-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Romans 3:30's "By Faith" and "Through Faith"
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
It may "look like" different events toyou but Paul used the same exact word here and his reference is to the time when the saints will be caught up to meet the Lord Jesus in the air:
"When Christ, who is our life, shall appear (phaneroō
, then shall ye also appear with him in glory" (Col.3:4).Do you deny that Paul's words there are referring to the time when the saints will be caught up to meet the Lord Jesus in the air?
Paul does not say that he was the only person born out of due time. Besides that, you still not have provided a reasonable answer to what Paul said in the same epistle:
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours" (1 Cor.1:2; NASB).
The epistle is addressed to "all" who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. That would include "all" the believers, including the Twelve. And here are words from the epistle that applies to them:
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...the Body of Christ" (1 Cor.12:13,17).
Upvote
0
The historicists say that the 70th week of Daniel has already been fulfilled at the Cross. However, Irenaeus, who studied under Polycarp (who was regarded as a disciple of the Apostles themselves), placed the events of the 70th week in the future:
"And then he (Daniel) points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: 'And in the midst of the week,' he says, 'the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.' Now three years and six months constitute the half-week" (Irenaeus,"Against Heresies", Book 5, Section 3, 4).
The earliest commentary on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel was written by Hippolytus, and he believed that the fulfillment of the 70th Week remained in the future:
"Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, 'And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease.' By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations" [emphasis mine] (Hippolytus, "Treatise on Christ and Antichrist", Section 43).
Upvote
0
- May 16, 2010
- 2,903
- 1,593
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
What exactly is meant of 'being in the Body of Christ'? Could we say that all believers from Adam are 'in the Body of Christ' yet have a different future role according to which dispensation they lived.
Upvote
0
Lysimachus
Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Yes, I'm well aware of this. And do you know where Hippolytus and Irenaeus got their disjointed 70th week from?
From the Pseudepigraphal myths that distorted the 70th week of Daniel. These men thought the world would end circa 500 A.D., so they could not concieve the 1260 days spreading out as 1260 years. Only the Protestants had this privilege of looking back in retrospect and seeing the long drawn-out centuries unfold, as the 1260 years was meeting precise fulfillment in the rule of the Papacy. Papal Supremacy, granted by the state, was still to not be seen some 400+ years in the future from the time of Hippolytus and Ireneaus. So they had every right to place the 1260 days of Daniel and Revelation in the future. Also, do know that Tertullian did not hold to this theory. But all of them were agreed that the Roman State was the restraining power holding back the Little Horn from surfacing completely--and the Protestants, who were witnesses of the horrific persecutions of the Dark Ages, were rightfully able to disagree with those Church Fathers who were not able to foresee the future, but could only guess. WE do not need to guess, however. The futurism of "yesterday" is the historicism of "today". Much of what is past to our day was future to their day, but there will yet be one final showdown when the deadly wound heals, and the second phase of the tribulation ensues. There is no proven time element to this final great tribulation, but it will be short. The Church Fathers cannot be labeled "futurists". It is impossible. They were historicists according to hermeneutical rules. What makes one a "futurist" is when they live well beyond 500 A.D. and still place the 42 months of Revelation 13 in the future. The Protestants did their homework, and they could see where the Church Fathers could not see. They lived 1000 years after the Church Fathers, and were not rightfully able to look back in retrospect and see the fulfillment of the predicted Antichrist in the great Papal System.
The Church Fathers were simply wrong about placing the 70th week in the future. Their math doesn't even add up. I could spend days with you proving how it is impossible, absolutely impossible, to disconnect the 70th week if you wish to start the date at the proper time, which is 457 B.C. (not 444/445--these dates have been categorically proven wrong, as there was no decree issued on these dates). The 70 weeks fit precisely between 457 B.C. and 34 A.D. utilizing Solar Years, not lunar. In fact, lunar years do not work even if starting in 444 or 445. The last "week" existed between 27 A.D. and 34 A.D. Christ was the one who caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the "midst" of the 70th week. All value and spiritual meaning to sacrifices "cease" as Christ was the conclusion of the sacrificial system, despite the fact that obstinate Jews continued to perform them, but they were meaningless, as they had ceased.
While the early Church Fathers outwardly rejected the Pseudepigraphal books of junk as "canonical", they still read these writings, and sound historical research demonstrates that their reading of these writings help to shape their views in interpreting Revelation and 2 Thessalonians 2. The Church Fathers valued these books, but did not realize just how fused with paganism they were, written by Hellenistic Jews from Alexandria who had fused pagan myths with Old Testament ideology---this was uninspired. The "Beliar Myth" and the "distorted 70th week of Daniel" in these mythical books of junk are what helped to distort their view of the 70th week, and Dispensationalism today is the fruits of these uninspired books.
But do you want to know exactly WHERE Ireneaus and Hippolytus got their disjointed 70th week?
I'll tell you:
A Summary of the Origins of Dispensational-Futurist Theology:
1. The Jesuits created the modern system of dispensational futurism. Although the Jesuits derived certain aspects of this myth from "futuristic elements" embedded in the teachings of the early church fathers, the evidence is clear that they elaborated the elements of this myth from the early church fathers as a tool to destroy and counter the Protestant Reformation by attempting to lift the heat off the Papacy as the identity of Antichrist.
2. The theological elements of Futurism are derived from the extra-biblical writings, such as: The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Sibylline Oracles, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Esdras, T. Levi, The Ascension of Isaiah, etc. etc.
3. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha writings were written by Hellenistic Jews. These Jews mixed Babylonian, Persian, and Greek paganism with Judaism.
4. Long before the first advent of Christ, mystical Jews believed that an anti-messiah would come and oppose the Messiah; the anti-messiah was called "Beliar"; and he was believed to be the devil incarnate in human form.
5. The early Church Fathers such as Ireneaus, Hippolytus and Apollinaris borrowed Futuristic elements from these mythical, pseudepigraphal writings.
6. The Jesuits created Futurism from the Beliar myth found in these writings, and Modern Dispensational Futurism is nothing more than pagan mythology convoluted around real scripture.
7. The Protestants of the Reformation era knew about this fable, and Protestants separated the real Bible from the extra-Biblical writings.
8. When the Protestants studied the Bible without the fables of the Catholic Church fathers – the Beliar myth—they clearly identified the Papacy as the Antichrist!
9. Modern Protestant Churches the world over have abandoned the Protestant Reformation, and they now teach Catholic theology from the Council of Trent which commenced in 1545 A.D. The Jesuit Cardinals Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) and Robert Bellarmino (1542-1621) in the 16th and 17th centuries were foremost at setting out to accomplish this Protestant destroying task in scraping every bit of knowledge they could formulate from the Early Church Fathers to concoct and repackage the fantastical Jesuit scheme of Futurism. Jesuit Cardinal Manuel de Lacunza in the early 19th century, also an advocate of Futurism, deliberately attempted to take the pressure off the papacy by proposing that the Antichrist was still off in the future, and also laid the foundation for much of modern-day dispensational ideology. On the other hand, the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613) in the 16th and 17th century was set to the task of concocting the Preterist scheme. Both schemes blossomed about the same time and successfully got the "heat" off the Papacy from detection of Antichrist. It took about 300 years before the Protestant world allowed itself to become infected by these two deadly viruses. Dr. Maitland, James H. Todd, Henry Newman (who later became a Catholic Cardinal after accepting Futurism), Irving, and later Darby and Scofield all came to accept major elements of Ribera's and Bellarmine's fantastical views of a singled-out, future, one-man Antichrist (stemming from the Beliar myth that comes from Persian dualism and Zoroastrianism) as well as the incredible disjointed "gap" theory by which the Jesuits adopted from Hippolytus' erroneous construing of the first 69 units, or weeks of years, as reaching from the first year of Cyrus (or Darius the Mede) to the incarnation of Christ--a chronological impossibility without elongating the period. This "faulty reasoning" of Hippolytus inspired modern Futurism's "gap" theory.
10. Dispensationalism is simply another branch of Catholicism—developed by the Jesuits in the Counter Reformation.
2. The theological elements of Futurism are derived from the extra-biblical writings, such as: The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Sibylline Oracles, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Esdras, T. Levi, The Ascension of Isaiah, etc. etc.
3. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha writings were written by Hellenistic Jews. These Jews mixed Babylonian, Persian, and Greek paganism with Judaism.
4. Long before the first advent of Christ, mystical Jews believed that an anti-messiah would come and oppose the Messiah; the anti-messiah was called "Beliar"; and he was believed to be the devil incarnate in human form.
5. The early Church Fathers such as Ireneaus, Hippolytus and Apollinaris borrowed Futuristic elements from these mythical, pseudepigraphal writings.
6. The Jesuits created Futurism from the Beliar myth found in these writings, and Modern Dispensational Futurism is nothing more than pagan mythology convoluted around real scripture.
7. The Protestants of the Reformation era knew about this fable, and Protestants separated the real Bible from the extra-Biblical writings.
8. When the Protestants studied the Bible without the fables of the Catholic Church fathers – the Beliar myth—they clearly identified the Papacy as the Antichrist!
9. Modern Protestant Churches the world over have abandoned the Protestant Reformation, and they now teach Catholic theology from the Council of Trent which commenced in 1545 A.D. The Jesuit Cardinals Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) and Robert Bellarmino (1542-1621) in the 16th and 17th centuries were foremost at setting out to accomplish this Protestant destroying task in scraping every bit of knowledge they could formulate from the Early Church Fathers to concoct and repackage the fantastical Jesuit scheme of Futurism. Jesuit Cardinal Manuel de Lacunza in the early 19th century, also an advocate of Futurism, deliberately attempted to take the pressure off the papacy by proposing that the Antichrist was still off in the future, and also laid the foundation for much of modern-day dispensational ideology. On the other hand, the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613) in the 16th and 17th century was set to the task of concocting the Preterist scheme. Both schemes blossomed about the same time and successfully got the "heat" off the Papacy from detection of Antichrist. It took about 300 years before the Protestant world allowed itself to become infected by these two deadly viruses. Dr. Maitland, James H. Todd, Henry Newman (who later became a Catholic Cardinal after accepting Futurism), Irving, and later Darby and Scofield all came to accept major elements of Ribera's and Bellarmine's fantastical views of a singled-out, future, one-man Antichrist (stemming from the Beliar myth that comes from Persian dualism and Zoroastrianism) as well as the incredible disjointed "gap" theory by which the Jesuits adopted from Hippolytus' erroneous construing of the first 69 units, or weeks of years, as reaching from the first year of Cyrus (or Darius the Mede) to the incarnation of Christ--a chronological impossibility without elongating the period. This "faulty reasoning" of Hippolytus inspired modern Futurism's "gap" theory.
10. Dispensationalism is simply another branch of Catholicism—developed by the Jesuits in the Counter Reformation.
It now becomes the duty of the reader to verify and evaluate the data which supports these facts for themselves. Although it will be very tempting for any Dispensationalist to ignore this material, to such I entreat with utmost sincerity; that they wholly refrain from the temptation to embark upon this injurious mindset. May the truths presented in this exposition ring loud and clear in the Protestant and Christian world! My research has lead me to conclude that not only is Dispensational-Futurist ideology wholly at variance with the Sacred Declarations of Holy Writ, but also an ideology developed by the Counter Reformation, and will be used as a catalyst to help bring about the New World Order. I invite you all to listen to the following Radio Audio program as well as read the accompanying documents to help establish a foundation for all the forthcoming material.
Click Audio: The Truth About Dispensational Futurism - Part 1 & 2 (2 hour Radio Program) - by Mike Warren and D.S. Farris
YouTube version: Cut 1 - Cut 2 - Cut 3 - Cut 4 - Cut 5 - Cut 6 - Cut 7 - Cut 8 - Cut 9 - Cut 10 - Cut 11
Along with the above audio/radio program, I recommend the following document that goes along with the audio above:
Futurism: The Counterfeit Prophecy (PDF Document) – by D.S. Farris -- this article goes along with the audio program above – (NOTE: I STRONGLY ADVISE you to read it thoroughly FROM BEGINNING TO END CAREFULLY, as it will lay a crucial foundation. It is my sincere prayer and hope that the data presented in this article will not be ignored by any dispensationalist or futurist.)
- Differences Between Protestantism And Catholicism, The Jesuit Scheme Of Prophetic Interpretation, Ribera and Bellarmine, The Early Church Fathers, EXTRA BIBLICAL INFLUENCES ON THE CHURCH FATHERS, The "Beliar Man"
P.S. The above Radio Program and Document can be found at Hearing The Truth (these men hold to Historicist beliefs, and have done a PROFOUND job in their research. You can find their full list of audio programs as well as a free online copy of D.S. Farris’ book entitled: “Prophetic Toolchest for Dismantling the Dispensational Delusion” (about 550 pages long divided into 12 chapters). Feel free to support their ministry if you like what you read and hear.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes, I know exactly where they got it from--the Scriptures that speak of the 70th week:
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy" (Dan.9:24).
These verses are speaking about what will be the state of affairs in the city of Jerusalem at the end of the 70th week. And common sense dictates that "everlasting righteousness" does not exist there now so therefore the 70th week has not yet been fulfilled.
Let us look at the verse which describes the events which will occur during the seventieth week:
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (Dan. 9: 27).
There is no evidence that the Lord Jesus ever confirmed any covenant for a time period of seven years. Therefore the word "he" at the beginning of this verse does not refer to the Lord Jesus.
If the Lord Jesus confirmed the any covenant for seven years, then the Historicists should be able to point to an event that marks the end of that seven year period. After all, the climax of Daniels prophecy occurs at the end of the 70th week when Daniel is told that many wonderful things will come upon his people and upon his city, Jerusalem.
The Historicists have deluded their minds into believing that the 70th week of Daniel has already been fulfilled and they expect us to throw our reason to the wind so that we can also believe their fables!
Upvote
0
The Body of Christ is also called the "New Man":
"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one New Man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one Body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby" (Eph.2:14-16).
"And have put on the New Man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all" (Col.3:10-11).
The New Man could not have come into exidstence until the middle wall of partition that separated the Jew from the Gentile was broken down and that did not happen until the Cross:
"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph.2:14-15).
Upvote
0
Lysimachus
Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
I have responded to every single one of these arguments in a thorough, exegetical, and methodical manner.
If you care to read them, you can visit the following link, and you are free to quote me and copy and paste my quotes here if you like to refute me. No point in repasting all the info when all you have to do is click below:
The 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 - Vindicating the Historical-Messianic Computation
Good luck in dealing with the arguments.
Upvote
0
Lysimachus
Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
#1. The point is, "you have 70 weeks to do this...bring in everlasting righteousness....if not, you will be cut off". The result? They didn't do it. In other words, "you have this much time cut out for you to get this done...but if not, you the kingdom will be given to a new nation"
#2. Christ fulfilled where Israel failed. "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him." (Matthew 3:15)
Christ fulfilled this prophecy, but the Jewish Nation did not. Jesus was the true Israel. Hosea 11:1 says "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Quoting directly from this verse, Matthew shows how Jesus was the fulfillment of true Israel: "And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matthew 2:15).
Jesus fulfilled "all righteousness", and ratified the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20)
#3.The vision that was to be sealed was a privilege God was giving Israel--"you have 70 weeks to seal the vision and the prophecy. If not, you will not have accomplished your mission that I have asked you to do, and this world will go on, and I will be forced to move on to new people, a new nation." That is the point of the text. They could have sealed up the vision, but they didn't. The issue is particularly pertaining to the Jews. Not to mention that the 70 weeks are the first portion of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. The 70 weeks (490 years) are "cut off" ("determined" = "chathak" = "cut off", according to original Hebrew dictionaries) from the 2300 days (2300 years), so this idea of cutting off the 70th week is erroneous, because the 70 weeks are already cut off of the larger time prophecy (2300 years) for the Jews. That prophecy of the 2300 years of Daniel 8:14 terminates in 1844 (BC 457 - AD 1844 -- when the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary would commence).
#4. God gave Israel a list of things to accomplish. And if they didn't accomplish those things, they would cease to be God's commissioned nation to take the good news of salvation to the whole world. And that's exactly what happened. 34 A.D. was the close of probation for Israel as a nation. Not Jews as individuals (who will now be grafted into the body of Jesus Christ, the Church), but probation was closed for them as a nation when they stoned the last messenger, Stephen, in 34 A.D. This is when the gospel went forth to the gentiles. From Christ's Baptism to the stoning of Stephen, 27 A.D. to 34 AD. is exactly 1 week, or 7 years. Christ was crucified EXACTLY in the midst of that week. The "he" is Jesus Christ, not Antichrist. It is serious business to confuse Jesus Christ for antichrist".
#5. Nowhere does it state that the destruction of Jerusalem must occur at the end of the 70 weeks.
As Dr. Hasel succinctly states:
"Some also argue that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (mentioned in the prophecy) requires a termination in A.D. 70 rather than A.D. 34. However, that may be countered with the fact that it is the death of the Messiah (predicted within the prophecy) that sealed the fate of the ceremonial system as well as of the national state. The events of A.D. 70 are simply the subsequent external consequences of the advent and death of the Messiah, the chief foci of the prophecy.
While objects can be made to all four of the major interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27, the historical-messianic interpretation does not appear to be subject to the chronological, exegetical, and historical difficulties encountered by other systems. It thus recommends itself as the most adequate of the major interpretations." (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, p. 28, 29)
While objects can be made to all four of the major interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27, the historical-messianic interpretation does not appear to be subject to the chronological, exegetical, and historical difficulties encountered by other systems. It thus recommends itself as the most adequate of the major interpretations." (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, p. 28, 29)
The text simply does not state that the destruction of Jerusalem occurs at the end point of the 70th week. 70 A.D. was a "result", but the handwriting and doom was already on the wall in 31 and 34 A.D. The last half of the week was extended mercy when the Disciples of Christ continued preaching to the Jewish Nation for 3 1/2 more years after Christ's death and ascension. The doom was already pronounced and sealed during the last half of the week from 31 A.D. to 34 A.D. (extended probation, extended mercy to the Jews), but the Jewish Nation sealed their fate as those who would carry the Divine Credentials in 34 A.D. when they stoned the last messenger, Stephen. The Jews then said "lo, we turn to the gentiles!" (Acts 13:46).
The original languages says "make strong the covenant". It is speaking of the fact that Jesus was strengthening the covenant he had already made with the Jews before. He is not making a covenant here. For 1 week, the covenant was being strengthened, from 27 A.D. from Christ's baptism to 34 A.D. until the stoning of Stephen.
The expression higbir, which is applied to the covenant, suggests that the covenant to be made strong was already in existence. The typical word used for making a new covenant is karat. However, higbir is used instead of karat. Kline suggests that the idea expressed by higbir "might have been expressed by the word heqim, 'cause to stand'," which has been used for the conformation of the covenant (Deut 8:18; Lev 26:9; Ezek 16:60,62).
The import of the expression higbir which presupposes an existing covenant, the connection between the covenant in Daniel's prayer (vs. 4) and that of the prophecy (vs. 27), and the view that the Messiah starts making strong a covenant from the beginning of the seventieth week would, strongly point to the Sinaitic covenant as the one in focus in vs. 27. While the "new covenant" is universal, this covenant which starts at the beginning of the Messiah's appearance seems to focus on Daniel's people. However, with the Sinaitic covenant confirmed for Daniel's people, the "new covenant" would have been to them a renewal of the old with new privileges.
Chronologically, the making strong of a covenant (vs. 27) starts after the sixty-nine weeks and at the beginning of the seventieth week when the Messiah the Prince appears. It ends at the termination of the seventieth week.
Once again, I repeat. The detachment of the 70th week is a Jesuit fabrication, which is no more mythical than the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or Micky Mouse. Ireneaus and Hippolytus are practically, if not the only, early expositors that concocted this myth, and it was because their minds were shaped by Psuedepigraphal myths that had their inspiration in Babylon and Persian Zoroastrian dualism. Futurism is what undermines the Protestant faith. It is the worst CURSE against Christianity, because it takes the heat off the Papacy and provides fuel for the reintroduction of the Dark Ages, and creates a recipe for the world to wonder after the beast once again.
The Protestants gave their LIVES for this view. MILLIONS were burned to death on the steak---and it was their belief that the 70 weeks were consecutive, and that the 1260 years were a present reality in their time, that lead them to point the stern finger at the Papacy as being the Antichrist Beast power. When Futurists accuse Historicists of hanging on to fairy tales concerning these interpretations of the 70 weeks, they are committing adultery with Roman Church State, and preparing the Beast to clench the Protestants in their jaws.
Now I want you to notice verse 26 very carefully:
“the people of the prince that shall come” – Futurists interpret this to mean that the “people will come”…or “the armies will come up to the city”. However, the grammatical structure is not referring to the “people” coming. It’s really saying “….the prince [messiah] that shall come”, not the people! There are two ways to interpret it, but in the light of the understanding presented, it HAS to be “the Messiah that shall come”….based on tons of scriptural references that speak about the coming of the Messiah. This goes marvelously with John 1:11 which says: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.”—“the people of the prince”. The “prince” in verse 26 and the “he” in verse 27 are both speaking of Jesus Christ, not Antichrist. To read antichrist into these passages forces us to stretch the texts far beyond their simplicity.
Gerhard F. Hasel insightfully states:
Ninth, another serious problem concerns the assumption of an unprecedented covenant-making by antichrist. [A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, (New York, 1911), p. 142; Walvoord, Daniel, pp. 232-236).] The OT (and the NT) “contain no hint of any such covenant at all, let alone some earlier one that he could confirm at this point in Dan. 9.” [Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 389.] The difficulty with this assumption is that it takes a lesser figure, namely “the prince that shall come” (vs. 26), as the antecedent of the “he” in verse 27, rather than the dominant figure, the “Messiah” (vs. 26). The word “prince” is a subordinate figure in verse 26. It is not even the subject of the clause. The subject of the clause is “the people.” Therefore, the fitting grammatical antecedent of the “he” (vs. 27) is the “Messiah” (vs. 26).
Tenth, the futurists interpreters transform the “prince” into “a future deputy of the devil” [Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 389.] and a “future enemy of the people of Israel.” [Ibid.] This interpretation overlooks the fact that the emphasis in verse 26 is not upon the “prince” but upon the “people of the prince.” Young points out, “This prince, therefore, must be one who rules over these people, . . . he must be their contemporary, alive when they are alive.” [Young, pp. 211-212] A prince living 1900 years later than the people is quite contrary to the text. L. Wood replies that the phrase “the one coming” means “from whom will come.” This makes the entire phrase read “the people from whom will come a prince.” [Wood, p. 258.] However, such a reading is not supported by the Hebrew text.
Eleventh, recent study of the poetry of 9:24-27 indicates a very intricate literary structure. [See J. Doukhan, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study,” AUSS 17 (1979): 1-22; W. H. Shea, “The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27,” chap. 3, pp. 75-118 in this volume.] Such a structure binds the entire section together in literary patterns that do not permit the kind of chronological fragmentation demanded by the dispensational system. The literary arrangement supports the idea that the three titles—Messiah Prince (vs. 25), the Messiah (vs. 26a), and the Prince (vs. 26b)—refer to the same person who is cut off in the middle of the last week. [Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27,” pp. 92-94 in this volume.] (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, pp. 24, 25)
Tenth, the futurists interpreters transform the “prince” into “a future deputy of the devil” [Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 389.] and a “future enemy of the people of Israel.” [Ibid.] This interpretation overlooks the fact that the emphasis in verse 26 is not upon the “prince” but upon the “people of the prince.” Young points out, “This prince, therefore, must be one who rules over these people, . . . he must be their contemporary, alive when they are alive.” [Young, pp. 211-212] A prince living 1900 years later than the people is quite contrary to the text. L. Wood replies that the phrase “the one coming” means “from whom will come.” This makes the entire phrase read “the people from whom will come a prince.” [Wood, p. 258.] However, such a reading is not supported by the Hebrew text.
Eleventh, recent study of the poetry of 9:24-27 indicates a very intricate literary structure. [See J. Doukhan, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study,” AUSS 17 (1979): 1-22; W. H. Shea, “The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27,” chap. 3, pp. 75-118 in this volume.] Such a structure binds the entire section together in literary patterns that do not permit the kind of chronological fragmentation demanded by the dispensational system. The literary arrangement supports the idea that the three titles—Messiah Prince (vs. 25), the Messiah (vs. 26a), and the Prince (vs. 26b)—refer to the same person who is cut off in the middle of the last week. [Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27,” pp. 92-94 in this volume.] (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, pp. 24, 25)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 16, 2010
- 2,903
- 1,593
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Jerry,
So it seems what you are saying is that 'the Body of Christ' potentially was established since the cross but was not realized until Paul's revealing of it through his Epistles?
Upvote
0
G
glen55
Guest
Luke 21:12-24, before all of these, all of these what? Luke 21:8-11.
The end time signs for that generation 12-24 were not the end time signs right before he returns 8-11. Matthew 23:37-38 is the same desolation of the city being spoken of in Luke 21:12-24, a judgement on the house of Judah who was to be scattered among the nations.
Romans 11:26-27 and Joel 3:2-21 is yet future, they only tasted of that world to come in the probational pentacostal period of the hope of Israel Hebrews 8:8-13, Acts 1:6-7, all point to Israels restoration, not the mystery of this age.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
