Posted on 09/30/2005 9:26:35 AM PDT by HarleyD
First demonstrate from the passage that Jesus was using "leaven" to mean anything other than leaven. If the leaven doesn't mean leaven, what pray tell does the woman and the flour mean?
I've heard this theory before dozens of times. It doesn't fly.
I answered your question, now you can answer mine. No diversions, please. Show us plainly that modern Israel is a definite fulfillment of specific prophecies.
You appear to be taking the side of Palestinian terrorists, and it really puzzles me.
The Seven Weeks
Since the first seven weeks of years (49 years) is segmented from the whole, to what does it refer to? Without belaboring this point, since it is not a point of significant debate, this first of three segments refers to time when "it [Jerusalem] will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress" (Dan. 9:25c). This modifying statement connects the first seven weeks with the distressing days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus, the first seven weeks refer to the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Dr. John Walvoord notes:
The best explanation seems to be that beginning with Nehemiah’s decree and the building of the wall, it took a whole generation to clear out all the debris in Jerusalem and restore it as a thriving city. This might well be the fulfillment of the forty-nine years. The specific reference to streets again addresses our attention to Nehemiah’s situation where the streets were covered with debris and needed to be rebuilt. That this was accomplished in troublesome times is fully documented by the book of Nehemiah itself.
The fact that this prophecy divides the seventy weeks of years into three sections will come into to play later when examining the single week in verse 27. The Sixty-Two Weeks
The next segment of time is the sixty-two weeks of years that are said to follow the first seven weeks of years. The total of the two parts equal sixty-nine weeks of years or 483 years. The sixty-two weeks follow consecutively the first seven weeks because there are no textual indicators or historical events that would lead to any other conclusion. The sixty-two weeks will end with the arrival of "Messiah the Prince." Daniel 9:25 says, "until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." Messiah the Prince can be none other than the Jewish Messiah—Jesus the Christ. As was noted in the previous article, Dr. Harold Hoehner has demonstrated that the seven and sixty-two weeks (that is sixty-nine weeks) ended on the day of Christ’s triumphal entry. This is diagramed in the chart below, which was adopted from Dr. Hoehner’s book. The fulfillment of the seven and sixty-two weeks is recorded in Luke 19 as follows:
"And when He [Jesus] approached, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, ‘If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. . . . because you did not recognize the time of your visitation’" (Luke 19:41-42, 44).
After the Sixty-Two Weeks
We now enter the area of the greatest controversy concerning the seventy weeks prophecy. The debate is focused upon whether the seventieth week follows consecutively the first sixty-nine. I believe that the seventieth week is postponed until a future time we know as the tribulation. Defense of a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks will be the topic of most of the material that I will cover in the rest of this series.
The issue now before us can be divided into two basic views, regardless of how a specific individual may handle the details. The two views are whether all seventy weeks of years have already been fulfilled in the past, or whether the final, seventieth week is future. Note what Daniel 9:26 says:
Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
Textual Reasons For A Postponement
Before I look at broader arguments for a parenthesis, I want to point out reasons from the Daniel 9 passage itself. Critics of our literal, futurist understanding of this text claim that there is no justification for a gap or postponement between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week. Perhaps no one is more shrill in his criticism of a gap than preterist Gary DeMar, who says:
The ‘gap" that has been placed between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel’s prophecy was created because it was needed to make the dispensational hermeneutical model work. Nothing in the text of Daniel 9:24-27 implies a "gap."
He later asks the following question:
Since there is no gap between the seven and sixty-two weeks, what justification is there in inserting a gap between the sixty-ninth week (seven weeks + sixty-two weeks = sixty-nine weeks) and the seventieth week?
I believe that there are textual reasons for a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week! First of all, the text says, "Then after the sixty-two weeks . . ." In other words, after the seven plus sixty-two weeks, which equals sixty-nine weeks of years (483 years). The Hebrew text uses a conjunction, combined with a preposition, usually translated "and after," or better "then after." "It is the only indication given regarding the chronological relation between these sixty-two weeks and the cutting off of the Anointed One. This event will occur ‘after’ their close, but nothing is said as to how long after." Robert Culver clearly states the implication of what this text says:
There can be no honest difference of opinion about that: the cutting off of Messiah is ‘after’ the sixty-two weeks. It is not the concluding event of the series of sixty-two weeks. Neither is it said to be the opening event of the seventieth. It is simply after the seven plus sixty-two weeks.
Steven Miller summaries developments in the passage thus far as follows:
After the reconstruction of Jerusalem in the first seven sevens (forty-nine years), another "sixty-two sevens" (434 years) would pass. Then two momentous events would take place. First, the "Anointed One" would come (v. 25), then he would be "cut off." Apparently his coming would be immediately at the end of the sixty-nine sevens, . . ."
There is no real debate among conservative interpreters as to who is spoken of by the phrase "the Messiah will be cut off," as a referral to the crucifixion of Christ. Thus, it means that Jesus would be crucified after completion of the seven and sixty-second week, but before the beginning of the seventieth week. For this to happen it requires a gap of time between the two time periods. This is not the result of an a priori belief like dispensationalism, as claimed by some. G. H. Lang notes, "it is here that the interval in the Seventy Sevens must fall. This is not a matter of interference, but of fact."
I guess the answer is I haven't seen anyone here say that the present state of Israel is the definite fulfillment of specific prophecies. That would be contrary to Jesus' statement that only the father knows the definite time of His planned fulfillment. I think what is being said is that the return of Jews to Israel and the establishment of a people and place is part of the progressive fulfillment of prophecy, just like the progressive movement of history towards the RAPTURE. And won't you be surprised!
A slightly biased misrepresentation, but close.
Who would have thought that Joseph, when he was sold into slavery, would go to Egypt, be falsely accused, go to prison, be elevated to second in command, take a gentile bride, save up for a seven year famine which would bring his brothers to him for help, and then reveal himself to them, and provide for them for the last five years of the famine.
We look for some unlikely things to happen, but they have already happened before, in the natural world. It is noteworthy that those who said that Israel must return in unbelief started saying it long before 1948. I have watched Israel for over 40 years now. It has been breathtaking to see them go from a mighty nation to where they are now. It reminds me of the Israel of the Old Testament. We do not look for the goodness of Israel; surely we are no better than they, but rather, we look for goodness of God.
Which ones of those folks born there would not be citizens of the USA, if they were born in the USA (with apologies to Bruce Springsteen, of course.)?
They are the nation of Israel.
Israel is their home.
And you clearly do not understand my comments. I suspect it's because of your Zionist tendencies. Anything which does not toe the party line means the person must be a sympathizers for the "other side".
I think I've made myself clear enough so as to not be misunderstood. I said, "Actually, I side with neither the Israelis nor the Moslems in this fracas since neither party is demonstrably the religion of God. Both deny the triune God of Scripture therefore both are opposed to the religion of Abraham, Issac and Jacob who were all trinitarians. Both are false religions." Isn't that "fair and balanced?"
Perhaps your puzzlement results from not applying your "literalist" method to the words of others.
Correction, they are a nation which calls itself "Israel". Anything more than that is unprovable, i.e., "they are the Israel of prophecy". You can call yourself a tuna sandwich, but that doesn't make it true.
That is what needs to be proven, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated assertion.
We have the Feast of Unleavened Bread and other ceremonies that require the removal of leaven from your house.
Yes, and, where does the Scripture teach that "leaven" in the context of the Feast is something negative? That's your assertion, now prove it. While you are working on that, please explain how it is that if leaven is "always a negative", why does God permit its use in other religious ceremonies with offerings to Him made with leaven (cf. Lev. 23:17; Amos 4:5)?
. In the New Testament we have Jesus warning his disciples about the leaven of the pharisees (i.e. their false teachings.)
Yes, and we know what Jesus meant from the context. "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." That doesn't prove your point.
Leaven is always to be avoided.
See references above. All you've managed to do is prove that you can stretch the Scriptures to say what they do not say.
You have supported nothing. You have made unsubstantiated assertions. Would you care to explain the simple fact that leaven was used in the ceremonies of God at His command, in spite of your assertion that leaven is always a negative (whatever that means). How can God's worship be defined with a negative? And, again, where is the feast of unleavened bread does it make the statement, as you claim, that leaven is a negative?
Are you done with your diversion? Can we get back to the subject at hand which was the positive growth of the kingdom ala Matt. 13:31-33?
Oh pleazzzeee!! You want to call every Catholic over here?
Buggman and you would like to assert the church and Israel are different. Buggman asked in post #39:
Yet the prophecy of Christ coming was to shepherd His people:
We know that the nation Israel was not our Lord Jesus' sheep but believers. Compare:
Simple deduction. If you still doubt then consider Paul's comments:
I'd certainly like an interpretation. God obviously didn't feel that if you were born of Israel that automatically made you an Israelite, "heir to the promise". Or here's a good Calvinist verse:
But I'll end my scripture quest with this little bit from the book of Galatians:
Paul calls the believers, those who are new creatures, the Israel of God. And he isn't refering to the nation of Israel.
I happened to be in Ezekiel today reading about the temple. It states:
Now how can any Christian believe that Ezekiel temple will be rebuilt and God is going to find pleasure in rams and bulls? And I'd certainly like to know where they'll find Zadok's relatives to do the barbecue. They're not listed in the Yellow Pages under "Levitical Priests 'R Us". Honestly you don't need to know a great deal of eschatology to know that this is skwighckdhslehsldkhskld. (Words censored).
I do not know the plans and ways of God. It could be very possibly that a temple will be erected. But it will not be Ezekiel's temple and nothing that is sacrificed in this temple will be pleasing to God.
I also find scripture to be confusing and fascinating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.