Seal up this Book......

Pastor Larry,

I strongly believe Daniel 9:24-27 is so very important for every Christians ought to understand, what it is talking about. It is not just for Eschatology only. It is talking about prophecy on the coming of Messiah, his ministry, and salvation on Calvary to fulfilled Old Testament prophecies.

When I told you, there is no gap time between Dan. 9:26-27.

You say,

No, it is not my conclusion. That is the way, dispensationalism teaches. No early church father teach on verse 26-27 is gap time. In the first of 18 Centuries, no Christian teach on verse 26-27 is gap. Not till 19th Century, dispensationalism developed it. Mostly from John Darby.

You say,

Possibly?

This is Dispensationalism's theory. No early church father teach there is a gap time between verse 26 to 27 in the first of 18 Centuries. Early church fathers understood Daniel 9:24-27 focus prophecy on Jesus Christ of his ministry, and salvation by Calvary already fulfilled O.T. prophecies.


When I told you, Dan. 9:25 already fulfilled that, Jerusalem was rebuilt, second temple was built, the walls were built. It was in Ezra and Nehemiah's time.

You say,

 

PART TWO

You say,

You are partially correct.

It says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb ARE the temple of it."

John tells us, there is no temple in New Jerusalem, because, Jesus IS the temple, so, we shall dwell in the temple with Jesus forever and ever.

House of God is also, means temple.

New Jerusalem IS temple, because we are temple - 1 Cor. 3:16-17; and 6:19-20.

Premill teaches, during millennium kingdom, animal sacrifices, and Old Testament economy will be use again.

Does anywhere in the New Testament saying, there will have another sacrifice again AFTER the second advent??

Is it necesscary to have another sacrifices and offerings again after the Second advent?

If, yes.

Then, Matt. 13:39-42; Matt. 25:31-33, & 46 telling us, WHEN Jesus comes again with his angels, he will send angels to gathering all goat(unbelievers) together to be separately from the sheep(believers). Then, ALL unbelievers shall be cast away into everlasting fire. There will be NO left remain of unbeliever to enter eternality kingdom with Jesus on new earth after the judgment day at the second coming.

1 Cor. 15:50 tells us, NO person will enter the eternality kingdom with blood and flesh(mortal). Clearly, there will be NO mortal person to enter eternality kingdom with Jesus on new earth after the second advent.

1 Cor. 15:51-54 telling us, ALL of us will be changed into immortal body. Immortal is not dying, have glorify new body, no pain, no suffering, no tired, NO death. Immortal is a perfect new body to be like Jesus Christ - 1 John 3:2. Also, it means NO believer shall commit sin again anymore forever and ever at the second advent.

Then, why it shall be necesscary to have other sacrifice and offering again after the second advent, while ALL believers are immortal, we will have NO sin in us???

Hebrews 10:10 tells us, Christ already paid us all our sins at ONCE. same as what Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED!- John 20:19.

Premill teaches, survival tribulation saints will be saved at the the end of Tribulation period, as they shall be "sheep", but yet they will remain mortal body.

Where in the Bible saying, survival tribulation saints will REMAIN mortal at the second advent??

Premill teaches, the world will be repopulation again, because survival tribulation saints will produce more children.

Where in the Bible saying, the world will be repopulation again, while ex-tribulation saints will produce more children??

In Luke 20:34-36 saying,

"And Jesus answering said unto them, 'The children of THIS world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain THAT world, and the resurrection from the dead, NEITHER marry, NOR are given in marriage: NEITHER can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Luke 20:34 tells us, in this world(age), people are marry, given in marriage. Means, we are in NOW age(time), that people are able to get marry, and to produce more children.

Luke 20:35 tells us, in that world(age), people shall be resurrection from the dead, so, they shall NOT marry, not given in marriage. Means, in that world(age) is future at the second coming, people will be resurrection, so, they cannot get marry, not given to marry.

Because, Luke 20:36 tells us, people will NEVER die any more again. That is immortal! Also, because people will be like as angels. Also, we shall be like Jesus - 1 John 3:2.

The fact is, all angels are immortal, means they NEVER die forever and ever. God's angels are glorify like as God. Yet, all angels do not have body like us. But we will be SAME with Jesus - 1 John 3:2! Because Jesus already risen from the dead with his literal body. So, we will be risen same Jesus' body at the second advent!

People are children of God, means they are believers have eternal life, because they trusted in Jesus Christ, so, the children are the resurrection! - Luke 20:36.

Why? Jesus is NOT a God of the dead, but he is the LIVING, so, ALL believers live same Christ! - Luke 20:38.

So, the Bible does not teach us, mortal ex-tribulation saints will produce more children on earth after the second advent, because 1 Cor. 15:51-54 telling us, we shall ALL changed into immortal body at the second advent, so, we shall be glorify new body to be like Christ, so, we will NEVER to die again!

No way for Church saints will produce more children again after the second advent, because no saints will marry again - Luke 20:35, so therefore NO more produce children again forever and ever after the second advent!!

Premill teaches, Isa. 65:20 saying that people will live longer up to 100 years during millennial kingdom. Obivously, means there will be remain and left of survival tribulation saints still have mortal, and will produce more children, many will die during millennial kingdom.

But, they misinterpreting Isa. 65:20, what it actually talking about.

Isa. 65:20 says,

"There shall be NO MORE thence an infant of days, NOR an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old: -(why??)BUTthe SINNER being an hundred and hundred years old(because of what??) SHALL BE ACCURSED."

At first part of the sentence of Isa. 65:20 tells us, there shall be NO MORE mortal people. In the middle of the sentence of Isa. 65:20 tells us, people will died. Why?? In the last part of the sentence of Isa. 65:20 tells us, a SINNER shall die as lived up to about 100 years old limited, why? Because of sinners are already condemend(Judged)-accused.

Isa. 65:20c refers with Romans 5:12 tells us, Adam died and so, the death pass upon to ALL over the world, why? Because ALL have sinned!

EVERY sinner HAVE TO die no matter how long or short they still lived, still they WILL die anyway because of sin.

Get my point?

Notice Isaiah 65:17-20 mentioned about the future eternality condition, it fits with Rev. 21:1-4 very clear!

So, therefore Isa. 65:17-20 do not saying anything about limited time for only 'a thousand years'. It is eternality condition that would be at the second advent!

Interesting, notice Isa. 65:17-20 is compare or parallel with Isa. 66:22-24.

Notice, Isa. 66:24 mentioned about unbelievers will be suffer in the fire, as the worms shall NEVER die, and fire shall NEVER queneched. Jesus quoted Isa. 66:24 in Mark 8:44,46, and 48 - 'worms never died, fire never queneched'.

Isa. 66:24 is very clearly talk about unbelievers shall suffer in eternal fire - lake of fire!

Isa. 66:24 supports Isa. 65:20c talk about unbelievers(sinners) only!

So, therefore, there is none verse in the Bible saying, any believers will still have mortal, and will die again DURING "1000 years" or "Millennial Kingdom".

Again, 1 Cor. 15:51-54 is very clear teaching us, that ALL of us as believers will be chnaged into glorify new body, we shall NOT die again anymore at the second advent!

I better stop on this part two. I think it is enough for to discuss on millennium for now. Or probably, I will start new topic on millennium.

I do not mean to bring up on millennium issue on this topic. Because, Pastor Larry told me, there will be temple in "Millennium" kingdom. That why I have to dicuss on millennium issue. Also discuss on sacrifices too.

Next part three, I will focus on Dan. 9:24-27 again. No more discuss on millennium issue again in the next post. Next post, I will discuss more deeper on Daniel 9:24-27 what it is talking about.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

DPT, A lot of good points above, especially regarding the New Covenant. If we're not fully in it now, then we've got problems.

Pastor Larry,
As DPT points out, its not my view vs. Daniel's , rather it's the commonly accepted Christian view for over 1500 years vs. Darby's view (advanced by Scofield's notes).

First about Messiah's confirming the covenant: At the beginning of Chist's ministry (which lasted about 3 1/2 years), Christ began to explain why He came, to call sinners to repentance--that was the beginning of His confirmation of the Covenant to his people--preaching to the Jews almost exclusively. He would sort out the Jews, cutting off the unbelievers, while saving the believing remnnant. Thus the covenant was made with "many" not with all. Then in the middle of that "week" Christ was "cut off". For the rest of that "week", the disciples continued to minister primarily to the Jews. Once the gospel began to be preached to the Gentiles as well--God's exclusive dealings with Israel were over--now the covenant was in effect with all believers. As I mentioned before, this interpretation fits like a hand in a glove, with loads of New Testament support.

Let me just add a little more on the grammar issue regarding the "he" of verse 27. You claim that this pronoun MUST find it's antecedent in the most previously mentioned noun, "prince". But I wonder if you will be consistent on that grammatical principle. See if that works on the first two verses of Daniel (1:1,2). Hmmm,it doesn't. If so, then Jehoiakim would be carrying vessels into the house of his god, instead of Nebuchadnezzar doing it. And we can find many other such examples in Scripture, like Gen. 14:20. Using your principle, we'd have Melchizedek paying tithes to Abraham, instead of the other way around. Try it on 1 Sam. 15:27, and we'd have Samuel ripping his own (or Saul's) garment. So you see, your principle is not a 100% guarantee, instead the CONTEXT must guide our determination of who "he" is in Daniel 9:27. And the context OVERWHELMINGLY supports the "he" as being the Messiah, rather than the Antichrist.

If you can read the text without dispensational presuppositions, it becomes very clear.

In Christ,

Tim

 

I beg to differ. The question is solved by asking, What does the text actually say? As I have repeatedly pointed out, eschatology was unthought about for 1500 years. There was actually very little said about it. Furthermore, the test of truth is not “What did past men say?” The test is “What does the text say?”

Now let’s briefly analyze what you just said. You have consistently quoted Matt 26 as the proof for Jesus making the NC. Now, having been faced with the impossibility of that in the time line, you want to change. But not only that, you are forced to contradict the NC passage. The NC was that God would give the house of Jacob and the house of Israel a new heart. That did not happen in the earthly ministry of Jesus. In fact, just the opposite happened. God hardened their hearts.

But you have more problems than that. 9:26 says that Jesus was cut off after the 69th week and before the covenant was made. Yet you have the covenant being made before the Messiah is cut off. The text contradicts you.

Then you say that for the remainder of the week, the disciples ministered primarily to Jews. That would mean for 3 ½ years, the disciples ministered to the Jews. Yet early in the book of Acts, before 3 ½ years have passed we see the preaching of the gospel to many others.

Far from fitting hand in glove with the NT passages, you have to contradict NT passages to make it work. I reject that kind of hermeneutic.

Actually, what I believe I said is that it normally finds it antecedent in the closest referent and that is the most natural reading in this case.

What?? Read that again and look for the closest referent. I have done a little highlighting to make it easier.

Daniel 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his [who? Nebuchadnezzar] hand, along with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he [Look back at the closest referent.] brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his god.

So in fact, it does work. The closest referent is Nebuchadnezzar. The principle is the principle. Any grammarian will tell you it is not always the case. No one disputes that, least of all myself. But that is simply aside issue, icing on the cake of the mound of evidence that contradicts your view.

1. The covenant is made after the Messiah is cut off, not when or not before, both of which you have suggested.
2. The covenant is broken, something that is not true about the NC.

You are right on the first and wrong on the second. I just cannot understand this view. It requires contradicting the normal sense of the text.

The only dispensational presupposition is that the text means what it says. We call it “normal hermeneutics.” It is what is used in every form of communication except covenant theology.

But as I have said, our difference is in the way that Scripture is to be handled and until we come to a conclusion on that, we will never agree. I believe the unintentional consequence of your position is that you call into question the veracity and faithfulness of God. I am very uncomfortable with that.

 

We differ so greatly on the way that Scripture should be treated, we will not come to a conclusion. I stand by my position that the words of Scripture adequately communicate the intent of God through the author. Therefore, we should not change the meaning or referent of those words to fit a particular system of theology. Yet that is just what you have done. Your problem with dispensationalism is so great that you are willing to change the meaning of the text to support your position. I simply cannot go along with that. I will make just a few comments here in closing.

I agree.

First, I have never seen the evidence to prove this. Second, it is irrelevant. Historical theology is helpful but not determinative. Eschatology received virtually no attention at all until the last 200 or so years. It stands to reason that this was not a big view, because no view was big.

I don't argue with that. But that is not the point. I am not talking about the rebuilding of Dan 9:25/Ezra. The NC talks of a rebuilding that will never be destroyed. The city of Ezra and Nehemiah was destroyed. Therefore, either God broke his NC promise or I am right. There are no other options. A city that was destroyed cannot qualify for a city that was not destroyed. The law of non-contradiction prevents it.

The passage by the way is Jer 31:38-40 (the clear NC passage). That was a simple typo on my part. The text says: Jeremiah 31:38 - 32:1 38 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when the city will be rebuilt for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 "The measuring line will go out farther straight ahead to the hill Gareb; then it will turn to Goah. 40 "And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD; it will not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever."

This passage cannot refer to some spiritual city; the landmarks are not spiritual in teh least. And the promise is clear. I cannot see how one can deny the future rebuilding of the city without calling God a liar. The words are too clear for that. I realize that is a strong statement and my personal belief is that people who believe this are merely mislead. I don't think they intend to call God a liar. But the words of the text explicitly affirm what they deny.

Why? The proof is in the OT. We should not expect a verse about rebuilding the temple in teh NT because the NT is written to the church. The OT was written to Israel. I wouldn't use the NT to prove the rebuilding of the temple. I don't know what verses you would expect me to use. Having said that, there are clear verses in teh NT that talk of the restoration of the nation of Israel (Acts 3:19-21; Rom 11:25ff.).

To communicate church truth to the church.

Notice how those verses say nothing of the kind. You have read into them what you wish was there. Jesus simply said, "This is the new covenant in my blood."

Yes. The NC is described by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Those descriptions make it crystal clear that the NC is not in effect right now. The house of Israel and the house of Judah do not have a new heart and they are walking in his ways..

Again, a major reading into of the AC. The seed is only a part of it. You have ignored the land, which was an eternal promise. Additionally, the seed of hte covenant is the physical seed as demonstrated when Abraham tried to make Eleazar his descendant. You and I are not of the physical seed of Abraham. The church, by definition, does not qualify for that. You cannot just pretend like these promises don't exist.

I agree. But not the issue. Gal 3:17 says that the Law (for which Israel lost possession of the land) did not invalidate the promise. In other words, the verse you so conveniently skipped proves your position wrong. The promise is still in effect.

You would be hard pressed to show from Scripture that any of these OT believers had faith in Christ. They were all saved by faith, without a doubt. But there is no verse that says their faith was in Christ. Their faith was in the revelation of God. Your position here is a common one, which is a failure to recognize the nature of progressive revelation. You will nto find one place in the OT where the OT person was told to believe in Christ for salvation.

When God gives the house of Israel and the house of Jacob a new heart, just as he says in Jer 31:31-40. According to Rom 11 it will be after the fulness of hte Gentiles has come in. The Bible itself tells us what the NC is and it has not yet happened. The house of Israel and the house of Jacob, the people with whose fathers God made the Mosaic covenant, have not been restored as God promised. When that happens, then we will see the NC. Again, this is a simple matter of exegesis, of letting the text say what it does.

Yes, but you fail to make the necessary distinction between the Father and the Son. The FAther made the covenant. The Son ratified it with his blood.

The text says that was YHWH. The preincarnate Christ is in teh OT is called the Angel of YHWH. Don't confuse things here becuase of your determination to support a position. Read the text.

[quiote]Obivously, Jesus IS GOD!!![/quote]Obviously, but not the point.

And perhaps you could show this from Scripture. The text you quoted said that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, meaning probably that he looked forward to the time of the coming of his ultimate seed. Again, you can't just proof text. You have to use the texts properly.

I think it is your misunderstanding that causes this confusion. I have no confusion about it all.

No kidding ... But it is a vision of hte temple being restored. And the images are explicit. It takes a very drastic and inconsistent hermeneutic to support anything other than a literal temple out of this passage. Which goes back to what I have always said. The way that we approach Scripture is so different that we will not agree.

 

so we are Christ?? Of course not. But that kind of hermeneutic is the same hermeneutic that you use other places, asserting that two things must be the same because they are called the same. For instance you assert that the end time temple must be the temple of Ezra and Nehemiah because they are both rebuilt temples. Yet that cannot be substantiated from the text, and that must be our rule.

No, and that is not what the text said. The text is talkign about the depth of the water, getting increasingly deeper. Again, this is a place where you simply ignored or overlooked the text to try to make a point. The answer was right there in the text. You just didn't see it for some reason.

But water is also something you drink, and something you wade in and swim in; it is something you wash with and something that falls from the sky. All of these are scriptural uses of the word water. The point is that water can be many things. We must look at the text to see what it is talking about. The text must be the king; not our system.

So Jesus flows out of his own throne?? See how you switched hermeneutics here?? That just doesn't work.

[/b]The only passage that mentions a thousand years is Rev 20. But that is an old tired argument. The fact of the restored kingdom is clealry OT truth; the length of that kingdom was unknown. It simply said to be a very long kingdom. The measurements and descriptions of Ezek 40-48 lead to a very funny looking Christ. I would seriously reconsider your understanding because of what the text says.

I really don't think there is much of a point of continuing. Until one or the other of us changes our view of Scripture, we will not reach any conclusion. We agree that Christ is returning (a truth that is reached only by using my hermeneutic incidentally). And let's rejoice in that.

 

I understand these posts are getting too long. There is so much to say that is a necessary refutation of the ideas that are being espoused. The discussion is probably unprofitable for all us due to our positions.

 

Here is what I conclude based on the Scriptures:

The man of sin, who the Lord will destroy with the brightness of His coming, will reign 3 1/2 years. According to the Scriptures, he will sit in the temple of God. Some see this as a reference to the church, some to the Jewish temple which will be rebuilt in the days to come. I am inclined to the former, that the temple of God referred to by Paul is the church. It is Papacy that is under consideration, and I believe that John Gill does a superb job in defending this position.

so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God; not in the temple of Jerusalem, which was to be destroyed and never to be rebuilt more, and was destroyed before this man of sin was revealed; but in the church of God, so called, 1 Corinthians 3:16 the Ethiopic version renders it, "in the house of God"; for antichrist rose up out of, and in the midst of the church; and it was a true church in which he first appeared, and over which he usurped power and authority; though it has been so corrupted by him, as now to be only nominally so; here he sits, and has homage done him by his creatures, as if he was a god, and is not only styled Christ's vicar, but a god on earth, and our Lord God the Pope; so in the triumphal arch at the entry of Pope Sixtus IV, these lines were put, "oraculo vocis, mundi moderaris habenas, et merito in terris crederis esse Dens"; the sense is, that he governed the world by his word, and was deservedly believed to be God on earth; and their canon law {g} says, "it is clearly enough shown, that the Pope cannot be loosed or bound by any secular power; since it is evident that he is called God by that pious prince, Constantine, and it is manifest that God cannot be judged by men:" and Pope John XXII is expressly called {h} "our Lord God the Pope": the Ethiopic version reads, "he shall say to all, I am the Lord God"; see Ezekiel 28:2, the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version, leave out the phrase, "as God," but the Syriac retains it: however, the same blasphemy is expressed in the next clause,

I do not believe that that which was witholding the revealing of the man of sin has any reference to the Holy Ghost. I offer once again, John Gill's remarks.

And now ye know what withholdeth,.... Or hinders the revelation of the man of sin, or antichrist; by which is meant not the Apostle Paul, though he by his ministry was a very great hinderance of the growth of error, and the spread of evil practices in the churches, and so of the more open appearance of the man of sin in his forerunners; and after his departure from Ephesus, and imprisonment at Rome, and suffering death, there was a great falling off in the churches, and among professors of religion, which made way for the manifestation of antichrist in due time: nor the preaching of the Gospel, in its power and purity, in the several parts of the world; though so long as this obtained, got ground, and gained success, the man of sin could not show his head; and therefore it must, as it did, decline, and was gradually taken away that he might appear: nor the Spirit of God, as the spirit of truth and holiness, though as long as he continued in his gifts and operations of grace in the churches, they were preserved from antichristian doctrine and worship; but when he removed from them, this enemy and adversary of Christ and his Gospel came in like a flood: nor the general defection in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 though that was to be previous to the revelation of antichrist, and was to be what would usher him in; nor could he appear until the wickedness of men was come to a pitch, that they would be ready to receive him, and pay homage and worship to him: nor is the decree of God meant, though till the time came fixed by God for his appearance, the decree must be a bar in his way; since as there is a time for every purpose, nothing can come to pass till that time comes: but by that which withheld, let or hindered the open appearance of antichrist, were the Roman empire and emperors; these stood in his way, and while this empire lasted, and the emperors wore the imperial crown, and sat on the throne, and held the government in their hands, the popes could not come at the height of their ambition, dignity, and authority, nor shine in their glory; nor could the whore of Babylon take her seat, and sit upon the seven hills of Rome until the Roman emperor was taken out of the way: this therefore hindered,

that he might be revealed in his time. The Ethiopic version renders it, "until his time appointed came": wherefore till the time that God had fixed for the appearance of this monster of iniquity, this son of perdition, the Roman empire must continue, and Roman emperors must keep their place and dignity to prevent his appearance sooner: the reason why the apostle expresses this not in plain words, but in an obscure manner, and with so much caution, was, that he might not offend the Roman emperors, and provoke them to a severe persecution of them as seditious persons, that sought the destruction of the empire: the word here used, which is rendered "withholdeth," or "letteth," as in the next verse, signifies a ruler or governor, and answers to the Hebrew word rue, "to keep back, or restrain"; and which is used of kings, who by their laws and government restrain and withhold people from doing what they would; see 1 Samuel 9:17 to which the apostle, who well understood the Hebrew language, doubtless had reference; so rue vrwy, is rendered, "a magistrate," in Judges 18:7.

I understand that this view is the orthodox, historical view of the multitude of churches in the 1800's, even the PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS (Elder Sylvester Hassell, Elder R. H. Pittman, et al.).

 

Pastor Larry,
Basically, we're left with the same basic disagreements as always when we discuss these things.And I agree, these posts are getting too long!

Perhaps I was wrong on Dan. 1:1,2, but the other references make my case. My whole point on the grammar thing was that the previous noun in closest proximity to a pronoun is not always the antecedant--something which you finally admitted to be true. So the context indeed is the determining factor. I believe the context of Daniel 9:27 is found earlier in Daniel 9, and apparently you believe it has little to do with that. Apparently Gabriel did pull a bait and switch on Daniel talking about a different covenant than Daniel was referring to just moments before in his prayer. If you want to believe that, that's fine--but please don't follow up by talking about how dispensationalism upholds a normal reading of the text, OK?

Finally let me clarify that I do NOT believe covenant theology. I've made that clear in several other threads. My explanation regarding the New Covenant should also have made that clear. I believe in New Covenant theology (no it is not a new version of covenant theology) which holds to the vast superiority and permanence of the New Covenant initiated by Christ.

As always, a believer living in the better covenant,

Tim

 

PART THREE

When I told you, Christ was cut off AFTER 69th week, Christ died DURING 70th week.

You say,

Yes, that what I saying to you according to verse 26, Christ was not cut off DURING on 69th week, it says, AFTER69th week, obivously, he was cut off on DURING 70th week - vs. 27.

You say,

No. I do not moved it. Verse 26 clearly telling us, Christ was cut off AFTER 69th week. Do you understand what word, 'after' mean?

You say,

 

Historic Premillennialists believe that Daniel has been fulfilled already. All Premillennialists are not the same.

 

That's probably why I get along a lot better with historic premillenialists. In my experience, they are also generally a little more widely read, so are less likely to charicature other points of view. Unfortunately, many of the dispensationalists I know have read very little about eschatology except what is written by other dispensationalists.

Please don't all get defensive, I'm just relating my own experience here.

In Christ,

Tim

 

PART FOUR

I want to show you what I read two old commentaries from 17th Century, interpret on Dan. 9:24-27.

A commentatory was written in the middle of the 17th Century - Matthew Poole.

His interpreting is much different than today's intepreting. Eschatology interpreting have been changing lot in last 200 years.

I quote Poole's comment from Dan. 9:24-27, what he believes.

[Italic}a type of the time of grace which was to follow after by the coming of Christ.[/Italic]

He understoods Dan. 9:24-27 is talking about prophecy on the coming of the Messiah.

[Italic]To finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity.Note 1. The angel discovers first the disease, in three several words, which contian all sort of sin, which the Messiah should free us from by his full redemption,(see Matt i.21)[/Italic]

Before show you what he interpreting on three words. He understoods on Dan. 9:24 tells us about Christ's redemption is for us, that he already paid all our sins through Calvary. Nothing in verse 24 mentions on Antichrist at all, it focus on Christ only.

He continued:

[Italic}2. The angel shows us also the cure of this disease in three words, 1. to finish transgression; 2. To make an end of sins; 3. To make reconciliation: all which words are very significant in the original, and signify to pardon, to blot out, mortify, expiate. 'To bring in everlasting righteousness', i. e. to bring in justification by the free grace of God in Jesus Christ the Lord our Righteousness- Isa.liii. 6; Jer. xxiii. 6; 1 Cor. i. 30;[/Italic] (bold words as emphasis myself what he believes)[Italic]called everlasting because Christ is eternal, and he and his righteousness is everlasting[/Italic](emphasis mine). [Italic]Christ brings this in, 1. By his merit; 2. By his gospel declaring it; 3. By faith applying and sealing it by the Holy Ghost.[/Italic](empasis mine) [Italic]To seal up the vision and prophesy; to abrogate the former dispensation of the laws, and to fulfil it, and the prophecies relating to Christ, and to confirm and ratify the new testament or gospel covenant of grace.[/Italic](empasis this by mine, because I agree with Poole's point on Christ of verse 24.)

He continued:

[Italic]To anoint the most Holy;...but chiefy Christ himself who is the Holy One. Acts iii. 14[/Italic](emphasis mine, because I agree with him, that Jesus is the the holy one and anointed)

Poole interpreted on Dan. 9:27, he said,

[Italic]this he is the Messiah, and the covenant he confirms is the new testament or covenant called therefore the covenent of the people, Isa. xlii. 6; xlix. 8[/Italic] I agree with him, that 'he' of Dan. 9:27 is Jesus Christ as Messiah. Nothing in his comment, that mentioned on Antichrist at all.

He continued:

[Italic]How did Christ confirm the covenant? Answ, 1. BY TESTIMONY[/Italic](captiolized word by mine)[Italic]-Luke ii. 10; Matt. xxviii. 2. BY HIS PREACHING. 3. BY SIGNS AND WONDERS. 4. BY HIS HOLY LIFE. 5. BY HIS RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION. 6. BY HIS DEATH AND BLOOD SHED.[/Italic]

I agree with him, that Dan. 9:27 is Jesus Christ who already make covenent with many. Nothing in the context of Dan. 9:24-27 say anything about two persons - Messiah and Antichrist. The context focus on one person only.

I agree with his point on Dan. 9:24-27, he said,

[Italic]the Lord Jesus, by his death, and by the execution of his wrath, did abrogate and PUT AN END TO THIS LABORIOUS SERVICE, AND MAKE IT TO CEASE FOR EVER.[/Italic]

That all Dan. 9:24-27 is talking about.

Poole does not mentioned on 'seven year of tribulation period' nothing at all on Da. 9:24-27.

Because no one invent - 'seven year of tribulation period' till 19th Century, thank to John Darby.

I have another commentary- Matthew Henry.

I am aware that many baptist pastors have Matthew Henry Commentary. But, I think many of them do not realize that himself was posttribber.

In 1991, I brought Matthew Henry Commentary while I was pretribber as a student at Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac. Mi. I am sure, that few of you already hear that college before because of Dr. Tom Malone.

I didn't realize Matthew Henry, himself a posttribber. Till I found out about 5 years ago! Yet, I glad, that I brought them, because many things I agree with him, on his interpreting God's Word.

While I was pretribber, I did not study on Matthew Henry's commentary on Eschatology. Till I start to look at his comment on Eschatology 5 years, I was surprised, and I do agree with him.

I left pretrib camp that was 11 years ago. I became prewrath for 8 years. Then I become posttrib completed 3 years ago.

Matthew Henry, himself was a Purtian. He wrote commenary in year between 1690 to 1710. That was more than 100 years before pretribulation doctrine developed.

Anyway, now back to Henry's comment on Dan. 9:24-27.

He said,

[Italic]To make reconciliation for iniquity, as by a sacrifice, to satisfy the justice of God and so to make peace and bring God and man together, not only as an arbitrator, or refree, who only brings the contending parties to a good understanding one of another, but as a surety, or undertaker, for us. He is not only the peace-maker, but the peace. He is the atonement.[/Italic]

I agree with him! He understoods what Dan. 9:24-27 is talking about. Nothing say anything on Antichrist in the context of Dan. 9:24-27 at all.

He continued:

[Italic]This is an everlasting righteousness, for Christ, who is our righteousness, and the prince of our peace, is the everlasting Father.[/Italic]


He continued:

[Italic]He came to anoint the most holy, that is, himself, the Holy One...[/Italic]

Clearly, he understood, that Jesus is the holy one and anointed one. None what he said on Antichrist at all.

He continued:

[Italic]He must confirm the covenant with many. He shall introduce a new covenant between God and man, a covenent of grace, since it had become impossible for us to be saved by a covenant of innocence.[/Italic]

Clear, Matthew Henry understoods Dan. 9:27 'he' is Jesus Christ who make a new covenant with many through Calvary. He does not saying anything about Antichrist at all. Even, he does not mentioned on 'seven year of Tribulation period' nothing at all.

He continued:

[Italic]He died to TAKE AWAY THE CEREMONIAL LAW, QUITE TO ABOLISH THAT LAW OF COMMANDMENTS, AND TO VACATE THE OBLIGATION OF IT[/Italic]

I emphasis as bold what he commented on Dan. 9:27.

I agree with him. Dan. 9:27 tells us, that Christ died on the cross to put ceremonial law away, and to end sacrifices and offerings, because Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED!" - John 20:19. God tore the veil of the temple down - Mark 15:38, shows us, that the physical building of the temple is no longer that we need, and God do not need it anymore, because Jesus is now our Lamb. We have right to ask Jesus to forgive our sins daily, because we are priests.

Both Henry and Poole do not say anything about 'seven year of Tribulation period' on Dan. 9:27.

For many centuries, no Christian saying on Dan. 9:27 is 'seven year of Tribulation period'. Not till 19th Century. That why, today, most churches teach on Dan. 9:27 is seven year of Tribulation period.

Nothing in the context of Dan. 9:24-27 mentioned on tribulation. It is talking about prophecy of the coming new covenant for salvation through Calvary by Jesus Christ.

70th week is already fulfilled by calvary. We do not have to wait for the coming of "70th week" - seven year of tribulation period.

Christ was cut off DURING 70th week after 3 1/2 years of his ministry on earth.

It is very clear, that Christ was doing ministry for 3 1/2 years - John 2:13; 6:4; and 13:1 by follow passover three times.

So, Satan will doing the same thing in the great tribulation. He will doing for ONLY 42 months - Rev. 13:5.

Nothing saying anywhere in the Bible, there will be 'seven years of Tribulation period'.

Satan will deceived the world by doing signs and wonders, miracles for only 3 1/2 years. Jessu was doing signs, wonders, miracles and work for 3 1/2 years on earth, so, Satan will do the same thing what Christ did.

Great Tribulation is only 3 1/2 years, NOT 7 years - many churches teach on this.

I hope that you understand what Dan. 9:24-27 is talking about.

Let's sticky on God's Word, what it saying, instead listen to any man on their philosophy what they saying - Colossians 2:8.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!