Jason Savoie posts in the group
“Discovering Dispensationalism”:
I have noticed that posttribbers seem to distance themselves from dispensationalism. If a postribber is a futurist, believing the 70Th Week is yet future, and believes in a premill return of Christ with a restoration of national Israel as the people of God for the MK after the GT, wouldn’t that make them dispensational? (They may equate the DOL with the second coming of Christ.)
Ross J Purdy says to Jason Savoie:
What if they agree with everything except that the 70th is future?
Jason Savoie says to
Ross J Purdy
that would be more of a preterist view.
Ross J Purdy says to
Jason Savoie
On that point. Yet with a future millennial kingdom and a future restored Israel.
Jason Savoie says to
Ross J Purdy
So a view that puts the 70th Week in the past but still believes in a restored Israel and future Millennium? I don't think I've come across that view. Unless it some kind of preterist-futurist view, maybe involving dual fulfillment, or a historicist-futurist view of some kind?
Ross J Purdy says to
Jason Savoie
Just a futurist view that takes Dan 9 literally. Dan states 70 weeks are DETERMINED. Thus it is an impossibility to interpret it else-wise. Dan does not not say 69 weeks are determined, followed by an indeterminate gap. An indeterminate insertion makes nonsense out of Dan's statement.
Jason Savoie says to
Ross J Purdy
so a gap in the middle of the 70th week? About 40 years?
Ross J Purdy says to
Jason Savoie
No. The desolation occurs after the 69th week by about 40 years. That also puts it after the 70th week. Daniel doesn't say the desolation is in the 70th, he only says it is after the 69th without stating how long after.
Jason Savoie says to
Ross J Purdy
doesn’t Dan 9:27 put the desolation in the middle of the Week? Jesus quotes 9:27.
Ross J Purdy says to
Jason Savoie
No. Only the end to sacrifice and offering is put in the middle and is parallel to the Messiah cut off in 26.
The people of the prince is parallel to the one who makes desolate and the destruction, flood, war, desolations is parallel to the consummation poured out on the desolate. This is after the 70 weeks as well as the 69 in AD70 and not part of the 70th. These are negative results and not part of the listed 6 items to be achieved within the 70.
Jason Savoie says to
Ross J Purdy
but Dan 9:27 speaks of the abomination of desolation on the temple in the midst of the week, and the end of the desolation is at the end of the time. And Jesus references Dan 9:27 concerning the AOD, using the LXX. The end of the daily sacrifices in Daniel are referenced several times, along with the AOD. Daniel 12, speaking of “the time of the end,” speaks of the great tribulation, the end of the daily, and the AOD, and a time, times, half a time, the same length of 42 months or 1260 days, the second half of the Week. After the AOD, there will be Great Tribulation, for the second half of the Week, being a time, times, half a time, also referenced as 42 months or 1260 days, according to Revelation chapters 11-13.
Ross J Purdy says to
Jason Savoie
No, not in the midst of the week. Yes Jesus referenced the desolation. The daily sacrifices stopped with every desolation. Dan 12 references the future desolation which is another one. The desolation will be the 3.5 year tribulation. There is no first or second half, there is only the 3.5 year tribulation.
Jason Savoie says to
Ross J Purdy
I believe every reference to 3.5 years is the second half of the Week, which ends with the Second Coming, that ends GT. Every reference to putting an end to the daily and AOD in Daniel is the act of either Antiochus 4 (near future from Daniel) or Antichrist (far future from Daniel) , depending on the reference. At the end of the Week, Israel will be restored under the terms of the New Covenant and the MK set up, probably during the extended days to the 3.5 years of Daniel 12: “ And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.
“But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.”
Ross J Purdy says to
Jason Savoie
I agree with you on what happens at the end of the tribulation. But there is nothing connecting the 3.5 with any week. We have three passages which mention a 3.5 year period in Revelation. Never a seven year period! If it were a second half of a week, why is a seven year period never mentioned anywhere in Revelation. Why is there nothing remotely indication it is half a week or the second half of something? Given no evidence and no exegetical basis, a seven year period or the notion it is a second half of anything is pure, the most bald assumption.
Jason Savoie says to
Ross J Purdy
the midweek event is what is significant. The event in the holy place is what “reveals” the lawless one, foreshadowed by what Antiochus 4 did. The second half of the Week is how we get the 3 1/2 years of duration, reference in several ways in both Daniel and Revelation. After the 70 Weeks, Israel, Daniel’s “people” (and the “holy city”) will be restored, by Christ, under the terms of the New Covenant. The beginning of the 70th marks a confirming or strengthening of a covenant by the one who will break it, an act that involves what reveals him—that one becomes the beast, the 2 stages from the 7th to the 8th head, and he persecutes Israel and the saints to the end of the Week, defeated at Armageddon, at the coming of Christ, then Israel, Daniel’s people (and the “holy city”), are delivered and saved, at the end of the Week. That’s how I see it.
Ross J Purdy says to
Jason Savoie
There is no second half nor is there a week to begin with! You are assuming it with no basis.
Nothing in Dan speaks of anyone breaking a covenant. You can't break what is only being confirmed. one might opt out or be excluded, but you can't break what is not in place. There is no indication of an antichrist/beast in Dan 9 nor an anticovenant. Such an answer to Dan's prayer becomes no answer at all and thus an anticlimax to the petition. It is an imposition upon the chapter that not only does not work is, well, simply absurd.
Jason Savoie says to
Ross J Purdy
You are right, Dan 9.27 doesn't say a covenant is broken. That is an assumption.
Some translations say the covenant is “strengthened”--why couldn't an existing covenant or treaty be strengthened for another 7 years, but is broken at the halfway point? I am only looking at possibilities on this. We don't always have every detail laid out. Time will tell how it will all transpire. I take a wait and see approach to a lot of prophecy. Time will tell.
I am using the word “week” because that is what the translations use. Is it an assumption then to use that word? I understand it to be a period of 7 of years, because the first 69 weeks must be 7s of years (483 years) span the time from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the prince, and depending on what dating system one uses, it could be from either Cyrus the Great or Artaxerxes until the year of Christ's “triumphal entry.” So, how's that an assumption with no basis?
You claim there is no second half, but I have 3 translations of 3 different Greek texts of the Old Testament, two Septuagint versions and the Theodotion, and 2 of them speak of “in/ by half of the week'” the other has “midst.” Am I assuming when the text says in half of the week the sacrifices cease and the AOD is in the temple?
I also don't understand why you say there is no AOD in the temple in Dan 9.27. All these Greek texts say there is an AOD in or on the temple in connection with the ceasing of the sacrifices and offerings. Since they happen in the half point, and it's a 7-year period, it just follows that 3 ½ years are left.
The event in the half point and the second half all fit with the length of GT being 3 ½ years, after which, Israel and Jerusalem are delivered by the coming of Christ. Isn't that the conclusion of the 70 weeks, which are determined for Daniel's people and city?
There is a difference between the desolation of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the AOD in the temple by the lawless one/ beast/ antichrist. The former happened after the 69th week (after 483 years plus about 40 years), but the latter is yet future, which I believe is in the 70th 7 of years, which has been postponed.
You may not like the gap view, between the 69th and 70th, but it's not as absurd as putting a 40-year gap in the middle of the 70th Week, which many preterists have to do. And they have to, because Dan 9:27 speaks of the AOD in the temple--which you for some reason deny--and they have to see it as an abomination in the temple in Jerusalem near AD70, but I am convinced that it is the AOD Jesus referenced that immediately precedes the GT yet future.
I just want to add that to claim the end of sacrifice and offering in the midst of the 70th week is the death of Christ is an assumption as well. Everywhere else in Daniel refers to either what Antiochus 4 did (and compare with 1 Maccabees 1.41-49) or what antichrist does, in connection with the AOD in the temple. Dan 9.27 clearly speaks of the AOD in the temple in the Greek texts. So, I have a clear basis for this conclusion.
We may just have to agree to disagree about the 70th weeks relationship to the time of the end.
We may still at least agree about a future 3 ½ year GT and what happens at the end--though I am a posttrib dispy, which I don't know your thoughts on that, but that was what my OP was dealing with, before all this other came up.
No comments:
Post a Comment