Imminent.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Many who are dispensationalists believe the Temple has to be rebuilt in Israel and sacrifices have to be reinstituted. I mean, that is the purpose of the Temple is to allow for sacrifice...and supposedly this Antichrist figure has to set himself up in the Temple as a god....

You say you're not playing rhetorical games, but the "crime" you charge the school of dispensationalism with - 're-instituting animal sacrifice' - is neither not the case at all, nor is it some wild "belief" they have, but the consequence of a literal, futuristic fulfillment of prophecy, given by no less an authority of all things to be than Christ Jesus Himself.

Mt 24:15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place..."

Now "Holy Place" is defined in Exodus 26:30-35 as being in the Temple, but in front of the Curtain, which blocks off the Most Holy Place. This definition is repeated twice in 1Kings chapter 6 as well.

So Jesus says the middle of the one 'seven' happens in the Temple.
This is after saying in both a literal and figurative manner that the Temple would be torn down - which is also set as a literal event between the sixty-two 'sevens' and the one 'seven' in Daniel 9:26.

It is not the belief that sacrifices must be re-instituted, but a fact of prophecy that sacrifice and offering - which are two functions the Jewish Priests perform on a daily basis within the Holy Place - must cease as is stated to happen during the one 'seven' in Daniel 9:27.

In order for them to cease at a future time, they must be re-instituted. Those who will begin sacrifice and offering are the Jews: specifically, the Sanhedrin.

They cease when the abomination of desolation, a talking image in Rev 13:15 as Jesus reveals to John is set up by the false prophet of the "land", which can refer to Israel - and logically to the head of the Sanhedrin - which has in recent years, been re-constituted as a legal, theological body in Israel.

Furthermore, it is Paul who states, quite plainly in the Greek, that the Man of Lawlessness sets himself up in the Temple in 2Th 2:4

Those are Biblically-true, prophetic facts. It is not some wild belief as you dismiss it in trying to typify dispensaitonal teaching.

By the way, I would be classified as a Progressive Dispensationalist, with some reservations as to how that is defined by various webpages afforded by a quick Google search...

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

...and supposedly this Antichrist figure has to set himself up in the Temple as a god....

How in the world can you say "supposedly"?

This is a fundamental difference in hermeneutics. I doubt if you spiritualize what Paul said in 2Th 2:4, that you're even going to allow me to look at it in a literal manner.

Then, it is not so much a matter that we just differ, but that one simply doesn't look at the New Testament that way - and then any differing view becomes "dangerous" - not so much to the believer, but to the whole manner in which you interpret Scripture.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

My point is that this view emphasizes the circumcised, physical Israelite and sees an end times focus by God on this people group based on their flesh, not their faith. God has to rapture the church away so he can focus on the national Israelites...is that not the purpose of the rapture?

Incorrect - three times.

1. The emphasis on dispesnationalism is to:
A.) understand how the very real, persistent, schism between Jew and Christian will be truly united,
B.) understand the reason for the Millennium, and to
C.) understand how OT prophecy concerning this unique time will be fulfilled by Jesus, and through Him, bring the Sheep of Israel into the body of the Elect, uniting both in Him.

Question: In the Millennium, how can you come to blind faith in that which is unseen and so enjoy Grace - when Jesus is a present reality and can be proved?
Dispensationalism, in regards to the Millennium, does not remove faith as much as Jesus does (as a condition for salvation) - when He is a present reality and the people can see Him, as is foretold when He will be on the earth.
What my brand of dispensationalism does is to try to undernstand how those who can see Him are brought into the body of Christ in spirit as prophesied.

The Church Age is when salvation is granted through faith.
The Millennium changes the entire theological doctrine of basic Christian thought.
The Millennium is a new paradigm, and your present thinking, which suits you just fine as it has for two thousand years, no longer applies.
The difference I have with A- and Post-Mills is that they stumble over their basic theological doctrine for saving souls in understanding how the Millennium can even be. They don't get it.

2. The reason for the Rapture is not because God has to focus on the natural borne nation of Israel.

The reason for the Rapture is three-fold.
A.) The Elect would be eliminated entirely if not rescued.
B.) The legal aspect of testimony - there will be living eye witnesses to Christ's parousia.
C.) We are not meant for Wrath, and God's Wrath comes right on the heels of the Rapture - on the Day of the Lord, just as it happened with Noah and Lot.

3. The purpose of the Rapture is the fulfillment of God's promise to gather us up on the last day. God fulfills His Promises, and speaking of which, there are promises galore in the OT for Israel which have yet to be fulfilled, but which I look to the Millennium for that.

 

[Wormwood]

Marcus,

There are so many assumptions in your posts that it is hard to even know where to begin.

You say you're not playing rhetorical games, but the "crime" you charge the school of dispensationalism with - 're-instituting animal sacrifice' - is neither not the case at all, nor is it some wild "belief" they have, but the consequence of a literal, futuristic fulfillment of prophecy, given by no less an authority of all things to be than Christ Jesus Himself.

I am charging dispensationalism with the crime of rhetorical games? How am i charging dispensationalism with rhetorical games? I am not sure what you are trying to say here as it doesnt seem to make sense. If you are accusing me of misrepresenting Dispensationalism, please tell me how this is the case. Do you not believe that animal sacrifices must be reinstituted in order for prophecy to be fulfilled? It seems clear that you do because you say this is the "futuristic fulfillment of prophecy, given by no less an authority of all things to be than Christ Jesus Himself."

So, I am not charging Dispensationalism with rhetorical games. I simply said Dispensationalism demands the reinstitution of animal sacrifice and you seem to admit this fact and claim that Jesus prophesied as much.

The problem is that you cannot see your own laden assumptions in what Jesus said. Jesus was speaking to his disciples! He was talking to them about the time in which they should "flee" and "pray" that this period would not be in the winter. If this is referring to the Second Coming, then what use is fleeing? Why would it matter if its in winter? Jesus is talking to his disciples here about the destruction of the Temple that they were currently standing in front of and not some future Temple that has been rebuilt. You have inserted this meaning into the text and you dont even see it. You have stripped the words of Jesus out of the context of talking with his disciples about the abomination of that current Temple and have turned it into some future Temple referring to our day with absolutely nothing to do with the conversation Jesus is having with a group of men standing in Jerusalem in the first century. This is what I mean. Dispensationalists are so prone to springboard everything in Scripture into some future imagined chart and timeline that they pay absolutely no attention to the context and the audience in which the words were actually spoken.

Moreover, the "abomination which causes desolation" is something that many people debate about and you make it sound like its oh so crystal clear and I am just rejecting the plain teaching of Jesus. Not so simple. Personally, I believe the "abomination which causes desolation" is the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus coupled by the continuance of animal sacrifice while ignoring his perfect sacrifice. So, the abomination is the rejection of Jesus which causes the desolation of the Temple. Consider the following texts:

““But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.” (Luke 21:20, ESV) (note: Jesus is talking with his disciples here)

““O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate.” (Matthew 23:37–38, ESV)

“But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”” (Luke 23:28–31, ESV)

Now "Holy Place" is defined in Exodus 26:30-35 as being in the Temple, but in front of the Curtain, which blocks off the Most Holy Place. This definition is repeated twice in 1Kings chapter 6 as well.

Yes, sacrifices offered in the Temple after the perfect sacrifice were an abomination to the Lord. This brought about its desolation in 70AD and all the stones were toppled over, just as Jesus described.

“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water... “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

In the context of these verses, the author of Hebrews is specifically talking about sacrifice and the danger of ignoring the sacrifice of Christ and continuing to sacrifice animals which can never take away sins. Those who rejected the sacrifice of Christ and continued to offer animal sacrifices were outraging the Spirit of grace and were bringing judgment on themselves. Jesus also makes this clear in Matthew 22, just prior to his discussion with the disciples about the abomination that causes desolation when he says:

“And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.” ’ But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.” (Matthew 22:1–10, ESV)

Now, I am sure you will not agree with me, but that is not the point. The point is that this isnt as simple as saying, "Look, Jesus said it and I believe him literally and you do not." No, I believe Jesus literally and I believe it happened just as he said to his disciples. He predicted the destruction of the Temple and told them to flee the area when sacrifices would continue after he had been rejected and killed. Hebrews tells us these sacrifices were displeasing to God and those who rejected the new covenant in favor of the blood of bulls and goats would be subject to judgment and Jesus himself said that the King would "burn their city" because they refused to celebrate the accomplishment of the Son. In my opinion, that is what is going on here and there is nothing in the text that suggests that Jesus was talking about a different Temple other than the one he was standing before, or that he was making any reference to a future tribulation thousands of years away or an Antichrist. This is all inserted by Dispensationalists and would have made no sense to the disciples listening to Jesus, the early church, or frankly, any person in the church for the following 1,800 years.

Those are Biblically-true, prophetic facts. It is not some wild belief as you dismiss it in trying to typify dispensaitonal teaching.
By the way, I would be classified as a Progressive Dispensationalist, with some reservations as to how that is defined by various webpages afforded by a quick Google search...

Well, they are your version of prophesy. Unfortunately, they dont have a shred of evidence to support them historically. They are all based on future claims of what one believes is going to happen in the future, all the while ignoring that Jesus was talking about the Temple he was standing in front of while talking with his disciples!

I understand you have your own special nuances as a dispensationalist. Most do. The concepts are rarely ever similar because they are mostly based on speculation and imagination about future events. My research in this area, I assure you, does not come from Google. It comes from many years of classes, study and scholarship. I address Dispensationalism generally as it was proposed by Darby. I think that is the only way to have a meaningful conversation on the topic as I cannot be expected to know all the varying differences of every individual on their views on tribulation, rapture, timelines, and so forth.

How in the world can you say "supposedly"?

Because Jesus never mentions an "Antichrist" when he speaks of "the abomination which causes desolation." And, since he was talking to his disciples about when "you" witness these things, then obviously (if there is to be an Antichrist) they have long since been dead prior to his arrival. Personally, as shown above, I do not think it has anything to do with an antichrist because I believe it refers to the rejection of Jesus by his own people and the sacrifices that continued in the Temple that displayed a rejection of him as their Lord and sacrifice. I can go into great detail as to how I believe Daniel's prophecy also substantiates this position if you like...

I doubt if you spiritualize what Paul said in 2Th 2:4, that you're even going to allow me to look at it in a literal manner.

It is difficult to study these passages with the propensity to jump from text to text to make connections. Suppose there is an Antichrist, my point is that Jesus is talking to his disciples about the Temple they were standing in front of and warning them about when THEY saw this abomination which causes desolation to flee. Yet you want to insert a text where Paul is talking to the Thessalonians about this "man of sin" who exalts himself in the Temple. You assume that both are talking about a future Temple. What if Jesus is talking with his disciples about the present Temple they were discussing in that moment and Paul is talking about a future temple, or even a spiritual temple? You see, these are different contexts with different authors and different audiences making different points. You cant just cram them all together and assume a priori that they are all dealing with a future Temple in the final few years of history.

So, my point is simply this. Even if it can be shown in the NT that there will be an Antichrist and there will be a future Temple, that does not mean that this is what Jesus is talking about in Matt. 25. Moreover, it does not mean that there will be a future dispensation in which God focuses on the people of Israel for the millennium reign. These are all completely separate from what Jesus is talking about in Matt. 25 and there is no way the disciples would have understood such concepts coming from that discussion. Personally, I dont think 2 Thess 2 is referring to an Antichrist at all, but I know I am in the minority in this regard. In any event, I think we need to deal with one text at a time rather than filling in all the blanks of your eschatology by ripping verses from Gospels, Daniel's visions, Revelation, Epistles and so forth without regard to their context.

Question: In the Millennium, how can you come to blind faith in that which is unseen and so enjoy Grace - when Jesus is a present reality and can be proved?
Dispensationalism, in regards to the Millennium, does not remove faith as much as Jesus does (as a condition for salvation) - when He is a present reality and the people can see Him, as is foretold when He will be on the earth.

I understand and that is why I reject this notion. I dont believe the Jews will get a second chance to accept Jesus apart from faith in a millennial age. I dont think that is even close to what Revelation is trying to communicate. Not only does it place an unhealthy interest in national Israel as the object of Jesus' focus in history, but it gives the notion that there will be second chances for people who did not respond to Jesus by faith who can perhaps embrace him as their King during the millennium. The entire book of Matthew shows this is not the case. If Israel does not accept the Messiah as a suffering servant who surrenders his life then they will experience him only as a Judge and not as an exalted King. If the Kingdom of God is not accepted in the way Jesus inaugurated it in his first coming, they will not experience the glories of it in his Second coming.

“But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” (Matthew 25:26–30, ESV)

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Dispensationalism demands the reinstitution of animal sacrifice and you seem to admit this fact and claim that Jesus prophesied as much.

Dispensationalism demands no such thing.

A literal reading of prophecy concludes that prophecy demands such things as sacrifice and offering be in place at such time of the end - in the middle of the one 'seven' which is not a figurative time frame - in order for them to cease.

And Gabriel, communicating to Daniel from God, said they would.

Again, what we have is a failure to communicate.

 

[Wormwood]

Dispensationalism demands no such thing.

A literal reading of prophecy concludes that prophecy demands such things as sacrifice and offering be in place at such time of the end - in the middle of the one 'seven' which is not a figurative time frame - in order for them to cease.

Come on Marcus. These are just word games. My view of prophecy does not demand another Temple to be rebuilt or the reinstitution of animal sacrifices. Let us not confuse your interpretation of what the Bible says with what it actually says. Your interpretation (dispensationalism) demands it but this was NOT the case for 1800 years. Again, lets not pretend no one believed the Bible or prophecy for the first 1800 years of church history. It just makes your argument come across as someone who is so entrenched in their view they cannot see out of their own foxhole. We can have a conversation where we compare ideas or you can have a monlogue where you say that you dont have a view, you just believe the plain ol teachin of the Bible and apparently no one else does. But we cannot have both.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Jesus was speaking to his disciples! He was talking to them about the time in which they should "flee" and "pray" that this period would not be in the winter.

(You forgot the Sabbath. Now why would Jesus be concerned that the Jews would be limited in their travel if this happened on a Friday night / Satur-day?)

In His fifth Discourse in Matthew, the message delivered, like all four Discourses before - is for the Church.

Context, context, context:
The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 is in answer to two questions -
-- "Tell us, when will these things happen, and
-- what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Now this is very important WW: Jesus never answered the first question; instead, He talks of the "end," - when He will come again. Jesus didn't come during the first Jewish Revolt. He didn't come in the second one either.

If this is referring to the Second Coming, then what use is fleeing? Why would it matter if its in winter?

Yes, Jesus is referring to when He comes again.

See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many. 6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

Not a word about the Temple.

We still have wars, and rumors of wars, and there are still earthquakes and famines, and nations and kingdoms are in conflict. This is not yet the end. These things which are tumultuous about us are just the beginnings of birth pains! Wait until the birth and the mother dies in the process!

9 " Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12 Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

That happens when the first of three Angels come in Revelation chapter 14 - right before the Harvest from the clouds, i.e., the Rapture.
___________________________

Having given the broad overview leading up to the "end" twice now, Jesus begins, in parallel fashion, a detailed linear narrative which focuses on five specific and unique events which happen towards the end.

He starts with the first one: the abomination(s) desolation (siqqusim mesomen) of Daniel 9:27.

15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place ( let the reader understand),

The four Disciples Jesus is talking to didn't live to see the first Jewish Revolt. He is not talking to them per se, but in the generic fashion to the Church.

Now since you have such a different understanding of this verse than me, allow me to explain how it works from a literal viewpoint.

-- And we're not talking about a dispensational viewpoint; no, we're talking about a literal viewpoint which says this is still in the future. This will be like Greek to you.
___________________________

When the abomination is set up in the Temple, the talking image of the King of the North, the Lord "delays" His Return.

Jesus doesn't come immediately; the Two Witnesses do.
And things are about to get very, very bad.

The next (second) thing to happen is the Great Tribulation.

21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

This is not the tribulation the first century Church endured. This is not the many times the Church was persecuted by Rome and others. This is not the normal tribulation all of us endure.

This time is unique because it has not occurred since the beginning of the world - nor ever will (again). That makes it unique, and specific because it only happens after the midpoint abomination. And no, when the Priests provide what is required by the Law, they are not an abomination. They just aren't saved, and since they are under the Law, the Law will convict them; and that means death.

This is why those in Judea - who will form the basis for the Remnant Jews - must flee:

At that time, those Jews in Judea, which, being south of Jerusalem, escaped the King of the North's flooding invasion from the north - still have not been overrun, and this is their last chance to flee and make it into the wilderness where God will protect them for a time, times, and half a time - Rev 12:6 and 14.

Again, what takes next is the Great Tribulation, and those in Judea must escape it.
And when Satan cannot ensnare all the Jews, he takes after us, with a vengeance, and most of us are going to die.

The sequence of events from the start of the one 'seven' to the midpoint abomination look like this:

• Covenant with many prevailed by the ruler who will come.
• Authority given (by God) to the beast of a man for one-half of the one 'seven.'
.....o The rebellion occurs
.....o Opposition and exaltation
.....o He wages war against and oppresses the Saints for half of the one 'seven.'
.....o We are to endure patiently (remember Rev 3:10 and John 17:15)
.....o Temple w/ Gentiles 42 mos.
• Rise of the false prophet with miracles and 'fire from the sky.'
• The “one” removed from the midst
• Gog/Magog War
• Armies surround Jerusalem.
• Midpoint Abomination: Erection of the talking image of the anti-Christ -Setting himself up as God
.....o Jews flee into the wilderness – protected for ½ of one ‘seven’
.....o Two laws which make the Great Tribulation the worst time ever for the Church in terms of persecution.
.....o The man of lawlessness revealed
.....o Court of God is seated; books opened (Rev 4-8:1)
.....o Two Witnesses 1260 days - can call down Wrath
.....o Satan pursues, but cannot catch the Jews, so he turns on the Christians
.....o Great Tribulation.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Come on Marcus. These are just word games.

No, they're not.

We have a fundamental difference in how we look at Scripture.

It has nothing to do with doctrine.

It has everything to do with how we think.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

"Words mean things" - Rush Limbaugh, and he's right.

Words have power.

When you say dispensational demands - and I point out correctly that it is God's Word that demands - you charge me with playing word games.

They are nothing of the sort.

 

[n2thelight]

And
Among those who are truly born again, there are many views of how things will play out, prophetically speaking. At the same time, there are also many who don't know and many who don't care about prophecy--what God has foretold about their future. They are too busy living out their increments of life one heartbeat and breath at a time.
Sadly, the latter by far constitute the majority. That is, most don't know about Bible prophecy, and most don't care. They are aided and abetted in their willful ignorance by the pastors and Bible teachers within their church bodies in this disregard for the prophetic portion of God's Word. That prophetic Word is almost one-third of the Scripture the Lord has given us through His Love Letter to mankind.
Even more specifically, I want to concentrate for the moment on the doctrine of the Rapture of the Church--that twinkling of an eye moment Paul wrote about as recorded in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:52-55.
Of those who have truly been born again, there are few in number who know about the Rapture in concrete terms or who grasp that there will come that moment of being called into Heaven by their Lord. In America, even those who do understand that the Rapture is an event prophetically scheduled according to the Bible resist embracing the promise intrinsic within the doctrine of that imminent call from Christ. That is, rather than desire to hear Christ's call, "Come up here," (Revelation 4: 1) these want to first live life on earth and fulfill all of the anticipated pleasures it offers

Okay,so at what point in time did Christ return become imminent?

As for Rev 4,I do believe it was John who was told to come up,can someone please tell me how you get a rapture of the Church out of that verse?

Revelation 4:1 "After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter."

 

[n2thelight]

If you look today.2016 , 90% of so called Christians reject the rapture and that Israel has a different path , most Christian ignore the saying and don't even understand the saying Jacobs troubles {TRIBULATION} it just flows off them like water off a Ducks back and they just go on with THEIR dogma what the bible and prophecy should say and not what it is really saying!Enjoy

We reject it because there's no truth in it.

 

[Wormwood]

Context, context, context:
The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 is in answer to two questions -
-- "Tell us, when will these things happen, and
-- what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"
Now this is very important WW: Jesus never answered the first question; instead, He talks of the "end," - when He will come again. Jesus didn't come during the first Jewish Revolt. He didn't come in the second one either.

Actually, Jesus speaks to both issues. He speaks of the destruction of the Temple as well as his second coming. Consider the following...

“As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.

And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” (Matthew 24:3–29, ESV)

Lets look at the above text. The red I have marked as something that Jesus was telling his disciples would happen to them. Much of this also applies to any disciple of Jesus so it has application for us as well, but Jesus is specifically speaking to his disciples about what they would see and what they would experience. It would make no sense if Jesus was saying these things to them about what they would experience if it wasnt true!!! I have marked in bold specific references to Jesus talking about what these men would encounter personally. We know this because Jesus is using 2nd person pronouns in specific reference to these men. "...leads you astray....you will hear...when you see..." Of course, as his disciples, we can expect experience the same trials, deceptions and so forth, but this is specifically addressed to Jesus' own disciples. If you ignore that then you are basically ripping the entire section out of context and making all of this discussion of Jesus with these men entirely meaningless. The entire narrative might as well not even exist based on your rendition of it.

The green I have marked as that which would happen at his coming. Jesus is primarily focusing on the lives of his disciples. Yes, they want to know about the end of the age, but Jesus is talking to them about what they need to be prepared for. Rather than focusing on the establishment of the Kingdom and this Temple before them, he is trying to cast their gaze on coming trials, deceptions and even the destruction of this magnificent structure they are admiring. Jesus tells them, "after the Gospel has been preached....then the end will come." However, the focus is on the fact that trials must come first and that they should not be alarmed or allow those trials to cause them to seek refuge in other false Christs and teachers. Jesus is preparing them in advance.

Not a word about the Temple.
We still have wars, and rumors of wars, and there are still earthquakes and famines, and nations and kingdoms are in conflict. This is not yet the end. These things which are tumultuous about us are just the beginnings of birth pains! Wait until the birth and the mother dies in the process!

Not a word about the Temple? The talk about the Temple is what sparks this whole discussion in Matthew 24!

“Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”” (Matthew 24:1–2, ESV)

It is this shocking revelation about the Temple's destruction that causes the disciples to ask about the end (clearly in their minds the destruction of the Temple must mean the end of the age. Jesus is informing them otherwise. Wars and suffering would come...but the end is not yet. The end would come when Christ returns, not due to some war or Temple destruction.).

Having given the broad overview leading up to the "end" twice now, Jesus begins, in parallel fashion, a detailed linear narrative which focuses on five specific and unique events which happen towards the end.
He starts with the first one: the abomination(s) desolation (siqqusim mesomen) of Daniel 9:27.

Actually, Jesus is telling them the opposite of what you are proposing. Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple, the abomination which causes desolation, wars and rumors of wars and even the death of these very disciples, but these things were just the beginning of the birth pains. These things do not mark the end, rather they mark the beginning of this tribulation that would encompass the entire age of the Gospel being spread throughout the world. That is why John uses 3.5 years in Revelation. It is not because he wants us to add them together and create some 7 year tribulation scene. Rather he is pointing to Daniels prophecy that the "Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.” (Daniel 9:24, ESV) The FOCUS of the 70 weeks is to bring an end to sin, fulfill the OT and anoint the holy place (Jesus). However, Daniel's prophecy ends at 69.5 weeks. Thus, there is a half of a week that remains and Revelation uses this number symbolically to depict the age of the church and the time of tribulation between the time which Christ would atone for iniquity and his Second Coming. Again, the numbers in Revelation are to be weighed, not counted, multiplied or added!

No, they're not.
We have a fundamental difference in how we look at Scripture.
It has nothing to do with doctrine.
It has everything to do with how we think.

Yes, how we think is shaped by our doctrine. This is all about doctrine and how the NT interprets the OT. The NT writers continually point to Christ as both literally and symbolically fulfilling all of the OT...from the new covenant promised to Jeremiah, to his body being the true Temple, to John the Baptist being Elijah, to Jesus being God's Son called out of Egypt, to the Sabbath being the rest in Christ, to the manna in the desert being the body of Christ, to circumcision being a matter of the heart primarily, to Sarah and Hagar being representatives of the NT and OT, to the church being called "a chosen priesthood" and "a holy nation." All over the NT we see the NT writers pointing to Jesus as the complete fulfillment of all Gods plans and promises for Israel and those who trust in this Messiah are made equal heirs and children of Abraham regardless of their natural decent. So, our approach to the Bible, the work of Christ and what God has planned for the future has everything to do with our doctrine and that doctrine influences our we read the Scriptures, including those that are apocalyptic and predictive in nature.

When you say dispensational demands - and I point out correctly that it is God's Word that demands - you charge me with playing word games.
They are nothing of the sort.

When you say "Scripture demands" something that no one in Church history believed for 1800 years, then I dont think Scripture really "demands" it. You are overstating your case and acting as if your interpretation is one of necessity rather than one merely influenced by your dispensational contact lenses (which is actually the case).

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Actually, Jesus speaks to both issues.

It's not there. Point specifically to the words Jesus uses to describe the coming destruction of the Temple He said would happen before their walk across the Kidron Valley started.

The red I have marked as something that Jesus was telling his disciples would happen to them.

Again is the message is also to the Church in the end. All of Jesus' five Discourses, which is the central theme to the book of Matthew, are to the Church. This is no different because the only thing Jesus talks about is when He is coming again - and that is utmost importance to the Church.

The talk about the Temple is what sparks this whole discussion in Matthew 24!

No, while they may have connected Jesus' parousia to the destruction of the Temple, they had a walk of less than a mile to discuss among themselves, and then Disciples came to Him - so we don't know what expanded their question to Jesus - and while the matter concerning the Temple is questioned first, Jesus never addresses its destruction again. There is no talk of zealots, Romans, sieges, ruin, or destruction from war upon either the city or the sanctuary.

Actually, Jesus is telling them the opposite of what you are proposing. Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple, the abomination which causes desolation, wars and rumors of wars and even the death of these very disciples, but these things were just the beginning of the birth pains.

Jesus never discusses the destruction of the Temple. You keep saying He does, but it's not there.

He specifically references Daniel for the abomination, calling him a prophet when the Jews did not. They put his book in the poetry section of the Tanach.

That is why John uses 3.5 years in Revelation. It is not because he wants us to add them together and create some 7 year tribulation scene. Rather he is pointing to Daniels prophecy that the "Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.” (Daniel 9:24, ESV) The FOCUS of the 70 weeks is to bring an end to sin, fulfill the OT and anoint the holy place (Jesus). However, Daniel's prophecy ends at 69.5 weeks. Thus, there is a half of a week that remains and Revelation uses this number symbolically to depict the age of the church and the time of tribulation between the time which Christ would atone for iniquity and his Second Coming. Again, the numbers in Revelation are to be weighed, not counted, multiplied or added!

No, Gabriel splits the one 'seven' in half in 9:27. The two halves are mentioned five times in Revelation due to its parallel construction of timelines overlapping concurrent but disparate viewpoints.

What God reveals to John is that different actions occur in each half.

Both first and second halves are put 1-2 in the sidebar account of the Temple and the Two Witnesses in Rev 11:1-13. This sidebar account interrupts the broad overview of the Seal/Scroll chronology of chapters 4 through 11 exclusive of it.

The second half is repeated twice in Chapter 12 with its dual parallel accounts of the woman and the serpent - showing the same action from two different focuses.

Chapters 13 through 16 inclusive, is the detailed parallel account to the Seal/Scroll chronology giving us critical information. The first half is described with information for us in chapter 13 which leads up to the talking image abomination - which is the revealed monster of Daniel 9:27.

The point is, when you take an idealized viewpoint, you naturally think in figurative terms. That is why you say what you do.

Yes, how we think is shaped by our doctrine.

No. Doctrine has nothing to do with it. Doctrine is the black mark of religion, and it puts its holder into a strait jacket that can allow no other thought.

How we interpret a passage is shaped by our view.

You take an idealized view - which leads you to dismiss any concrete application because it's all figurative and spiritual - and you see fundamental truths expressed.

I take a literal view - which you abhor - raising all kinds of straw man complaints about seven-eyed sheep - and I see a future fulfillment.

A literal view is not ultra-literal in that everything is at face value. That is a simpleton's view of it and your criticism of a futuristic take borders on that as well in criticism.

How you view Revelation shapes your view of it, and thus your interpretation. Over the course of the whole Bible, you will shape rules which apply to the way you interpret the Bible, and those rules become your doctrine.

When you say "Scripture demands" something that no one in Church history believed for 1800 years, then I dont think Scripture really "demands" it.

Don't tell me what everybody believed for 1800 years when for much of that time they had an unrealistic framework in which to view prophecy.

Augustine is the father of Amillennialism. He was a product of Platonism. He wrongly thought as the Roman Catholic Church became the bureaucratic administration for Rome that Christianity had conquered Rome. So he discarded the Historical perspective then of Premillennialism (which is why the earliest eschatology is Premillennialism and it is called Historic Premillennialism) and adopted Amillennialism.

This view was taught for over 1600 years and it is still taught today in the RCC and Lutheran Church, which carried much of Catholic Church with it in the Protestant schism.

Bible interpretation is not based on democracy or a call to plurality in opinion. That is a false argument on either count.

Bible interpretation can be judged by what the commentator can show out of the Bible itself.

We all have the same book; it's not changed appreciably. We have the original languages - largely intact! Which is almost a miracle in and of itself considering how much other languages have changed over the centuries.

So your argument is void. It doesn't matter what Amillennial scholars thought for the 1400 years that they had a stranglehold on Christian thought. For centuries, the common man didn't even have a Bible, and the Priests in the RCC spoke in Latin. The reason we have stained glass windows, is that is how the uneducated got the essential Gospel message - through pictures and stories.

So now that we are in the 21st Century, and we know more than people did 100, 200, 400, and 1000 years ago - we can look at the Bible and see for ourselves!

When prophecy says (he will cause) sacrifice and offering to cease - it is only logical to say that in order for something to cease, it must be going on.

That is a logical fact WW.

So it is Scripture that "logically demands" that offering and sacrifice be in place - and the only legal place for it for the JEW - is in the Temple. And John is told to go measure one in Jerusalem. THAT is not some spiritual temple of the Church, but a brick and mortar building in the Holy City.

Now you can spiritualize that away all you want, but I think you subtract meaning when you do. And that might lead you to think some very different things about prophecy, thing which I think may lead you to accept the mark of the beast when it is required of us to get a paycheck, or buy groceries, or pay our utilities. And that could be very dangerous to you and any who you persuade to adopt your viewpoint.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

It is not because he wants us to add them together and create some 7 year tribulation scene.

The one 'seven' is not the "Tribulation period."

The Great Tribulation is not seven years long either.

The Great Tribulation starts at the midpoint abomination.

It is cut short by the arrival of the Day of the Lord.

It might last a few weeks to a few months - it won't take long to wipe out the Elect with the two laws which will be instituted at the midpoint abomination in this day and age. If you can run, they will catch you. They are faster and already wherever you might be trying to go.

The one 'seven' is yet to be. It is not a "scene" nor is it a "scheme."

Gabriel puts three events after the sixty-two 'sevens'.

1. The Messiah will be cut off - this is karat - the cutting of the covenant, which is one of the bona fide translations of that Hebrew word.
2. The city and the sanctuary will be destroyed. This happens almost 40 years after Jesus was crucified on the Cross.
3. Wars continue until the end - and the end is coincidental with the end of seventy 'sevens' with the one 'seven'!

Now as we still have war, and war is prominent with the Second Woe, killing a third of the earth's population - the one 'seven' has not happened yet.

• Jesus made no seven-year Covenant.
• Neither did Titus.
• "Abomination" in the Bible refers almost exclusively to idol worship.
• Neither hanging Jesus on the Cross nor fulfilling the ritual Law is ever said to be an abomination to the Lord.
• And gabar in Daniel 9:27 does not mean "confirm."

 

[Wormwood]

It's not there. Point specifically to the words Jesus uses to describe the coming destruction of the Temple He said would happen before their walk across the Kidron Valley started.

Context, Marcus, context.

“As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”” (Matthew 24:3, ESV)

What are "these things"? Well, they are the things referred to directly prior to this verse, namely, the destruction of the Temple. That is what they are asking about and what Jesus is responding to.

Again is the message is also to the Church in the end.

I have no idea what you are saying.

No, while they may have connected Jesus' parousia to the destruction of the Temple, they had a walk of less than a mile to discuss among themselves, and then Disciples came to Him - so we don't know what expanded their question to Jesus - and while the matter concerning the Temple is questioned first, Jesus never addresses its destruction again.

Yes, the disciples want to know about "these things." "These things" are the comments Jesus made about the Temple being destroyed that they have been mulling over and discussing amongst the disciples as they walked. Keep it in context Marcus. Stop trying to rip it out of the conversation Jesus is having with these men and turning it into future Temples, tribulations and so forth that has absolutely no connection to the actual conversation and what sparks it.

Jesus never discusses the destruction of the Temple. You keep saying He does, but it's not there.
He specifically references Daniel for the abomination, calling him a prophet when the Jews did not. They put his book in the poetry section of the Tanach.

See above comments. If you cannot see that Jesus mentioning the destruction of the Temple is what sparks this conversation, then I dont think we can have a meaningful conversation about the content of the Bible. It cannot be any more plain.

What God reveals to John is that different actions occur in each half.

Revelation is not to be read chronologically. Daniel had multiple visions and dreams about the same thing (Babylon, Medo-Persian Empire, Greeks, Rome). They were not chronological dreams/visions, but cyclical ones. It was the same empires but the different dreams and visions had different emphasis. That is what is happening in Revelation. Jesus returns 5x in Revelation! It is clearly not a chronological book! Revelation 12 speaks of Jesus' birth!
Consider the end of the first vision in Revelation 7....

16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore;
the sun shall not strike them,
nor any scorching heat.
17 For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,
and he will guide them to springs of living water,
and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Re 7:16–17.

Almost the exact same description is given at the end of the last vision in Revelation:

“And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”” (Revelation 21:3–4, ESV)

No. Doctrine has nothing to do with it. Doctrine is the black mark of religion, and it puts its holder into a strait jacket that can allow no other thought.

You approach your word definitions in the same manner as your eschatology. Doctrine simply means, "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group." Paul told Timothy to "watch your life and your doctrine closely." It is not a bad word. Scripture tells us to consider carefully our doctrine.

You take an idealized view - which leads you to dismiss any concrete application because it's all figurative and spiritual - and you see fundamental truths expressed.

This just is not true. How can you say that I dismiss any concrete application? My view fosters concrete application. Your view is the one that sees most of Revelation and the prophetic words of Jesus to be future fulfillments that have nothing to do with the church for over 2,000 years. I believe these words apply to the church EVERY YEAR. Moreover, it isnt all figurative and spiritual. I am the one arguing that Jesus' prophecy about the Temple and the persecution of his followers actually happened and continues to happen. You are the one saying it hasnt happened yet. If anything, my view is much more concrete because I believe these things to have actually happened and continue to happen.

Don't tell me what everybody believed for 1800 years when for much of that time they had an unrealistic framework in which to view prophecy.

Give me a break, Marcus. You said that Scripture "demands" this interpretation. I simply pointed out that no one believed what you think Scripture "demands" for 1800 years and still many do not believe it. Obviously, Scripture does not demand such an interpretation because it is a new view on Revelation and one that is held by a small segment of Christianity. You are overstating your case and responding by saying the whole church for almost its entire existence had an "unrealistic framework" as rationale as to why apparently everyone got it wrong until Darby showed up. This is just mind boggling logic.

Augustine is the father of Amillennialism. He was a product of Platonism.

That is not the case. There is plenty of evidence that shows that Amillennialism predates Augustine. It seems to be a contemporary view alongside historic premillennialism. In fact, Amillennialism and historic premillennialism are very similar except that one sees the 1,000 years as a literal time period and the other does not. Augustine may have made amillennial views more popular, but he did not invent the view. It dates back to the early church fathers.

In the history of the church this strand of interpretation has generally taken two forms: an ecclesial millennium and a heavenly millennium, in which the saints rule from above. Its most illustrious proponent is Augustine, who spiritualized the millennium, identifying it with the period between Christ’s ascension and his second advent. Amillennialism was anticipated in the early church in the epistle of Barnabas, who applied to the church the Old Testament promises given to Israel.

Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 99.

The history of amillennialism is significant. It can be traced to the Church Fathers, and particularly the approaches to Scriptures of Origen and Clement of Alexandria, who believed that the Bible was to be interpreted allegorically, with the true meaning discovered beneath the surface. Augustine applied this especially to prophecy. In allegorical interpretation it is quite easy to impose any preconceptions on Scripture, since the most evident meaning is tossed aside in favor of one that is actually arrived at subjectively. The clear prophecies in the Old Testament of an earthly kingdom for ethnic Israel could thus easily be applied to the Church. As a result of this methodology of Augustine, the Roman Catholic Church was amillennial. Although the Reformers did reassert the truth of several great biblical doctrines, they did not really deal with eschatology. Thus Reformed theology as a whole has been amillennial.



Paul S. Karleen, The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 298.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

However, Daniel's prophecy ends at 69.5 weeks. Thus, there is a half of a week that remains and Revelation uses this number symbolically to depict the age of the church and the time of tribulation between the time which Christ would atone for iniquity and his Second Coming.

First, show where in Daniel where Gabriel inserted a gap in the middle of the one 'seven'.

On the other hand, looking at the three things I have enumerated as setting the one 'seven' apart as coming with the end of the age show the start of the one 'seven' could not have happened before the First Jewish Revolt.

Because the Prince who will come is only determined by the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary.

As a matter of grammar, the Hebrew follows the same rule in the English. Pronouns refer to the previous person mentioned.

Thus the implied 'he' in the 3rd person singular conjugation of gabar refers to the Roman Prince who will come.

Your doctrine which marries with Partial Preteriam here does not comport to the linear narrative of Revelation xh 13 where one-half of the one 'seven' is in effect culminating with the erection of a talking idol - which Biblically is an abomination.

And isn't it grand that when we take an idealized view, 42 months can become 2000 years?

 

[Wormwood]

First, show where in Daniel where Gabriel inserted a gap in the middle of the one 'seven'.

I didnt say there was a "gap" in the middle of a "seven." Let me give you a brief rundown of my understanding of Daniel's weeks

““Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

The completion of the vision decreed for God's people = 70 weeks (490 years).

Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks.

7 weeks to the command to build rebuild Jerusalem

Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing.

62 weeks after Jerusalem is rebuilt (in the 69th week), the anointed one would come. This is Jesus. Jesus would be cut off. He came to his own and his own did not receive him.

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

The people (Jews) of the prince (Jesus) would destroy their sancturary. Josephus tells us this is what happened in 70AD. The Jews ended up lighting their own Temple on fire in their fight against the Romans. Moreover, it also speaks to the fact that the wickedness of the Jews in their rejection of Jesus is the direct cause of this desolation. I think Jesus also refers to this in his parable about the Son and how the king goes and burns the city of those who rejected the King's son.

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.

Jesus made a new covenant with his followers that would encompass a full week. After half of the week (3.5 year ministry of Jesus), Jesus put an end to sacrifice and offering by his death on the cross. Thus, the covenant Jesus made with his people would last an entire week. The first 3.5 years was his ministry, and then he died on the cross. The final 3.5 years isnt really addressed....its kinda left open ended.

And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”” (Daniel 9:24–27, ESV)

The final 3.5 years is left open ended. Revelation uses this final 3.5 years symbolicaly to point to the life of the Church as those who have made this covenant with Jesus for the final week. The last 3.5 years is the period of tribulation for those who belong to Jesus and they await until the final decrees of God's judgment are poured out on a world that has rejected Jesus and brought desolation due to their abominations. That is what Revelation is depicting...the final decrees of God to bring judgment during this final week, or last days.

The focus on Daniel's vision is the coming of the Messiah. However, Jesus uses the final comments in this vision about the covenant he has made for the final week with his people as a means of showing them that they are in the last days and that God's judgment will be poured out on those who reject him. Just as desolation was brought on the Temple due to the Jew's rejection of Christ and his sacrifice, so the entire world will be made desolate due to the unbelief and wickedness of this world that persecutes those faithful to Jesus. The dragon behind the scenes who causes this desolation will be exposed and judged at the end of this last seven.

That's my take anyway. I could be wrong.

And isn't it grand that when we take an idealized view, 42 months can become 2000 years?

Like I said, the focus of the weeks was to point to Jesus. Revelation just uses that (as well as other OT texts) symbolically to encourage the church. Lets not pretend dispensationals arent "idealized" in their view on these weeks as they try to "stop the clock" for 2000 years before the weeks magically start counting again sometime in the distant future. Both views see some unique things happening in the final week.

 

[ATP]

Jesus made a new covenant with his followers that would encompass a full week. After half of the week (3.5 year ministry of Jesus), Jesus put an end to sacrifice and offering by his death on the cross. Thus, the covenant Jesus made with his people would last an entire week. The first 3.5 years was his ministry, and then he died on the cross. The final 3.5 years isnt really addressed....its kinda left open ended.

This is where you're in error. The antichrist puts an end to sacrifice and offering by setting up the abomination of desolation. The covenant of death is with the antichrist in Dan 9:27.....

Peace Treaty

Dan 9:27 NIV He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

Isa 28:15 NIV You boast, "We have entered into a covenant with death (Rev 6:8 NIV), with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement. When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by, it cannot touch us, for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place."

Isa 57:8-9 NIV Behind your doors and your doorposts you have put your pagan symbols. Forsaking me, you uncovered your bed, you climbed into it and opened it wide; you made a pact with those whose beds you love (Rev 6:8 NIV), and you looked with lust on their naked bodies. 9You went to Moleka with olive oil and increased your perfumes. You sent your ambassadors far away; you descended to the very realm of the dead!

Rev 6:2 NIV I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

Rev 6:8 NIV I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

The Abomination of Desolation

Dan 9:27 NIV He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

Matt 24:15 NIV "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--

2 Thess 2:3-4 NIV Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I don't stop the clock on the one 'seven's start when I look for the one 'seven' to commence in the future.
Gabriel put three events which happen after the sixty-two 'sevens'.
- the first happens right after Jesus' Triumpant Entry,
- the second one happens nearly four decades later, and
- the third is still ongoing and it will continue through the "ONE" 'seven' into the end.

But before we engage in our sets of opposite views, I take issue with this:

Again, the numbers in Revelation are to be weighed, not counted, multiplied or added!

I don't think that's true at all.
I think this is an example of where your doctrine dictates what we can do.
And I am not bound by your strait jacket approach which dismisses all such information as to numbers that the Father, through Jesus, revealed to John!

Furthermore, Recelation not only reveals, it explains as well.

Take all the various ways one half of the one 'seven' is conveyed.
- a time (year), times (2 years), and half a time (6 mos)
- 42 months
- and 1260 days.

Scholars have concluded that the whole seventy 'sevens' are made up of prophet yeas of 360 days each.

In chapter 17, the ten horns are explained as being ten Kings who do not have a kingdom, but receive authority as kings for a little while.
The seven heads are Kings as well but they are also shown to have an element of time attached to them.
Furthermore, the seven heads also represent mountains upon which the woman sits, which many see pointing to Rome.

The numbering of the Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls show their order.

So I think you dismiss quite a bit of information with your doctrine which allows no examination of the numbers revealed by The Father, through Jesus to John, for us to know.

 

[michaelvpardo]

And Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.
[/quote
some people would say that this refers to death and resurrection. Consider what was said to Daniel in the last chapter of the book of Daniel. Jesus spoke of death as sleeping (because of the resurrection.) I'm not suggesting that the Lord was recommending suicide as we've seen in many cults, but the testimony of the martyrs is one of submission to authority up to the point of death. You have not yet resisted sin to the point of death.

sorry about the formatting. wrote this on my Kindle.