PRI Articles

Most Holy Place entry Rev 15:8

Hi Don - I'm re-reading your "seventy weeks are determined. I have some confusion re you saying no man could enter in the MHP until the plagues were finished against Jerusalem (Babylon). I understand I think what you are trying to explain in your book but how does the Rev. statement fit in with this: (Heb 10:19 KJV) Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. It seems to me that this states that the believers before 70 AD could enter the MHP. The only way around this seeming contradiction between Rev. and Heb is that while the temple still stood they could only "draw near": (Heb 10:22 KJV) Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.   Any help would be appreciated Don. Regards - John.    

Baptism

I would like to know why do you still believe we should still be baptized ? I thought Baptism is a ceremonial ritual of the flesh the gains nothing.... I would really like to know ....thanks Hector Moreno

Judgment/Gehenna

Don, I have been a Christian for some 40 years, saved and raised in Independent Baptist churches and most recently Reformed Baptist but have recently accepted fulfilled eschatology after some 10+ years of study. I have tried to make "Sola Scriptura" the sole basis of my faith. It was while studying the "judgment" passages, to determine if they pointed to a 1st century fulfillment that I was challenged on another long held belief, that is the doctrine of Hell. I have found the absence of Hell in the scriptures to be a deafening silence and the teaching of conditionalist in general to be very sound scripturally. It seems that the combination of both preterism and conditionalism are very complementary, conditionalist for bringing to light the connection of Gehenna to the judgment specifically of Jerusalem and preterist for the resurrection having taken place there is no need for what I believe to be the false doctrine of some conditionalist of "soul sleep". I wonder if you have considered this in your studies as both teachings rely strongly on a "sola scriptura" approach and face their strongest opposition from church tradition?   

Daniel 9 Prophecy

Question:

I have done a fair amount of reading and it seems that Daniel’s 70th week seems to get stretched to a period of at least 5 weeks of years taking it to 70 AD depending upon the point of view of the preterist author.  The view seems to be split 50/50.  I know that Daniel’s prophecy includes the destruction of Jerusalem in 9:26 as a “shall come” prediction but surely the 70th week does not represent the period of 40 years (30 – 70 AD).  Where do you stand on this?

 

Answer :

I do not use a precise mathematical calculation for the 70 Weeks. I believe that it is a symbolic period of time, marked out by the beginning point, and the termination point, with "markers" in between. I do this for several reasons.

1.) There is no mathematical calculation that I have ever seen that comes out precisely.

2.) Even the Jewish Rabbis who applied the seventy weeks to A.D. 70 give some of the most convoluted mathematical calculations you have ever seen! Wish they would have it down precisely, but they didn't.

3.) Zechariah 14 says that day would be known only to the Lord, and this is echoed in Matthew 24:36. Yet, if the precise starting date was known, and the countdown was to be a precise mathematical calculation, would they not all have known the day and hour?

4.) I believe that the term "acceptable time" acceptable year of the Lord (Isaiah 61), also plays into it. Jesus said he came to proclaim that. It was not a literal year, but the Jubilee year, the time of fulfillment!

5.) Peter urged his audience to repent so that God would send "times of refreshing." This is a notoriously difficult term in the Greek, but seems to indicate a time of respite, a time of "calm before the storm" if I can express it like that. So, it is possible that the "times of refreshing do indeed have to do with Peter's "these days" that he says the OT prophets had foretold, that would bring in the Messiah. What I am suggesting is that the time period between Jesus' death and the fall of Jerusalem, the end of the 70, was granted by God who was longsuffering (2 Peter 3:8f).

 

The bottom line is that the fall of Jerusalem is the terminus point of Daniel's prophecy. That is simply unavoidable from the text. So, whether we arrive there through mathematical  precision or through referent to Jubilee symbolism, or the times of refreshing, we must honor those parameters.

 

As I sometimes say, this is my A-T-and T position. That is, this is my position At This Time! I am always open to a more cogent, solid answer, but, to me, this is the best I have found.

 

Question:

My main point is that Christ was “cut off” after the 69th week.  I believe this refers to His crucifixion.  This being true it means He was crucified “sometime” within the 70th week.  This last week must refer to a seven year period or we become just as guilty as the dispensationalists.  The end of this 7 year period (1 week of years) would be 38 AD (give or take a year or two).  It is this last week of years that seems to get stretched out to 70 AD for reasons I know not why.

 

Although Daniel 9 foretells of the “people of the prince that shall come”, I can’t believe that it has to occur within the original 70 week prophecy.  I don’t even think that we need it to occur within the 70 weeks.  We have plenty of Scriptures that refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the Lord in 70 AD.  I think we get into “dispensational trouble” by trying to stretch the last week of years by 30 plus years.  We just don’t need it to.  It is unnecessary and I think (there I go thinking again) we play into the liberals hands by changing the original timeframe intended, something that they love to see us do to match a predefined theology.

 

I am curious though.  What are the exact reasons why the last week needs to be stretched all the way to 70 AD?  Can not these same reasons be backed up with Scripture that has nothing to do with Daniel 9:24-27?  Do we not become guilty of trying to add another proof text to support whatever these reasons may be, when it is just simply not needed?

 

And lastly, is there some vitally important point I am missing if the last week is not stretched out to AD 70 independent of ANY other Scripture?

 

Answer:

Let me see if I can explain where I am at in a succinct manner:
1.) Every mathematical calculation that I have ever seen cannot arrive at the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.
 
2.) The destruction is, in my estimation, undeniably confined within the parameters of the 70 weeks ("seventy weeks are determined for you people and for your city.").
 
 I just don't see a way to say that the fate of the people and the city lie outside the divinely mandated period. In my Seal Up Vision and Prophecy and in my newest book, Seventy Weeks Are Determined...For the Resurrection, I give a lot of evidence as to why I do not think that you can posit the destruction outside of the seventy weeks.
 
3.) Since mathematical calculation does not work, and since the Jubilee concept lies behind the prophecy, it seems to me that there is latitude and justification for seeing the 70 weeks as symbolic. It clearly has some kind of symbolism, for it cannot be referent to a literal seventy weeks, cause that would be 490 literal days. So, in one way or another, there is symbolism in the seventy weeks.
Because the original (Babylonian) captivity was based on the failure to observe the Jubilees, it is clear to me that the promised 70 also is based on the Jubilee concept.
 
4.) Jesus was indeed crucified after the 69th week, that much is abundantly clear.
 
5.) While it is controversial and the text is not definitive, if the one that causes the sacrifice to cease is the enemy (and not Messiah; I am not totally comfortable with this view, as I think that there is good justification for taking the "second" prince in v. 26 as Messiah. The antecedent to the second reference is after all, Messiah), then he causes the sacrifice to cease in the midst of the week. Now, I do not believe that this refers to Christ dying on the Cross. I think it refers to his work--through the Jews themselves in the judgment period-- of literally causing the sacrifice to cease. This was circa late 66-67 when the Jews literally ceased the sacrifices. Now, if this referent in Daniel to the cessation of the sacrifices is to that literal cessation of the sacrifices, then we are forced by the text to see that the final week, or final half of the week if you please, was the time of the War itself.
 
6.) Now, in Acts 3, as I referenced in an earlier post, Peter said that his audience should repent so that God would send "times of refreshing." The word is anaxusis (sp?) and means rest, respite. In other words, if they would repent, YHVH would grant them respite from what was foretold. To me, this ties in with 2 Peter 3:8-9 and God's longsuffering so that they would repent. My point is that from the Passion of Jesus to the parousia, YHVH granted Israel one generation of respite before the appointed time of the climactic seventieth week came and swept them away. Jesus did, after all, come to declare the "Acceptable day of the Lord, and the Day of Vengeance of our God" (that Day of Vengeance is the consummative seventieth week, and the Acceptable Day is that suggestive Jubilee concept). Further, Jesus did posit that Day of Vengeance-- and thus, to me, the end of the seventieth week, in A.D. 70. Now, if the arrival of the true Jubilee, (the fulfillment of the seventieth week), as well as the Day of Vengeance, is confined to Jesus' generation, then this confines the seventieth week to that period and consummates it in A.D. 70, whether we understand the "math" behind it or not. Or so it seems to me.
 
Now, while I am like you, and do not like, and reject,  the idea of "gaps" what I see here is not a gap in the dispensational sense of things because:
1.) The seventy weeks were not intended to be a precise mathematical calculation. BTW, consider this. If it was, then the Jews could know the Day and the Hour, right? Well, remember that in Zechariah 14:7-- echoed by Jesus in Matthew 24:36-- that day was known only to the Lord! To me, this is very strong evidence that while the Jews could know when the time was near, they could not calculate the Day and Hour, because it was not to be determined that precisely.
 
2.) In this scenario, there is no postponement, no failure of fulfillment, no delay, as in the millennial view of things.
 
3.) It allows for God's mercy to extend "the times of refreshing" before the climactic and consummative final end.

 

 


Shop!
Contribute!
Books!

This Site