Follow
As our readers know, we have long held that the 70 Week prophecy of Daniel 9 is Mosaic rather than Messianic. Thus the prophecy finds its fulfillment under the Old Covenant rather than under the New. Instead of prophesying the advent of Christ and the end of sacrifices, the prophecy was rather that Cyrus, King of Persia, an anointed ruler (Isaiah 45:1), would be raised up to rebuild Jerusalem, that Onias III, the anointed high priest would be murdered, and that Antiochus IV would come and end sacrifices, but that faithful Jews would cleanse the sanctuary, anoint the altar, the most holy (Exodus 40:10) and restore Mosaic sacrifices. The fulfillment of that Seventieth Week, from 171-164 B.C. was Mosaic, not Messianic.
Several years ago, we published an article about the 2,300 evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14 during which the Jews and the Sanctuary were to be trampled underfoot within that Seventieth Week. Those “evenings and mornings” are to be understood as literal solar days, revealed to us in the same terms as the literal solar days of creation in Genesis 1. In that article, we proposed that Antiochus IV would have begun to trample the sanctuary and the host upon his return from his first invasion of Egypt in 170 B.C..
The actual date of Antiochus IV’s return is unknown, but a return sometime in the late summer or early autumn of 170 B.C. would seem to account for the 2,300 days “to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot” (Daniel 8:13). Thus, as we conceded at the time, “We do not have sufficient data to identify the exact dates of Antiochus’ departure and return…,” but that is when the 2,300 days would have occurred.
We have since discovered the evidence necessary to identify the exact day the sanctuary and the host began to be trampled, so we provide the evidence here. Before we proceed, however, we will revisit the concept of intercalation as well as the ancient commemoration of the binding of Isaac, or the Akedah, or “the ashes of Isaac,” as they both factor heavily into our analysis.
Intercalation
The concept of intercalation is important to us because the Jewish calendar is lunisolar which goes by the motion of the moon for its months, but by the motion of the sun for its years. Months can be 29 or 30 days long, and thus a normal year can have 353, 354 or 355 days. Like ours, such a calendar is not perfectly synchronized with the solar year. So, just like we have to add an intercalary day every four years on February 29, the Jews had to do something similar. Because their typical year is about 11 days off from the solar year, after three years, they would have to add an intercalary month to get back in sync with the solar cycle. In that case a leap year can have 383, 384 or 385 days. About every three years, the Jews have a leap year, and occasionally they even have to have two leap years within a three year period just to get back on track.
The practical implication for our discussion is that every three and a half year period in the Jewish calendar will have at least one leap year to make the three and a half year period 1,260 total days in length as one would expect, but some three and a half year periods would necessarily have two leap years, and for those special periods, three and a half years is 1,290 days. We have just such a period in view in Daniel 12, where we are told that “time, times and half a time” is 1,290 days. Clearly there are two intercalary months in that three and a half year period, which is why it is 1,290 days instead of the normal 1,260 days.
We addressed this more fully in our post entitled The Intercalation of Time, so we will not revisit the details here. In any case, the practice of intercalation is absolutely critical to our understanding of the 2,300 days, and as we have noted elsewhere, those 2,300 evenings and mornings are literal days. The Seventh Day Adventists understood them to be prophetic days of years, which were to conclude in 1844 AD, 2,300 years after the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C.. Alexander M’Leod thought they would end in 1896 A.D. (Unfulfilled Prophecy respecting Eastern Nations (1842)), and Sir Isaac Newton thought the 2,300 years would end in 2060 A.D.. But these prophecies are all for nought, because the 2,300 evenings and mornings are literal solar days.
The Akedah and “the ashes of Isaac”
We will return to intercalation shortly, but now let us move on to the Akedah, which is the Hebrew word for “binding.” The Akedah of Isaac is depicted in Genesis 22:1-19 where Isaac carries the wood to the top of Mt. Moriah, Abraham builds a makeshift altar, binds Isaac, lays him upon the wood of the altar, and prepares to sacrifice him. The Lord intervenes and provides a ram instead.
In Jewish tradition the Akedah factors significantly into the celebration of the Passover on the 14th of the first month of Nisan, and Rosh Hashana on the first day of the seventh month of Tishri. Géza Vermès, in his 1973 work, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, explains that as early as the second century there existed a division within the Jewish community about whether the Akedah should be commemorated during the Passover or during Rosh Hashanah:
“R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (of the first quarter of the second century AD) favoured Tishri, but his habitual opponent and contemporary. R. Joshua ben Hananiah, supported Nisan” (Vermés, Géza, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (E. J. Brill: Leiden, the Netherlands, 1973) 215)
Scholars have until very recently assumed that the Akedah commemorations at these festivals were the developments of first century Judaism after the rise of Christianity. But in 1995, a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q225, was finally translated, showing that the Akedah had not been a first century development after all but rather had been an integral part of the post-exilic worship of the Jews in the last centuries before Christ (Rodgers, Peter R., Exploring the Old Testament in the New, (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2012) 67).
Further, it turned out upon evaluation that the Akedah had been more closely aligned with the concept of Creation and Atonement than with the Passover. According to the Jewish calendar, Rosh Hashanah is the day of Creation and Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement following Rosh Hashanah, and both occur in the seventh month. That places the Akedah commemoration in Tishri, the seventh month, rather than Nisan. And of particular interest to us, that places the Akedah commemoration on the first day of Tishri, which is to say, on Rosh Hashanah.
And what is more, the Akedah is commemorated with regard for “the Ashes of Isaac.” This is done with the understanding that Isaac really had not been sacrificed and burnt, but that God had reckoned the ashes of the substitutionary ram as if they were the ashes of Isaac, extending mercy in judgment on account of Isaac’s willingness to be sacrificed. Under that construct, the ashes of the ram are regarded as “Isaac’s ashes”:
“…the Rabbis argue that even if God had not provided a ram to be offered in his place, Isaac would gladly have given his life, so the value and the merit truly belong to him. ‘Though he did not die, Scripture credits Isaac with having died and his ashes having lain upon the altar.’ The expression, ‘the ashes of Isaac’, is often used in midrashic and talmudic writings: ‘God regards the ashes of Isaac as though they were piled upon the altar.’” (Vermes Geza, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 205).
Imagine, then, what Rosh Hashanah would have looked like in the Second Temple period, with makeshift altars set up in the temple courts to commemorate Isaac’s willingness to go through with the sacrifice.
The 2,300 Days
So what does this have to do with Daniel and the Seventieth Week, and in particular, the 2,300 days? We understand from Gabriel that within the final seven years of the Seventy Week prophecy, there is a 2,300 day period when the people and the sanctuary are trampled. To find the beginning of the 2,300 days, we need to find the point at which the people and the sanctuary began to be trampled. To that end, we have a record of the event, and from the description of the event, we can determine its exact date.
As we discussed in our previous entries about the Seventieth Week of Daniel, Jason usurped the High Priesthood from his brother Onias III in 175 B.C. when he bribed Antiochus IV for the office. Then Menelaus outbid Jason for the office of High Priest in 171 B.C., but was unable to make the payments and started selling off the holy vessels of the Temple. Onias III raised an objection, for which he was murdered the same year. After this, Menelaus and his brother Lysimachus started to steal the holy vessels of the temple, which upset the faithful Jews.
When they objected, Lysimachus armed about 3,000 men and made an assault on the temple to put down the resistance and to raid the treasury. This event constitutes the first armed conflict involving the Jews and the sanctuary during the Seventieth Week, and therefore marks the beginning of the 2,300 days. The event is recorded for us in 2 Maccabees 4:39-42, and the reader is invited to pay special attention to how the Jews defended themselves against the attack. Apart from the rudimentary objects at their immediate disposal in the temple, the Jews were essentially defenseless:
“When many acts of sacrilege had been committed in the city by Lysimachus with the connivance of Menelaus, and when report of them had spread abroad, the populace gathered against Lysimachus, because many of the gold vessels had already been stolen. And since the crowds were becoming aroused and filled with anger, Lysimachus armed about three thousand men and launched an unjust attack, under the leadership of a certain Auranus, a man advanced in years and no less advanced in folly. But when the Jews became aware of Lysimachus’ attack, some picked up stones, some blocks of wood, and others took handfuls of the ashes that were lying about, and threw them in wild confusion at Lysimachus and his men. As a result, they wounded many of them, and killed some, and put them all to flight; and the temple robber himself they killed close by the treasury.” (2 Maccabees 4:39-42)
The author of 2 Maccabees places this event at about the same time as Antiochus IV’s “second invasion of Egypt” (2 Maccabees 5:1), an invasion which ostensibly took place in 168 B.C.. It was Edwyn Robert Bevan, however, esteemed historian of The House of Seleucus, who first recognized in 1902 that the author of 2 Maccabees considered Antiochus IV’s first visit to Egypt (2 Maccabees 4:21) to be an “invasion” of sorts, and thus realized that the “second invasion” described in 2 Maccabees 5:1, was Antiochus IV’s first military incursion (Bevan, Edwyn Robert, The House of Seleucus, vol. II (London: Edward Arnold, 1902 (296-97)), which places the assault on the temple in 170 B.C..
It was because of that assault, and the Jewish response to it, that many of the Jews who had come to the defense of the holy vessels and the sanctuary were put to death (2 Maccabees 4:47-48). That was the beginning of the trampling of the sanctuary and the host.
And to our point, notice that the Jews defended themselves with stones, pieces of wood and handfuls of ash that were lying about. Some commentaries on 2 Maccabees read this as if the altar was under attack, so the Jews grabbed ashes and pieces of wood from the altar and started throwing them at their attackers. For example, Daniel Schwartz, in his commentary on 2 Maccabees, writes that the author’s description of the use of wood and ash as defensive weapons…
“…would seem to be not only the author’s … desire to depict the Jews as unarmed, but also his desire to suggest to us that the wood and ashes were from the altar, itself being mobilized, as it were, to defend its sanctity against the crimes of Menlaus and his stand-in.” (Schwartz, Daniel R., 2 Maccabees (Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, (2008) 242)
But is Schwartz’s assessment reasonable? Would those Jews who were zealous for the holy articles and the sanctity of the altar be so careless for its holiness as to grab wood and ashes from it? These Jews were objecting to Menelaus’ and Lysimachus’ profanation of the holy articles of the Temple, and according to the Scriptures, anything that touches the altar is itself holy (Exodus 29:37). Just read how the ashes of the altar were treated in Scripture (Leviticus 6:10-11) to understand how unrealistic Schwartz’s portrayal is. Nobody with a zeal for the holiness of the altar would simply have grabbed ashes and wood from it and thrown them around in self defense. People who were zealous for the holiness of the temple vessels would have been equally as zealous for anything touching the altar, including the wood and ashes from the sacrifices. Besides, the explanation offered by Schwartz does not account for the presence of stones that could be used as defensive weapons, and those Jews who were zealous for the holy articles certainly would not have started dismantling and breaking up the altar itself, either. That is simply unthinkable, given their zeal for the holiness of the sanctuary.
It seems to us, rather, that there is only one possible occasion when there would be an abundant supply of stones, pieces of wood and ashes that could be used for self defense without violating the sanctity of the altar, and that would be an Akedah commemoration in the court of the women where the temple treasury was located and where the altercation had occurred (2 Maccabees 4:42). That commemoration would have taken place using makeshift altars of stones, with wood and ashes in order to commemorate Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, and Isaac’s willingness to go along with it. The articles of wood ash and stone were all of symbolic value in the commemoration of the Binding of Isaac, but none would have been considered so holy that they could not be used as defensive weapons. And that would mean that the assault on the temple by Lysimachus and his men would have taken place on the one day of the year that the Jews were celebrating the Akedah, or the Binding of Isaac. That day is Rosh Hashanah, the first day of Tishri, the seventh month of the Jewish calendar in 170 B.C..
What on earth does that have to do with the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14? Keep in mind that the assault on the Temple as described above (2 Maccabees 4:39-42), would have occurred on Rosh Hashanah, the 1st of Tishri, in 170 B.C., and the rededication of the altar was complete on the 25th of Chislev in 164 BC (1 Maccabees 4:52-54, 2 Maccabees 1:18) on what is now celebrated as the first day of Hanukah. It is often 2,268 or 2,269 or 2,270 days from Rosh Hashanah in one year, until Hanukah six years later, as long as there are only two intercalary months in that time span, depending of course on the length of each year.
But when there is a third intercalary month within that time span—as there certainly would have been in the time under consideration, because the second half of the Seventieth Week was 1,290 days long—then the total number of days from Rosh Hashana in one year to the first day of Hanukah 6 years later is 2,298 or 2,299 or 2,300, depending of course on the length of each year. It varies from year to year, but the 2,300 day time span occurs often enough and predictably enough in the modern Hebrew lunisolar calendar to show the fulfillment of the prophecy under the reign of Antiochus IV, as the modern lunisolar Hebrew calendar is still based on the ancient system of calendration.
The reader is encouraged to calculate the length of time on his own, as we are currently in just such a 2,300 day period. Rosh Hashanah was on September 5, 2013, and Hanukah will begin on December 23, 2019. The total elapsed time will be 2,300 days.
The next such occurrence begins less than two years later. Rosh Hashanah will be on September 7, 2021, and Hanukah will begin on December 25, 2027. The total elapsed time is 2,300 days.
Other such occurrences are as follows:
September 9, 1915 to December 26, 1921
September 8, 2048 to December 26, 2054
September 10, 2075 to December 27, 2081
September 6, 2146 to December 23, 2152
September 9, 2162 to December 26, 2168
Each of these time spans from Rosh Hashana to Hanukah is 2,300 days long. As we noted above, the prophecy of the 2,300 evenings and mornings referred to a literal 2,300 solar days.
By showing that the assault on the temple in 170 B.C. (HT: to Bevan who discovered the correct year) occurred on Rosh Hashana, and knowing that the sanctuary was cleansed and the altar rededicated on the 25th of Chislev in 164 B.C., and knowing that there would have been one intercalary month in the first half of the Seventieth Week, and two intercalary months in the second half, we have shown that from the time of the first assault until the rededicating of the altar, would have been 2,300 days, just as was prophesied in Daniel 8:14: “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” or literally, according to the Hebrew text, two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings. We are glad finally to be able to provide the exact dates.
And more to our point, as much as we admire the tenacity of some other historicists in their attempts to interpret the 2,300 days as prophetic days of years, the text of Scripture simply does not allow it. The prophecy is of 2,300 literal solar days, and just like the Seventy Weeks, it is a Mosaic prophecy in which the fulfillment is a restoration of the sanctuary and a return to sacrifices under the Mosaic Law.
Thx for a very logical explanation Tim. It certainly helps in both understanding the Scriptures and in having one’s confidence in the Scriptures vindicated.
You make a solid argument Tim. Very interesting.
What do you think about the bible being sufficient. That the bible says something up to a point and then goes no further. The notion that the bible is self-authenticating its own prophesy.
Im trying to follow but your references are secular and uninspired works. Jews dont consider Maccabees inspired… its historical only.. which means it cannot be trusted 100%.
Was it God’s intention to have us all agree with what you just did to understand the 2300 days? Has that always been the answer and now your presenting it for the first time?
Certainly you must think about these things… I applaud your work.. but I how do I test it biblically is my big question. I suspect you have a way… what is it?
I know im in a minority holding the word of God up as to actually want to test notions outside the bible with what is inside the bible. But that is where I am.. What do you think Tim?
Mike,
Thank you for your comment. I agree with your position of “holding the word of God up as to actually want to test notions outside the bible with what is inside the bible.”
Consider two prophecies of Scripture which certainly occurred but for which no reference to their fulfillment can be found anywhere in the Scriptures: the four way division of the Greek Empire and the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. Do you believe either of these prophecies was fulfilled?
How do we know with certainty that the Greek Empire was divided four ways? There is not so much as whisper of a hint in the inspired text as to who those four kingdoms were that were to come out of the remains of Alexander’s empire. There is only the prophecy. How do we discern its fulfillment? Can you name the four kingdoms that sprang up from Alexander’s divided empire solely from the Scriptures? It was to happen under the Greek empire, before the rise of the Roman Empire, but that’s all we’ve got. Can you identify its fulfillment from the Scriptures?
Or what of Jesus’ prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction after being surrounded with armies (Luke 21:20). Jerusalem’s destruction after the siege is not recorded anywhere in the Scriptures. All we’ve got is the description of the event, and the assurance that it would happen within a generation. Can you identify its fulfillment from the Scriptures?
I can show the four-way division of the Greek empire from Diodorus Siculus, and his Library of History, Marcus Junianus Justinus and his Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Plutarch and his Life of Demetrius, Appian’s History of the Syrian Wars, Memnon and his History of Heracleia, and many others. But I find not a single reference in the Scriptures to the fulfillment of what Daniel foresaw. Yet I know with certainty that it occurred under the Greek empire. Not because Diodorus, Justinus, Plutarch, Appian and Memnon are infallible (far from it—they are riddled with anomalies and inconsistencies, for they are secular and uninspired works, and cannot be trusted 100%), but because Scripture foresaw the events.
I can also show that Jerusalem was surrounded by soldiers and destroyed within one generation by reading Josephus and his Wars of the Jews, and the Histories of Tacitus. But I find not a single reference in the Scriptures to the fulfillment of what Jesus foretold. Yet I know with certainty that it occurred within one generation, as He promised. Not because Josephus and Tacitus are infallible (far from it—they are riddled with anomalies and inconsistencies, for they are secular and uninspired works, and cannot be trusted 100%), but because Scripture foresaw the events.
The answer to your question is found in Jesus’ parable of the fig tree:
We are to know and understand when we see it come to pass in accordance with the prophecy.
His preaching in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 is replete with similar references:
Prophecy is recognized by its fulfillment.
How do you know that summer is nigh at hand? Is it because the Scripture tells you that summer is nigh at hand? Or is it because you can see with your eyes and can read in the almanac that the trees shoot forth, and their leaves have returned? Jesus confirms this: “when ye see these things come to pass, know…” And, per Jesus’s instructions, the way His hearers would know that the end of Jerusalem is near and his prophecy was about to occur, is when His listeners saw her surrounded by armies. And for that you’d either have to be there as an eyewitness, or you’d have to read the newspaper from that period (Josephus and Tacitus). They’re not infallible, but they are “the newspaper.” And the way we know the four empires into which Alexander’s empire was divided is by reading the accounts of contemporary historians who documented the events. Are they infallible? No, but they are “the newspaper.”
Would you be offended if I had sought to prove that Jerusalem was indeed destroyed by showing from the historical records of Tacitus and Josephus that it was destroyed? Or does that somehow violate the sufficiency of Scripture? Would you be offended if I showed you the four kingdoms that arose from Alexander’s empire by consulting Plutarch, Diodorus and Memnon? Or does that somehow violate the sufficiency of Scripture? I assure you, some of the things you “know” about the division of Alexander’s empire and the destruction of Jerusalem are from sources such as these. 1 and 2 Maccabees fall into the same category. They are yesterday’s newspaper, that is all.
You asked, “Was it God’s intention to have us all agree with what you just did to understand the 2300 days? Has that always been the answer and now your presenting it for the first time?”
It was God’s intention that we discern the fulfillments of His prophecies in the timeframe in which He foretold them to occur:
It was also God’s intention to seal up what Daniel saw, but that eventually we’d figure it out:
Dan. 12:4 “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”
If I didn’t find the 2,300 day connection between Rosh Hashanah and Chislev, someone else would have. It has been sitting there the whole time.
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Tim,
First off you dont offend me…. I listened to quite allot of you on BTWN… I forgot which show.. but it was very interesting. Thats how I found your blog.
Your right, I do verify things inside the bible with information outside the bible. Thats a good point, one I ve not really realized before. I have never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the box.
Your analysis is unique. When I come up with a biblical interpretation that I cannot find anywhere else…
I worry… I dont jettison it , but I do wonder why no one else thought of it.
My life is very busy like most and I do not have time or money to read or collect the resources you have. Seriously Tim is your house a library or what. I dont think I can verify your scholarship for myself. My history is not where it should be either. It keeps me from really internalizing what your teaching and recommending it to others…
So it seems I must trust you. Are you very comfortable with me doing so? Please dont take it personally like a big put-down. We have to be very careful and test things… Im just saying your stuff takes a very serious commitment to test. I wanna see these things for myself….
I have not read much of what you have here… I will read more and investigate what you have to say over time as best I can… that would be good for me as i am intrigued.
Here is what would be helpful… Would you share some really good sites that are free and have ancient authors writings available.
Lastly do you have a testimony among your blogs? I would be interested in hearing how you got into all this very obscure material and what your Christian journey has been like.
Peace & Love.. ok…
Mike
Mike, I am not comfortable with you trusting me. By the way, your question on the Maccabees was asked by another listener this week, and I answer it similarly in my episode this week.
I am comfortable with reasoning from the Scriptures, and I think we can all agree that despite all of the assumptions that have been made about the antagonist of Daniel 8:9-14 and 8:23-26, Daniel 9:26-27, Daniel 11:21-39 and Daniel 12:5-13, he sure appears to be Greek in the Greek timeline between Medo-Persia and Rome in Daniel’s succession of Empires. That alone should give us pause when we read commentaries that insist on shifting all or parts of that antagonist and his timeline into the future, either into the Roman period, or the distant eschatological future. Thus, my comment that it was God’s intention that we discern the fulfillments of His prophecies in the timeframe in which He foretold them to occur. Since Daniel 8:9-14 and 8:23-26, Daniel 9:26-27, Daniel 11:21-39 and Daniel 12:5-13 all appear to refer to a Greek antagonist, it seems to me that it is preferable that we search in the Greek period to find the fulfillment.
And that is also why I believe we must focus on the Danielic timeline. Without it, we’re sunk, as Jesus and John reveal information with the assumption that the listeners and readers are at least passingly familiar with that timeline. And that timeline is revealed to us fully and completely in the Scriptures, including the transition from legs to feet (69 A.D.) and feet to toes (293 A.D.). There is a heavenly kingdom that is set up during the period of the feet (Daniel 2:44, Luke 21:31), and there is an earthly kingdom that is set up in the period of the toes (Daniel 7:24, Revelation 17:12). Unless we know the timeline, how can we tell which kingdom is which? I assure you, the Roman Catholic Church, which originated in the period of the toes, wants desperately to persuade us all that it originated much sooner, and that it is the heavenly kingdom of Daniel’s prophecies. But it is the earthly antichrist kingdom of his prophecies.
Well, more on that later. But my point is that you should not trust me, and I am not asking you to. Trust Daniel’s timeline. If the explanation of the 2,300 days causes you to trust Daniel more, all the better. But don’t trust me. I didn’t invent leap months, Jewish holy days or set the date of Hanukah. The resources are available to you to study at your own pace. The modern Hebrew lunisolar timeline uses essentially the same calendration as Jews did before Christ, and the knowledge of intercalation is ancient as well.
If you want to understand how 3 1/2 years can be 1290 days sometimes and 1260 days other times, that’s a good place to start.
More resources later.
Best,
Tim
Mike,
For ancient writers, you can access them here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
It is a Roman Catholic site, but they have digitized many of Schaff’s translations of the Ante-Nicæan, Nicæan and Post-Nicæan Fathers.
Also, two interesting documents worth knowing about are the Laterculus Veronensis and the Notitia Dignitatum. They show the 12-way division of the Roman Empire under Diocletian at the end of the 3rd century, and the final 13-way division of the Roman Empire toward the end of the 4th century.
As Edward Gibbon noted, “Three changes in his diocesan arrangement were made in the course of the fourth century, and by 400 we find thirteen Dioceses. (a) Egypt, which was at first part of the Diocese of the East, was promoted to be a separate Diocese towards the end of the fourth century. (b) Diœcesis Moesiarum was broken up into Diœcesis Daciae and Diœcesis Macedoniae. (c) On the other hand, Diœcesis Galliarum and Diœcesis Viennensis were combined to form a single Diocese of Gaul.” (Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol 2, Appendix 11 “Dioceses and Provinces”, (London: Methuen & Co., ©1901) 548)”
Just some interesting information for you: The Notitia Dignitatum lay hidden in obscurity until late in the 16th century, at which time multiple commentaries from various authors began to expound upon its contents. But reformed eschatology had been developed prior to the publishing of the Notitia, a Roman administrative document that detailed the final 13-way division of the Roman empire. Just interesting that our traditional eschatologies, in which the division of the Roman empire into its constituent fragments ought to factor significantly (Dan 2 and 7, Revelation 12, 13 and 17), were forged in ignorance of that final 13-way division of the empire.
Just food for thought,
Tim
Mike,
For ancient original sources, I recommend attalus.org.
http://www.attalus.org/names/a/antiochus.html
This link is for all the occurrences of the name “Antiochus” in the ancient sources. You can search under any name, location or event. This is just given as an example.
If you’d like to read the 1, 2, 3 and 4 Maccabees accounts of the period of Antiochus, and beyond,
1 Maccabees https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4219672
2 Maccabees https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4353562
3 Maccabees https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4451716
4 Maccabees https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4496061
The become progressively less reliable, each after the other, but they are the most detailed historical record we have of that era. Again, they’re history, not Scripture.
If you’d like to study the ancient sources regarding the division of Alexander’s empire, you may wish to consider reading my article, Reduction of the Diadochi. It includes hyperlinks to all historical sources, if they are available online,
Enjoy,
Tim
Hi Mike,
I had (have) these exact same questions so be encouraged to press on to know the truth. In answer to your (my) questions I came up with the following:
Q. You said: “Would you share some really good sites that are free and have ancient authors writings available”.
A. Tim has copious references linked throughout his essays. Reading them is often as good as Tim’s own essay!!
Q. Lastly do you have a testimony among your blogs?
A. The front page of the blog has a short testimony. Some extra material is given in a lecture Tim gave here about Roman Catholicism. http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/The_Occult_and_Roman_Superstitions,_Timothy_Kauffman.mp3
Hth
Mike, I can personally tell you that I came to Tim’s site a few years ago. Protestant believers would generally agree that the the Spirit by and with the word of God has to be the final say in our life. Tim has the same burden that any other person who espouses a position has, to prove it by scripture. As Luther said, unless he was convinced by scripture or sound reason, he wasn’t buying. God saved me through the preaching of John Macarthur, who I thought was one of the greatest teachers alive. I’m not so sure it’s not the author of this site. Tim’s stuff just on Roman Catholicism alone is compelling, aside from eschatology. And incidentally, there are those who come here who will try to condemn you for studying here. Be unwavered. As long as you are searching the scriptures on these things and allowing Tim’s articles to be measured by scripture and reason, then God will expose his truth to you. Measure everything by the word. God bless. Kevin
You will never find a more inaccurate date setter in the marketplace than Tim, who does not know how to use Scripture to interpret Scripture. He uses history to interpret Scripture alone which is why he is so anti-reformed and anti-Presbyterian.
So sad.
On 10/16/16 Walt wrote,
Here is M’Leod interpreting the 2,300 day prophecy from “scripture alone”:
Good thing he didn’t use “history to interpret Scripture alone,” Walt! 😉
Readers may read the whole debacle of M’Leod’s 1896 prophecy in context here: https://books.google.com/books?id=jO5iAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
It starts on pg. 16.
Walt repeatedly drops in to criticize me for my “prophecies” (I have not made any), date setting (I determine past dates as historian, I do not forecast future dates as a prophet like M’Leod, Walt and Pastor Greg Price do), and attempting to put me in the same category as E.G. White and the Seventh Day Adventists who prophesied 1844 as the date of the cleansing of the sanctuary. All this while his own eschatological hero set the date of 1896 as the fulfillment of the 2,300 “years,” based on the history of Byzantine Emperor Phocas and the founder of Islam, and his mentor, Greg Price, set the date of 2060 based on the coronation of Charlemagne.
Walt, M’Leod had to read the history of the Byzantine Empire and the history of the rise of Islam in order to set the dates, and yet he is your hero. You have to read the history of the Charlemagne and the Franks in order to arrive at 800 as the beginning of the 1,260 years, and for you to prophesy that the sanctuary will be cleansed in 2060, as does your mentor, Pastor Greg Price:
You, yourself, have expressly stated that you plan to use history to determine the fulfillment of prophecy:
If you’re using “scripture alone,” why do you have to “wait … to see” at all? Shouldn’t you just “know” based on what the Scripture tells you?
And you have in fact prophesied 2060 as the end date, based on your use of history to interpret Scripture:
And yet, having set dates for future events, prophesied, and relied on the historical record to interpret Scripture, you come here to accuse me of “using history to interpret Scripture alone,” date setting, and prophesying, all while you and your ilk are date setters and “prophets” and “users of history to interpret Scripture” of the worst sort. Given your abhorrence of evaluating the history books in order to determine the fulfillment of prophecy, how are you, Price, and M’Leod any different than E.G. White, Walt?
You should clean up your own house instead of coming here to assail me with accusations of the very things your own “prophets” have done. It is that rank hypocrisy for which you are under perpetual moderation.
Tim
Walt said ” You will not find a more inaccurate date setter in the marketplace than Tim” unless of course he has been accurate in his interpretation, then you won’t find a more accurate one. ” He uses history to interpret scripture” No he doesn’t. Seems to me any ” historicist” is looking at what part of scripture has been fulfilled in history. Whats amazing Walt is you have never really taken Tim on in the argument, you just throw bombs at people. Walt, judging a mans character isn’t the same as making an argument against his work. You obviously dont know the difference between the two. But there has never been a better cutter and paster from Scottish Reform documents than you, only to be rivaled by Bob. Congrats. Why dont you do the work and bring an argument, instead of running to get your church leaders to come do it for you. Sad
Walt,
I would suggest that you respond by addressing the issue of what differentiates you, M’Leod and Price from the Seventh-day Adventists, considering that you all have assumed that the 2300 days are prophetic days of years, and you have all engaged in foretelling the future date of its fulfillment: 1844, 1896, 2060. You should also address why you insist on the day-year approach to interpreting the 2,300 days, since the Scriptures refer to them as “evenings and mornings” which are literal days. It seems to me that if you really believe that scripture should interpret scripture, you would forsake the day-year approach and understand the 2300 days in the way Scripture reveals them to us. And since intercalary months are only needed when literal days are in view, the 1,290 days are literal days as well. Did you not know that the Lord appointed the motion of the moon for months (Isaiah 66:23), but the motion of the stars for years (Genesis 1:14)? The lunisolar year is of the Lord’s doing, and because of it, intercalary months are neeed, but only when literal days are in view.
Anyway, consider the below summary:
One of these is not like the others, Walt.
I look forward to your comments.
Tim
But there has never been a better cutter and paster from Scottish Reform documents than you, only to be rivaled by Bob. Congrats.
Hi Tim,
I was trying to find the comment/question I made about Chalcedon and its timing (and your reply) in relation to the great flood of error that occurred in the late 4th century… I could not find the post due to my lack of skills.
But on that subject I thought you might like to read something Robert Reymond said about the creeds and how they can deceive people : (it’s only 2 paragraphs). I don’t agree with all in this quote but he makes a good point nonetheless.
======================
I know that some readers will bristle at and be put off by my last remarks as being not only highly judgmental and irrational but also unbridled stridency and serious error since, they would remind me, the pope and the Roman Catholic faithful regularly confess their faith using the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and the Athanasian Creed. This observation is true enough, and I commend Rome for revering these early Creeds as valiant efforts to state and to protect the full unabridged deity of Jesus Christ and thus the triune character of the one living and true God. But what is overlooked is that these early creeds are not evangelical creeds, that is creeds explicating soteric matters. As I just intimated they were framed in the context of the Trinitarian and Christologlcal debates in the fourth and fifth centuries and are sorely underdeveloped respecting and virtually silent on soteriological matters. As has been often pointed out, there is nothing in them that the Judaizers whom Paul confronted in his letter to the Galatians could not also have endorsed. Nevertheless, Paul condemned the Judaizers in the strongest terms possible because they were preaching “another gospel which is not another” when they corrupted his doctrine of justification by faith alone. Quite obviously, according to Paul there is no saving value in holding to an “orthodox view” of the person of Christ if one is at the same time also holding to an “unorthodox” view of the work of Christ. Which is just to say that the question of who Jesus is cannot be separated existentially from the question of what he has done for us. And if Philip Melanchthon is right when he said, “This is to know Christ: to know his benefits,” then one must even conclude that Rome does not even know correctly who Christ really is!
In order that I might make myself crystal clear here -and what I am now about to say may shock the reader but I assure him that I do not say it for its shock value – I would contend that one can believe from his heart that every statement of the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and the Athanasian Creed is true and still be lost, if in order to be saved he is trusting to any degree in his own Character, and/or if he believes that he must contribute at least some good works toward his salvation, and/or if he is trusting in Christ plus anyone or anything else. Church history is filled with too many examples of such “believers” for us to ignore this fact, and they who so believe do so at the peril of their own souls. Martin Luther as an Augustinian monk confessed his faith many times during his monkish days using the Apostles’ Creed, but according to Scripture until he cast himself in simple faith on Christ’s saving work alone for his justification before God he was lost.
Reymond, p125, The Reformation’s conflict with Rome
Tim, I have always wondered did the flaws you saw in reformed eschatology spur you on to do the deep study, or was this always something God had layer on your heart? I have really followed and taken splice in the amount of biblical support that you have provided in laying this whole thing out. The statements about this whole view hinging on flawed secular external works seems like a cheap hit from my perspective. Also I was heartened by a response you gave to John that Roman Catholics and the east are not christians, and need the gospel. Of course there are believers within that communion, but we must share the gospel of scripture with Catholics and then encourage them to stay away from the idol of that altar. I believe we should encourage those true believers, that they should leave that communion immediately. Im not sure if it stuns you like it does me, but Protestants as a whole are ignorant to the eschatological argument that Rome is the conduit of Satan according to scripture, the very antichrist. Its amazing even among the reformed how that church is just considered another denomination. Unless we see them as a mission field as pat generations nearer the reformation did, men will remain in ignorance. Cant wait for the next article. And finally, is it your opinion that since eschatology isn’t settled even in reformed documents, that we can freely come to a personal conclusion? I know this might sound like a dumb question, but Im trying to ask what allegiance should one give to former opinions ? Thanks Kevin
Kevin,
Regarding your question, “Tim, I have always wondered did the flaws you saw in reformed eschatology spur you on to do the deep study, or was this always something God had layer on your heart?”
The study of eschatology led me to realize that even some of the best historicist eschatologies could not account for various teachings of the Scriptures—the 13-way division of the Roman empire, the fact that the 70 Weeks is a Mosaic prophecy, not a Messianic one, and the fact that the stone strikes Nebuchadnezzar’s statue twice and the stone does not “fill the whole earth” (Daniel 2:35) and the saints do not receive “the kingdom under the whole heaven” (Daniel 7:26) until after the second strike that destroys the Beast of Revelation 13. In other words, there is no Christian earthly Kingdom until Christ returns to destroy antichrist. Without that understanding, even some of the best reformed eschatologies assume that Christ must have established an earthly kingdom in the form of the early medieval church, and therefore assume that antichrist’s earthly kingdom is the earthly kingdom Christ established, the stone that filled the whole earth, and even now they try to wrest it back from the Roman Beast so that Christ’s earthly kingdom may prosper. It is a fool’s errand, because there is no earthly kingdom until after Antichrist is destroyed. That is the problem with assuming that antichrist’s earthly reign began in 800. All the Romish novelties that began to prosper at the end of the 4th century are assumed to be ideosyncrasies of the Church of Christ, and that her struggle with the Roman empire for earthly dominance, and ultimate victory in the 4th century, is the fulfillment of Daniel 2 and Revelation 12, and that earthly was ruined in 800 with the coronation of Charlemagne. Thus, even the best reformed eschatologies unknowingly identify the Beast of Revelation 13 as the Church! Just read Elliot’s pathetic interpretation of Revelation 12, to see how they do this:
The Church’s assumption of civil earthly power is welcomed even by typical historicist eschatologies as the fulfillment of the Church taking its seat on the throne of God, the city of Rome!!!!, and the Roman bishop there is presumed to have spoken with authority on behalf of Christ as His Church matured into a body politic for coercing people into the faith! You can’t possibly begin with a worse ecclesiology than that, and that awful ecclesiology is based on an eschatology that is just as awful.
As to your question,
Eschatology is not a gospel issue, but it is an epistemological issue. One’s “allegiance” to an eschatology should be based on what can legitimately be inferred from the Scriptures. I cannot give allegiance to dispensational or preterist eschatologies, for obvious reasons, but I cannot give allegiance to the other historicist eschatologies because some of them are based on an assumption about Daniel’s 70 weeks that is unscriptural and believe that the church should legitimately be wed to the state in the implementation of, and punishment for, ecclesiastical offenses, something the church has never been authorized to do.
Nobody is asked to pledge allegiance to my opinions here, either, by the way. I’m just another fool with a keyboard.
Tim
“Thus, even the best reformed eschatologies unknowingly identify the Beast of Revelation 13 as the Church! ”
I’d never realised this implication before! Wow, making the Bride of Christ to turn into the Beast. But when you look at the timeline, then leaving those 400 years out (400-800) makes a huge difference.
So let me see if I have this right:
In the first scenario, the Roman Empire morphs into the false church of Rome just before 400AD.
In the second scenario, the Christian church herself morphs into the Beast around 800AD!
It becomes pretty obvious which timeline is correct when put like that.
Thx again Tim.
Tim, I missed this reply to me. Thank you. Maybe when you get a minute you can explain to me if reformed eschatology isn’t settled then why a church of Scotland member so upset with your eligibility to present a position from scripture? You have required no one to believe it?
Kevin,
Good question, an answer for which I would very much like to hear from Walt. But here’s an example of how difficult it is for Walt to address the matter from the Scriptures. His Church of Scotland counselors, in his mind, have “crushed” my views, but he is unwilling to post their analysis here for fear that I will (perish the thought!) respond to it. But here is a snippet that he has provided:
This is a throwaway ad hominem masquerading as an intelligent response. I have never based a single argument on this blog that could possibly suggest that I follow “higher critics or unbelieving Jews uncritically”. But saying something like that avoids the cumbersome burden of supporting or rejecting a position based on the Scriptures. So here are my questions for the men at the Church of Scotland:
What book was Daniel reading when he was visited by Gabriel in Daniel 9? Jeremiah.
What was the basis of the 70 years of desolation punishment of the Jews? The Law of Moses.
What were the offenses committed by the Jews that led to the 70 years of desolations in Jeremiah? Sabbath violations, idolatry and sanctuary profanations.
Where in the Mosaic Law does God prescribe desolations for Sabbath violations, idolatry and sanctuary profanations? Leviticus 26 ALONE.
Did the Jews repent of their Sabbath violations, idolatry and sanctuary profanations during the 70 years? No.
What does Leviticus 26 require if the Jews do not repent even after their punishment? A seven fold multiplication of their punishment.
What was Daniel’s request as he confessed that the Jews had not repented during those 70 years? He prayed that the Lord would bring the 70 years punishment to an end.
What was Gabriel’s answer? 70 years x 7, and more desolations of the people, the city and the sanctuary, in accordance with Leviticus 26.
What would have happened, according to Jeremiah, if the Jews had simply repented of their Sabbath violations, idolatry and sanctuary profanations upon Jeremiah’s rebuke: an end of the sins and reconciliation.
Did they repent? No.
What was supposed to happen after the 70 years of desolations if the Jews repented of their Sabbath violations, idolatry and sanctuary profanations? an end of the sins and reconciliation.
Did they repent? No.
What was supposed to happen after the 70 weeks of years if the Jews repented of their Sabbath violations, idolatry and sanctuary profanations? an end of the sins and reconciliation.
What did Ezekiel say the Jews should do at the end of the 70 years to show their shame and repentance? Rededicate the Most Holy altar in accordance with the Law of Moses.
What does the Law of Moses prescribe when the Most Holy is rededicated? Anointing with oil.
What would happen if they rededicated the Most Holy? Reconciliation.
Did the Jews rededicate the altar at the end of the 70 years to show their shame and repentance? No.
What did Gabriel say would finally bring the punishment to a close and bring about reconciliation? repentance and anointing the Most Holy as prescribed by Ezekiel and the Law of Moses.
Now, given the fact that Jeremiah, Daniel, Gabriel and Ezekiel are all talking about the Jew’s offenses against the Lord as written in Leviticus 26, and the Leviticus 26 punishments are initiated when the Jews profane the Most Holy altar, and during the 70 years they are given specific instructions from Ezekiel to show their repentance by rededicating the Most Holy altar in order to be reconciled to God, but after 70 years they do not repent of profaning the Most Holy altar, and so God multiplies their punishments sevenfold until they anoint the Most Holy altar properly, what do you suppose Gabriel meant when he said, Seventy sevens are given to anoint the Most Holy and bring about reconciliation and an end of sin? Is it possible that Gabriel is talking about literally anointing the Most Holy altar and the sanctuary as an act of repentance in order to be reconciled to God? The Lord promised that very outcome if they would repent: “and I will accept you, saith the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 43:27).
Should we investigate Leviticus 26 as the mosaic context of Jeremiah 25, Ezekiel 43 and Daniel 9? Of course we should.
Does that sound like someone who is basing his analysis on the foundation laid by unbelieving Jews and Higher Critics? Nope. To those who love the Scriptures, such questions are welcomed as a legitimate inquiry into the mind of God Who has revealed His will and the future to Daniel, and through Daniel, to us.
But to the men of the Church of Scotland, or at least to Walt’s advisors, apparently, such an inquiry into the Scriptures is forbidden. Ought they at least investigate the Leviticus 26 implications of Jeremiah and Daniel 9 since Leviticus 26 is the only place in the Law that God prescribes desolations for Sabbath violations, idolatry and sanctuary profanations and Jeremiah and Daniel say the desolations have come upon them because of their violations of the Law, and Gabriel says even more desolations are determined?
No!, they say, for the prophecy simply must be about Christ.
Any other line of inquiry is forbidden to them. Very well.
“And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” (Mark 7:9)
Tim
” But to the men of the Church of Scotland, or at least to Walt’s advisors, apparently, such and inquiry into the scriptures is forbidden.” but the irony Tim is Walt continues to come back here against the advise of his leaders. So he really isn’t listening to his leaders, because he continues to address your position sorta of. If it were the case that didn’t believe that you could inquire then why come here. My guess is that Walt may have a good idea that their eschatological arguments are severely challenged in your presentation. In many ways the church of Scotland puts a burden on the conscience of their people much like Rome, because of a perceived infallible teaching body binding them. Truly Mark 7:9 applies.
Tim, wow, I’ve never thought of that, that the Reformed historists want to wrestle the earthly kingdom back from the beast. This makes futile even the first attempts of Luther and others to first try to reform antichrist, when they Should have understood it for what it is, as no visible earthly kingdom of Christ. I believe Teurtullian thought it was no Christian church in any sense. P
This was such a good answer and explanation. Thank you Tim. K
Amen!
Tim, would you consider your position historical pre millinial? Over the past few years of meticulously studying here you have convinced me from scripture of your eschatological position . Although Walt would like to paint the people who come here, including me, as bimbos looking to drink Jonestown koolaid, it’s not true. I have a degree and graduated magnum cum laude ( not that it matters) but only to make my point that any believer willing to pray and approach the scriptures and study can come to a conclusion. After reading your summation above and how badly reformed historists may have missed, I not sure I’d be as dogmatic as Walt. But no digress. K
Kevin, yes, pre millennnial. Neither Christ nor His saints take earthly dominion until after Christ smites the Beasts of Revelation 13. He has not done so yet. I’ll elaborate on this later, but yes, pre-mill.
Tim
Kevin, John,
Don’t be deceived. I went back this morning and looked to fine some of my key points refuting Tim have been blocked so you cannot see them. How can you put your faith in a man who silences his opposition? As you can see from Tim’s comment above that he does not even know that Elliot was a pre-mill historist, and not a post-mill historist. All the best reformed writers have seen Elliot’s error far earlier. One does not study Elliot for his eschatology, but only for his thorough research on history. Don’t let Tim mislead you both as he is doing. To use Elliot as a reformed expert on historical post-mill eschatology is laughable, but Tim will block this post as usual to keep you both deceived.
Tim is a master of the slight of hand in so many ways. He has mastered his blog control. He lets you guys post because he loves the public support for his new Roman Catholic inspired teachings, but silences his critics to insure the deception is not exposed. This has been used successfully by many Roman Catholics who pose as reformed Christians.
He plays lip service of support to the reformed creeds and confessions, but when you look closely he gets you to ignore those faithful standards and instead chase a rabbit trail with his own creed and confession. Tim has tried to convince his audience that he alone is the best reformed arbitor of “Scripture alone” when nearly all his writings are based and fundamentally derived from “history alone”. He admits it in his posts, if you read him carefully, and when I exposed this evidence he blocks it from you.
I’m keeping log of all my posts he blocks so one day you will see how he plays to your heart and head without any “public” controversy against his teaching.
Walt,
In my last comment to you, I said,
So, yes, that’s true, I don’t let your comments through because they don’t pass the test I outlined for you. But this one is so rich, I thought I’d let it through anyway.
You wrote,
Now your next comment to this blog has to address that lie, or it won’t go through. I have never used Elliott “as a reformed expert on historical post-mill eschatology”. Scour the blog and you’ll never find a statement to that effect from me. Yet you sling about as if it were true, and then accuse me of being deceptive.
Anyway, Walt, you also object strenuously to my position that Rome no longer exercises “civil authority” over the known world as it did from 395-1655 A.D.. You ridiculed that position by providing some Wikipedia entry on the Pope’s civil authority over the Vatican, and said,
Now, you have repeatedly distanced yourself from Elliott, so I’ll provide this from M’Leod’s Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of Revelation:
Wow, the “power of the papacy … is now entirely at an end”. When I said the same thing regarding the Pope’s civil authority over Europe, Africa and Asia (it is now at an end), you retorted that,
If you like, I’ll be happy to let that post go through, Walt. But M’Leod actually held that the papacy does not “rule and reign from Rome over both church and civil affairs, globally” any more. Yet M’Leod is your go-to guy who represents the best of the Reformed eschatology (except, I suppose, for his earlier date of papal power, 756 A.D.). And by your own standard, he is not really reformed, is he? Since he believed the pope’s temporal power is entirely at an end.
Hey, maybe I’m missing something, but I think you should spend a little more time resolving our own actual internal inconsistencies instead of trying to invent discrepancies in others by saying that I have claimed something that I have not claimed.
Tim
Tim, is it stair to say that even if RC doctrine says that the Pope carries the power of both swords both civil and religious, meaning basally he is king of the world, that we know he actually doesn’t and isn’t since he rules a tiny papal state and has no standing over the true church? K
Excellent question Kevin. You are going to a subject now that Tim will ignore and be unable to answer for fear his entire theory will collapse. In a previous post I just made 5 min ago, I exposed where Tim gets his theory from higher critics and the Jews. It will not be allowed through for fear others will see him exposed, but your question will also expose his theory if he tries to answer it.
All you have to do is look at the power of the Vatican at the UN and all the civil agreements the Vatican has in place worldwide. Bang, his theory is over.
Hey, Walt, tell it to M’Leod! “that that power is now entirely at an end” (Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of Revelation, 399).
🙂
Tim
Hi Kevin,
Yes, when Tim pointed this out that the pope no longer directly controls armies, as he did during the crusades, the penny dropped for me too. It made sense of the prophecy in Revelation.
But as you intimate in your post, whilst influencing armies directly is not the pope’s duristiction any longer, he still does through his teaching, or philosophy, if you like. Lies have a powerful influence over us all. Just witness the decline of the protestant churches over the last two centuries since they have believed the pope’s lies attacking justification by faith alone and the Bible alone. It’s still a warfare.
John, I’m not sure how much influence the pope has over his own church even as far as teaching these days. The issue is did Christ establish an earthly kingdom? No. He said as much, my kingdom is not of this world. In fact Jesus himself said he could summon legions of armies at any point if he wanted. He didn’t. So why should we believe he instituted medieval church or any church to enforce orthodoxy and orthopraxy. He didn’t. Paul didn’t. Peter didn’t. They preached the gospel, they did not use the church to enforce civil authority nor did force Christianity on anyone. Jesus said render to Ceaser what is Ceasers and Paul instructed us to submit to institutions of government, unless of course it asks us to go against our conscience. Of course I’m not saying that God did not institute certain restrainer such as the government, the family etc. Of course the ultimate restrainer isvthe Holy Spirit. The Reformers unfortunately were not exempt from Rome’s dregs. Many were former priests. So in fact during dark days of the reformation period many reformers did that to the Anabaptists, used The civil government to institute true religion. Even though the Doctrine of Rome gives civil and religious power and sword to the pope ( essentially he is the king of the world, we must remember he is antichrist, therefore it is further proof that it isn’t Christ’s kingdom on earth. Imho, to say that the kingdom God has instituted as his visible church on earth is Rome, but it was commandeered by pirates and needs to be wrested away, is to say that God and Christ and the Spirit lost control of their church at some point to a false gospel and misguided men. Impossible nonsense . God preserved his true church in the wilderness that he never failed to nurture nor will ever forsake, and he bishops the church from heaven. K
John,
You need to fully understand Tim’s eschatology. His teaching is that according to the close of the 1260 year period, and the subsequent slaying of the witnesses in 1644, the romish Antichrist has no more wicked earthly rule and no earthly armies to kill the flesh. He is a dispensational premillinial and now he is waiting like all dispensational premills for the Lord to return next week to set up His kingdom with a earthly temple in Jerusalem. Then he will finally get rule of the earth with a rod of iron, and be able to physically operate the earth with a new civil government since He cannot do it now or in the millennium from Heaven.
It is so confusing and to ever compare this view to historcist reformed teaching is silly. This view of Tim is all based upon dispensational Scofield teachings with a mix of Preterism that all this must be derived from the book of revelation being written prior to 70 AD. If revelations was written after 70 AD, his theory crumbles. If the water is not the image of the beast, his theory crumbles. If the 1260 years does not close in 1644, his theory crumbles. If dispensationalism is heresy, as many reformed teach, his theory crumbles.
Quoting Scripture like Jack Van Impe in every sentence does not make Tim a true prophet. That is why he blocks 90% of what I post here as he does not need any counter argument to his teachings. He needs those who support his views so it will grow and expand across the church denominations. He needs his name in lights, and the growing platform to be able to destroy the reformation, discredit the reformers as a bunch of foolish men and followers of Rome, and the Church of Scotland as an unfaithful church from the founding by Knox till this day.
He does not need me to refute his argument and that is why all but one of my responses to you have been blocked. He needs you and Kevin to support him at all costs.
Walt, I’ve never said anything about 1644, and I don’t believe the two witnesses were slain at the end of the 1,260 years.
Thanks,
Tim
March 8, 2015 at 12:03 pm
Tim, this is interesting…I believe there is a correlation between the 1,260 year biblical principle, but do not agree with you that the period started and ended here:
“What is interesting to us is where Vigilantius went from there, and Jerome tells us. Vigilantius returned to his homeland and his last known location and occupation was the preaching of his “heresy,” “between the Adriatic and the Alps of King Cotius” (Jerome, Letter 109, To Riparius, chapter 2), where there was clearly a strong and growing movement in opposition to the new Roman Catholic superstitions emerging throughout the empire.”
The Vatican still holds an extensive position of civil authority in what it calls various treaties and concordats. Here is a simple summary by Bennett. While he has no “credibility” as an authority by Rome, this is a good summary. Please don’t ignore Bennett’s research because he does not have a degree sufficient to justify his research like other Romish will do.
http://www.bereanpublishers.com/vatican-prepares-to-control-through-civil-law/
Here is another source to keep up on this growing, global and powerful movement by the Vatican.
http://www.concordatwatch.eu/
While I know you are trying to make a distinction between “persecution” as the near end of this power Rome had during the 1,260 year period, you ignore what Rome did to the Covenanters during the “killing times” in Scotland via civil law.
If you argue that the 1,260 year period is ended already, due to the evidence is there were no further persecution of the saints after the Easter Massacre of 1655, I would have to challenge your presupposition.
“Not a few historians have noted that Vigilantius’ last known location is precisely where an apparently intractable “heresy” remained in opposition to Rome until the Waldensians were finally removed from the Alpine valleys in the Piedmont Easter Massacre of 1655 A.D.—1,260 years after Vigilantius had first repaired to the Cottian Alps after his encounter with Jerome.”
However, I do agree that the water flood of false doctrine, continues through the 1,260 year period in addition to the persecution of the saints.
The real coming attraction that is yet unfilled between the 1,260 and the 1,290 and the 1,335 year periods is the period of the “killing of the witnesses” (yet unfulfilled).
The persecution of the saints in our generation comes in many forms by Rome’s tremendous civil influence with governments, etc. They are effectively silencing the reformed religion, removing prayer from non-Catholic schools, creating a massive array of anti-protestant bigotry at all levels of global civil society. While you seem to be looking for “visible” promoted death sentences we saw Rome propagate during the period of Inquisition, etc., I think you are missing the “secret society” they have learned to become in promoting persecution.
The Vatican is so filled with such an enormous level of evil and wickedness that on the global scene it has had to literally go underground after the start of the reformation (1385AD) and do everything possible in stealth. These concordats give them civil protections and exemptions from the laws of the Land for which they operate in stealth.
Very few see Rome as but a harmless billion plus strong church, and what they did to the Covenanters and reformers was just the likes of “bloody Mary” going a little bit off kilter. They see nothing wrong with these civil beasts doing anything except for slaughtering a few outspoken protestants to help Rome keep civil obedience.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Satan is having a field day in running up to the end of the 1,260 year period, and putting in place the beginning of the 1260 to 1260 year period of the killing of the witnesses. This 30 year period is going to be extremely deadly and the Vatican followers will be at the forefront to silence the testimony / witnesses soon.
Don’t think it is all over but a few “charges of heresy” from the Vatican without enforcement…you would be deceived to say and teach such things in my view.
Walt, please. Give it a rest. I have never claimed “that the 1,260 year period is ended already” based on “the evidence is there were no further persecution of the saints after the Easter Massacre of 1655.”
Tim
Walt, you flat out lie. No one has enjoyed more free posting privileges here than you. You are a bag of hot air, just flat out misrepresenting people and how you’ve been treated here. I’m a witness. Ive been here as long as you. Tim has bent over backwards to get you into apologetics about your criticisms of his position. But you have established here that you got no game against his position, but you are just the ad hominem king. Why don’t you find someone in your church, and expert on the eschatology you supposedly arrived at and have him come here to engage Tim. You just aren’t up forgot Walt. Step aside brother. You arevembarrasing yourself. K
“Walt, you flat out lie. No one has enjoyed more free posting privileges here than you. You are a bag of hot air, just flat out misrepresenting people and how you’ve been treated here. ”
Kevin, cute reply as you know Tim will block my reply to you as he has blocked 9 out of 10 of my trying defend my name ageist your continued slander of me. I’ve built a long document saving all my responses to you wicked comments. It is easy for you to charge me knowing my responses are blocked. I suggest you keep up your criticisms knowing my defense 9f my name here is blocked.
Tim is extremely gifted in his deception. You will never find him to come out and say he is the only and world best prophet in history. He is too smart to make that statement. However, for those who have read Tim for a couple years it becomes clear he believes he is the world only true prophet of “Scripture alone” teaching prophecy. He and Jack Van Impe are the only true interpreters left in history with both Elliot and M’Leod being discredited by Tim.
What people need to understand is that Tim, while he thinks he has special revelation from God in his “only true teaching” of prophecy, the following Pastoral observation is best suited to help his audience understand where Tim gets his presupposition.
“The second, Mosaic versus Messianic, has some recent pedigree amongst the higher critical commentators ( e.g. John J. Collins, Commentary on Daniel, on 9:26 referring to the murder of Onias III) and modern anti-Christian Jewish apologetes. I am not sure that following higher critics or unbelieving Jews uncritically makes for a “better” defense of Reformation theology against the corruptions of Rome.”
He will never let this post through as it exposes to his readers where he gets his interpretations. There is a brand new group of higher critics that have influenced Tim and his teachings that he does not want exposed. Many of these groups also follow Jewish only readings who ignore the new testament manuscripts in favor of old Testament only readings. Notice how Tim usually only uses the Old Testament book of Daniel and his version of history to interpret prophecy? Of course he sprinkles a few NT gospel passages into his research, but seldom to interpret. His focus is using history alone as his interpretative foundation, but to imply his is the world’s best “bible only” scholar.
To discredit me, he blames the reformers as being ignorant and the Church Of Scotland as cultish. Anyone who uses the word cult or cultish gets immediate credibility and Tim knows this well. Like a good Roman Catholic supporter, they see the reformers and the reformation as evil and cultish. Those like me who support the reformation and reformers, and specifically the Church of Scotland in her glory days, are cultish followers. When you here this people coming from a professed Presbyterian be watchful and careful not to be deceived. The Jesuits are very gifted men and wear many colors to lead people to believe the reformation was evil, the anti-Christ (if the RCC as reformers taught) has ceased in 1644 (Tim’s date), and the premil return of Christ to set up His kingdom will be any day. Stay tuned.
If anyone teaches you the Church of Scotland reformers were cultish, and the RCC ended its earthly reign in 1644, and they are the only true interpreter of prophecy in world history due to finding a couple old history documents that nobody ever saw until him, be very careful. This will be blocked because it contains to much truth and does not conform to Tim’s new restrictions imposed on those of us who teach the facts of where he us getting this info on his theory.
See, Walt? You can’t answer a question. That’s why I block you. Your only resort is the ad hominem.
Tim
Hi Walt, I never quite understood why it’s so important to you for Tim to identify himself as ” the world’s best prophet in history” have you asked the same questions of the Scotish reformers who have given their views on eschatology? Maybe you can explain this to me. I understand that you have a big problem with anyone claiming to reformed and disagreeing with past Reformed positions on eschatology. But it is my understanding that eschatology isn’t settled even in Reformed history. Why don’t you just argue against his position instead of his eligibility to have a position. I think you lose that argument because it isn’t settled law so to speak.
Walt, do you believe the men on whom you have trusted for your eschatological position have ” special revelation from God? ” if so how would you know? Are they infallible in their positions? Thanks K
Kevin said:
“They preached the gospel, they did not use the church to enforce civil authority nor did force Christianity on anyone.”
This demonstrates how confused people get listening to Tim. To teach this view espoused by Tim is so wrong, and is erastianiam at its core. The reformers taught extensively against erastianiam and to have Tim and Kevin teach this is how a civil government works is very confusing to the weak and those who lack knowledge of Scripture.
It is no wonder they both believe there is no earthy Christian civil government on earth. Who on earth would disagree when you views and belief and based on erastianiam.
Then this should be very, very easy for you, Walt.
Kevin said,
To which you responded:
Ok, so why don’t you do the simplest thing: show from the Scriptures that Jesus, Peter and Paul used the church to enforce civil authority and forced Christianity on people.
Kevin says they didn’t do this. You think that demonstrates Kevin’s ignorance.
So show Kevin from the Scriptures that Jesus, Peter and Paul enforced earthly, civil power through the Church. That should be a lead-pipe cinch.
But all you can do is cite the traditions of the Church of Scotland and the Reformers.
Can you not see that yours is a religion steeped in authoritative tradition that nullifies the Scriptures? You wail and moan about people using history to interpret the scriptures, and to correct that error, you then use history to interpret the Scriptures!
Enough of your traditions! Show from the Scriptures that Jesus currently reigns on earth prior to the 7th Trumpet when “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15).
Tim
Tim said:
“So show Kevin from the Scriptures that Jesus, Peter and Paul enforced earthly, civil power through the Church. That should be a lead-pipe cinch.”
You make me smile. I could never show I Scripture that the church created and enforced the civil government because that is not what Scripture teaches. That is taught by you, the Roman Catholics and the Erastians.
Your dispensational view that Jesus has to return bodily to rule a civil government is modern day higher criticism enhanced by Scofield.
Walt said to Tim ” I could never show from scripture that the church created and enforced the civil government because that is not what the scriptures say” we agree. ” that is taught by you” Walt, why do you come here and lie about Tim’s position. Where has he ever taught the church created and enforced civil government. Are you alive? He has taught that Christ doesn’t have a present earthly kingom. And that is true. Tim has never taught that the church enforces civil government. He has said the opposite. You, however, want to reconcile with a “church ” that has done that. It’s laughable that you call Tim a dispensationalist. Do you even understand pure dispensationalism? I think not. Walt, do you believe the Roman Catholic church is antichrist? If you do, then it can in no way ever have been, or ever will be any part of Christ’s kingdom, either on earth or in heaven. It just masquerades as Christ’s natural historic body. It’s not, because scripture has identified it as the false evil that arose from within the church, but never either a visible or invisible part of God’s kingdom. It can’t be it’s anti Christ. Jesus says ” if someone comes to YOU and says I am the Christ don’t believe him.” Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. Tim can correct me if he thinks I’m wrong or misrepresented him in any way. Have a good memorial day Walt. And maybe you can throw away the records you have kept on people here, just like Jesus did when you believed. He blotted out all legal decrees against us. K
Walt ” my wicked comments” you mean like the time you told me that the Spirit in me was evil spirits and not the Spirit of Christ because I dared say that the scriptures take precedent over your curia. Have you kept a record of your wicked comments and ad hominem. I doubt it. Do your leaders know how often you come hear for ” occasional hearing” and do they know how you treat people. I bet not. I apologize for any sinful thing ivevsaidvto you. Identified to make it about your unwillingness to make your own argument against Tim’s position, and the way you treat people here has not been in love.
Tim, Walt can’t make an argument form scripture. Have can’t make argument against your position. My guess is Walt takes your stuff to his guys and they give him the talking points and then he comes hear and regurgitates them like he’s put in the time and throws nine few ad hominem to make it look like he’s done some homework. I think you are wasting your time. He won’t engage your position, he just wants to characterize it and attack it to try to discredit it.
Hi Timothy,
Please I want to ask if you have ever lived in Nigeria.
Thanks
George,
No, I’ve never lived in Nigeria.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Kauffman. I now red for the third time this article.
I am so, so, so, so, so amazed. This is incredible.
Compliment for finding all those details!
its perfect. Perfect is the only description i can give to this.
oh men, i feel sorry for u guys… all those comments by walt…it must have been very exhausting..