Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

church fathers on the O.D.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • church fathers on the O.D.

    I'm going to post a few messages from the Church Fathers to try to show that although they were futurists, they interpreted Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse historically. Aside from Antichrist and the 2nd Coming, which they thought were future, they saw the 70th Week of Daniel 9 and the Great Tribulation of Luke 21 as fulfilled or being fulfilled historically in the death of Christ and in the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The Great Tribulation is the Jewish Diaspora of the NT era, which began in 70 AD and continues to the present day. Indeed, it will only end at the 2nd Coming.

    Stay tuned!...

  • #2
    Tertullian sees the 70 Weeks Prophecy of Dan 9 as fulfilled in the time of Christ. In this he refers to Christ as the "Unction," or "Anointed One." He also sees the rejection of Christ by the Jews as the cause of Jewish suffering and tribulation. That is likely how Tertullian interpreted the Olivet Discourse, as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as a consequence of the Jews rejecting Christ.

    Tertullian (c. 160-225) An Answer to the Jews: Chap. XIII.--Argument from the Destruction of Jerusalem and Desolation of Judea.
    Therefore, since the sons of Israel affirm that we err in receiving the Christ, who is already come, let us put in a demurrer against them out of the Scriptures themselves, to the effect that the Christ who was the theme of prediction is come; albeit by the times of Daniel’s prediction we have proved that the Christ is come already who was the theme of announcement... Now, if (according to the Jews) He is hitherto not come, when He begins to come whence will He be anointed? For the Law enjoined that, in captivity, it was not lawful for the unction of the royal chrism to be compounded. But, if there is no longer “unction” there as Daniel prophesied (for he says, “Unction shall be exterminated”), it follows that they no longer have it, because neither have they a temple where was the “horn” from which kings were wont to be anointed. If, then, there is no unction, whence shall be anointed the “leader” who shall be born in Bethlehem? or how shall he proceed “from Bethlehem,” seeing that of the seed of Israel none at all exists in Bethlehem... A second time, in fact, let us show that Christ is already come, (as foretold) through the prophets, and has suffered, and is already received back in the heavens, and thence is to come accordingly as the predictions prophesied. For, after His advent, we read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated; and we recognize that so it has befallen. For the Scripture says thus, that “the city and the holy place are simultaneously exterminated together with the leader,” —undoubtedly (that Leader) who was to proceed “from Bethlehem,” and from the tribe of “Judah.” Whence, again, it is manifest that “the city must simultaneously be exterminated” at the time when its “Leader” had to suffer in it, (as foretold) through the Scriptures of the prophets... Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ’s account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ’s account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times.

    Comment


    • #3
      Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215 ) saw that the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 were fulfilled in the time of Christ, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in his generation. Jesus is here identified as the "Holy of Holies," just as Tertullian described him as the "Unction," or "Anointed."

      In connecting the Abomination of Desolation of Dan 9 with the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, Clement sees the AoD of the Olivet Discourse to be the same as the AoD of Dan 9, which is the destruction of the temple in the time of the Romans.

      Clement does take an unusual turn from other positions on the 7 weeks and the 1 week of Dan 9. He seems to view Christ ruling, in a pre-incarnate sense, during the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah. And he views the 70th week as fulfilled in Nero in the 1st half of the 70th Week, and Vespasian in the last half of the 70th Week. This alters the view of other Fathers, who viewed Christ as the one who fulfills the 70th Week.

      Clement of Alexandria The Stromata, Book 1, Chap. XXI (c. A.D. 190)
      From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation." That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father.
      In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.

      Comment


      • #4
        Origen shared the belief that the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 was fulfilled in the time of Christ. That would suggest that the Abomination of Desolation, which follows, the 70 Weeks, was fulfilled in the same time frame.

        Origen, De Principiis, Book IV: Chap. 1, Sec. 5 (c. A.D. 225)
        The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled.

        Comment


        • #5
          Athanasius here sees the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 as fulfilled in Christ, who he describes as the "Holy of Holies." This is similar to Tertullian's "Unction," or Clement's "Holy of Holies." Like Tertullian, he sees the destruction of the temple as a result of the Jews' rejecting their Christ. The end of the Law, in this sense, made Christ to be the only possible choice for the Jews. And so, he sees the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 as fulfilled in Jesus' generation of the Jews, who rejected him, and who thus suffered the destruction of the temple. Here is a clear linkage between the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, finding the destruction of the temple a fulfillment of what Jesus foretold. The ensuing Great Distress of the Jews would then logically be a continuation of this judgment, following after 70 AD.

          Athenasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) On the Incarnation of the Word, Sec. 39. XXXIX.

          Do you look for another ? But Daniel foretells the exact time.
          Objections to this removed.

          But perhaps, being unable, even they, to fight con-
          tinually against plain facts, they will, without denying
          what is written, maintain that they are looking for these
          things, and that the Word of God is not yet come.
          For this it is on which they are for ever harping, not
          blushing to brazen it out in the face of plain facts.
          2. But on this one point, above all, they shall be all
          the more refuted, not at our hands, but at those of
          the most wise Daniel, who marks both the actual
          date, and the divine sojourn of the Saviour, saying :
          " Seventy 1 weeks are cut short upon thy people, and
          " upon the holy city, for a full end to be made of sin,
          " and for sins to be sealed up, and to blot out iniquities,
          " and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring
          " everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and pro-
          " phet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies ; and thou shalt
          " know and understand from the going forth of the
          " word to restore 2 and to build Jerusalem unto Christ
          "the Prince."
          3. Perhaps with regard to the other
          (prophecies) they may be able even to find excuses
          and to put off what is written to a future time. But
          what can they say to this, or can they face it at all ?
          Where not only is the Christ referred to, but he that is...

          ...to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but the
          Holy of Holies; and Jerusalem is to stand till his
          coming,
          and thenceforth, prophets and vision cease in
          Israel. 4. David was anointed of old, and Solomon and
          Ezechias ; but then, nevertheless, Jerusalem and the
          place stood, and prophets were prophesying, Gad and
          Asaph and Nathan, and, later, Esaias and Osee and
          Amos and others. And again, the actual men that were
          anointed were called holy, and not Holy of Holies. But
          if they shield themselves with the captivity, and say that
          because of it Jerusalem was not, what can they say about
          the prophets too ? For in fact when first the people went
          down to Babylon, Daniel and Jeremy were thei-e, and
          Ezechiel and Aggams and Zachary were prophesying.

          XL.
          Argument (1) from the withdrawal of prophecy and destruction
          of Jerusalem, (2) from the conversion of the Gentiles, and
          that to the God of Moses. What more remains for the
          Messiah to do, that Christ had not done ?


          So the Jews are trifling, and the time in question,
          which they refer to the future, is actually come. For
          when did prophet and vision cease from Israel, save when
          Christ came, the Holy of Holies ?
          For it is a sign, and
          an important proof, of the coming of the Word of God,
          that Jerusalem no longer stands, nor is any prophet
          raised up nor vision revealed to them and that very
          naturally. 2. For when he that signified was come,
          what need was there any longer of any to signify him ?
          When the truth was there, what need any more of the
          shadow ? For this was the reason of their prophesying

          68 Refutation of the Jews.

          at all namely, till the true Righteousness should come,
          and he that was to ransom the sins of all. And this
          was why Jerusalem stood till then namely, that there
          they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for
          the reality. 3. So when the Holy of Holies was come,
          naturally vision and prophecy were sealed and the king
          dom of Jerusalem ceased.
          For kings were to be anointed
          among them only until the Holy of Holies should have
          been anointed ; and Jacob prophesies that the king
          dom of the Jews should be established until him, as
          follows : " The ruler 1 shall not fail from Juda, nor the
          "Prince from his loins, until that which is laid up for
          ; him shall come ; and he is the expectation of the
          " nations." 4. Whence the Saviour also himself cried
          aloud and said : " The 2 law and the prophets prophesied
          until John."

          Comment


          • #6
            We all appreciate the excellent writings of the Early Church Fathers and that of every serious Christian scholar since then.
            But it is a mistake to use their beliefs and opinions to support any end time theory. They were and those today, are not prophets, what Jesus said about the learned and wise, Matthew 11:25, applies to them all.
            This truth is glaringly evident by their lack of consensus about God's Plans for His people during the end times. Especially those in more recent times.
            Why try to use any of them to prove a personal belief?

            What I have found is that if any personal belief has no definitive Bible support, then it is wrong. Even the Trinity, much fought over; is suspect in this regard.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Keraz View Post
              We all appreciate the excellent writings of the Early Church Fathers and that of every serious Christian scholar since then.
              But it is a mistake to use their beliefs and opinions to support any end time theory. They were and those today, are not prophets, what Jesus said about the learned and wise, Matthew 11:25, applies to them all.
              This truth is glaringly evident by their lack of consensus about God's Plans for His people during the end times. Especially those in more recent times.
              Why try to use any of them to prove a personal belief?

              What I have found is that if any personal belief has no definitive Bible support, then it is wrong. Even the Trinity, much fought over; is suspect in this regard.
              I somewhat dread bringing them up because it virtually assumes the reader understands their thinking. But that's why I bring them up, because their thinking reflects their thinking about the 70 Weeks Prophecy and about the Olivet Discourse Prophecy, and enables us to view one way of looking at terms like "the Annointed," the "Great Tribulation," the "Abomination of Desolation," etc. Not all of these terms are used and spelled out clearly. But with a careful reading, one is able to discern how they looked at these prophecies overall, and it was historical.

              If the Church Fathers did not look at these things this way, then it would be useless to prove that such a view is even credible. Who would know better what these things meant than those who were much closer in time to when they were originally communicated?

              It's like asking, Do you know what that man meant? And the reply comes, Why don't you ask his wife?

              In this case, it's more like, Why don't you ask those who were around that culture and knew the schools produced at that time? If you just dismiss scholarship, you are by default choosing unstudied theories.

              Comment


              • #8
                Randy, it seems the fathers, like many today simply ignore how the prophecy from Daniel is written. The seventy weeks are divided into three distinct points, why? As I have already shown in the other thread if we consider the weeks are weeks of years, and point to the first Jubilee year from the word to build again Jerusalem (445 B.C. Nehemiah 2:1, 17-20) was 407 B.C. So the date 407 B.C. to begin to rebuild Jerusalem is the start of the first 7 sevens, or Jubilee year. That is the time designated to the seven sevens.

                Le 25:8 And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.
                Le 25:9 Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.
                Le 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

                After that first Jubilee from 406 to 434 years later (calculated from the end of the seven weeks, 62X7, or weeks after the 7 or Jubilee year) brings us to the time of Christ 29 A.D. After the Jubilee year 406 B.C. brings us to the year 29 A.D.

                The seven weeks and the seven weeks of years are all pointing to the Jubilee of the Lord when the firstfruits will come in.

                De 16:9 Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee: begin to number the seven weeks from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn.
                De 16:10 And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God, according as the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:

                So we find Daniel's prophecy from the time to begin the rebuilding of Jerusalem began leads us to timing of the promised Messiah, the Prince, the time to anoint the most Holy. All the prophetic words of Daniel from v 24 are fulfilled through the Advent of Christ.

                Dan 9:24 "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."

                Daniel 9:26 (KJV) 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.

                After the sixty two weeks the Messiah is cut off, not for himself, but for the sins of His people. And the Holy City and Temple were destroyed after the Messiah was cut off, within His generation/time.

                Isaiah 53:8 (KJV) He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

                But there is one more verse to complete the 70 weeks prophesy.

                Daniel 9:27 (KJV) 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.

                As I've shown the prophesy thus far has been physically fulfilled with the Advent of the Messiah Who was to come. The dates can be simply multiplied to show Daniel's prophesy up to the Advent of Christ, is fulfilled in exactly the number of years of weeks it was foretold to happen. But the prophesy is not finished without the final week, when the covenant must be confirmed. The one week cannot equate to 70 years, or 7 years as some believe. Nor can it equate to one exact week. It is during this week that sacrifice and oblation cease. It is my opinion that "midst of the week" in this context does not mean exactly in the middle, but rather means within the week. I believe this too points to the 70 A.D. destruction that made a final end of the Old Covenant sacrificial system, the Mosaic Law. It was the cross of Christ that ultimately ended the Old and ushered in the New Covenant Gospel Age. The renting of the curtain in the Temple was the sign given to show the Old system is gone, and the New begun, even though the sacrifice and offering would continue until the final destruction in 70 A.D.

                But the final week remaining of Daniel's seventy weeks prophesy cannot be known to man, because the verse points us to the end of this age of the Messiah Who was promised would come. From the context we know that it starts with the Advent of Christ, after the sixty two weeks, after the Messiah is cut off. It was at the cross that Christ was cut off for the sins of His people. So the Covenant too must be strengthened after the cross. So from the timing of the Messiah until the consummation is the end of the world. So the final week is to be understood symbolically. The final week then is the New Covenant Week, or the time for which God has assigned His Kingdom would be built through the preaching of the Gospel sent unto all the earth in the power of the Holy Spirit.

                Daniel 12 speaks about this New Covenant week as time, times and an half, just as we find in Rev 12:14 tells us the woman in the wilderness is nourished from the face of the serpent.

                Da 12:5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.
                Da 12:6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
                Da 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

                Revelation 12:14 (KJV) And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

                The answer to Daniel's question regarding how long it would be to the end of all these wonders is first told that many shall be purified, made white and tried during this time, and the the wicked would continue to do wickedly and would not understand. A clear reference to the Gospel Age. Then Daniel is given another time reference for after the daily is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate set up of 1290 days, and told those who wait are blessed and will come to 1335 days.

                Da 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
                Da 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
                Da 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

                There have been some who attempt to guess the timing of 1290 days and 1335 days, but in all honesty I have yet to understand or yet to read any clear understanding from others regarding these times. The only thing I can say with somewhat confidence is that the times must be symbolically discerned, or it could be possible to know when the Lord will return. It is for this reason that I view all times referenced in The Revelation symbolically.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by randyk View Post

                  I somewhat dread bringing them up because it virtually assumes the reader understands their thinking. But that's why I bring them up, because their thinking reflects their thinking about the 70 Weeks Prophecy and about the Olivet Discourse Prophecy, and enables us to view one way of looking at terms like "the Annointed," the "Great Tribulation," the "Abomination of Desolation," etc. Not all of these terms are used and spelled out clearly. But with a careful reading, one is able to discern how they looked at these prophecies overall, and it was historical.

                  If the Church Fathers did not look at these things this way, then it would be useless to prove that such a view is even credible. Who would know better what these things meant than those who were much closer in time to when they were originally communicated?

                  It's like asking, Do you know what that man meant? And the reply comes, Why don't you ask his wife?

                  In this case, it's more like, Why don't you ask those who were around that culture and knew the schools produced at that time? If you just dismiss scholarship, you are by default choosing unstudied theories.
                  The problem is; even the ancient prophets, including Jesus in His time, did not know the full meaning of what they prophesied.
                  I see any explanations of the ECF's of what those prophesies meant, as no better that the guesswork and speculation of the so called prophecy guru's of today.

                  As an intensive studier of the Prophetic Word myself, my task is not to speculate or make unsupportable assertions about what God has planned for our future, but to just point out what the prophets actually wrote.
                  We do have the benefit of hindsight, of the nearly 2000 years past since Jesus was on earth. We also have modern scientific knowledge, so it is possible to figure out what the prophets meant in cases like the sun shining 7 times brighter. A literal description of a Coronal Mass Ejection.
                  However, is isn't for everyone to know the truths of what will happen, so if people have already got a set idea of what they want God to do for them, then they will be made incapable of understanding the prophesies. 2 Thessalonians 2:11

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by randyk View Post
                    If the Church Fathers did not look at these things this way, then it would be useless to prove that such a view is even credible. Who would know better what these things meant than those who were much closer in time to when they were originally communicated?

                    It's like asking, Do you know what that man meant? And the reply comes, Why don't you ask his wife?

                    In this case, it's more like, Why don't you ask those who were around that culture and knew the schools produced at that time? If you just dismiss scholarship, you are by default choosing unstudied theories.
                    Here is where you go wrong in two ways:
                    1) You assume you understand what they are saying, yet you need as you put you need to work out what they are meaning, and think you get their ideas, yet often they aren't fully joined up. Also the further from the writing of the gospel you are the further away in thinking. So this isn't asking a man's wife, but a man's great grandson, who may understand less than we do as he had less resources and understanding of that culture, but reflected the views of his own.
                    2) The ECFs themselves are in disagreement over how to interpret something, which shows they are not the source of credible views. The credible view is one that is based on scripture itself and not tradition. What you are claiming is that unless tradition offers an option then it can't be right - a very Catholic way of thinking, but also completely wrong.

                    You also add to what the ECFs say from the quotes you gave.
                    For example you quote Tertullian, and posit that Tertullian is saying the entirety of Daniel 9 is fulfilled in Jesus' first coming, yet the quote ONLY speaks of the advent of Jesus being foretold, and the destruction of Jerusalem being foretold.

                    Again quoting Origen you posit that Origen means the entirety of the 70 week is fulfilled, but what your quote actually says is the weeks leading to Jesus has been fulfilled.

                    My own view actually agrees with BOTH Tertullian and Origen in what you have quoted, but still leads to a different understanding of the 70 weeks fulfillment to what I know you hold.
                    My view though is NOT based on what an ECF may or may not have said, but on what Daniel 9 itself says in context. What an ECF states is simply a confirmation, or corroborating person who holds a similar view on somethings - just like any other Christian.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RogerW View Post
                      Randy, it seems the fathers, like many today simply ignore how the prophecy from Daniel is written. The seventy weeks are divided into three distinct points, why? As I have already shown in the other thread if we consider the weeks are weeks of years, and point to the first Jubilee year from the word to build again Jerusalem (445 B.C. Nehemiah 2:1, 17-20) was 407 B.C. So the date 407 B.C. to begin to rebuild Jerusalem is the start of the first 7 sevens, or Jubilee year. That is the time designated to the seven sevens.

                      Le 25:8 And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.
                      Le 25:9 Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.
                      Le 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

                      After that first Jubilee from 406 to 434 years later (calculated from the end of the seven weeks, 62X7, or weeks after the 7 or Jubilee year) brings us to the time of Christ 29 A.D. After the Jubilee year 406 B.C. brings us to the year 29 A.D.

                      The seven weeks and the seven weeks of years are all pointing to the Jubilee of the Lord when the firstfruits will come in.

                      De 16:9 Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee: begin to number the seven weeks from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn.
                      De 16:10 And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God, according as the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:

                      So we find Daniel's prophecy from the time to begin the rebuilding of Jerusalem began leads us to timing of the promised Messiah, the Prince, the time to anoint the most Holy. All the prophetic words of Daniel from v 24 are fulfilled through the Advent of Christ.

                      Dan 9:24 "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."

                      Daniel 9:26 (KJV) 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.

                      After the sixty two weeks the Messiah is cut off, not for himself, but for the sins of His people. And the Holy City and Temple were destroyed after the Messiah was cut off, within His generation/time.

                      Isaiah 53:8 (KJV) He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

                      But there is one more verse to complete the 70 weeks prophesy.

                      Daniel 9:27 (KJV) 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.

                      As I've shown the prophesy thus far has been physically fulfilled with the Advent of the Messiah Who was to come. The dates can be simply multiplied to show Daniel's prophesy up to the Advent of Christ, is fulfilled in exactly the number of years of weeks it was foretold to happen. But the prophesy is not finished without the final week, when the covenant must be confirmed. The one week cannot equate to 70 years, or 7 years as some believe. Nor can it equate to one exact week. It is during this week that sacrifice and oblation cease. It is my opinion that "midst of the week" in this context does not mean exactly in the middle, but rather means within the week. I believe this too points to the 70 A.D. destruction that made a final end of the Old Covenant sacrificial system, the Mosaic Law. It was the cross of Christ that ultimately ended the Old and ushered in the New Covenant Gospel Age. The renting of the curtain in the Temple was the sign given to show the Old system is gone, and the New begun, even though the sacrifice and offering would continue until the final destruction in 70 A.D.

                      But the final week remaining of Daniel's seventy weeks prophesy cannot be known to man, because the verse points us to the end of this age of the Messiah Who was promised would come. From the context we know that it starts with the Advent of Christ, after the sixty two weeks, after the Messiah is cut off. It was at the cross that Christ was cut off for the sins of His people. So the Covenant too must be strengthened after the cross. So from the timing of the Messiah until the consummation is the end of the world. So the final week is to be understood symbolically. The final week then is the New Covenant Week, or the time for which God has assigned His Kingdom would be built through the preaching of the Gospel sent unto all the earth in the power of the Holy Spirit.

                      Daniel 12 speaks about this New Covenant week as time, times and an half, just as we find in Rev 12:14 tells us the woman in the wilderness is nourished from the face of the serpent.

                      Da 12:5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.
                      Da 12:6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
                      Da 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

                      Revelation 12:14 (KJV) And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

                      The answer to Daniel's question regarding how long it would be to the end of all these wonders is first told that many shall be purified, made white and tried during this time, and the the wicked would continue to do wickedly and would not understand. A clear reference to the Gospel Age. Then Daniel is given another time reference for after the daily is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate set up of 1290 days, and told those who wait are blessed and will come to 1335 days.

                      Da 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
                      Da 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
                      Da 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

                      There have been some who attempt to guess the timing of 1290 days and 1335 days, but in all honesty I have yet to understand or yet to read any clear understanding from others regarding these times. The only thing I can say with somewhat confidence is that the times must be symbolically discerned, or it could be possible to know when the Lord will return. It is for this reason that I view all times referenced in The Revelation symbolically.
                      We do have a lot in common. I'll explain where we don't agree. I do believe the 70 Weeks takes us up to the 70th Week, which was ended in the middle by Christ being "cut off." And then there followed the judgment against Jerusalem for tolerating the Jewish rejection of Christ. That took place in 70 AD and following in the age-long Jewish diaspora.

                      The 1290 and 1335 days of Dan 12 had to do with Antiochus 4. This sometimes gets mixed up with the 3.5 years of Dan 12.7, which has to do with Antichrist's reign. Both these prophecies are referred to in Dan 12, in the conclusion of the book, because Daniel was bewildered, overall, by the prophecies in the book. And 2 of the most perplexing properties were still future to him, the prophecy of Antiochus 4 and the prophecy of the Antichrist.

                      In Dan 7 we read that the Antichrist reigns for 3.5 years. And this is reiterated in Dan 12.7. But Antiochus 4 is mentioned in Dan 8, 11, and 12, where the period of his reign is 1290 days--a little longer than 3.5 years. Obviously, Antiochus 4 is a foreshadowing of the Antichrist.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                        Here is where you go wrong in two ways:
                        1) You assume you understand what they are saying, yet you need as you put you need to work out what they are meaning, and think you get their ideas, yet often they aren't fully joined up. Also the further from the writing of the gospel you are the further away in thinking. So this isn't asking a man's wife, but a man's great grandson, who may understand less than we do as he had less resources and understanding of that culture, but reflected the views of his own.
                        2) The ECFs themselves are in disagreement over how to interpret something, which shows they are not the source of credible views. The credible view is one that is based on scripture itself and not tradition. What you are claiming is that unless tradition offers an option then it can't be right - a very Catholic way of thinking, but also completely wrong.

                        You also add to what the ECFs say from the quotes you gave.
                        For example you quote Tertullian, and posit that Tertullian is saying the entirety of Daniel 9 is fulfilled in Jesus' first coming, yet the quote ONLY speaks of the advent of Jesus being foretold, and the destruction of Jerusalem being foretold.

                        Again quoting Origen you posit that Origen means the entirety of the 70 week is fulfilled, but what your quote actually says is the weeks leading to Jesus has been fulfilled.

                        My own view actually agrees with BOTH Tertullian and Origen in what you have quoted, but still leads to a different understanding of the 70 weeks fulfillment to what I know you hold.
                        My view though is NOT based on what an ECF may or may not have said, but on what Daniel 9 itself says in context. What an ECF states is simply a confirmation, or corroborating person who holds a similar view on somethings - just like any other Christian.
                        Well, I wouldn't quite say that the corroboration of the Church Fathers is just like any other Christian! But I know what you mean--they weren't apostles. I agree with much of what you say except that I do think I can fill in the blanks, theoretically. It is a studied opinion I hold to, and obviously there is some conjecture there. The assumption I'm making with this particular set of Church Fathers is that they were referring to the same prophecies, the same Scriptures, and the same concepts. They all seemed to look at Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse as a single concept, of the Jewish People rejecting their Christ by the 70th Week, and then suffering, as a consequence, the punishment of God in 70 AD and following. This links both prophecies, Dan 9 and Luke 21.

                        Am I filling in gaps myself? Yes, but they are logical deductions--not as good as Scriptures themselves, but certainly an apt way of corroborating what Scripture meant to them and to me. The result is that we might assume the Church Fathers borrowed from one another, or drew the same or similar conclusions. Where one mentioned the Unction, another mentioned the Holy of Holies. Same concept. The Anointed One comes in the 70th Week and is rejected by the Jews. As a consequence the Jews are judged by God, and the temple is destroyed, terminating their Law and their covenant of Law.

                        The Abomination of Desolation, which desolates Jerusalem, therefore is viewed by the Church Fathers, generally, as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. If I remember correctly, we discussed this before, and I mentioned that only a couple of Church Fathers were, in my knowledge, believing in a future AoD--Irenaeus and Hippolytus? The Church Fathers had a Preterist-like interpretation, therefore, of the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse. But I share in their futurism, as well, which sets them apart from Preterism.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Daniel 9:27 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.


                          There is not one single thing in this verse that happens outside of the 70th week. The context of verse 27 is the 70th week. That alone proves Christ can't be meant in this verse. The way some try and get around that, only up to the middle of the week is the 70th week in view. Up until the middle of the week is not the entire week, though. What about the remainder of the week? Why would that part be absent from the text? Why would we not need to know what happens from the middle of the 70th week to the end of the 70th week?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by randyk View Post
                            Well, I wouldn't quite say that the corroboration of the Church Fathers is just like any other Christian! But I know what you mean--they weren't apostles. I agree with much of what you say except that I do think I can fill in the blanks, theoretically. It is a studied opinion I hold to, and obviously there is some conjecture there. The assumption I'm making with this particular set of Church Fathers is that they were referring to the same prophecies, the same Scriptures, and the same concepts. They all seemed to look at Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse as a single concept, of the Jewish People rejecting their Christ by the 70th Week, and then suffering, as a consequence, the punishment of God in 70 AD and following. This links both prophecies, Dan 9 and Luke 21.
                            The further the ECF is from events, the more like an average Christian they become.
                            I explained why they also may confuse the fact that things are written in Greek and therefore think it is Greek culture and not Jewish.
                            There are also centuries and many generations in between and we actually have a better understanding today of things then, than many of those ECFs did.
                            You also lump the ECFs together making blanket claims that they ALL looked at it as a single concept. Yet when we dig into the ECFs we find they didn't. In fact there was a swing from one view of Chiliasm to that of Amil which occurs the further from the event s you get.
                            Cherry picking the quotes doesn;t help, nor when I highlight which ones I also hold, shows they don't actually seem to be supporting your view at all.

                            Am I filling in gaps myself? Yes, but they are logical deductions--not as good as Scriptures themselves, but certainly an apt way of corroborating what Scripture meant to them and to me. The result is that we might assume the Church Fathers borrowed from one another, or drew the same or similar conclusions. Where one mentioned the Unction, another mentioned the Holy of Holies. Same concept. The Anointed One comes in the 70th Week and is rejected by the Jews. As a consequence the Jews are judged by God, and the temple is destroyed, terminating their Law and their covenant of Law.
                            Logical deductions are fine. We all are called to do this. Did the ECFs borrow from one another? Well if their conclusions are radically different then you could say they didn't. Irenaeus definitely didn't teach anything remotely like Eusebius.
                            Unction and Holy of Holies is NOT the same concept, though one of the ECFs might have conflated the two.
                            As Daniel 9 mentions an Anointed one coming after 7 weeks, this causes a problem with your deductions.
                            Further an Anointed one is cut off after the 69 weeks, but NOT DURING the 70th. He is ALREADY cut off BEFORE the 70th week.
                            The Law was NOT their Law, and Paul certainly knew that it was NOT terminated when he chose to visit the temple decades after Jesus' death. Paul also noted the Law was still in existence then - yet for your view to have merit would mean the Law terminated on the Day Jesus died.

                            The Abomination of Desolation, which desolates Jerusalem, therefore is viewed by the Church Fathers, generally, as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. If I remember correctly, we discussed this before, and I mentioned that only a couple of Church Fathers were, in my knowledge, believing in a future AoD--Irenaeus and Hippolytus? The Church Fathers had a Preterist-like interpretation, therefore, of the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse. But I share in their futurism, as well, which sets them apart from Preterism.
                            It is the Later ECFs who held to an AMil view. Logically (as you view the ECFs as better because they are closer to that time), Irenaeus who was closer in time should be held in the highest regard - yet you reject what he wrote as if it is of no importance.

                            What I have issue with, is that you cherry pick your quotes, generalise what views the ECFs held, and state it as if your view is the only and correct one, contrary to the facts of their recorded statements. You also ignore what is contrary to your view even though it was supposedly better because closer to the apostles, such as Irenaeus.
                            IOW it seems like you were looking for evidence to support a view you already hold rather than allowing the views of the ECFs themselves to have any value for you.
                            Personally I hold them very lightly, with the older ECFs views holding more weight with me, as they were taught by those who had been taught by the apostles themselves. Not something you can say about Eusebius or Augustine.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                              The further the ECF is from events, the more like an average Christian they become.
                              I explained why they also may confuse the fact that things are written in Greek and therefore think it is Greek culture and not Jewish.
                              There are also centuries and many generations in between and we actually have a better understanding today of things then, than many of those ECFs did.
                              You also lump the ECFs together making blanket claims that they ALL looked at it as a single concept. Yet when we dig into the ECFs we find they didn't. In fact there was a swing from one view of Chiliasm to that of Amil which occurs the further from the event s you get.
                              Cherry picking the quotes doesn;t help, nor when I highlight which ones I also hold, shows they don't actually seem to be supporting your view at all.
                              While all that is true, it merely clouds the important elements in quoting the Church Fathers. They were, in fact, much closer in time to what the apostles taught, including John's Revelation. And there is a discernible tradition of thought transmitting from one Church Father to another. I used, as an example, the reference to Jesus as the "unction" or the "anointed" or the "holy of holies" in Dan 9. Same thing with respect to the *idea* that the 70 AD judgment was designed to come as a *punishment* upon the Jewish People for rejecting their Messiah. This would draw attention to the 70 AD judgment against the Jewish People, as opposed to an endtimes judgment.

                              I never said otherwise than that the Church Fathers had differing views, eg the Abomination of Desolation. But generally, they saw the time frame for the Luke 21 punishment of the Jews as beginning in 70 AD! Whether the AoD was an idol, an army, or a Jewish act, it was not a unanymous identification. I think it's the Army, for reasons already given. But this is not critical to show that it was near-unanymous that the focus was on the generation of Jesus' apostles, and not just on the endtimes. I think a few Church Fathers noticed that the AoD may also refer, or perhaps exclusively refer, to the Antichrist. This would be Irenaeus and Hipipoytus. Obviously, one followed the other in recognizing that there would not just be a judgment against Jerusalem in 70 AD, but there would be another, future judgment against Jerusalem in the far-off future. This does not, however, contradict the idea that the Church Fathers focused on the Olivet Discourse as an historical fulfillment!

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory
                              Logical deductions are fine. We all are called to do this. Did the ECFs borrow from one another? Well if their conclusions are radically different then you could say they didn't. Irenaeus definitely didn't teach anything remotely like Eusebius.
                              Unction and Holy of Holies is NOT the same concept, though one of the ECFs might have conflated the two.
                              Dan 9.24 indicates the Holy of holies would be "anointed." This is not a conflation, but an identification.

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory
                              As Daniel 9 mentions an Anointed one coming after 7 weeks, this causes a problem with your deductions.
                              Further an Anointed one is cut off after the 69 weeks, but NOT DURING the 70th. He is ALREADY cut off BEFORE the 70th week.
                              You read it this way, but many others do not. "After the 69 weeks" indicates, for me, that Jesus was cut off in the 70th Week.

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory
                              The Law was NOT their Law, and Paul certainly knew that it was NOT terminated when he chose to visit the temple decades after Jesus' death. Paul also noted the Law was still in existence then - yet for your view to have merit would mean the Law terminated on the Day Jesus died.
                              This is a semantical difference. The Law existed as a code by which the Jews lived, even after the temple was destroyed--even after Jesus' died. But Paul argued that the Law was no longer valid as a covenant law after the death of Christ. From this vantage point, it was indeed terminated.

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory
                              It is the Later ECFs who held to an AMil view. Logically (as you view the ECFs as better because they are closer to that time), Irenaeus who was closer in time should be held in the highest regard - yet you reject what he wrote as if it is of no importance.
                              Again, I fully agree with the sense that some views changed in the Early Church, and that in some ways, our own times can see some things better. Still doesn't change my facts, as pointed out.

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory
                              What I have issue with, is that you cherry pick your quotes, generalise what views the ECFs held, and state it as if your view is the only and correct one, contrary to the facts of their recorded statements. You also ignore what is contrary to your view even though it was supposedly better because closer to the apostles, such as Irenaeus.
                              IOW it seems like you were looking for evidence to support a view you already hold rather than allowing the views of the ECFs themselves to have any value for you.
                              Personally I hold them very lightly, with the older ECFs views holding more weight with me, as they were taught by those who had been taught by the apostles themselves. Not something you can say about Eusebius or Augustine.
                              We all have to make up our own minds.
                              Last edited by randyk; Aug 1 2020, 12:21 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X