Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 243

Thread: The Preterist Gap

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,661

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    The 6th (last) accomplishment was to "anoint the most holy." Old Testament typology pictures this as the anointing of the tabernacle, the temple, or the new temple. The New Covenant identifies this as Christ's church.

    So Randy, was the new temple raised up and anointed at the Cross or at Pentecost? How do you see it?
    To be honest, this is for me the most difficult one. I do suspect there is an answer because generally, all 6 were designed to take place at the end of a specific timeline, after 69 weeks. They were all designed to be fulfilled in the 70th Week, when God's covenant with the Jews was confirmed. And clearly, the confirmation was completed not at the end of the 70th Week, but in the middle of the 70th Week. These things are beyond dispute, in my thinking.

    The anointing of the Most Holy is an interesting phrase. This is not the initial creation of and dedication of the Most Holy. Rather, this has to do, specifically, with a work of the Messiah. How did Jesus actually anoint the Most Holy in his work on the cross?

    According to NT Theology, Christ had a unique priesthood, different from the Levitical Priesthood. And his Temple was different than the Temple of the Law. His was an Heavenly Temple, where his blood was taken in a legal sense. This was a dedication of an Heavenly Most Holy for the purpose of giving access to all Christians to the eternal Presence of God.

    I admit that the language is unique. But this was an unprecedented act, presaged only by the symbolism of the Old Covenant. Here is the NT Theology....

    Heb 9.11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,204

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    At least Randy is closer in his 70 weeks (partial not full) approach of 3.5 years short (cut off in the midst of the final week 70), than Premillennialism is by bloating the 70 weeks into an unnatural and unliteral ever growing 2,490+ish year 70 weeks.


    Obviously though, during any gaps none of the 490 years are still being counted. The math still works out the same. The math does not still work out the same if 70 weeks equal 486.5 years instead. That's not what 70 x 7 equals.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,204

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    You have to make some assumptions to make this declaration. First, you have interpreted the crucifixion of Christ as being Him "cut off", which is not necessarily so, and secondly you have placed the event "in the midst of the week", when it says it is "after" or "at the end" of the 69 weeks. The actual event that is stated as being in the middle of the final week is the ending of the temple sacrifices -- a time we know. The sacrifices ended in July/August 70 AD, and if that is the midst of the final week, then the week ends in 74 AD and begins in 67 AD. which makes the Messiah being "cut off" in 66 AD. No gaps.
    Can't say I'm all that familiar with this theory. So what would be the starting date of these 490 years? Wouldn't the starting date have to be somewhere around 416 BC, give or take a year or two? I'm not well versed in ancient history. So what would have been significant about that period of time in particular?

  4. #19

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    I’ve been somewhat surprised to learn that some Preterists finish Daniels 70th week in AD 70. They postulate a 40 year gap between the “cutting off of Messiah in the midst of the week” and the destruction of the temple in AD 70. We might expect this kind of theory from full Preterists, but it comes from part-Preterists as well.


    However, in so doing Preterists are being hypocritical when condemning Futurists for doing exactly the same thing by inserting a 2000 year gap. The only difference is length – but a gap nonetheless.


    The proper explanation is simple. The 70 weeks finished 3 1/2 years after the crucifixion. Can someone explain why they believe the 70th week ends in AD 70? I suspect it is to do with verse 26 of Dan. 9. But there is a better way of interpreting that verse.
    You have made the assumption that the crucifixion of Christ was the "cut off" referred to in Daniel 9:26. Here is from Young's Literal Translation:

    26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations. (Young's Literal Translation).

    "Cut off" from the city and the holy place. The leader and destroyer being Titus, who did indeed bring war and destroy the people.

    27 And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.'

    The covenant was made by Titus. In the midst of the one week, he [Titus] will cause the sacrifice to cease. The sacrifices ceased in July 70 AD, and the city was made desolate.

  5. #20

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Can't say I'm all that familiar with this theory. So what would be the starting date of these 490 years? Wouldn't the starting date have to be somewhere around 416 BC, give or take a year or two? I'm not well versed in ancient history. So what would have been significant about that period of time in particular?
    That starting date, or word to rebuild would be in about 416 BC, which falls in the second term of Nehemiah, when he reestablished the temple rituals.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,204

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    That starting date, or word to rebuild would be in about 416 BC, which falls in the second term of Nehemiah, when he reestablished the temple rituals.

    Any interpretation of the 70 weeks that leaves Jesus out of the picture altogether, these have to be rejected. Even by placing a gap of 2000 years, this is not leaving Jesus out of the picture. Jesus comes twice. The first 69 weeks involve His first coming, but not meaning He is present for an entire 69 weeks, but that His coming and being cutoff, these all occur within this 69 weeks. The final week involves His 2nd coming since He would be coming at the end of it.

  7. #22

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Any interpretation of the 70 weeks that leaves Jesus out of the picture altogether, these have to be rejected. Even by placing a gap of 2000 years, this is not leaving Jesus out of the picture. Jesus comes twice. The first 69 weeks involve His first coming, but not meaning He is present for an entire 69 weeks, but that His coming and being cutoff, these all occur within this 69 weeks. The final week involves His 2nd coming since He would be coming at the end of it.
    Jesus would be the Messiah mentioned. Jesus' visitation in the flesh is not mentioned in Daniel. I suppose it may be because Daniel is specifically talking about the end of "your people in their city."
    Daniel does not mention Jesus coming at the end of it, only that Daniel is told he will sleep in the grave until the resurrection, and we know Jesus in involved in that.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,204

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    Daniel does not mention Jesus coming at the end of it, only that Daniel is told he will sleep in the grave until the resurrection, and we know Jesus in involved in that.
    There is such a thing as it having been hidden in the text then revealed in the NT. Pretty much no one disputes that there are 2 comings of Christ, meaning professed Christians typically don't dispute this. If Dan 9:27 involves Rev 11 and Rev 13, as I suspect it does, it all fits like a glove then. It would be at the end of the beast's reign that Christ then returns. So IOW....even until the consummation(Dan 9:27)...meaning until the end of this age when Christ returns.

  9. #24

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    There is one glaring reason that this theory exists. Note it when you read the various answers. They state, CONTRARY to scripture, that the Lord's death occurred in the 70th seven. But what does the text say? Daniel 9:24-26

    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.
    25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
    26 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."


    The death of our Lord Jesus has nothing to do with the 70th seven. Our Lord was slain "AFTER" 69 sevens, but NOT in the 70th seven. And AFTER Messiah is cut off verse 26 the "END" is twice mentioned. (1) As the "END THEREOF". According to grammar the "thereof" must describe "the people" who destroy the city and sanctuary - the Romans. (2) As the "END OF THE WAR". Which war? It does not matter because it is a war connected with the 69th seven. The 70th seven is only introduced in the next verse, verse 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."

    The correct understanding is again by normal grammatical rules. It all revolves around who the "he" is in this verse. "HE" can only be one of TWO PERSONS:
    1. "HE" could be "Messiah"
    2. "HE" could be the Prince of the Romans who will come

    The rules of grammar say that "HE" must be the last mentioned subject - the FUTURE Roman Prince. Added to this, what does the evidence point to? This "HE" will "confirm" or "strengthen" a Covenant that contains the daily oblation. This could not be our Lord Jesus because;
    • He is cut off
    • when our Lord Jesus comes He does not "confirm" or "strengthen" THE (existing) Covenant that contains the daily oblation. HE MAKES A NEW COVENANT WITH ISRAEL CONTAINING THESE LAWS (Jer.31:31-33)
    • The NEW COVENANT is not for ONE WEEK. It is EVERLASTING (Jer.32:40; Ezek.37:26)
    • Our Lord Jesus does not stop that part of the Covenant that contains the daily oblation "till heaven and earth pass" (Matt.5:17-18)
    • Our Lord Jesus, far from stopping the oblation, will feat the PASSOVER ANNUALLY when He returns (Ex.12:14, 17 , 24; Lk.22:15-16)
    • He does not "make abomination"
    • He returns AFTER the "abomination of desolation" is seen in Judah
    • He advises Judaeans to flee when it occurs but He gathers Israel when He returns

    The evidence is not only overwhelming, but exclusive. The "GAP" between the 69th seven and the 70th seven is from the death of Jesus until a future Roman Prince allows Israel to institute their daily oblation. And THAT .... can only happen when a Temple is standing in Jerusalem. The oblation is intimately connected with the Temple.
    Walls, I pretty much agree. It's hard to deny that the scripture says Messiah will be cut off after 69 weeks.

    However, I don't believe the normal rules of grammar apply necessarily. "He" could simply be a prophetic reference to the man of sin who will appear in the last days. He may not even be Roman.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,204

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by pdun459 View Post
    "He" could simply be a prophetic reference to the man of sin who will appear in the last days. He may not even be Roman.
    That's exactly who it has to be meaning. Whether this person will be Roman or not, who knows.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,209
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    There are problems with that view :
    1) which decree occurred 486.5 years earlier?
    2) what 3.5 year period applies to Antiochus

    Antiochus matches the 2300 evenings and mornings of Daniel 8 (1150 days). But not 3.5 years, half of seven of Dan 9. The period of the Antiochus desecration was likely 3 years plus 2 extra Adar months, plus 10 days.

    1080 + 60 + 10 = 1150 days as per Daniel 8.
    Below are the time lines of each set of weeks

    605 B.C. The start of the 70 weeks Daniel and the Jews are taken into captivity. (time goes backwards from the time of Daniel vision)

    587 B.C. Jerusalem is destroyed by Babylon the start of the 7 weeks (runs parallel to some of the 62 weeks)

    170/1 B.C. Onias 3rd is murdered (cut off and has nothing) the second anointed one the last of the Zadokite priesthood which was the start of the 70th week.

    538 B.C. King Cyrus issues a decree to go and rebuild Jerusalem and Joshua (the first anointed one who was to come) goes back to rebuild Jerusalem. This is the end of the 7 weeks which was 49 years after 587 B.C. when Jerusalem was destroyed.


    167 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanies 4th desecrates the temple ˝ way through the 70th week. The abomination that caused desolation.

    164/3 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanies 4th dies and the temple sacrifice is reestablished the end of the 70th week. (the end is poured out on him)

    War continued during and until the end of the 70th week

    The purposes of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24 were fulfilled by the Jews who remained loyal to God and resisted apostasy.

    605 B.C.-171 B.C. 62 weeks or 434 years

    587 B.C.-538 B.C. 7 weeks or 49 years

    170/1 B.C.-164/3 B.C. 70th week or 7 years

  12. #27

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    I just read what it says. Don't change a thing.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,834
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    The 6th (last) accomplishment was to "anoint the most holy." Old Testament typology pictures this as the anointing of the tabernacle, the temple, or the new temple. The New Covenant identifies this as Christ's church.

    So Randy, was the new temple raised up and anointed at the Cross or at Pentecost? How do you see it?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk
    To be honest, this is for me the most difficult one. I do suspect there is an answer because generally, all 6 were designed to take place at the end of a specific timeline, after 69 weeks. They were all designed to be fulfilled in the 70th Week, when God's covenant with the Jews was confirmed. And clearly, the confirmation was completed not at the end of the 70th Week, but in the middle of the 70th Week. These things are beyond dispute, in my thinking.
    The text says, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week You are right that there was a covenant with the Jews after the 69th week, but it was a ‘confirming process’ over the entire 70th week.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk
    The anointing of the Most Holy is an interesting phrase. This is not the initial creation of and dedication of the Most Holy. Rather, this has to do, specifically, with a work of the Messiah. How did Jesus actually anoint the Most Holy in his work on the cross?
    But when something is ‘anointed’ as holy, it is not the work of Messiah; it is the work of the Holy Spirit. So, at the beginning of the 70th week the Holy Spirit anointed Jesus as “The Anointed One.” (Matt 3:16, Acts 2:38) Then, at Pentecost he ‘anointed’ his Church. Yes? So, Daniel’s word, "to anoint the most holy" was part of a covenant confirmation that was taking place for more than one day of the 70th week.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk
    According to NT Theology, Christ had a unique priesthood, different from the Levitical Priesthood. And his Temple was different than the Temple of the Law. His was an Heavenly Temple, where his blood was taken in a legal sense. This was a dedication of an Heavenly Most Holy for the purpose of giving access to all Christians to the eternal Presence of God.
    Yes, but types and shadows of the new Temple (and its anointing) is to be found in the Levitical ceremonies. Have you ever studied the holy oil in Leviticus 8? Moses anointed, not only the priests, but also the tabernacle itself. This prefigures Christ our High Priest, and us – the temple. My point to draw from the tabernacle is that it wasn’t anointed in one day. In verse 33 we are told the ordination process was to last seven days! This 7 days prefigures, I believe, the “anointing of the most holy" over the full span of Daniels 70th week.
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,972

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    The text says, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week You are right that there was a covenant with the Jews after the 69th week, but it was a ‘confirming process’ over the entire 70th week.



    But when something is ‘anointed’ as holy, it is not the work of Messiah; it is the work of the Holy Spirit. So, at the beginning of the 70th week the Holy Spirit anointed Jesus as “The Anointed One.” (Matt 3:16, Acts 2:38) Then, at Pentecost he ‘anointed’ his Church. Yes? So, Daniel’s word, "to anoint the most holy" was part of a covenant confirmation that was taking place for more than one day of the 70th week.



    Yes, but types and shadows of the new Temple (and its anointing) is to be found in the Levitical ceremonies. Have you ever studied the holy oil in Leviticus 8? Moses anointed, not only the priests, but also the tabernacle itself. This prefigures Christ our High Priest, and us – the temple. My point to draw from the tabernacle is that it wasn’t anointed in one day. In verse 33 we are told the ordination process was to last seven days! This 7 days prefigures, I believe, the “anointing of the most holy" over the full span of Daniels 70th week.
    Love your post Bro.
    I agree that the confirmation was to last the whole 70th week.
    Love your comment about it being the work of the Holy Spirit from beginning to end.

    The outpouring of the Holy Spirit did indeed confirm that Jesus fulfilled those 6 points
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,972

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Any interpretation of the 70 weeks that leaves Jesus out of the picture altogether, these have to be rejected.
    Yes indeed.

    Even by placing a gap of 2000 years, this is not leaving Jesus out of the picture.
    It leaves his victory over sin , transgression and iniquity in doubt. It leaves in doubt his perfect and completed sacrifice for our redemption that we do indeed have the capacity to receive Gods Holy Spirit today. A platform of everlasting righteousness has been established for us through his cross so we can finally receive the indwelling of his Holy Spirit within us , rather than in a building.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Please Help Preterist fallacies? or not?
    By Aijalon in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Dec 31st 2015, 11:48 PM
  2. New here Pentecostal, Unitarian, Preterist
    By AdamPastor in forum Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Jul 11th 2013, 12:36 AM
  3. Why I Am Not A Preterist
    By Daniel Gracely in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Jun 19th 2012, 12:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •