Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Concerning Daniel 9:24-27


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

(Note:  This posting is somewhat lengthy; however, those who generally follow my posts will not find this to be much of a surprise.)

 

Concerning Daniel 9:24-27 –

 

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the OBlation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

 

As the context of Daniel 9 reveals, this prophetic utterance was delivered unto Daniel, who had been confessing the sins of his people Israel and praying for the Lord’s mercy upon his people Israel.  Indeed, when the angel Gabriel delivered this prophetic utterance unto Daniel, he specifically indicated that the focus of its revelation concerned Daniel’s people Israel and Daniel’s holy city, Jerusalem, as per the opening line of verse 24 – “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy [that is – Daniel’s] people and upon thy [that is – Daniel’s] holy city [Jerusalem].”  Furthermore, the angel revealed that these “seventy weeks” were determined by the Lord God upon Daniel’s people, the Israelites, and upon Daniel’s holy city, Jerusalem, for a six-fold purpose as signaled by the six infinitive phrases that complete verse 24. 

 

This six-fold purpose of the Lord our God concerning Daniel’s people, the Israelites, and Daniel’s holy city, Jerusalem, are as follows:

 

1.  “To finish the transgression” – Herein the word “transgression” is singular, indicating that it refers unto the entire rebellion of the Israelites against the Lord their God as a single unit of sinful fault.  Indeed, the Hebrew word that is translated by the English word “transgression” indicates a breaking away (or, departure) from a relationship or covenant with another.  Thus these “seventy weeks” are determined by the Lord God in order to bring about a completion to the sinful departure of the Israelites away from Him.  As such, we could expect that after these “seventy weeks” are concluded, the Israelites will never again depart from the Lord.

 

2.  “To make an end of sins” – Herein the word “sins” is plural, indicating that it refers unto the individual activities of sin that the Israelites might commit against the Lord their God.  Thus these “seventy weeks” are determined by the Lord God in order to bring about a completion to the sinful activities of the Israelites against Him.  As such, we could expect that after these “seventy weeks “ are concluded, the Israelites will never again commit sins against the Lord.

 

3.  “To make reconciliation for iniquity” – Herein the word “reconciliation” indicates the ideas of atonement and forgiveness and of reconciliation thereby.  Thus these “seventy weeks” are determined by the Lord God in order to bring about His forgiveness upon the Israelites for their sinful departure from Him and for their sinful activities against Him, and to bring about thereby the reconciliation of the Israelites unto Himself and unto His blessed fellowship.

 

4.  “To bring in everlasting righteousness” – Herein the phrase “everlasting righteousness” reveals the spiritual condition into which the Lord God intends to bring the Israelites through His work of reconciliation.  He intends to bring them into a spiritual condition of “everlasting righteousness,” not into a condition of righteousness from which they might again fall, but into a condition of righteousness from which they will never fall again.  Indeed, this is the spiritual condition into which the Lord God will bring the Israelites at the completion of these “seventy weeks.”

 

5.  “To seal up the vision and prophecy” – This phrase appears to indicate that all of the Lord’s prophetic utterances concerning the Israelites (especially concerning His judgments upon the Israelites) will be brought to their conclusion through the completion of these “seventy weeks.”

 

6.  “To anoint the most Holy” – Herein the phrase “the most Holy” refers to the Most Holy One, the promised Messiah of Israel.  According to the New Testament Scriptures, we learn that this Most Holy One, that the Messiah, is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.  Thus these “seventy weeks” are determined by the Lord God in order to bring about the literal anointing of the Lord Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords over all the earth.  As such, we could expect that the literal return of our Lord Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords (See Revelation 19) will occur at the completion of these “seventy weeks.”

 

Now, in this context the phrase “seventy weeks” may be literally understood as “seventy sevens,” wherein the English word “weeks” is employed for the idea of “sevens.”  The reason that the English word “weeks” is so employed is because a week is the most natural grouping of seven when we encounter the element of time sequences.  However, the Hebrew idea of “sevens” is not limited only to a group of seven days, but can refer to any grouping of sevens within the sequence of time.  With this understanding in mind, we move to verse 25, wherein greater detail is revealed concerning the first sixty-nine of these “seventy weeks” (or, seventy sevens).

 

The opening portion of verse 25 reveals that the first sixty-nine of these “seventy weeks” will encompass the time period “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince.”  Thus these first sixty-nine sevens will begin with “the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” after their seventy years of captivity by the hand of the Babylonians (See Ezra & Nehemiah).  Thus also these first sixty-nine sevens will conclude with the coming of “the Messiah the Prince.”  Now, the distance of time between these events are known by historical record to be greater than a period of sixty-nine literal weeks.  Rather, we understand by the historical record that the distance of time between these events encompassed a multitude of years (indeed, 483 years).  Therefore, we are brought to understand that the “seventy sevens” of this context are a reference unto seventy groupings of seven years each.

 

Now, the report of verse 25 is not presented with a simple designation of threescore (sixty) and nine “weeks” (sevens), but with the dividing of two parts, the first being “seven weeks” (seven sevens) and the second being “threescore and two weeks” (sixty-two sevens).  This seems to indicate that something of significance will also occur at the completion of the first “seven weeks” (or, forty-nine years) of these sixty-nine weeks (sevens).  Even so, the closing line of verse 25 appears to reveal what this “thing” of significance is – “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

 

Since verse 25 has recorded the beginning and the ending for the first sixty-nine “weeks” of the “seventy weeks,” we would now logically expect verse 26 to report the events of the seventieth and final “week” of these “seventy weeks.”  Indeed, human logic would move us to expect that the seventieth and final “week” of these “seventy weeks” would follow immediately after the first sixty-nine “weeks” are completed (since the number seventy does follow immediately after the number sixty-nine).  However, this seventieth and final “week” of these “seventy weeks” is not actually and specifically mentioned until verse 27.  Rather, verse 26 gives a report concerning events that occur “after” the “threescore and two weeks” (after the first sixty-nine “weeks”) without making any specific reference to the seventieth and final week.

 

What then are these events that occur after the first sixty-nine “weeks” (483 years), without any specific indication that they fall in the seventieth and final “week” (7 years)?  Verse 26 appears to give report concerning three things, saying, “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”  Herein the preposition “after” does not indicate that these things occur at the end of the first sixty-nine “weeks” (483 years), but indicates that these things occur after the first sixty-nine “weeks” (483 years) are already concluded.  Furthermore, it is worthy of notice that verse 25 did not specifically state that the first sixty-nine “weeks” would conclude with the cutting off of the Messiah the Prince.  Rather, verse 25 simply indicated that the first sixty-nine “weeks” would extend “unto the Messiah the Prince” (and thereby conclude), without specifying the activity of the Messiah the Prince to which it was referring.  (Personally, I believe that verse 25 is referring to the beginning of our Lord Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry as initiated by His baptism.)

 

So then, what are the three things which verse 26 indicates occur after the conclusion of the first sixty-nine “weeks” (483 years)? 

 

1.  The Messiah will be cut off in death, not for His own sake, but for the sake of others.  According to the New Testament Scriptures, this would be a prophetically reference unto the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross. 

 

2.  “The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city [that is – Daniel’s holy city, Jersusalem, as per the contextual statement with which verse 24 began] and the sanctuary [that is – the temple in Jerusalem].”  Now, in this statement there are two elements of information that are worthy of notice in relation to the context.  The first of these elements of information is that there is “a prince that shall come” unto the Israelites and unto the city of Jerusalem who is not referenced as their Messiah.  The second of these elements of information is that this “prince that shall come” is not the one himself who comes against Jerusalem in the event of verse 26 to destroy the city and the sanctuary (temple) therein.  Rather, it is the people of which he will be a part that come against Jerusalem in the event of verse 26 to destroy the city and the sanctuary (temple) therein.

 

3.  “The end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”  This statement appears to indicate that the destroying of the city Jerusalem and of the temple in Jerusalem will end with utter desolation upon the Israelites, and that the Israelites and the city of Jerusalem will continue to suffer ongoing desolations thereafter.

 

Finally, with verse 27 we come to the concluding verse of this prophetic utterance and to the specific reference unto the seventieth and final “week” (7 years) of these “seventy weeks.”  The opening line of this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many” (apparently among the Israelites, since that is the focus of this prophetic utterance as per the opening statement of verse 24).  In fact, this “he” will “confirm” this “covenant” with these Israelites for a period of “one week” (that is – a period of one seven, or of seven years).  Then this verse indicates that in the middle of this seven year period (after 3.5 years), this “he” will “cause the sacrifice and OBlation” of the Israelites “to cease” (apparently ending his seven year “covenant” with the Israelites).  Finally, this verse indicates that this “he” will bring a form of desolation upon the Israelites and the city of Jerusalem, and that this “he” will do so for the purpose of “the overspreading of abominations” upon the Israelites and the city of Jerusalem.  Indeed, this verse indicates that this desolation will continue upon the Israelites and the city of Jerusalem “until the consummation” (until the completion) of the seventieth “week,” and thereby of the “seventy weeks.”

 

So then, who is this “he” of verse 27?  Grammatically, the closest antecedent to this pronoun in the context is “the prince that shall come” who was mentioned in verse 26.  Furthermore, in the context there is no other reference to “the prince that shall come” of verse 26 in order to explain who he is and why he matters and was mentioned at all in verse 26.  As such, I would contend according to these principles of grammar and context that the “he” of verse 27 is “the prince that shall come” of verse 26.  Now, it is again worthy of note that this “prince” is not referenced in verse 26 as being the Messiah, but that he is in some way related to the people who would destroy the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary (temple) therein in the destroying event that is prophesied in verse 26.

 

In conclusion, let us consider the grammatical and contextual gap that is presented in this passage between the conclusion of the sixty-nine “weeks” and the beginning of the seventieth “week.”  Verse 25 clearly speaks concerning the beginning and conclusion of the first sixty-nine “weeks,” and verse 27 clearly speaks concerning the beginning of the seventieth “week.”  However, the events of verse 26 are presented between these other two records.  Indeed, as we have already noted, verse 26 does specifically indicate that the events which it records occur after the sixty-nine “weeks.”  Yet verse 26 makes no specific reference whatsoever to the seventieth “week.”  Furthermore, verse 27 specifically makes reference to the beginning of the seventieth week, and then reports concerning events that will proceed from that point.  Yet verse 27 does not specifically indicate that the events which are recorded in verse 26 are included in that seventieth “week.”  As such, we may understand from the flow of the grammar and the context that there is some form of gap in time between the first sixty-nine “weeks” (483 years) as recorded in verse 25 and the seventieth and final “week” (7 years) as recorded in verse 27, and that the events of verse 26 will fall within that gap in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Concerning the above posting --

 

I recognize that postings such as that which I have presented above are often found to be controversial, and I expect nothing different with the above posting.  I also recognize that more controversial postings generally generate the most amount of commenting over the shortest period of time.  Recognizing these things, I wish to present the following burden:

 

It is generally my burden to respond unto others as much as I am able with a manner of thoughtfulness and thoroughness.  However, such thoughtfulness and thoroughness requires a greater amount of time (time which I do not always have available due to other, greater responsibilities).  Even so, if this thread explodes with comments as is so commonly the case for such "controversial" threads, then I simply will not be able to respond adequately to every comment.  As such, I request the patience (and possibly even, looooongsuffering) of those who comment and contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Reposted from another thread - I was writing this at the same time as Pastor Scott.

 

 

DaveW:

Dan 9
 24  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 
 25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
 26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
 27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the OBlation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

First thing:
This prophecy is to do with "thy people and thy holy city."
The whole 70 weeks. Israel is the people, Jerusalem is the city. This prophecy has nothing to do with the churches. Vs 24 states that plainly.

I won't disagree with that, although, of course, the church benefits from the finished saving work of Jesus detailed in Dan. 9:24

The timing starts from the command to build the city.
This gives us the start point of this countdown.
Smarter men than I have calculated the end of the 69th weeks of years to precisely coincide with the death of Christ.

Which of the 4 commands? 2 were before AD 500. A suggested (accepted?) date for the 3rd decree is 457 BC - Ezra 7:11-26 taking us to AD 26 for the end of the 69th week when Messiah was anointed.  

Coincidentally vs 26 says after the 69th week Messiah is cut off. This is OBviously by the context referring to the death of Christ - no other event fits the description, and the timing from the decree works too.

Note "after" so the prophesied events may be during the 70th week or beyond. Specifically the cutting off of the Messiah & the resultant destruction.  

Vs 26 continues on to note that the city and the sanctuary are destroyed, there is a flood, and a war of desolation. 
All this happens after the 69th week begins.

We know this because the next and only other week mentioned - this must be the 70th week - is in vs 27.

Not necessarily - AFTER the 69th week, so could also be after the 70th week. 

 

Here a covenant is confirmed for a week. This is the final week of the 70.
In the midst of that week the sacrifice and OBlation are caused to cease.
No!  THE covenant is confirmed, not A covenant. The sacrifices & OBlations relating to the faithful administration were fulfilled, & brought to a conclusion by the new covenant sacrifice in Jesus blood, inaugurated at the last supper. At Calvary the temple veil was rent by God - the way into the most holy place was opened. The could never be another acceptable sacrifice. The sacrifices continued in ignorance, & in defiance of Messiah, but that did not annul either the prophecy or the finished work of Christ. 

This is the plain order of events according to Dan 9.
You will note that the events of vs 26 happen after the end of week 69 but before the beginning of week 70.
No. you've added that timing to the prophecy.  
The final week can not possibly be an I start continuation from week 69, for there must be time for the vs 26 events to occur.

You will note that although the gap is written into to passage, there is no indication of the duration of the gap in Dan 9.
The existence of the gap is evident, the timing of the gap is evident (after week 69 ends), but the duration of the gap is not.
There is no gap written INTO the passage. The time for the events after week 69 are not ipecified in v.26, What we can reason is that the prophesied destruction is the consequence of the cutting off of the Messiah. We do know that Jesus was crucified about 3 1/2 years after his baptism, so that takes us into the middle of the 70th week, but the destruction an unspecified time after the cutting off. 

Note : the ceasing of the sacrifice and OBlation CAN NOT be referring to the death of Christ as dome false teachers promote, as the sacrifice etc continued while t he Temple was in existence. It does not refer to the effectiveness of the sacrifice, but the practice.

In your opinion. 
This means that for those to make the death of Christ the middle of the 70th week for that reason MUST have a gap as well, for we know the sacrifice continued TO BE PERFORMED after Christ's death.

No need - AFTER the 69th week. The 70th week by a literal calculation ends around AD 33, which roughly coincides with the martyrdom of Stephen, who declared those who rejected the Holy Spirit "uncircumcised." The old covenant, marked by circumcision, was absolutely ended. Acts 7:48-53 
Note further that Daniel makes no reference to "this generation".

The simple and plain reading of Daniel 9 denotes a gap between the 69th week and the 70th week.

Deleted ..... you must come to the conclusion that vs 26 happens after week 69 and before week 70.
That is what it says.
No.
Deleted....... 

God is gracious, so instead of immediately destroying the city at the end of the 70th week, with those who rejected their Messiah he allowed then 40 years to repent. But that 40 years came to an end. Psalm 95:7-11 quoted in Heb. 3. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ok folks - carefully read my explanation, and look at this false teacher's comments. It quickly becomes OBvious how much twisting and misrepresentation of God's Word is required to follow these ridiculous blue comments.

There is a lack of research evident, a lack of understanding of words, terms, and sentence structure, and a simple denial of plainly stated facts.

If this set of replies does not seal this in everyone's mind, then it is OBvious that this false teachers has achieved part if his goal of deception.

Wait for further installments from him on other subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The understanding/interpretation comes down to whether we can understand the 70 weeks prophecy as being fulfilled in 490 years, apart from the final prophecy of destruction,

or 

Should the prophecy really have been 69 weeks - 483 years - with an separate 7 year prophecy not related to the previous 483 years?

 

I believe OT prophecy should be understood in terms of NT fulfilment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

From the Matthew 24 thread.

 

Covenanter wrote

And no, Invicta, NOT 2,000 years of the GREAT tribulation because it was the sentence specifically against "this generation." That pouring out of God's wrath was completed:

 

 

 

 

I agree that the prophecy refererd to that generation, but remember the Jews extended that when they said "Mt 27:25  Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

From the Matthew 24 thread.

 

 

I agree that the prophecy refererd to that generation, but remember the Jews extended that when they said "Mt 27:25  Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

That self-curse was promptly cancelled at Pentecost:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

 

It is unthinkable that God would punish 100 generations of Jews. They are in the same state under the Gospel as the rest of mankind. Come & welcome! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

That self-curse was promptly cancelled at Pentecost:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

 

It is unthinkable that God would punish 100 generations of Jews. They are in the same state under the Gospel as the rest of mankind. Come & welcome! 

 

Possibly, but that also would apply to the Jews in AD 66-70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The 70th week (of years) is for the purification of Israel.  Only those who survive until the end of the 7 year period will be fit to serve their Messiah. 

The Messiah of Israel ("Jesus") will set up his throne in Jerusalem and each of the Tribes will be assigned their portion in the Holy Land (Israel).

OBviously, the Body of Christ (ie: Church) will have no part in this final "week" of Daniel's prophecy.  Many will be deceived by the False Messiah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The 70th week (of years) is for the purification of Israel.  Only those who survive until the end of the 7 year period will be fit to serve their Messiah. 

The Messiah of Israel ("Jesus") will set up his throne in Jerusalem and each of the Tribes will be assigned their portion in the Holy Land (Israel).

OBviously, the Body of Christ (ie: Church) will have no part in this final "week" of Daniel's prophecy.  Many will be deceived by the False Messiah.

 

Not the false Messiah, but the Antichrist, the false Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not the false Messiah, but the Antichrist, the false Christ.

Don't get hung up on semantics.  False Messiah and False Christ/Antichrist are one and the same thing.

 

MESSIAH: (anointed one). A prophetic name for Jesus; the same as Christ. Messiah (Mashiach) is the Hebrew word for Anointed One; Christ is the Greek word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The 70th week (of years) is for the purification of Israel.  Only those who survive until the end of the 7 year period will be fit to serve their Messiah. 

The Messiah of Israel ("Jesus") will set up his throne in Jerusalem and each of the Tribes will be assigned their portion in the Holy Land (Israel).

OBviously, the Body of Christ (ie: Church) will have no part in this final "week" of Daniel's prophecy.  Many will be deceived by the False Messiah.

 

I'm trying to understand the reasoning ....

Gabriel outlines the prophecy in Dan. 9:24

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

That, surely, is a summary of the saving work of Jesus at Calvary. The idea of purifying Israel some other way during a yet future 70th week destroys the NT teaching of Jesus FINISHED saving work. It amounts to another gospel, which is NOT another. Gal. 1:6-9

 

You are making Gabriel preach another gospel. 

 

An interpretation system that requires separation of weeks 69 & 70 by 2000 years must be called into question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm trying to understand the reasoning ....

Gabriel outlines the prophecy in Dan. 9:24

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

The "Holy of Holies" (qodesh-qodesh) doesn't even exist at this time.  There are clear passages in the N.T. that state that the (3rd) Temple must be built.  It is this temple that the False-Messiah (man of sin) will pollute with his presence, proclaiming that He is God.

 

The Second Temple was polluted/desecrated by the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes.in 168 BC and was later cleansed by what we refer to as Hanukkah.  The term "most Holy" is the Hebrew qodesh-qodesh  (ie: Holy-Holy, or Holy of Holies).

 

In the context of Hanukkah, Jews clearly understand the necessity of the ceremonial cleansing of the Holy Place & the Holy of Holies in order to rededicate the Temple.  It's very easy to understand Daniel's meaning here.  Jesus cannot reenter the Temple to serve as Priest and King until the place is cleansed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The "Holy of Holies" (qodesh-qodesh) doesn't even exist at this time.  There are clear passages in the N.T. that state that the (3rd) Temple must be built.  It is this temple that the False-Messiah (man of sin) will pollute with his presence, proclaiming that He is God.

 

The Second Temple was polluted/desecrated by the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes.in 168 BC and was later cleansed by what we refer to as Hanukkah.  The term "most Holy" is the Hebrew qodesh-qodesh  (ie: Holy-Holy, or Holy of Holies).

 

What or who is holier than The Lord Jesus Christ.  He was anointed at His baptism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm trying to understand the reasoning ....

Gabriel outlines the prophecy in Dan. 9:24

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

That, surely, is a summary of the saving work of Jesus at Calvary. The idea of purifying Israel some other way during a yet future 70th week destroys the NT teaching of Jesus FINISHED saving work. It amounts to another gospel, which is NOT another. Gal. 1:6-9

 

You are making Gabriel preach another gospel. 

 

An interpretation system that requires separation of weeks 69 & 70 by 2000 years must be called into question.

This is why so many of us are simply worn out with attempting to have any rational discussion with you and your cohorts on the subject of prophecy.  

Pastor Markle did an excellent jOB of explaining our position on the 70th week. 

You have not posted ONE RESPONSE to his very detailed explanation.  

 

Now, 

You have accused us of preaching "another gospel."

I preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the only salvation for the lost sinner.

I am sure Pastor Markle preaches the same gospel.

 

Thus,

YOU HAVE FALSELY ACCUSED US.

 

The way God deals with a NATION (i.e. Israel) in a corporate manner is far different from how God deals with each individual within that nation.  The 70th week, which is yet future, is God's chastisement upon the corporate NATION of Israel, and then that corporate NATION of Israel is exalted during the yet future 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ upon this present earth.

 

Your (private) interpretation completely ignores, overlooks, dismisses, and destroys over 50% of the OT prophecies concerning the corporate NATION of Israel, as they have not yet been fulfilled, literally, in their entirety.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'm trying to understand the reasoning ....

Gabriel outlines the prophecy in Dan. 9:24

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

That, surely, is a summary of the saving work of Jesus at Calvary. The idea of purifying Israel some other way during a yet future 70th week destroys the NT teaching of Jesus FINISHED saving work. It amounts to another gospel, which is NOT another. Gal. 1:6-9

 

You are making Gabriel preach another gospel. 

 

An interpretation system that requires separation of weeks 69 & 70 by 2000 years must be called into question.

 

That question is a response to Scott's post - particularly points 1-6. 

 

This is why so many of us are simply worn out with attempting to have any rational discussion with you and your cohorts on the subject of prophecy.  

Pastor Markle did an excellent jOB of explaining our position on the 70th week. 

You have not posted ONE RESPONSE to his very detailed explanation.  

 

Now, 

You have accused us of preaching "another gospel."

I preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the only salvation for the lost sinner.

I am sure Pastor Markle preaches the same gospel.

 

Thus,

YOU HAVE FALSELY ACCUSED US.

 

The way God deals with a NATION (i.e. Israel) in a corporate manner is far different from how God deals with each individual within that nation.  The 70th week, which is yet future, is God's chastisement upon the corporate NATION of Israel, and then that corporate NATION of Israel is exalted during the yet future 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ upon this present earth.

 

Your (private) interpretation completely ignores, overlooks, dismisses, and destroys over 50% of the OT prophecies concerning the corporate NATION of Israel, as they have not yet been fulfilled, literally, in their entirety.

 

In Christ,

 

I reposted my response to DaveW in response to Scott's post. I have read it, several times. It would be unwieldy to post an in-line response, so I raise specific points. In this case, it seems clear that Dan. 9:24 speaks of 70 weeks as a specific period of time, & details the saving work of Christ.

 

I am happy that you & Scott "preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the only salvation for the lost sinner" but do not believe that ethnic, national Israel is a separate entity with what amounts to a Gospel distinct from that we preach to lost sinners today. Jew & Gentile together comprise the redeemed people of God, a holy nation.  

 

Gen. 12:3 Gen. 22:18 Isa. 49:5-6 1 Peter 2:4-10 

 

The promises & prophecies of the OT concerning Israel are fulfilled in & by Jesus Christ for all of Israel who respond to the Gospel preached in the name of Jesus, and for all believing Gentiles who are numbered with them. The only great separation at the end of time when Jesus returns for resurrection & judgement is of lost & saved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I reposted my response to DaveW in response to Scott's post. I have read it, several times. It would be unwieldy to post an in-line response, so I raise specific points. In this case, it seems clear that Dan. 9:24 speaks of 70 weeks as a specific period of time, & details the saving work of Christ.

 

Pastor Markle explained v. 24 within the context of the entire passage.

Apparently you prefer to pluck the verse from its explanatory context.

(somehow, I am not surprised.)

 

I am happy that you & Scott "preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the only salvation for the lost sinner" but do not believe that ethnic, national Israel is a separate entity with what amounts to a Gospel distinct from that we preach to lost sinners today. Jew & Gentile together comprise the redeemed people of God, a holy nation.

 

The distinction that you are failing to comprehend is that the way God deals with a corporate nation - any nation, whether it be Jew or Gentile - is far different from the way God deals with an individual - any individual, Jew or Gentile.  An individual can experience the New Birth - salvation through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.  A nation as a corporate body cannot be "born again."  If the saved individuals within a given national entity have enough influence and political power, they can help shape that nation's moral compass and direction.  America is adrift because we have lost our Spiritual, Christian, and Biblical foundations.  God's judgement will fall on our nation because our nation as a corporate entity, beginning with our political leadership - federal, state, and local - have abandoned the Biblical plan for governing, and have encouraged unbiblical behaviour in exchange for more tax money and less blackmail - whether real or political.  

 

God's dealing with the corporate nation of Israel as a group is different from the Gentiles simply because God expects more from them - they are God's chosen people, they were given the written word of God, and they were given the promises and unconditional covenants of the OT, which have yet to be fulfilled in their entirety.

 

It is as clear as day for any Bible reader, UNLESS, you spiritualize everything into a NT context.  We are to "rightly DIVIDE" not "rightly GLUE" everything together.  Things that are not the same are not equal.  Israel is not the same as the Church.  Never has been - never will be.  And that is the basis of your confusion on end times prophecy.  We recognize that distinction.  You try to blend the two distinct entities together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...