Posted on 06/20/2010 5:14:46 PM PDT by Ken4TA
If you would eliminate all the prophecy that has already been fulfilled, you would eliminate about 90% of today’s prophetic preaching and writing!
A classic example of modern prophets predicting something which has already come to pass is the one concerning the “abomination of desolation,” an expression used by Jesus in Matthew 24. Perhaps you have heard this futuristic interpretation given by a pre-millennial preacher: “The Jews (having restored Herod’s Temple) will have a visit by the False Prophet who shall bring an image of the Anti-Christ into Jerusalem and set it in the temple…that will be the sign Jesus mentioned in Mt. 24, the Abomination of Desolation.” Or this: “This image will be placed in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and is the “abomination of desolation…” (DeHaan).
These same futurist preachers, who make up the majority of radio and TV preachers, and fill most of the religious magazines with their interpretations, succeed in keeping millions from a settled faith in Christ and an understanding of His words.
The setting for the prophecy is the Temple in Jerusalem, so rich and grand that the disciples openly admired its magnificence. Jesus said, “Varily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Mt. 24:2).
This was a shocking statement, considering the huge size of the temple stones. The disciples requested, “Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the world?” (Mt. 24:3). First, Jesus pointed out that there would be false messiahs, earthquakes, wars, etc., and that in the face of these the saints were to endure and the gospel was to be preached. Then, He answered the question concerning the destruction of the temple which then stood. For a right interpretation, we need to read the account as given in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Matthew: “When therefore you see the abomination of desolation, which spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that reads understand) then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains” (Mt. 24:15–16).
Mark: “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not (let him that reads understand), then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains” (Mark 13:14).
Luke: “But when you see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand. Then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains…and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:20–21, 24).
While Matthew and Mark quote directly from Daniel, using Daniel’s expression, “abomination of desolation,” Dr. Luke plainly reveals that what they would see would be armies surrounding the city, about to bring about her desolation.
Reference to Daniel has to do with his “70 weeks” prediction, at the end of which he writes “and upon the wing of abomination shall come one that makes desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate” (Dan. 9:27). The question of the disciples concerned the destruction of the temple, while the prophecy of Daniel predicted the complete desolation of both temple and city. According to Luke’s account the desolation was to be accomplished by armies.
To the residents of Jerusalem nothing was more “abominable” than the idolatrous Romans. As they looked out over the walls of the city and saw Roman legions advancing for the purpose of destroying them, they would easily understood the term “abomination of desolation” and realize that it was upon them.
The “abomination of desolation” was to be seen standing in the “holy place,” or “where he ought not.” Many have taken this to mean an object standing in the Holy of holies in the temple. But there are four things that disallow that interpretation. (1) Only the High Priests were allowed in the Holy of Holies, therefore the people would never see this object in order to be warned to flee. (2) The enemy would never be allowed to place an “abominable” object in the temple unless the city were already in enemy hands. By that time, it would be too late for the Christians to flee; therefore, this could be no sign to them to flee to the mountains. (3) Luke plainly says that what they are to see is “Jerusalem compassed with armies….” (4) The prophecy has to do with the destruction of the temple, not something placed inside it.
As for the “Holy Place,” this term was used not only for the temple, but for the surrounding court and for the entire city, which they often called the “Holy City.”
The prophecy is not nearly so cryptic as modern interpreters would have us believe. Jesus simply told the disciples that the great temple would be destroyed, along with the entire city. However, it was not to take place right away. These same disciples were told to remain in Jerusalem until they received power (the holy Spirit) and that they were to preach the gospel in Jerusalem first. Therefore they were told that there would be wars, rumors of war, famine and other great catastrophes, false Christs and persecution. When the destruction was imminent, they would know it in time to flee, and the clear sign would be the siege of Jerusalem by foreign armies. This was a sign that no one could mistake.
In 65 AD Florus was appointed Caesar’s procurator over Judea. Determined to put down the Jewish resistance to Rome and do away with radical rebels, he imposed such strong measures that thousands of Jews arose in violent rebellion. History records a period when all of Judea and Galilee were filled with violence. Roman armies would attack a village to smoke out the rebels; in retaliation, guerilla bands would attack Gentiles, slaughtering whole communities; the response would be an even greater blow by the Romans against Jews, followed by a massacre led by Jewish rebels.
When Florus couldn’t quell the rebels Cestius Gailus took over, and marched the Roman armies into Palestine, destroyed resistance in all the towns on his way toward Jerusalem, and laid siege to that city.
Here was the sign, the “abomination of desolation” standing in the place holy to all Israelites. But how could they flee? The city was under siege, and the armies of Cestius were easily winning the battle. Then for some unexplained reason, as the historian Josephus says, “without any reason in the world,” he withdrew all the troops. The Jews thought that God had given them the victory, and pursued the Roman army and inflicted heavy casualties. Soon a new General, Titus, would take command and return with greater forces, but in the meantime there was an interval during which all the Christians, following Christ’s warning, fled. According to Thomas Newton: “We learn from ecclesiastical histories, that at this juncture all who believed in Christ departed Jerusalem, and removed to Pella and other places beyond the river Jordan; so that they all marvelously escaped the general shipwreck of their countrymen; and we do not read anywhere that so much as one of them perished in the destruction of Jerusalem” (Disertations on the Prophecies, pg., 389, See “great Prophecies of the Bible,” Ralph Woodrow and “The Olivet Discourse” by Dallas Meserve).
After the Christians had fled, Titus besieged the city, and the woes that befell Jerusalem were what Jesus called “great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Mt. 24:21). Josephus, a Jewish historian, was an eye-witness to the events and describes them in “Wars of the Jews,” published about 75 AD. He wrote of cities filled with the dead, houses plundered and burned. In one hour over 20,000 were killed in Caesarea, and Galilee was filled with fire and blood!
In Jerusalem the Zealots “fell upon the people (who disagreed with them) as upon a flock of profane animals, and cut their throats.” Over 12,000 prominent people died in this way. As the siege continued food became scarce, so that neighbor preyed upon neighbor to obtain food. When it was known that someone possessed food, he was tortured to make him reveal his source, and then usually killed by his greedy countrymen. Josephus relates horrendous systems of torture they used on each other to extract money, in order to buy food from the powerful ones, who had hopes of being delivered before themselves perishing. “The number of those that perished by famine in the city was prodigious, and their miseries were unspeakable. For it so much as the shadow or any kind of food did anywhere appear, a war was commenced presently, and the dearest friends fell fighting one another about it….” One prominent woman killed her infant son and roasted him. After eating half of the body, the other half was hidden. She was forced to uncover the remaining half of the little body, saying: ‘Come, eat of this food,’ for I have eaten of it myself…’.”
Titus had wanted to preserve the temple. But when he finally entered the city one of the enraged soldiers entered the temple with a torch and set it afire. The heat became so intense that it melted the gold inlay so that it ran down into the crevices of the building stones. Eager to extricate this valuable metal, the Romans pulled down one stone from off another, to fulfill Christ’s prophecy, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down.”
The 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 9:25–27) was completed by the events during the ministry of Christ, His death, and the three and one half years following His resurrection during which time thousands turned from the Old Covenant and received the New Covenant of Christ. As in other times a grace period of 40 years was given before the final destruction and end of the nation. During that time the Jews fulfilled another of Christ’s predictions, that the disciples would endure great persecution from their countrymen and unbelieving members of their families, by which the Jews would “fill up the full measure of God’s wrath for them” (Mt. 23:32, 34–36). Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation” (Mt. 23:36), plainly indicating that the destruction of Jerusalem was the result of their rebellion against Christ and His people. At the end of that 40 years, God’s wrath was poured out upon the nation through Roman armies in 70 AD. It is History.
Although it was Titus and pagan armies that made up the abomination of desolation, they were merely carrying out the divine judgment of God, the sentence of destruction Jesus had pronounced upon the city over 40 years earlier.
As Ralph Woodrow comments, “This interpretation is solidly built on the Bible. With it, the gospel accounts are complementary, not contradictory. It is confirmed by history. It glorifies Christ, for it plainly demonstrates how his words were fulfilled and his warnings heeded — thus providing a great deliverance and blessing for the Christian people of that time!”
To place fulfilled prophecy yet into the future is to deny the word of Christ. To show His prophecies fulfilled establishes His words, exalts Him and gives great assurance to the believer.
1. The Promise to Abraham
2. The Millennial Syndrome
3. Daniel’s Prophecy
4. What About The Rapture?
5. The Abomination of Desolation
Then there are those troublesome passages like Isaiah 66, Zechariah 14, Ezekiel 36-38... man-o-man, why can’t we just have a nice neat package of supercessionism and get on with our lives as the “new Israel” - why does the Bible always mess up our nice little praeterist theology?
Ping for study
And just where is that affront to G_d built?
How many buildings have been built on that location now? Which one is this?
Why are you trying to change what Scripture plainly says?
Here are quotes from two different Bibles (first one is NIV):
“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
“The day is coming when you will see the sacrilegious object that causes desecration standing where he should not be.” (Reader, pay attention!) “Then those in Judea must flee to the hills.
How on earth you can interpret this as the general destruction is beyond me. I agree with the other poster. I don’t mind discussing our differences but when Scripture is very plain and people try to make it say something to fit in with their own belief, I guess I want to know why. I have no dog in the race. I believe in Jesus and that he died for me. Whether the fulfillment of certain prophecies happens in my lifetime or not does not change my status.
Therefore, I just want clarity on this for when I share the Gospel. Don’t want to argue here but I do think you are terribly mistaken.
Very good, and true to an extent. But what has that to do with the thread topic? There is nothing in it that would indicate that all prophecy is fulfilled - there is the book of Revelation to consider, I would think.
As for your other comment, well, I would disagree - and have already posted some thread (and will be posting more) that contradict what you said in your comment.
You tell me....
That is your perogative. Please read all the references in the 3 synoptic Gospels to understand what the phrase "abomination of desolation" means. I think it is very clear.
And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering ...
As I said before, the death of Christ did not literally end the sacrifice and grain offerings ... these literally ceased when the temple was destroyed 40 years later.
You can't really continue to seriously argue for the past fulfillment of Daniels 70 weeks until you address this issue.
How in the world do you get MAKE out of CONFIRM? The term "make" is not of part of that sentence in Daniel's prophecy. Jesus CONFIRMED the COVENANT that the Jews were under! And the apostles continued to CONFIRM that COVENANT for the next 3 1/2 years, "signs and wonder following them."
As I said before, the death of Christ did not literally end the sacrifice and grain offerings ... these literally ceased when the temple was destroyed 40 years later.
Literally, forgetting Christ's sacrifice, the ritual of the Jews sacrificing animals etcetera went on up to 70 AD, just as you say. However, in God's plan those sacrifices ceased with Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross - ALL sacrifices in the eyes of God were fulfilled with Jesus' sacrifice. What the Jews sacrificed after the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross doesn't mean beans - the NT is explicit on that!
You can't really continue to seriously argue for the past fulfillment of Daniels 70 weeks until you address this issue.
Issue addressed and I will seriously stand by what Curtis wrote in this article of his, for it is the same as I have concluded from my independent study of the issue over the last 40 years.
Luke: “But when you see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand. Then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains…and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:20–21, 24).
These are two separate occasions. Luke's account took place at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD -- followed then by the Diaspora and times of the Gentiles just as Luke recorded that it would.
Matthew's account is yet future, occurring after the times of the Gentiles and the Diaspora.
The Josephus stuff was interesting though.
3rd times the charm
Hmmm...I disagree with that type of thinking for it's too unbelievable to think that Jesus' words meant two different time periods. Matthew wrote to the Jews, and Luke wrote to the Gentiles who weren't all that acquainted with the prophecies of the OT. In 70 AD there were many gentile Christians intermingled in the population of Jerusalem, and Lukes plain words gave them the warning of the prophecy. Notice that Luke didn't have to give a warning about the Sabbath day - Gentiles ignored particular days.
The abomination is the Obamanation
“Preterism doesn’t hold W.A.T.E.R.”
A short while ago, I realized that many people I know are holding to the ideas of preterism.
I wanted to re-read the gospel accounts of the Olivet discourse, since a frequent preterist poster on Freerepublic.com uses a verse to support his claims: “because these are the days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled” Luke 21:22.
I noticed that for preterism to be true, the following five events must have been fulfilled by now. Since they are NOT fulfilled, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to accept preterism.
I propose an acrostic to illustrate these events: W.A.T.E.R.
W = “worldwide total evangelism”, from Matt 24:14
A = “all tribes mourning the Son of Man”, from Matt 24:30
T = “times of the Gentiles fulfilled”, Luke 21:24
E = “elect gathered from the four winds”, Matt 24:31
R = “return of Jesus” - (how could this possibly have happened in 70 AD, as some preterists claim???) - from Matt 24:27.
This post is a brief introduction to this acrostic, as a reminder that “Preterism doesn’t hold W.A.T.E.R.”.
Too bad the author forgets to consider the meaning of temple.
I'm sure Curtis didn't forget the building of the temple :-)
In fact, one of the future posts concerns that very topic; it will be posted to a thread right after the next article is posted, which addresses "Armageddon". He actually wrote two articles on the temple; the second one an update to the first one: I have to consider if I want to post both of them, for they duplicate each other to an extent. Look for it in a couple of days. Thanks for your interest.
I'm sure of that! Holding "water" would make that viewpoint very liquid, similar to most "millennial" theories. Thank God that I'm not a "Pretorist". Like ALL millennial theories, they do hold some very correct thoughts about the "end times" subject.
How about some "CONTEXT" concerning the verses you used to base your "water" acrostic? That would be very helpful to know.
A good one! Have you ever read the booklet, "Living in an ObamaNation" put out by the GrassFire group of the T.E.A. party? It's eye-opening to say the least!
PS: This is off topic, so don't really expect me to respond to any questions on it :-)
This is an old arguement... framed once again....post- pre- etc. opinions differ. These are future event...and is yet in the future. That is where my research and study of both sides of the issue have concluded.
Further this writers opinion would certainly lead to people delaying their decision for Christ....God says “today is the day of Salvation”.
I copied and pasted the contents of Daniel directly from biblegateway.com; NASB version. (Incidently, biblegateway.com has a huge number of translations available online, inc. Greek; no matter what your escatological persuasion this site is a gem)
Jesus CONFIRMED the COVENANT that the Jews were under!
WHICH COVENANT? The Mosaic covenant or the New covenant of Jeremiah 31?
The first 69 weeks of this prophecy can be traced ... TO THE DAY, ... TO THE DATE ... and this was fulfilled LITERALLY ... I'm sure you have seen several expositors chart out the days from the decree. But now you are bringing in something foreign to the text to claim that the first 3 1/2 years of the 70th week spans Jesus ministry up to His death, then the 2nd 3 1/2 years is the apostles work. Where are your time markers in any passage that suggest the apostles confirmed the covenant for 3 1/2 years? There is nothing in the text of Daniel, Matthew, Acts, et. al. that shows the apostles were part of some 3 1/2 years to complete the fulfillment of Daniels 70th week.
At this point you have abandoned any dedication to a consistent literal hermeneutic (which you were content to use for the first 69 weeks). For example, where is your textual evidence that the time span between Jesus death and the conversion of Cornelius was 3 1/2 years? Isn't that critical to your argument? That the apostle confirmed the covenant to the Jews ... when that was complete they started to convert Gentiles? Seems like it is ... but correct me if I am wrong.
I could go on and discuss more evidence that the "He" in Daniel 9 is not Christ but the "put an end to sacrifice" is more than enough to raise a red flag concerning your interpretation here.
We could talk about all the "reason" statements ... "to finish the transgression, to make an end to sins," ... none of which has been completely fulfilled. Did the work of Christ form the basis for this eventual fulfillment? Absolutely!! ... but in no sense has the nation of Israel fulfilled these "reason" statements. The only thing you can say about all these "reason" statements is that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has provided the basis for the fulfillment of this prophecy given "to your people ... your holy city." Its ultimate fulfillment remains in the future.
Hmmm...then you haven't done ALL the research by any means. Many well-known and some not so well-known have discussed this subject over the past few centuries. Their writings are available, but seemingly never read and commented on. Going back into history one finds multiple writers and preachers, including translators of the Bible, that have taught the same thing this series of articles have to say. Look them up:
John Wycliffe and his associate Walter Brute, John Oldcastle, John Huss, Martin Luther, Andreas Osiander, Nicolaus Von Amsdorf, Philipp Melanchthon, John Calvin, John Knox, John Napier, Huldreich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, Theodor Bibliander, Alfonsus COnradus, William Tyndale, Nicholas Ridley, John Bradford, John Hoopere, Hugh Latimer, Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Becon, John Jewel, Edwin Sandys, William Fluke, King James himself, Sir Isaac Newton, Johann Albrecht Bengel, John Wesley, Leroy Froom, Jonathan Edwards, John Cotton, Cotton Mather, etcetera and etcetera. Look over the Ante-Nicean Fathers to see what they have to say about the second coming of our Lord.
It is ironic that Christian bookstores display and promote all kinds of futurist materials with gaps and guesses, speculation and sensationalism, and yet the customers might have a very difficult time to find a book on the age-old historicist views held over the centuries by many Christian leaders - some of which are mentioned above. The articles being posted by Curtis Dickinson give information that is not even considered by most millennialists for many reasons. Despite whatever difficulties of interpretation exists, we do not believe that ignoring all that has happened in history and attempting to place all of these things into the future provides a satisfactory answer. While these articles do not supply an answer to every single possible question, they do supply information as to what the historicist viewpoint is and what it is based upon from the Scriptures. Follow them along as they are posted and you will see the whole subject matter explained as it comes up. Ignore them and one will not be able to correctly define the viewpoint we stand by. That's a sad situation and commentary on critics.
Further this writers opinion would certainly lead to people delaying their decision for Christ....God says “today is the day of Salvation”.
Hmmm...I could say the same for many of the statements made by millennial theorists. However, Curtis definitely says that "today is the day of salvation"..."NOW is the time"..."There is not salvation in the FUTURE!"..."So don't put it off, your eternal life is at stake!" These statements occur in many of the articles he writes - check them out, there are 300+ of them!
I recommend that you use some good Bible software, cut and paste Matt 28 and Luke 21 into a 2 column table in Word, and then do a side by side comparison of the two sections. There are too many differences to harmonize to claim they are speaking of the same event. Even the questions are different.
I know of the site - it's on my favorites list. Check out the Greek - there is no way it can be translated or interpreted to mean "make". The context of Daniel's 70 week prophecy contains no indication that a covenant is broken in the midst of the week, period.
WHICH COVENANT? The Mosaic covenant or the New covenant of Jeremiah 31?
The Mosaic, naturally; that's the covenant that was in force when Daniel wrote, and the covenant the Jews were under when Jesus started his ministry. The New Covenant covers all mankind, and those in it are those who repent and turn to Christ Jesus for salvation. Another was of refering to the New Covenant is that it is like the covenant God made with Abraham. Study it; it is salvation through faith, the faith Abraham exhibited.
Where are your time markers in any passage that suggest the apostles confirmed the covenant for 3 1/2 years? There is nothing in the text of Daniel, Matthew, Acts, et. al. that shows the apostles were part of some 3 1/2 years to complete the fulfillment of Daniels 70th week.
The 70th week say the covenant would be confirmed. It gives no indication that it won't last 7 years. Again, the problem is the word "he" - futurists take the "he" as anti-christ, historicists take it as Messiah. Futurists take it that Messiah dies at the end of the 69th week, but the verse say AFTER. What comes after 69? Does one have to wait some 2,000 years or so before one can continue counting? I say no - it is successive, and thusly fulfilled.
The only thing you can say about all these "reason" statements is that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has provided the basis for the fulfillment of this prophecy given "to your people ... your holy city." Its ultimate fulfillment remains in the future.
That I disagree with what you just stated is, to me, a denial of what Christ finished! You're telling me that His sacrifice was not completely fulfilled! Baloney! He finished everything He came to accomplish, period. Don't you believe that deep down in your heart? I won't say what I'm actually thinking of your statement - that would be too much for you to take. Anyway, you're wrong, dead wrong!
A Composite of the Four Gospels - Check it out! This is a side by side comparison of the Gospels. I use it quite often in my studies.
For purposes of deception and to try to discredit prophetic Scripture so those who might accept Christ as Savior after being told about what is to come and how to avoid it will not do so because they have read the lie that all of the prophecies have already been fulfilled.
You don't think Satan's going to just sit back and let people be educated and saved, do you? : )
Is this composite Gospels a software program or a hardcopy of a text?
Also, I didn't see any LXX text up at Bible Gateway ... but did find an online version of Dan 9.27 ...
27. καὶ δυναστεύσει ἡ διαθήκη εἰς πολλούς καὶ πάλιν ἐπιστρέψει καὶ ἀνοικοδομηθήσεται εἰς πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ κατὰ συντέλειαν καιρῶν καὶ μετὰ ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα καιροὺς καὶ ἑξήκοντα δύο ἔτη ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας πολέμου καὶ ἀφαιρεθήσεται ἡ ἐρήμωσις ἐν τῷ κατισχῦσαι τὴν διαθήκην ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἑβδομάδας καὶ ἐν τῷ τέλει τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἀρθήσεται ἡ θυσία καὶ ἡ σπονδή καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται ἕως συντελείας καὶ συντέλεια δοθήσεται ἐπὶ τὴν ἐρήμωσιν
I did a quick translation, looked at a few other peoples translations, did a quick comparison of several English versions, and come to the conclusion that the distinction between "make" and "confirm" cannot be pushed. There is enough expert opinion for either translation; as the lexical data suggests. Unfortunately I am partially fluent in the Koine and have no skills with the Hebrew text; exactly what is needed here. Perhaps there is someone out there that could help.
I think you are hanging yourself out on a flimsy limb insisting it must be translated "confirm" and then building a sizeable case on that assumption. ... Now on to the meaty previous post.
It matters little to those intent on spreading "The Myth" ... but lots of hard work was performed behind this summary; esp. the translation work of Rhodes at Tyndale. They continue to translate ancient manuscripts and find plenty of support for the early church origins.
Thanks again.
The Church's opinion, or the opinion of Just Some Guy? I'll stick with the Church.
Hmmm...the way I read this literally is: "And he shall strengthen the covenant with many one period of seven; and in half of the period of seven shall be lifted away sacrifice and libation offering, and upon the temple an obomination of the desolations will be; and until the completion of time, completion shall be given unto the desolation."
Verse 27 in the NIV seems to try to mimic the LXX: "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven'. In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and of offering. And on a wing of the temple, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
The NIV did add some theological bias to their translation which is not indicated in the LXX, which I sorta question. However, they supposedly examined the Hebrew behind it. I'd rather trust the Hebrew scholars (the 70) who knew their own language and translated it into the Greek. That is the version the Jews of Jesus' day used and quoted from. I'm sure you can see the spin the NIV puts on the Greek.
I think you are hanging yourself out on a flimsy limb insisting it must be translated "confirm" and then building a sizeable case on that assumption. ...
I think the "limb" I'm on is not so flimsy as many would like it to be. The Greek doesn't say MAKE, but STRENGTHEN - big difference there! "he shall strengthen" is one compound word in the Greek, as you should be able to see. And there is no 'article' between "strengthen" and "covenant" in the LXX version. In fact, the rendering of 9:27 is significantly at varience with the LXX that I have in front of me. For instance, the one you posted has 9 occurences of the article καὶ while the one I have has only 5 occurences. Doesn't really mean that much, but added to the other variences is make quite a difference. I'm not in the mood right now to go over it word for word with you, but trust me, the Greek version you posted is at varience with the version I have. Let's leave it at that for the time being.
Now on to the meaty previous post.
Which one is that?
BTW, did you really translate the above? If you did you should have realized that it does not say exactly what Daniel's verse does. I forgot to add that to the previous post sent to you. After translating it I find it amazing that you found it online.
Again, as I have pointed out, the Greek text is not particularly troublesome (other than the slightly different words used in the different texts), the verb in question is a normal third declension future active in the 3rd person singular. The lexical data doesn't argue for any preference for "confirm" over "make" since two texts use two slightly different words ... a simple multi-translation search on biblegateway will show that half the English versions translate "make" and the other half translate "confirm." So its best NOT to build a huge argument on one or the other.
The context of Daniel's 70 week prophecy contains no indication that a covenant is broken in the midst of the week, period.
I'm not so sure about that.
The Mosaic, naturally; that's the covenant that was in force when Daniel wrote, and the covenant the Jews were under when Jesus started his ministry.
In what way, and more importantly, why ... did Jesus death confirm the Mosaic covenant? And why, according to your logic, would Jesus need to confirm a covenant that was being done away with? And the apostles sure didnt testify to the Mosaic covenant in their ministry. Your explanation really makes no sense at all.
As I have said before, the 483 years can be pinpointed with the Jewish calendar and the decree in 445 BC. That takes you to a day that was likely the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem before the passover (the triumphal entry), which fits the context of "Messiah the prince" ... Your problem is that the triumphal entry was only a few days before his death, certainly not 3 1/2 years after the 69 weeks.
And again the time markers are non-existant for the apostolic ministry being 3 1/2 years to close the prophecy.
The New Covenant covers all mankind, and those in it are those who repent and turn to Christ Jesus for salvation
So where in Jeremiah 31, do you see that? That stretches the boundaries of reason. The New Covenant was given to the Jewish nation, but they rejected the Messiah, and because of that we Gentiles have been given a provision whereby we can enjoy the benefits of that New Covenant ... i.e., we have been grafted in. But in the future God will fulfill that covenant with the whole nation of Israel, He must, or His promise is false. μη γενοιτο!
You're telling me that His sacrifice was not completely fulfilled!
Nonsense, I said nothing of the sort. We are talking about the fulfillment of the Dan 9 prophecy, not the finished work of Christ.
He finished everything He came to accomplish, period
Agree, but what he came to accomplish was not the restoration of the kingdom yet. Look at what Acts 1.6 says ...
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
And before you start with the "the disciples didn't understand the kingdom" ... remember after his resurrection He "beginning with Moses and the prophets explained to them the things concerning himself in all the scripures." There is no way that the status of the restoration of the kingdom could be misunderstood at this point, that is why they asked the question, they understood that it is in Gods plan to restore the kingdom. The apostle were looking for the fulfillment of the prophecies in Jeremiah that were expounded upon by Daniel.
If we take your understanding on things ... Jesus response to the apostles question in Acts 1 should have naturally been ... "YES!" "Yes, the kingdom is now, Im going to sit on the throne of that kingdom, and rule from heaven!"
Anyway, you're wrong, dead wrong!
Sorry, your arguments lack any substance and are filled with inconsistent theology and, more importantly, inconsistent dedication to a consistent literal hermeneutic.
Anyway ... I cant wait to get to Matt 24.
You do that ...
I forgot to mention before that the section of Daniel we are talking about is not in Hebrew ... its in Aramaic.
ἡ διαθήκη
lol ... You mean this non-existent article? The one just before διαθήκη? Is that the one thats not there?
I did a google search on LXX text for Dan 9:27, found 2 texts. No lexicon online though so I had to use my copy of Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich.
bflr
I forgot to mention before that the section of Daniel we are talking about is not in Hebrew ... its in Aramaic.
I realize that. And I'm sure the Hebrew scholars who translated the OT into the LXX understood and had parts that were in Aramaic. They did the tranlsation and I think that they knew better than we moderns do, so they translated the whole OT into the Greek LXX.
That's one, just a small one. See my FRMAIL to you.
Me neither :-)
And come to think of it ... you should be arguing FOR the presence of the article! Since you believe that “he will confirm” the Mosaic covenant the presence of the article would lend support to your position. If the article was missing (as you are arguing for as the preferred reading) the better rendition would be one of unfamilarity ... i.e., “confirm a covenant” ... one that was presumably not in existence as of yet.
Nope, I go by the exact wording of the LXX. Injecting articles is a modern convention that started centuries after the spread of the manuscripts we have. That is not to say I don't agree with the addition of articles, but that it is not to be found in the manuscripts. Is it true or not that Jesus said that not one "jot" or "tittle" would not be fulfilled? Those publishing what is supposed to be the words of the manuscripts in the Greek - not the translation - and saying that those are the words written are ridiculous. The addition of Greek "articles" is not faithfully transmitting the Scriptures in the Greek language. Does that make sense?
And I’m not really sure why you are preferring the LXX for your translation and interpretation of Daniel. You say you trusted the Hebrew scholars who translated from Hebrew to Greek; are you implying you DON’T trust the Hebrew scholars who translate the Hebrew into English today?
And, as you probably know, the LXX diverges quite wildly in many places from the Hebrew.
There are 2 predominant texts of the LXX, BOTH were used by the early church fathers who commented on Daniel occassionally. Using the one without articles is a preference, not a dictate. Personally, I used both while looking at the lexical data to support my partial translation. You would do well to heed the words of Augustine quoted in the preface to the KJV. He said (my terrible paraphrase from memory) "its best to use a multiple of translations because you could get the wrong sense by committing to just one."
Augustine said many things that are good (and some far out). Your terrible paraphrase of him is fine: and I follow that all the time. My library has 29 versions of the Bible, and while I don't pull everyone out all the time to check how they translate or interpret the manuscripts, I seldom don't check a few when writing articles. That is a good practice that more should follow - congratulation are due to you!
There are 2 predominant texts of the LXX, BOTH were used by the early church fathers who commented on Daniel occassionally. Using the one without articles is a preference, not a dictate. Personally, I used both while looking at the lexical data to support my partial translation.
Okay, not bad. I do similarly. I have access to quite a few texts of the Old and New Testament books. The list of varients I have on the manuscripts are way to large to look at each and every one all the time. So, I have to pick and choose, maybe missing one that someone else may comment on. O'well, what will be wil be, as the saying goes. If you ever have the chance, visit the library in London, England: it has the largest collection of manuscripts that I've ever seen - although the Vatican library claims much more.
I don't read Hebrew is why I go to the LXX. It's not a matter of trusting modern Hebrew scholars, it's a matter of the OLD Hebrew scholars who did the original translation of the Hebrew (and Aramaic) into the Greek language, and whose translation was quoted by Jesus and His Apostles: also, it's the version that was in use in the 1st century and a few centuries after. Anything wrong with doing that?
And, as you probably know, the LXX diverges quite wildly in many places from the Hebrew.
I'm aware of that. However, there was no controversey from Hebrews of the 1st century over any divergences until the argument about whether to use the LXX or the Masoretic text. However the Masoretic has many varients when compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that is an even bigger argument among scholars today. While the precise meaning of some texts of the NT are sometimes uncertain, that is more often the case with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Thus my use of the Greek LXX.
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.