Millennial Kingdom

[thomas15]

This is the kind of thing in this debate that irritates me-arrogance. As if no one from any other position uses or reads the Bible. One particular group has it all figured out, even though there are respected evangelical voices on every side of this issue that are deeply committed to the Bible that disagree.

This irritates you young Tad?
Ouch.
Make that a double ouch.

 

[Iconoclast]

AresMan

The thing that turns me off from postmillennialism is the virtually necessary bent toward theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism. Too "Presbyterian" for me.

it is a comfortable fit for Presbyterians,but it does not have to be .Both of those groups go too far..

I also would see the reign of Christ and His saints in the "realized" millennium as that of the gospel conquering Satan's hold on individuals and making them citizens of the Kingdom, not some "Christianizing" secular society so that unbelievers basically become more "moral."

This idea of making secular unbelevers act like christians is not what is taught.The teaching is that the gospel converts masses of people worldwide.It is unbelievers being saved by God worldwide.

Gal 1:4 [Jesus] Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

AS Paul writes Galatians he gives a desciption of the world largely unaffected by the gospel as yet.

Whatever the statistical state of the population of the world when Christ returns, His Great Commission has not failed one iota. He will gather all His elect to Himself with His life-changing gospel. I just don't see the success of the gospel having to do with collectivism.

I agree in that as long as 2 cor 2:14-17 is in the bible,the results belong to God who always has the victory.:thumbs::thumbs:

14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldRegular View Post
That qualifies you as a pan-millennialist. Everything will pan out according to God's purpose, not man's wishes!
pan-millennialst, everything will pan out!!!

Is this not the funniest thing ever written on the Baptist Board?

It was until you posted this:

There is a really excellent book written on pre-mill theology titled The Holy Bible. Not exactly what you are looking for but it totally debunks the a-mil, preterist position in all it's variations.

 

[thomas15]

Does anyone know any good books on partial preterism amillennialism?
I am reading a case for Amillennialism by kim Riddlebarger.

On page 151, first paragraph in part Dr. Riddlebarger writes: "As Meredith Kline points out, what is striking about Daniel's prayer in verses 1-19 (Daniel 9:1-19) is the repeated use of the covenant name of God (YHWH), along with the repeated use of adonay, the "characteristic designation of the dominant party in the covenant." Daniel's prayer also included the fact that Israel had repeatedly broken God's covenant, and the covenant must be renewed."

First question- what covenant was broken, works, grace or redemption?

Second question- Daniel states that ""We" (the Jews) have sinned and have not kept the commandments" but where in the prayer does he say that the Jews have broken the covenant(s)?

Third question- If Jehovah is the dominant party in the covenant(s), logic would dictate that Jehovah would have to renew the covenant(s). Where does it say that the covenant(s) have to be renewed? If anyone could identify the covenant(s) being considered here, what condition of the covenant(s) were broken?

Fourth question- Assuming Calvinism and WSAS, how could anyone in a covenant of redemption and or grace resulting in salvation break the covenant in a manner that would require a renewing of the covenant? Explain the very concept of renewing the covenant.

 

[AresMan]

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Dan 2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

The kingdom of God will be set up in the days of these kings. There were kings of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The Roman Empire has been dissolved. The kingdom had to have been set up when there were kings of the fourth kingdom of Rome.

To say that "the kingdom was postponed" is to make many prophecies of God into a lie because God said it is "certain" and "sure." As Nebuchadnezzar said "None can stay His hand." (Dan 4:25) To say that Israel rejecting "the kingdom" caused God to postpone it is to make the prophecies of God (which included when things would happen) lies.

When Jesus came He said. "The kingdom of God is at hand."
He told the Pharisees regarding His presence and ministry: "The kingdom of God is among you."
Jesus told His disciples a parable:

Luk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, AND to return.
Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

The kingdom started when the nobleman delivered the talents to his servants. He then went to a far country while his servants occupied the company and were stewards of it until He returned.

This is what Christ did. He initiated the kingdom during His earthly ministry and established it at His resurrection. He ascended into heaven and left it in the hands of His servants to occupy it until He returned. The kingdom is an "already, but not yet" reality.

Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Reigning with Christ does not have to mean that Christ is visible bodily on earth. We reign with Christ in His kingdom when He works through us from heaven, bringing new citizens into the kingdom through the power of the gospel.

Even for ultradispensationalists (Acts 28) there is a problem because Paul is preaching "the kingdom of God" before the alleged turning point in verse 28 here:

Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening

Then, after 28:28, Paul is still preaching "the kingdom of God" from house arrest:

Act 28:30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
Act 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

The "kingdom of God" is a present reality according to Paul in his epistles, and is not some future earthly geopolitical system:

Rom_14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

Col_1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Col 4:11 And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.

1Th_2:12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.


This is not to say that "the kingdom" is nothing but some spiritual now. The kingdom will also be manifested in its fullness when Christ returns to judge the quick and the dead. This is when He "shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father."

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Christ is reigning now and subduing all things. He has rule over all things, but when His work is complete, He hands over the crown, as it were, to the Father at His coming (which is the end), and performs the final judgment of all things. "The end" is not a period of 1000+ years of events; it is the end.

 

[AresMan]

On page 151, first paragraph in part Dr. Riddlebarger writes: "As Meredith Kline points out, what is striking about Daniel's prayer in verses 1-19 (Daniel 9:1-19) is the repeated use of the covenant name of God (YHWH), along with the repeated use of adonay, the "characteristic designation of the dominant party in the covenant." Daniel's prayer also included the fact that Israel had repeatedly broken God's covenant, and the covenant must be renewed."

First question- what covenant was broken, works, grace or redemption?

I would say the Mosaic covenant. I do not follow classic covenant theology.

Second question- Daniel states that ""We" (the Jews) have sinned and have not kept the commandments" but where in the prayer does he say that the Jews have broken the covenant(s)?

My answer would be that the answer is found in Jeremiah 31:32 and Zechariah 11:10-13

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Zec 11:10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
Zec 11:11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
Zec 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
Zec 11:13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

Third question- If Jehovah is the dominant party in the covenant(s), logic would dictate that Jehovah would have to renew the covenant(s). Where does it say that the covenant(s) have to be renewed? If anyone could identify the covenant(s) being considered here, what condition of the covenant(s) were broken?

The condition of the Old Covenant was perfect obedience to the Law.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them [Israel], he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: ...

Fourth question- Assuming Calvinism and WSAS [sic], how could anyone in a covenant of redemption and or grace resulting in salvation break the covenant in a manner that would require a renewing of the covenant? Explain the very concept of renewing the covenant.

I don't agree with Riddleberger's version of ammillennialism, nor is Presbyterian view of the membership of the covenants.

The Old Covenant was a communal, familial covenant based on physical descent and carnal types and shadows of Christ. Its members consisted of both regenerates and unregenerates (hence, "the remnant").

The New Covenant is an invisible, individual covenant based on faith and fulfillment in Christ. Its members consist of only the regenerates. It is the olive tree of Israel with the unbelieving Jews cut off and believing Gentiles grafted in so that the new tree consists of only believers (Jer 11:16 c.f. Rom 11:17). In the New Covenant "all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

According to Hebrews 8:13, the New Covenant is a full and present reality. Its fulfillment is not in some future rebirth of a nation of Israel, but in the gospel of Jesus Christ. When He instituted the Lord's Supper to fulfill the Passover, He said that the cup "is the New testament (covenant) in my blood." Folks, the New Covenant IS in His blood." If you are in His blood, you are a member of the New Covenant.

Now, it is true that the prophecy said that the New Covenant would be made "with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah," which it was. During Christ's earthly ministry He said that He came "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The 70th week of Daniel began with Christ's baptism and ended with the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius. In the midst of the week (after 3 1/2 years of earthly ministry), He "caused the sacrifices and the oblations to cease."

Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Rom 15:9 AND that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
Rom 15:10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
Rom 15:11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.
Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Yes, my friends, Isaiah 11:10 is fulfilled according to Paul. The New Covenant was ratified at Christ's death. It was inaugurated at Pentecost. Christ "confirmed the covenant with the many for one week" (His baptism through the early Acts. Then, the New Covenant expanded from "the remnant" of Israel to the Gentiles who would be grafted into the olive tree by faith.

As per the question about "Calvinism," yes, God has had His elect through all the covenants. However, the Old Covenant was intentionally "faulty" as it exposed the faults in Israel as a whole to point to Christ and the perfect New Covenant.

 

[OldRegular]

The thing that turns me off from postmillennialism is the virtually necessary bent toward theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism. Too "Presbyterian" for me.

I don't know of too many postmillennial Baptists. I have also never seen a postmillennialist who would agree with me on my positions regarding tithing and the Sabbath. As a Reformed covenantal Baptist, I understand that there is a continuity in the covenants and that there is no "parenthesis church." However, I also see some logical disunity between the types and shadows of the Old Covenant and the fulfillment in Christ in the New Covenant.

I also would see the reign of Christ and His saints in the "realized" millennium as that of the gospel conquering Satan's hold on individuals and making them citizens of the Kingdom, not some "Christianizing" secular society so that unbelievers basically become more "moral."

Gal 1:4 [Jesus] Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Whatever the statistical state of the population of the world when Christ returns, His Great Commission has not failed one iota. He will gather all His elect to Himself with His life-changing gospel. I just don't see the success of the gospel having to do with collectivism.

B. H. Carroll, founder of Southwestern Seminary, was post millennial.

 

[OldRegular]

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Dan 2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

The kingdom of God will be set up in the days of these kings. There were kings of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The Roman Empire has been dissolved. The kingdom had to have been set up when there were kings of the fourth kingdom of Rome.

To say that "the kingdom was postponed" is to make many prophecies of God into a lie because God said it is "certain" and "sure." As Nebuchadnezzar said "None can stay His hand." (Dan 4:25) To say that Israel rejecting "the kingdom" caused God to postpone it is to make the prophecies of God (which included when things would happen) lies.

Your understanding of the above passage from Daniel and its fulfillment through the incarnation and cross work of Jesus Christ is the same as mine. It is surprising, I suppose, that those of dispensational persuasion who often make so much of prophecy cannot understand that the prophecy of Daniel has been fulfilled.

It is good to see you back AresMan. Your posts are always insightful even if I do agree with them!

Christ is reigning now and subduing all things. He has rule over all things, but when His work is complete, He hands over the crown, as it were, to the Father at His coming (which is the end), and performs the final judgment of all things. "The end" is not a period of 1000+ years of events; it is the end.

Very well said.

 

[thomas15]

..... I do not follow classic covenant theology....

Neither do I. It is interesting though how you totally ignore the questions I asked and instead set forth your own personal theology, interesting as it is.

It would be interesting to see a reformed member of this group take a wack at it.

 

[thomas15]

In follow up to my post #24 above, it is plain as day that Daniel in his prayer does not mention the breaking of any covenant (however they are defined) but only the sins of the people and their not keeping the commandments. Dr. Riddlebarger in my opinion is adding his opinion to the text. Ares Man makes an attempt to respond but leaves out any real interaction with the passage under consideration, Daniel ch 9.

Undaunted, Riddlebarger continues (second paragraph, pg 151): “There is always much discussion about this prophecy (referring to Daniel 9:24-27) given the cryptic use of “seventy weeks” or “seventy sevens” as the time frame in which the prophecy is to be fulfilled. Again, the key issue here is to look for other biblical-theological images which lend us help in the interpretation. Since the entire prophecy was couched in covenantal imagery and language, the key to the meaning of the “sevens” is to be found in the sabbatical pattern established in Leviticus 25:1-4……..”

Question #1- of the 300 times in the Hebrew Bible the word seven is used why settle on this reference to find the meaning? How does one make the clear connection between Leviticus 25 and Daniel 9? Again, covenantal language (whatever that means) is assumed (based on the use of the Hebrew YHWH and Adonay) to conclude that the covenants (which are according to Riddlebarger are works, grace and redemption) must be reinstated. How does this make any sense? How does this fit into the words spoken by either Daniel or Jehovah?

Question #2- Why doesn’t Riddlebarger do an analysis of the Hebrew word or phrases “seventy sevens” to see if there is plain meaning in those words without searching the Bible for a passage that might solve the mystery of the passages meaning?

Question #3- The prophecy given in Dan. Ch 9 relates to a solution to sin, the appearance of the Savior and yet Leviticus 25 deals with the land. Someone explain the connection from a reformed perspective?

Riddlebarger goes on to (correctly) define the seventy sevens as a total of 490 years. He states at the end of the paragraph (through a mathematical formula) that those 490 years refer to the messianic age.

Question #4- When did this 490 years begin and end?

 

[Iconoclast]

Thomas.

have you seen this?
The Prophecy (9:24-27)

9:24 God's determinate council had a 70-week plan for his people and city to bring Messiah and salvation.
We know this prophecy of 70 weeks is a prophecy of 490 years, 70 weeks of years (70x7).
Such a principle was introduced 1000 years earlier to Moses (Numbers 14:33-35).
We encountered this principle of a year for a day already in chapter seven (7:25).
We assumed it there and rejected it in chapter eight by context, the timeframe of the prophecies: chapter seven covers the last 2000 years and chapter eight only the Greeks.
We are blessed to know this fulfillment, and we know that it took precisely these years.
The coordination with the expiring 70 years of Jeremiah 25 implies 70 weeks of years.
The issue of a year for a day is not debated; but the issue of gaps is certainly debated.
The time was determined! It is not open for modification, extension, suspension, or other lies.
Here is the crux and key of the prophecy: God is true and determined exactly 70 weeks.
Every man that fears God will not have a problem with this prophecy; but the fear of man brings a snare, for you will have to go against the popular opinions of the present.
If you believe God, it all happened within 490 years, which limits it to Jesus Christ.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to insert any kind of a gap into these words.
The fulfillment in our Lord's anointing, ministry, death, and apostles is divinely precise.
You need not know any other details for proof – this prophecy must end by A.D. 33.
The 70 weeks of years appertain to Daniel's people and Daniel's city, which ended in 70 A.D.
Bible readers know Jesus described the destruction of Daniel's people and city in His generation (Matt 3:7-12; 21:33-46; 22:1-7; 24:2; Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-33; 23:27-31).
Any student of history knows that the people called Jews and their city were destroyed by Titus Vespasian in A.D. 70, who is yet honored for the event by an arch in Rome.
Six very important events would occur within those 70 weeks of years limiting the prophecy.
The fulfillment of these events must be found in Messiah the Prince before A.D. 33.
Many of the Futurist speculators say these will not be fulfilled until the Millenium, claiming that there are no events in the history of the world to fulfill these prophecies!
Event #1: Israel finished her transgression and filled up her sins and the measure of her fathers by killing the Messiah (Matt 21:33-45; Matt 23:29-36 cp Gen 15:16; I Thes 2:14-16; Matt 3:7-12; Acts 3:13-15; 7:51-53; Dan 8:12,23).
Event #2: Jesus made an end of sins by purging them away (Heb 1:3; 9:26; 10:12,17).
Event #3: Jesus made reconciliation for iniquity (Romans 5:10; II Cor 5:19; Heb 2:17).
Event #4: Jesus brought in everlasting righteousness (II Cor 5:21; I Cor 1:30; Ro 3:26).
Event #5: Jesus sealed up the vision and prophecy by blinding the Jews to understanding of the Scriptures (Is 8:16; 29:11; Daniel 8:26; 12:4; Matt 13:10-16; 22:29; Luke 24:44-47; John 12:37-41; Acts 3:17; 13:27; 28:23-29; Rom 11:7-10,25; I Cor 2:6-8; II Cor 3:14; Revelation 10:4; 22:10).
Event #6: Jesus was anointed as the most Holy at His baptism (Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 11:1-5; 42:1; 61:1-3; Matt 3:13-17; 12:28; Mark 1:24; Luke 1:35; 4:16-21,34; John 3:34; 10:36; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb 1:9; I John 5:6).
Wise readers will note that the destruction of Jerusalem is not one of these six events, but to follow after the 70 weeks, which were determined precisely for these six events.
If these events occurred within 69 weeks, why in the world was there a need for the 70th week?
The people were in expectation of the fulfillment of this prophecy in 27 A.D. (Luke 3:15).
9:25 Messiah would come after 69-weeks after the command to rebuild Jerusalem, and it would be rebuilt.
Know and understand this prophecy – there is nothing obscure or difficult here at all.
The event starting the clock of this prophecy would be well known and recognized.
And 69 weeks of years would bring us to the Messiah, Who would then appear!
We should expect to find Messiah appearing 483 years later, as did Israel (Luke 3:15).
The command to restore and to build Jerusalem was given by Cyrus the Persian in 456 B.C.
The pagan chronologies of Ptolemy and Usher are wrong by 80+ years of Persian rule, as Martin Anstey and Philip Mauro have proven in their works on Bible chronology.
Scripture exalts Cyrus's command (II Chr 36:20-23; Ezra 1:1-11; Is 44:21-28; 45:1-13).
God called Cyrus by name before he was born for this very purpose, and He called Cyrus His shepherd (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1,4). He held him by the hand to do this work.

 

[Iconoclast]

Artaxerxes, Ahasuerus, Darius, nor any other king ever issued any comparable command to Ezra, Nehemiah, Zerubbabel, or any other man. At the very best they simply and only confirmed Cyrus the Persian (Ezra 3:7; 4:3-5; 5:7-17; 6:1-15).
Any man who dates this prophecy from any other event than the decree of Cyrus is a profane unbeliever, a humanistic skeptic, an ignorant Bible reader, and a blinded fool.

There is a 7-week period of time that covers the difficult years of getting the place rebuilt.
God divided this segment, and it covers Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah.
There is no gap here at all, but the 8th week commences when the 7th concludes. Behold!
Chronologers can piece together the dates in the Bible to confirm 49 years of building.
The troublesome times of the rebuilding are well documented by these books.
There is a 62-week period of time from the rebuilt temple and city to Messiah the Prince.
Malachi introduces this segment, showing the serious decay of worship in Jerusalem.
The prophecy of chapter eight of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees occurred.
Most of the prophecies of chapters ten through twelve, the back and forth struggles of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, are fulfilled during this period.
Therefore, 69 weeks bring us to Messiah. They do not include Him. They bring us to Him.
Messiah is only used four times in the Bible, twice here and twice in John (1:41; 4:25).
The two occurrences in John both tell us that Messias is to be interpreted Christ, which gives us confirmation in both Hebrew and Greek that Jesus was anointed Messiah.
Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is Messiah the Prince, the Christ, according to Scripture.
Andrew told Peter Jesus was Messiah (John 1:41): Peter told Jesus by divine revelation (Matt 16:16); Jesus told a woman (John 4:25-26,42); Peter told the Jews (Acts 2:36).
Jesus of Nazareth is God's Prince, Messiah the Prince (Is 9:6; Acts 3:15; 5:31; Rev 1:5).
Jesus was neither announced nor recognized nor revealed as Messiah until His baptism (Luke 3:21-22; 4:14-21; John 1:19-51; 2:1; Acts 10:38).
The time was fulfilled (Mark 1:15; Luk 3:1-3,15). The termination of 69 weeks is clear.
Surely the Jews could figure out the time rather easily (Matt 2:1-6; Luke 2:25-26,38).
The Jews were in expectation for the Messiah, for 69 weeks had expired (Luke 3:15).
John was commissioned by heaven to make Him manifest to Israel (Jn 1:31 cp 1:6-8).
He was anointed with the Holy Ghost at His baptism (Acts 10:38; Luke 4:18).
9:26 Messiah would die in the 70th week, and a prince's people would destroy the city and temple by war.
Messiah was to be cut off after 69 weeks (7 weeks plus 62 weeks), but not cut off for himself.
If Messiah was cut off after 69 weeks in a prophecy about Him, then he was cut off in the 70th week; and any attempt to cut Him off another time is to be as blind as the Jews!
These words are so simple; they cannot be confused but by intentional corruption.
Jesus was cut off out of the land of the landing for the sins of His people (Isaiah 53).
His death, and therefore this prophecy, has to do with sacrificial substitution, for He was cut off for others, which leads us further to know the he of 27 is Messiah.
It does not tell us when in the 70th week in this verse, but it will tell us in the next verse.
The people of the prince that shall come are the subject of the second independent clause here.
The people shall surely come after the 69 weeks, but they are not tied to the timetable.
The people and the prince are not listed in the six things of the 70 weeks (9:24)!
The language indicates by the future tense a coming after the cutting off of Messiah.
Titus Vespasian Augustus is the prince. He later was Caesar, but he came as prince.
They came as prophesied and destroyed the city and temple, and finished with a flood by overwhelming the city and people and leaving it and them absolutely desolate.
During the war they desolated the city and temple, and also much of Judah around it.
Observe the parallelism between these last two verses of the prophecy, Daniel 9:26-27.
The first half of each verse is describing Messiah, with progressive explanation.
The second half of each verse is describing a coming war, with progressive explanation.
The desolation of Jerusalem was determined, but it is not connected directly to the timetable.
One of the three most important events of the New Testament is the destruction of Jerusalem, which was announced forcefully and often by John, Jesus, and the apostles. Grasp Acts 2:40!
Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 19,21,23 in conjunction with The Wars of the Jews by Josephus give us the details of this destruction of the city and sanctuary and desolating war.
There was not, nor is there now, any Israel or Jews with whom God is dealing, after that desolating event; both Jews and Gentiles have been united in one body, the church (Luke 21:24; Acts 15:13-18; Rom 2:28-29; 9:6; Eph 2:11-22; Gal 3:16,27-29; etc.). Israel today is Khazaria!
9:27 Messiah would confirm the covenant for the 70th week, end sacrifices, and later destroy Jerusalem.
The 70th week follows the 69th week as certainly as the 62 weeks follow the 7 weeks. Behold!
For the seven years A.D. 27-34, the apostles went only to Jews (Matt 10:6; 15:24; Acts 1:8; 11:19), which fulfilled Gabriel's words – the prophecy was for Daniel's people and city (9:24).
The pronoun he opening the verse has a clear antecedent, and it is the subject of the first clause.
The prince of the second clause is not a proper subject and is not a clear antecedent.
The people of the second clause are the subject, with the prince merely modifying them.
The timetable Gabriel gave at the beginning makes any fussing with this pronoun an absolute travesty of Bible study and interpretation. It is the Messiah without any doubt!
There is not one shred of evidence anywhere in the Bible to make these opening words a contract between devil worshippers and the devil occurring in the indefinite future!
He, Messiah the Prince, confirmed the covenant with many during the last and 70th week.
The covenant confirmed in the Bible is the new covenant (Isaiah 42:6; 55:3; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 26:28; Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25-26; Rom 15:8; I Cor 11:25; Hebrews 7:22; 8:6; 9:15; 10:29; 12:24; 13:20).
He confirmed it by His personal ministry and the ministry of His apostles.
He confirmed it in fact (His death) and in revelation (the preaching of the gospel).
The last 27 books of the Bible, which are about Messiah, salvation, and a change from the Levitical system of Moses, are called the New Testament (covenant)!
Messiah's death caused the entire sacrificial system to be put away (Hebrews 7:12-19; 10:1-14).
Jesus ended the sacrificial system of religion by tearing the veil in two from top to bottom, when He cried out, "It is finished" (Matthew 27:51; John 19:30).
The whole book of Hebrews was written to prove and explain this end of the sacrifices and oblations detailed in the book of Leviticus.
The presence of God was now open by a new and living way in Jesus (Heb 10:19-22).
The seventy weeks were to provide an end of sins and righteousness, reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness (9:24). These are the benefits of the new covenant, which is based on the blood and atonement of Messiah the Prince.
The sacrifices and oblations were to come to an end in the midst of the 70th week by His death.
We know this is Jesus by the rest of the prophecy; He died 3.5 years after His baptism.
This verse tells us plainly He died 3.5 years after His anointing. We are Bible believers!
John records four Passovers Jesus attended, which requires at least three years John.
Jerusalem would be desolated until it was consummated, which intends a perpetual destruction.
Jesus told His disciples they would see the abomination of desolation, and they could read Daniel 9:26-27 to understand what they would see (Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20).
The abomination of desolation is the result of the destructive war (9:26 cp 9:27 cp 9:2).
The abomination of desolation was a Roman army of Titus the prince in A.D. 70, which came and stood in the holy place – the land of Israel (Mat 24:15,34 cp Luk 21:20).
How in the world can we have such a prophecy of Daniel's people and city and ignore the stupendous events of 70 A.D.? What in the world could happen in the future that would even come close? Jesus said there would never be similar tribulation to the destruction of 70 A.D.
The desolation of Jerusalem was determined, but it is not connected directly to the timetable.
The 70th week is fully accounted for, though a specific endpoint is not named for the 490th year.
He explained the 70th week in its entirely; Jesus would confirm the covenant with many.
For the immediate time after our Lord's death, His covenant was confirmed with many.
The prophecy is not one of years, but one of weeks; and all weeks are accounted for, with the important events occurring in the 70th week just as prophesied.







http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1921_mauro_seventy-weeks.html

 

[Greektim]

I get worried (myself having been there) that we are so assured of our position having done so much research and reading and becoming so passionate and vigorous for our view that we start railing out phrases like "a profane unbeliever, a humanistic skeptic, an ignorant Bible reader, and a blinded fool."

Icon, I'm not saying I disagree with you. But really, what separates you from others who speak in the same manner??? IFB KJVers talk like this. There are many faithful men who have various opinions. Some of the accusations you leveled are malicious and unhelpful. This is not a gospel issue wherein someone should be called "accursed." So why come w/ synonymous accusations?

I just want to bring some civility to this. Not trying to judge you, b/c as I said, I came out of the IFB (a pastor in that movement) with that mentality that I had it all figured out b/c our job was to figure it all out. Anyone who disagreed w/ me was clearly wrong b/c... well they didn't have the understanding I did. It was a modernistic and unacademic certainty over things that really aren't as important as I made them out to be.

"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity."

 

[thomas15]

.... Any man who dates this prophecy from any other event than the decree of Cyrus is a profane unbeliever, a humanistic skeptic, an ignorant Bible reader, and a blinded fool.

Iconoclast,

Can you be a little more specific with respect to my personal situation? Be honest.

Question #1 Am I a profane unbeliever?

Question #2 Am I a humanistic skeptic?

Question #3 Am I an ignorant Bible reader?

Question #4 Am I a blinded fool?

or a combination of one or more of the above?

Help me out here icon, would you recommend that I stop looking for answers to my theological questions from a study of the Bible and instead study preterists teaching from links provided to me from some guy on the internet?

 

[timf]

Any man who dates this prophecy from any other event than the decree of Cyrus is a profane unbeliever, a humanistic skeptic, an ignorant Bible reader, and a blinded fool.

We have all spoken words that we wish we had never said and could take back.

Being one prone to the frustrations of the flesh myself, I can sympathize for one so driven as to become intemperate.

It is often at the point where we lose it that we can come to understand how much we have drifted into the flesh and how distant we have become from our Savior.

I think that one reason we can become so frustrated is that we drift into a realm of being right and leave the realm of truth. Very often people see no difference between the two things (truth and being right). However, it may be beneficial at a point such as this to consider where the two might part.

Here is something I wrote a friend yesterday that may have some relevance;

Judy and I appreciate you ministry and teaching. We appreciate the stand you take for sound doctrine. I remember your advocacy for sound doctrine. However, for us, doctrine was not enough. We did not want to raise our children with families who were not also trying to live for the Lord. You may not have seen the same things we did when we looked at the youth group or saw the way the families who said they subscribed to sound doctrine actually lived.

A questing then arises as to why sound doctrine is insufficient. I see a change in the method of instruction that affects the content of instruction (doctrine). The Catholic church took the Greek academy and gave us modern scholasticism. In this way instruction is reduced to raw data that can be desiccated, divided, labeled, and compartmentalized such that sound doctrine produces little effect on real life. It is also a good way to mix in or even elevate unsound doctrine.

This process is often seen as an improvement in efficiency over the former method of instruction, apprenticeship. However once relationship is removed from instruction, you remove almost everything of importance in Christianity. Christianity is all about relationship, us with Jesus and with each other.

Jesus could only do what He saw the Father do. This I think harkens more to the apprentice model rather than the classroom model.

Jesus said, "If you live in my word (truth), then you are my disciples indeed." He did not say, "if you learn my words".

True doctrine needs to be in relationship, fleshed out in application, lived every day, not only relevant but of vital necessity.

I see the relegation of truth to the classroom as eviscerating it such that it looses vitality and even utility. The doctrinal positions and declarations become abstract assertions. A person is left with only being able to declare something as "right". The Pharisees were "right" they had however lost all sense of truth.

This loss I see played out with Gamaliel. One can see the effect of the academy on his instruction (doctrine). He was able to say that they should wait and see if what the disciples were doing was of the Lord. By focusing on being "right", he had lost connection with the truth. This loss was such that he was unable to recognize truth much less live it.

Doctrine (instruction) that has had the life squeezed out of it so that the only thing left is a declaration of what is "right", is of little use.

I remember asking you once what percentage of seminary students you would estimate were "squirrly". I was amazed that such loose cannons were to be set loose upon the churches. I remember hearing that as long as they met the academic criteria, that they could not be prevented from graduating. Responsibility for them was attributed to their home church. To me this is representative of the difference between being right and truth.

John did not write that he was glad that his children had declared their alignment with what was right. He said he had no greater joy than to hear his children were walking in truth.

I do not see denominational doctrine (which is often not even instruction but declaration) as being complete even when it is right. I see sound doctrine as more integrated in the process of persuasion and instruction regarding all of life. This requires an intimate relationship between the shepherd and the Christian. The fact that church leaders are supposed to accomplish the building up of Christians into the full image of Christ is a standard by which every church can be judged a failure.

The real question is "Is sound doctrine" being right or helping people grow into the full image of Christ?

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast,

Can you be a little more specific with respect to my personal situation? Be honest.

Question #1 Am I a profane unbeliever?

Question #2 Am I a humanistic skeptic?

Question #3 Am I an ignorant Bible reader?

Question #4 Am I a blinded fool?

or a combination of one or more of the above?

Help me out here icon, would you recommend that I stop looking for answers to my theological questions from a study of the Bible and instead study preterists teaching from links provided to me from some guy on the internet?

Thomas...and GT

Sorry....I posted this article...not for the persons editorial comment...but for the verses offered... I should have taken time to edit out his poor comments.

the other link is more biblical and without the editorial comments..but it is longer.....forget this guys prejudice and look at the verses...
It was not my intent to distract you with this kind of remarks.:love2: