← Prophecy Watchers
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:00]
A
Well, I would say let's just go back to Daniel, chapter 9, verses 24 through 27. Read the passage slowly. Clearly working through that passage with sixth grade level grammar, we're going to see very clearly that the Messiah was crucified after the 69th week ended. Yep, the 69th week ended and he's crucified not for himself. And then off in the distant future, we have the 70th week starting. But in between the close of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week, you have the crucifixion of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans and the coming of the Prince who is to come from the Roman people. So you've got these three things that are in between the close of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week. So these weeks do not touch together. It's a future 70th week. And it doesn't, the passage doesn't tell us how much time is going to evolve in that window or that parenthesis, but it does demand a window or
- [01:08]
B
parenthesis at least of 40 years.
- [01:12]
A
Yeah, at least.
- [01:13]
B
At minimum. This is what's. To me, it's really, it's mind boggling that many people try to. In the covenant camp, or even the Jews, if you see them today, because you can tell that they were arguing against the Christian interpretation of. They try to make either the 70th week already all the 70 weeks fulfilled. But from a covenant perspective is this idea that, well, of that 70th week, that final 70th week, the 69 weeks ended. So now you have another seven years and they want to see them contiguous. There's no gap there. So then they say, well, okay, Jesus started it. So the first three and a half years were his, were part of that 70th week, and then the second three and a half years obviously was something else. And you go, well, wait a minute, how does that even possible? How is that possible? Because the 70th week didn't begin sequentially until the temple's destroyed.
- [02:14]
A
That's right.
- [02:15]
B
It's impossible.
- [02:16]
A
That's right. And if, if you were going to stick with a literal seven years and you measure that from AD 70, you are not going to go. The kingdom should have come at A.D. 77.
- [02:30]
B
Right.
- [02:30]
A
Or whatever's going to happen should have happened.
- [02:32]
B
Whatever should have happened, yeah. So this is where. So you. So here again, let's go back a little bit to what we understand as a. You, you have obviously there is, there is. I Can read it. Let me, let me read this. In Daniel 9, a lot of people will argue that. Well, there's. Why are you guys assuming that the 70th week mentioned here is identical to the Tribulation? Okay. Or using Daniel 12's language, a time of great trial, a great wrath. We see Jesus using similar language, something that's never happened in the history of the world up until then and never will be again. He's quoting Daniel chapter 12. But in Daniel 9 it talks about. It says this, then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. But in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate or the desolator. Here we have this idea of desolations.
- [03:42]
A
Yes.
- [03:42]
B
That doesn't seem like a positive thing. Right? No.
- [03:45]
A
I mean, once you take up the subject of the abomination of desolation, you're taking up the subject of the Antichrist. You're now in the ground or on the ground of a literal tribulation at the end of the age.
- [03:58]
B
Yeah. So it's not like even in the language itself, it's associating this time with a time of trouble.
- [04:05]
A
That's right.
- [04:05]
B
And here's a guy called the desolator. So he's coming and he's desolating things. Right. And what is desolation? Well, it means to bring something to ruin. Right. So you have that imagery. But other also talk about. Because I don't think anybody. There's very few, I'll say it that way, that has done as much as you have done in the early church fathers, especially in the non English church fathers, which most people don't have access to. And you've been researching them, looking for language that would speak about all of these things that we understand. You know, an Antichrist, a tribulation period, even a rapture, which we'll get to the rapture in a second. Talk about even what you have found, especially Irenaeus, who has discussed the idea of a tribulation. Physical, literal. A physical literal Antichrist. I mean, people say, oh, what's wrong with you people? You know this. That all started with Darby. That's dispensationalism on steroids. Again, a distinction of modern dispensationalism is the idea that there's going to be a literal Antichrist and there's going to be this period of tribulation which we describe as the 70th week of Daniel, there's going to be a literal guy in a literal temple, etc. And they'll say that started with Darby. So once again, is that true?
- [05:23]
A
Absolutely not true. I mean, because when you take up Irenaeus, you're taking up a man who lived about 1700 years prior to where Darby's pre tribulational ministry started. And so when you look at Irenaeus, we discover something very interesting. Not only did he teach a pre trib rapture, he taught the foundation stones of dispensationalism, a distinction between Israel and the church. Now we say Israel in the church. His common terminology is the Old Testament church and the New Testament church.
- [05:56]
B
Now let's, before I don't want to move too fast, the word church comes from ekklesia in the Greek. So he's writing in Greek, ecclesia just
- [06:03]
A
means what the assembly or the synagogue or the gathering.
- [06:07]
B
The gathering. So we oftentimes today we will use the word church. And certainly dispensationalists do. They will use it as a technical term. That's right. But that isn't that we have to be careful with that. Right. Because that could work against the idea where you say, oh well, he's using the word church there and he's talking about the Old Testament ecclesia. But that's, it's just a general Greek word. Right, right.
- [06:32]
A
Well, and where it comes from is Irenaeus was using the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which uses the word ekklesia dozens and dozens of times as a representation of Israel, particularly Israel in the wilderness.
- [06:51]
B
And you have the word adat Hebrew, which is the word congregation.
- [06:56]
A
Yeah.
- [06:56]
B
And so even today you have like if there's some, several Messianic churches. Messianic congregations, see, I'll use that word. They're called adat shalom or you know, adat Yeshua. They are the congregation of the Messiah or Mashiach. And so the Hebrew word adat is translated in the Old Testament Septuagint as ekklesia. So it's not a technical term. Only for the New Testament ekklesia, the church made up of Jews and Gentiles. And so this, so when so talk about that. Because many of the covenant theologians will say, see there, there's Irenaeus Y not making a distinction between the two groups, but they're forcing, it's interesting how they're forcing a New Testament dispensational distinction. I don't know why they embrace that on the passage, but that's not what the passage is saying.
- [07:46]
A
That's exactly right. So what Irenaeus does is he talks about the Old Testament church. God's going to finish his program with the Old Testament church, goes into the New Testament church. The New Testament era, where we're at. He's got a few things left to finish with the Old Testament church, but he goes to the New Testament Church, he's going to finish the New Testament church program, and then he's going to go back and pick up with the Old Testament church where we left off. And in the tribulation, a literal tribulation, the Old Testament church is going to be persecuted by the Antichrist. In the tribulation, the Old Testament church is going to offer sacrifices in the temple that are acceptable to God. So he's got the Old Testament program, which is Israel in the tribulation, offering sacrifices and persecuted. Now people say, well, see, the church is being persecuted by the Antichrist. He's talking about the Old Testament Church, not the New Testament Church, talking about Jews.
- [08:45]
B
Right.
- [08:45]
A
And he makes it very clear, and this is a classic example, that if you don't understand a person's ecclesiology, you probably are not going to understand their eschatology either.
- [08:55]
B
Yeah, that's super powerful because again, when you. I look at one of the best examples is First Corinthians 10:32, where Paul says, give no offense to the Jew or the Gentile or the church.
- [09:11]
A
That's right.
- [09:11]
B
And you go, whoa, whoa, whoa, where's he getting these three groups? He basically separates out the church as being a distinct group group from the Jews and Gentiles. Now we know that this new body of believers, Ephesians chapter 2, is made up of Jews and Gentiles, but it's a one new body.
- [09:32]
A
That's right.
- [09:33]
B
That's what I find. It's separated from the idea of Old Testament national Israel, corporate Israel. And so here again, let's summarize a couple things. Many of the distinctions of what we understand as dispensationalism clearly did not start with Darby. Right?
- [09:56]
A
That's absolutely right. They're based in the Bible. They were understood, many of them, by the Old Testament Jews. They were understood by the early church. They were lost in the church or largely buried when replacement theology took over starting in the second century and coming full hilt, full tilt by the third century.