onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 28, 2014 14:46:24 GMT -8
In regard to my interpretation of the 70th 7 being the Messiah's announcement of the New Covenant to Israel and the world, I found it interested to note, as I was reading N.T. Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God today, that the Essenses interpreted the 70th 7 in just that way: that their version of the Messiah, the "Teacher of Righteousness" would decree the new covenant during those 7 years. This apparently means they read the "he" in "he will confirm a covenant with many for one 7" as a reference to the Messiah, not the ruler to come.
Wright, quoting Wise page 148 of Paul and the Faithfulness of God It should be noted that proximity in time to that of Jesus and his disciples means exactly nothing in terms of correct doctrine. The apostles themselves continually battled falsehood and infiltration, and they warned that "ravenous wolves will arise from among your own number" after their departure. I don't consider the Essenes to be authoritative interpreters, and as has already been noted, Wright does have something of an anti-supernatural bias, which makes his opinions against futurism not at all surprising. I appeal to scripture alone for interpretation of prophecy, and to the well-established precedent of multi-faceted fulfillments, some examples of which are at this linked article: www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/preter.htm . And the fact remains that nothing in scripture connects anything Jesus did with Daniel's 70th week beyond being "cut off" to signal the end of the 69th. As I've emphasized before, the 70th week could not have started before the 69th ended, and it ended at Jesus' death. Thus I find it clearly and undeniably impossible for any covenant to have begun earlier and qualify as that final one prophesied by Daniel. But preterism simply must have Jesus' death at the midpoint or their whole eschatology crashes to the ground, so they insist that such covenant did in fact begin at Jesus' baptism in spite of the utter silence of scripture upon which to base this assertion. And that's all I have to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 29, 2014 8:57:36 GMT -8
Firstly, Wright brought it up in a completely different context. I'm not sure why you're jumping on stevekimes' statement about Wright's supposedly present-day seccasionist tendencies, when he specifically pointed out that Wright doesn't have an anti-supernatural bias in regard to the 1st century
Anyway, what the quote does establish is that there is a long standing example of interpreting the 70th 7 in a way very similar to mine, and it was an interpretation that was held before the events were to be fulfilled, not after, in some kind of "spiritualizing hindsight".
And, as I explained earlier, all Daniel 9 says is that the Messiah was cut off after the 69th 7- it doesn't specify when after.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 29, 2014 10:04:26 GMT -8
And I'm not sure why you in turn "jumped" on my passing mention of Wright, ignoring the main point that I don't consider either Wright or the Essenes to be authoritative interpreters against whom no one can stand.
Both of us place a gap of unknown duration beteen the 69th and 70th weeks, so the only difference is whether Jesus' death is before that gap or after it. But you ignore the "gap" in the prophecy between "cut off" and "confirm a covenant for one 'seven'":
1- After the 62 'sevens' the Anointed One will be cut off 2- The city and sanctuary will be destroyed (70 AD as we both agree) 3- Wars decreed "until the end" 4- "He" will confirm the 7-year covenant
So the covenant cannot have begun until AFTER 70 AD and "wars until the end".
There is no escaping this; your gap between the 69th and "cut off" doesn't change this. You simply cannot place the events of 70 AD BEFORE Jesus' death. If you then say that the prophecy is looking back at that point, on what do you base this assertion? The sequence is clear, so you have to change it to make preterism work. Yet if you can do this, so can I; proposing that this passage is not in strict sequence is far less defensible than my saying "cut off" marks the end of the 69th.
Now look at Mat. 24:15-16--
Who ran to the mountains AS SOON AS THEY SAW what you say was "the abomination" (Jesus' death)? And when did they see Jesus "standing in the holy place"? Yet Jesus himself says this is what Daniel meant! Preterism is a morass of dismissal of important details, contradictions, and re-interpretations to make such things fit their theory.
I really, really cannot make this any clearer, and must now stop trying, as it is going nowhere. I've said all I can say.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 31, 2014 17:20:29 GMT -8
I wasn't making the point that Wright or the Essenes are "authoritative interpreters against whom no one can stand", so I didn't really get why you went there either. That would be pretty silly, like most straw dummies are
Yes, I see the second half of verse 26 as a parenthetical comment. And that interpretation is indeed dependent on the larger interpretive grid of the destruction mentioned in verse 26 as referring to the destruction of AD 70, and not some future destruction. Both of us are, of course, interpreting less clear passages in light of our interpretations of passages that seem more clear to us. But one of my two theories on the 70th 7 doesn't hold to a gap at all; verse 26B is just events occurring after the 70th 7 is complete.
I'll respond to the question of the "abomination of desolation" on the Olivet Discourse thread.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 31, 2014 17:50:18 GMT -8
I will sign off on this topic with this...
Mat. 24:15-16 is where Jesus interprets "abomination of desolation" for us. The Greek is unambiguous: something abominable is stood up in the temple. He is clearly not using terms that would support the alternate reading in Daniel, that it meant he would do away with the abominable temple defiled by the zealots. Jesus never stood in the Holy Place, and not even his discples ran to the mountains when they saw him die. And "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" didn't happen until at least 40 years later. These are fatal details to preterism.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 31, 2014 20:14:45 GMT -8
I agree that the "abomination that causes desolation" is something abominable in the Temple that leads to it's destruction (the defiling of the Temple by the Zealots in AD 70).
Why not?
I see the disconnect here. You think I'm interpreting the alternate reading of Daniel 9:27B (And one who causes desolation will come upon the wing of the abominable temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city) as something that supposedly happened when Jesus died. Rather, I'm saying that was fulfilled in AD 70 as a result of the parenthetical comment about wars continuing until the end.
I see some skipping back and forth* between references to AD 26-30 and AD 66-70. I'll color code it accordingly:
25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And one who causes desolation will come upon the wing of the abominable temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city
Jesus was clearly claiming that verse 27B would be fulfilled in AD 70, as it was indeed. Whatever the reasons Daniel had for skipping back and forth here (maybe thematic reasons?), he obviously is skipping back and forth because verse 27 must refer to events before 26B because verse 27 implies the temple is still standing, whereas 26B is about it's destruction. Then in verse 27 we know we've jumped back to the future because it's now talking about the Temple's destruction again!
*yes, I know, you'll say, "then why can't there be some skipping forward without notice in Daniel 11"? Touche. I can't say that there can't be skipping in Daniel 11, it just seems an unnecessary postulation that it's about a future antichrist, when, because of the rest of my interpretation, there doesn't need to be a future antichrist and the details of Daniel 11 can fit intertestimental history.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Apr 1, 2014 6:01:13 GMT -8
I agree that the "abomination that causes desolation" is something abominable in the Temple that leads to it's destruction (the defiling of the Temple by the Zealots in AD 70). I had the exact opposite impression of how you interpreted this before. Why not what? Do you think Jesus' words could support the alternate reading? How so? If you can skip back and forth like this, it is pointless to continue. There is nothing in the context to indicate such jumping around, and it makes the whole passage incomprehensible. How many other passages can be read this way, and on what basis? You say, "he obviously is skipping back and forth because verse 27 must refer to events before 26B because verse 27 implies the temple is still standing, whereas 26B is about it's destruction. Then in verse 27 we know we've jumped back to the future because it's now talking about the Temple's destruction again!" This is hardly the only or the most straightforward explanation. Why not take it as that there will be another future temple? The one standing in Jesus' day was at least the second, so there is clear precedent for multiple temples. And you ignore the "end like a flood... until the end" as indicating a long span of time; why? How is this justified? Certainly not by the text or context, but only and solely by the preterist requirement which twists the whole sequence like a pretzel. If Daniel (really, the angel giving the message) wanted to lay out the prophecy according to the preterist understanding, I can't imagine how it could be worded any less clearly.I keep responding because it seems you keep conveying different arguments, but really, I'm stopping here.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Apr 1, 2014 6:07:36 GMT -8
But I do want to take this opportunity to thank you for inspiring me to add more material to my "refuting preterism" article on my blog. It isn't often that I come across new tactics/arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 1, 2014 20:54:59 GMT -8
And I could just as easily say to you, what in the passage would lead us to believe that there will be TWO future Temples (from Daniel's perspective)? It seems so much more straightforward to assume that the Temple he says will be built is the one he continues to talk about through the rest of the passage. And I'm not sure what you mean by me ignoring "end like a flood". It doesn't really indicate a very long period of time, certainly 40 years fits better than 2,000 imo.
Either way, we have to accept some obscurity in this text. The passage is super difficult to translate. I don't think that's accidental either. On the one hand, it's one of the most remarkably accurate predictions in the entire Bible (as far as it's predictive power of the time of the birth of Christ- you agree, right?). On the other hand, it's provoked some of the biggest ongoing debates in prophecy. It's not worded clearly for the Futurist perspective either.
No doubt our interpretive grids and arguments from other Scriptures lead us variably to expect either NO future Temple or a THIRD Temple, and so it's natural to read those things into the passage.
But I genuinely think that the original hearers wouldn't have read this passage as describing two coming Temples. You are free to disagree or not care what the original hearers might have thought. And I rest as well
|
|