40 thoughts on “The Leviticus 26 Protocol”

1. Wow, this is going to be a fascinating ride through history…

   Tim wrote:

   “When we get to the end of the Seventy Weeks as we continue this series, we shall encounter a people who repent of these specific sins and restore that very owlam righteousness at the end of the Seventieth Week. The “everlasting righteousness” they restore is not a gospel righteousness under the second covenant, but an owlam righteousness under the first, which is what Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel and Gabriel had been talking about the whole time. The people we will encounter repented of the errors that led the Jews into Babylonian captivity, to the point that they abhorred images and refused to violate the sabbath even at the cost of their own lives, and then finally anointed and reconsecrated the Most Holy itself—and the “Most Holy” they anointed was not Jesus. In fact, the conclusion of the Seventy Weeks occurred about two hundred years too soon to be fulfilled in Jesus’ earthly ministry.

   As we shall also show in this series, the two English renderings of “Messiah the Prince” (Daniel 9:25) and the “Messiah” who is cut off (Daniel 9:26) in Gabriel’s vision are simply interpretations—rather than translations—of the word “anointed.” They are in fact referring to two different people, and neither of the “anointed” ones is Jesus. What we shall show in the coming weeks is that neither Jesus nor His apostles ever represent Him as the fulfillment of the Seventy Week prophecy. And when Jesus actually does refer to “the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:14, Mark 13:14), He means exactly and only what He said, for Jesus knew very well that the Seventieth Week of Daniel had long since passed.

   Before our readers reach for their calculators, we must advise them that there is more math to Gabriel’s vision than initially meets the eye. He has clearly invoked the Leviticus 26 Protocol to explain that the Lord will yet “punish you seven times more for your sins” (Leviticus 26:18). But no sooner had Gabriel invoked the Leviticus 26 Protocol to multiply the chastisement, than he immediately divided the Seventy Weeks into three separate prophecies—each with its own starting and ending points. He mentions the “Seventy Weeks” only once, and never uses the term again. From that point forward, he refers only to the “seven weeks” (Daniel 9:25), the “threescore and two weeks” (Daniel 9:26) and the “one week” (Daniel 9:27).”

   I guess this is going to confirm the Papacy being Antichrist, and I can just see CK, Jim and Bob screaming foul play soon.

   After reading Bob’s veeeery confusing comments this week, I just often wonder if he actual reads what is written, or if he just jumps in to defend Jim and the Catholics as it is his duty to “protect and serve” Rome as the local Catholic Sheriff in town?

   Reply

   1. Thanks, Walt,

      Yes, I believe that once the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 is read in its Leviticus 26 context, it helps us understand Daniel 8, and ultimately, the last five verses of Daniel 11. Although I don’t believe either of those two chapters speak of Antichrist, once we know who they are talking about, it makes it a lot easier understand the chapter that actually speaks of him—chapter 7. You have asked on several occasions about the 1,260 days, the 1,290 days, the 1,335 days and the 2,300 days. This is where I’ll finally get to those questions. I appreciate your patience.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

   2. FOUL PLAY!!!

      Now are you happy Walt?

      Reply

   3. WALT said: “I guess this is going to confirm the Papacy being Antichrist, and I can just see CK, Jim and Bob screaming foul play soon.
      After reading Bob’s veeeery confusing comments this week, I just often wonder if he actual reads what is written, or if he just jumps in to defend Jim and the Catholics as it is his duty to “protect and serve” Rome as the local Catholic Sheriff in town?”

      Tim didn’t really say anything with this post. I may have to just wait until next week.

      Reply

      1. Bob said:

         “Tim didn’t really say anything with this post. I may have to just wait until next week.

         This is bar none one of the most significant posts he wrote.

         It is time you recognize your heart is hardened.

         Reply

         1. WALT–
            You said: “This is bar none one of the most significant posts he wrote.
            It is time you recognize your heart is hardened.”

            It is time you recognized your brain has been washed.
            The Anti-Christ is much bigger than the Catholic Church. The great falling away will be much bigger than that. Roman Catholics are only 16% of the world population. You need to come out of the Middle Ages and into the 21st century.

            The pieces to Tim’s puzzle don’t completely fit. There are too many gaps to fill. And because it doesn’t exactly fit prophecy, it disqualifies it. God’s Word is exact. There is no room for error. Like Tim himself said, just because a planet looks like a star, doesn’t make it a star. It’s still a planet. The square peg of the Papacy doesn’t fit the round hole of the Anti-Christ. There’s just too many loose ends.

            Reply

            1. BOB wrote:
               The Anti-Christ is much bigger than the Catholic Church. The great falling away will be much bigger than that. Roman Catholics are only 16% of the world population.

               Response:
               Focus on “much bigger.” Cardinal Ratzinger said the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church. Let’s assume the “being of the Church” is a persevering Church. Does this mean Roman Catholics are close to 16% of the being of the Church ? Maybe even smaller ?

               Will any Catholic or BOB dare to mark the limits of this being in the world population ? BOB, if you wish to defend RCs, then please distinguish the subjects of the “great falling away” from the world’s population endowed with Church “being”.

               Stop defending RCs on these points because your defense doesn’t account for RC theological statements like Ratzinger’s. You fail to see that phrases like Anti-christ and Catholic Church (Roman) are very compatible if being of the Church is larger identity than the RCC. Why do I say this ? Because the phrases themselves come from Roman Catholic reflection and teaching !

               We see a good purveyor of Anti-Christ teaching in Ratzinger. He guards the Anti-Christ universality (larger identity) under the form of RCC teaching. Also, Ratzinger was a ruler in that Papal Church when he said it.
               —————–
               You wrote:
               The square peg of the Papacy doesn’t fit the round hole of the Anti-Christ. There’s just too many loose ends.

               Rash Judgment ?

            2. ERIC W.–
               You said: “Focus on “much bigger.” Cardinal Ratzinger said the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church. Let’s assume the “being of the Church” is a persevering Church. Does this mean Roman Catholics are close to 16% of the being of the Church ? Maybe even smaller?”

               You know what happens when you assume.

               You also said: “We see a good purveyor of Anti-Christ teaching in Ratzinger. He guards the Anti-Christ universality (larger identity) under the form of RCC teaching. Also, Ratzinger was a ruler in that Papal Church when he said it.”

               I think it’s funny that you say that when Ratzinger proclaims and teaches this:
               “Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works.”—the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 198

               Catholic belief is succinctly expressed in the profession of faith or credo called the Nicene Creed:
               The Nicene Creed
               I believe in one God,
               the Father almighty,
               maker of heaven and earth,
               of all things visible and invisible.
               I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
               the Only Begotten Son of God,
               born of the Father before all ages.
               God from God, Light from Light,
               true God from true God,
               begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
               through him all things were made.
               For us men and for our salvation
               he came down from heaven,
               and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
               For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
               he suffered death and was buried,
               and rose again on the third day
               in accordance with the Scriptures.
               He ascended into heaven
               and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
               He will come again in glory
               to judge the living and the dead
               and his kingdom will have no end.
               I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
               who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
               who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
               I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
               I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
               and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
               and the life of the world to come. Amen.

               Sorry–I just don’t see the Anti-Christ in that teaching the way you do.

   4. The approach applied to Dan 9 is the correct one.

      The 70 weeks are determined for the salvation of the People of Daniel i.e. Israel. And the Leviticus 26 protocol is also to be found in Matt 18:21-22

      `the Peter come to Jesus and asked, Lord if my brother keeps on sinning against me, how many times do i have to forgive him? Seven times? `No, not seven times, answered Jesus, but seventy times seven`

      The case that the second anointed one is Messiah is a strong one. This is how and why:

      1. In the Law Moses said in future there will appear a prophet like me him should you obey – Deuteronomy 18:15;18 – This is the Messiah of Israel.

      2. Daniel 9:26 predicts that the people of the prince to come will destroy the temple and the city Jerusalem

      Daniel 9:26 provides for a Messianic connection – In Matt 24:2 Jesus predicted that the 2nd temple will destroyed. This destruction is the one predicted in Dan 9:26

      Luke 19:41-44

      41 And when He approached, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 “For the days shall come upon you when your enemies will throw up a bank before you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, 44 and will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation. ”
      NASB

      What is this day of visitation that they failed to recognize?

      John appeared in the wilderness preaching his message repent and turn away from your sins and God will forgive your sins. But what did the nation of Israel do?

      He come to his own and his own received him not. They rejected him. They did not hid the the prophetic word of Moses about a prophet like him, neither did they turn away from their sins they did what they wanted with John the Baptist. It is for that reason that Jesus said you city and your people will be destroyed. This happened in AD 70 when the Vaspasian armies led by General Titus beseeched Jerusalem.

      That the Messianic age is coming within 70 weeks we cant fail to see it. On the cross Jesus fulfilled the objectives of Dan 9:24 its the New covenant which is the subject of the 7o weeks.

      But because Israel rejected the Messiah they remain in their sins they are not benefiting from the cross. Is it the end of Israel? No the Leviticus 26 protocol is once invoked they are punished further seven folds starting with the destruction of the the second temple in AD 70. they are cycles of 70 years or 70 weeks and this will go until the Leviticus 26: 40-45 generation is ushered:

      Leviticus 26:40-45

      40 ‘If they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their forefathers, in their unfaithfulness which they committed against Me, and also in their acting with hostility against Me — 41 I also was acting with hostility against them, to bring them into the land of their enemies — or if their uncircumcised heart becomes humbled so that they then make amends for their iniquity, 42 then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and I will remember also My covenant with Isaac, and My covenant with Abraham as well, and I will remember the land. 43 ‘For the land shall be abandoned by them, and shall make up for its sabbaths while it is made desolate without them. They, meanwhile, shall be making amends for their iniquity, because they rejected My ordinances and their soul abhorred My statutes. 44 ‘Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, nor will I so abhor them as to destroy them, breaking My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God. 45 ‘But I will remember for them the covenant with their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am the Lord.'”
      NASB

      Paul in Romans chapters 9-11 stress this point that all Israel shall be saved when the last gentile comes in. And Dan 12:1-2 makes the same prediction- See also Zechariah 12:9-14. At that time the nation Israel will come to faith and take its rightful place in the body of Christ the Church.

      Acts 15:14-18
      14 “Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 “And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,

      16 ‘After these things I will return,
      And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen,
      And I will rebuild its ruins,
      And I will restore it,
      17 In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
      And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
      18 Says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.
      NASB

      The era of the temple of stones is over. Jesus said destroy this temple and in 3 days i will rebuilt it. He said this not in respect of the 2nd temple, but referring to his own body.

      His own body is the Church, and all those who believe in his name and being used in building a spiritual temple. The scriptures says don`t you know that your bodies are the temple of the Living God/Holy Spirit. He dwells not in a temple built by hands. Emanuel `God with us` Christ in you the hope of all glory. At Pentecost Act 2 he anointed his Church by pouring the Holy Spirit, the most Holy place is thus anointed, because we are his church.

      Reply

2. Tim,

   As an aide to your readers, I am posting from the sermon of an Historicist post-millennial minister that also believes that the Papacy is Antichrist. This will give the reader a counter interpretation to compare with your study which will be helpful.

   ———
   1. Carefully note the emphasis on the Day-Year Principle in Numbers 14:34 from a literal rendering of the Hebrew text: “According to the number of the days which you spied out the land, forty days, A DAY FOR THE YEAR, A DAY FOR THE YEAR, you shall bear your iniquities forty years.” Why is “A DAY FOR THE YEAR” repeated by God in the Hebrew text? It is repeated for emphasis, so that this Principle might be indelibly marked upon the minds of the Israelites and upon our minds as we read and seek to interpret Scripture (and especially prophetic Scripture as we shall see).
   2. God Himself gives a very specific reason for the 40 years that Israel would bear its sin in the wilderness: A DAY FOR THE YEAR. And God repeats it for emphasis, so that later on in the Scripture we might use this interpretive key to unlock time periods found in prophetic portions of God’s Word. Thus, it is God Himself that first uses the Day-Year Principle.

   B. Ezekiel 4:4-6. In this prophetic Book of the Bible (that is filled with figurative language), Ezekiel is commanded by God to act out in symbols stated time periods of sin that were perpetrated against the Lord by the Northern Kingdom of Israel and by the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
   1. Ezekiel is first commanded to lie on his left side for 390 days as exhibiting the sins of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Ezekiel 4:5). Then the Lord commands Ezekiel to lie on his right side for 40 days as exhibiting the sins of the Southern Kingdom of Judah (Ezekiel 4:6).
   2. But what is significant is what God says the prophetic time periods of 390 days and 40 days mean in actual calendar time for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in bearing their sin. God says in Ezekiel 4:6, “I have appointed thee each day for a year” (literally in the Hebrew text, “A DAY FOR THE YEAR, A DAY FOR THE YEAR”). Now where have we heard that language before? It is precisely the same language that was used in the Hebrew text back in Numbers 14:34. Thus, the 390 prophetic days equals 390 actual calendar years, and the 40 prophetic days equals 40 actual calendars years according to God’s own interpretation here in Ezekiel 4:4-6.
   3. I would submit that both of these time periods provide the reasons why the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah incurred the judgment of God that fell upon them. The sin of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the 390 year period of time would seem to have begun with the sin of Jeroboam in leading the revolt against Judah and in leading Israel into idolatry (as we see in 2 Kings 17:22, where it is stated that it was due to Jeroboam’s idolatry that God brought His judgment upon Israel). And the sin of the Southern Kingdom of Judah and the 40 year period of time would seem to have begun with the sin of King Manasseh in leading Judah into the grossest forms of idolatry (as we see in 2 Kings 21:10-13, where it is stated that it was due to Manasseh’s idolatry that God brought His judgment upon Judah). Thus, it is God Himself, who once again, uses and presents to us the interpretive key of the Day-Year Principle.

   C. Daniel 9:24. This, dear ones, is without a doubt one of the most significant prophecies in the Old Testament, and it too is based upon the Day-Year Principle.
   1. Here in Daniel 9:24, we see that 70 prophetic weeks are determined for God’s people Israel in order to accomplish redemption for His people through the work of Jesus Christ. Now 70 prophetic weeks equals 490 prophetic days (70 weeks x 7 days per week=490 prophetic days). It should also be noted that the Hebrew word translated “weeks” (sha-bu-im) is always used in the Old Testament to refer to a week of days, i.e. a week consisting of seven days (for example, sha-bu-im is used 20 times in the Hebrew Old Testament [according to The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, p. 1224,George V. Wigram], 4 times in the singular and 16 times in the plural, and each time it refers to a week consisting of 7 days).
   2. Now note what is said in Daniel 9:25, “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” (this is most likely a reference to the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra in Ezra 7:11-26), “unto the Messiah [i.e. the Anointed One—GLP] the Prince” (this refers to Christ and most likely to the time in which Christ was anointed by the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit came upon Him at the time of His baptism by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:13-17), “shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.” In other words, from the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra until Christ’s anointing and baptism, the angel speaking to Daniel said there would elapse 69 weeks (7 weeks + 62 weeks = 69 weeks). It should be obvious that a literal 69 weeks or a literal 483 days (which is literally 1 year and almost 4 months) cannot take us from the decree of Artaxerxes (in 458 b.c.) to the anointing of Christ by the Holy Spirit at His baptism by John (in 26 a.d.).
   a. However, using the Day-Year Interpretive Principle that the Holy Spirit has already given to us in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4-6, when we interpret 483 prophetic days as 483 actual calendar years, we see the most amazing fulfillment of prophecy: From the decree given to Ezra (in 458 b.c.) to the anointing and baptism of Christ (in 26 a.d.), precisely 483 years had passed. God is without controversy using the Day-Year Principle of interpretation in Daniel 9:24-25.
   b. Then (according to Daniel 9:26a and Daniel 9:27a) Christ is “cut off” (i.e. crucified) 3 ½ years later in the middle of the 70th week of years. This again demonstrates that the Holy Spirit has given to us the Day-Year Principle as a means of interpreting prophetic periods of time .
   c. Therefore, when we come to the Book of Revelation (a highly symbolic prophetic portion of Scripture, just as is true of Ezekiel and Daniel where we find the Day-Year principle used by the Holy Spirit), we ought to be already predisposed to the Day-Year Principle in considering time periods like 1,260 prophetic days, 42 prophetic months, and a time, times, and half a time (especially since Daniel uses that same prophetic time period, a time, times, and half a time to refer to the papal “little horn” that is prophesied to come in Daniel 7:25).
   d. Early Church Fathers also used the Day-Year Principle to interpret the 70 weeks of Daniel (or 490 prophetic days) to mean 490 actual calendar years. For example, Tertullian (c. 160-220 a.d.) interpreted the first 69 weeks of Daniel (in Daniel 9:25—7 weeks + 62 weeks = 69 weeks) as giving the time period up to the first coming of Christ. “How, then are we to show that Christ came within the sixty-two weeks? . . . Let us see, then, how the years are fulfilled up to the advent of Christ” (Adversus Judaeos [Against the Jews], Chapter 8.1ff.). And from that time on, there are found various Church Fathers using the Day-Year Principle to interpret the time periods in the Books of Daniel and Revelation.
   e. The Day-Year Principle likewise became the classic, historic Reformed and Protestant interpretation of prophetic time periods in the Books of Daniel and Revelation from the First Reformation onward. In fact, it was the Counter-Reformation efforts of the Roman Catholic Church that argued against the Day-Year Principle of the Protestant Reformation, and rather defended a literal interpretation of the 1,260 days of Revelation.
   (1) It was the Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribera, who systematized futurism and interpreted the 1,260 prophetic days in the Book of Revelation as 1,260 literal days (contrary to the Day-Year Principle) in seeking to identify antichrist with a future worldwide leader (in his Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 1590).
   (2) And it was another Jesuit priest, Luis de Alcasar, who systematized preterism and interpreted the 1,260 prophetic days in the Book of Revelation as 1,260 literal days (contrary to the Day-Year Principle) in seeking to identify antichrist with Nero (in his Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 1614).
   (3) Both of these Jesuit priests sought to undermine the Day-Year Principle. For these Jesuit priests understood that if they interpreted the 1,260 prophetic days as literal days (rather than as calendar years per the Day-Year Principle), they would take attention away from the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy (which had existed for hundreds of years) and rather turn the attention of people to figures in past history or figures in future history, whose power against the church would be limited to a mere 3 ½ year period of time. However, when the Protestant Reformation applied the Day-Year principle to 1,260 prophetic days (in the Book of Revelation) to mean 1,260 actual calendar years, these prophecies that are found in Daniel and Revelation were revealed to be fulfilled by the apostate Church of Rome (the Great Harlot of Babylon) and by the Papacy (the Antichrist) who would usurp the office of Christ and who would war against the true biblical religion of Jesus Christ in reference to a period of time consisting of 1,260 years.

   In conclusion, dear ones, prophetic time periods in Scripture remind us of a very important truth: God has ordained all our days. We do not live by chance from day to day, but every event in history (and every event in our lives), and even the very number of days that each of us shall live has been ordained by the Lord (Job 14:4,5). We are taught by such truths to beseech the Lord to teach us to number our days that we might live wisely rather than foolishly (Psalm 90:12). For we at times forget that the days we live here upon the earth are numbered and short. The strength we feel today in these mortal bodies will pass away, and so will all our earthly possessions (Psalm 39:4-5). Therefore, dear ones, life for the Christian is summed up in the words of the Apostle Paul (Philippians 1:21). What is it for you to live? What gives meaning and purpose to your life? If your life is not Christ, but is rather something earthly, you will leave your life behind when you die. But if Christ is your life and your reason for living, you at death will be going to enjoy your life forever and ever with Christ in heaven. Let us not be foolish. Today is the day of salvation, not tomorrow, or the next day. All our days are in God’s hands. Let us then live each day as if it were our last in faith and hope in Christ.
   ———–

   Enjoy.

   Reply

3. And the following:

   ——–
   C. The third piece of evidence for using the Day-Year Principle in
   our calculating the prophetic 1,260 days, the prophetic 42 months, and the prophetic time, times, and half a time i.e. the prophetic 3 ½ years is this: The original source for the prophetic time period, “a time, a times, and half a time” (Revelation 12:14) is Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 12:7 (in both of these passages the prophetic enemy of Christ’s faithful witnesses makes war against them for a prophetic period of “a time, a times, and half a time”, which is the same prophetic period of time mentioned in Revelation 13:5 (where the beast wars against the saints for the same period of time, 42 prophetic months).
   1. This unique expression of “a time, and times, and half a time” (Revelation 12:7) is found only in prophetic portions of Scripture (not historical narratives in Scripture), and prophetic portions of Scripture that are filled with many symbols. For example, in Daniel chapter 7 (where we find in verse 25 “a time and times and the dividing of time”) there are symbolic beasts, symbolic horns, symbolic heads, and a symbolic little horn; and likewise in Revelation 12 (where in verse 14 we find “a time, and times, and half a time”) there is a symbolic woman that has a symbolic crown with 12 symbolic stars and is given two symbolic wings of a great eagle, and flees into a symbolic wilderness, and is pursued by a symbolic serpent. Thus, in the midst of such prophetic symbolism, I submit we should also expect to find non-literal time periods that are stated in a unique manner different from how the Lord expresses literal time periods in other places in Scripture.
   2. Dear ones, we cannot approach the time periods in the prophetic Book of Revelation as if those time periods (e.g. “a time, times, and half a time”) are never mentioned prior to their use in the prophetic Book of Revelation. No, this time period (“a time, and times, and half a time”) has a background and use in a highly symbolic portion within the prophetic Book of Daniel (where God gives to us the Day-Year Principle). Thus, I submit that just as the 70 prophetic weeks of Daniel (i.e. 490 prophetic days) in Daniel 9:24 are rightly interpreted to mean 490 actual years, so likewise the prophetic time period in Daniel 7:25 of “a time and times and the dividing of time” (i.e. 3 ½ prophetic years, which is 42 prophetic months, and which is 1,260 prophetic days) ought to be interpreted as 1,260 years. In so doing, we have a perfect correlation between the prophetic time periods in the prophetic Book of Daniel and the prophetic time periods in the Book of Revelation.
   ———

   Reply

   1. Thanks, Walt. Those two sermon extracts are a good summary of the historical interpretation of Daniel 9 and the Seventy Weeks.

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Tim,

         The last post I made will give the reader the modern Futurist version as well to compare all 3 as most are Futurists in the Roman Catholic Church today. They are all looking for some future antichrist (Jewish) out of Israel to rise up. Might as well debunk the Futurist Catholics here.

         Walt.

         Reply

4. And the final one to compare futurism to historic post millennialism.

   ———-
   l. What Is A Brief Overview Of The Futurist Position From Daniel 9:24-27?

   A. The Futurist position for literal time periods in the Book of Revelation hinges upon their interpretation of the 70 prophetic weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 (and particularly the 70th prophetic week of Daniel). Interestingly, futurism interprets the 70 prophetic weeks of Daniel using the Day-Year Principle, so that 70 prophetic weeks of days = 70 literal weeks of years (i.e. 70 weeks times 7 days per week = 490 prophetic days, which equals 490 calendar years, using the Day-Year Principle). So far so good.

   B. Next, the Futurist argument addresses the 69 prophetic weeks of Daniel 9:25. Again, we have no disagreement with the way in which futurism reckons these 69 prophetic weeks (i.e. 69 weeks times 7 days per week = 483 prophetic days, which equals 483 calendar years, using the Day-Year Principle). According to futurism, the 69 prophetic weeks (or 483 calendar years) run consecutively year after year until one arrives at some point in the ministry of Christ (prior to Christ’s death).
   1. Some Futurists understand that the 69 prophetic weeks (or 483 calendar years) bring one to the baptism of Christ in 26 a.d. (with which I agree), while other Futurists complete these 69 prophetic weeks (or 483 calendar years) with the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem.
   2. However, regardless of which event (whether Christ’s baptism or Christ’s triumphal entry) that the Futurist uses in order to complete the 69 prophetic weeks (or 483 calendar years), the Futurist up to this point is using the Day-Year Principle to interpret these prophetic weeks (or calendar years) to mean that 483 calendar years continue consecutively, one immediately following the previous one, without any gaps of time occurring between the end of one calendar year and the next calendar year until the 483 calendar years have run their course. Again, so far so good, as it relates to applying the Day-Year Principle.

   C. But now we come to the 70th prophetic week (i.e. the last 7 calendar years) in Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 9:27). Now this is where futurism diverges from the historic Protestant view (and from a sound biblical interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy).
   1. For the Futurist does NOT interpret this 70th prophetic week (or last 7 calendar years) to consecutively and immediately follow the previous 69 prophetic weeks (or previous 483 calendar years).
   2. Futurists do interpret the 70th prophetic week to be 7 calendar years (per the Day-Year Principle); however, futurists place a huge temporal gap of time (that has already exceeded 2,000 calendar years) between the completion of the 69th prophetic week (i.e. the first 483 calendar years) and the initiation of the 70th prophetic week (i.e. the last 7 years) of Daniel’s prophecy.
   3. In other words, the Futurist believes that the 69 prophetic weeks (or 483 calendar years) ended at some point in Christ’s ministry before his death, and then a parenthesis of now 2,000 years has intervened and will continue until the 70th prophetic week (or last 7 calendar years) begins in the future. And it is that last 7 calendar years (the 70th prophetic week of Daniel’s prophecy) that the Futurist then divides into two 3 ½ year literal periods of time (which we will look at more closely in the next sermon, God willing). The first 3 ½ years being the literal period of time in which the Antichrist makes a covenant of peace with Israel (which allows Israel to offer sacrifices upon the altar of their rebuilt temple), and the second 3 ½ years being the literal period of time in which the Antichrist breaks this covenant with Israel and in which the Antichrist wars against Jews and Christians (Daniel 9:27). This latter 3 ½ year period is identified by Futurists as the Great Tribulation. And it is this literal 3 ½ year period of time, which futurism identifies with the periods of time in the Book of Revelation (a time, times, and half a time, 42 months, and 1,260 days). Thus, we see that Futurists begin correctly using the Day-Year Principle to interpret the 70 prophetic weeks of days (i.e. 490 prophetic days) found in Daniel 9:24 to mean 70 weeks of years (i.e. 490 years), but then completely separate the last 7 calendar years from the previous 483 calendar years by a gap or parenthesis of time that has already lasted over 2,000 years.

   ll. Why Does Futurism Follow This Interpretation Of Daniel 9:24-27?

   A. In other words, why does futurism introduce a huge gap of time between the 69th prophetic week of Daniel (i.e. the first 483 literal years of Daniel’s prophecy) and the 70th prophetic week of Daniel (i.e. the last 7 literal years of Daniel’s prophecy)? The simple answer is because the Futurist believes that the events prophesied to happen within the 70th prophetic week of Daniel (listed in Daniel 9:24) did not occur at the time of Christ’s first coming (as does the historic Protestant interpretation of Daniel 9:24), but rather the Futurist believes the events prophesied to occur within the 70th prophetic week of Daniel (Daniel 9:24) will be fulfilled just before and at Christ’s second coming. Thus, the Futurist believes that a huge gap of time must transpire between the 69th prophetic week and the 70th prophetic week in order for these events to be realized (since the Futurist does not believe they have yet been realized). Let us briefly contrast how the futurist interprets the events prophesied to occur in Daniel 9:24-25 with that of the historic Protestant interpretation.
   1. Daniel 9:24.
   a. The Futurist takes these 6 Hebrew infinitives that describe what has been determined for Israel to be fulfilled not at the first coming of Christ but rather at the second coming of Christ, when the Lord will save Israel, forgive Israel of her sin, usher in everlasting righteousness to Israel, bring all prophecy concerning Israel to fulfillment, and anoint the most holy rebuilt temple of Israel. Thus, the Futurist argues that because all these blessings will be brought upon Israel just before the time of Christ’s second coming, there must be a gap of time of indefinite space between the first 69 prophetic weeks (consisting of 483 calendar years) and the 70th prophetic week (consisting of the last 7 calendar years). Because the Futurist does not believe these blessings were fulfilled at the time of Christ’s first coming, it must mean (the Futurist alleges) that the 70th prophetic week did not immediately follow the 69th prophetic week, but is yet to come.
   b. The historic Protestant interpretation of Daniel 9:24, however, interprets all of these prophesied events as fulfilled at the time of the first coming of Christ (and all fulfilled within the 70 weeks of Daniel). Thus, the historic Protestant interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 does not include a gap or parenthesis between the 69 prophetic weeks (i.e. the first 483 calendar years), which end with the baptism of Christ (26 a.d.), and the 70th prophetic week (i.e. the last 7 calendar years), which immediately follow and prophesy the death of Christ for His people (both Jews and Gentiles). Dear ones, if all six of these prophesied events (in Daniel 9:24) occurred at the time of Christ’s first coming, then the 70 weeks of Daniel are already fulfilled and not yet to be fulfilled in the future. Let us briefly consider these prophesied events in Daniel 9:24.
   (1) “To finish the transgression” (literally, “to complete THE transgression”). The definite article “the” is used to indicate a particular transgression that brought Israel’s sin against God to completion—namely, the transgression of God’s covenant people Israel in rejecting and conspiring with the heathen Romans to crucify Christ (Matthew 23:32-35; Matthew 27:25; Acts 7:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16). This prophecy was fulfilled within the 70 weeks of Daniel and in the ministry of Christ at His first coming, not at His second coming.
   (2) “To make an end of sins” (literally, “to seal up THE sins”). This prophetic statement most likely accompanies and is the consequence of what was just said (“to finish THE transgression”). To seal up a prophecy is to close it and reserve it for the day of its fulfillment, because it is not immediately or very soon to be fulfilled (cp. Daniel 12:4 with Revelation 22:10). What seems to be prophesied is that Israel’s sins (especially as related to the rejection and crucifixion of Christ and the persecution of His prophets and apostles) are sealed or reserved for a future judgment, just as Jesus prophesied (Matthew 23:37-38; Luke 19:41-44). The sealing or reserving Israel’s sins for punishment occurred before the Lord’s death (in the 70th week, or last 7 years of Daniel’s prophecy), as indicated in the words of Christ quoted above. However, the outpouring of that judgment did not occur immediately within the 70th week (or the last 7 years of Daniel’s prophecy), but actually fell upon Israel some 40 years later when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem (in 70 a.d.). Likewise, this prophecy (“to seal up the sins” for punishment, not the punishment itself) was fulfilled within the 70 weeks of Daniel and in the ministry of Christ at His first coming, not at His second coming.
   (3) “To make reconciliation for iniquity” (the Hebrew verb translated here as “to make reconciliation” is usually translated “to make atonement or propitiation”, i.e. “to make atonement or propitiation for iniquity”). Now this prophecy that is to be fulfilled within the 70 weeks of Daniel clearly refers to the once and for all atonement of Jesus Christ for the sins of His people (from among Israel and from among the Gentile nations). Although Israel (as a nation) is yet to be saved in the future (Romans 11:26), God will not make atonement for Israel’s sins in the future, because atonement for sin can only once be accomplished. And it was accomplished by Christ by means of His death (Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 1 John 4:10). Likewise, this prophecy was fulfilled within the 70 weeks of Daniel and in the ministry of Christ at His first coming, not at His second coming.
   (4) “To bring in everlasting righteousness”. By the death and resurrection of Christ, He has brought in an everlasting righteousness to His people (both Jew and Gentile). Since the Lord’s righteousness is an everlasting righteousness (Psalm 119:142), all who trust alone in the righteousness of Christ alone (rather than in their own righteousness) are imputed the everlasting righteousness of Christ once and for all (Romans 3:21-22; Romans 4:6; Romans 5:19; Philippians 3:9). All who were justified by faith alone before the first coming of Christ (like Abraham and David according to Romans 4), were declared righteous by faith alone with a view to the everlasting righteousness to be accomplished by Christ who was to come. Likewise, this prophecy was fulfilled within the 70 weeks of Daniel and in the ministry of Christ at His first coming, not at His second coming.
   (5) “To seal up the vision and prophecy” (literally, to seal up the vision and prophet, Christ being the Prophet prophesied to come in Deuteronomy 18:18). This would seem to refer to those prophesied events by Christ, the Prophet, in particular (since Daniel 9:24-27 is clearly Messianic in character). Christ, the Prophet, prophesied concerning both the judgment to be brought upon Israel (Matthew 23:37-38) and the salvation to be brought upon Israel in the future (Matthew 23:39; Acts 1:6-7). The sealing referred to (i.e. “to seal up the vision and prophecy of the Prophet”) once again refers to the closing and reserving of prophesies until the time of their fulfillment be at hand. Remember (as was noted earlier) that when prophecy is yet to be fulfilled a distant time away, it is closed and sealed up (Daniel 12:4); but when prophecy is near and at hand to be fulfilled, it is not sealed up (but is unsealed). Thus, the prophecy of Christ that is here sealed up refers to more distant prophecies concerning Israel. These prophecies are sealed up at the first coming of Christ. However, they are fulfilled in the distant future. Prophesies are not sealed and fulfilled at the same time. Prophesies are sealed up at a distant time from their fulfillment, and unsealed at a near time to their fulfillment. Likewise, this prophecy (of sealing up the vision and prophecy) was realized within the 70 weeks of Daniel and in the ministry of Christ at His first coming, not at His second coming.
   (6) “To anoint the most Holy”. This does not refer to the rebuilding of a future temple of the Jews which God will allegedly (according to futurism) anoint with His blessing, but rather refers to the anointing of God’s most Holy Son, who in His earthly ministry declared Himself to be the temple of God in whom the shekinah glory of God tabernacled (Matthew 3:16-17; Luke 4:16-21; John 2:19; John 1:14; Acts 3:14). Dear ones, the temple, the altar within the temple, the sacrifices of the temple, and the priesthood of the temple have all passed away, because they were all fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 9:1,8,10,23-24). To return to a rebuilt temple (as proposed by futurism) would be to return to the Old Covenant after Christ had instituted the New Covenant. That is precisely what some of the Jews were doing in the Book of Hebrews (returning to the temple and its ordinances), and in so doing they were leaving Christ (Hebrews 10:32-35). Likewise, this prophecy was realized within the 70 weeks of Daniel and in the ministry of Christ at His first coming, not at His second coming.
   2. Daniel 9:26.
   a. I will not have time to expound upon this text presently, but will do so next Lord’s Day (God willing). However what I want you to see is that futurism does not place the death of the Lord Jesus Christ within the 70 weeks of Daniel—that death which secured all blessings for all of God’s people (Jew and Gentile alike), and especially the unfathomable blessings of the forgiveness of sin, the everlasting righteousness of Christ, and the certain hope of eternal life. That most important event in all of history which secured the blessings of salvation that are preached in the gospel and which shall be bestowed upon the undeserving, covenant-breaking nation of Israel (when all Israel shall be saved), that atonement of Jesus Christ is not included by Futurists within the 70 weeks of Daniel. Rather the death of Christ happens (almost incidentally) to fall into the huge gap of time between the end of the 69th week (i.e. the first 483 years) at Christ’s baptism or triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the beginning of the 70th week (i.e. the last 7 years). Instead of Christ’s death being the pinnacle to which the previous 69 weeks point, the death of Christ simply becomes an event which falls into a parenthesis of time.
   b. Dear ones, just as futurism would have a portion of God’s people (the Jews) return to a rebuilt temple and to the Old Covenant that God has removed by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so likewise futurism would take the prophetic spotlight off the death of Christ (and place it in the gap or parenthesis), rather than exalting the death of Christ and the New Covenant secured by His death as being that prophesied event to which God’s prophetic spotlight shone with the greatest brilliance—the death of Christ being the salvation of all God’s people (both Jew and Gentile). Dear ones, when a prophetic system of interpretation would have the height of the 70 weeks of Daniel to be the anointing of a rebuilt temple and would place the death of the anointed Son of the Most High God into a gap or parenthesis of indefinite time, I submit to you that such a system has ceased to be Messianic, Christ-centered, or biblical. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10). The Apostle John fell down to worship this angel (a mere creation, just as Peter wanted to build three tabernacles on the Mount of Transfiguration, and was told to hear Christ). So likewise, John is here told to worship God, because the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (i.e. the testimony concerning Jesus is that which gives spirit and life to prophecy—just as the body is dead without the spirit, so likewise prophecy is dead without the testimony of Jesus). Prophecy is intended to point us to Christ (Acts 10:43). Any time we place the eye of faith upon the creature, we are then taking the eye of faith off of Christ (whether in justification, whether in sanctification, whether in worship, whether in trials, or whether in prophecy). Let us always remember that if our understanding of prophecy is not driving us to Jesus Christ, we have failed to see the end and goal of prophecy—Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
   ———-

   Reply

   1. Hi,
      Is this futurist way of seeing things what is called “Biblical Theology”, where ones ideas are imposed on the Bible rather than derived from the Bible? Or is Biblical Theology something different again?
      Thx

      Reply

5. Tim,

   I found this to be interesting…pointing to another judgment at the end of the 70 weeks.

   “The sealing or reserving Israel’s sins for punishment occurred before the Lord’s death (in the 70th week, or last 7 years of Daniel’s prophecy), as indicated in the words of Christ quoted above. However, the outpouring of that judgment did not occur immediately within the 70th week (or the last 7 years of Daniel’s prophecy), but actually fell upon Israel some 40 years later when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem (in 70 a.d.). Likewise, this prophecy (“to seal up the sins” for punishment, not the punishment itself) was fulfilled within the 70 weeks of Daniel and in the ministry of Christ at His first coming, not at His second coming.”

   Your timeline will be interesting in this regard I suspect.

   Reply

6. Tim,

   This is an interesting point to consider in your series.

   “Dear ones, when a prophetic system of interpretation would have the height of the 70 weeks of Daniel to be the anointing of a rebuilt temple and would place the death of the anointed Son of the Most High God into a gap or parenthesis of indefinite time, I submit to you that such a system has ceased to be Messianic, Christ-centered, or biblical. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10). The Apostle John fell down to worship this angel (a mere creation, just as Peter wanted to build three tabernacles on the Mount of Transfiguration, and was told to hear Christ). So likewise, John is here told to worship God, because the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (i.e. the testimony concerning Jesus is that which gives spirit and life to prophecy—just as the body is dead without the spirit, so likewise prophecy is dead without the testimony of Jesus). Prophecy is intended to point us to Christ (Acts 10:43). Any time we place the eye of faith upon the creature, we are then taking the eye of faith off of Christ (whether in justification, whether in sanctification, whether in worship, whether in trials, or whether in prophecy).”

   It is going to be a struggle for you to interpret those 6 points outlined above covering 9:24. I know you have already started this week to lay the basic ground work, but as I read the historical post-mill position again, and your implications, your going point by point on this (6) explanations above will be critical for me in understanding how you overcome each point vs. historical post-mill.

   Fascinating study.

   Can’t wait to see this week the crazy rants coming from Jim (who admits he never reads anything you write but a few points here and there), Bob (who just complains about everything with wikipedia by his side) and CK (who will likely pop in to say, “it is just your interpretation” and leave.

   You really have to love this Roman Catholic apologists and supporters who really don’t use their mind or any thinking to grasp even what they themselves believe.

   Oh, I forget, Jim will pop in screaming about Calvin and robots like the evangelical TV ministers do on TBN, EWTN, etc.

   Reply

   1. Thanks, Walt,

      As I read the sermon excerpt, it appears to me that he is arguing for his position and against a futurist dispensationalist interpretation of Daniel 9. I.e., both he and the dispensationalist see the Seventy Years fulfilled in Christ. The preacher sees Christ fulfilling the prophecy up unto the 70th Week, whereas a dispensationalist would see Christ fulfilling the prophecy at the 69th Week, and then God’s eschatological clock is halted until the temple can be rebuilt—or something like that. I can certainly understand his objection to the dispensationalist interpretation.

      To that end, I can see that he might see my interpretation as flawed because it sees the fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks not in Christ, but in the reconsecration of the Altar. But his objection simply raises the question as to the actual object of Gabriel’s vision. To boil it down, the preacher believes that any interpretation that does not see Christ as the fulfillment of the 70 Weeks is no longer “Christ-centered, or biblical,” for it has taken the eye of faith off of Christ. But that is all based on his assumption that the Seventy Week Prophecy is a prophecy of Christ in the first place, for he is measuring the dispensationalist interpretation by the standard of his own interpretation instead of by the Scripture.

      We cannot simply decide that a prophecy is messianic, and then judge all other interpretations by whether or not they align with that assumption. The ultimate test of prophecy is that it is centered on the Scriptures which contain the prophecy, and those scriptures have a context.

      Consider the prophecy of Isaac’s birth. The Lord says, “At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.” (Genesis 18:14). While it is true that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” have I ceased to be Christo-centric in my interpretation that the prophecy of Genesis 18:14 was fulfilled in Isaac? Have I taken the eye of faith off of Christ by not seeing it fulfilled in Him?

      Or what of the prophecy of the shadow in Isaiah 38:8:

      “Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.”

      While it is true that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” have I nevertheless ceased to be Christo-centric in my interpretation when I see it fulfilled in the movement of the sun instead of in Christ? Have I taken the eye of faith off of Christ by seeing this fulfilled in the creature?

      Or what of the Prophecy that there would yet rise another empire after Nebuchadnezzar? In my opinion, that prophecy was realized in the rise of the Medes and Persians. Have I taken the eye of faith off of Christ because I did not see Him as the fulfillment? Is my faith now in the Medes? Of course not. The eye of faith must not be on Christ, but on His Word, for it is what He says that is spirit and life (John 6:63). Otherwise, we stumble into the error of many in the early and modern church who see every verse of Scripture as a reference to Christ. It is quite possible to think to honor Christ by finding Him in every text, but in reality, it can result in dishonoring HIm by rejecting His word. If we approach every passage of Scripture seeking Christ in it, then we end up missing what God is actually saying about other things. We approach the text with our hands over our ears saying, “No, no don’t tell me—I’ve got this.”

      The eye of faith must be on the Word, and if the Word says the prophecy is about the Most Holy, we must trust Christ and believe that the object of His prophecy through Gabriel is what Christ Himself says it is about—the Most Holy, the sanctuary that has been desolated.

      In the context of Leviticus 26 and Daniel 9, we have a generation of Jews who have profaned the sanctuary, and the confrontation of that generation emerges through a sequence of warnings and punishments in accordance with the Law of Moses, and the law of Moses says, “You shall … reverence My sanctuary” (Leviticus 26:2). The punishment for a profaned sanctuary is a desolated sanctuary, and the desolation of that sanctuary is the common theme from the beginning of Jeremiah’s preaching until the end of the Seventy Weeks when the Most Holy is anointed. The ultimate end of the Seventy Weeks is to end the sin, and what is the right way to put the profanation of the sanctuary to an end? It is to anoint it in accordance with the Law (Exodus 40), where Moses is commanded to “anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein” (Exodus 40:9).

      When Daniel 9 is viewed in its natural context (profaned sanctuary (Jeremiah)), desolations prescribed for a profaned sanctuary (Leviticus 26), prescriptions for anointing the sanctuary (Exodus 40), and multiple steps of discipline aimed ultimately at bringing about repentance for profaning the sanctuary (Leviticus 26), and bringing an end to the sin of profaning the sanctuary so that is no longer profaned, so that the sanctuary which is sign of the everlasting covenant (Ezekiel 37:26) can be restored to its proper condition—we might ask what such a repentance might look like. It would look like ceasing to profane the sanctuary, and anointing it to rededicate it to the Lord. And as we would expect, Gabriel says Seventy Weeks of years are set aside to accomplish that very purpose—to anoint the Most Holy, which is what the sanctuary is called (Exodus 30:36).

      It is not sufficient to take “make an end of sin” out of its context and presume that it must be speaking of Christ. We must rather read in the Scriptures to determine what sin is in view. The sin in view is profaning the sanctuary. How do you make and end of that? By reconsecrating the sanctuary to the Lord. How do you reconsecrate it? By anointing it with oil. When viewed through its Leviticus 26 context, the passage becomes quite clear. The prophecy is not about Christ at all.

      In the sermon, the pastor said, “Prophecy is intended to point us to Christ (Acts 10:43).” That is not true. Prophecy is intended to point us to its object, and sometimes the object of a prophecy is Christ, and sometimes the object of a prophecy is not Christ. The fact that all prophets witness of Christ (Acts 10:43) does not mean that everything they ever said was about Him. “To him give all the prophets witness” (Acts 10:43) is not the same as saying “All prophecies of the prophets were of Christ.” They were not. Daniel, after all, spoke of Alexander the Great. That does not mean he did not also testify of Christ, for he certainly did. But we close our ears to Scripture if we go to it believing that every word of it must point to Christ. No, every word of it speaks truth, and sometimes that truth is about Alexander the Great. Or Darius. Or Antichrist. Or the shadow on the stairs.

      I hope that makes sense.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

      1. A really helpful reply. Thx for making that clear Tim.

         Reply

7. Tim said,

   “I hope that makes sense.
   Thanks,
   Tim”

   Yes, much did, however, I think it will be important to go through all 6 points outlined above in regard to comparing what you believe vs. what the historical post-mill/futurist believe regarding Daniel 9:24.

   I am not sure what the preterist or partial preterist teach on that verse so it will be interesting to see if what you teach false in line with the preterist teaching. Do you know if the preterist sees Daniel 9 as being future as generally the same as the historicist and futurist?

   Reply

   1. Walt,

      Here’s something from the preterist archive regarding the seventy weeks.

      http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1921_mauro_seventy-weeks.html

      By my understanding, Preterists see the Seventy Weeks fulfilled in Christ, as well.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

8. Tim,

   Chapter 3 details out Daniel 9:24. You should look it over so that you get a broader overview of the Preterist position since it is certainly interesting to compare Historicist, Futurist and Preterist interpretations with your own Leviticus 26 Protocol.

   From the first of the six (6) “distinct things” or “predicted items” that are to happen, it seems the first one confirms it is yet future over the 490 years, and ends with the “desolation” (vs.25-27) of the Jerusalem in 70AD. I’m just posting that section as you know there is a lot of words written there in that chapter.

   ————
   CHAPTER III
   DETAILS OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS

   Having made sure of the true starting point, we can now proceed with confidence to an examination of the details of the prophecy. But it will be needful, as we go on, to test every conclusion by the Scriptures, and to exercise care that we accept nothing that is not supported by ample proof.

   The prophetic part of the angel’s message begins al verse 24, which, in our A. V. reads as follows:

   “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 (place).”

   Here are six distinct things which were to happen within a definitely marked off period of seventy sevens of years (490 years). These six specified things are closely related one to the other, for they are all connected by the conjunction “and.”

   This verse, which is a prophecy complete in itself, gives no information in regard to either the starting point of the 490 years, or the means whereby the predicted events were to be accomplished. That information, however, is given in the verses which follow. From them we learn that the prophetic period was to begin to run “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem”; also that sixty-nine weeks (seven plus sixty-two) would reach “unto Messiah, the Prince”; and further that “after the three-score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off.” It was by the cutting off of the Messiah that the six predictions of verse 24 were to be fulfilled. This should be carefully noted.

   Verses 25-27 also foretell the overwhelming and exterminating judgments – the “desolations” that were to fall upon the people and the city, and which were to last throughout this entire dispensation.

   The first words of verse 25, “Know therefore,” show that what follows is explanatory of the prophecy contained in verse 24 This too should be carefully noted.

   It is essential to a right understanding of the prophecy to observe, and to keep in mind, that the six things of verse 24 were to be fulfilled (and now have been fulfilled) by Christ being “cut off,” and by what followed immediately thereafter, namely, His resurrection from the dead, and His ascension into heaven. With that simple fact in mind it will be easy to “understand” all the main points of the prophecy.

   These are the six predicted items:

   1. To finish the transgression. The “transgression” of Israel had long been the burden of the messages of God’s prophets. It was for their “transgression” that they had been sent into captivity, and that their land and city had been made a “desolation” for seventy years.

   Daniel himself had confessed this, saying, “Yea, all Israel have transgressed Thy law. even by departing that they might not obey Thy voice. Therefore the curse is poured upon us” (ver. 11). But the angel revealed to him the distressing news that the full measure of Israel’s “transgression” was yet to be completed; that the children were yet to fill up the iniquity of their fathers; and that, as a consequence, God would bring upon them a far greater “desolation” than that which had been wrought by Nebuchadnezzar. For “to finish the transgression” could mean nothing less or other than the betrayal and crucifixion of their promised and expected Messiah.

   We would call particular attention at this point to the words of the Lord Jesus spoken to the leaders of the people shortly before His betrayal; for there is in them a striking similarity to the words of the prophecy of Gabriel. He said: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers . . . that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth” (Matt. 23:32). In these words of Christ we find first, a declaration that the hour had come for them “to finish the transgression”; and second, a strong intimation that the predicted desolations were to come, as a judgment, upon that generation, as appears by the words “that upon you may come.”

   Our Lord’s concluding words at that time have great significance when considered in the light of this prophecy.. He said, “Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation”; and then, as the awful doom of the beloved city pressed upon His heart, He burst into the lamentation, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” ending with the significant words, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.”

   The terrible and unparalleled character of the judgments which were poured out upon Jerusalem at the time of its destruction in A. D. 70 has been lost sight of in our day. But if we would learn how great an event it was in the eyes of God, we have only to consider our Lord’s anguish of soul as He thought upon it. Even when on the way to the Cross it was more to Him than His own approaching sufferings (Luk. 21:28-30).

   The apostle Paul also speaks in similar terms of the transgressions of that generation of Jews, who not only crucified the Lord Jesus, and then rejected the gospel preached to them in His Name, but also forbade that He be preached to the Gentiles. Wherefore the apostle said that they “fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (1 Thess. 2:15, 16). For they were indeed about to undergo God’s wrath “to the uttermost” in the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, and in the scattering of the people among all the nations of the world, to suffer extreme miseries at their hands. These Scriptures are of much importance in connection with our present study, and we shall have occasion to refer to them again.

   It is not difficult to discern why the list of the six great things comprised in this prophecy was headed by the finishing of the transgression; for the same act, which constituted the crowning sin of Israel, also served for the putting away of sin (Heb. 9:26), and the accomplishing of eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12). They did indeed take Him, and with wicked hands crucified and slew Him; but it was done “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). The powers and authorities of Judea and of Rome, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were indeed gathered together against Him; but it was to do what God’s own hand and counsel had determined before to be done (Acts 4 :26-28). There is nothing more wonderful in all that has been made known to us, than that the people and their rulers, because they knew Him not, nor the voices of their own prophets which were read every Sabbath day, should have fulfilled them in condemning Him (Acts 13:27). Therefore, among the many prophecies that were then “fulfilled,” a promise be given to that which forms the subject of our present study.

   Reply

9. Tim, point 4 is going to be a tough one for you to get around. It is interesting to really see how your interpretation goes not just against historical post-mill, but Jesuit futurism and Jesuit preterism. I’m not sure how amillennialism views Dan.9:24, but certainly you have gone against almost all Protestants and Catholics in your interpretation of Dan. 9 and 9:24.

   This point 4 seems like the toughest point even in light of your comments today. I’m not sure you will win this one over in light of comparing Scripture with Scripture.

   ——
   4. To bring in everlasting righteousness Righteousness is the most prominent feature of the kingdom of God. To show this we need only cite those familiar passages: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and 11 is righteousness” (Matt. 6:33); “the kingdom of God is righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:17). One characteristic of God’s righteousness, which He was “to bring in” through the sacrifice of Christ ((Rom.. 3:21-26), is that it endures forever; and this is what is emphasized in the prophecy. A work was to be done, and now has been done, which would bring in everlasting righteousness – everlasting because based upon the Cross, as foretold also through Isaiah, “My righteousness shall be forever” (Isa. 51:8). Jesus Christ has now been made unto US “righteous- (1 Cor. 1:30); and this is in fulfillment of another great promise: “behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise Unto David a righteous Branch, and a King reign and prosper And this is His Name whereby He shall be called JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (Jer. 23 :5, 6).
   ——-

   Fascinating stuff. I wonder what the amil’s teach. Hmm, have to do a little research there. They are mostly Dutch Reformed as you know.

   Reply

   1. Thanks, Walt,

      The only thing I have to “get around” so to speak, is the assumptions that have been imported into the text. As I noted in the article, the three sins of Israel were seeking other gods, violating the sabbath and profaning the sanctuary. What is rendered “everlasting righteousness” is the same term that is used to describe the holiness of the sanctuary, keeping the sabbath and not following idols. Each of these is a “perpetual,” “forever” and “everlasting” aspect of the covenant righteousness of God’s people under the Mosaic covenant.

      Keeping the Sabbath:

      “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual [everlasting] covenant.” (Ezekiel 31:16)

      Reverencing the Tabernacle:

      “In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD: it shall be a statute for ever [everlasting] unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel.” (Exodus 27:21)

      Worshiping only the Lord:

      “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” (Genesis 17:7)

      Keeping the Sabbath, reverencing the sanctuary, refraining from idols—these were all aspects of the “everlasting” covenant, and as Deuteronomy shows us, keeping those statutes “shall be our righteousness.”

      “And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us. (Deuteronomy 6:24-25)

      And there’s the “everlasting righteousness” of Leviticus 26:1-2, “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, … Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary.” They could have restored this “righteousness” by repenting at Jeremiah’s preaching, or by repenting during the Seventy Years. But they did not. Their stubbornness simply extended the punishment, but did not change the intended outcome. It had always been to restore the “perpetual righteousness” of the statutes under the law. Thus, the fulfillment of the prophecy necessarily takes place when Israel is yet under the law—prior to Christ. The three statutes highlighted in Leviticus 26 are “perpetual.” The three sins highlighted in Jeremiah involve violations of those “perpetual” statutes. Repentance involved returning to the honoring of those “perpetual” statutes. There is nothing to “get around,” so to speak. 🙂

      As to the rest, they, too are quite simple as long as we leave our assumptions at the door. Per your comments:

      (1) “To finish the transgression” (literally, “to complete THE transgression”). The definite article “the” is used to indicate a particular transgression that brought Israel’s sin against God to completion—namely, the transgression of God’s covenant people Israel in rejecting and conspiring with the heathen Romans to crucify Christ (Matthew 23:32-35; Matthew 27:25; Acts 7:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16).

      That presumes a messianic construct for the prophecy. But Daniel, Jeremiah and Moses impose a Mosaic construct. What was the transgression of which the Jews were guilty? Violations of “perpetual statutes” identified in Leviticus 26.

      (2) “To make an end of sins” (literally, “to seal up THE sins”). This prophetic statement most likely accompanies and is the consequence of what was just said (“to finish THE transgression”)

      What was the purpose of the Leviticus 26 protocol? To bring the Israelites to repentance and to be reconciled to God. (Leviticus 26:40-41). What was the promised outcome if the Jews responded to Jeremiah’s preaching. Repentance from sin and reconciliation to God. (Jeremiah 7:23). What was the promised outcome if the Jews responded to the 70 year punishment? Repentance from sin and reconciliation to God. (Jeremiah 33:7-8). What was the desired outcome if the Jews responded to the Seventy Weeks punishment? Repentance from sin and reconciliation to God. (Daniel 9:24). In its context, “to make an end of sins” does not require a Messianic interpretation.

      (3) “To make reconciliation for iniquity” (the Hebrew verb translated here as “to make reconciliation” is usually translated “to make atonement or propitiation”, i.e. “to make atonement or propitiation for iniquity”).

      See point 2, above. The purpose at every step was reconciliation.

      (4) “To bring in everlasting righteousness”. By the death and resurrection of Christ, He has brought in an everlasting righteousness to His people (both Jew and Gentile).

      See my original response to point 4, above. That presumes a Messianic context. But a Mosaic context, too, has its “perpetual righteousness” under the Law.

      (5) “To seal up the vision and prophecy” (literally, to seal up the vision and prophet, Christ being the Prophet prophesied to come in Deuteronomy 18:18). This would seem to refer to those prophesied events by Christ, the Prophet, in particular (since Daniel 9:24-27 is clearly Messianic in character).

      Well, if it is a Messianic prophecy then “to seal up the vision and prophecy” would refer to the Messiah fulfilling the prophecy. But if it is Mosaic, as the context informs us, rather than Messianic, then “to seal up the vision and prophecy” simply refers to the fulfillment of the prophecy.

      (6) “To anoint the most Holy”. This does not refer to the rebuilding of a future temple

      See my previous points on profaning the Most Holy (the sanctuary) as specified in Leviticus, Jeremiah, and Daniel, and then ask what “an end of the sin of profaning the sanctuary” would look like. It looks like anointing the Most Holy (Exodus 40).

      Thanks for the comments and the volume of data you have provided. Once the presumption of a Messianic context is checked at the door, the Mosaic context from Daniel and Jeremiah and Gabriel is allowed to emerge:

      “As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: ” (Daniel 9:13). Where in Moses are these desolations promised? Leviticus 26.

      “therefore I will bring upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do;” (Jeremiah 11:8). What words of the covenant impose desolations for their violation of the “perpetual” statutes? Leviticus 26.

      “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,… and to anoint the most Holy.” (Daniel 9:24). Given that the transgression was profaning the sanctuary, what does the Law prescribe for bringing the Most Holy back to its proper use? Anointing. (Exodus 40).

      I know it is a bold statement, but to bring the Messianic presumption into the text without reading the plain context of the text itself suppresses its Mosaic construct, and therefore misses the actual meaning of the passage.

      I hope that helps. As we press forward next week, we will see how the passage is fulfilled in the coming of “Messiah the Prince” and how a “Messiah” is cut off, without departing from the essentially Mosaic essence of the prophecy.

      Thanks so much,

      Tim

      Reply

10. Tim, something just dawned on me that I had not thought about before. I found a site that lists all the Pastors who support the future context of Dan.9:24-27, etc. What was interesting was this point that was made:

    “2) Daniel 9:24-27 – Outlines the future history of Israel

    As will be discussed below, Daniel 9:24-27 lays out in summary form a timetable of the events that will impact Israel. There is no reference whatsoever to “the church” in this passage, although some commentators still imagine some reference to “the church.”

    a) The Jews could have known the time of the Messiah’s arrival.

    b) The Jews will be able to know the time of the “Anti-Messiah’s” (“Anti-christ”) arrival (cf Mt 24:15, 2Th 2:1, 2, 3, 4).”
    http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_924-27.htm#Why%20Daniel%209:24-27%20is%20Significant

    Follow me on this.

    Notice in a) above it says that if the Jews would have interpreted it correctly “The Jews could have known the time of the Messiah’s arrival.”

    However, what if they did not think about the future context of this verse as Christians do today, but what if they thought about it in a Mosaic context as you are about to explain? Is it any wonder they missed Jesus Christ?

    Have you found any Rabbinical or Jewish support for your interpretation of Dan.9?

    That would be interesting indeed.

    Reply

    1. The antichrist is not a man (1 John 4:3).

       Reply

       1. Can you elaborate on this? How does 1 John 4:3 support your position that the antichrist is not a man?

          Reply

11. Tim, is this where you are headed?

    ——–
    5) The Law of Moses and Israel’s Failure to Keep Past “Sabbath rests”:

    The following makes several assumptions, so you may find it to be a weaker argument for “years” as the appropriate unit of time. Read it critically and accept it if you will, but if not, do not let it detract from the merits of the other lines of logic, especially the argument from context. Daniel was a man of the Book, and would likely have had access to the “Pentateuch”, the first five books of Moses. Daniel as a student of the Scriptures was surely familiar with the law relating to the required rest for the land. For example, notice in his prayer he says

    “Indeed all Israel has transgressed Thy law and turned aside, not obeying Thy voice; so the curse (e.g., see Lev 26:14, 15, 16, 17) has been poured out on us, along with the oath which is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, for we have sinned against Him. Thus He has confirmed His words which He had spoken against us and against our rulers who ruled us, to bring on us great calamity; for under the whole heaven there has not been done anything like what was done to Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of Moses, all this calamity has come on us; yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our iniquity and giving attention to Thy truth. “Therefore, the LORD has kept the calamity in store and brought it on us; for the LORD our God is righteous with respect to all His deeds which He has done, but we have not obeyed His voice.” (Da 9:11, 12, 13, 14-note)

    Specifically Daniel knew from reading the “law of Moses” that

    Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop, but during the seventh year the land (of Israel) shall have a sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord; you shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard.” (Lev 25:3, 4)

    In the Leviticus 26 Daniel knew the blessings of obedience but the punishment for breaking the sabbath rest, for God declared

    “I will scatter among the nations (fulfilled the first time in the exile to Babylon) and will draw out a sword after you, as your land becomes desolate and your cities become waste (which is what happened to Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple). Then the land will enjoy (Hebrew can mean satisfy a debt) its sabbaths all the days of the desolation, (cf Jer 2:12; 4:9; 10:25; 12:11; 18:16; 19:8; 33:10; 49:17, 20; 50:13, 45; Lam 1:4, 13, 16; 3:11; 4:5; 5:18; Ezek 3:15; 4:17; 6:4, 6; 20:26; 25:3; 26:16; 27:35; 28:19; 29:12; 30:7, 12, 14; 32:10, 15; 33:28; 35:12, 15; 36:3f, 34, 35, 36 – thus 11x in Jeremiah 23x in Ezekiel both prophesying of the Babylonian captivity) while you are in your enemies’ land; then the land will rest and enjoy (satisfy the debt of) its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it will observe the rest which it did not observe on your sabbaths, while you were living on it.” (Lev 26:33, 34, 35)

    How many sabbath rests were to be “paid back”? Seventy years, the time specified in Jeremiah (Jer 25:11, 12, 29:10) and explained in Second Chronicles where we read that

    those who had escaped from the sword he (Nebuchadnezzar) carried away to Babylon and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed (satisfy the debt of) its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete. (2Chr 36:20, 21)

    The 70 years in captivity was not chosen arbitrarily but was directly related to the number of “Sabbath Years” Israel had not kept. So for how many years had Israel not kept the 70 cycles of “sabbath rests”?

    One answer might be 70 years but in fact their disobedience covers seventy cycles of seven years or 490 years. Each year of captivity represented one seven-year cycle. So for a total of 490 years of Israel’s approximately 800 year history (to 605BC when the 70 years exile began), the nation had failed to keep the “sabbath rest” for the land! Now look at the diagram below.

    UNITS OF SEVENTY

    70 x 7 Sabbatical
    Years Violated
    Lev 25:2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
    Lev 26:34, 35, 43

    70 Years of Captivity
    Jer 25:11, 29:10,11
    2Chr 36:20,21

    70 x 7 Sabbatical
    Years Remaining
    Da 9:24, 25, 26, 27
    Lv 26:18,21,24,28

    490 Years

    490 Years

    PAST <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FUTURE

    As Gabriel revealed Israel’s future to Daniel, it would reasonable for Daniel to conclude that the future prophecy of “seventy units of seven” most logically also be in terms of years for that is what he had been thinking in terms of in Da 9:2-note. There would be 490 years before Israel would experience restoration to their land and reconciliation with their God as summarized in Ro 11:25, 26, 27-note (cf Zechariah 13:8, 9).

    6) Use in Rabbinic Literature:

    Although shabua’ (unit of seven) does not refer to years anywhere else in Scripture, shabua’ does have this meaning in the Mishnah (Baba Metzia ix. 10; Sanhedrin v1), a collection of rabbinic laws compiled about 200AD.

    http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_924-27.htm#Why%20Daniel%209:24-27%20is%20Significant
    ———–

    It does fall into some of your initial theory above, so perhaps someone else has come up with a similar theory?

    Reply

    1. No, but I appreciate his application of Leviticus 26!

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply
12. Pingback: Rightly Dividing the Weeks | Out of His Mouth

13. Wow! This is much better than watching TV! Thx for your efforts Tim!

    Reply

14. Hi Tim,
    The “penny has just dropped” with me that your historiographical approach relies on the axiom of ‘the Bible alone is the Word of God’.
    Just as Clark/Robbins have applied this axiom to their writings you have also.
    I now realise that’s why the information you provide makes so much sense.
    It has only taken me 6-12 months to work this out. It has been so refreshing and rewarding to read this blog and listen to the radio sessions and finally make sense of parts of Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Revelation etc.
    The eureka moment came when I was discussing recently with a friend (who is a professional historian) about the rise of the Papacy. One of his comments was ‘Claims that the papacy began at a specific time e.g. A.D. 606 are weak in my view.’
    But when I queried about the rise and fall of Nebuchadnezzar, then the rise and fall of the Medes and Persians, then Alexander…… And asked him “when did these things happen?… and How do you know”, his historiographical approach was entirely secular. Starting with secular historians then grudgingly admitting that the Bible had some vague mention about these things. But when I progressed down Daniel’s statue to the toes, there was silence. That’s when I realised the Scripturalist view of history you were using was correct. No other historiographical approach will work. The important piece is to get the interpretation correct of the Scriptures then the rest will “fall into place” (with an enormous amount of hard work on your part).
    Thx so much for being faithful to the Scriptures then working out the history from there.

    Reply

    1. Thank you, John. The solution is always in the Text. The confusion we have seen in millennia of eschatological analyses almost always involves external assumptions imposed on the Text from without. As with the Single Frame Hypothesis, Legs of Iron, and the Fifth Empire, the answer must be in the Text. We have confounded ourselves by importing external frames of reference (Daniel 11), assuming the Stone strikes the statue in the period of Iron Legs and that Stone grows and fills the whole world prior to the rise of Antichrist (Daniel 2) and that Little Horn uproots “three of the ten horns” (Daniel 7), and that Revelation was written in the late 90s AD. Those are all assumptions imposed on the Text, and the result has been chaos and the errant prophecies of even our reformed brethren.

       That said, I’m a recovering secular historiographer myself (every Scripturalist is), and we must always examine ourselves to discover where we have come to the Text presuming already to know what it means, or imposing from without assumptions foreign to its native context (e.g., “God of forces” and “God of gods” in Daniel 11). God is not a God of confusion. The obscurity of the text originates in our reading, not in His breathing of the Word to us. I’m very thankful to the Trinity Foundation for publishing Clark who first taught me the supremacy of the Text above all else.

       Thanks for your note,

       Tim

       Reply

15. John,

    You are not reading Tim’s own words. Tim claims that all his main interpretation is dependent on the validity of one document entitled Notitia Dignitatum which was allegedly (not proven) written in AD 425, and not discovered until the 1600’s.

    “There are several extant 15th- and 16th-century copies of the document, plus a color-illuminated iteration of 1542. All the known, extant copies are derived, either directly or indirectly, from Codex Spirensis, a codex known to have existed in the library of the Chapter of Speyer Cathedral in 1542, but which was lost before 1672 and has not been rediscovered.”

    If you remove this document from Tim’s interpretation his theory is totally destroyed. Tim uses mostly external documents to interpret Scripture. Remove the above document and he must follow the rest of the best covenanters!!!

    This will not be published so he can remove this evidence from your research. Right now he had you believing he only uses the bible as his only internal research and that he is not totally dependent on external and unreliable documents.

    Reply

16. John,

    Tim removed my last several posts to you and Kevin to insure you did not get the real facts, and my most recent post last night he also will not let through so you don’t get to see any negative views on his interpretations. Over the years, I have learned that Tim allows those who agree with him to post, but those who don’t agree are blocked. It is a very interesting way to run a blog so that you can show all your followers.

    I’m not going to post a detailed analysis of Tim’s claims, but this week I received another private analysis since nobody is allowed to post any criticisms. As you can see below (I’m not going to post the criticism as it will not be allowed, but I want to get a screen shot of this before he removes it for the record).

    “There is always a lot to unpack in what Tim writes. I really only have one important observation on what he says here.”

    Walt.

    Reply

    1. Yes, Walt, by all means, please post the “one important observation”. I look forward to it.

       Tim

       Reply

    2. ” over the years, I have learned that Tim allows those who agree with him to post, but who don’t agree are blocked” What a liar you are Walt. You are a man who comes here and engages in personal attacks and lies about peoples character and refuses to receive any correction. RC Sproul said that confession and repentance are evidences of true faith, Ive been here 3 years and have seen none from you.

       Reply

17. Tim,

    I would release it, but my experience the past year is that you will respond to it publicly making all sorts of negative comments which Kevin and John will follow-up with the typical high five to you, and then all my responses will be blocked to correct them and you. It has been a very effective way to demonstrate your “excellent rebuttal skills” in front of the public media.

    It is like going into court, the prosecution (you) dance and lay out all your arguments before the judge and jury (Kevin and John), and the defense (me) are blocked from any rebuttal to the claims. You have been extremely smart in your running this site. When Kevin wrote me one time saying to blocked some of his comments, I was thinking he was just exaggerating.

    Fortunately for you, Kevin went into submission nicely to insure that everything you write is a pure play support for your views. Of course, I know that he totally believes everything you say, but as you can see he is not about to ever dispute.

    This message will not be released because you know that everything I say is correct and true. Of course you want me to publish the excellent rebuttal to your views, but it will never see the light of day, and even if it did and you go slam it in front of Kevin and John who will support you, I will never be able to reply to correct your numerous errors.

    Reply

    1. Walt, ok, just send me the criticism by e-mail. You have my e-mail address and have had it for years. But withholding a criticism from me while offering to send it privately to my subscribers is duplicitous to the core. The Jesuits have nothing on the Church of Scotland.

       I would welcome the criticism. Feel free to post it.

       Tim

       Reply

    2. Walt, you are the prosecutor. You’ve indicted everyone here, Mr Mueller. You continue to characterize me as some idiot drinking the koolaid at Jonestown. It takes one to know one. Seems like no one has drunk more koolaid than you from the church of Scotland. Im a believer who studies the scripture and comes here to test Tim’s words against scripture. When you can answer the question that tim has asked you 20 times, which you avoid, then maybe you’ll have standing. But you are woefully unprepared. K

       Reply