https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FyoHiY1gg8&list=UU_6yk4Q5RMk1MCUj5A2a-jw&hd=1
I actually disagree with the whole Psalm 83 War theory. And a Pre-Millennial Gog and Magog invasion. But this insight seems more credible. Especially if Christians In Iran are feelign called by The Holy Spirit to pay attention to it.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
Were some of the Angels once normal Human beings
You're probably assuming this is a silly question, only movies and TV shows sometimes suggest Angels are Humans who died, but clearly that's not Biblical. But actually Revelation has two verses that seem to imply exactly that.
19:10. "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
22:8-9. "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God."
Most gloss over these just assuming they're about how Believers will be like the Angels in the Resurrection. But the exact terminology is clearly saying more then that. They are Brethren.
Clearly not all Angels are. For one thing no Fallen Angels can be, once a Human is saved and redeemed in Jesus that can't be undone.
Also no Old Testament Angels were in my view. I believe this is referring to people who are Resurrected (truly Resurrected), and no one was Resurrected before Jesus was in 30 AD. So all Old Testament Angels are separate Creations of God, not kin to Adam.
This takes me again to Matthew 27:52-53 during it's account of the Death of Jesus on The Cross.
"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
Post-Tribulationists (and maybe also some Pre-Wrathers) and others who's Eschatology has trouble with The Resurrection of Believers not happening all at once, or who want to deny the Resurrection we are promised is a literal Bodily one at all. Need to insist that these are only a temporary Resurrection like Lazurus, not part of the True Resurrection.
I like to respond to that by saying Jesus had already done that, that wasn't a new sign anymore. This is after his Resurrection so I feel it must be in part to further show that the Resurrection has come. And then I tie it into the Doctrine of Christ's descent into Hades/Sheol (commonly called Hell).
But it is hard to prove doctrinally a detail only alluded to in one of the four Gospels. None the less I have felt lead by The Holy Spirit to view this frequently over looked detail as vital to unlocking many mysteries related to The Resurrection.
Now that I have also noticed this overlooked fact from The Book of Revelation, I feel assured more then ever my view is right. Many Old Testament saints have already been Resurrected and have become Angels.
Remember, Angel is not a zoological, or technical term, it simply means messenger. So certainly God could be using these Resurrected individuals as messengers if he wants to. And it is used sometimes of still living not yet resurrected Humans, like Jesus using it of John the Baptist quoting Malachi 3. And I agree with the view that the Angels of the seven Churches were believers in those congregations who held that as their office.
Were all Old Testament Saints Resurrected then? The wording says many not all. And indeed I don't want to rule out any pre 30 AD bodies we know are still here un-resurrected because we have their bodies from being among the Saved. Any remaining would be Resurrected at the same time as the post-Rapture saints.
Why was Satan interested in the body of Moses in that account related in Jude's Epistle? Some want to tie that into the Two Witnesses mystery, but I view the other Witness as Enoch. I think perhaps God wanted the rising of Moses to also be a witness to the Resurrection. I've seen some theorize this passage is about Moses' Resurrection, Michael seems to be linked to the Resurrection of Saints in Daniel 12.
The two verses from Revelation are different in the wording they use. It is unclear if they're actually the same Angel. I'm hesitant to argue that of course John wouldn't start worshiping again the same one that had already corrected him, his doing that at all doesn't seem logical to us, you'd have to be there.
The scene from Chapter 22 is immediately followed by John being given an instruction that parallels instructions given to Moses by God about the writing of The Torah in The Torah. So that has me thinking Moses could be who this is. The beginning of the Canon and the end of the Canon together.
The 22 verse is using terminology that implies an Old Testament saint. The verse in Chapter 19 sounds at first like it could be of a New Testament believer with it's terminology. But no one of The Church Age has been Resurrected yet. Maybe he's the thief who was on the Cross next to Jesus who was promised he'd be with him in Paradise?
His story is a strong Testimony of The Gospel. And he's in a unique place historically, the only Saved person known to have died after the end of the "Law and the Prophets", which "were until John (The Baptist)", but before the Birth of The Church at Pentecost. There could have been others, but he's the only Biblically documented example.
The 24 Elders are frequently by Pre-Tirbbers identified as The Church now in Heaven after The Rapture. Their proof of this is being described as individuals made "kings and priests" in 5:10. Which John says of us believers in 1:6. As a Mid-Tribber I agree with Pre-Tribbers on the uniqueness of The Church, not all saved are part of The Church. But this particular promise to Co-Reign with Christ is not among the Church specific promises.
David we know will be be a co-ruler during The Messianic Kingdom from Ezekiel 34 and 37 as a "Prince"(Nasi). He I believe is the same "Prince"(Nasi) from Ezekiel 40-48. Revelation 20 informs us that those post Rapture saints martyred for not taking The Mark or worshiping The Beast's Image will be co-ruling during The Millennium.
I agree that it's significant that the 24 Elders are not in the Old Testament visions of The Heavenly Throne Room in Isaiah and Ezekiel.
The 24 Elders have Crowns already. So they've already received rewards. The Church Age believers rewards are given after The Seventh Trumpet based on what's said in Revelation 11. So I think these also are Resurrected Old Testament believers.
Because I view Revelation 21 as clearly defining The Church/The Bride of Christ as synonymous with New Jerusalem. I also conclude that The Church isn't on Earth during The Millennium. So I must also conclude that the saints with Jesus when he returns riding on a White Horse in Revelation 19 are also those Resurrected in 30 A.D.
Jude quoting Enoch said there he would come with "Ten Thousands of his Saints". That seems like a lot to be strangely unnoticed by Secular history. Chuck Missler and Mark Easton argue that Jesus in his Resurrection was only visible to Saved individuals during those 40 days in 30 A.D.
I feel Enoch's Prophecy helps prove my point, they can't be all the Saved. The Church has far more then a mere Tens of Thousands. As a Mid-Tirbber I view the 144,000 as the bare minimum of just those alive when The Rapture happens, much less the Dead in Christ who Rise first.
19:10. "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
22:8-9. "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God."
Most gloss over these just assuming they're about how Believers will be like the Angels in the Resurrection. But the exact terminology is clearly saying more then that. They are Brethren.
Clearly not all Angels are. For one thing no Fallen Angels can be, once a Human is saved and redeemed in Jesus that can't be undone.
Also no Old Testament Angels were in my view. I believe this is referring to people who are Resurrected (truly Resurrected), and no one was Resurrected before Jesus was in 30 AD. So all Old Testament Angels are separate Creations of God, not kin to Adam.
This takes me again to Matthew 27:52-53 during it's account of the Death of Jesus on The Cross.
"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
Post-Tribulationists (and maybe also some Pre-Wrathers) and others who's Eschatology has trouble with The Resurrection of Believers not happening all at once, or who want to deny the Resurrection we are promised is a literal Bodily one at all. Need to insist that these are only a temporary Resurrection like Lazurus, not part of the True Resurrection.
I like to respond to that by saying Jesus had already done that, that wasn't a new sign anymore. This is after his Resurrection so I feel it must be in part to further show that the Resurrection has come. And then I tie it into the Doctrine of Christ's descent into Hades/Sheol (commonly called Hell).
But it is hard to prove doctrinally a detail only alluded to in one of the four Gospels. None the less I have felt lead by The Holy Spirit to view this frequently over looked detail as vital to unlocking many mysteries related to The Resurrection.
Now that I have also noticed this overlooked fact from The Book of Revelation, I feel assured more then ever my view is right. Many Old Testament saints have already been Resurrected and have become Angels.
Remember, Angel is not a zoological, or technical term, it simply means messenger. So certainly God could be using these Resurrected individuals as messengers if he wants to. And it is used sometimes of still living not yet resurrected Humans, like Jesus using it of John the Baptist quoting Malachi 3. And I agree with the view that the Angels of the seven Churches were believers in those congregations who held that as their office.
Were all Old Testament Saints Resurrected then? The wording says many not all. And indeed I don't want to rule out any pre 30 AD bodies we know are still here un-resurrected because we have their bodies from being among the Saved. Any remaining would be Resurrected at the same time as the post-Rapture saints.
Why was Satan interested in the body of Moses in that account related in Jude's Epistle? Some want to tie that into the Two Witnesses mystery, but I view the other Witness as Enoch. I think perhaps God wanted the rising of Moses to also be a witness to the Resurrection. I've seen some theorize this passage is about Moses' Resurrection, Michael seems to be linked to the Resurrection of Saints in Daniel 12.
The two verses from Revelation are different in the wording they use. It is unclear if they're actually the same Angel. I'm hesitant to argue that of course John wouldn't start worshiping again the same one that had already corrected him, his doing that at all doesn't seem logical to us, you'd have to be there.
The scene from Chapter 22 is immediately followed by John being given an instruction that parallels instructions given to Moses by God about the writing of The Torah in The Torah. So that has me thinking Moses could be who this is. The beginning of the Canon and the end of the Canon together.
The 22 verse is using terminology that implies an Old Testament saint. The verse in Chapter 19 sounds at first like it could be of a New Testament believer with it's terminology. But no one of The Church Age has been Resurrected yet. Maybe he's the thief who was on the Cross next to Jesus who was promised he'd be with him in Paradise?
His story is a strong Testimony of The Gospel. And he's in a unique place historically, the only Saved person known to have died after the end of the "Law and the Prophets", which "were until John (The Baptist)", but before the Birth of The Church at Pentecost. There could have been others, but he's the only Biblically documented example.
The 24 Elders are frequently by Pre-Tirbbers identified as The Church now in Heaven after The Rapture. Their proof of this is being described as individuals made "kings and priests" in 5:10. Which John says of us believers in 1:6. As a Mid-Tribber I agree with Pre-Tribbers on the uniqueness of The Church, not all saved are part of The Church. But this particular promise to Co-Reign with Christ is not among the Church specific promises.
David we know will be be a co-ruler during The Messianic Kingdom from Ezekiel 34 and 37 as a "Prince"(Nasi). He I believe is the same "Prince"(Nasi) from Ezekiel 40-48. Revelation 20 informs us that those post Rapture saints martyred for not taking The Mark or worshiping The Beast's Image will be co-ruling during The Millennium.
I agree that it's significant that the 24 Elders are not in the Old Testament visions of The Heavenly Throne Room in Isaiah and Ezekiel.
The 24 Elders have Crowns already. So they've already received rewards. The Church Age believers rewards are given after The Seventh Trumpet based on what's said in Revelation 11. So I think these also are Resurrected Old Testament believers.
Because I view Revelation 21 as clearly defining The Church/The Bride of Christ as synonymous with New Jerusalem. I also conclude that The Church isn't on Earth during The Millennium. So I must also conclude that the saints with Jesus when he returns riding on a White Horse in Revelation 19 are also those Resurrected in 30 A.D.
Jude quoting Enoch said there he would come with "Ten Thousands of his Saints". That seems like a lot to be strangely unnoticed by Secular history. Chuck Missler and Mark Easton argue that Jesus in his Resurrection was only visible to Saved individuals during those 40 days in 30 A.D.
I feel Enoch's Prophecy helps prove my point, they can't be all the Saved. The Church has far more then a mere Tens of Thousands. As a Mid-Tirbber I view the 144,000 as the bare minimum of just those alive when The Rapture happens, much less the Dead in Christ who Rise first.
The After Life and The Ressurection
One of the problems in the world today is that Casual Christianity looks
at the after life in a way that is inherently Pagan. It’s not a matter
of going to Heaven or Hell.
The perfect eternity we’re looking forward to is NOT contemporary Heaven, contemporary Heaven is going to be us giving an account before God of our lives, washing our Robes in the Blood of the Lamb. What we’re looking forward to is the Resurrection and the Millennium and then the New Heaven and New Earth. The Restoration of the Kosmos to how it was before Adam Sinned.
This is part of why I object to Preterisim and Amillennialism. It’s not just about Eschatology. A denial of the Literal fulfillment of the Millennium allows a Christian to still hold a Pagan view of the After life. And a denial of the literal Resurrection of believers defeats the point of the Resurrection of Christ.
I believe that Salvation can’t be lost, but I believe there are ramifications when a Christian sins, one of those I‘ll discus here. Because all saved during the Church Age have the opportunity to Reign with Christ, as Kings and Priests after the Order ofMelchizedek . But not all will. We can’t lose our entrance into the Kingdom, but we can lose our Inheritance. There are also rewards for the good works we do, but some will get no rewards.
There are three Greek nouns translated Hell in the KJV rendering of the New Testament. While the Bible often uses different words for the same thing, these 3 names are all distinct entities.
1. Hades, is the equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol (The word for Hell in the Hebrew Bible). Prior to the Cross all of the Dead went there, not just the unsaved. Luke 16 reveals that is has two compartments, the Saved were comforted in Abraham’s Bosom.
2. Tartaros, this word appears only once, in 2 Peter 2:4. The Grammar of this particular verse is also messed up in the KVJ, because the KJV translators wanted to make an assumption about where it was located. SO here is how it should be.
“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them into chains of darkness in Tartaros to be reserved unto judgment”.
Hades and Tartaros both I believe in a sense have geographical
locations
within the Kosmos. Hades definitely being inside The Earth. But I say
in a sense because if we ever were able to physically dig down there, I
don’t think we’d see it with our four dimensional perception of
reality. I believe they are there but in the other six dimensions,
which we know are there but we can’t perceive in our current mortal fallen state.
Tartaros is often assumed to be also inside the Earth, and maybe it is, but I’m not so sure.
Tartaros is beyond any doubt the same place as The Abyss, the Bottomless Pit, their linked by the imagery of Chains and Darkness. In addition to the Genesis 6 Angels, that is also where Demons go when Christian cast them out of possessed people properly, also binding them. Revelation 9 says “And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.” Elsewhere in Revelation (1-3 and 12), Stars often symbolize Angels, so it’s often assumed the Star is the Him being given this Key. But this is a completely different part of Revelation, less symbolic and more literal. Every other Star in in the Seal-Trumpet-Veil judgments is always an astronomical object, not specially what we today have limited the meaning of a "Star" to, but still what it literally meant then. Given the context of verse 13, I believe the Angel who sounded the Trumpet is the one being given the Key. The term translated “Fall from” could simply mean descend or move from one location to another. It could simply mean some object in the Solar System, or further out in space, coming much closer to Earth then it currently is.
But that's a conjecture, it could still be inside the Earth like Hades/Sheol, or even a sub compartment of it. Jesus is also described as going to the Abyss during the three days he was dead (Romans 10:7, where it'd translated Deep in the KJV). Also Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-33 have references to a Pit that The Antichrist goes into, there it seems like it's near or in Sheol.
3. Gehena, This word has it’s origin in the name of a fiery Garbage dumb in ancient Judea. But every time Jesus used it, it appears to be a synonym for “The Lake of Fire” not of Hades. This is the finale Damnation, the “Second Death” the ultimate perdition of the unsaved.
The terms “First Resurrection” and “Second Resurrection” are categories more so then a chronological sequence. The First is the saved and the Second the Unsaved.
“The First Resurrection” begins with Yeshua’s own. Remember during the three days and three nights he was “In the Belly of the Earth” he descended into Hades. Why? At least one reason was to get the people being kept in Abraham’s Bosom. Matthew 27:52 “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
So as we can already see it doesn’t necessarily happen all at once. There is also the Resurrection of the Two Witnesses during the 70th Week. The saved who are part of the Church will be Resurrected at the “Rapture” (whether or not you view it as Pre-Trib, Post-Trib or Mid-Trib). And if any saved are left Un-Resurrected after the Beast is defeated, they’ll be Resurrected at the start of The Millennium.
“The Second Resurrection” Revelation 20 puts at the end of the Millennium, after Satan’s final defeat. But since The Beast and The False Prophet are cast alive into the Lake of Fire without any reference to being killed in Revelation 19, at the start of the Millennium, some have argued that those two are individuals who where allotted to experience the “Second Resurrection” early. Probably his resurrection is the healing of the mortal wound.
There is one area, where Yeshua’s Resurrection is different from ours (The rest of “The First Resurrection“) that I want to discus quickly. Some critics of The Bible I’ve encountered have suggested that Yeshua’s sacrifice on the Cross doesn’t mean anything since he knew he’d be Resurrected. But The Logos didn’t just become a Man temporarily, he became one permanently.
Revelation 5:5&6 “And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain.” It’s well known that Yeshua still had his wounds from the Crucifixion when he was walking on the Earth following The Resurrection via the Doubting Thomas story. And Zechariah 12 and Revelation 1 both tell us he’ll still be Pierced when he returns to be reunited with the Redeemed of Israel in Petra. But here we see it implied he’s Pierced right now at his Father’s right hand, even though he’s not in the physical realm.
None of the other Saved I believe will still have the wounds that caused their Death when their Resurrected, I can’t picture Rachel Scott walking around in the New Jerusalem with multiple gunshot wounds to her head, chest, arm and leg. That’s the permanent part of Yeshua’s sacrifice for us, he’s going to carry His wounds forever so we won’t have to carry ours.
The perfect eternity we’re looking forward to is NOT contemporary Heaven, contemporary Heaven is going to be us giving an account before God of our lives, washing our Robes in the Blood of the Lamb. What we’re looking forward to is the Resurrection and the Millennium and then the New Heaven and New Earth. The Restoration of the Kosmos to how it was before Adam Sinned.
This is part of why I object to Preterisim and Amillennialism. It’s not just about Eschatology. A denial of the Literal fulfillment of the Millennium allows a Christian to still hold a Pagan view of the After life. And a denial of the literal Resurrection of believers defeats the point of the Resurrection of Christ.
I believe that Salvation can’t be lost, but I believe there are ramifications when a Christian sins, one of those I‘ll discus here. Because all saved during the Church Age have the opportunity to Reign with Christ, as Kings and Priests after the Order of
There are three Greek nouns translated Hell in the KJV rendering of the New Testament. While the Bible often uses different words for the same thing, these 3 names are all distinct entities.
1. Hades, is the equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol (The word for Hell in the Hebrew Bible). Prior to the Cross all of the Dead went there, not just the unsaved. Luke 16 reveals that is has two compartments, the Saved were comforted in Abraham’s Bosom.
2. Tartaros, this word appears only once, in 2 Peter 2:4. The Grammar of this particular verse is also messed up in the KVJ, because the KJV translators wanted to make an assumption about where it was located. SO here is how it should be.
“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them into chains of darkness in Tartaros to be reserved unto judgment”.
Hades and Tartaros both I believe in a sense have geographical
Tartaros is often assumed to be also inside the Earth, and maybe it is, but I’m not so sure.
Tartaros is beyond any doubt the same place as The Abyss, the Bottomless Pit, their linked by the imagery of Chains and Darkness. In addition to the Genesis 6 Angels, that is also where Demons go when Christian cast them out of possessed people properly, also binding them. Revelation 9 says “And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.” Elsewhere in Revelation (1-3 and 12), Stars often symbolize Angels, so it’s often assumed the Star is the Him being given this Key. But this is a completely different part of Revelation, less symbolic and more literal. Every other Star in in the Seal-Trumpet-Veil judgments is always an astronomical object, not specially what we today have limited the meaning of a "Star" to, but still what it literally meant then. Given the context of verse 13, I believe the Angel who sounded the Trumpet is the one being given the Key. The term translated “Fall from” could simply mean descend or move from one location to another. It could simply mean some object in the Solar System, or further out in space, coming much closer to Earth then it currently is.
But that's a conjecture, it could still be inside the Earth like Hades/Sheol, or even a sub compartment of it. Jesus is also described as going to the Abyss during the three days he was dead (Romans 10:7, where it'd translated Deep in the KJV). Also Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-33 have references to a Pit that The Antichrist goes into, there it seems like it's near or in Sheol.
3. Gehena, This word has it’s origin in the name of a fiery Garbage dumb in ancient Judea. But every time Jesus used it, it appears to be a synonym for “The Lake of Fire” not of Hades. This is the finale Damnation, the “Second Death” the ultimate perdition of the unsaved.
The terms “First Resurrection” and “Second Resurrection” are categories more so then a chronological sequence. The First is the saved and the Second the Unsaved.
“The First Resurrection” begins with Yeshua’s own. Remember during the three days and three nights he was “In the Belly of the Earth” he descended into Hades. Why? At least one reason was to get the people being kept in Abraham’s Bosom. Matthew 27:52 “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
So as we can already see it doesn’t necessarily happen all at once. There is also the Resurrection of the Two Witnesses during the 70th Week. The saved who are part of the Church will be Resurrected at the “Rapture” (whether or not you view it as Pre-Trib, Post-Trib or Mid-Trib). And if any saved are left Un-Resurrected after the Beast is defeated, they’ll be Resurrected at the start of The Millennium.
“The Second Resurrection” Revelation 20 puts at the end of the Millennium, after Satan’s final defeat. But since The Beast and The False Prophet are cast alive into the Lake of Fire without any reference to being killed in Revelation 19, at the start of the Millennium, some have argued that those two are individuals who where allotted to experience the “Second Resurrection” early. Probably his resurrection is the healing of the mortal wound.
There is one area, where Yeshua’s Resurrection is different from ours (The rest of “The First Resurrection“) that I want to discus quickly. Some critics of The Bible I’ve encountered have suggested that Yeshua’s sacrifice on the Cross doesn’t mean anything since he knew he’d be Resurrected. But The Logos didn’t just become a Man temporarily, he became one permanently.
Revelation 5:5&6 “And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain.” It’s well known that Yeshua still had his wounds from the Crucifixion when he was walking on the Earth following The Resurrection via the Doubting Thomas story. And Zechariah 12 and Revelation 1 both tell us he’ll still be Pierced when he returns to be reunited with the Redeemed of Israel in Petra. But here we see it implied he’s Pierced right now at his Father’s right hand, even though he’s not in the physical realm.
None of the other Saved I believe will still have the wounds that caused their Death when their Resurrected, I can’t picture Rachel Scott walking around in the New Jerusalem with multiple gunshot wounds to her head, chest, arm and leg. That’s the permanent part of Yeshua’s sacrifice for us, he’s going to carry His wounds forever so we won’t have to carry ours.
Isaiah 61 and Luke 4, The concept of Two Advents.
Luke 4: 17-21
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the |
This is Quoting Isaiah 61:1-2
"The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;"Jesus stopped on a comma here, which is why the people were finding it odd before he even made his declaration of it's being fulfilled. He quoted only what was fulfilled that Day. The rest is for the |
Now I don't know how much I qualify as a Dispensationalist. I certainly don't agree entirely with Darby. And the idea of different Dispensations of Biblical history exists even in Preterism.
It annoys me that even some Futurists/Premillennials tell me I'm torturing the text where I need leaps forward in Prophecy for certain
The fact of The Messiah having two advents was not obvious to The Jews, and still isn't. I could point to Micah 5, or Zachariah 9-11 and they just ignore the point.
But of course that wouldn't be enough for a Preterist or Amillennial, who sees even the prophecies of the Second Advent done within only a generation of The First.
So this demonstration of how Jesus Himself dealt with The Prophets I find vitally important.
The Church Age (and any period roughly analogous to it) isn't the only Gap the New Testament reveals in Old Testament Prophecy however. The Millennium is also one, looking at how Daniel 12 and even John 5:28-29 seem to see the Resurrection of the Saved and Unsaved as seemingly at the same time. But Revelation 20 clarifies there is a Thousand years between them. But many people with weird views on The Millennium insist it's Revelation's more detailed accounts that shouldn't be taken at face value. Never mind what the word Revelation means.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
The 69th Week ended in 30 AD
Now for the Seventy Weeks Prophecy as a separate study. I studied when Jesus died here.
Daniel 9:24-27
Daniel 9:24-27
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 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.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. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Why
the 7 and 62 weeks are distinct I don't know, I'm sure there is a
reason, but distinct or not they're consecutive, the only gap is between
the 69th and the 70th weeks, a gap that included the Destruction of the
Temple is 70 AD. One possible theory I'm considering is that Nisan of
405 B.C. is when Malachi's book was published, closing the canon of the
Hebrew Bible (what we often call The Old Testament).
Interpreting this as referring to 490 years is NOT the Day=Year theory because neither Day or Year is used. The Hebrew word translated "week" here simply means seven and can refer to seven of anything. Leviticus 25 refers to Sabbaths of years. The context of this prophecy was Daniel praying at the end of the 70 year captivity, so the context is years. 2 Chronicles 36:21 cites one of the reasons for a 70 years captivity is that for 490 years they'd failed to keep the sabbatical year.
Ezra and Nehemiah record about 4 different Decrees issued by Persian Kings. Cyrus's decree is the most famous and the first, but the text of the 70 weeks prophecy specifies the entire City including Wall be rebuilt. But the Biblical references make clear that is the 4th and final one at the beginning of Nehemiah. The text in Daniel 9 doesn't refer to The Temple's rebuilding at all.
People have tried to argue from Extra Biblical conjectures that the wall was included in Cyrus's decree anyway, but the texts of the Decree at the end of II Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra talk only about The Temple. Isaiah 44 and 45 do speak of the City, but NO mention is made of the Wall. In a poetic sense the rebuilding of The Temple begins the rebuilding of the City, but to ignore the significance that the Wall was not rebuilt until the time of Nehemiah is to miss the entire point of the narrative of Ezra, that the lack of the Wall kept hindering their attempts to rebuild the City.
The decree recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8 was given in Nisan, the same month as Passover. One argument against the Nehemiah decree is we don't know the exact day, only the month. All the text of Daniel 9 deals with is years however and Nisan is Biblically the first Month of the Year, so I never word my interpretation of Daniel 9 as saying it was fulfilled to the exact day, only the year. The day the Messiah arrives as well as the day he is cut off is determined by understanding the Spring Feasts. Nehemiah also prayed the same Prayer Daniel prayed in Daniel 9, he's clearly linked to this prophecy.
So clearly the Nisan exactly 483 years latter must be when The Messiah was to be Cut Off. This decree is often erroneously dated to 445 or 444 B.C. Because Nehemiah dates it to the Nisan of the Twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and the beginning of Artaxerxes' reign and the death of Xerxes is dated to 465 B.C. because of Ptolemys' chronicle of Babylonian kings which ignores co-regencies.
Thucydides mentions that the accession of Artaxerxes had taken place before the flight of Themistocles. This places the start of his reign 473 or 474 B.C. And give the date of 454-455 B.C. as his twentieth year and the date of the decree.
Themistocles Seeks Protection from Artaxerxes.
This famous Greek grand-admiral, war hero of the Battle of Salamis, suffered a radical change of fortune. At the time of the betrayal of the Spartan hero, Pausanias, Themistocles, rightly or wrongly, was also implicated of treason toward the very nation-state that he protected. And, having learned of the death penalty meted out to Pausanius - he was actually walled in in the very temple where he sought refuge! - Themistocles decided to not wait for a similar fate. He journeyed to Persia for refuge. Having fought valiantly against the father, Xerxes, he sought protection of the son, Artaxerxes.
Themistocles Meets Artaxerxes, not Xerxes.
First, the passage from Thucydides. Themistocles escaped across the Aegean to Ephesus. The history continues...
"He then travelled inland with one of the Persians living on the coast and sent a letter Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, who had recently come to the throne."
An Eclipse helps to fix the date.
Although this relatively late period of Greek history (in which we have Themistocles's flight) is fairly accurately settled in history (that is, there is no serious controversy as to the dates), one more event transpires that is absolutely ironclad: a near-total eclipse of the sun on August 3rd, 431 BC, at the very beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
Why is this ironclad? There is no slop factor involved. Eclipses can be both predicted as future certainties and corroborated as historical events. Such is the case with the eclipse of 431 BC that Thucydides describes. The NASA website describes this account of Thucydides as the "[o]ldest European record of a verifiable solar eclipse (annular)"
How does this relate to the first event, the flight of Themistocles? They are both reported in the famous History of the Peloponnesian War of Thucydides, a carefully calibrated account that relates all events described (except the very early history of the first chapters) according to a unified chronological frame of reference.
To know the date of the solar eclipse, 431 BC (modernly verified by NASA, for those who require such proof) is to know, by reading the History, the date of the flight of Themistocles, 473 BC. To know that date is to know also the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, which happened just a short while before this, 474 or 473 BC.
Numerous Egyptian records also corroborate that Artaxerxes co-ruled with Xerxes during the last decade of Xerxes reign.
So the Decree was in fact issued in the Nisan of 454 BC. 483 years latter takes us to the Nisan of 30 AD.
Ussher agreed with this date for Artaxerxes 20th year, but still insisted on a 33 A.D. Crucifixion, so he insisted the date pointed to the Baptism.
Those trying to make this point to 32 or 33 AD (starting from the incorrect 444 or 445 B.C. date for the Decree) by talking about "God's calendar is 360 days" are just torturing the data. The Jews always synchronized their Lunar calendar to the Solar cycle.
There is a trend of even some Christians, even Futurist/Premillennial ones, arguing that "Messiah the Prince" does not refer to Jesus, or The Messiah at all. First they argue that the definite article "ha" isn't used before Messiah here. The text does use in place of the usual definite article the Hebrew letters Ayin and Res, this is usually left untranslated. Ayin-Resh is the Hebrew word for city. It's foretelling the arrival in Jerusalem of that City's Anointed One and Prince.
The word Messiah is used of individuals who aren't Jesus often, I know. But this is actually the most unique of ALL uses of the word Messiah, only here is it so uniquely paired with the word Nagiyd, not the more common and mundane Sar. I've seen it erroneously claimed Nagyid is a Persian word not Hebrew. If it were Persian in origin the only Biblical texts it could appear in are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and perhaps the very end of II Chronicles. But it's used by Ezekiel in 28:2 (the "Prince" of Tyre here is distinct from The King), many times in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, in Jeremiah and in the Psalms, and Proverbs. And even in Job, which is possibly older then the completion of the Torah in the days of Moses.
It's a far more important and precise occurrence then just using an equivalent of "The". To me No usage of the word is more indisputably about The Messiah Ben-David promised in II Samuel 7. The Triumphal entry wasn't the only time Jesus entered Jerusalem, but it is the only time he did so in a way that matched Zachariah 9:9's prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, with the people singing Psalm 118.
A claim exists that in verse 25 a period should be after the Seven Weeks and before the 62, and that it's only after the 7 weeks that "Messiah the Prince" appears. This is not justified by the Greens inter-lineal Bible I have at all. Messiah is "cut off" AFTER the 62 weeks have ended.
I've seen some argue the translation "Messiah" as "Anointed One" in verse 26 is inaccurate. This shows complete ignorance of Hebrew, the letter Yot being used in the word the way it is here makes it always a noun, a separate word, messah, is used to simply mean anointing or to anoint. This argument uses the Septuagint version to back itself up. I need to do a whole study on just the Septuagint someday, the Septuagint is very problematic for many reasons and in my view Christians need to stop using it like they do.
This interpretation tries to get the 62 weeks to end in 70 A.D. by citing the same nonsense about the Persian Empire's history being wrong to support the Sedar Olam's dating system on which the modern Jewish calendar is based. This won't hold up under scrutiny because it is well known the Sedar Olam's dates were deliberately fudged to try and make the 70 weeks prophecy point to Bar Kochba, who lived roughly a century too late. We also have Greek kings-lists backing p the Length of this period, due to Alexander I of Macedon being involved in the first two Persian wars.
The core of this argument is that the focus of the 70 weeks prophecy is about The Temple and Jerusalem, and nothing significant happened there when Jesus died. Their forgetting something important. Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45 all record then when Jesus died on The Cross "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;". The Temple physically stood for another 40 years, but it's Mosaic anointing ended when Jesus finally became the true Sacrificial offering all the others were only rehearsals for. I'll again quote the Talmud Yoma 39b
Interpreting this as referring to 490 years is NOT the Day=Year theory because neither Day or Year is used. The Hebrew word translated "week" here simply means seven and can refer to seven of anything. Leviticus 25 refers to Sabbaths of years. The context of this prophecy was Daniel praying at the end of the 70 year captivity, so the context is years. 2 Chronicles 36:21 cites one of the reasons for a 70 years captivity is that for 490 years they'd failed to keep the sabbatical year.
Ezra and Nehemiah record about 4 different Decrees issued by Persian Kings. Cyrus's decree is the most famous and the first, but the text of the 70 weeks prophecy specifies the entire City including Wall be rebuilt. But the Biblical references make clear that is the 4th and final one at the beginning of Nehemiah. The text in Daniel 9 doesn't refer to The Temple's rebuilding at all.
People have tried to argue from Extra Biblical conjectures that the wall was included in Cyrus's decree anyway, but the texts of the Decree at the end of II Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra talk only about The Temple. Isaiah 44 and 45 do speak of the City, but NO mention is made of the Wall. In a poetic sense the rebuilding of The Temple begins the rebuilding of the City, but to ignore the significance that the Wall was not rebuilt until the time of Nehemiah is to miss the entire point of the narrative of Ezra, that the lack of the Wall kept hindering their attempts to rebuild the City.
The decree recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8 was given in Nisan, the same month as Passover. One argument against the Nehemiah decree is we don't know the exact day, only the month. All the text of Daniel 9 deals with is years however and Nisan is Biblically the first Month of the Year, so I never word my interpretation of Daniel 9 as saying it was fulfilled to the exact day, only the year. The day the Messiah arrives as well as the day he is cut off is determined by understanding the Spring Feasts. Nehemiah also prayed the same Prayer Daniel prayed in Daniel 9, he's clearly linked to this prophecy.
So clearly the Nisan exactly 483 years latter must be when The Messiah was to be Cut Off. This decree is often erroneously dated to 445 or 444 B.C. Because Nehemiah dates it to the Nisan of the Twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and the beginning of Artaxerxes' reign and the death of Xerxes is dated to 465 B.C. because of Ptolemys' chronicle of Babylonian kings which ignores co-regencies.
Thucydides mentions that the accession of Artaxerxes had taken place before the flight of Themistocles. This places the start of his reign 473 or 474 B.C. And give the date of 454-455 B.C. as his twentieth year and the date of the decree.
Themistocles Seeks Protection from Artaxerxes.
This famous Greek grand-admiral, war hero of the Battle of Salamis, suffered a radical change of fortune. At the time of the betrayal of the Spartan hero, Pausanias, Themistocles, rightly or wrongly, was also implicated of treason toward the very nation-state that he protected. And, having learned of the death penalty meted out to Pausanius - he was actually walled in in the very temple where he sought refuge! - Themistocles decided to not wait for a similar fate. He journeyed to Persia for refuge. Having fought valiantly against the father, Xerxes, he sought protection of the son, Artaxerxes.
Themistocles Meets Artaxerxes, not Xerxes.
First, the passage from Thucydides. Themistocles escaped across the Aegean to Ephesus. The history continues...
"He then travelled inland with one of the Persians living on the coast and sent a letter Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, who had recently come to the throne."
An Eclipse helps to fix the date.
Although this relatively late period of Greek history (in which we have Themistocles's flight) is fairly accurately settled in history (that is, there is no serious controversy as to the dates), one more event transpires that is absolutely ironclad: a near-total eclipse of the sun on August 3rd, 431 BC, at the very beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
Why is this ironclad? There is no slop factor involved. Eclipses can be both predicted as future certainties and corroborated as historical events. Such is the case with the eclipse of 431 BC that Thucydides describes. The NASA website describes this account of Thucydides as the "[o]ldest European record of a verifiable solar eclipse (annular)"
How does this relate to the first event, the flight of Themistocles? They are both reported in the famous History of the Peloponnesian War of Thucydides, a carefully calibrated account that relates all events described (except the very early history of the first chapters) according to a unified chronological frame of reference.
To know the date of the solar eclipse, 431 BC (modernly verified by NASA, for those who require such proof) is to know, by reading the History, the date of the flight of Themistocles, 473 BC. To know that date is to know also the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, which happened just a short while before this, 474 or 473 BC.
Numerous Egyptian records also corroborate that Artaxerxes co-ruled with Xerxes during the last decade of Xerxes reign.
So the Decree was in fact issued in the Nisan of 454 BC. 483 years latter takes us to the Nisan of 30 AD.
Ussher agreed with this date for Artaxerxes 20th year, but still insisted on a 33 A.D. Crucifixion, so he insisted the date pointed to the Baptism.
Those trying to make this point to 32 or 33 AD (starting from the incorrect 444 or 445 B.C. date for the Decree) by talking about "God's calendar is 360 days" are just torturing the data. The Jews always synchronized their Lunar calendar to the Solar cycle.
There is a trend of even some Christians, even Futurist/Premillennial ones, arguing that "Messiah the Prince" does not refer to Jesus, or The Messiah at all. First they argue that the definite article "ha" isn't used before Messiah here. The text does use in place of the usual definite article the Hebrew letters Ayin and Res, this is usually left untranslated. Ayin-Resh is the Hebrew word for city. It's foretelling the arrival in Jerusalem of that City's Anointed One and Prince.
The word Messiah is used of individuals who aren't Jesus often, I know. But this is actually the most unique of ALL uses of the word Messiah, only here is it so uniquely paired with the word Nagiyd, not the more common and mundane Sar. I've seen it erroneously claimed Nagyid is a Persian word not Hebrew. If it were Persian in origin the only Biblical texts it could appear in are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and perhaps the very end of II Chronicles. But it's used by Ezekiel in 28:2 (the "Prince" of Tyre here is distinct from The King), many times in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, in Jeremiah and in the Psalms, and Proverbs. And even in Job, which is possibly older then the completion of the Torah in the days of Moses.
It's a far more important and precise occurrence then just using an equivalent of "The". To me No usage of the word is more indisputably about The Messiah Ben-David promised in II Samuel 7. The Triumphal entry wasn't the only time Jesus entered Jerusalem, but it is the only time he did so in a way that matched Zachariah 9:9's prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, with the people singing Psalm 118.
A claim exists that in verse 25 a period should be after the Seven Weeks and before the 62, and that it's only after the 7 weeks that "Messiah the Prince" appears. This is not justified by the Greens inter-lineal Bible I have at all. Messiah is "cut off" AFTER the 62 weeks have ended.
I've seen some argue the translation "Messiah" as "Anointed One" in verse 26 is inaccurate. This shows complete ignorance of Hebrew, the letter Yot being used in the word the way it is here makes it always a noun, a separate word, messah, is used to simply mean anointing or to anoint. This argument uses the Septuagint version to back itself up. I need to do a whole study on just the Septuagint someday, the Septuagint is very problematic for many reasons and in my view Christians need to stop using it like they do.
This interpretation tries to get the 62 weeks to end in 70 A.D. by citing the same nonsense about the Persian Empire's history being wrong to support the Sedar Olam's dating system on which the modern Jewish calendar is based. This won't hold up under scrutiny because it is well known the Sedar Olam's dates were deliberately fudged to try and make the 70 weeks prophecy point to Bar Kochba, who lived roughly a century too late. We also have Greek kings-lists backing p the Length of this period, due to Alexander I of Macedon being involved in the first two Persian wars.
The core of this argument is that the focus of the 70 weeks prophecy is about The Temple and Jerusalem, and nothing significant happened there when Jesus died. Their forgetting something important. Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45 all record then when Jesus died on The Cross "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;". The Temple physically stood for another 40 years, but it's Mosaic anointing ended when Jesus finally became the true Sacrificial offering all the others were only rehearsals for. I'll again quote the Talmud Yoma 39b
Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.
So
actually even what this wrong interpretation says the 62 weeks points
to happened in 30 A.D. So I've come to interpret "Messiah be cut off"
as having a double meaning, both referring to Jesus' death on the
Cross, and the removing of divine presence from The Temple when the veil
was torn.
Jerome records in his Letter to Hedibia 120.8 that some early altered versions of Matthew's Gospels added to Matthew 27:51 that the lintel of the Temple collapsed.
After the Triumphal Entry Luke 19:41 records that Jesus.
Jerome records in his Letter to Hedibia 120.8 that some early altered versions of Matthew's Gospels added to Matthew 27:51 that the lintel of the Temple collapsed.
After the Triumphal Entry Luke 19:41 records that Jesus.
And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
And
goes on to foretell Jerusalem's coming destruction. The people were
judged for failing to recognize prophecy had been fulfilled. And not
just because what he did matched what Zachariah 9:9 described, a false
Messiah could attempt such a thing. The phrase "in this thy day",
clearly tells us timing was the key. The context of the coming
destruction of Jerusalem clearly tells us to look to Daniel 9, no where
else does the Hebrew Bible speak of Jerusalem being destroyed again in
addition to the destruction in 588 BC. And then in verse 44 the matter
is made more clear "because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."
So using Scripture to interpret Scripture, that settles the matter for me.
All I'll say here on the 70th Week, is that based on the Interpretation I've laid out of the first 69, the 70th Week must begin with the consecration of the Third Temple. The view of some that it'll not be finished being built till the halfway point I feel is erroneous and potentially sets the stage of part of the End Time deception. My understanding of Revelation 11 being the first half of the 70th Week backs that up.
So using Scripture to interpret Scripture, that settles the matter for me.
All I'll say here on the 70th Week, is that based on the Interpretation I've laid out of the first 69, the 70th Week must begin with the consecration of the Third Temple. The view of some that it'll not be finished being built till the halfway point I feel is erroneous and potentially sets the stage of part of the End Time deception. My understanding of Revelation 11 being the first half of the 70th Week backs that up.
Update March 2024: A Huge Section of this was Copy/Pasted form somewhere else without credit and now I don't even remember what the source. I'm Sorry about that.
The Crucifixion happened in 30 AD
30 AD I
believe is the year of the Death and Resurrection of Yeshua of
Nazareth, the Messiah of Israel, Jesus Christ. At the time, it was known as the Year
of the Consulship of Vinicius and Longinus (or, less frequently, year
783 Ab urbe condita). I'm aware 33 AD is a more common date to cite, so
I'm going to explain all the reasons I favor 30 AD. I won't bring
Daniel's 70 weeks into it, in order for the Prophetic significance of
that to be impressive we must prove independently that it points to the
same date, so I'll do address that in a separate study.
The first chronological mistake made in dealing with the time of Jesus is how people read Luke 3. It does not date when Jesus "Began to be about 30 years old" to the 15th year of Tiberius, it dates his Baptism and 40 days in the Wilderness to when he was "about 30". And it dates the beginning of John The Baptist's ministry to the "15th year of Tiberius". People tend to assume those two events were very close to each other, but Acts 13 says John "completed his course" before Jesus came to be Baptized. The 15th year of Tiberius is usually assumed to be dating from the death of Augustus in August of 14 AD. But Augustus had effectively made Tiberius co-ruler in 12 AD after his return from Germania. If we count from that then 26-27 AD was the 15th year of Tiberius.
The biggest chronological mistake made when dealing with the Crucifixion is when people incorrectly state that John refers to three or four Passovers occurring during Jesus's ministry. (The discrepancy between three and four is a Feast being refereed to that isn't identified.) John 2 (It's second story), John 6 and 12 all refer to Passover clearly, the last being the Passover season of the Crucifixion. John 5 refers to a Jewish feast but doesn't identify which, many then assume this is Passover. Since the Passover is largely the thematic heart of John's narrative I believe he would have identified it if it was Passover. I believe the one in John 5 is possibly Purim or Pentecost.
So John has three at most. The problem is the basic narrative of the SynopticsGospels
do not seem to allow more then a Year and a few months for Jesus'
Ministry. The thing people overlook is that John's Gospel is the most
Mystical of the Gospels, and because of that it's not always purely
Chronological, sometimes events are described next to each other for
symbolic reasons, not because they actually happened side by side.
John 2 describes two stories. The first is the miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding banquet. That story clearly seems to be at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, since it'spresented
as his first public miracle. The second story involves The Temple. I
believe they're told side by side because together they make John 2 a Beth
chapter. Beth is the second letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, and it also
means house. So John 2 deals with both The House as in the Family and
The House as in the House of God. Both also refer to a three day period
of time.
What is so often and to me annoyingly overlooked is that John 2 gives clearly a more detailed account of the Cleansing of The Temple. Which the Synoptics clearly place in the same week as the Crucifixion. Some would suggest it happened twice, but in the Synoptics it's clearly the last straw that drives theScribes Pharisees Pharisees
and the Priesthood to want Jesus dead, if he'd done the same thing 2
or 3 years before that wouldn't make much sense. It's also interesting
that the Synoptic account alludes to what only John records Jesus
saying here, (About destroying this Temple and rebuilding it in 3 days)
in the form of false witnesses misrepresenting it, but my point here is it's presented
as something He said recently.
So in truth John gives a Ministry of only just over a year (many Atheists criticize the Gospels by saying the Synoptics clearly depict a ministry of only about a year and that John's three year model is then a contradiction. I've provided the means to refute that,) or maybe even less. And since John 2 is recording the Passover season of the Crucifixion, that is very useful since John 2 dates itself.
"Forty and six years has this temple been in building". The renovations of the Temple Herod started wasn't finished till the 60s, so this is referring to them speaking 46 years after Herod's renovations began. 20/19 BC is when Herod first announced the project, but as a careful study of Josephus shows it really began in late 18 or early 17 B.C. So 46 years latter on Passover brings us to 30 A.D. Ussher dated John 2's Temple incident to the same year, but repeated the error I explained above.
Even John 6 might actually have the same Passover season in mind, since the preparation for Passover in a sense begins an entire 30 days before in Rabbinic custom, around Purim. And in John 6 they're not in Jerusalem yer. But that could go either way for my current theory to work. John 6 is either the 30 or 29 AD Passover.
--Lactanius, "On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died", .2, tells us that only "25 years" lapsed, "until the beginning of the reign of Nero". Nero became Emperor in 55 A.D.
What else can give further support to 30 AD? In the Talmud Yoma 39b it says
The first chronological mistake made in dealing with the time of Jesus is how people read Luke 3. It does not date when Jesus "Began to be about 30 years old" to the 15th year of Tiberius, it dates his Baptism and 40 days in the Wilderness to when he was "about 30". And it dates the beginning of John The Baptist's ministry to the "15th year of Tiberius". People tend to assume those two events were very close to each other, but Acts 13 says John "completed his course" before Jesus came to be Baptized. The 15th year of Tiberius is usually assumed to be dating from the death of Augustus in August of 14 AD. But Augustus had effectively made Tiberius co-ruler in 12 AD after his return from Germania. If we count from that then 26-27 AD was the 15th year of Tiberius.
The biggest chronological mistake made when dealing with the Crucifixion is when people incorrectly state that John refers to three or four Passovers occurring during Jesus's ministry. (The discrepancy between three and four is a Feast being refereed to that isn't identified.) John 2 (It's second story), John 6 and 12 all refer to Passover clearly, the last being the Passover season of the Crucifixion. John 5 refers to a Jewish feast but doesn't identify which, many then assume this is Passover. Since the Passover is largely the thematic heart of John's narrative I believe he would have identified it if it was Passover. I believe the one in John 5 is possibly Purim or Pentecost.
So John has three at most. The problem is the basic narrative of the Synoptics
John 2 describes two stories. The first is the miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding banquet. That story clearly seems to be at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, since it's
What is so often and to me annoyingly overlooked is that John 2 gives clearly a more detailed account of the Cleansing of The Temple. Which the Synoptics clearly place in the same week as the Crucifixion. Some would suggest it happened twice, but in the Synoptics it's clearly the last straw that drives the
So in truth John gives a Ministry of only just over a year (many Atheists criticize the Gospels by saying the Synoptics clearly depict a ministry of only about a year and that John's three year model is then a contradiction. I've provided the means to refute that,) or maybe even less. And since John 2 is recording the Passover season of the Crucifixion, that is very useful since John 2 dates itself.
"Forty and six years has this temple been in building". The renovations of the Temple Herod started wasn't finished till the 60s, so this is referring to them speaking 46 years after Herod's renovations began. 20/19 BC is when Herod first announced the project, but as a careful study of Josephus shows it really began in late 18 or early 17 B.C. So 46 years latter on Passover brings us to 30 A.D. Ussher dated John 2's Temple incident to the same year, but repeated the error I explained above.
Even John 6 might actually have the same Passover season in mind, since the preparation for Passover in a sense begins an entire 30 days before in Rabbinic custom, around Purim. And in John 6 they're not in Jerusalem yer. But that could go either way for my current theory to work. John 6 is either the 30 or 29 AD Passover.
--Lactanius, "On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died", .2, tells us that only "25 years" lapsed, "until the beginning of the reign of Nero". Nero became Emperor in 55 A.D.
What else can give further support to 30 AD? In the Talmud Yoma 39b it says
Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.
40
years before The Temple's destruction takes us to 30 AD The
reference to Johanan ben Zakkai confirms this is the second destruction,
not the first. Why link the beginning of this period to the Crucifixion? Because the Veil was torn when Jesus died.
On the Roman calendarcalendar years were always named after the Consuls at the year's start. The
solider who pierced the side of Christ came to be named Longinus in
extra Biblical tradition. It is often explained as only a pun on the
Greek word for spear John used, Logche (long'-khay). But Longinus was a
real Roman name, as a family name of the Cassius who killed Caesar, so
that Longinus's feast day in Catholic tradition becomes the 15th of
March is interesting. The Longinus who was Consul for 30 AD was a
great Nephew of the killer of Caesar, however a direct descentent of him became Suffect Consul later in the year. Perhaps the name became linked to
the Crucifixion because it was linked to the year it happened.
On the Roman calendar
Saturday, July 26, 2014
More refuteing of Pre-Tribulational Imminence
I dealt with the main reasons I'm not Pre-Trib.
I want to address some other Pre-Trib arguments here. Mostly I felt
like making this in response to some arguments from Dave Hunt in a radio
debate I saw him have with a "Pre-Wrath" supporter (who sounded more
like he was Post-Trib). When I wrote the first draft of this I didn't
know Dave Hunt had passed away. So I apologize if this sounds harsh at
all, he is a man I respect.
Like a lot of Pre-Tirbbers he obsesses over the Parables in Matthew 24 and 25. Insisting they demonstrate it's not just the World but the Church caught off guard. Problem is you have to be careful building doctrine on parables. And I can't help but think the simple fact of both Pre-Trib and Pre-Wrath being proven wrong not very long into the 70th week may cause a lot of believers who've always taken the Mid-Trib view the least seriously to just accept the Post-Trib arguments, which sadly could lend themselves to becoming enemies of Israel, since Post-Trib is virtually inseparable from Replacement Theology.
But I actually don't think the point of those parables is technically an issue of the Rapture's timing at all. They're about attitudes. Attitudes that even Pre-Tribbers can take, I know most don't but they can, if they engage in date setting, or just see that the Temple Reconstruction hasn't even started yet as assuring them they have time. What I'd say to any Mid-Trib, Post-Trib or Pre-Wrath believers temped to use their beliefs about the timing of The Rapture as an excuse to take such an attitude. Is that you could Die at any moment, and will be with Jesus then.
Like a Thief in The Night
Pre-Tribbers obsess over this phrase. Those who aren't Pre-Trib insist it's the World taken by surprise. Pre-Tribbers respond with "Jesus wasn't talking to the world" then reference back to those Parables again.
The point isn't who he was talking to but what he was talking about.
I Thessalonians 5 is one of the places that uses this phrase of the Second Coming, and a favorite one. They kind of ignore it's usage in Revelation 16:15 where it's said as the Bowls of God's wrath are being poured out. Which Post-Tirbbers think helps them, but the KJV uses Present tense in Revelation 16:15, he is already Coming.
But back to I Thessalonians 5.
Like a lot of Pre-Tirbbers he obsesses over the Parables in Matthew 24 and 25. Insisting they demonstrate it's not just the World but the Church caught off guard. Problem is you have to be careful building doctrine on parables. And I can't help but think the simple fact of both Pre-Trib and Pre-Wrath being proven wrong not very long into the 70th week may cause a lot of believers who've always taken the Mid-Trib view the least seriously to just accept the Post-Trib arguments, which sadly could lend themselves to becoming enemies of Israel, since Post-Trib is virtually inseparable from Replacement Theology.
But I actually don't think the point of those parables is technically an issue of the Rapture's timing at all. They're about attitudes. Attitudes that even Pre-Tribbers can take, I know most don't but they can, if they engage in date setting, or just see that the Temple Reconstruction hasn't even started yet as assuring them they have time. What I'd say to any Mid-Trib, Post-Trib or Pre-Wrath believers temped to use their beliefs about the timing of The Rapture as an excuse to take such an attitude. Is that you could Die at any moment, and will be with Jesus then.
Like a Thief in The Night
Pre-Tribbers obsess over this phrase. Those who aren't Pre-Trib insist it's the World taken by surprise. Pre-Tribbers respond with "Jesus wasn't talking to the world" then reference back to those Parables again.
The point isn't who he was talking to but what he was talking about.
I Thessalonians 5 is one of the places that uses this phrase of the Second Coming, and a favorite one. They kind of ignore it's usage in Revelation 16:15 where it's said as the Bowls of God's wrath are being poured out. Which Post-Tirbbers think helps them, but the KJV uses Present tense in Revelation 16:15, he is already Coming.
But back to I Thessalonians 5.
But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
Verse
4 clearly says WE are not to be taken as a Thief. But Hunt just writes
this off when it's pointed out to him and references other passages I
already addressed rather then letting Paul elaborate on what he said.
Let's talk about the origin of this Phrase. because while the New Testament uses it in various places, it is in fact secular in origin. It was coined in reference to how Cyrus sneakily captured Sardis. Jesus reminds us of it's origin by using it in his message to the Sardis Church in Revelation 3:3.
However not everyone in Sardis was taken by Surprise, the spies and collaborators he no doubt had in the city that helped him uncover this vulnerability were not surprised. Which is why I think Jesus may want us to be thinking of Joshua and the Siege of Jericho, and the two spies who got Rachab saved. We as part of The Church are citizens of God's Kingdom but are dwelling in Satan's. We're his spies, as are The Two Witnesses. And Rachab could be viewed as a type of he Church.
What about the idiom of as a Woman who travails? Does she have no warning signs? No, she has a pretty good estimate of when to expect her child to be born. If she's taken by surprise at all it's because of there being so many false alarms.
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety" is a specific phrase Dave Hunt loves to dwell on.
First thing is, I don't see how that could accurately describe Christ's return if he returns today? The world isn't remotely saying that now. But his fixation is an assumption that this phrase can't work if any of the Seal or Trumpet Judgments are already going on. (He'd also include the Bowls, but I don't disagree that those are post Rapture).
I believe this refers to after the Abomination of Desolation. When the Antichrist is trying to convince the world he's ushered in a new Golden Age of peace and tranquility, a Pax Romana. if he's using a false Judeo-Christian religious premise then he'll probably be saying the Millennium/Messianic era has begun and convince people somehow that the first half of the 70th week was really the last. Post Post-Tribbers and Pre-Wrathers garble the chronology of Revelation in ways that would lend help to that.
But perhaps he won't be claiming anything Biblical, perhaps he'll be saying it's the "Age of Aquarius" or some other BS.
Point is either way every eschabological tradition agrees that things get worse before they get better. As Harvey Dent said "The Night is darkest just before the Dawn". And Lucifer is the Dawn bringer according to Albert Pike.
Now, allow me to explain my view. I'm Mid-Trib, though probably not your standard form of it, I prefer the label Mid-Seventieth Week. I've never even read or listened to a Mid-Trib teacher. I've come to this conclusion listening to Pre-Trib, Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath people and taking note of both what I find right and what I find wrong in their teachings while studying The Word for myself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I believe all 7 Seals and the first 6 Trumpets all happen before the Abomination of Desolation. So I agree that the people being martyred for not taking he mark are not part of The Church. I also believe Joel 2:1-14 is the Sixth Trumpet and Joel 2:15 the Seventh Trumpet.
I believe the Ministry of the Two Witnesses is the first half of the 70th Week, because Malachi said Elijah would return BEFORE the Great and terrible Day of The LORD. During which time they will smite the Earth with plagues and withhold rainfall, and turn water to blood, and call fire down form heaven.
I believe The Beast kills the Two Witnesses the same day he does the Abomination of Desolation and causes the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease. Probably soon after.
They then lie in the streets of Jerusalem for Three and a Half days. During which time the people of the Earth celebrate their death.
Let's talk about the origin of this Phrase. because while the New Testament uses it in various places, it is in fact secular in origin. It was coined in reference to how Cyrus sneakily captured Sardis. Jesus reminds us of it's origin by using it in his message to the Sardis Church in Revelation 3:3.
However not everyone in Sardis was taken by Surprise, the spies and collaborators he no doubt had in the city that helped him uncover this vulnerability were not surprised. Which is why I think Jesus may want us to be thinking of Joshua and the Siege of Jericho, and the two spies who got Rachab saved. We as part of The Church are citizens of God's Kingdom but are dwelling in Satan's. We're his spies, as are The Two Witnesses. And Rachab could be viewed as a type of he Church.
What about the idiom of as a Woman who travails? Does she have no warning signs? No, she has a pretty good estimate of when to expect her child to be born. If she's taken by surprise at all it's because of there being so many false alarms.
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety" is a specific phrase Dave Hunt loves to dwell on.
First thing is, I don't see how that could accurately describe Christ's return if he returns today? The world isn't remotely saying that now. But his fixation is an assumption that this phrase can't work if any of the Seal or Trumpet Judgments are already going on. (He'd also include the Bowls, but I don't disagree that those are post Rapture).
I believe this refers to after the Abomination of Desolation. When the Antichrist is trying to convince the world he's ushered in a new Golden Age of peace and tranquility, a Pax Romana. if he's using a false Judeo-Christian religious premise then he'll probably be saying the Millennium/Messianic era has begun and convince people somehow that the first half of the 70th week was really the last. Post Post-Tribbers and Pre-Wrathers garble the chronology of Revelation in ways that would lend help to that.
But perhaps he won't be claiming anything Biblical, perhaps he'll be saying it's the "Age of Aquarius" or some other BS.
Point is either way every eschabological tradition agrees that things get worse before they get better. As Harvey Dent said "The Night is darkest just before the Dawn". And Lucifer is the Dawn bringer according to Albert Pike.
Now, allow me to explain my view. I'm Mid-Trib, though probably not your standard form of it, I prefer the label Mid-Seventieth Week. I've never even read or listened to a Mid-Trib teacher. I've come to this conclusion listening to Pre-Trib, Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath people and taking note of both what I find right and what I find wrong in their teachings while studying The Word for myself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I believe all 7 Seals and the first 6 Trumpets all happen before the Abomination of Desolation. So I agree that the people being martyred for not taking he mark are not part of The Church. I also believe Joel 2:1-14 is the Sixth Trumpet and Joel 2:15 the Seventh Trumpet.
I believe the Ministry of the Two Witnesses is the first half of the 70th Week, because Malachi said Elijah would return BEFORE the Great and terrible Day of The LORD. During which time they will smite the Earth with plagues and withhold rainfall, and turn water to blood, and call fire down form heaven.
I believe The Beast kills the Two Witnesses the same day he does the Abomination of Desolation and causes the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease. Probably soon after.
They then lie in the streets of Jerusalem for Three and a Half days. During which time the people of the Earth celebrate their death.
Revelation 11:10 "And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. "
I've
considered the possibility that this might be during Chanukah, the 3rd
day of which is the traditional day for gift giving. And the 25th of
Kislev is the anniversary of both the Maccabees victory over Antiochus
Epiphanes but also of his Desolation in the first place. Allowing this
date too fit two conflicting views of what the heresy for the coming
Abomination might look like. But I now preferring seeing the 7th Trumept as the First of Tishri. Either way I wouldn't be dogmatic on it.
The point is that this roughly 84 hour period is the time period I believe Paul was describing. Everyone thinks the bad times are over and they are now in eternal peace and safety. Then the Two Witnesses Resurrect and Ascend, and the Seventh Trumpet sounds, and the Sign of the Son of Man, the Ark of his Covenant (The Cross I believe) is seen in the Heavens. This is when the Rapture occurs for the Time of the Dead is at hand, to give rewards to the Saints. And then God's Wrath is poured out. Revelation 14 also describes the Son of Man coming on the Clouds, an the 144,000 who sound like their in their Resurrected state.
The 70 weeks of Daniel
Dave Hunt and other Pre-Tirbbers feel the Church Age must exactly match the gap between the 69th and 70th week.
Problem is, the 69th week points to the Triumphal Entry and Crucifixion, which both occurred in Nisan. Not Pentecost which was 49 days after the Resurrection.
Study Daniel 9 closely and you'll see that the 70 weeks revolves around the Temple. So I believe the moment the 69th week ended was when the Veil was torn at the moment Jesus died. The Talmud says that for 40 years before the Temple's destruction the crimson thread never turned white. I've written elsewhere on why I date the Crucifixion to 30 A.D.
The Second Temple was effectively dead for 40 years before it actually ceased to stand. It lost it's divine anointing when Jesus became the True Sin Offering. So I believe the 70th week is initiated by the consecration of the Third Temple. Revelation 11 confirms for me it's standing during the Ministry of the Two Witnesses, refuting the view that it's only under construction during the first half. The outer court being given to the Gentiles I believe refers to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, because I support the Al-Kas fountain view of The Temple's location.
It's always confused me how Daniel 9's last verse doesn't tell us really anything about what happens when the 70th week ends, just what marks the midst of it. We know Daniel was told his vision was sealed up. Perhaps Gabriel's vision for Daniel here was meant to end about when the Rapture will happen.
The point is that this roughly 84 hour period is the time period I believe Paul was describing. Everyone thinks the bad times are over and they are now in eternal peace and safety. Then the Two Witnesses Resurrect and Ascend, and the Seventh Trumpet sounds, and the Sign of the Son of Man, the Ark of his Covenant (The Cross I believe) is seen in the Heavens. This is when the Rapture occurs for the Time of the Dead is at hand, to give rewards to the Saints. And then God's Wrath is poured out. Revelation 14 also describes the Son of Man coming on the Clouds, an the 144,000 who sound like their in their Resurrected state.
The 70 weeks of Daniel
Dave Hunt and other Pre-Tirbbers feel the Church Age must exactly match the gap between the 69th and 70th week.
Problem is, the 69th week points to the Triumphal Entry and Crucifixion, which both occurred in Nisan. Not Pentecost which was 49 days after the Resurrection.
Study Daniel 9 closely and you'll see that the 70 weeks revolves around the Temple. So I believe the moment the 69th week ended was when the Veil was torn at the moment Jesus died. The Talmud says that for 40 years before the Temple's destruction the crimson thread never turned white. I've written elsewhere on why I date the Crucifixion to 30 A.D.
The Second Temple was effectively dead for 40 years before it actually ceased to stand. It lost it's divine anointing when Jesus became the True Sin Offering. So I believe the 70th week is initiated by the consecration of the Third Temple. Revelation 11 confirms for me it's standing during the Ministry of the Two Witnesses, refuting the view that it's only under construction during the first half. The outer court being given to the Gentiles I believe refers to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, because I support the Al-Kas fountain view of The Temple's location.
It's always confused me how Daniel 9's last verse doesn't tell us really anything about what happens when the 70th week ends, just what marks the midst of it. We know Daniel was told his vision was sealed up. Perhaps Gabriel's vision for Daniel here was meant to end about when the Rapture will happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)