remission of our sins and
hoping on the Name we became new, created afresh from the beginning.
Wherefore God dwelleth truly in our habitation within us. How? The
word of his faith, the calling of his promise, the wisdom of the
ordinances, the commandments of the teaching, He Himself prophesying
in us, He Himself dwelling in us, opening for us who had been in
bondage unto death the door of the temple, which is the mouth, and
giving us repentance leadeth us to the incorruptible temple.

Barnabas 16:10
For he that desireth to be saved looketh not to the man, but to Him
that dwelleth and speaketh in him, being amazed at this that he has
never at any time heard these words from the mouth of the speaker,
nor himself ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple
built up to the Lord.

You have ignored the undeniable fact that the scenario that writer described was the building of a new (spiritual) temple after the old (physical) temple had been destroyed.

The old (physical) temple was clearly not destroyed until long after the end of the seventy weeks after the going forth of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem.

So, if your rank assumption is correct, that the week that writer referred to was Daniel's seventieth week, then we are forced to the conclusion that he did not see the seventy weeks as continuous.

This is undeniable, and no amount "spiritualizing" can get around it.

Either the writer was speaking only of spiritual concepts that had zero relationship to time, or he was speaking of a week that was disconnected from a continuous sixty-nine weeks of the prophecy of Daniel. One or the other of these concepts must, of necessity, be correct. But each of them destroys the claim that this writer saw Daniel's seventy weeks as continuous.

 

[Biblewriter]

A straw man. We've been discussing doctrinal authority exclusively. Paul's admonition to imitation was unquestionably an admonition for the saints to recognize his own doctrinal authority, and to reproduce his doctrinal belief and practice in their own lives. It certainly had nothing to do with the behavior you've described.

Who said anything about "approved"? The word I used was "vet". Here's its dictionary (which you would do well to consult more frequently) definition:

make a careful and critical examination of (something).
"proposals for vetting large takeover bids"
synonyms: check, examine, scrutinize, investigate, inspect, look over, screen, assess, evaluate, appraise;
informal check out

Note that "approve" and/or any of its derivations do not appear.

There is no evidence that Killingworth or any of the other sources of putative early dispensational thought ever submitted to such a process.

And a refusal by anyone to submit similarly to such a process is to effectively declare oneself as the ultimate doctrinal authority. The result, as is invariably seen, is doctrinal cultism, chaos, and anarchy.

It must of course be first established that those who perform doctrinal vetting are spiritually qualified to do so, being recognized and respected as doctrinal authorities. In Killingworth's era, these would have been the Wesleys, Whitefield, Edwards, and others like them. God has always raised up leaders within His Church to fulfill such a role.

But only if their counsel is sought and heeded.

This is not just error. It is serious hetrodoxy.

Let God be true, but every man a liar.

 

[BABerean2]

From Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus, Book 10, Chapter 11


"And while prophets used to foretell misfortunes, and on that account were disagreeable both to the kings and to the multitude, Daniel was to them a prophet of good things, and this to such a degree, that by the agreeable nature of his predictions, he procured the goodwill of all men; and by the accomplishment of them, he procured the belief of their truth, and the opinion of [a sort of] divinity for himself, among the multitude. He also wrote and left behind him what made manifest the accuracy and undeniable veracity of his predictions; for he saith, that when he was in Susa, the metropolis of Persia, and went out into the field with his companions, there was, on the sudden, a motion and concussion of the earth, and that he was left alone by himself, his friends fleeing away from him, and that he was disturbed, and fell on his face, and on his two hands, and that a certain person touched him, and, at the same time, bid him rise, and see what would befall his countrymen after many generations. He also related, that when he stood up, he was shown a great rain, with many horns growing out of his head, and that the last was higher than the rest: that after this he looked to the west, and saw a he-goat carried through the air from that quarter; that he rushed upon the ram with violence, and smote him twice with his horns, and overthrew him to the ground, and trampled upon him: that afterward he saw a very great horn growing out of the head of the he-goat, and that when it was broken off, four horns grew up that were exposed to each of the four winds, and he wrote that out of them arose another lesser horn, which, as he said, waxed great; and that God showed to him that it should fight against his nation, and take their city by force, and bring the temple worship to confusion, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for one thousand two hundred and ninety-six days. Daniel wrote that he saw these visions in the Plain of Susa; and he hath informed us that God interpreted the appearance of this vision after the following manner: He said that the ram signified the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians, and the horns those kings that were to reign in them; and that the last horn signified the last king, and that he should exceed all the kings in riches and glory: that the he-goat signified that one should come and reign from the Greeks, who should twice fight with the Persian, and overcome him in battle, and should receive his entire dominion: that by the great horn which sprang out of the forehead of the he-goat was meant the first king; and that the springing up of four horns upon its falling off, and the conversion of every one of them to the four quarters of the earth, signified the successors that should arise after the death of the first king, and the partition of the kingdom among them, and that they should be neither his children, nor of his kindred, that should reign over the habitable earth for many years; and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away their political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years' time. And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel; and may thence discover how the Epicureans are in an error, who cast Providence out of human life, and do not believe that God takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe is governed and continued in being by that blessed and immortal nature, but say that the world is carried along of its own accord, without a ruler and a curator; which, were it destitute of a guide to conduct it, as they imagine, it would be like ships without pilots, which we see drowned by the winds, or like chariots without drivers, which are overturned; so would the world be dashed to pieces by its being carried without a Providence, and so perish, and come to nought. So that, by the forementioned predictions of Daniel, those men seem to me very much to err from the truth, who determine that God exercises no providence over human affairs; for if that were the case, that the world went on by mechanical necessity, we should not see that all things would come to pass according to his prophecy. Now as to myself, I have so described these matters as I have found them and read them; but if any one is inclined to another opinion about them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me. "

.

 

[jgr]

This is not just error. It is serious hetrodoxy.

Let God be true, but every man a liar.

If you're going to allege heterodoxy, you should first learn to spell it. Then you can explain your allegation.

 

[Biblewriter]

If you're going to allege heterodoxy, you should first learn to spell it. Then you can explain your allegation.

 

[jgr]

View attachment 201228

Ah thanks Biblewriter, I've got no answer for that one. But the laugh was good both spiritually and literally.