Conversations with Sandra

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sandra is a longtime friend of mine who has been enthusiastically supporting my work on the Bible Wheel for some years now. She and I stand in perfect agreement about the inspiration and authority of the Bible as God's Word.

But Sandra and I stand on opposite poles when it comes to eschatology. She recently began explaining her views to me in some rather voluminous emails and I realized that we all could benefit by posting our discussion here on the forum. Everyone is encourage to particpate in this discussion, but I think it is unlikely that Sandra will be posting directly to the forum since she seems to prefer email.

I begin by poster her first email in its entirety, and then will respond in bite-sized pieces in subsequent posts.

Richard,

I have studied eschatology for many years. The first thing I learned was the key rules of interpretation:

1. Law of Plain Sense: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, or you end up with nonsense!.

2. Law of Double Reference: A person or event spoken of in a single passage or block of Scripture can be separated by a long gap in time; which is not obvious from the text. Case in Point, Zech. 9:9 speaks of the First Coming of Christ, while verse 10 speaks of the Second Coming with no hint of a gap in time between the two. Also,
Isaiah 11:1-5 speaks of the First Coming, while verses 3-5 speak of the Second Coming.

3. Law of Recurrence: Some passages dealing with a person or event are followed by a second passage touching on that same person or event, giving more detail than contained in the first passage. For instance, Details from Daniel chapter 2, are enlarged in Daniel 7.

4. Law of Context: a text taken by itself can become a pretext. As example: Zech. 13:6 is often used as a prophesy of Christ, but the context (verses 2-6) is speaking of false prophets.

Since the msntv doesn't facilitate underlining or different colors of type, I will have to capitalize whenever I want emphasis. The only Scriptures I may cite are from the KJV

..

I have a real problem with the concept that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 is Jesus. The nearest antecedent to this word is "the prince that shall come" in verse 26 above it. If "the prince that shall come" is meant to be Jesus, then the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple were the Jews!

To determine who the "he" of verse 27 and the "prince that shall come" of verse 26 is, it becomes necessary to study the visions of Daniel as recorded in chapters 2, 7, 8, 11, and 12. This I will do at a later time.

Historically, the sacrificial system did not end three and one half years after the blood covenant made by Jesus in 32 A.D.
And the covenant He initiated was not a seven year covenant, it was Eternal!

Verse 24 of Daniel 9 states that the 70 weeks of years was meant for the Jews. God Himself divided the 70 weeks into two segments: 69 weeks and 1 week. So at the end of the 69 weeks (483 years) there remained yet 1 week, a period of 7 years, in
which God would deal with Israel; at which time all prophesies concerning Israel would be fulfilled. To date this has not occurred.

I now address the Olivet Discourse.

The disciples had asked Jesus when the Temple would be destroyed {answered only in Luke's account below} and what would be the sign of his return and the end of the world (age).

Luke 21:20,21,24a: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation (of the city) thereof is nigh: 22)Then let them which are in Jerusalem flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out. ...24a)And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations (i.e. the Diaspora).

Here is an instance of double reference - verse 24b)"And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Jerusalem is being trodden down by Gentiles today!

All three Gospels (Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, and Luke 21) state that false Christs would arise and there would be wars and rumors of wars, but these were to be expected and were not an indication that the end was near..

All three writers record that "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, in conjunction with earthquakes and famine. Luke's account also includes pestilences. "nation against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" is a Jewish idiom for worldwide war.

Matthew and Mark state that this would be the beginning of sorrows (birth pangs) leading up to the end times and the Second Coming. World War l (1914-1918) then was the beginning of the birth pangs!

According to the Encyclopedia Americana, between 68 - 1896 there were ony 23 recorded earthquakes. The United States Geological Society reports 20 earthquakes for Iran in the 20th Century and the National Geographic Data Center reports 21 major earthquakes (i.e Magnitude 7.0-7.9) in the 20th century. And of course, we are painfully aware of the HIV Aids virus, ebola and West Nile viruses in the end of the 20th Century.

All three Gospels relate that the disciples would be persecuted for their testimony of Christ; but that this would happen before the world wars. History has borne this out.

As an aside, right before the Lord's ascension, the disciples asked Jesus if he would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel. Acts 1:7 "And he said unto them, It is not for you to KNOW the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. They were aware of the promise of restoration to Israel (cf Isaiah 1:26 "And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the begin-
ning: afterward then shalt thou be called, the city of righteousness, the faithful city.")

I have wondered that by use of the word "know" Jesus was telling them that they would not be alive when the kingdom was restored; that they wouldn't experi-
ence it - know, as in Adam KNEW his wife. Since the times and seasons governed the Jewish feasts, could this be a hint that this would occur on a future Jewish Feast Day - the Feast of Tabernacles, to be exact. I've reason to believe so, based on Scripture, but won't go into that now.

Returning to the Discourse, Matthew and Mark both speak of the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel. More on this later. They both give the warning to flee to the mountains {more on this later also} when this takes place.

Matthew states there will then (after the abomination and flight) be great tribula- tion (Mark calls it great affliction); the worst the world has ever known or will ever know.

Both Matthew and Mark state that if the days of tribulation weren't shortened, all flesh (mankind and animals) would be destroyed out of the earth; but that for the sake of the elect, the Lord will shorten the days.

As terrible and agonizing for the Jews as the destruction of the city and the Temple was for them in 70 A.D. it wasn't so horrific that the extinction of civilization was a threat! History has shown that the Holocaust was a greater disaster in terms of the death toll, and the tribulation judgments in the Book of Revelation far exceed anything the world has ever, or will ever experience!

Luke 21:25-26: "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring (psunamis - cf Rev. 16:20 "And EVERY ISLAND FLED AWAY, and the mountains were not found) 26)Men's hearts failing (heart attacks!) for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken." Note: Although it may have happened, there is no mention in the Bible that men died of heart attacks when the Temple was destroyed

Both Matthew and Mark warn of false Christs and false prophets, DOING SIGNS AND WONDERS, that if it were possible even the elect would be deceived. This is the antichrist (beast out of the sea) and false prophet of Revelation 13! - Cf ll Thess. 2:8-11) "And then shall that Wicked (man) be revealed whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy: with the brightness of his coming:9)Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and SIGNS AND LYING WONDERS, 10)And with all deceiveableness In them that perishl because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11)And for this cause God shall send them strong de-
lusion, that they should believe a lie."

In his letters, Paul always addresses believers as "you" or "ye" and unbelievers as "they" or "them."

Matthew warns not to believe any claim that Christ has returned secretly because His return would be as lightning coming from the east to the west.. Note: The WatchTower publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses prophesied that Jesus would return to earth in 1914 and when that didn't happen, they made the claim that Christ had returned invisibly in 1914!

Matthew's warning was against following the antichrist when he appears. Antichrist means not only "against Christ," but also "in place of Christ." (that Wicked ...whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming) That he (anti-christ) is the Messiah is the LIE they will believe because they don't know the Scriptures (love of the truth that they might be saved.)

Both Matthew and Mark state that after the tribulation of those days (future) the sun, moon, and stars would cease shining.

Cf Joel 2:10-11: "The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: THE SUN AND THE MOON SHALL BE DARK AND THE STARS SHALL WITHDRAW THEIR SHIING, 11)And the LORD shall utter his voice before hs army; for his company is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the DAY OF THE LORD is great and very terrible, and who can abIde it?"

The Day of the Lord ALWAYS refers to the tribulation! There are other terms for the tribulation period scattered throughout the Old Testament.

As one would expect, all tjree Gospels reveal the Son of man coming on the clouds with great power and glory. At the end of the Tribulation, while the whole world is in total darkness, His return will be visible to the entire world in its dazzling brightness!

Matthew and Mark report that Christ will send His angels to gather His elect (Jews who have survived the tribulation judg-
ments) from the four corners of the earth (i.e. every nation)

All three Gospels then give a parable of the fig tree; that when it leafs out you know summer is nigh, meaning that when you see the prophesies above beginning to occur, you know that His return is near.

The three Gospels relate that this generation (the generation that sees the signs beginning to appear) will be alive to see the glorious appearing of Christ!

Matthew's Gospel is the only one to report on the judgment, known as the Sheep and Goat Judgment, in which The Good Shepherd separates His sheep to His right hand and the goats (unbelievers) to His left. This is a judgment of the Gentiles who have survived the tribulation judgments. Because they have not supported His brethren (Jews) during the Tribulation they are obviously not Christians. They are sent to ever-lasting punishment (lake of fire) while the Sheep go into life Eternal (The Eternal Order that begins in the Millenial Kingdom on earth),

At the end of the Tribulation, only one third of world Jewry will have survived the judgments. They are the remnant who have finally recognized their Messiah Jesus and will never turn from the Lord again.

The purpose of the Tribulation is to bring Israel (and Gentile unbelievers) into the covenant with Christ. Thus, Israel had to be gathered back into the land while in a state of unbelief. This is prophesied in Ezek.iel 20:33-38, Ezekiel 22:17-22 and these verses from Zephaniah 2:l-2:

"Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together O nation not desired (i.e. hated of the world) 2.)Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the LORD come upon you, before the DAY OF THE LORD'S ANGER come upon you."

Historically, this began shortly before 1948 and continues today. In recent history, Jews have been air-lifted from Ethiopia, Russian Jews have returned, and many Jews are making aiiya.

Regarding the remnant, consider Zechariah 13:7-9 "Awake, O sword, agaist my shepherd (Jesus), and against the man that is my fellow saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: (Again, this is an instance of double reference. The verse up to this point is speaking of events that transpired at the time of the Crucifixion). and I will turn my hand upon the little ones (i.e. future generations) 8.And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, TWO PARTS therein shall be cut off and DIE; but THE THIRD SHALL BE LEFT THERE-IN. 9) And I will bring THE THIRD PART through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: (by means of the tribulation judgments) they shall call on my name (Their saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" is the requisite of Christ's Return), and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, the LORD (Jesus) is my God."

Romans 22:25-27 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own deceits; that blindness in part is happening to Israel UNTIL THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES BE COME IN. 26)And so all Israel shall be saved: (i.e. the one-third Jewish remnant): as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn ungodliness from Jacob: 27)For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Note: Paul was referring to Isaiah 59:20 in verse 26. Also Psalm 14:7:"Oh that salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad."

Isaiah 11:11 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the SECOND TIME to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, ad from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea."

Actually, "the islands of the sea" would include all the continents of the world. This gathering is of the believing Jews left at the end of the Tribulation.

Isaiah 10:20-23: And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; (the antichrist) but shall stay upon the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 27)The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. 22)For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consummation decreed (i.e. the prophesied Tribulaion) shall overflow with righteousness. 23)For the Lord GOD of hosts shall make a consummation, even determined in the midst of all the land." (ie. Israel)

Note: Some of the Tribulation judgments are worldwide in scope, but since the purpose is to bring Israel into the bonds of the covenant, most will occur there.

Thank you, Richard, for bearing with me here. Is this the longest e-mail you've ever received?

Your Sister in Christ,

Sandra Graham

[basilfo]

Yup. That's pretty much the futurist's interp. Sandra sounds like a very nice woman. I would start by asking her if she believes anything in the OD relates to the subject (destruction of the temple and Jerusalem), or did Jesus expound on a separate topic altogether.

The other question would be - how does the teaching by Jesus and the apostles that the end of the age and last days and Parousia were upon them in the 1st century reconcile with those today teaching it is upon us 2000 yrs later. An event can't be imenent to two dates 2000 yrs apart. If it's imenent today, then their teaching was false. They didn't say 'It could happen AT ANY TIME', they taught it was happening SOON. Big difference.

Peace to you,
Dave

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have studied eschatology for many years. The first thing I learned was the key rules of interpretation:

1. Law of Plain Sense: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, or you end up with nonsense!.

Hi Sandra,

I very much appreciate your email, and in answer to your closing question, yes, it definitely one of the longest I have recently received. And I am very glad for that because it gives an excellent overview of the "Futurist" approach to eschatology, and as such, our dicussion of it should help a lot of people get a handle on the differences, weaknesses, and strengths of our two perspectives.

You began your post exactly where one should begin any attempt to interpret the Bible - with the Rules of Interpretation. But I believe you left out the most important rules, and I see some real difficulties with the rules that you stated.

I begin with the "Law" of "Plain Sense." Oh, how wish there there were such a law! But the reality is that one man's "plain sense" is another man's "nonsense." For example, the Futurist has to deny the plain sense of words like "soon" and "for the time is at hand" and "this generation" to make their eschatological system work. The "sense" they give to those words is anything but "plain" - it is strained beyond the breaking point in my estimation.

Thus, the "Law of Plain Sense" really says nothing at all, and serves only to reinforce the prejudicial view that my personal interpretation is the "plain sense" and that of any contrary interpretation is "nonsense."

Another problematic aspect of the "Law of Plain Sense" is that some folks take "plain sense" to me "literal" when God intended us to intepret the symbols in His Word as metaphors. In the obvious cases we all agree. For example, we know that Christ is not a literal "lamb" with fleece and four hooves. But this understanding is quickly forgotten even when God does everything necessary to make it as clear as possible. For example, we are told that believers will be made to be "pillars" in the "New Jerusalem" yet some folks insist that the New Jerusalem is a literal cube that will literally descend from the sky in the future! Such confusions are based on anything but the "plain sense."

2. Law of Double Reference: A person or event spoken of in a single passage or block of Scripture can be separated by a long gap in time; which is not obvious from the text. Case in Point, Zech. 9:9 speaks of the First Coming of Christ, while verse 10 speaks of the Second Coming with no hint of a gap in time between the two. Also, Isaiah 11:1-5 speaks of the First Coming, while verses 3-5 speak of the Second Coming.

I agree that there are "double references" in God's Word, but I see no "law" as such being stated here. The problem is that you did not indicate how we are supposed to know when something is yet future. So people are free to just "make up" whatever interpretation they want. For example, you said that "Zech. 9:9 speaks of the First Coming of Christ, while verse 10 speaks of the Second Coming with no hint of a gap in time between the two." And why is there no "hint of a gap" - the answer is simple, because there really is no gap. There is nothing that indicates Zech 9:10 refers to the Second Coming. On the contrary, it clearly refers to the events of the first century, when God sent the Romans to destroy the apostate Temple, just as He sent the Babylonians some 600 years earlier. The context is definitive:

Zechariah 9:9-11 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. 10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth. 11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.

Those highlighted words were fulfilled by Christ in the first century! We have many witnesses that prove this beyond all doubt. The text says "and he shall speak peace to the Gentiles." Scripture declares this was fulfilled by Christ in the first century:

Ephesians 2:15-17 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

Note that Ephesians specifically refers to those that were "nigh" (the Jews) and those that were "far off" (the Gentiles) just as the prohecy stated. Futhermore, Acts links the preaching of peace to the Gentiles with Christ's "dominion from sea to sea":

Acts 10:34-37 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. 36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all) 37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

The statement tha "he is lord of all" confirms the fulfillment of Zech 9:10 which says that "his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth." And the first century fulfillment is aslo confirmed in Matthew:

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 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.

Thus we see the OBVIOUS fulfillment of "plain sense" of Zechariah 9:10 in the first century. And not only do we see its fulfillment, but we see its fulfillment in the Gospel which is the central message of the whole Bible. It has nothing to do with a yet future "Second Coming" and there is no gap in the text because there is no gap in the prophecy. Yet there is more - take a look at Zech 9:10-11

and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth. 11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.

The BLOOD OF THY COVENANT? Does that ring any "GOSPEL" bells? It should, because it was the Blood of Christ's covenant that set the captives free from the pit! This is the GOSPEL! Everything in Zech 9:9-11 is totally preacing the GOSPEL. It is Gospel, Gospel, Gospel. And that's what the Bible is really all about. Note also that this proves it is not about a future "Second Coming" because the Blood of the Covenant specifically refers to the Cross when Christ died in 30 AD. This is proved in Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:25-28 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Note that the BIBLE declares that Christ died in the "end of the world (age)." This is the consistent teaching of the entire New Testament. The "end times" happened and were finished in the first century. This is the "plain sense" of what is written.

Well, that's enough for my first "installment" on our discussion. I hope to get to more later today, but now I need to get out under the blue sky and take a walk with my wonderful wife. I pray that God keeps you in His perfect peace my friend, my sister, as we dig deep into the proper interpretation of His most excellent Word.

God bless you Sandra!

Richard

PS: Thanks again for giving me the oportunity to discuss these things with you. It's very helpful to have it all laid out like you did it, and this discussion really means a lot to me.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Continuing now with the third Rule of Interpretation:

3. Law of Recurrence: Some passages dealing with a person or event are followed by a second passage touching on that same person or event, giving more detail than contained in the first passage. For instance, Details from Daniel chapter 2, are enlarged in Daniel 7.

I agree completely that such "recuurences" occur in Scripture, but I don't know why we would want to call it a "law." It seems like its just simple fact that must be determined through ordinary intepretation in each case.

4. Law of Context: a text taken by itself can become a pretext. As example: Zech. 13:6 is often used as a prophesy of Christ, but the context (verses 2-6) is speaking of false prophets.

I agree TOTALLY that this law is a law and it is one of the most important rules we must follow when interpreting the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that Zechariah 9:9 was fulfilled in the first century and so for me, it would be a violation of the "Rule of Context" to take the verses that immediately follow it as refering to some other totally different time in the distant future. Of course, its possible that there can be such "double references" as with the prophecy of Christ's birth in Isa 7:14 which aslo was fulfilled in Isaiah's own day, but such are rare, and they required strong evidence to support them.

The essence of the "Rule of Context" is that we are not allowed to pick and choose bits and pieces out contexts that we know were fulfilled in the first century and than apply them willy-nilly to speculations about the future. That kind of eschatology will lead to nothing but error.

Now that we have reviewed your rules Sandra, I think it is important that I state mine:

A) The Fundamental Rule of Biblical Hermeneutics: Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:

• Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
• Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
• 2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistimology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology.

The application of this rule immediately clears out the debris accumulated by centuries of unbridled speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the Biblical Doctrines of Eschatology. The vast majority of "Futurist" doctrines are revealed to be unsupported speculations that fail in light of the Fundamental Rule of Biblical Hermeneutics. Here are a couple examples:

Example 1) The Doctrine of an Millennial Reign of Christ on Earth.

There is one and only one passage (Rev 20) that speaks of a millennial (1000 year) reign of Christ. It does not say that He will reign on earth. And none of the other passages that speak of or hint at a "messianic kingdom" say anything about its duration being a thousand years. Thus, neither the "millennial reign" nor the reign of Christ "on earth" pass the test, and they must not be taught as doctrine. Now don't get me wrong. Its fine to speculate about such things, but it is ENTIRELY WRONG to teach such things as doctrine when God Himself chose not to establish them as doctrines with two or three clear and unambiguous witnesses in His Word.

The is the essence of the Fundamental Rule of Biblical Heremeneutics. It teaches us to behave as if we really believed that God is the Ture Author of Holy Scripture. We tremble at His Word, and we would rather die than teach our personaly speculations as Divine Doctrine.

Example 2) The Seventieth Week of Daniel.

The text of Daniel explicitly states that there would be 70 sevens which are generally understood as years. There is nothing in the prophecy that suggests a gap. The idea of a gap was invented to fit a speculative theory of eschatology. It is not there in the text. There is nothing anywhere else in the Bible that explicitly says it is there. The doctrine of the ever-strething 1978+ year gap fails the test of the Fundamental Doctrine of Biblical Hermeneutics and must not be taught as doctrine.

And there is another problem with the "gap" doctrine. It destroys the temporal meaning of the prophecy. The prophecy of 70 x 7 is generally understood as representing 490 years. This fits very well with the historical fulfillment by Christ in the first century. But the Futurist view is that it really represents 2468 years or more (still counting). To arbitrarily insert a huge gap in the middle of a temporal prophecy destroys its primary message which was that a certain amount of time would pass until the consummation. God knows the meaning of words. If He wanted us to believe that there was a gap, He would have told us so, and confirmed it with at least one or two other witnesses.

Well, that's enough examples. More will come out as I respond to the points in your post.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Dave!

Feel free to comment on anything you like in this thread. Its open for all. I sent a notice to Sandra and hope to hear from her soon.

Yup. That's pretty much the futurist's interp. Sandra sounds like a very nice woman. I would start by asking her if she believes anything in the OD relates to the subject (destruction of the temple and Jerusalem), or did Jesus expound on a separate topic altogether.

Yes, Sandra is a wonderful sister in the Lord. Full of faith and love for God and His Word.

And yes, she holds to the traditional futurist doctrines. I am really glad she was fine with discussing it here.

I'll be getting to the OD part of her post soon, and see how she responds. It looks like she things only Luke applies to the first century. And she seems to think there are at least two subjects, 1) the destruction of the Temple, and 2) a "Second Coming" in the distant future (from the disciples point of view). It will be interesting to dig into that with her, since it seems to me quite clear that the three synoptic accounts are all parallel to each other an so all refer to the first century.

The other question would be - how does the teaching by Jesus and the apostles that the end of the age and last days and Parousia were upon them in the 1st century reconcile with those today teaching it is upon us 2000 yrs later. An event can't be imenent to two dates 2000 yrs apart. If it's imenent today, then their teaching was false. They didn't say 'It could happen AT ANY TIME', they taught it was happening SOON. Big difference.

Peace to you,
Dave

Yes, that is a very important question. I alluded to it in my first response to her when I explained that the Bible clearly teaches the "last days" and the "end of the age" happened in the first century. I am still waiting for a response. I think she's busy with many things, and there probably will be some days between responses.

Richard

PS: Feel free to critique my understanding of eschatology as expresses here. I'm sure there are probably some details where you and I differ. It could be edifying for us all to see what they might be.

[Victor]

We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:

• Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
• Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
• 2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

I love you man!!

[joel]

The Fundamental Rule of Biblical Hermeneutics

Richard,

I asked this question in another thread;

Is there any exception to the "Rule" that you gave?

The scriptures that you cite seem, to me, to be a test of the veracity of testimony brought as evidence against someone who is accused of breaking a "law", or displaying a form of unacceptable behavior.

What about those things in scripture that are "mysteries"? Wouldn't they be an exception to the rule? A mystery being something not previously disclosed, how would you expect to find confirming verses?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

I asked this question in another thread;

Is there any exception to the "Rule" that you gave?

The scriptures that you cite seem, to me, to be a test of the veracity of testimony brought as evidence against someone who is accused of breaking a "law", or displaying a form of unacceptable behavior.

What about those things in scripture that are "mysteries"? Wouldn't they be an exception to the rule? A mystery being something not previously disclosed, how would you expect to find confirming verses?

Joel

Good morning Joel,

That's an excellent question. It brings forth the importance of the "Rule."

If there is a "mystery" that is "revealed" in only one verse with no other verses to confirm its meaning, how then do we settle a dispute about its meaning?

When God reveals a thing that was previously a "mystery" He is able to confirm its meaning with an integrated set of verses just like He does all His fundamental Truths of Scripture. If He does not do this, then we have no warrant to teach a disputed concept as doctrine. We can speculate about the possible meanings all day long. But without clear confirmation from other passages, we are not justified in teaching our speculations as if they were the Truth of Almighty God revealed in the Holy Word.

If you think you have a valid exception of this Rule, then please share it with us so we can test it to see if it needs an exception.

As for the examples I gave - there was absolutely no intent to make it look like someone's "behavior" was "unacceptable." The purpose of the rules of hermeneutics is to clear away the accumulated debris of endless speculations that have obscured our clear view of what the Bible really teaches as opposed to speculations.

Once we have cleared away the thick underbush of speculations, we can all agree about the explicit teachings of the Bible. Then we will know what questions remain unanswered and we can speculate amongst ourselves about their possible resolutions. Without this strict rule, people will inevitable confuse their personal speculations with what is actually taught in the Bible. And that has led to the absolutely deplorable confusion that saturates popular biblical eschatology.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am happy to announce that Sandra joined the forum today. I very much look forward to her contribution to our studies.

Continuing now with her email:

I have a real problem with the concept that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 is Jesus. The nearest antecedent to this word is "the prince that shall come" in verse 26 above it. If "the prince that shall come" is meant to be Jesus, then the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple were the Jews!

To determine who the "he" of verse 27 and the "prince that shall come" of verse 26 is, it becomes necessary to study the visions of Daniel as recorded in chapters 2, 7, 8, 11, and 12. This I will do at a later time.

I think a big part of the cofusion about Daniel 9:26 is the ambiguous translation. The Hebrew is ambigous. I explained this in Post 145 of the Daniel's 70 Weeks thread. As it turns out, their is excellent support for reading that verse as saying this:

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and he [the Messiah] shall shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is to come; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Here is how I explained it:

I was reading that verse in Hebrew, and noticed something most astounding. Here is the literal word for word translation:

And the City (V'HaA'ir)
And the Sanctuary (V'HaQodesh)
He shall destroy (Yashchit)
People (Am)
Prince (Nagid)
That is to come (HaBa)

That is a totally literal word for word rendering. The VERB is the third person imperfect masculine SINGULAR! The word "people" is "Am." It is spelt with exactly the same consonants as "Im" which means "with" as in "Immanuel" = God with us. The only difference is a tiny little vowel point added by the Massoretes. Thus, the most probable literal rendering of the Hebrew reads as follows:

And the city and the sanctuary he shall destroy with the prince that shall come.

Remember, that is the LITERAL HEBREW. It is identical to the Greek LXX, and so the weight of evidence strongly points to this as the correct translation. Furthermore, it makes good grammatical sense.

This translation is further confirmed by the fact that this grammatical construct of a third person imperfect verb followed by "im" (with) is found in Scripture. Here are examples:

Genesis 44:33 Now therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren (ya'al im-echyav).

Exodus 22:30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam (yiyeh im-immo); on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.

Leviticus 15:33 And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean (yishkav im-tameah).

Thus we see that this is a standard form of Hebrew. It is a literal interpretation that also explains the LXX reading.

Remember, there is strong evidence for this translation since it also is found in the Greek Septuagint.

Historically, the sacrificial system did not end three and one half years after the blood covenant made by Jesus in 32 A.D.

That is correct. The text does not say that it would. The text says that he would cause the sacrifice to cease in the middle of the week, which I take to refer to the time of Christ's crucifixion which ended the sacrifices as spiritually effective. The external manifestation of this spiritual truth was not visible until 70 AD when the temple was destroyed.

I admit that this is not the smoothest part of the interpretation, but it seems the most likely given the overall fulfillment of Daniel. It certainly is better than inventing a 2000+ year gap in the prophecy.

And the covenant He initiated was not a seven year covenant, it was Eternal!

Correct. The prophecy does not state that there will be a seven year covenant. The literal Herew simply says that

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:" The word "for" is not in the Hebrew. It is merely stating when the covenant would be made, not how long it would last.

Verse 24 of Daniel 9 states that the 70 weeks of years was meant for the Jews. God Himself divided the 70 weeks into two segments: 69 weeks and 1 week. So at the end of the 69 weeks (483 years) there remained yet 1 week, a period of 7 years, in which God would deal with Israel; at which time all prophesies concerning Israel would be fulfilled. To date this has not occurred.

Yes, God separated the prophecy into 7 + 62 + 1, but there is nothing that suggests a 2000+ year gap. And if there were such a gap, then the angel would have been very misleading to say that there were 70 sevens if those 490 were years, because the gap makes them not 490 years, but rather 2490 years. And so the meaning of the prophecy is lost.

And we know that all of Daniel was fulfilled in 70 AD when the Jews were driven out and the temple destroyed, because that's what Dan 12:7 says:

Daniel 12:6-7 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

And of utmost significance is the fact that Christ Himself confirmed this in the Olivet Discourse:

Luke 21:20-22 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies [fulfilled in 66-70 AD], then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

I look forward to discussing this with you Sandra,

God bless,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As it turns out, Sandra does not like using the forum software, so she and I have been communicating through email. I have received a number of additional long messages from her with many interesting and important points, but am waiting to catch up with my answers to her first message before posting the rest.

So here is where I left off the discussion ....

I now address the Olivet Discourse.

The disciples had asked Jesus when the Temple would be destroyed {answered only in Luke's account below} and what would be the sign of his return and the end of the world (age).

Luke 21:20,21,24a: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation (of the city) thereof is nigh: 22)Then let them which are in Jerusalem flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out. ...24a)And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations (i.e. the Diaspora).

Here is an instance of double reference - verse 24b)"And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Jerusalem is being trodden down by Gentiles today!

When all three synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse are compared, it becomes quite clear that the same questions were answered in all three. As a case in point, here are the parallels that correspond to the passage from Luke that you quoted:

Matthew 24:15-16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Luke 21:20-21 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains;

In all three cases, Christ gave exactly the same instruction to "flee to the mountains" when they see the abomination/armies that causes "desolation." The difference in Luke is almost certainly due to accomodations he made for his Greek audience who would not have understood the reference to Daniel. But what every the reason, one thing is clear, the "armies" in Luke that would bring "desolation" to Jerusalem served as exactly the same purpose as a "sign" to flee as the "abomination of desolation" in Matthew and Mark.

This is why I was waiting to answer your post. I had to finish my article "The Synoptic Apocalypse" since I knew it was very relevent to proving my points in this discussion. Of utmost significance for this discussion is the fact that the Olivet Discourse was compeletely fulfilled in the events leading up to 70 AD. There is nothing about it that is still future.

All three Gospels (Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, and Luke 21) state that false Christs would arise and there would be wars and rumors of wars, but these were to be expected and were not an indication that the end was near..

Yes, those kinds of events would happen all the way up until the consummation in 70 AD, and Christ was clear that they by themeselves were not "signs" of the immediate end. But then later in the Olivet Discourse He repeated the warning immediately before time of his "coming" -

Matthew 24:23-27 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Therefore, the appearance of false prophets is given as a sign that the time of the "Parousia" was near. This is extremely significant, because John used the appearance of many "antichrists" in the first century as PROOF that it was "the last time" (or literally, the "last hour"). I discuss that in my new article here and here.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

And this is confirmed by Josephus, the first century Jew who saw the Great Tribulation of 66-70 AD:

Josephus Wars of the Jews 6.5.3 A false prophet was the occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes.

Therefore, both Scripture and history confirm that Christ's prophecy in the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century.

All three writers record that "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, in conjunction with earthquakes and famine. Luke's account also includes pestilences. "nation against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" is a Jewish idiom for worldwide war.

All those things happened in the first century. There were earthquakes and famines recorded in the NT and history. There is nothing in those predictions that points to a fulfillment 2000+ years in the distant future.

Matthew and Mark state that this would be the beginning of sorrows (birth pangs) leading up to the end times and the Second Coming. World War l (1914-1918) then was the beginning of the birth pangs!

No, that the "birth pangs" were the birth pangs of the first century destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Old Covenant that brought forth the New Covenant Messianic Age of Grace when all people everywhere are called to believe in Christ. Again, there is nothing in the text that suggests a gap of 2000+ years. And if its not in the text, I can't believe it.

According to the Encyclopedia Americana, between 68 - 1896 there were ony 23 recorded earthquakes. The United States Geological Society reports 20 earthquakes for Iran in the 20th Century and the National Geographic Data Center reports 21 major earthquakes (i.e Magnitude 7.0-7.9) in the 20th century.

The increase of earthquakes has been debunked. And besides, it wouldn't prove anything anyway because we have better detection now so we don't know how many eathquakes used to happen. And besides that, the quakes are not a clear sign since they always happen anyway.

And of course, we are painfully aware of the HIV Aids virus, ebola and West Nile viruses in the end of the 20th Century.

Those "plagues" are like a hangnail compared to the Black Death that wiped our something like one third of the European population in the 14th century. But even if there were lots of plauges, you still can't use them to set dates. They are simply too imprecise, and besides all that, there is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that indicates a future fulfillemnt. Christ made it perfectly clear that 66-70 AD were the "days of vengeance when all that is written must be fulfillled" and that the generation to whom He spoke would "not pass, till all be fulfilled."

All three Gospels relate that the disciples would be persecuted for their testimony of Christ; but that this would happen before the world wars. History has borne this out.

Exactly correct! The Jews in the synogoues scrourged Paul five times with 39 stripes. And they stoned Stephen to death. And they dragged Chrsitians into their synogues and condemned them, exactly as Christ predicted.



This is one of the great and mighty proofs that Christ was talking about the first century. When was the last time you were dragged into a SYNAGOGUE to be whipped for your testimony of Christ?

Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

See that? Nothing like that is happening now, and nothing like that is going to happen in the future. But many Christians were delivered up to Jewish councils and beaten by the Jews in the synagogues in the first century. Thus we know with complete certainty that Christ was warning His first century disciples about the persectution they would receive from their fellow Jews.

As an aside, right before the Lord's ascension, the disciples asked Jesus if he would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel. Acts 1:7 "And he said unto them, It is not for you to KNOW the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. They were aware of the promise of restoration to Israel (cf Isaiah 1:26 "And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the begin-
ning: afterward then shalt thou be called, the city of righteousness, the faithful city.")

The text says nothing about them being "aware of the promise of restoration to Israel." It is true, of course, that they were hoping for that, and they probably believed in it, but there is nothing in the NT to support the idea that God was going to restore carnal Israel as a nation amongst the nations of the earth. On the contrary, the Bible makes it perfectly clear that God's plan is entirely different. For the kingdom of Christ is not "of this world." The nation of Israel served its purpose in the unfolding drama of redemption. God will never go backwards to working with an ethnic nation again. His Gospel now is for all people everywhere, and there is not Jew nor Greek in Christ.

I have wondered that by use of the word "know" Jesus was telling them that they would not be alive when the kingdom was restored; that they wouldn't experience it - know, as in Adam KNEW his wife.

Yes, that is a valid way to understand "know" but I don't think it applies here because there is nothing in the NT that suggests a future plan to restore a carnal kingdom of Israel.

Since the times and seasons governed the Jewish feasts, could this be a hint that this would occur on a future Jewish Feast Day - the Feast of Tabernacles, to be exact. I've reason to believe so, based on Scripture, but won't go into that now.

I agree that the Feasts are of the greatest significance because they predicted the primary events of the death and resurrection of Christ and Pentecost. But I see no value in speculating about the future. The purpose of prophecy is not to give us things to guess about like pagan prognosticators. The purpose is to prove after the fact that God knew what was going to happen before it happened. This builds faith. Speculating about dates in the future destroys faith because date setters are always wrong, 1000% of the time.

Returning to the Discourse, Matthew and Mark both speak of the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel. More on this later. They both give the warning to flee to the mountains {more on this later also} when this takes place.

As noted above, all three mention the "desolation" and all three immediately follow that with the command to "flee to the mountains." And this indicates again that Christ was talking about the first century, since a flight to the hills would be little help in a world wide "Great Tribulation."

Matthew states there will then (after the abomination and flight) be great tribulation (Mark calls it great affliction); the worst the world has ever known or will ever know.

Correct. And that happened in 70 AD with the total and final annihilation of the Jewish world, city, Temple, and society. Nothing like it ever happended before or since, and nothing like it could happen now, because the Jews do not have a temple, and even if they build a temple it would not be sanctified by God because Christ is the True Temple and even if God wanted a carnal Temple He wouldn't sanctify one built by unbeleivers. Therefore, it is impossible to repeat the first century and repeat the desolation of the Temple. It's all been done already. Why repeat it? Why deny the fulfillment of those great prophecies?

Both Matthew and Mark state that if the days of tribulation weren't shortened, all flesh (mankind and animals) would be destroyed out of the earth; but that for the sake of the elect, the Lord will shorten the days.

The word "earth" typically refers to the "land" of Israel. There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that suggests the entire globe was in view.

As terrible and agonizing for the Jews as the destruction of the city and the Temple was for them in 70 A.D. it wasn't so horrific that the extinction of civilization was a threat!

Christ was talking about saving some of the ELECT first century Jewish Christians. He was not talking about the destruction of all life on the planet.

History has shown that the Holocaust was a greater disaster in terms of the death toll, and the tribulation judgments in the Book of Revelation far exceed anything the world has ever, or will ever experience!

As bad as the holocaust was, it was nothing compared to the destruction of the entire Jewish world and their Temple as a direct result of their rejection of their God and Messiah! This exemplifies the problem with the futurist view. It diminishes the central importance of the Gospel and Christ. The destruction of 70 AD was the final consequence of the Jewish rejection of Christ. It fulfilled the words Christ spoke to them immediately before the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 23:34-36 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.



Do you see the depth of perfection of the Holy Word? Here we see Christ condemning the unbelieving Jews for persecution of the believing Jews, and we see that He gave the TIME MARKER of "this generation" as to when it would all happen. And what's more, we have the confirmation and fulfillment of this warning when apostate Jerusalem (Mystery Babylon) was finally destroyed in 70 AD:

Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Christ answered the question of "when" with perfect clarity. I discuss this in my new article here.

Well, that's enough for this post. I'll answer more as I find time.

God bless you Sandra! I am really thankful that you have taken the time to explain your view of eschatology with me.

Richard