More Thoughts on Speculation

As a follow-up to my post yesterday I am reminded of these statements made by Elder Thomas Mann in his popular sermon published on this blog:

"If an infant is elect of God and dies in infancy, what happens? It goes right to be with God. Could that infant articulate its love for Christ as an infant? Of course not, but the Bible doesn't spend a lot of time on that. And what I want to try to do in the next weeks, if again the Lord leads in this, is to try to stick with the Scriptures. Because I have literally argued till I was blue in the face with, not people in this church, but people across the country who asked me questions about this. And invariably if you get off into speculation, “Well now, what about this, what about that, what about this ramification, what about that implication” it starts getting real foggy, but if you can just keep saying “Well, let's try to come back to what the Scripture says. Let's come back to the Bible on this”. It's amazing how things start to shift and fall into place."

As a former PB elder myself, I know exactly why Mann made this statement.  Obviously he noticed as well that his contemporaries put too much emphasis on speculation (in this case, the salvation of infants) when seeking to undermine the gospel means pattern of salvation in order to build a case for their own novelty.  Mysterious cases, what-about-this, what-about-that, should be given secondary importance, and interpreted in the light of the Bible, where matters are settled by a “thus saith the Lord” authority.

And I would like to add that even if we as Christians were never able to give an answer to such cases, our position is in no wise weakened. We have explicit texts in the Bible which teach gospel means.  And that is where we take our stand!  No amount of speculation will overthrow “Thus saith the Lord”! Indeed, it marked a great turning point in my own life when I began to let the clear teaching of scripture dictate my position on certain doctrinal points, not allowing that which is less clear to have the priority it once did.

So heap together all the speculation in the world you desire to undermine God’s use of means in the salvation of the soul.  I will write the word of God on top of it all:

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?  and how they shall believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?  And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, how beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!  But they have not all obeyed the gospel.  For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:14-17)

The Problem Of Speculation

What about infants?

What about the heathen in remote lands?

What about the American Indians before 1492?

Speculation about the fate of those who we think have no opportunity to hear the gospel of Christ occupies no small place in the Primitive Baptist defense of their anti-means theology.  I should know. I did it for over a decade. The fact that the gospel of our Lord had not made it to certain peoples throughout history automatically precluded the gospel means pattern of salvation from consideration.  There was really no need to bother with exegesis, as a simple scan of history revealed that the reach of the gospel was limited; and that this was enough to tell you that Hardshell anti-means doctrine must be true. Indeed, must be the only truth.

There is no doubt in my mind that my Primitive Baptist friends today are greatly afflicted with this sort of reasoning. I have been in their company too many times and borne witness to such. For instance, on the day I was excluded from my home church, the moderator of the meeting, instead of appealing to scripture, asked me this question:  “What about the people who live in China?” As if all we have to do is just take notice that the gospel has not made it into such-and-such-place, and we may safely conclude at the outset that salvation must therefore be wrought without means.

I used to hear similar questions to this all the time:  What about my next-door neighbor?  What about my sister who is a good person but never goes to church?  What about all those people who....[fill in the blank]?

Yes, let’s not refer to a specific text in God’s Word.  Rather, let’s get our answer by speculating about the fate of people living in a country or situation wherein the gospel is not totally known, and conclude from it that the average Christian’s understanding of salvation must be incorrect, and excluded from the outset! I can then take this view of mine to the scripture and interpret it based on what I have already deduced from my view of the world.

The average reader should be able to easily conclude that this sort of argumentation is not justified. Indeed, what is the main problem with this sort of argumentation, apart from the conclusion flying smack-dab in the face of the Bible?  It is this, and I pray that my Primitive Baptists will give heed to what I now say.

The question of whether or not men must hear and believe the gospel to be saved is going to be settled, like all other matters, by a submission to God’s Word. We do not get truth by first turning to the world, make a deduction based on what we think we see, and then take this perspective to the Bible.  Rather, we get truth by going straight to the Bible, learn from there how our God operates, and then let this determine how we see the world.  When we do that, the express statements of the Bible will be made to trump any deduction made from speculation, observation, reason, or logic. As it ought.

Are Anti Missionaries Saved?

Spurgeon said:

“Every Christian here is either a missionary or an impostor. Recollect that you are either trying to spread abroad the kingdom of Christ, or else you do not love him at all. It cannot be that there is a high appreciation of Jesus, and a totally silent tongue about him. Of course I do not mean, by that, that those who use the pen for Christ are silent; they are not. And those who help others to use the tongue, or spread that which others have written, are doing their part well; but I mean this,—that man who says, ‘I believe in Jesus,’ but does not think enough of Jesus ever to tell another about him, by mouth, or pen, or tract, is an impostor.”

C. H. Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 54 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1908), 476–477.

"Do you want to go to heaven alone? I fear you will never go there. Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you are not saved yourself. Be sure of that. What is the most natural plan to use for the salvation of others but to bear your own personal testimony?"

“SHE WAS NOT HID” NO. 2019

Do you witness to others about their salvation? If not, then you are likely not saved yourself.

"My Words Will Not Depart From You"

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." ((Isa. 59: 21)

The word of promise is not only that the LORD will without fail "put" his "spirit" upon his chosen people and his "words" into their mouths but would insure that those very words would remain ("not depart") in the mouth. This is about a good a verse supporting the sure and certain perseverance of the elect, of those who have God's "spirit" upon them and his "words" in their hearts and mouths ("for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"), as any.

Dr. Gill wrote:

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord,...Which shall be manifested and made good to them that repent of their sins, and, believe in Christ; and to whom the particular blessing of it shall be applied, the forgiveness of their sins."

shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever; that is, shall always continue with the church and her spiritual seed, such as are born in her, and brought up by her, throughout all successive ages, and to the end of time; and it may be observed, that after the conversion of the Jews, to which this prophecy has a special regard, they shall no more apostatize; the Spirit of the Lord shall not depart from them; and the Gospel shall always be professed by them: and it may be further observed, that the Spirit and the word go together; and that the latter is only effectual as accompanied will, the former, and is a proof of the perseverance of the church of God, and of all such who have the Spirit and grace of God, Christ will always have a church, and that church a seed, in which the Spirit and word will always remain. The grace of the Spirit, in the hearts of God's people, never removes from them; nor his Gospel from such, in whose hearts it works effectually. The Targum interprets this of the words of prophecy; and the Talmud of the law not departing from the disciples of wise men; but it is best to understand it of the Gospel not departing from the disciples of Christ, and the seed of the church."

Ah yes, "the Spirit and the word go together"!

Real conversion and rebirth in the image of God will issue in faithful adherence to Christ.

How Can I Not Remember?

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psa. 9: 17 kjv)

"I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me." (Psa 119:93)

"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy." (Psa 137: 5-6)

Is the new birth experience or phenomenon not "memorable"? Is it not such a drastic radical change that "old things are passed away and all things become new"? (II Cor. 5: 17)  Does not God make a "lasting impression" on the sinner's heart when he turns to the Lord in repentance and faith?

The texts above, like many others of the same nature, show that the salvation and conversion experience makes such a lasting impression upon the soul or spirit that what is learned in it is "indelibly written" upon it. "Indelibly" means "in a way that cannot be removed or forgotten"!

Does God not "write" upon the table of the heart in the new birth? And, does he not continue to write upon the heart as we live our lives as newborn children of God?

Anyone who forgets God is doomed for Hell. That is what the Psalmist said.

Said the Lord Jesus:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14: 26)

Here the Holy Spirit is viewed as being an agent in bringing to remembrance. That fact itself overthrows the reasoning of some that Paul's words imply that real Christians can forget God and what he has taught them in the new birth.

Bad Translation
(Of I Cor. 15: 2)

Consider also the fact that "keep in memory" is a bad translation. The KJV intends that "keep in memory" mean all the same as "hold firmly" yet that is not what the average English reader will understand in our day. Nearly all other English translations translate more correctly. The Greek word is κατέχετε (katechete) and means "you hold firmly."

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says:

"If ye keep in memory what I preached unto you.—Better, if ye hold fast with what word I preached the gospel to you, unless you believed in vain."

Barnes Notes says:

"If ye keep in memory - Margin, as in the Greek, "if ye hold fast." The idea is, that they were saved by this, or would be, if they faithfully retained or held the doctrine as he delivered it; if they observed it, and still believed it, notwithstanding all the efforts of their enemies, and all the arts of false teaching to wrest it from them." 

See my entry along this line in the posting "On Perseverance" (here).

Dr. Gill wrote:

"if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you; or rather, "if ye hold fast, or retain"; that is, by faith, the doctrine preached to you, and received by you, particularly the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead; for the salvation that is connected with it does not depend upon the strength of the memory, but upon the truth and steadfastness of faith: it is the man that perseveres in the faith and doctrine of Christ that shall be saved; and everyone that has truly believed in Christ, and cordially embraced his Gospel, shall hold on, and out to the end; though the faith of nominal believers may be overthrown by such men, as Hymenaeus and Philetus, who asserted, that the resurrection was past already; but so shall not the faith of real believers, because the foundation on which they are built stands sure, and the Lord has perfect knowledge of them, and will keep and save them. The other exception is,

unless ye have believed in vain: not that true faith can be in vain; for that is the faith of God's elect, the gift of his grace, the operation of his Spirit; Christ is the author and finisher of it, and will never suffer it to fail; it will certainly issue in everlasting salvation: but then as the word may be heard in vain, as it is by such who are compared to the wayside, and to the thorny and rocky ground; and as the Gospel of the grace of God may be received in vain; so a mere historical faith may be in vain; this a man may have, and not the grace of God, and so be nothing; with this he may believe for a while, and then drop it: and since each of these might possibly be the case of some in this church, the apostle puts in these exceptions, in order to awaken the attention of them all to this important doctrine he was reminding them of."  (Commentary)

Now this is the Old Baptist belief in regard to I Cor. 15: 2 and to the doctrine of perseverance.

In closing let me say that the words "ye are saved" are present tense linear and could rather be translated as "ye are being saved."

Is Alzheimer's Proof of Time Salvation?

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." - 1 Cor. 15:1-2

When the Apostle Paul originally penned down these words to the Corinthians was he aware that sometimes folks have memory lapses, or lose it altogether?

One of the more fanciful interpretations of scripture that I ever heard while still belonging to the Primitive Baptist denomination was a certain elder’s take on this passage.  It was at a bible study, which was a rare thing, at least in my neck of the woods.  He argued that this passage could not possibly be talking about eternal salvation as some people suffer from Alzheimer’s and, consequently, memory loss. And since we believed that God’s people could not lose their eternal salvation, then the only alternative was that a different salvation was under consideration.  Sadly, this made sense to me at the time. But the days of my strange approach to scripture are over, thankfully.

Utterly amazing is the fact that no one else in Christendom makes such an argument. 

Such an argumentation reveals much about the Hardshells and their beloved doctrine of gospel time salvation.  Apparently, they are okay with the failure of gospel time salvation!  If they were not, they would resort to the same philosophizing, simplistic reasoning, and strange argumentations in order to preserve the integrity of time salvation with which they do in regards to eternal salvation.  The fact they do not is an implicit admission that their beloved, novel doctrine is of man, both accomplished and preserved by libertarian free-will. 

We said it, and we will say it again.  If Hardshells believed that gospel time salvation was "of the Lord", then they would be jumping up and down, screaming that an even different salvation than this one must be under consideration! They would be striving with all might, fighting tooth and nail, to preserve its integrity with the same vigor as they do that of eternal salvation!

Why is the existence of Alzheimer’s not also proof that 1 Cor. 15:1-2 can’t be treating of gospel time salvation? Because of what I just wrote above.  Primitive Baptists are okay with gospel time salvation failing in those “few” elect they feel even come to know and believe the gospel in the first place.  It’s up to the born-again child of God to rely upon his own ability to continue in the faith, for in this system, preservation does not include perseverance.

P-E-L-A-G-I-A-N-I-S-M.

Doctrines Of Demons

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons." (NKJV)

Recently I wrote another posting on "demons" titled "Demons Today" (here). In this posting I want to focus on how demons are behind the proliferation of Christian cults (not to mention non Christian religious cults) and false doctrines, and show that many heretics are demon possessed or demon influenced.

Let us first begin by asking - What kind of Genitive is intended by the words "doctrines of devils"? Do the words mean "teachings concerning demons" or "teachings by demons"?

Wrote Albert Barnes:

"This may either mean teachings "respecting" demons, or teachings "by" demons. The particular sense must be determined by the connection. Ambiguity of this kind in the construction of words, where one is in the genitive case, is not uncommon...Instances of the construction where the genitive denotes the "object," and should be translated "concerning..."

"Whether the phrase here means that, in the apostasy, they would give heed to doctrines "respecting" demons, or to doctrines which demons "taught," cannot, it seems to me, be determined with certainty. If the previous phrase, however, means that they would embrace doctrines taught by evil spirits, it can hardly be supposed that the apostle would immediately repeat the same idea in another form; and then the sense would be, that one characteristic of the time referred to would be the prevalent teaching "respecting" demons. They would "give heed to," or embrace, some special views respecting demons."

I tend to agree with the majority interpretation that the words mean "doctrines coming from demons." Yet, both interpretations are true. In other words, in the latter days, vast numbers of people will both embrace heresies coming from demons as well as heresies concerning demons. Let me focus on the former, however.

The source of false doctrine is demonic. These false doctrines are "inventions" of men who are "inspired" by demons.

"Thou answeredst them, O LORD our God: thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions." (Psa 99:8)

"Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them." (Psa 106:29)

"Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions." (Psa 106:39)

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." (Ecc 7:29)

Said Dr. Gill on Psa 106:29:

"All false doctrine and false worship are of men's finding out; all idolatrous practices are their inventions, and which are here intended."

The apostle Paul speaks of "inventors of evil things." (Rom 1:30) Surely this would include inventors of false doctrines, inventors of ways to change the meaning of words to alter the original meaning of the text of scripture, inventors of ingenious Sophistic "interpretations" of biblical texts.

Here is what I wrote several years ago in chapter seven of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" and titled "Time Salvation A Novel Idea":

This is where a cunning and devilish mind "invented" a "new" doctrine, for the purpose of defending "anti-means" in the face of passages that clearly teach the use of them. It was "sophistry" at its best. It was invented to simply win an argument and not from an honest genuine conviction that Hardshellism is taught in the Scriptures.  (See here)

They "invented" a new doctrine when they came up with their "time salvation" ideology.

Paul uses the plural for "doctrines" when he speaks of "doctrines of demons." Why is the plural used instead of the singular "doctrine" in this passage? Wrote one writer:

"Have you ever noticed that when the inspired word makes reference to the teachings of God or Christ, it always uses the word "doctrine" (singular). For example, "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (2 John 9). Or, "showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God" (Titus 2:10).

Contrast this with references to the teachings of men — the Bible typically uses the word "doctrines" (plural). Notice:

"But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" (Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7)

"(Which all refer to things destined to perish with use) — in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men" (Colossians 2:22)

"…paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1)

"Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings" (Hebrews 13:9)

Have you any ideas about why there is this different usage of words in the New Testament? Here's a simple suggestion:

God and Jesus have only one doctrine. There is no contradiction. All of the teaching that comes from them is completely harmonious. Men have many doctrines. They are confusing; they do not agree with one another; there is tremendous contradiction. This easily applied rule can be a great help to us as we seek the truth. If something is from God, it conforms to all other aspects of truth. On the other hand, if we are unable to harmonize something we believe with other things taught in God's word, it should warn us to look deeper — there is a problem with some part of our understanding. It's a simple point, but one that lots of folks need to learn!" (see here)

Be careful my brothers with being inspired by demons in your interpretation of scripture. Demons, like Satan their master, know the scriptures well, and they know how to confuse the mind as it ponders the word of God. These demons whisper in the ear as you read saying "that does not mean what you think it means, but it means this." The leading of demons and of the sinful flesh and mind is to twist or distort what is read in Scripture. Be careful with holy scripture. Have an honest and sincere heart as you read and study and be on guard that your understanding is coming from the Holy Spirit rather than an evil spirit.

On The "Free Will" Theodicy

"The simple presence of free will is not enough to explain the origin of evil." (From "Why Does God Allow Evil?" by R.C. Sproul (here)

I have studied the so called "problem of evil" for nearly fifty years and I can say amen to the above words.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse XVII

"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."

This destruction of the city and sanctuary occurred in A.D. 70. But, if Jesus died in the midst of the final week, that would leave only 3 1/2 years after his death for the completion of the seventy weeks. The destruction of the city and temple occurred a little less than forty years after the death of Christ. But, should not the destruction have occurred within 3 1/2 years following the death of Christ? How do we explain the fact that the destruction occurred after the 70 weeks had ended? Some make a big issue in regard to this fact.

Those who believe Jesus died in the gap and not in the 70th week will use the above fact as argument against those, like Mauro, others, and I, who believe Christ was "cut off," not in the supposed gap, but "in the midst" of the 70th week, which is the time in which Christ nullified all the old testament ritual sacrifices for atonement. These say that since the destruction of the city and temple occurred outside of the 70 week time period (it ending 3 1/2 yrs. after his death), then this proves that a gap exists. But, such reasoning is not logical but is a case of reading more into the text than is there.

Some reply to this argument of the advocates of the gap and postponement theory by giving several options for explaining the fact that the destruction of city and temple occurred in a time when the 70 weeks had already ended. Mauro believed that God extended to the Jews a period of time to repent for their crime of crucifying their own Messiah. A better explanation is given by others, however.

In "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and Biblical Prophecy" Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. (here) writes these good words (emphasis mine) in answering the same objection:

"Although the event that serves as the terminus of the sixty-ninth week is clearly specified, such is not the case with the terminus of the seventieth. Thus, the exact event that ends the seventieth is not so significant for us to know. Apparently at the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity, the coven­antal proclamation began to be turned toward the Gentiles (Acts 8:1). The apos­tle to the Gentiles appears on the scene at Steph­en’s death (Acts 7:58–8:1) as the Jewish persecution against Chris­tianity breaks out. Paul’s mission is clearly stated as ex­ceeding the narrow Jewish focus (Acts 9:15)."

This seems to me to be a very good response to the question. It also made me think of these words from Luke the historian:

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13: 46)

Gentry continued:

"This confirmation of the covenant occurs “in the middle of the week” (v. 27). I have already shown that the seventieth week begins with the baptismal anointing of Christ. Then, after three and one-half years of ministry — the middle of the seven­ti­eth week — Christ was crucified (Luke 13:6–9; Eccl. Hist. 1:10:3). Thus, the prophecy states that by His conclusive confir­mation of the covenant, Messiah will “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” (v. 27) by offering up Himself as a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 9:25–26, cf. 7:11–12, 18–22). Consequently, at His death the Temple’s veil was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51) as evidence that the sacrificial system was legally disestab­lished in the eyes of God (cf. Matt. 23:38), for Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5–7)."

Those who promote the gap theory generally put the fulfillment of the words "unto Messiah the Prince" to the time on Palm Sunday when Christ rides into Jerusalem on the donkey. Those who promote the traditional view, however, see the words "unto Messiah the Prince" as pointing to the time when Christ was "anointed with the Holy Spirit and power" at his baptism. Messiah means, like "Christ," "the anointed one."

If we ask the question "when did the sacrifices end?" we answer: they were "officially" ended by God with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and ended practically when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.

Gentry continued:

"But how are we to understand the latter portions of both verses 26 and 27? What are we to make of the destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 26) and the abomination that causes desolation (v. 27), which most non-dispensational evangelical commentators agree occurred in AD 70?

In verse 26 we learn that two events are to occur after the sixty-ninth week: (1) The Messiah is to be “cut off” and (2) the city and sanctuary are to be destroyed. Verse 27a informs us that the Messiah’s cutting off (v. 26a) is a confirmation of the covenant and is to occur at the halfway mark of the seventieth week. So, the Messiah’s death is clearly within the time frame of the Seventy Weeks (as we expect because of His being the ma­jor figure of the fulfillment of the prophecy).

The events involving the destruction of the city and the sanctuary with war and desolation (vv. 26b, 27b) are the conse­quences of the cutting off of the Messiah and do not necessarily occur in the Seventy Weeks’ time frame. They are an addendum to the fulfillment of the focus of the prophecy, which is stated in verse 24. The destructive acts are anticipated, however, in the divine act of sealing up or reserving the sin of Israel for pun­ishment. Israel’s climactic sin — her completing of her trans­gression (v. 24) with the cutting off of Messiah (v. 26a) — results in God’s act of reserving Israel’s sin until later. Israel’s judg­ment will not be postponed forever; it will come after the expi­ra­tion of the Seventy Weeks. This explains the “very indefi­n­ite” phrase “till the end of the war”: the “end” will not oc­cur during the Seventy Weeks.[35] That prophesied end occurred in AD 70, exactly as Christ had made abundantly clear in Mat­thew 24:15.

My own explanation has been similar to this. The prophecy does not say that the destruction of the city and temple were to occur within the 70 week time period. It is not listed among the six things delineated in verse 24 that would be accomplished by the coming of "Messiah the Prince." That is important to note. Based upon this we can say that the prophecy does not say that the destruction of city and temple, along with the dispersion of the Jews, was to occur within the time period of the 70 weeks, unlike the six things listed in verse 24. One may really view the words "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" as a parenthesis.

When one looks at the new testament gospel narratives we see how Jesus, after being rejected by the builders, pronounced desolation upon the city and temple. He said "your house is left unto you desolate." (Matt. 23: 38) The judgment upon the city and temple was announced by the Savior in the seventieth week and its execution was carried out fully in A.D. 70.

When did the sacrifices and oblations cease? In the middle of the week, the 70th week. But, after the death of Christ, these continued to be offered until the destruction in A.D. 70.

Gentry continued under the sub title "The Gap in the Seventy Weeks":

"Dispensationalism incorpo­rates a gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventi­eth weeks. This gap spans the entire­ty of the Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the Rap­ture.[36] The dispensational argu­ments for a gap of un­de­ter­mined length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks are not convincing. Let us consider a few of their leading argu­ments for a gap.

First, the peculiar phraseology in Daniel: Daniel places the cut­ting off of the Messiah “after the 62 ‘sevens,’ not in the 70th ‘seven.’”[37] This is so stated to allow for a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. If the cutting off did not occur during the sixty-ninth week or during the seventieth week, there must be a gap in between wherein it does occur."

But this line of argument is a "begging the question," assumes a fact not in evidence and then reasons upon it.

Gentry responded:

"In response, it is obvious that seventy occurs after sixty-nine and thus fits the requirements of the prophecy. Consequently, such an argument does not prove that the “after” requires a gap. Besides, Daniel mentions only seventy weeks and, as Hans LaRon­delle has pointed out, Daniel most certainly does not say “after sixty-nine weeks, but not in the seventieth.”[38] Such an expla­n­a­tion is a gratuitous assumption. Since Daniel has yet to deal with the seventi­eth week, and since he has clearly dealt with the pre­ceding sixty-nine weeks (v. 25), it is quite natural to assume this cutting off of the Messiah must be sometime within the seven-year period cov­ered by the seventieth week."

Well said. The gap view simply has "no legs to stand on."

Gentry continued:

"Second, a fatal admission: “Historically the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in AD 70 almost forty years after the death of Christ.”[39] Since this was given in Daniel’s prophecy and was to occur within the Seventy Weeks, “the continuous fulfillment theory [is] left without any explanation adequate for interposing an event as occurring after the sixty-ninth seven by some thirty-eight years.”[40]

I have already explained the relation of the Seventy Weeks to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (see above). The goal of the Seventy Weeks is not the AD 70 destruction of the Tem­ple, which is not mentioned in verse 24. That destruction is a later consequence of certain events brought to fulfillment within the Seventy Weeks. The actual act of God’s reserving judgment (v. 24) occurred within the Seventy Weeks; the later removal of that reservation did not. There is no necessity at all for a gap."

Again, the reasoning of the gap theorists simply "will not hold water."

Gentry continued:

"Third, the general tendency in prophecy: Walvoord writes: “Nothing should be plainer to one reading the Old Testament than that the fore­view therein provided did not describe the period of time be­tween the two advents. This very fact confused even the proph­ets (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).”[41] His argument then is this: Old Tes­tament prophecy can merge the First and Sec­ond Advents into one scene, though separated by thousands of years. Conse­quently, we have Biblical warrant for understand­ing the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks as merged into one scene, although separated by a gap of thousands of years."

The fact that many of the prophets of old did not clearly foresee the duality of Christ's coming, and of many things in this "church age," does not prove that such a "gap" understanding is to be applied to cases where a specific and definite time period is given, whether in days, weeks, months, or years.

Gentry continued:

"This argument is wholly without merit. The Seventy Weeks are considered as a unit, though subdivided into three unequal parts: (1) It is one period of seventy weeks that must transpire in order to experience the events men­tioned. The plural “seventy weeks” is followed by a singular verb “is decreed,” which indicates the unity of the time period. (2) An overriding concern of the prophecy, in distinction to all other Messianic prophecies, is that it is designed as a measuring time frame. If the dispensational gap theory regarding the seventieth week is true, then the gap separating the seventieth from the sixty-ninth week is now almost 2000 years long, or four times the whole time period of the Seventy Weeks or 490 years. And who knows how much longer it will continue. The concept of measuring is thus destroyed."

Exactly! There is really nothing about the Dispensational gap theory that is based upon sound exegesis and reasoning.

Gentry under sub title "The Dispensational Covenant" wrote:

"The confirmation of the covenant mentioned in verse 27 is woefully misunderstood by dispensationalists. According to Walvoord: “[T]his refers to the coming world ruler at the be­ginning of the last seven years who is able to gain control over ten countries in the Middle East. He will make a covenant with Israel for a seven-year period. As Daniel 9:27 indicates, in the middle of the seven years he will break the covenant, stop the sacrifices being offered in the temple rebuilt in that period, and become their persecutor instead of their protector, fulfilling the promises of Israel’s day of trouble (Jer. 30:5–7).”[42]

Several problems plague this interpretation, some of which have already been indicated in another connection:

The covenant here is not made; it is confirmed. This is actually the confirmation of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace confirmed by Christ (Rom. 15:8)."

"Several problems plague this interpretation"! Amen to that.

Gentry continued:

"As noted above, the term is related to the name of the angel of God who delivered the message to Daniel: Gabriel (“God is strong”). The lexical correspondence between the name of the strong angel of God (who reveals the Seventy Weeks to Daniel) and the making strong of the cove­nant, themselves suggest the divine nature of the covenant. In addition, covenantal passages frequently employ related terms, when speaking of the strong God of the covenant.[43]

The parallelism with verse 26 indicates that the death of the Messiah is directly related to the confirming of the cove­nant. He is “cut off” but “not for himself” (v. 26a), for He “con­firms the covenant” for the “many” of Israel (v. 27a). His “cut­ting off” brings the confirmation of the covenant, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince who is to come” of verse 26.[44] That “prince” is a subor­di­nate noun; “the people” is the dominant noun. Thus, the “he” refers back to the last dominant individual mentioned: “Messi­ah” (v. 26a). The Messiah is the leading figure in the whole prophecy, so the destruction of the Temple is relat­ed to His death. In fact, the people who destroy the Tem­ple are providen­tially “His armies” (Matt. 22:2–7)."

The great error of the Dispensational interpretation is that it ends up making, not Christ, but the Antichrist, as "the leading figure in the whole prophecy." That in itself should make it highly suspect as a legitimate interpretation. They do the same thing with the rider on the white horse in Rev. 6: 2, making Antichrist to be the rider rather than Christ.

You Just Can't Do That!

You just cannot do the following things, my Hardshell brothers, and expect to escape the judgment of God. In other words, you cannot do them and get away with it. You will be called to account before the judgment seat of Christ.

You cannot

1. give to bible words altered and strange definitions (the devil is in the definition)

such as:

1. "faith"
2. "regeneration"
3. "conversion"
4. "saved"
5. "heaven" (hell) (earth)
6. "angel(s)"
7. "word of God"
8. "voice of God"

2. give to bible verses (statements, sentences, etc.) perverted interpretations

such as, in these cases:

1. Acts 26: 16-18
2. I Peter 1: 23-25
3. James 1: 18
4. II Cor. 2:16
5. Acts 3:19
6. Etc.

3. Keep giving hope to unbelievers and hypocrites by the way you preach the gospel and the doctrines of grace.

such as:

1. turning the grace of God into lasciviousness

2. telling people that nothing they do in this life has eternal consequences

4. Keep opposing and slandering the work of others who are preaching the gospel with the idea of being instrumental in the salvation of sinners.

examples being

1. Condemning the hard work of saints who have labored to send the gospel to the heathen

2. Attributing the worst of motives to those who preach to sinners for their salvation

5. Violating the great commission (as Elder Watson said)

by:

1. Failing to warn the wicked, and the saints

2. Failing to do what God says without questioning

"Turn Or Burn" Gospel

In listening to a Hardshell elder give a synopsis of what today's "Primitive Baptists" believe about gospel preaching he said "the gospel is not a burn or turn message." Of course, I have heard this repeated by other Hardshells. Is it part of gospel preaching to say to lost sinners "repent (turn) or perish (burn)"? Hardshells say no, but nearly all other Bible believers say yes. What says the scriptures? Did not the first Baptist preach "turn or burn"? Did not the prophets and apostles? The truth is, announcing the gospel's "turn or burn" message is not part of Hardshell gospel preaching, and in fact they rather decry it. Why won't one Hardshell apologist step forward and come here and prove that the bible does not uphold the "turn or burn" message?

Think you will escape "everlasting burnings" (Isa. 33: 14) without turning to God and away from other idols and gods? If so, you are greatly deceived.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse XVI

"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."

All agree that the reference to the Messiah being "cut off" was fulfilled when the Lord Jesus Christ died upon the cross of Calvary. All also agree that "the prince that shall come," who shall "destroy the city and the sanctuary," was fulfilled when the Roman prince Titus destroyed both city and temple in A.D. 70. The disagreement comes in identifying the "he" in the prophetic words "he shall confirm the covenant with many." The traditional interpretation identified the "he" with Christ, but those espousing the gap or postponement theory identify the "he" with Antichrist.

Of course, which view one takes will effect how one interprets the work of what this "he" will do and what it means for him to "confirm the covenant with many for one week."

Those who espouse the traditional view affirm that Christ, being the "he," fulfilled this prophecy when he died upon the cross and they cite such passages as these from the new testament.

"For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26: 28)

"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." (Rom. 15: 8)

Paul in Hebrews speaks much of the new covenant in Jesus blood, speaking of "the blood of the covenant" that sanctifies (Heb. 10: 29) and connecting that with the death of Christ.

"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (13: 20).

"The covenant" is the covenant containing the promises of God concerning man's redemption and deliverance, revealed in the long ago to the prophets.

Wrote Mauro:

"Therefore, all the facts and reasons we have given in proof that verse 27 speaks of Christ, and all the facts and reasons given to show that the prince that is to come of verse 26 was Titus, avail equally to prove that the 70th week joined directly to the 69th. And conversely, all the facts and reasons we are now about to set forth in proof that the 70th week was indeed one of the "seventy," and not a detached and remote period, avail equally to prove that verse 27 refers to Christ."

That is my view exactly.

Wrote Mauro:

"We have thus far appealed only to the plain and obvious meaning of the words "seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression," etc. But there is much more in this prophecy to bind the last week of the Seventy firmly to the other sixty-nine. The 69 weeks brought us "unto the Messiah," but not to His death, by which Israel "finished the transgression.""

Agreed. So, when was Messiah "cut off"? In what week?

Wrote Mauro:

"In order that there should be not the slightest uncertainty as to this, the prophecy says, "And after the three-score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off." Thus the 69 weeks are nothing, except years which must elapse -- a blank space of time,- whereas the 70th week is everything to the purpose of fulfilling the six predictions of verse 24. If then, we know when the Messiah was cut off, we know when the six things of verse 24 were accomplished. And we do know, both by the words of the prophecy, and also by the information given in the Gospel according to John, that Christ was crucified within the "week" (seven years) following His anointing and manifestation to Israel."

Exactly! If the seventieth week is postponed, then Messiah has not been cut off and the six things of verse 24 have not yet occurred.

Wrote Mauro:

"We know, in other words, that he was "cut off" in the seventieth week counting in the ordinary way from the given starting point. And this would be true regardless of what decree be taken as that starting point. This double witness, that of the prophecy itself and that of the Gospel-records, puts the matter beyond all doubt. By means thereof we know to a certainty that none of the six great things foretold in verse 24 happened within the sixty- nine weeks, but that each and all of them came to pass within the week which came next thereafter, that is to say in the seventieth consecutive week from the starting point. Nothing could be better established upon clear scriptural evidence than this."

But this is what is denied by those interpreters of the gap theory. They do not believe that Christ died in the 70th week, nor in any other of the weeks. They teach that Christ died in the gap between the 69th and 70th week.

Wrote Mauro:

"This matter, however, is important enough to warrant our dwelling a while longer upon it. In view of the facts stated above no one will or can deny that the crucifixion occurred in the 70th week from the starting point of the prophecy. The proof of this is absolute."

I agree.

"Cut off" occurs "after" the 69 weeks have ended. Those who teach the gap theory have no qualms about affirming that the sacrificial death of Christ, his resurrection, his ascension, etc., all occurred outside of any the weeks, occurring in the time of the gap. But, I have all kinds of qualms with this idea and I am befuddled as to why those who believe and promote it do not see the negative consequences of affirming such.

If the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ occurred after the 69th week, but not in the 70th, but in the gap between them, then the key event of the prophecy (the crucifixion) is outside the scope of the prophecy. Imagine affirming such a notion! The Messiah's being "cut off" occurs outside of the determined weeks! One of the six things Christ was to do when he comes, according to the prophecy, was to "make reconciliation for iniquity." He did that when he died upon the cross as a sacrifice for sin.

For myself his being cut off "after" the 69th week ended means that he was cut off in the 70th week. That is just the plain reading of the text.

There is nothing in Daniel 9: 24-27 about Antichrist, about a peace treaty with Israel regarding building the temple and offering sacrifices, nothing about his breaking such a treaty, nothing about a third temple.

Spurgeon on Daniels seventy weeks (here):

"The first advent of our Lord is spoken of in our text as ordained to be before the seventy weeks were finished, and the city should be destroyed. And so it was, even as the prophet had spoken. I shall not occupy your time by attempting to fix the beginning and the end of the period intended by the seventy weeks, and the seven weeks and three-score and two weeks. That is a deep study, requiring much research and learning, and I conceive that the discussion of such a subject would be of no great practical use to us this Sabbath morning. You will be better nourished upon the Lord Himself than upon times and seasons. Suffice it to believe that Jesus Christ our Lord, the Messiah, came exactly as it was prophesied, and remained on earth as it was foretold He should do. In the middle of the predestined week He was cut off, when He had completed three and a half years of saving ministry, and within another period of like length the gospel was preached throughout all nations, and Messiah’s peculiar relation to Israel was cut off. At another time it may afford you profitable contemplation if you consider the four hundred and ninety years from the decree of the king for rebuilding to the overthrow of Jerusalem." (SHUTTING, SEALING AND COVERING—OR, MESSIAH’S GLORIOUS WORK. NO. 1681)

I find the fact that Christ's public ministry lasted one half a week, or 3 1/2 years. That is half of Daniel's 70th week. The view that the crucifixion occurs midway through the 70th week of Daniel is the historic and predominant view.

In the next posting I will conclude my remarks on the 70th weeks prophecy.

"If it be in the scriptures..." - Spurgeon

Said Spurgeon in his sermon  "Redemption Through Blood":

"It is to me always sufficient if I find a truth taught in Scripture: I ask no more. If I do not understand it, I am not particularly anxious to understand it: if it be in the Scriptures, I believe it. I like those grand, rocky truths of the Bible which I cannot break with the hammer of my understanding, for on these I lay the foundations of my soul's confidence.

The substitution of our Lord in our room and stead is the central doctrine of the gospel, and it greatly glorifies the name of God." (here)

Well, amen to that brother Spurgeon!

Tribulation Period - 7 Yrs. Or More?

It is commonly believed today by Christians that the events of the Apocalypse, occurring under the opening of the seven seals, takes place within a predestined time period of seven years. This belief is not based upon anything stated in the Book of Revelation, for as we will see, the events that transpire on earth during events connected with the seals take in far more than seven years. This is so obvious that one wonders why a seven year limit for those events is imposed upon the Apocalypse record.

Those who espouse a time period of seven years for the events of the seals do so because they think the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy (Dan. 9: 24-27) is to be imposed upon the timeline of events in the Apocalypse. But, there is absolutely no warrant for doing this, and the fact that it has been done has created much confusion and contradiction.

More Than Seven Years

Revelation's time line takes in more than seven years. There is not a single verse from Revelation that says there will be a seven year tribulation period. Although there are lots of sevens in Revelation (the number appears more than fifty times), there is no mention of seven years. There are two forty-two-month periods (11:2; 13:5), two 1,260-day periods (11:3; 12:6), and one “a time and times and half a time” (12:14), each adding up to three and one-half years. If they are added up, the result is seventeen and one-half years. This is besides those references to "five months," "a year, a month, and a day," and also excludes all those events that occur and in which no time period is given for their occurrence.

In the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible the division is explained this way: “John in Revelation divides [the Tribulation] into two periods of three and one-half years each or 1,260 days each, a total of seven years.” 

But where in Revelation does it say this? Consider the fact that all the three and a half year periods appear more than halfway through Revelation.

Now, let me give a time line up to the sounding of the seventh trumpet of the seventh seal.

First Seal (white horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it

Second Seal (red horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- there is worldwide civil war and no peace (nothing but conflict) nor safety
- assume that this period encompasses months, perhaps years, but at least weeks rather than days

Third Seal (black horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- Scarcity and famine
- world's food supply is rationed
- assume that this period encompasses months, perhaps years, but at least weeks rather than days

Fourth Seal (pale horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- death everywhere by famine, conflict, pestilence
- assume that this period encompasses months, perhaps years, but at least weeks rather than days

Fifth Seal (activities around the altar in heaven)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- petitions for justice and vengeance by the martyrs and persecuted ones
- the martyrs in heaven are told to "rest yet for a little season"
- we cannot determine exactly how much time is calculated therein

Sixth Seal (earthquake)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it

- sealing of 144,000
- assembling and equipping of saints and angels in heaven
- the catastrophes connected with this seal's opening show that it must encompass weeks, if not months and years

No indication for how much time the events of the first six seals takes.

Seventh Seal (destruction of vegetation)

- seven trumpet angels prepare to sound
- activity around heaven's altar by departed saints

- 1st trumpet sounds and brings destruction of vegetation by fiery hail
- no indication of a time period for the events
- assume months or weeks

- 2nd trumpet sounds and brings destruction of 1/3rd sea creatures and ships by turning water to blood
- no indication of a time period for the events
- can assume weeks or months

- 3rd trumpet sounds and brings wormwood (bitter or poisonous) toxins to rivers, streams, fountains and causing widespread death
- no indication of a time period for the events
- assume months or weeks

- 4th trumpet sounds and brings abnormal darkness over earth via sun, moon, and stars
- no indication of a time period for the events
- assume months or weeks

No indication for how much time the events of the first four trumpeters takes.

- 5th trumpet sounds and brings opening of the bottomless pit and release of infernal locusts
- the torment upon unbelievers by the locusts goes "five months"
- "One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter"

- 6th trumpet sounds and brings the freeing of the four angels and their hellish armies from Euphrates River imprisonment.
- "a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men" (13 months)
- the angel with the rainbow head covering, feet of brass, and face as the sun, sets his foot on land and sea and makes announcement
- the two witnesses appear in Jerusalem and begin their mission of judgment
- the period of the two witnesses is given as 1260 days (42 months)
- the period when the Gentiles are occupying Jerusalem is 42 months
- these periods seem to be the same time period
- killed by the Antichrist
- "the second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe comes quickly"
- how much time then under the 6th trumpet?
- it seems clear that the 13 months precedes the 42 months, and even if the 42 month periods run concurrently, there still is a total of 55 months.

- 7th trumpet sounds and begins with announcements among heaven's grand assize
- "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth"
- battle between the heavenly woman and her seed and the Dragon and his seed envisioned
- the woman in her seed are protected for 1260 days and as "time, times, and half a time" (42 months)
- battle in the heavens between Michael and his angels and the Devil and his angels
- the victory of Michael and the casting down of the Devil to the earth
- battle between saints on earth with the beast's military police
- Antichrist comes to power and "continues 42 months" along with the false prophet
- it is probable that the 1260 days or the woman's protection is simultaneous with the 42 months of the beast's reign of terror
- Lamb appears on Mt. Zion with the 144,000
- the appearance of Christ in the clouds preparing to harvest
- the appearance of the seven plague angels

Allowing no time to be allotted for what happens during the opening of the first six seals, and allotting no time for the sounding of the first four trumpets of the seventh seal, there is still more than seven years time involved in the events occurring under the sounding of the 5th, 6th, and 7th trumpets of the seventh seal. We begin with the stated "five months" under the 5th trumpet. Next, under the 6th trumpet, we have three time periods given. First, the 13 months and a day and hour, second, two references to 42 months, one for the prophesying of the two witnesses, and one for the reign of the Antichrist. It is clear that the 42 month reign of Antichrist begins with his killing of the two witnesses. Thus, the 42 month period of the witnessing is followed by the 42 month period of the beast's reign. This all being so, we have but to add 13 months + 5 months + 42 months + 42 months to get 102 months (eight years and six months)! And that excludes so many time periods not stated.

So, there is without a doubt more than seven years involved in the timeline of events for the opening of the seals, from Rev. 6 through Rev. 19.

Pre Trib & The 1000 Years

Pre Trib Premillenialists agree with all other Premillenialists that exactly 1000 years separate the first resurrection of the just from the second resurrection of the unjust, as Rev. 20 says. I say they "agree" but do they really? Can they say this and be consistent? No, they cannot. Here is why.

If the rapture comes seven years before the beginning of the Millennium, then the resurrection of the just, or "first resurrection," comes not 1000 years, but 1007 years, before that of the second resurrection. Don't you see? The rapture has to take place at the end of this age, which point in time is also when the Millennium begins. Thus, to put exactly 1000 years between the resurrection of the just and the unjust uproots the pre trib rapture view.

Consider also the fact that Jesus and the scriptures put the resurrection of the righteous "at the last day." But, if it occurs seven years before the last day, as the pre trib view affirms, then it is not the last day.

Consider also the fact that all the righteous are resurrected and raptured at the same time. But, no pre trib advocate affirms this. They affirm that some are saved after the rapture and resurrection, in the seven year tribulation period, and therefore these must undergo a translation and resurrection separate from the others. Thus, they deny that all are resurrected and translated at the same time.

You Say Repent, I Say 'Party On Dude'

"Therefore in that day the Lord God of hosts called you to weeping, to wailing, To shaving the head and to wearing sackcloth. Instead, there is gaiety and gladness, Killing of cattle and slaughtering of sheep, Eating of meat and drinking of wine: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we may die.” But the Lord of hosts revealed Himself to me, “Surely this iniquity shall not be forgiven you Until you die,” says the Lord God of hosts." (Isaiah 22: 12-14 NASB)

We are living at the threshold of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to judge the world and to save his elect. God's servants are crying loudly to all the inhabitants of the world "wake up! Get ready! Turn from your sins before it is too late."

The cry of Jonah to Nineveh is the same that is now given by those evangelists of the last days. "Lord God is going to destroy this place." "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." (Jonah 3: 4)

"So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." (5-10)

What a difference between the reaction of the people to God's call to repentance in Isaiah 22 and his call to repentance in Jonah 3!

In the former case, the people responded to doing the very opposite of repenting. They gave in more to their pleasures and lusts. They mocked God's warning. In the latter case, they repented in sackcloth. The first put on party clothes, gay attire, but the latter put on sackcloth.

How is the world reacting to the warning message and to the call of repentance? Like those mentioned in Isaiah or like those in Nineveh?

White Horse Of The Apocalypse XV

As I have stated in the previous postings (chapters), the idea that the first white horse rider  1) brings peace (first with Israel, then globally), and 2) that such peace is a "treaty" or "covenant" that Antichrist will make with the nation Israel and 3) brings a false global peace, is read into the text and not what is discernible from the text.

So too is the idea that the time period making up the events corresponding to the seven seals (including the trumpets and bowls) is a period of seven years. All this is read into the text.

These ideas are supposedly gleaned from Daniel 9: 24-27 where the final week of that prophecy is made to be the time period of the seals of the Apocalypse. Yet, this is simply all based upon faulty exegesis and from a mishandling of the text.

I have examined every argument used by those who promote these ideas. They have all been shown to be false and the facts have rather shown how the evidence from Scripture and context shows that the white horse rider is Christ.

I have also shown how the Apocalypse is clear that Antichrist is in the bottomless pit and remains there till the bottomless pit is opened, which occurs when the seventh seal has been opened and the fifth trumpet sounds. After that we see him come to popularity by killing God's two witness prophets. Therefore the rider on the white horse of Rev. 6: 2 cannot be the Antichrist.

I believe that the seventy weeks of Daniel's prophecy has been fulfilled and that this has been, until the last century or so, the traditional view. The idea of a "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th week is an introduction and not at all warranted from the text of the prophecy. Such a view raises several serious theological questions.

Philip Mauro wrote an excellent book defending the traditional view titled "The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation." Every person who wants to hear both sides of the debate about the interpretation of the seventieth week should read Mauro's excellent work. He in my view upholds well the traditional view and overthrows the "gap theory" that says the prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, it remaining to be fulfilled during the time of the Great Tribulation. I only want to cite some from that work that should prove that there is no gap, but that the seventieth week occurred precisely right after the 69th, and that Christ died "in the midst of the (70th) week" and thereby "confirmed the covenant with many" and "caused the sacrifice and the oblation to cease."

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

"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."

It is not my intention to discuss this passage at length. This is not the place to do that, while considering the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. However, I wish to point out that the plain reading of the passage necessitates that there be no gap in time between the 69th and the 70th week as is taught today by so many. Philip Mauro's work is excellent. I read this work about 45 years ago. Let me cite of the things Mauro said on this point.

In Chapter VII - "ARE THE SEVENTIETH WEEKS CONSECUTIVE?" (here) Mauro wrote (highlighting mine):

Mauro wrote (highlighting mine):

"We would point out to begin with that the words "Seventy weeks are determined," etc., are words of clear and certain meaning. They are just the words which would be used by one who wished to be understood as saying that, within the measure of 70 weeks, the six things specified in Daniel 9:24 would happen. If the speaker meant something very different, even that the specified things would not occur for more than two thousand years, then manifestly the words used by him could serve only to mislead those who trusted in them.

Never since the world began has a described and "determined" measure of time, expressed in the way always used for that purpose (that is, by stating the number of time-units making up the complete measure) been treated according to the view we are now discussing. Never has a specified number of time-units, making up a described stretch of time, been taken to mean anything but continuous or consecutive time-units. The Bible-usage in this regard will be shown presently. If, therefore, the period of the "seventy weeks" be an exception to a rule so universal and so necessary, we should at least require Of those who maintain that view such clear and convincing proof as to leave no room for doubt."

I totally agree. When God says the time period is "determined," it cannot be made to refer to any "postponement" of any of the weeks, including the seventieth, for that would make the time period to be rather "indeterminate" rather then "determined." Determined means certain, fixed, destined, etc.

Mauro continued:

"We ask careful attention to the following points:

1. Where periods of time are given beforehand in the prophecies of the Bible they always mean that the time-units composing the period named are continuous. This must be so, else the prediction would serve only to deceive those who believed it. We have no other way of describing and limiting a period of time than by stating the number of time-units (hours, days, months, or years) contained therein. It is therefore a necessary law of language that the time- units be understood as being connected together without a break."

Again, this is such a refutation of the interpretation that says that there can be postponements and gaps in time periods that God has foreordained.

Mauro continued:

"As a most pertinent example of this, let us consider the period of seventy years, with which the period of seventy weeks of years is so closely connected. God had foretold to Jeremiah that "after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon, I will visit you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place" (Jer. 29:10). From this word Daniel "understood the number of years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet"; and thereupon he set his face to seek the fulfilment of that promise. Have not we exactly the same reason to understand that the "seventy weeks" of years mean what they appear to mean, that Daniel had for understanding that the words "seventy years" were to be taken in accordance with their plain and obvious meaning?"

Daniel had every reason to believe that "seventy years" meant seventy years, with no gaps or postponements that would make seventy to turn into a number far greater. Likewise with the seventy sevens prophecy.

Mauro continued:

"Furthermore, in every other case in Scripture where God has foretold the measure of time within which a specified thing was to happen, the time-measure so indicated was intended to be taken in its plain and ordinary sense. We give some examples:

The 430 years sojournings of Abraham's posterity, whereof God had spoken to him (Gen. 15:13; Ex. 12:40; Gal. 3:17) were accomplished to a day (Ex. 12:41, 42).

The seven years of plenty and seven years of famine, which Joseph foretold, were fulfilled according to the plain meaning of the words (Gen. 45:6).

The forty years wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness, which God appointed as a punishment for their unbelief (Numb. 14:34), were forty consecutive years.

But let us take a stronger illustration. Our Lord, in foretelling His own death, declared again and again that "the third day," or "in three days," or "after three days," He would rise again. Those expressions all mean one and the same thing, and would never be taken in any sense but one. Suppose, however, that some ingenious person should now come forward with the idea that Christ did not rise from the dead on the third consecutive day after His death, but that His resurrection is yet future; and suppose he should endeavor to make the words of Christ agree with this view by saying that the third day, on which He was to rise, did not follow immediately after the other two, but there was an unmentioned "parenthesis" of about two thousand years in between, would lie not have for his view gas much foundation in the words of Scripture as those who would insert a "parenthesis" of two thousand years between the 69th and 70th week of Gabriel's prophecy?"

Those who espouse the "gap theory" or "postponement" theory must answer these arguments. But, they have not because they cannot.

Mauro continued:

"We are bold, therefore, to lay it down as an absolute rule, admitting of no exceptions, that when a definite measure of time or space is specified by the number of units composing it, within which a certain event is to happen or a certain thing is to be found, the units of time or space which make up that measure are to be understood as running continuously and successively. "Seventy years" would invariably mean seventy continuous years; "seventy weeks' would mean seventy continuous weeks; "seventy miles" would mean seventy continuous miles.

If, for example, one journeying along a road were informed that, within seventy miles from a given point lie would come upon certain specified things, as a hill, a tower, a stream, a mill, and the like, there is manifestly but one sense in which he could understand the statement. Suppose in such a case that he should proceed on his way for 69 miles without meeting any of the specified things, would lie not confidently expect to find them in the one remaining mile of the 70? Suppose, however, he should traverse that mile without coming upon any of those things, would he not have a right to say he had been grossly and intentionally deceived? And would it set the matter right for the one who made the deceptive statement to say that the 70th mile he had in mind did not join on the 69th, but was two thousand miles further on? We say the deception in such case would, be intentional; for if one uses an expression which has a definite and well-settled meaning, but gives to it in his own mind a very different meaning, which he keeps to himself, he can have had no other purpose than to mislead those who might act upon his words."

This argumentation shows clearly how unsound is the gap theory, or the idea that what God has determined shall be a certain length longer or shorter or parts of it postponed and detached from the other units of the time measurement.

Mauro wrote:

"The idea which we have discussed in our last chapter, namely that Daniel 9:27 refers not to Christ but to antichrist is usually coupled with, another, also of a very radical sort, namely, that the 70th week of Gabriel's prophecy does not come where we would naturally expect to find it, that is, immediately after the 69th week, but that it is detached from the other 69, is separated from them by many centuries, is yet in the future, and will be found at the very end of this present age. The extent to which these ideas have found acceptance in our day makes it a matter of importance to inquire very carefully into the reasons that have been given in support thereof."

Indeed, it is of the greatest importance for us to test this interpretation.

Mauro wrote:

"We do not know just when or how these ideas sprang up. That is not, of course, a reason for rejecting them; for God is pleased from time to time to give new light from His Word. But it is a reason for subjecting them to a rigid scrutiny. This we have sought to do, and the result is we have come to the conclusion that, not only are they destitute of support in the Word of God, but they are directly contrary thereto. This we shall endeavor to make clear."

"The idea that the 70th week of the prophecy is detached from its companions and is relegated to the distant future, is a necessary corollary of the idea already referred to, namely, that the "he" of verse 27 (Dan. 9) refers, not to Christ, but to a future antichrist. Manifestly those two ideas stand or fall together; for if verse 27 relates to Christ, then the last week. followed immediately after the 69th; but if it relates to antichrist, or a coming Roman prince, then it is yet future."

In the next posting we will continue our look at Daniel 9: 24-27. Particularly we will look at whether "the "he" of verse 27 (Dan. 9) refers, not to Christ, but to a future antichrist."

Post Tribulation Rapture

Years ago I wrote a series of articles against the Pre Tribulation Rapture view in my Baptist Gadfly blog. Several months ago I was able to put all these postings into one post on my web page. You can read it (HERE).

The rapture will not take place till the seventh and final trumpet sounds. The idea that the rapture takes place in Rev. 4: 1 is totally without foundation.

Was Herod Saved my Hardshell Brothers?

"For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly." (Mark 6: 20)

"He was a burning and a shining light: and ye (lost Pharisees) were willing for a season to rejoice in his light." (John 5: 35)

I have pointed out many times over the years how the Hardshells of today have become quasi Universalists. To them only a few are going to Hell and most are going to Heaven. You do not have to be Christian to be saved according to today's "Primitive Baptists." Because of such heretical ideas, they have often taught that the following characters were really saved people: Balaam, Esau, Nadab, Abihu, Lot's wife, Simon the Sorcerer, Demas, Athenian idolaters, etc.

Based upon what they consider to be the evidences of regeneration or new birth, to show some happiness when the gospel is preached is a sure proof of it, like conviction of sin, or a guilty conscience. Well, by that reasoning, we would have to say that Judas and the wicked Christ rejecting Pharisees were born again, for they heard the gospel "gladly" and were "willing to rejoice" in it.

The shallow ground hearer in the parable of the soils also "received the word with joy" but it was a shallow and temporary joy of nominal and hypocritical believers.

Was Herod saved my Hardshell brothers? By your present beliefs about the nature of regeneration, will you not have to say that he was indeed saved? Was Herod's hearing John gladly a proof or regeneration?

Opportunities Missed?

"Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil." (Eph 5: 15-16 niv)

"Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity." (Col. 4: 5 niv)

I have often thought about the many lost opportunities in my past when it comes to bearing witness to others about salvation. I am sad when I think of how I have often failed to witness when opportunity presented itself. I am sorry for those sins. Thankfully, I can also say that I have however "made the most" out of many of them. Let me give a few examples of the kind I have done over the years.

I recently saw my step grandson. He was a professing Christian who I suspected had wandered from the Lord. We talked about his muscular body and of his weightlifting. I said "your bodily health looks very good, how is your spiritual health?" And, "you are exercising your body, are your exercising your spirit in the things of God?" From there I got to say a few more things. We did not have much time to chat, and I knew that, yet I did not let that short time escape an opportunity to "speak a word in season" to one who needed a word from God.

I think of many other times in my life where I used a few minutes of time in my meetings with fellow citizens to give even a small hint of bible words.

Witnessing To Strangers 
in "Small Talk" or "chit chat"

Think of those many instances where you meet with strangers in every day life and where the meeting was brief and never repeated. You could be in a line waiting (could be for several minutes at least). You begin to chat with the people in line. You might begin with chat about anything and everything. But, at some point, you might look for opportunity to say something about the bible and what it says.

To a person who is a policeman I might say - "God is a policeman." So too is Jesus Christ.
To a person who is a physician I might say - "What a mighty physician is the Lord Jesus Christ."
To a person who is a manager I might say - "God is a great manager and he manages everything."

You get the point. There are just so many ways that we can be used by God to bring others to think, at least for a minute, about God and scripture.

Let us then repent and begin to take advantage of every opportunity to bear witness to everyone.

Garrett Reeves Debate On Eternal Security

Garrett Reeves Debate On YouTube (here)

On "Individual Liberty"

The following is taken from my Baptist Gadfly blog for Nov. 16, 2009. (here)

In the debate over "sola scriptura" there is one often missed a priori truth behind it. The individual is solely responsible for his own salvation, and no man, or group of men, has absolute power over the individual. Individuals are addressed as if they have the sole authority over their own soul's salvation.

"...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Phill. 2: 12)

The individual is called upon to believe in God by means of divine revelation. He is not called upon to believe in the uninspired opinions of men or groups of men, relative to that revelation. Each person is duty bound to become "fully persuaded in his own mind." (Rom. 14: 5)

"Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand." (II Cor. 1: 21 KJV)

Even the apostle Paul refused to become a lord or tyrant over the faith of the individual Christian. Yet, the Catholic, in his attack against "sola scriptura," does this very thing. He insists that the "church," or "pope," or "magisterium," has absolute authority over the individual's conscience. He tells the individual that he should trust the "church" to interpret revelation for him, as though the individual who has the Holy Spirit is unable to understand it himself.

"Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge." (I Cor. 14: 29)

Paul believed that the individual Christian has the right, privilege, and duty to judge the truthfulness of a person's preaching or commentary on scripture. They are able to "judge" the message, just as the Bereans.

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17: 11)

Obviously these Berean believers were not of the Catholic mindset. They did not believe in the "authority of oral tradition," but in the sole authority of the word of God, and of their individual ability, through the Holy Ghost, to "judge" the veracity of what even the apostles spoke.

You, my dear friend, bear your own responsibility for determining what the scriptures teach. Every pastor and bible teacher is only a "help" or "guide." Be like the noble Bereans and "search the scriptures daily" to "see whether these things are true," that is, to see if what you are hearing taught from the bible is a correct or a false interpretation.

Here is the follow up post I did to the above.

B. H. Carroll on Soul Liberty

"Individuality" (here)

"The sole responsibility of decision and action rests directly on the individual soul. Each one must give account of himself to God. This is the first principle of New Testament law--to bring each naked soul face to face with God. When that first Baptist voice broke the silence of four hundred years it startled the world with its appeal to individuality: "Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father. Behold, the axe is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire." Do thou repent. Do thou confess thy sins. Do thou be baptized. It was the first step of Christianity, and what a collossal stride! Family ties count nothing. Greek culture nothing. Roman citizenship nothing. Circumcision nothing. O soul, thou art alone before God! The multitude shall not swallow thee up. "If thou shalt be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself; but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it." (pg. 15, 16 - "Baptists and Their Doctrines)

"How often in history has the question been propounded by some wishing to shun personal responsibility! May I not refer this matter to the magistrates? May I not consult the customs of my country? May I not seek the guidance of my priest and put on him the responsibility of interpreting this book? Nay, verily. Do thou interpret. It is God's letter to thy soul. Thy right of private judgment is the crown jewel of thy humanity. Sometimes even Baptists falter on this point. I have heard one of them excuse himself from an acknowledged duty of co-operation in mission work. Not even thy church can absolve thee from individual duty. Churches are time organizations and are punished in time. They do not stand before the great white throne of judgment. But thy soul shall appear before the Judge. Well did our Lord know that there could be no evangelization of the world if ancestors, families, customs, government, commerce and priests could stand between the individual soul and God. Thy relation to God is paramount. His law takes precedence of all and swallows up all. In giving emphasis to this doctrine of individuality our Baptist fathers have suffered martyrdom at the hands of the heathen, the Romanist, the Greek, and the Protestant like." (pg. 17)