And Earthquakes in Divers Places

Kind of interesting:

Earthquakes dog Clinton on overseas trips

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Matthew Lee, Associated Press – 12 mins ago
CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand –

What is it about Hillary Rodham Clinton and earthquakes? Seems the secretary of state rarely takes an overseas trip that is not in some way affected by a temblor. Clinton and her staff were jolted from sleep in their hotel rooms in New Zealand early Saturday by a strong aftershock from a 7-magnitude quake that struck in September. It was the second aftershock since she arrived here Friday.

Three days earlier, she may not have felt the earth move under her feet, but a 6.0-magnitude quake rattled villages in Papua New Guinea as she was wrapping up a visit there.

Those seismic events were at least the third, fourth and fifth to have hit countries while Clinton was visiting. On her first trip abroad as America's top diplomat in February 2009, Clinton was shaken awake by a minor quake in Japan. Four months later, she felt a 5.0 quake in Honduras. Then, in October 2009, tremors struck Pakistan while Clinton was there.

And those are just the ones she's been present for.

Days before Clinton was to visit Chile in March of this year, an 8.8-magnitude earthquake caused severe damage in the South American country, forcing her to cancel plans to spend a night in Santiago. But she still made a brief stop in Chile to get a look at relief efforts, much as she did in January after Haiti was devastated by a powerful quake.

Of course, the reason Clinton was in Papua New Guinea and New Zealand this week and travels to Australia on Saturday is the Haiti quake. She was in Hawaii en route to the three countries when Haiti was struck on Jan. 12, causing her to return to Washington to oversee U.S. relief efforts.

Caught my attention so I prayed about it for a few minutes. It's hard to know for sure if an impression comes from God or not in such a brief prayer time of course, but what occurred to me as I prayed was that we wouldn't have known about all these various earthquakes if they hadn't occurred in conjunction with Hillary's travels, which caught the eye of a reporter who then posted on the odd coincidence at Yahoo.

There being so many of them does bring to mind Jesus' reference to earthquakes as one of the signs that the very end is very near, a warning that three of the four gospels reported, suggesting its special importance:

Mt 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Mr 13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

Lu 21:11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

Something to consider.

The Raelian Cult part of the plot to Discredit the Bible and Lead those who reject God into Demon Worship in the Last Days

Since I just made a comment at the evolution blog about Scott Johnson's confusion of the scientific idea of Intelligent Design with the occultic idea that an alien race from another planet were the designers of life on Earth, I thought I should go and listen to his earlier talks on this subject which I hadn't heard before. So here's one of them, The “Ancient Astronaut” Lie: The Shocking Origin of the “Intelligent Design” Theory from December 2007.

It's quite an interesting talk and fits right into my end times blog. This is his coverage of the doctrine of the Raelian cult, about which I've known a little, but this information is good to have. They are very much a typical cult, and this particular talk brings out the commonalities of these cults in what seems to me to be an even more pointed way than I was already aware of.

That is, these cults ALWAYS attack, what? the BIBLE! They ALL have a fascination with Jesus Christ and put out a great deal of energy denying what the Bible says about Him and giving their own version of who he is and what his mission was. You can bet they take pains to insist it had nothing to do with saving humanity from sin by dying for us. No, that, along with everything else we learn from the Bible, is just some way we "misunderstood" the truth about him, OR it's the result of a "mistranslation" of the Bible. Both are common ways the Biblical revelation is debunked these days, by the cults, by "science" and increasingly from many other directions in these last days.

Anyway, the Raelian cult is very much like all the others. Someone was "chosen" to be the recipient of a revelation from "celestial beings" of one sort or another -- all demons under various guises. Sometimes the chosen one is actively possessed by the being/demon, sometimes spoken to -- usually dictated to, some bombastic lying message being imparted as if it were revealed truth from a much higher place. There's always a religious teaching that contradicts the Bible and substitutes some other way of understanding it. The cult of Urantia which got started in the early part of the 20th century, has this pattern. So does A Course in Miracles which captivated Oprah Winfrey. The Seth Books are also similar, although in this case there's more of an occultic general spiritual teaching. But it includes the idea of "Christ Consciousness" which in itself denies the truth about Jesus Christ.

The older cults have the same pattern. Mormonism was created the same way, through a visitation of a chosen one, Joseph Smith in this case, by, in his case supposedly an angel, called Moroni, who revealed to him that Christianity has everything all wrong and gave Smith the Book of Mormon. Islam too is the same sort of cult, having been inaugurated by the visitation of Mohammed by what he believed was the angel Gabriel, who supposedly came to correct Christian misunderstandings and give a revelation that was to transcend the Bible. It's perhaps worth mentioning that one of Mohammed's relatives thought he was demon-possessed, an astute observation I'd say.

Now the Raelian revelation, also given to a chosen one, Rael, by in this case a supposed alien from another planet, goes on at length about the supposed errors in the Bible and gives a very detailed reinterpretation of a great deal of it. It's very much worth listening to this to get a sense of how the disinformation of these cults operates. Apparently this is a video that is viewable at the Raelian website, though we only hear it as Johnson goes through it.

Of course all this is going to come together when the End Times start rolling in earnest, and all the similarities are only going to convince those who reject the true God that it must be the truth and they will fall for it and be destroyed by it. Unless they wake up in time!

As for Scott Johnson's confusion of the Ancient Astronaut doctrine with the scientific version of "intelligent design", as his own title to his talk clearly says, yes, he certainly does confuse these. Because the Raelians use the term to describe their demon-originated doctrine of how visitors from space are the creators of life on earth, Johnson jumps to the false conclusion that this is the "origin" of the concept. Well, I don't know who used the term first but it doesn't matter, it's a mistake to confuse them -- although it probably serves the purposes of those demonic entities to do so. There is quite definitely a scientific theory called Intelligent Design that has a scientific basis and has absolutely nothing to do with the vaporings of demons. [Here's Wikipedia on Intelligent Design, and Wikipedia on Michael Behe, intelligent design theorist.]

A False Rapture scenario?

Listening to Scott Johnson's latest (10-17-10) tonight, just the first two parts. Recent UFO sightings. New York, but also China where it is claimed that a huge UFO hovered over a small Chinese town which then completely disappeared.

I haven't checked it out, but it doesn't hit me as unlikely. Still, of course it helps to have some documentation. Maybe I'll dig some up eventually.

But it sounds to me like it could be a practice run for a fake Rapture.

Mullings on the Rapture

I'm still not completely convinced that there is to be a two-stage Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the first stage being a rapture of the church before some of the end times events -- whether before the great tribulation or in the middle of it or whatever.

So far I have at least become convinced that much of the reasoning AROUND the Rapture claims IS true, however. That is, I do believe there is yet to come a seven-year period that will fulfill the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel. I'm pretty convinced that in the middle of that "week" there will be the appearance of something called the "abomination of desolation" and that the great tribulation will immediately follow that. I believe also that there will be a restored temple in Jerusalem in which this event will occur. So I reject most of the thinking that comes from the ANTI-Rapturists.

But none of this proves whether there is to be a Rapture previous to any of these things. These things could all be true, as I MOSTLY believe they are, and the Rapture occur when Jesus returns for the final time.

It could occur that way, but there are still some scriptural indications that a pre-trib Rapture -- or pre-wrath Rapture, or pre-Second Coming Rapture --- COULD occur. I'm not completely convinced one way or the other yet.

Logical (not scriptural) considerations are:

FOR THE RAPTURE: The full flowering of evil on earth, which is what the last days are going to be all about, would be interfered with by the presence of God's people who pray against it and preach against it. This evil will certainly center on the Antichrist, and in all kinds of signs and wonders, including very likely "alien" (demonic) UFO "visitors" to the planet. Demons manifesting, supernatural powers being exhibited.

AGAINST THE RAPTURE: On the other hand, there would be no hope at all for people to be saved during such a period of time if there WEREN'T God's people around to preach to them and show the true nature of all the evil going on and lead them to Christ, people of true and deep faith who trust in God's providence and protection against the greatest manifestation of evil and eventually tremendous suffering ever seen on earth.

This could be an argument for a "mid-trib" Rapture scenario, the first half of the 70th week being a time of manifested signs and wonders against which God's people stand and millions are saved, and the last half being the outpouring of God's wrath, before which the Rapture comes and removes all believers. COULD be. I'm just mulling things.

An Example of Inept Criticism of the Pre-Second-Coming Rapture

I merely kvetched about the ineptness of criticism of the pre-tribbers (or to be most precise, "pre-second-coming Rapturists") in my last post, but here's an example of what I mean:

DANIEL'S 70TH WEEK 490 YEARS
The Bible says, "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." Daniel 9:27.

Have you ever heard of the "seven-year period of great tribulation"? The whole idea is rooted in two words of the above sentence! The two words are "one week." Supposedly, that period of "one week" applies to the final seven-year period of great tribulation at the end of time. Right now, all over planet Earth, in books, in magazines, in videos, on the radio, in seminaries, on the Internet, and at Bible prophecy conferences, Christians are talking about events that they firmly believe will occur during a final seven years of tribulation.

This is typical of the critics of the Pre-trib rapture as I've been encountering them. They misrepresent the argument and they carry on at great length about the supposed foolishness of the popularity of it. I can't claim to be particularly knowledgeable of the many versions of the pre-trib position myself as I'm mostly trying to understand what the Bible says, but I think it is completely false to reduce the idea of an as-yet-unfulfilled 70th Week of Daniel to this particular verse.

First I should point out that while there has been confusion on this point, most pre-tribbers don't claim the entire 70th week is a time of tribulation but only the last half of it, after the major event of the "midst of the week" (causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease). This event is considered to be synonymous with the appearance of the "abomination of desolation" that Jesus says in Matthew 24 will be the trigger for the most terrible time of tribulation ever to occur in this world.

The idea of the 70th week comes from the calculations of the seventy weeks as given by the angel to Daniel, which show that 69 of the prophesied 70 weeks, or 483 of the total 490 years, were clearly fulfilled by Jesus' first coming, but that the 70th week has no fulfillment in that time period. It just doesn't. There is no coherent period of seven years counting from the end of the 69 at Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on the donkey. If the 69 had counted to the beginning of His ministry then there might be an argument that HALF the week was fulfilled, as His ministry lasted about 3-1/2 years, but you'd still have another 3-1/2 years left from the prophecy that has no fulfillment in that time period and has to be regarded as future anyway. But the count goes to the entry into Jerusalem, not the beginning of His ministry, and that's shortly before He is crucified, and that leaves seven years yet unfulfilled. THIS is the main source of the concept. The covenant of Daniel 9:27 simply suggests some content for the yet-to-come week.

According to the popular interpretation of Daniel 9:27, the "he" refers to a future Antichrist who will eventually make a covenant, or peace treaty, with the Jews during the final seven years of tribulation. In the "midst" of this tribulation, this Antichrist will cause "the sacrifice … to cease." In order for the sacrifices to cease, they must have been restarted. Therefore, according to countless modern interpreters, there must be a rebuilt third Jewish temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

He makes it sound as if the idea of the rebuilt temple were invented to accommodate a pre-existing theory, but this rests on Paul's teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 about the "man of sin" who will present himself as God in the temple, as I argued in a previous post:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

A popular Christian magazine called Endtime reflects this current view: "Three and one-half years after the confirming of the covenant [by the Antichrist] the Jews’ Third Temple must be completed and sacrifice and oblation be in progress. We know this because Daniel 9:27 states that in the middle of the seven years the Antichrist will cause the sacrifice and the oblation to stop." Much of the Christian world is now locked in a fierce debate about whether Jesus will return for His church before the 7 years (the pre-tribulation view), in the midst of the 7 years (the mid-tribulation view), or at the end of the 7 years (the post-tribulation view). Yet by far the most explosive question, which few seem to be asking, should be "Is and end-time ‘seven-year period of great tribulation’ really the correct interpretation of Daniel 9:27 in the first place?"

Since that verse is not the only source of the interpretation the question is misleading. To make sense of this, the whole Bible passage needs to be considered, not just verse 27:

Daniel 9:24-27 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. 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. 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. 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.

Historically, Protestant scholars have not applied Daniel 9:27 to a future period of tribulation at all! Neither have they applied the "he" to the Antichrist! Rather, they applied it to Jesus Christ. Notice what the world-famous Bible commentary written by Matthew Henry says about Daniel 9:27: "By offering himself a sacrifice once and for all he [Jesus] shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices." Another famous Bible commentary, written by Adam Clarke, says that during the "term of seven years," Jesus would "confirm or ratify the new covenant with mankind." Finally, another well-respected old commentary declares: "He shall confirm the covenant—Christ. The confirmation of the covenant is assigned to Him."

It is true that the pre-trib Rapture is a relatively new interpretation of scripture, but as I've studied the passages in question I've had to conclude that the older interpretations do quite a bit of stretching to bring about a fit and fail completely to make a fit at some points:

Grammatically the verse is NOT referring to the Messiah but to the "prince who shall come" whose people will destroy the temple and the city. THAT "he" is the nearest previous referent grammatically speaking, not the Messiah.

It also takes some stretching or word-fudging to claim that Jesus Christ "confirmed" a covenant, because in fact He established a NEW covenant.

But the most telling problem with this interpretation is that His covenant was not for "one week" in any sense of the phrase that I can think of, but forever.

The following 10 points provide logical and convincing evidence that the "one week" spoken of in Daniel 9:27 does not apply to any future seven-year period of tribulation at all. Rather, this great prophetic period has already been definitely fulfilled in the past!

OK, I'm listening.

1) The entire prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 covers a period of "seventy weeks." This period applies to one complete, sequential block of time. This prophecy would start during the Persian period and would end during the time of the Messiah.

Uh huh, but why be so vague about it when those who have done the calculations have found that EXACTLY 69 weeks of years, or 483 years, can be counted from the relevant decree to Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, leaving one week of the prophecy unaccounted for? According to these calculations, the entire 70 weeks would go beyond the crucifixion almost but not quite seven years, and that number simply does not connect with anything historical at all, leading to the idea that this week is as yet unfulfilled and yet future. If you want to answer the Pre-tribbers you are going to have to show that the amazingly precise calculation of the 69 weeks is in fact wrong. Why don't the critics ever do this? Why do they rely on such vague statements as that quoted here when the scriptural numbers so clearly imply precision and it has been demonstrated that they ARE precise?

Off to a bad start with this list it seems to me.

2) Logic requires that the 70th week follow immediately after the 69th week. If it does not, then it cannot properly be called the 70th week!

Yes, that would be the logical expectation, but the fact of the matter is that there is no full 70 weeks between the decree and the ministry of Jesus. We can count a very specific 69 weeks in fulfillment of the prophecy but there is a very specific one week left out at the end. The integrity of the prophecy REQUIRES that we put that one week off to the future. This Biblical necessity simply trumps logic.

AND consider how it is worded:

. . . 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. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

Although as far as I know nobody has been able to account historically for the separating of that first seven weeks or 49 years in the prophecy -- although there have been various guesses -- the 69 weeks are quite clear and have a clear historical fulfillment. This period is FOLLOWED BY the crucifixion, but not followed by the last or 70th week. A few days AFTER the Lord Jesus' entry into Jerusalem at exactly 69 weeks (the 7 plus 62 weeks), He WAS "cut off," that is, He was crucified, and not for Himself but for the sins of everyone who believes in Him. Again, this 69-week period is an EXACT count according to the prophecy given to Daniel. Since it is so exact we have to expect that there will be a seventieth week and that it will be just as exact, and it is very clear that it did not occur during the time of the Lord's first coming or immediately afterward either.

As a matter of fact there is a clue in the wording of the relevant passage that the last week is to be separated by some time period from the first 69. The last week is mentioned in the passage AFTER the fulfillment of the Messiah's mission, in the context of the destruction of the city and the temple that is to follow:

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. 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.

We know that historically the temple was destroyed in 70AD, almost forty years after the crucifixion and not in any time frame by which we could eke out a last seven years to fulfill the prophecy. And we seem now to be catapulted into a different time frame altogether with the reference to a "flood" that had no historical fulfillment in the first destructions of the temple or the city by the Romans. The "end of the war" now seems to apply to a yet-future war. And it is only after these apparently unrelated insertions after the crucifixion that there is a mention of "one week" which most logically must be the so-far-unfulfilled 70th week, in a position rather removed from the 69 weeks. The "he" that shall confirm the covenant for one week now appears to be separated from the Messiah not only by grammar and factual incidentals but by time.

The crucifixion made the temple sacrifices forever unnecessary, but to say that "he" as the Messiah "caused" them to cease with the 70AD destruction is stretching language. And there also just happens to be ANOTHER reference in Daniel to another "prince" who DOES remove the sacrifice:

Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

As I also pointed out in my previous post about the 70th week, this prophecy WAS fulfilled, by Antiochus Epiphanes a few centuries after Daniel (175-163 BC), whose desecration of the Jerusalem temple was the cause of the Maccabean revolt, now commemorated in the celebration of Hannukah.

So it isn't just the Messiah's death that ends the sacrifice, but at least one antichrist figure who was yet future to Daniel, the Greek Antioches Epiphanes. With this clear preceding reference to a political-military leader who desecrates the temple, and a fulfilled prophecy at that, along with all the other differences I've pointed to, it's hard to see how anyone can insist that the reference in Daniel 9 MUST refer to the Messiah and not a yet-future representative of the Roman empire.

3) It is illogical to insert a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and the 70th week. No hint of this gap is found in the prophecy itself. There is no gap between the first 7 weeks and the following 62 weeks. Why insert one between the 69th and the 70th week?

I think I must have shown by now that no-one is simply gratuitously inserting "a 2000-year gap" but deriving the necessity of a gap from the scriptural requirements. If this critic had succeeded in showing that the full 70 weeks of the prophecy had indeed been fulfilled at the first coming of Christ as he claims, I could not argue with him, but he failed to show this. He claimed it, he said it was fulfilled between the Persian period and the Messiah, a very vague period of time, denying the specific count that underlies the interpretation that 69 weeks were exactly fulfilled, and that makes his argument rightly not even worth answering. EXCEPT that it's an aggressive argument and it has a following, and that is why it must be answered.

4) Daniel 9:27 says nothing about a seven-year period of tribulation, or about any Antichrist.

No, but by now I've surely shown that the "he" can't be the Messiah but a yet future prince of the people who destroy the city and the temple, that is, the Romans.

5) The focus of this prophecy is the Messiah, not the Antichrist. Modern interpreters have applied "the people of the prince" who would come to "destroy the city and the sanctuary" (verse 26) to the Antichrist. Yet the text does not say this. In the past, that sentence has been applied to the Romans, who under Prince Titus did "destroy the city and the sanctuary" in A.D. 70.

This is rather garbled it seems to me.

Grammatically, it is not even the prince who destroys the temple in 70AD but his people. We know Titus was their leader, but no one speaks of Titus as a prince that I know of. Even if he was a prince, the prince in question is of these same people who destroyed the temple and the city, but is yet future.

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;

It is the people who are said to destroy the city and the sanctuary, not the prince that shall come. However, granting that the 70AD destruction is a partial fulfillment of this part of the prophecy doesn't preclude the possibility of a yet future and more perfect fulfillment. But again, it is the PEOPLE, grammatically speaking, who did the destroying, not the prince in question, putting this particular prince off to another time.

6) "He shall confirm the covenant." Jesus Christ came "to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." Romans 15:8.

Confirming PROMISES is not the same thing as confirming a COVENANT. This is playing fast and loose with the language. Jesus Christ did NOT "confirm a covenant," He established a NEW covenant in His own blood.

Nowhere in the Bible is Antichrist ever said to make or confirm a covenant with anyone! The word "covenant" always applies to the Messiah, never to the Antichrist!

If it weren't for all the other discrepancies that show that this part of the passage is not referring to the Messiah but to a "prince that shall come" this might carry some weight. But political leaders make covenants all the time so there is nothing inherently unlikely about the last greatest evil political leader's doing the same.

7) "He shall confirm the covenant with many." Jesus said, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." Matthew 26:28. Jesus used the same words, because He knew that He was fulfilling Daniel 9:27!

There is not as great a similarity here as he is claiming. I see only the similarity between"with many" and "for many," the former referring to a covenant with many and the latter the Lord's blood shed for many. These are not really "the same words." However, as I said in my other post on the 70th week, there is reason to believe there is some intentional ambiguity in the text here, as there often is in prophetic passages, and of course the Antichrist is to imitate Christ in as many ways as he can so confusion between his attributes and doings and Christ's is to be expected.

Again, Jesus did not "confirm" a covenant, He initiated a new covenant, and He certainly did not do it "for one week" but for all eternity. This leaves the covenant in question to be the work of the "prince who shall come" as there is no other possibility.

8) "In the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." The 70th week was from A.D. 27 to 34. After three and a half years of ministry, Christ died in A.D. 31, "in the midst [middle] of the week." At the moment of His death, "the veil of the temple was rent [torn] in twain from the top to the bottom." Matthew 27:51. This act of God signified that all animal sacrifices had at that moment ceased to be of value. The Great Sacrifice had been offered!

This would be a reasonable and intriguing interpretation except for the fact that the 69 weeks of the Daniel prophecy don't count to the beginning of the Lord's ministry but to His entry into Jerusalem just a few days before His crucifixion. If the critic wanted to show that this alternative interpretation carries weight he would have to show that the counting of the 69 weeks is wrong and that in fact it counts to the beginning of Christ's ministry. One can only wonder why he doesn't do this.

He would also have to show that there is some significance in relation to the Lord's mission to the year 34 AD three and a half years after the crucifixion, to make it a fitting end point to the prophecy. He mentions no significance whatever here and I know of none. However, he does later suggest such a significance which I'll get to when it comes up.

9) "For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate." Jesus plainly applied this "abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (Matthew 24:15) to the time when His followers were to flee from Jerusalem before the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70. Jesus told His 12 disciples, "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies [the Roman armies led by Prince Titus], then know that its desolation is near." Luke 21:20, emphasis added. Those disciples did "see" those very events. Christ’s very last words to the Pharisees from inside the second temple were, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Matthew 23:38. Thus Daniel’s prophecy about Jerusalem becoming "desolate" was exactly fulfilled in A.D. 70! Jesus understood this perfectly.

The problem with this is that there already had been such an experience held in memory and commemorated by the Jews at the time of this prophecy, the "abomination of desolation" having been a pig that was introduced into the temple by Antioches Epiphanes, which is generally considered to be at least the first fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, with another or others yet to come, which makes the abomination of desolation a more specific thing than the desolation brought by war.

Da 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

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.

I am not clear whether the Romans also placed an "abomination of desolation" in the temple but that would be the more specific fulfillment of the prophecy in 70 AD if so. Still, there appears to be yet a future "abomination of desolation" to come involving a future temple, but I admit to being weak on this part of the scripture and will have to come back to it at some later time.

Also, Jesus in Matthew 24 refers to a time of tribulation so extreme nothing like it has ever occurred before. While the tribulations of the time of the destruction of the temple and later of Jerusalem were very great I don't think they compare to the Holocaust, or to the final time of "Jacob's trouble" as prophesied in Jeremiah, which is yet future.

10) Gabriel said that the 70-week prophecy specifically applied to the Jewish people (Daniel 9:24). From A.D. 27 to A.D. 34, the disciples went only "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 10:6. At the end of the 70 weeks, in the year A.D. 34, Stephen was stoned by the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts chapter 7). Then the gospel began to go to the Gentiles. In Acts chapter 9, Saul became Paul, "the apostle of the Gentiles." Romans 11:13. Then in Acts chapter 10, God gave Peter a vision revealing that it was now time to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-28). Read also Acts 13:46.

Now this is very interesting if so as now he IS showing a significance to the year 34 AD. IF this is correct it would fulfill the 70 weeks as a specifically Jewish dispensation. But he really has an obligation to demonstrate that the stoning of Stephen did occur in 34 AD EXACTLY three and a half years after the crucifixion (or whatever marker of the Lord's ministry he has in mind, which he doesn't identify) and he hasn't done this.

But there is also the question of whether the objectives of the seventy weeks were fulfilled:

Da 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.

This would take some pondering but I would guess that the transgression has not been finished, and there has not yet been an end of sins, but it depends on whether you take this to refer to the mission accomplished by Jesus or to actual ongoing history, and I'm not going to get into this here.

But again, he has not shown that the familiar counting of the 69 weeks to the Lord's entry into Jerusalem is wrong and that it actually counts to the beginning of His ministry. This is absolutely necessary if this interpretation is to be taken as a valid possibility.

The explosive evidence is overwhelming! Point by point, the events of the 70th week have already been fulfilled in the past! The following eight words found in Daniel 9:27: "confirm...covenant...many...midst...sacrifice...cease... abominations...desolate": all find a perfect fulfillment in Jesus Christ and in
early Christian history.

As long as the terminology is presented so vaguely and suggestively out of context, while the specific scriptures in question are not examined in detail in context, you can make it seem like the evidence is there although it is not. All those terms take on different applications when examined in context. I'd also point out again that if we are talking about the Antichrist we have to expect that he will mimic Christ in as many ways as possible. In any case, when the specific statements of scripture are examined, even to the small extent I've tried to do above, this claim of an overwhelming case for the fulfillment of the 70th week just falls apart.

One reason why the Jewish nation as a whole failed to receive its Messiah was because its leaders and scholars failed to correctly interpret the 70-week prophecy. They failed to see Jesus Christ as the Messiah who died in the midst of the 70th week. The same thing is happening today! Amazingly, sincere Christian scholars are now misinterpreting the very same prophecy.

I have to agree that SOMEBODY is misinterpreting the very same prophecy but it's not so clear who, or just how it's being misinterpreted, either now or at the time of the Lord's first coming.

The entire "seven-year period of great tribulation" theory is a grand illusion. It may go down in history as the biggest evangelical misinterpretation of the 20th century! It can be compared to a big, fat hot air balloon. Inside, there is no substance, only air. As soon as Daniel 9:27 is understood correctly and the pin of truth is inserted, the balloon will pop. The fact is that no text in the Bible teaches any "seven-year period of great tribulation." If you look for it, you will end up like Ponce de Leon, who tirelessly searched for the famous fountain of youth but never found it.

Again, the 70th week is not considered to be entirely a period of tribulation; the great tribulation is considered to occur in the last half of the 70th week. In any case, it isn't all that difficult to track down this seventieth week, as I hope I've shown above.

============
I thought I'd be back to make changes in this post but I'm leaving it as is after all. 12/08/10

If the Rapture is Biblically unfounded, why are its critics so bad at taking it apart Biblically?

Just a complaint. From time to time I just have to get something off my chest. Maybe the circumstances will change and I can take it back.

Today's complaint: I keep trying to find GOOD criticisms of the pre-Second Coming Rapture interpretation. There is no lack of criticism, but I am not finding much that seriously challenges the BIBLICAL claims.

What they tend to do is carry on and on about IMPLICATIONS of the Rapture idea as they see it (it encourages a desire to escape our problems here for instance), and they ASSERT that it's not Biblical, but they really don't take apart the idea Biblically at all.

I did listen carefully to the Amillennial arguments as presented by Kim Riddlebarger and I couldn't support his Biblical interpretations. He too spent much of his time complaining about the Rapture idea, but then he did at least get into some of the Biblical claims.

I probably need to do a more thorough search than I've done, but it IS frustrating. I'm tried of the assertions and insinuations, I want a REALLY GOOD BIBLICAL ANSWER to the BIBLICAL claims of the Rapturists.

Thank you.

Considering the Amillennial View, Pt. 2: The Seventieth Week of Daniel

This is the second post I'm making on specific Biblical interpretations from the Amillennial viewpoint. I'm trying to stick to the narrow topic and avoid going beyond it into the many related issues. Since from what I've grasped of the relevant scriptures so far I've been leaning toward the idea of the pre-trib Rapture (to my own surprise), my predominant interest at the moment is in seeing whether key scriptures in support of that idea hold up. Amillennialists specifically oppose the pre-trib Rapture so their arguments should be addressed. I looked at the meaning of the "temple" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in the first post in this series and concluded that the Amillennialists have it wrong, so that's one for the pre-tribbers.

Now I'm going to look at the 70th week of Daniel based on Daniel 9:24-27.

Again I'm taking my information from Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's lectures. I haven't listened to all of them, but quite a few at the beginning and end of the Amillennialism 101 series plus the shorter Antichrist series. The following are notes I took from his discussion of the 70th Week of Daniel from the first tape in the Antichrist series. [below the Amil 101 series on the right-hand margin]. They may not be completely accurate so I'm not going to call them quotations.
=========

[The 70 weeks of Daniel, Daniel 9:24-27] which doesn't teach a seven-year tribulation.

It's a messianic prophecy. It's fulfilled by Christ's active and passive obedience. There's no reference in that passage to an antichrist making a treaty with Israel. There is a reference to Christ cutting a covenant on behalf of his people in the middle of the 70th week before he's cut off. Christ confirms his covenant with the many. It's a passage that talks about his death on the cross, not something the antichrist is going to do.

Here is the passage of scripture. The angel Gabriel has come to teach Daniel about things to come:

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. 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.

In this passage the angel Gabriel reveals the yet-future period of time in terms of "weeks" or sevens of years, between a specific event, "the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" and the coming of the Messiah for whom Daniel's people Israel have been waiting for centuries. Four decrees were made by various of the pagan kings regarding the return of the Jews to Judea after their captivity, but only one of the decrees specifically concerned the rebuilding of Jerusalem, so that is the one taken as the starting point for the calculations based on this passage.

Those who have studied the historical facts have shown that the first 69 weeks of years were literally fulfilled as a specific time period that can be counted precisely from that particular decree up to Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on the donkey, his public revelation of Himself as the Messiah-King. The 69 weeks are exactly fulfilled and there is nothing in the time frame of Jesus' first coming that fits the 70th week of years, leaving that 70th week yet to be fulfilled.

It seems to me that with this kind of precision there is no reasonable doubt that the "weeks" of the prophecy refer to literal time. The Amillennialists apparently explain the 69 weeks in some other way but I haven't been able to find out how, except that they reject the idea that the weeks are an actual time period. This is clear in their explanation of the 70th week at least:

Kim Riddlebarger says:

"The 70th week of Daniel is fulfilled 56:20

It's a messianic prophecy. It's fulfilled by Christ's active and passive obedience."

I listened carefully and heard NO evidence for this claim. He merely asserts it. Somehow, although the first 69 weeks of years can be shown to have been literally fulfilled in a historically identifiable time period, the last week is not to be treated as a literal week of years but as representative of the Lord's obedience? I really did listen for anything that could make sense of this and came up with nothing, no discussion of the reasoning that should lead one to this view, and no offering of a criticism of the calculation of the literal time frame, nothing -- in this particular study anyway, but such an objection should be here if it's anywhere. So the Amil interpretation remains a bald assertion, and an assertion of a peculiarly bizarre and indefensible kind it seems to me.

There's no reference in that passage to an antichrist making a treaty with Israel. There is a reference to Christ cutting a covenant on behalf of his people in the middle of the 70th week before he's cut off. Christ confirms his covenant with the many. It's a passage that talks about his death on the cross, not something the antichrist is going to do.

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. 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

OK, it's possible to read the passage this way as at first it could appear that the "he" refers back to the Messiah rather than to the "prince that shall come." BUT the rest of the passage couldn't possibly refer to the Messiah as He did not "confirm" a covenant, He made a NEW covenant, and He did not make it "for one week" but for eternity. No Biblical defense has been given for the wild notion that the 70th week refers to the obedience of Christ, none, so I just have to dismiss it.

The reference to the ceasing of the sacrifice and the oblation also could indicate the destruction of the temple in 70 AD which was prophesied by Jesus, and which was the necessary demonstration that His sacrifice on the cross ended the need for animal sacrifices for all time. BUT the wording is a bit odd in that case. His death DID in a sense "cause" the destruction of the temple, of course, but the passage describes something this ambiguous "he" directly DOES to cause the temple observances to cease and Jesus didn't do anything like that.

But there is another passage in Daniel where an antichrist figure does remove the sacrifice:

Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

And this prophecy WAS fulfilled, by Antiochus Epiphanes a few centuries after Daniel (175-163 BC) , whose desecration of the Jerusalem temple was the cause of the Maccabean revolt, now commemorated in the celebration of Hannukah. With this clear preceding reference, and a fulfilled prophecy at that, it's hard to see how the A-mils can insist that the reference in Daniel 9 MUST refer to the Messiah and not the Antichrist.

I think the last verses of Daniel 9 may be one of those deliberately ambiguous prophetic passages that are intended to obscure the truth until the time is close for its fulfillment -- or even until the events in question are already underway. I think we are getting near to that time and the passage is becoming bit by bit more intelligible, and it happens to be the pre-trib rapture scenario that is coming into view with its concomitant understanding of God's separate dealings with the Jews. (Also, the ambiguity helps to underscore the fact that the Antichrist is after all an imitation Christ who will imitate as many of the true Christ's attributes as he can. Confusing the two is his aim.)

Furthermore the Book of Revelation takes the last half of the 70th week [56:50], that 1260 days the 3-1/2 years, the times time and half a time and describes the whole interadvental period as the last half of Daniel's 70th week. And in doing that the biblical writers specifically John in the bk of Rev are doing the very thing dispensationalists tell us ought not to be done. It's JOHN -- well actually it's the angel that's revealing this to John -- it's the angel who now tells us that that last 3-01/2 weeks of daniel's final week -- that 7-yr period the last -- is the entire interadvental period.

I listened quite carefully I thought, in order to find out exactly how he thinks this is the case, what evidence he has that the angel is referring to "the entire interadvental period" -- these last 1900-plus years so far -- and not to a specific time period just as the first 69 weeks of years do. The period of 3-1/2 years is so specifically reiterated in scripture in a variety of forms there's something wildly bizarre about insisting it's not a time period. It's referred to as "times, time and half a time" in a few places, it's referred to as 42 months in others, it's referred to as 1260 days.

There's nothing vague about it, nothing that requires allegorizing it, and nothing the angel says that allegorizes it. It seems to me that Riddlebarger merely loudly asserts that John via the angel says so, but I don't see it. He's also asserted, as I quote above, that the whole last "week of years," this 70th week in question, refers to Christ's "active and passive obedience" rather than a literal time period. So he allegorizes the entire week in that way, but then separately stretches out the last half of the week to refer to a time period of almost 2000 years. The two ideas aren't even remotely compatible that I can see.

And finally there is no 7-year tribulation period affirmed anywhere in the new testament. It's not there.

First, the pre-tribbers I've been listening to take care to correct the idea that the entire seven years is a time of tribulation, saying that only the last half is to be tribulation. Second, the iterations of the 1260 days, the 42 months and so on in the Book of Revelation, are pretty specific indicators of a very specific time period that is exactly half of the "week of years" or 70th week of Daniel that is yet unfulfilled.

Rather, the destruction of Jerusalem is spoken of as great tribulation as is the entire interadvental period. We find this in Matt 24:29, John 16:33, Acts 14:22, Romans 8:35, Rev 1:9. The whole interadvental period is spoken of as a time of tribulation and a time of suffering for God's people. And then a great tribulation is mentioned in Rev 7:14. This is the great multitude with the palm branches. These are the ones coming OUT of the great tribulation. The great tribulation in that passage is the interadvental period. The NT never speaks of a seven-year tribulation, the NT speaks of the time between Christ's comings. That entire period is a time of tribulation.

Maybe I'm missing his point but I read all those verse references, all to "tribulation" in some sense or other, most of them to the tribulations all Christians are to expect, so in that general sense they refer to the "entire interadvental period" but I don't see anything that defines the multitude with the palm branches as those who suffered throughout this period -- it's possible but it's not obvious from the context as he claims it is.

Jesus in Matthew 24 refers to a worst tribulation ever, and while that probably does refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 it's one of those prophecies that suggests it has yet a further fulfillment to come. But also I'd point out that it was not believers who specifically suffered that tribulation, but predominantly unbelieving Jews. It was a judgment against the Jewish nation, not about followers of Christ at all. If that event is what Jesus was referring to, then He was talking about His "brethren" in the sense of the Jews rather than in the sense of His disciples. So from there I'd go on to ask whether that event was worse than the Holocaust? If not then something worse is yet to come, and to keep up the parallel this would most likely be the "time of Jacob's trouble" rather than a tribulation suffered by the church.

Jeremiah 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.

"Jacob" is clearly unbelieving Jews. And if that is the case then Jesus could very well have been talking to the generation of Jews who would be alive in the very last days, all consistent with the pre-trib point of view. I haven't worked all this out myself, in fact I just now noticed that the fall of Jerusalem was a Jewish disaster, not a Christian one.

I could go over every reference and raise the relevant questions but I didn't want to get too deeply into all this here. I'd just say that it's a big leap to assume that there's no other special time of tribulation to be taken into account, and since he merely asserted his point and gave the references without arguing his case for his understanding of them, leaving me to figure out what he means, all I can say is I don't find whatever he thinks he finds.

What I wanted to address in this post is whether there is a yet-unfulfilled "week" or seven literal years prophesied in this passage and whether the Amillennialists succeed in answering this claim. At least Kim Riddlebarger doesn't succeed at this in my judgment. He insists that Amillennialists do not allegorize the Bible except where the Bible itself allegorizes, but it seems to me there's something awfully disingenuous about that claim as I compare his thinking to the literal-weeks-of-years interpretation. I search in vain for anything that supports his assertion that John himself allegorizes the last half of the 70th week in the Book of Revelation to refer to the entire interadvental period. I don't see it. The best that I can say for his position is that he's failed to prove it.

So I find for the interpretation of a yet-future time period of seven years, a literal 70th week of Daniel that was not fulfilled at the first coming of Christ and is yet to be fulfilled, and since the prophecy of the 70 weeks was a prophecy of the coming of Christ and the ending of sin, then the unfulfilled week must have to do with His second coming. Since the 69 weeks were a precise period of time, so would the 70th week be precise, which means that those alive during that period should be able to calculate when the Lord will appear. And since we are also told that no-one knows the day and to be ready so as not to be taken by surprise, this CAN be taken for evidence that there must be two comings yet future, one that will come suddenly without a clear warning, and one that will be expected at a particular time. But I'm holding this interpretation loosely for now. The point of this post was just to decide if there is yet to come a literal seven-year-period that is to finish up all the unfinished business related to the redemption and the end of the world.