Built into the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai were stipulations that would bring either God’s blessing or His cursing upon the people.  The history of the OT reveals a pattern of constant disobedience on the part of Israel.  When the people willfully rebelled, forsaking the Lord, God, faithful to His promises, gave the people over to the terms and conditions of the covenant cursings.

John Jelinek writes how Leviticus 26 tells about the five stages of the curses, each stage increasing in severity in response to disobedience: first sickness and defeat by enemies (26:14-17), then second, drought and famine (26:18-20), third, being overrun by beasts or wild animals (26: 21, 22), fourth is the sword and more pestilence (26:23-26), and then fifth, and most severe, exile from the land (26:27-39).  [Jelinek, 234-235]

Note that exile from the land is the culmination of the cursing if God’s people do not pursue holiness, but act wickedly.  God will literally throw them out of the land.  There is theological reason for this action: the Land is God’s Land.  As the Lord states in Leviticus 25:23, “The Land is mine,” He is the one who brought Israel out of Egypt and into His Land of promise.  Hence, God’s character is tied to the Land.  Because God is holy, not only are the people to be holy, but the Land is to be Holy also.

In fact, the land can suffer defilement (Leviticus 18:24-27, Jeremiah 2:7), be polluted (Numbers 35:33, Psalm 106:38, Jeremiah 3:1,2), and caused to sin (Deuteronomy 24:4, Jeremiah 16:18).  In the same way that Israel was to make atonement for themselves during the Day of Atonement, the land was to experience an atonement, also. For instance, in the case of an accidental murder and the cities of refuge, Numbers 35:32-34 states,

32 And you shall take no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the priest.
33 So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.
34 Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.

And in Deuteronomy 32:43 there will be a future atonement for both the people and the land,

43 Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And render vengeance to His adversaries; He will provide atonement for His land and His people.

One part of the land’s “atonement” came with the Sabbatical rest the land was to have every seven years (Leviticus 25).  The Mosaic holiness codes, then, were not only meant to make atonement for, and sanctify the people spiritually, but they were designed to keep the land sanctified as well. The sanctity of the people was tied to the sanctity of the land.  If the people defiled the land, the land became “unholy,” and that unholiness incurred God’s curses upon the people, and the most extreme curse was exile, the land “vomiting” the people out.

When God promised Abraham that He would give to him and his descendants the land as an eternal promise, that promise was given with God’s foreknowledge of Israel’s covenant disobedience and subsequent exile.  In other words, God knew beforehand, in eternity past, that when He made the covenant with Abraham and his yet to be born descendants that when they came into the promise land, Israel would fail with fulfilling their side of that covenant.

God is omniscient.  He decreed in the eternal counsel of His good will that Israel, as a theocratic nation, would fail with keeping the terms of His covenant. They, the “people of God,” are “people,” meaning they are sinners who are unable to live righteously.  Yet God is gracious, for though the people did not have the ability to keep God’s law due to their sin, He also decreed a means by which His people could keep the terms of His covenant.  That being, a New Covenant in which the law of God is inscribed on the hearts of His people.

The promise of this New Covenant isn’t fully revealed until the prophet Jeremiah, who was the last major prophet to call Israel to repentance and to covenant faithfulness before they experienced the ultimate curse, exile from the land.  That New Covenant, according to Jeremiah 31:31ff., entails the giving to the people a “new heart,” removing the “heart of stone” and replacing it with a “heart of flesh” and “writing the law of God on the hearts of the people” so that they will obey the Lord.  Additionally, this New Covenant is solely initiated by God alone.  He alone takes the divine, sovereign initiative to change their hearts, to cause them to walk in His law.  There is nothing the people do of themselves, they merely obey with new hearts.

Even though this New Covenant isn’t fully revealed until Jeremiah, the terminology used to describe the New Covenant is present in earlier portions of Scripture.  Most notably, immediately following two crucial passages, Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28-29, both outlining the cursing against Israel.

Leviticus 26:38, 39 states,

38 You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.
39 And those of you who are left shall waste away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands; also in their fathers’ iniquities, which are with them, they shall waste away.

It’s a rather harsh description of Israel being thrown out into exile from the land, perishing among the nations into where they are cast by the Lord.  However, 26:40 immediately changes tone.  Verses 40-42 states,

40 `But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me,
41 and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt–
42 then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember; I will remember the land.

Here, we see New Covenant terminology.  There is confession of sin, God sovereignly bringing His people back into the land, and hearts being circumcised, a biblical description of “new hearts.”

Moving to Deuteronomy, chapter 29:27, 28 states,

27 `Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against this land, to bring on it every curse that is written in this book.
28 `And the LORD uprooted them from their land in anger, in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.’

Again, God’s anger is aroused, not just against the people, but against the land, to the point God exiles the people.

But notice that chapter 30:1-10 states how God will most certainly bring them out of exile and place them back into the land.  There is New Covenant terminology found here as well in verses 6 and 8 which read,

6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live….
8 And you will again obey the voice of the LORD and do all His commandments which I command you today.

It is the LORD who will circumcise hearts, again, biblical language speaking of “new hearts,” which will result in a love for God and a willingness to obey the commands of the LORD.

These cursing passages and the promise of a restored Israel have a prophetic ring to them.  That is because God anticipates Israel’s disobedience and the initiation of the New Covenant that will create a new hearted people who will most certainly follow God’s laws.  They follow those laws because they have been divinely written on the hearts of the people.

In addition to these two passages, there are some complimentary passages found in the prophecy of Ezekiel, who also lived during Jeremiah’s ministry, yet among many of the exiles who had already be removed from Israel to Babylon. In both passages, Ezekiel speaks of Israel’s restoration with the language of the New Covenant.

First, after a blistering remembrance of God’s previous judgments in 20:10-26, God pronounces His judgment against the people in 20:27-32 once again.  However, God, with the use of New Covenant terminology, goes on to say in 20:33-49 that Israel will experience special restoration.  They will be gathered from every nation where they were scattered and caused by the Lord to serve Him. Secondly, Ezekiel writes in 36:24-32 how Israel will experience spiritual and physical renewal after being gathered from the Gentile nations where they were in exile, will have clean water sprinkled on them, be given a new heart and a new spirit, will put away their abominations and serve the Lord.

All of these passages speak of “new hearts,” “circumcised hearts,” “a new spirit.”  Moreover, there is an internal appropriation of God’s law; Israel willingly obeying God’s laws and commands.  All of these special works are done by God alone and they all result in a restoration to the land of Israel.

But there remains a question of fulfillment.  That being, when Jesus established the New Covenant in His death on the cross, were these prophecies of Israel’s restoration fulfilled?  Certainly we can say the establishment of the New Covenant produces the internal heart change within God’s people.  Hebrews 8 tells us that much.  We can also acknowledge that “God’s people” extends beyond individuals from Jewish Israel to encompass the gentiles of all the nations.  However, when exactly has the restoration of Israel happened as these prophetic passages reveal?

It is at this point in understanding the establishment of the New Covenant that Covenant Reformed believers appeal to a typological fulfillment of these prophecies.  This is the position O. Palmer Robertson takes in his classic work, The Christ of the the Covenant.  Without giving much attention to the exegesis of Leviticus 26:40 ff., Deuteronomy 30:1-10, and even Ezekiel 36:24ff., he declares the promises of geographic restoration to a physical land to be a “typological” fulfillment.  It is not meant to be understood “literally.” [Robertson, 300].

But why? Why can’t we understand these prophecies as yet to be fulfilled literally in the sense that ethnic Jews will certainly be restored to a real, geographically, geo-political kingdom? If I understand the first portion of the New Covenant prophecy of spiritual renewal and restoration with an inner heart change as being fulfilled literally by the work of Christ, should I not expect the second portion that predicts the renewal of the physical land and a Jewish people being gathered from the nations and returned to the land?

The argument I often receive from Covenant Reformed believers is to say the land promises are expanded beyond the borders of Israel’s physical territory in the same way the imparting of new hearts goes beyond being for the Jews alone.  But I am trying to be faithful to the language of the relevant texts.  Ezekiel 36:28, for example, specifically says: Then you [the Jews] shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be my people and I shall be your God.

The prophet later develops his prophecy in chapter 37:25 by saying, Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever.  God then says how He will make a “covenant of peace” that shall be an “everlasting covenant” (again, New Covenant terminology).

How else am I to understand “they shall dwell there..forever” and “everlasting covenant”?  The words land, dwelling, forever, and everlasting covenant must have specific meaning in this prophecy as well as the others I’ve considered.  The only possible meaning I can see is that of a fulfillment of these ordained promises in which Israel, regenerated by a sovereign God, is restored to, and lives in, a geo-political land that was given to them by God.

Sources

O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants
H. Wayne House, ed., Israel: The Land and Its People

Daniel 9, A Test Case

While doing a search on a non-related subject, I stumbled upon yet another typical negative comment pertaining to how Dispensationalists interpret Scripture.

The author implies that the Dispensational hermeneutic, which I understand to be the historical-grammatical approach to reading the Bible, is problematic when it comes to interpreting the biblical text. The “Dispensational” take on Daniel 9 is presented as an example.

The snippet is taken from a blog article written in 2006. Though that is nearly 6 years ago, seeing that it pertains to the use of hermeneutics, I thought it may be useful to visit. Let me cite the comment in full and then go back and dismantle it piece by piece.

As an aside, often the Dispensational interpretation of certain passages is hardly “literal,” but “literalistic.” That is, the application of the text is something terribly foreign to the historical context. Take Daniel 9, for instance. Daniel, in searching the Scriptures, realizes that the 70 years Jeremiah predicted were about to come to a close (9:2). And while he prays in response to this (his prayer, by the way, is permeated with covenantal references to God. Keep that in mind when you read that one whom Dispensationalists believe to be the antichrist will “confirm a covenant with many,” 9:27), Gabriel appears to him in a vision (9:21), and he tells him that “seventy sevens” and “sixty-two sevens” (references to sabbatical weeks, Lev 35:1-4[sic]) are decreed to follow (9:25). That is, a total of 490 years (an ultimate Jubilee, Lev 24:8), the messianic age. But the Dispensational interpretation of this text (the supposedly “literal” interpretation) forces an at least 2000 year break (or “an indeterminate gap of time”) between the end of the sixty-ninth and seventieth week, a disjunction which the text *no where* posits. This is directly contrary to the Dispensationalist’s professed “literal” hermeneutic! And this forcing of something into the text which is not present (something that used to be called “eisegesis”) has terrible consequences: confusing Christ with the antichrist!

…often the Dispensational interpretation of certain passages is hardly “literal,” but “literalistic.” That is, the application of the text is something terribly foreign to the historical context.

The complaint here is that Dispensationalists, of which I would count myself, interpret the Bible not “literally” but “literalistically.” I would be curious for a more concise definition that distinguishes those two words. Is there really a difference between “literal” and “literalistic”? How exactly would they be so different that to be “literal” is okay, but “literalistic” is flawed?

The basic web dictionary meaning of literal is, “adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression” or “free from exaggeration or embellishment.” Literalistic, according to various on-line dictionaries, is simply the means of interpreting words in the literal sense.

Perhaps the author has in mind the idea that when Dispensationalists interpret the Bible they do so in a wooden, literal fashion. In other words, they make the passage under consideration sound so absurd it creates theological error. In the case of Daniel 9, the Dispensationalist “literalistic” hermeneutic confuses Jesus with the antichrist.

Web dictionary definitions can only supply a basic sense of the word literal and it many not be especially helpful as it pertains to Bible study. So how do Dispensationalists truly understand the word?

Mal Couch, a Dispensationalist, explains that “literal” does not mean “letterism,” which would be equal to the assumed use of “literalistic” by our Dispensational critic. Instead, “literal” means “normal.” Couch explains,

A normal reading of Scripture is synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic. When a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in its normal usage. … A normal reading of Scripture recognizes figures of speech and symbolism used in eschatological literature and other books of the Bible.” [Mal Couch, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, 33, 34].

Just so I am on the same page as the critic, when James White, who is definitely not a Dispensationalist, defines what he means by exegesis, he clearly implies Couch’s understanding of “literal” when we study Scripture. White writes,

Exegesis can be defined with reference to its opposite: eisegesis. To exegete a passage is to lead the native meaning out from the words; To eisegete a passage is to insert a foreign meaning into the words. You are exegeting a passage when you are allowing it to say what its original author intended; you are eisegeting a passage when you are forcing the author to say what you want the author to say. True exegesis shows respect for the text and, by extension, for its author: eisegesis, even when based upon ignorance, shows disrespect for the text and its author. [James White, Scripture Alone, 81 (emphasis in original)].

Dr. White goes on to explain what constitutes sound exegesis of a biblical text, or the rules of exegetical hermeneutics. Such things as determining context, considering the author, the audience, and the historical setting of the passage, and the consideration of grammar, syntax, and lexical semantics. All of these points the Dispensationalist would heartily agree with, and in fact, practice when he studies the Bible. I take these points as reading the Bible in a literal fashion.

Our critic claims the Dispensational interpretation brings something “terribly foreign” to the text. In other words, Dispensationalists eisegete passages, they do not exegete them. Yet, is his claim valid? I can show you it is not, and in point of fact, it is he who brings something “terribly foreign” to this passage in Daniel and is the inconsistent eisegete. He demonstrates my point in this very paragraph in which he is supposedly shows us the hermeneutical errors of Dispensationalists.

Let me break down his “exegesis.”

Daniel, in searching the Scriptures, realizes that the 70 years Jeremiah predicted were about to come to a close (9:2).

Notice that Daniel expects that 70 years to be “literal.” In other words, Daniel reads Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and expects what Jeremiah to be saying in his prophecy to be fulfilled literally. He can mark his calendar, as it were, from the year Israel went into exile, count out 70 years to the very year the prophet Jeremiah says they will return from exile. Daniel doesn’t “spiritualize” the number 70 as if Jeremiah originally meant it to be some number meaning “total completion” or “perfection” or other similar nonsense. Jeremiah means 70 calendar years, as in 7 decades, like from 1910-1980.

Hence, we see an important point noted: If Daniel read the numbers in Jeremiah in such a literal fashion that he understood those numbers to be 70 calendar years, would not the remainder of the numbers in chapter 9 be literal calendar years as well? Keep that thought with you as I move along.

And while he prays in response to this (his prayer, by the way, is permeated with covenantal references to God. Keep that in mind when you read that one whom Dispensationalists believe to be the antichrist will “confirm a covenant with many,” 9:27), Gabriel appears to him in a vision (9:21), and he tells him that “seventy sevens” and “sixty-two sevens” (references to sabbatical weeks, Lev 35:1-4[sic]) are decreed to follow (9:25). That is, a total of 490 years (an ultimate Jubilee, Lev 24:8), the messianic age.

Laying aside the comment about the antichrist for a moment, I would agree with his main understanding of Daniel’s vision. As I outlined in my studies of Daniel, what I believe is in mind here is the Sabbatical year as written about in Leviticus 25. Israel failed with keeping the 7th year Sabbath that allowed the land to “rest” for a year. They did it multiple times, at least 70 times over the course of 800 years. Their exile to Babylon reflects that disobedience.

But our author goes on to say the decreed 490 more years are considered an ultimate Jubilee, a Messianic age. Where exactly is he getting that? Does he understand the 490 years to be literal years, just like the 70 years Israel spent in exile? Or is there some “deeper” meaning? Certainly the coming of Messiah is prophesied at the closing of the 69th week when he will be “cut off.” Is that where he is getting this notion of an “ultimate Jubilee” or “Messianic age?”

Keep that in mind as you read that one whom Dispensationalists believe to be the antichrist will “confirm a covenant with many,” 9:27

Let me return to that comment about the antichrist. I am going to venture a guess and say our author probably holds to the traditional, covenant Reformed view of Daniel 9:25-27. I’ll quote myself when I outlined the Reformed position on Daniel 9 in a previous post:

Jesus Christ is understood to be both “the prince” or “Messiah” who is to be cut off as described in verse 26, and the “prince” mentioned in the next clause who is described as having a people who come to destroy the city. The point being that the Jews, or the people of the prince who is to come (Jesus Christ), bring their own destruction upon themselves by rejecting their Messiah and hence solidifying God’s wrath against the nation as played out in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. The destruction of the temple put an end to sacrifices for the OT sacrificial system just as Daniel states.

There may be some variation among theologians, but that is the basic view held by Reformed writers like Kim Riddlebarger, Gary Demar, E.J. Young, etc.

However, if we are going to take the text seriously by applying the principles of “exegesis” defined above, which includes the idea of “a literal reading of the text” I cannot see how the details of the text can bring one to that conclusion. I would even say the conflation of the “Messiah” and the “prince” is being read into the text eisegetically due to covenant Reformed traditions.

If the covenant Reformed proponent believes there is only one prince being spoken of at the end of Daniel 9, that being, Jesus Christ and His cross work, there are some problems that arise. Let me highlight four.

1) The nearest antecedent to the “he shall confirm a covenant for one week” in verse 27 is “the prince” of the people who will come in verse 26. If the “people” are the Jewish nation at 70 AD, the interpretation of many Reformed writers, how exactly does one draw the connection between “the people” of this prince who is to come and “Israel” at 70 AD with this text? Would not external factors outside of Daniel have to bring one to that conclusion? Of course, assuming that is the position of our author.

2) The “prince” mentioned in 9:27 is said to confirm a covenant for one week. If this “prince” is Jesus, what exactly is this “covenant for one week” that He confirmed? If it is Christ’s death on the cross and making an end of sacrifices in the temple, what then is meant by Daniel’s expression “for one week?” How are we to understand that “week” and how does that “week” factor into the previous 69 weeks that are mentioned?

3) The “prince” is said to put an end to sacrifices in the middle of the week. What does that mean? Again, is that “week” a “literal” 7 years in the 490 year prophetic cycle, or is it understood figuratively? Is this connected to 70 AD and the destruction of the temple? How is that connection made exegetically from this passage?

4) We know from previous revelation in Daniel 7:25 that a blasphemous horn persecutes Israel for a time and times and half a time, understood by practically every commentator I have encountered as meaning 3 1/2 years. Some may take those “years” in a figurative sense, but they are 3 1/2 years. That interpretation is affirmed in other passages of Scripture as well, like Revelation 13 where the beast, or antichrist, wages war against the people for 42 months, or 3 1/2 years. Considering that Daniel understood the 70 years of exile as a literal 70 years, why shouldn’t we understand the 3 1/2 years as literal?

But the Dispensational interpretation of this text (the supposedly “literal” interpretation) forces an at least 2000 year break (or “an indeterminate gap of time”) between the end of the sixty-ninth and seventieth week, a disjunction which the text *no where* posits.

Our critic seems to think he has uncovered some previously unforeseen contradiction on the part of Dispensationalists that exposes why a “literal” hermeneutic must be avoided. Yet he ignores the main difficulty with his criticism in that he is forced to affirm at least a 40 year “gap” if he goes with 70 AD as the end to the 70 weeks. A gap is a gap, no matter how many years may exist between the 69th week and the 70th week.

He may think 2,000 years is an exceptionally long postponement, but 40 years is still a postponement, too. Now we are just haggling over which postponement makes sense when we interpret the text. Additionally, the idea of prophetic postponement or an apotelesmatic interpretation, in which a temporal interruption occurs within God’s redemptive program, is biblical. The postponement between the first coming of Christ and His second coming is a prime example, as Randall Price writes in his article, Prophetic Postponement

Considering how I believe the covenant Reformed position over looks many of the textual details I noted above, I don’t think my critic has provided a satisfying interpretation of Daniel’s vision, nor a compelling “debunking” of the Dispensational hermeneutic. In order to reach the conclusion he advocates, one has to re-interpret the text with a kind of theologically alchemy that makes the text affirm Covenant Theology. A person can call that “theological alchemy” a “Christological” or a “Historical Redemptive” hermeneutic, but it sounds to me like he’s eisegeting, not exegeting.

The focus of my study has turned to considering the land promises God made to Israel throughout the OT and their significance as they pertain to the future hope of Israel in the eschatological future.

As I noted my introductory post, many of my covenant Reformed brethren believe those promises have been fulfilled when Israel entered Canaan under Joshua.  The greater “fulfillment” of those promises are not to be understood as Israel being restored to a “literal” geographic territory.  Rather, they have been fulfilled in the work of Christ by uniting in one body, the Church, all the “elect” remnant of Jews who come to faith in their Messiah, with the “elect” gentiles who also come to faith in Christ.  The Christian Church is now the “New Israel.”  Thus, the greater fulfillment of those land promises given to Israel in the OT, extends beyond the meager, physical territory of the “land of Israel” to now the entire world, so that the “meek,” God’s New Covenant people, “will inherit the earth.”

Adding to this view, the covenant Reformed believer will further note that the NT writers never mentioned a literal fulfillment of the land promises in a physically restored nation of Israel.  If God had intended to “restore” Israel in a literal kingdom in the physical, geopolitical territory known as “Israel,” why didn’t the NT writers provide details to such a restoration?

That point is often repeated throughout Reformed polemical literature against future premillennialism. But is it an accurate claim about the NT and Israel’s restoration? Or is it a conclusion forced upon the various texts by other external theological considerations, particularly the redemptive-historical hermeneutic utilized by covenant theology?  I think it reflects the latter.  I’ll back-up and begin by outlining what the Bible tells us about Israel and their land promises with this article, and address Israel’s restoration in the next.  As I move along, I’ll respond to the main arguments put forth by my Reformed covenant friends against my position.

First, it is important to recognize that the land promises God made to Abraham were the major center piece to the overall Abrahamic covenant.
Beginning in Genesis chapter 12, God called Abraham to this land and there He stated He will make him a great nation (Gen. 12:1-2).  Then, in Genesis 13:14-17, after Abraham separates himself from Lot, God again makes this promise to him,

14 And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are– northward, southward, eastward, and westward;
15 "for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.
16 "And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered.
17 "Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you."

Coming to Genesis 15 God makes an official "covenant" with Abraham regarding the inheritance of the land.  Verse 18 sums up the promise God made in that covenant when He says, To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates…    This same promise concerning the land is reiterated once again by God in Genesis 17.  God comes to Abraham, changes his name "Abram" to "Abraham" and promises, by oath of the covenant He made with him in Genesis 15, states,

7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.
8 "Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Jumping over to Exodus 32:13, when Moses intercedes for the people against God’s judgment, Moses reminds God of the covenant He made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the terms of that covenant being the promise God made to give their descendants the land forever.  After his plea, God relents His judgment against Israel.

These are just a brief smattering of passages describing God’s covenant with Israel and the promises of the land He made to them.  Considering the data so far as outlined in these passages, we can observe a few points:

1). First, the language is straight forward and clear that it is physical land God has in mind to give Abraham and his descendants.  In fact, the land is identified with the “land of the Canaanites,” the geographic area that becomes the land occupied by the Jews and known as Israel.

2). Second, nothing in the language suggests that God meant anything other than physical territory when He promised the land to Abraham.  In other words, God was not telling Abraham, "I will give this land to you and your descendants, but really it’s just a type for heaven, so don’t take my words in a "wooden, literal fashion."  As far as Abraham is concerned, he believed he was being promised the possession of physical territory that he and his descendants will occupy forever.

Now, covenant Reformed apologists will argue that promise was “expanded” by God in His redemptive purposes so that now we shouldn’t take it in a “wooden, literal fashion” like premillennialists do.  I would agree God later “expands” upon this promise to include the gentiles and extend salvation throughout the global nations, but “expanding” on the promise is different from nullifying, cancelling, or replacing specific terms of that promise. The inclusion of the gentiles in the New Covenant doesn’t cancel those land promises God made to His people, the Jews.

3). Adding to that last point, God says several times that He gives the land to Abraham and his descendants “forever.”  Moreover, in Genesis 17:7, 8,  this covenant promise is described as an "everlasting" covenant and the land is described as an “everlasting possession.”  Now, if we take the words “forever” and “everlasting” in their normal meaning, they describe something that is “forever” and “everlasting.”  Thus, no matter if Israel’s possession of the land is interrupted due to their disobedience and the people are removed from the land, the idea of “everlasting” means God will come through with the fulfillment of His promise and restore them at some future point.

Keeping these observations in mind, many covenant Reformed proponents argue that the idea of “forever” or “everlasting,” particularly in Genesis 17:8 where God says the land of Canaan will be an “everlasting possession,” does not necessarily mean “everlasting” in a literal sense [i.e., Crenshaw/Gunn, 241ff.*].  In other words, “everlasting” should be understood in a conditional sense.  The reason being is that context defines the meaning.

Though it is true, they explain, that “everlasting” typically means “everlasting” in the sense of “eternal” and “never ending,” it doesn’t carry this meaning in every passage.  For instance, in Exodus 40:15, the priests are said to be “anointed” so as to be admitted to a “everlasting” priesthood.  We know the priesthood ended when the “Great High Priest” came.

Moreover, the occupation of the land was conditioned upon Israel’s obedience to the covenant God made with them.  Deuteronomy 4:25-27, for example, reads,

25 "When you beget children and grandchildren and have grown old in the land, and act corruptly and make a carved image in the form of anything, and do evil in the sight of the LORD your God to provoke Him to anger,
26 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you cross over the Jordan to possess; you will not prolong your days in it, but will be utterly destroyed.
27 "And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you.

Obviously, according to that passage, the idea of the land being “an everlasting possession” is conditioned upon Israel faithfully maintaining the terms of the covenant.  We know the people were not faithful and were removed from the land in exile during the Babylonian captivity, and when they rejected their Messiah, they were permanently removed from their land in 70 AD.

At first glance, I can sorta see how this may be compelling argumentation, but there are some problems with it.

I’ll sketch out my response.

Honestly, I do not find any exegetical or theological warrant in the biblical text, OT or NT, to redefine the word “everlasting” in a conditional sense as it describes the land promises.

Of all the major covenants mentioned in the Bible, the Noahic (Genesis 9), the Abrahamic (Genesis 15, 17 etc.), the Mosaic (Exodus 19, 20), the Palestinian (Deuteronomy 30:1-10), the Davidic (2 Samuel 7:12-16), and the New (Jeremiah 31:33-34), all of them except the Mosaic covenant are described in terms of being “everlasting” or being “forever.”  That is because they are unconditional, established by God’s divine sovereignty in spite of the response of the receiving party, in this case, Israel.

One can argue that the Mosaic covenant was established by God’s divine sovereignty in that He alone freed Israel from Egyptian bondage and gave His law to be kept by them.  However, it is not defined as being “everlasting” because it was not designed to be “everlasting” in the same manner the others were.  The Mosaic covenant functioned as a national constitution for Israel as a theocratic nation.  It was also meant to demonstrate the holiness of God and point to the need for a perfect, everlasting sacrifice, what the New Covenant foretold and was ratified in the work of Christ.

The Mosaic covenant did have specific conditions set upon the occupants of the land that if they disobeyed the terms of the covenant they would forfeit their occupancy in the land.  But those conditions do not nullify the previous promise made to Abraham for his descendants  to possess the land forever as Paul writes to the Galatians in 3:17.

When we come to the NT, all of the unconditional covenants revealed in the OT culminate in the ratification of the New covenant.  But the NT writers narrowly focus upon the soteriological aspects of the New covenant.  Such things as the fulfillment of the priestly sacrifices, God’s laws being “written on the heart,” a new heart that willing obeys those laws, and the out pouring of God’s Spirit.  That is understandable, because Christ’s first coming was for the purpose of securing eternal life for His elect.  R.K. McGregor-Wright explains the New covenant this way,

This covenant was the subject of much OT prediction and was announced to his people by Jesus as the new Moses in the Upper Room, and ratified by God on the Cross (Heb. 13:20).  It is called "eternal" in Isa. 24:5, 61:8, Jer. 32:40, 50:5 and in Hebrews 13:20.  It was made with “spiritual” Israel, i.e., with the Elect of God in Christ, and contains at least a dozen specific promises to them, including some of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant.  It includes the future regenerate Israel and therefore will later incorporate promises of the Palestinian and Davidic covenants.  Its fulfillment rests ultimately on the gracious "I will" of Jehovah himself.  It absolutely guarantees the salvation of the elect and includes no one else.  It was to be made only with those who "know the Lord," according to Jer. 31:33-34, and therefore cannot be a “family” or “national” covenant like the Mosaic was, but is entered into only by believers upon the exercise of saving faith.

The New covenant has at this time salvific implications to God’s spiritual people, the elect, both Jew and gentile.  It will have physical implications in the future when God, through the work of the New covenant, saves all of national Israel in the eschatological future.  What Deuteronomy 4:29-30 prophecy as happening during the “latter days.”

As I noted at the outset, It is important to understand that the “everlasting possession” of the land is a key element to the Abrahamic covenant which factors significantly in the establishment of the New Covenant.   I don’t believe God’s promise to save Israel’s can be separated from His promise to give them the land.  In fact, when we examine the OT passages where God declares His intention to save Israel, that salvation always includes the promise to establish the people in the land.  Additionally, it will be a holy people willing obedient to their God because of the spiritual renewal He sovereignly brings upon the people. 

Consider the “New” covenant sounding language in Deuteronomy  4:29-31; 30:6, Ezekiel 36:24-28; 37:14, 22-23, 26-28; Zechariah 14:20-21.  There is mention of Israel receiving new hearts, having circumcised hearts, obeying from the heart God’s law, sovereignly awakened by God to see their Messiah, having clean water sprinkled on them, and having God’s Spirit dwelling with them, and all of these spiritual promises of salvation are in conjunction with the promise to be reestablished in the physical land.  Now Israel can meet those conditions of obedience in order to dwell in the land because they will obey from a divinely changed heart.

*Note how Crenshaw and Gunn cherry pick passages by only citing the first part of Deuteronomy 4 concerning the curses brought upon Israel and their removal from the land. They ignore the latter part of the chapter where God tells of Israel’s restoration. 

Sources

Curtis Crenshaw and Grover Gunn, Dispensationaism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow
John Feinberg, ed, Continuity and Discontinuity
R.K. McGregor-Wright, Historical Doubts Concerning One “Covenant of Grace [unpublished paper]

Anyone who gives just a cursory review of the theological literature recognizes the non-premillennial, Reformed covenant position on the land promises to Israel is sharply distinct from the typical premillennial, Dispensational position.

Whereas the premillennial position understands the land promises God made to Israel have not been ultimately fulfilled and will be so at the coming of Christ when He establishes an earthly, geo-political kingdom whose government is centered in Israel; non-premillennialists, for the most part, agree those promises were fulfilled according to the terms of the Mosaic covenant in as much as Israel obeyed God, but that they are ultimately typological, pointing to a greater promise fulfilled in the universality of the Christian church and the eternal state of the new heavens and new earth.

So as we consider what the Bible says about the land promises initially given to Abram in Genesis, and reiterated to his descendants throughout the book of Genesis and the remainder of the OT, we can ask some questions about those promises. For example, have the land promises been fulfilled? Will the Jews be restored to the Promised Land? How exactly are those land promises fulfilled? Does the land promises entail physical, geo-political territory?

But before I dive into my study defending the premillennial perspective, it may be helpful to sketch out the basic Reformed covenant view of the land promises.   Their view can be outlined according to 5 broad headings:

The NT Church is understood to be the “New Israel.”

The Reformed covenant position recognizes a strict continuity between the OT people of God, Israel, and the NT people of God, the Church, the Body of Christ. According to Romans 4:11, 12 and Galatians 3:15-29, Christians are considered the true spiritual seed of Abraham. Reformed writers, Crenshaw and Gunn state,

Paul argues in Galatians 3 that God intentionally used seed as a collective noun that has both a singular and plural reference so that the singular reference could refer to Christ and the plural reference could refer to those who are in Christ. Paul’s point is that the Abrahamic promises were made to Abraham and to his seed (vs. 16), that the seed of Abraham is Christ (vs. 16) and all who are in Christ (vs. 29), and that therefore the promise given to Abraham belongs to all who are in Christ (vs. 29), … When Paul was explaining the Old Testament promise that belongs to the Christian, he was referring specifically to the land promise … [Crenshaw and Gunn, 234, 235]

There comment builds upon John Calvin’s views of these passages, who wrote,

In a word, he gives the appellation of the Israel of God to those whom he formally denominated the children of Abraham by faith (Gal. 3:29), and thus includes all believers, whether Jews or gentiles, who were united into one Church. [Calvin, 186]

Thus, it is understood then, that the Church is the new community of the people of God. O Palmer Robertson writes,

…Paul declares that the “new creation”– the new community within humanity brought into existence by the cross of Christ in its uniting of Jews and Gentiles into one new people of God – is the community that may be designated as “the Israel of God.” [Robertson, 43]

Again, Crenshaw and Gunn state,

In Reformed interpretation, the land-inheriting seed of Abraham are defined not strictly in terms of racial descent but in terms of a continuing covenant community [Crenshaw and Gunn, 233].

The Promises made by God that Israel will occupy the land is said to have been fulfilled

For example, consider these passages:

Joshua 21:43-45

43 So the LORD gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it.
44 The LORD gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45 Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.

1 Kings 4:21

So Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.

1 Kings 8:56

"Blessed be the LORD, who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all that He promised. There has not failed one word of all His good promise, which He promised through His servant Moses.

Nehemiah 9:7-8

7 "You are the LORD God, Who chose Abram, And brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans, And gave him the name Abraham;
8 You found his heart faithful before You, And made a covenant with him To give the land of the Canaanites, The Hittites, the Amorites, The Perizzites, the Jebusites, And the Girgashites– To give it to his descendants. You have performed Your words, For You are righteous.

Patrick Fairbairn sums up what these passages say by writing,

The occupation of the earthly Canaan by the natural seed of Abraham was a type, and no more than a type, of this occupation by a redeemed Church of her destined inheritance of glory; and consequently everything concerning the entrance of the former on their temporary possessions, was ordered so as to represent and foreshadow the things which belong to the Church’s establishment in her permanent possession [Fairbairn, 1:359]

The land promises were conditioned upon Israel’s obedience to God’s covenant

In Deuteronomy 28, 29, God told Israel before they entered the land that their blessing in the land would be contingent upon them obeying the terms of the covenant God made with them.  If not, then they would come under judgment to the point that if they persisted in their disobedience, God would send foreign nations to drive them out.  The book of Judges, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles records this very thing happening.  Israel’s rejection of Jesus only solidified this judgment and they were permanently removed from the land in 70 AD.

Gary Burge writes in regards to Israel’s disobedience and the land,

The connection between covenant fidelity and the promise of land is evident throughout the Torah. Possessing the land was contingent on Israel’s consistently living by God’s righteous standards… Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy warn Israel about righteousness and the land in dramatic terms. In fact, the images are shocking! If Israel does not obey God’s laws, then the land itself will vomit the nation out. [Burge, 61, 62]

See also Jon Zen’s article, Today’s Israel: Is God on her side. 

The greater fulfillment of the land promises is the entire earth, the world, or the “cosmos.”

Reformed believers understand that the land promises have their greatest fulfillment in the entire earth. In other words, God’s promises were not just given to one ethnic group of people centered in the physical borders of Israel. Rather, they are made to the whole of God’s people, both in the OT and NT who will inherit the entire earth.

Crenshaw and Gunn write,

… The ultimate fulfillment of the land promise involves the whole world and not just Palestine. Notice what Paul said in Romans 4:13: “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world (kosmos) was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”… We know that the Abrahamic land promise ultimately refers to the whole world (Romans 4:13). Adam was originally given dominion over the whole world (Genesis 1:26-28). This inheritance was lost in the fall and Satan became the prince of this world… Through His resurrection-ascension, Christ has received all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Christ, from His heavenly throne, is today fulfilling Psalm 2… Even as God gave Palestine to Israel under Joshua and told them to conquer it, so God has given the nations to new covenant Israel under Jesus and has told us to disciple them. [Crenshaw and Gunn, 241, 242, 243]

The People of God await a heavenly land and a heavenly Jerusalem. Their hope is not upon physical, geographic territory in the Middle-East.

The last two chapters of Revelation make it abundantly clear that the hope of God’s people is in a new heaven and a new earth dwelling with God in a New Jerusalem. These images speak volumes as to where the believers will dwell. The land promises were mere shadows and types of God’s greatest promise.

Robertson notes,

The possession of the land under the old covenant was not an end in itself, but fit instead among the shadows, types, and prophecies that were characteristic of the old covenant in its presentation of redemptive truth… Abraham received the promise of the land but never experienced the blessing of its full possession. In this way, the patriarch learned to look forward to “the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God (Heb. 11:10).”

For those who would like to have a bit more on the Reformed perspective about the land than what I just touch on here, check out Bob Hayton’s lay-level overview of the land promises in a series of articles he wrote up for his blog:  Understanding the Land Promises.   

_________

Sources

Gary Burge, Who are God’s People in the Middle-East

John Calvin, Commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians

Curtis Crenshaw and Grover Gunn, Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow

Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture

O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

A politically conservative writer from my corner of the world (who is a non-Christian as far as I know) recently sent out a mass email to members of a discussion group in which I participate on occasion.  He was asking for our input answering the question: “What is a “Zionist.” 

Typically I just glance over emails like these and delete them, but the subject matter was semi-related to eschatology, and premillennialism specifically, that I thought I would respond to this writer’s inquiry. 

What follows are my comments to him, slightly expanded and edited:

In our modern, politically correct world, “Zionist” has become something of a dirty word.  It’s like being called a “Nazi” or a “racist.”  The idea being that a “Zionist,” at least according to the American liberal, p.c. mind, is any person who is unquestionably loyal to, and supports the Jewish state of Israel, in spite of the fact the Israeli government is cruel, bigoted, and openly persecutes the innocent non-Jews (usually defined as Palestinian Arabs) who live alongside of the Jews and under the thumb of the State.

The more bizarre haters of “Zionism” accuse the “Zionists” (usually “Jews,” though “evangelicals” can be included) of conspiratorial dealings within governments, businesses, and banking, clandestinely shaping those entities to ultimately favor the Jewish State. 

The idea of “Zionism” reflects two facets.  First is the secular idea of “Zionism.”  That simply being the idea that the state of Israel has the right to exist as a nation, as well as the right for their government and the people to defend themselves against murderous terrorists groups who seek their ultimate destruction. 

Now, does that necessarily mean that the modern state of Israel is without fault in all that they do in their defense of themselves?  Of course not.  Does that mean, then, that I automatically condemn them completely for the faults they have made defending themselves and fighting their enemies?  I would say no once more. 

I have heard people say (including one atheist commenter here at my blog) that Israel should be condemned for X,Y, or Z actions they did that resulted in innocent people getting killed or misguided hippie college students ran over by bulldozers.  Could one say that was a bad move on Israel’s part or it was a stupid, indefensible action?  Of course.  But condemned? 

Besides, what exactly does that mean, anyways, that they are to be condemned?  That I can agree they have acted stupidly and are not pure as snow when they have retaliated against the Palestinians?  I could probably say yes to that definition.  But if  by “condemned,” a person means the Jews need to renounce their 1948 statehood, pack up and leave Jerusalem, and hand over everything to the Muslims who hate them, well then no, I don’t “condemn” them. 

The modern state of Israel is certainly an unusual state in that its citizens share a close proximity to their mortal enemies.  But like any secular state in such a high pressure situation, they will make mistakes and act rashly and there will be innocent casualties in conflicts with those enemies.

Obviously their enemies, and the useful idiots in Europe and America who support them, focus the world’s attention on those disastrous actions that happen when the Israeli government is forced to defend themselves and press their rights to exist.  While at the same time they ignore the larger picture that Israel’s enemies want them erased from the earth and driven into the sea at all costs. That tends to put the conflict into sharper perspective.

Yet there is a second facet to the concept of “Zionism,” however.  One that cannot be exclusively defined along secular, political lines. There is much more to Zionism than a political disagreement between pollyannish, pacifist lefties and conservative right-wingers.  There is a spiritual and theological component to Zionism that cannot be overlooked.  That is because “Israel,” as a nation, represents a unique people in history. 

Israel is a people who are identified with God almighty, who were especially chosen to enter into a covenant with God, a people from whom the savior of the entire world would come.  As a Bible believing Christian, I am a “Zionist” because I believe God has made specific, covenant promises with the Jews that He will be certain to fulfill, and that fulfillment is tied directly to the land on which the state of Israel currently exists. 

It is mistakenly believed “Zionism” is a 20^th century phenomena, because Israel wasn’t really recognized as a national state until 1948.  But the fact of the matter is that before “Zionism” was called what it is, there were many individuals supportive of Israel’s restoration to their land. 

The idea of supporting a restoration of the Jews to Israel began with the post-Reformation Puritans.  Though most Reformers believed (and still believe) the promises given to the Jews were fulfilled in Christ and the Christian Church, the recovery of the biblical text in the myriad of language translations that were published in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, coupled with a renewal of biblical exegesis – or the principles of proper Bible study – began to stir up in the hearts of Christians that God has not “fulfilled” His promise to Israel only in the Church.  Rather, those promises are yet to be fulfilled in the future with a restoration of the Jews in a physical land identified in Scripture as Israel.  This is clearly taught in such places as Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 31:35ff., Ezekiel 37, Micah 4:1ff., Zechariah 14, and Romans 9-11. 

In the secular context, I consider myself a “Zionist” in that I believe Israel has a right to exist in their land and I believe they have the right to defend themselves against groups and nations who seek their demise as does any nation whose citizens would be in the same situation.

In the theological context, I am a “Zionist” in that I believe the presence of the Jews in the current land of Israel has future, prophetic significance, even though the Jews are currently in a state of divinely induced blindness as Paul notes in Romans 11:25. 

Paul Henebury, Dr. Reluctant and teacher at the Spirit and Truth website,  recently posted a series of audio lectures on the subject of eschatology.  There are five lectures covering such themes as Dispensational premillennialism, the anti-Christ, and death.

Studies in Eschatology

During the last decade or so, preterism has become all the rage among the young, Reformed crowd who have renounced their former, Dispensational, Fundamentalist ways. There are websites dedicated to the promotion of preterism, and bloggers, apologists, and authors who have given a considerable amount of time speaking and writing on the subject.

A lot of the proponents I have personally encountered come across to me as smug, chest-thumpers. Granted, much of the strident zeal they exude in defense of their hermeneutic can be chalked up to the excitement of immature, cage-stage devotees; but it gets tiresome being called a heretic, racist, and any number of other ad hominem’s. It also becomes old real quick having to interact all the time with strawman arguments that misrepresent my position as a dispensational oriented premillennialist.

The immediate difficulty I have with preterism is the constant need for its proponents to defend their orthodoxy. That’s because the nuances are such between the orthodox and heterodox preterists that it is hard to tell them apart. I see this as a problem.

The orthodox preterists call themselves “partial preterists,” and earnestly insist on being distinguished from the “hyper-preterists” or “neo-hymenaeanism” heretical variety, who teach the second coming happened in 70 A.D., among other things. In fact, the “partials” expend so much effort clarifying their own views in distinction from the heretical strain that it is almost impossible to find any treatment of the “good” preterism without having to wade through a disclaimer setting forth their hermeneutic against that of the “evil” hypers’.

To be fair and charitable, there are always imbalanced, “hyper” positions within theological systems, hyper-Calvinism being one of the more familiar examples. But the difference, I believe, is that when I talk about Calvinism with a person, I as a Calvinist rarely, if ever, have had to set aside any time contrasting my views against the hyper variety. Now some may say the friendly chiding I gave my Reformed Covenant friends as to their general mishandling of Dispensationalism is a similar example to the partial/hyper distinctive. But there is a clear difference with distinguishing between sensationalists who happen to be Dispensational adherents, and hyper-Dispensationalists, who certainly teach gross, theological error.

At any rate, I’ll lay aside exploring the particulars of preterism until a later time. It’s my goal to eventually blog on preterism as a subject sometime in the future. But in the mean time I wanted to expand upon one of my points outlined in my last Daniel post, that being a gap existing between the 69th and 70th week in Daniel’s prophecy.

As I pointed out, preterists ridicule any idea of a gap existing between the 69th and 70th week. I don’t recall how many times I heard or read Gary DeMar, or Kim Riddlebarger, or Gene Cook, or Dee Dee Warren, or any other number of preterist popularizers explaining to their audience how ridiculous the notion of a gap of time between the 69th and 70th week is. DeMar devotes an entire chapter in his book, Last Days Madness, to debunking the notion.

But is the idea of an extended gap of time between the 69th and 70th week just absurd eisegetical gymnastics? A phantom of “silly putty exegesis” as Demar claims? I don’t think so.

I say that because of a couple of reasons found in Daniel and the Olivet Discourse.

First, the last clause of Daniel 9:26 states And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

That word desolations is significant in its descriptions of God’s dealings with Israel. The word speaks of being made waste, or desolate in the sense of being made empty, and it is meant to describe a terrible horror, or something that is spectacularly appalling.

In its usage within the OT, the word is connected with God bringing the terms of His covenant upon the people of Israel, particularly the cursings against a disobedient people. One of the major points of those covenant cursings is that God will remove the people from the Promised Land.

For example, in Leviticus 26:31-35, the Bible says,

³¹ I will lay your cities waste and bring your sanctuaries to desolation, and I will not smell the fragrance of your sweet aromas.

³² I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it.

³³ I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste.

³⁴ Then the land shall enjoy its sabbaths as long as it lies desolate and you are in your enemies’ land; then the land shall rest and enjoy its sabbaths.

³⁵ As long as it lies desolate it shall rest– for the time it did not rest on your sabbaths when you dwelt in it.

The desolation described here in Leviticus is Israel having its land made waste, or emptied of people, if they refuse to obey the Lord. Desolation was fulfilled when Israel went into captivity for 70 years. This is noted in Jeremiah 25:11; 34:22; 42:2, 22, and other similar passages in the OT.

So what are exactly these “desolations are determined” that Daniel mentions? They have to be some future desolations beyond the 70 years of captivity Israel had just experienced. Luke’s version of Christ’s Olivet Discourse, I believe, supplies a clue. Luke 21:20 records Jesus saying, But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Here, Luke mentions a specific sign of “armies and desolation,” which would match closely to Daniel’s “war and desolations” in 9:26.

I believe this desolation began when Rome came to Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in 70 A.D. Here we have clear historical fulfillment of Christ’s words. In this instance the preterists are correct. But there is more.

Luke 21:24 goes on to record Jesus saying, And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. What Jesus predicts happened: Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, the people were killed and led away captive into all the nations, and, according to Jesus, this desolation was to continue until the times of gentiles are fulfilled. The desolation begins with a sign, “When you see Jerusalem surrounded…” This event signals the desolation and “the time of the gentiles.”

Jesus predicted in Matthew 24:34 that the generation he was speaking to would not pass away until these things begin to take place. Preterists understand that a good portion of the prophetic events outlined by Jesus in his Olivet Discourse were completely fulfilled in 70 A.D. Though I think they are correct in that the generation did not pass away, they are mistaken as to the fulfillment of the prophetic events spoken. The “fulfillment” Jesus is talking about, I believe, is that that generation would be alive to see the beginning of the desolation and the start of the “time of the gentiles.” That desolation included the destruction of the temple, the giving over of the nation to captivity, and the ultimate dispersion of a good bulk of the Jewish population.

Second, one additional grammatical highlight is the phrase in Matthew 24:34, “until all these things take place.” Without reproducing all of the lexical and syntactical details, the word genetai that is translated as “until all these take place,” has the more concise idea of “when these thing begin to take place.” Barry Horner provides a good analysis of this point in his article, The Olivet Discourse – Matthew 24, starting at page 31 and following. The first appendix attached to Horner’s article, written by Presbyterian minister C.E. Stowe, is an even more detailed study of this passage in Matthew. In short, rather than being a comment from our Lord that these events will be completely fulfilled, He is saying to His audience to be alert to when these events start.

The beginning of events, then, is the desolation of Jerusalem and the ushering in of the time of the gentiles. This is why there is a gap. We are now in that time of the gentiles, which has yet to be fulfilled. Paul explains in Romans 11:25 that blindness on the part of Israel has happened because the fullness of the gentiles is not complete. God is actively bring gentiles believers to salvation in Christ, and until the time of the gentiles ends according to God’s divine purpose, the 70th week is yet to take place.

Prophetic Date Setting (9:25-27)

Daniel’s 70 weeks was a revelation given during the first year of the new Medo-Persian empire.  Daniel recognized that the 70 years of Israel’s captivity were coming to an end.  He offers a two-fold prayer: Confession of sin and the request to restore Israel to the land. 

The angel, Gabriel, is sent to provide an answer for Daniel that consists of describing a decree by God entailing an allotted 490 years for the prayer to be answered.  The 490 years revealed here are based upon the Jewish Sabbatical year.  Every 7th year the land was to rest (Leviticus 25:2-6).  Seventy Sabbatical "weeks" are appointed for Israel before transgressions are finished and restoration takes place. 

As I noted last time, there are three primary views of when those 490 years started.  There is only one official decree that I believe fulfills the language of Daniel when Gabriel says, "From the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem;" I believe the seventy sevens started with Artaxerxes decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 444 B.C.  The story behind the decree is recorded for us in Nehemiah 2.

Artaxerxes began his reign in 464-463 B.C.  The time of the decree would have been Artaxerxes 20th year (Assuming Nehemiah was using a calendar year from October to October).  Knowing that the Persians used an accession year chronology, meaning the 1st year was not counted, 444 B.C. would be 20 years or so after he came to the throne. 

I personally believe God is revealing through Gabriel to Daniel a specific prophetic chronology that any serious student can study and determine with startling precision when these particular events take place in time.  There is no reason why that conclusion can’t be drawn.  I say that for four reasons:

I. Prophetic Year

How long was a year in Daniel’s mind? Or should we say God’s mind? 

Was a year suppose to be 365 days?  How we understand our current day calendar?  If we subtract 490 years that places the end of the 70 weeks in the 40 A.D.s or so.  That would be well beyond when we know certain details of Daniel’s prophecy would have been fulfilled, the cutting off of the Messiah.

I think there are some biblical indicators that tell us God had in mind 12 months of 30 days.

There is historical precedent for this.

In Genesis 7:11, the flood began on the 17th day of the 2nd month.  Genesis 8:4, the flood waters end on the 17th day of the 7th month.  That would be 5 months total.  Additionally, Genesis 7:24 says "The waters prevailed on the earth 150 days."  Five months of 30 days would be 150 days.  There is no reason to think these numbers are "analogous" or "symbolic" in nature.  

But this is Genesis, not Daniel, a prophet who lived several thousand years past the flood.  Fair enough.  Turning to the book of Daniel, Daniel 7:24, 25 says the "little horn" known as the end-times Anti-Christ has his duration fixed for 3 1/2 times.  I take that to be 3 1/2 years, for in Revelation 13:4-7, John’s commentary on this Anti-Christ, he is said to rule for 42 months of 1260 days, or 3 1/2 years.  Doing the math, that would be 30 day months. 

II. Prophetic Precision

One will note that Gabriel divides the seventy sevens into 3 groups:
7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week.

= 7 weeks would be 7×7 or 49 years.
= 62 weeks would be 62×7 or 434 years.
= 1 week would be 7 years. 

Daniel 9:25-26 – The first set of 7 weeks, 49 years, Gabriel says Jerusalem was rebuilt and turned into a thriving city.  This is the first years following Nehemiah and Ezra’s ministry in Jerusalem.  The next set of 62 weeks, or 434 years, takes us to what the prophet describes as the coming of "Messiah the prince" who is Jesus Christ.

49 + 434 will give us 483 years. Thus, from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to what Daniel states is "the cutting off of the Messiah" (v. 26) will be 483 years.  The question then is, "Can we determine the time when this cutting off of the Messiah takes place?  I believe we can with certainty.

Harold Hoehner, in his book, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, provides one of the best comprehensive surveys detailing the historical precision of these prophetic years.  Hoehner builds upon and refines the original calculations made by Sir Robert Anderson in his book, The Coming Prince. Their summary of these calculations are thus: 

If these are 483 prophetic years of 12, 30 day months as I believe they are and as I noted above, then 483 x 12 x 30 = 173,880 days.  If we divide those "days" by our solar calendar of 365 days, we get 476 solar years.  Synchronizing those 476 years with our modern calendar by multiplying 476 by 365 days, we get 173,740 days.  If the decree to rebuild Jerusalem happened in 444 B.C., and calculating for leap years of which there are 116 days (173,856), brings us to 33 A.D.  Hoehner adds 25 days to the original calculation of Anderson to get the date of Nisan 10 (March 30th), 33 A.D.  This would be the Triumphal Entry of Christ presenting Himself to the Nation of Israel as their Messiah.  Four days later, on Nisan 14, (April 3rd), the Messiah the Prince was "cut off." 

III. Prophetic Princes

It is at this point where divergent, eschatological interpretation come into play with the remainder of Daniel’s prophecy.

It is noted that there is a discussion of two “Princes” in this passage: Messiah the Prince (v.25) and the prince of the people who are to come (v.26). I believe these are two, separate individuals.  But many amillennialists and postmillennialists, and to some extent, historic premillennialists, believe there is only one prince being spoken of here throughout the entire text: Jesus Christ. (Some take the second “prince” as being the Roman general Titus who led the Romans to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but I believe that view is untenable as I will show in a moment).

They understand that Christ being “cut off” makes his death an “abomination of desolation” (vs.27) in that Jesus made an end of the temple sacrificial system.  The OT promises of the Messiah were fulfilled in Christ’s death, being “cut off,” and His Resurrection. He made an end of the Mosaic law and in doing so, makes the temple "desolate.”  The “people of the prince” speak of the Jewish nation who rejected their Messiah, or cut Him off.  Daniel is describing their destruction in vs.26.  Even though the Roman army destroyed the temple and Jerusalem, ultimately, their destruction was by their own hand, as it were, when they crucified their true Messiah. 

There a some problems with this position.  The most notable is that Jesus did not make a “covenant” (v.27) for “one week” that was broken in the middle of that week.  Unless we make this “week” typological in some fashion, the week here has to be the last 7 years of the prophetic seventy-sevens. 

The nearest antecedent for the “he” who shall confirm the covenant (v.27) is the “prince” of the people who are to come in v.26.  Examining all the relevant biblical data, the only conclusion one can make and be true to the meaning of the text here is that this “prince” is a separate prince from “Messiah the Prince” (v.25)  We have encountered him before in Daniel 7:25.  There, that individual, described as a “little, blasphemous horn,” is said to persecute God’s people for a 3 1/2 years. 

What Gabriel is revealing to Daniel is that Messiah the Prince, Jesus Christ, will be “cut off.”  That happened on the 14th of Nissan, when He was crucified to make atonement for sin and establish the new covenant.  He is said to be “cut off, but not for himself.”  His death was sacrificial in nature.

Then, at some future point, the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city of Jerusalem.  The “prince,” who is the little horn of Daniel 7:25, is identified with the fourth beast.  That fourth beast is understood to be the Roman Empire.  Hence, “the people of the prince who is to come” has to be the Roman army when they came in 70 A.D. and tore down the temple and burned Jerusalem.  This is highlighted in Luke 19:41-44 and other portions of Christ’s Olivet Discourse in Mark 13, Matthew 24.

IV. Prophetic Gap

The first 483 prophetic years lead us up to Christ’s first coming.  However, there is one week of 7 years unaccounted for.  I believe they are yet future, detailing Christ’s second coming.  Which means to say there is a “gap” between the first 69 weeks and the last week. 

Amillennialists and postmillennialists do not like the idea of a gap.  It is one of the major points of contention, and in some cases ridicule, on the part of non-premillennialists.  But the idea of a “telescoping” of prophecy, where some of the prophecy is fulfilled at one point, then a gap of time takes place, then the rest is fulfilled at a later point, is not uncommon in Scripture.

For example, Jesus cuts Isaiah 61:1-2 when he applies this prophecy to Himself in Luke 4:16-21.  He did not include Isaiah’s words, “And the day of vengeance of our God” which speaks of a future judgment. 

Additionally, even those who do not wish to see a long, 2,000 year gap existing between the 69th and 70th week have to have a gap of at least 40 years or more if the final week was allegedly fulfilled in 70 A.D. 

Why is there a gap?

I think the reason is simple: Daniel’s vision does not include the mystery of a NT church that expands God’s redemptive purposes to include the gentiles.  God is gathering additional subjects for the kingdom by the means of the Church.  This is what is called, “the time of the gentiles” that Jesus spoke of in Luke 21:20-24 and Paul mentions in Romans 11:25.  Israel is currently in a state of blindness, because we are experiencing the “time of the gentiles.”

The Sabbatical Year (Daniel 9:24)

Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy is really an answer to Daniel’s prayer earlier in the chapter, when he confessed Israel’s sin to God and asked for Israel to be restored to their land.  In response, God does answer, and the answer He provides reveals how He will accomplish this answer to Daniel.

I noted in the previous posts how this answer revealed in the 70 weeks prophecy, has resulted in a variety of interpretations pertaining to eschatology.  Those interpretations are fueled by specific presuppositions regarding one’s hermeneutic – the principles we use to study the Bible.  These “rules” of hermeneutics as applied to prophecy distinguishes amillennialism, postmillennialism, and the premillennial perspective.

Those who adhere to either amillennialism or postmillennialism believe we must employ what is called a historical protestant hermeneutic when we interpret the Bible, and this hermeneutic has an impact upon how one understands biblical prophecy or eschatological passages. This particular approach is also known as an apostolic hermeneutic, historic-redemptive hermeneutic, or even a Christological hermeneutic.  Kim Riddlebarger, who has written a popular defense of amillennialism, points to three major presuppositions used when using the apostolic hermeneutic to interpret biblical prophecy.

1) The NT provides an over riding explanation of the OT.  In other words, the NT must be utilized to interpret to OT.  Sometimes the NT interpretation spiritualized the OT so that it is understood in the non-literal sense.
2) OT prophets spoke of the glories of the coming Messianic age from the pre-Messianic age. This means that when OT writers spoke of Israel, the Temple, David’s throne, the Kingdom of God, the NT reinterprets all those images to apply to Christ and His Church. The OT images, as real as they may have been, are really types and shadows found in the reality of Christ.
3) Use of the analogy of faith.  Basically, this principle states unclear text will be interpreted in light of clear texts.  The NT is the clearest revelation we have, so it will illuminate cloudy, OT texts.

Riddlebarger then concludes how his amillennial, classic Reformed view is truly the real, literal interpretative approach because it follows in the literal sense of how the NT writers interpreted the OT prophetic scriptures.

The main problem with this Reformed hermeneutic, however, is that it doesn’t take seriously the original revelation it reinterprets.  What does the 70 weeks mean to the prophet Daniel at the moment Gabriel is revealing them to him? What does the prophecy mean to the audience receiving the message? Moreover, there isn’t really a wholesale re-interpretation of biblical prophecy by NT writers, especially to make it all talk about Jesus.  There may be additional, previously unknown application, but the prophecy is either fulfilled by Christ’s first coming, partially fulfilled by Christ’s first coming with the remainder awaiting fulfillment at His Second Coming, or it awaits completion of the eschatological, latter-days.

When we come to any OT prophecy we need to first interpret its meaning within its own historical context before looking way outside the text to find apparent, additional understandings of the text.  We look at Daniel’s prophecy in its original context, and then go out to see how the NT may provide additional insight.  So, when we look at Daniel’s 70 weeks, let us first determine what if means here as we consider God’s answer He gave Daniel through the angel.

I noted last time that the key to God’s answer to Daniel is found in the opening statement: 70 weeks are determined

The 70 weeks has reference to the 70 years Israel has been in captivity, and the reason why they were in captivity in the first place.

The Sabbatical Year

Israel’s captivity has to do with the sabbatical year.  Leviticus 25:2-5 introduces this concept:

2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them:`When you come into the land which I give you, then the land shall keep a sabbath to the LORD.
3 `Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather its fruit;
4 `but in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath to the LORD. You shall neither sow your field nor prune your vineyard.
5 `What grows of its own accord of your harvest you shall not reap, nor gather the grapes of your untended vine, for it is a year of rest for the land.

According to Leviticus, after the people of Israel enter the promised land, every 7th year was to be a sabbatical for the land.  It was to lay unploughed.  If the people failed to obey this command, God promised to bring desolation to their land.  Leviticus 26:32-35 states,

32 I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it.
33 I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste.
34 Then the land shall enjoy its sabbaths as long as it lies desolate and you are in your enemies’ land; then the land shall rest and enjoy its sabbaths.
35 As long as it lies desolate it shall rest– for the time it did not rest on your sabbaths when you dwelt in it.

It is when the people are in captivity that the land will enjoy its sabbaths.  Second Chronicles 36:20-21 states clearly this was fulfilled with Israel’s 70 years in captivity.

20 And those who escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon, where they became servants to him and his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia,
21 to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths. As long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

The reason Israel went into captivity for 70 years is because Israel failed to obey God and skipped the sabbatical year 70 times during that 800 years since coming into the land in 1405 B.C.   So 490 years – over half the time they had been in the land – Israel violated Leviticus 25:2-5.  It wasn’t all in a row, but obviously spaced out over that 800 year period that accumulated in missing the sabbatical year for the land 70 times.  The angel Gabriel is telling Daniel that another 70 units of 7 years has been decreed for Daniel’s people Israel and Jerusalem, or 490 years.

When Do They Start? Gabriel tells Daniel to know and understand.  The idea is one of gaining direct insight.  In other words, Daniel is about to learn when the 70 weeks are to begin.

Specifically, they begin when there is a command to rebuild Jerusalem.  There are three possible dates appealed to by commentators.

1) The Decree of Cyrus for Israel to return to the land in 538 B.C. This view is problematic, because it doesn’t state for the people to rebuild Jerusalem; plus, it plays havoc on calculating the 490 years.

2) The Decree of Artaxerxes ca. 458 B.C. This decree is noted in Ezra 7:11-26.  If we take that date as the starting point, the first 483 years of the seventy sevens takes us to roughly 26 A.D. with Christ’s baptism by John.  That could be what the angel meant about the coming Messiah in 9:25.  Again, this particular decree doesn’t mention anything about rebuilding Jerusalem, just the temple.

3) The Decree of Artaxerxes ca. 444 B.C. This is noted in Nehemiah 2:5-8.  In this chapter, Nehemiah states he has letters from the king (Artaxerxes) to rebuild Jerusalem, not just the temple.  If this date is taken, the first 483 years of the seventy sevens end with the last week of Christ’s ministry in the spring of 33 A.D.  That would seem to fulfill perfectly the angel’s comment of how the Messiah will be “cut off.”  This is the date I personally take, because I believe it fulfills the prophetic parameters set by the seventy sevens.

God Answers Prayer (Daniel 9:20-24)

I want to continue in my study of Daniel chapter 9 and Daniel’s prophecy regarding the 70 Weeks.   I provided a brief introduction to the particulars some may wish to visit in order to get an overview of the two basic interpretative approaches to the prophecy.

The first portion of Daniel 9 finds the prophet Daniel contemplating Jeremiah 25:11, 12 where Jeremiah spoke of Israel going into captivity for 70 years.  Daniel realized those 70 years were coming to a completion and so was moved to pray on behalf of his people, specifically that Israel would experience a restoration.  The one important note about Daniel’s prayer: It is filled with Scripture.  Daniel’s mind is saturated in the promises and the certainty of God’s revelation.  His prayer confidently brings those revealed truths to God.

We considered Daniel’s prayer, so now we turn our attention to the answer he receives. The answer comes in the revelation of God’s continued purpose for Israel as spoken from the mouth of the angel Gabriel.  The answer the angel supplies provides us with some of the most problematic verses in all of Scripture, verses 24-28.  In fact, how one understands the unfolding of these verses shapes how one understands the unfolding of later, biblical prophecy, particularly Christ’s words on the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation.

I. The Answer Delivered (20-23)

It is while Daniel is still making supplication to God that an answer to his prayer is sent.  That word should be an encouragement, because it demonstrates how God cares for His saints.  Note also that Daniel was confessing his sin.  Meaning that Daniel was just like us with his personal struggles and temptations.

The Deliverer: While Daniel prayed, the angel Gabriel came.  He is called a “man” because he came in the appearance of a man.  Angels typically appear as men in the Bible, for example Genesis 19.  Gabriel seems to be appointed as the chief angel for communication, especially Messianic revelation.  For example, he appeared to Zechariah, John the Baptist’s father and Mary the mother of Jesus in Luke 1.

He comes to Daniel to relay a message.  Daniel says that Gabriel was “caused to fly swiftly.”  Some study Bibles may have a marginal note here in the text that reads, “wearied in my weariness.”  The Hebrew phrase, depending upon which stem of the Hebrew is used, can be rendered “to fly” or “to faint.”  The language suggests that it is the idea of weariness rather than swift flying.  The point being that Gabriel came to Daniel at a point of extreme weariness during his fasting and praying.

The Message: Gabriel informs Daniel that he had been sent to “give Daniel understanding.”  The “skill to understand” carries the idea of imparting spiritual wisdom.  The phrase speaks to the Spirit of God opening one’s mind to understand spiritual truth.   Additionally, Gabriel states he was dispatched at the moment of Daniel’s praying.  God, then, had anticipated Daniel’s request before he even started praying.

II. The Answer Detailed (24)

Gabriel calls Daniel to consider the matter and understand the vision.  This is what the vision is about:

Seventy weeks are determined.  The answer centers around what the angel describes as 70 weeks, what could literally be translated as “seventy sevens.”  The question then is: seventy seven of what?

Seeing that Daniel was reading Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and possibly 29:10 ff., I believe what is in mind are the seven years from Sabbath rest to Sabbath rest the people of Israel were to give to the land as outlined in Leviticus 25.  Consider for example Jeremiah 25:11, which states, And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.  The desolation is related to the land.  The only land that can be in mind here is the Promise Land of Israel.  2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 elaborates upon the concept of the 70 year captivity and the Sabbath years in Israel: And those who escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon, where they became servants to him and his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths. As long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath to fulfill seventy years.

I will discuss the Sabbath years in a later post, but for now, I believe it is clear that one “week” of years equates 7 years as it relates to the Sabbatical rest for the land.  Hence, the seventy sevens would be 70 periods of 7 years, or equal 490 years.

These 490 years have been been determined or decreed.  This particular word for “decreed” is only found here and it means “to cut, determine, divide.”  The idea for these “490″ years is a determined, prophetic destiny.  The question however is what exactly are these years determined for?  The angel tells Daniel: for the people and the Holy City. It is at this point where the disagreement between various eschatological camps tends to begin when interpreting this passage.

Those of an amillennial/postmillennial perspective believe the greater understanding of “people and the Holy City” is all of God’s redeemed throughout the history of redemption.  What would be considered the “remnant” of believers.   E.J Young is representative of this view when he writes in his commentary on Daniel,

It is true that the primary reference is to Israel after the flesh, and the historical Jerusalem, but since this very verse describes the Messianic work, it also refers to the true people of God, those who will benefit because of the things herein described.

But it is fairly clear from passages like Nehemiah 11:1, 18; Isaiah 48:2, 52:11, and even Matthew 9:4, that the “people and the Holy City” are the Jews and Jerusalem.  A spiritual dimension pointing to a spiritual “remnant” transcending both the OT and the NT is not in view here.  It is the Jews in captivity, the nation of Israel, and the real, geographical Jerusalem.

The purpose of the seventy sevens is further defined by six statements.  The six statements are broken into two groups:  The first group is made up of two word units in Hebrew.  The second group, three word phrases.  The first group has to do with Israel’s sin, where as the second group has to do with God’s righteousness.

The First Set:
1) To finish transgression: “Finish” has the meaning of “to end” or “accomplish”.  The word transgression is definite.  It is THE transgression, thus a specific transgression.  In this case, I believe Israel’s rebellion against their covenant with God.

2) To put an end to sin:  “To put an end to” means what it says, to end.  What is ended is sin, or what is defined as revolting against authority.  In the case of Israel, God’s covenant authority over them.

3) To atone for wickedness: “to atone” simply has the idea of biblical atonement which is “to cover over wickedness” or iniquity.

The Second Set:
4) To bring in everlasting righteousness: Everlasting or eternal.  In other words, never-ending righteousness.

5) To seal up vision and prophecy: “Seal up” means to “close a document.”  The idea could mean that it is the consummation of all divine revelation and prophecy.  It closes because God has finished or fulfilled what was necessary to reveal His purposes.

6) To anoint the Most Holy: “Anoint” speaks of consecration. “The Most Holy” or what is understood as, the temple in Jerusalem.  Some take this to mean when Jesus Christ finished the work on the Cross and founded the ministry of the NT Church.  But Most Holy is reserved for the Temple, not a person.

Each of these infinitives answers exactly what Daniel prays in 9:5, 7.  His prayer had to do with Israel’s sin and God’s righteousness.  God’s answers by providing a revelation of how He will accomplish His answer to Daniel as His purposes lead up to the coming of their Messiah, the ultimate deliverer from sin and rebellion.