Bible Prophecy Articles

Links to Bible Articles That I enjoy reading.

Archive for the category “Bible Prophecy”

Daniel’s Seventieth Week Daniel 9:1-27

 

As the events recorded in Rev. 6:1 to Rev. 19:21, are connected with the last, or “Seventieth Week,” of Daniel’s “SEVENTY WEEKS,” it is necessary that we stop here and explain what is meant by Daniel’s “Seventieth Week.”

The Prophet Daniel had been 68 years (B. C. 538) in Babylon, and by a study of the Prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11), he discovered that the “Seventy Years” Captivity of his people was nearing its end, and so he set his face unto the Lord, to seek by prayer and supplication (Dan. 9:3) to know the exact time of its ending, and while he was praying the Angel Gabriel appeared to enlighten him. (Dan. 9:20-23.) Daniel was concerned about the expiration of the “Seventy Years” of the Captivity, and the restoration of his people to Palestine, and the rebuilding of the City of Jerusalem and of the Temple. But the Angel Gabriel came to disclose to him something more important than that. While he doubtless informed Daniel that God would fulfil His promise as to the “Seventy Years” of the Captivity, which, as we know, He did, he also made known to Daniel that that would not end the troubles of Israel. That while the Jews were to return to Jerusalem at the end of the “Seventy Years” of Captivity, there was a longer period to elapse before the Kingdom would be restored to them, a period of

“SEVENTY WEEKS.”

The Tribulation Period, or Daniel’s ”Seventieth Week”, the Reign of Antichrist
Click to enlarge
The Tribulation Period, or Daniel’s ”Seventieth Week”, the Reign of Antichrist

p. 49

“SEVENTY WEEKS are determined upon Thy People (Daniel’s people the Jews) and upon the Holy City (Jerusalem), 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 (Roman) of the PRINCE THAT SHALL COME (Antichrist) 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 (Antichrist) shall confirm the Covenant with many for ONE WEEK (the last or Seventieth Week): and in the midst of THE WEEK he (Antichrist) shall cause the Sacrifice and the oblations to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations (the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Christ. Matt. 24:15) he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Dan. 9:24-27.

This Vision of the “SEVENTY WEEKS” is the most important revelation, in many ways, made in the Scriptures. We are here told that this Period of “SEVENTY WEEKS” was determined upon Daniel’s PEOPLE (the Jews), and upon the HOLY CITY (Jerusalem). This is very important. It discloses the fact that the “SEVENTY WEEKS” have nothing to do with the Gentiles, or the Church, but only with the JEWS and JERUSALEM. It also discloses another important fact that the “SEVENTY WEEKS” only cover the period when the Jews are DWELLING IN THEIR OWN LAND, and does not cover the present period of their Dispersion. We are told in verse 24 that these “SEVENTY WEEKS” were determined for a SIX-FOLD purpose.

1. TO FINISH THE TRANSGRESSION.

It is the transgression of ISRAEL that is here referred to, and the finishing of it will be the turning away of UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. Rom. 11:26-27. The transgression of Israel has not yet come to an end, and will not until they as a Nation shall be converted.

2. TO MAKE AN END OF SINS.

The margin reads to “seal up” sins. The sins of ISRAEL. This may refer to the author of Israel’s sins–Satan, who shall at that time be “sealed up” in the Pit. Rev. 20:1-3.

3. TO MAKE RECONCILIATION FOR INIQUITY.

This refers to ISRAEL’S iniquity in the rejection of their Messiah. While atonement was made for their sin on the Cross, its application to Israel as a Nation awaits the day when they shall look on Him whom they pierced (Zech. 12:10), and a fountain shall be opened to the “House of David,” and the inhabitants of Jerusalem

p. 50

for sin and uncleanliness, Zech. 13:1, and a nation, the Jewish Nation, shall be “born again” in a day. Isa. 66:8.

4. TO BRING IN EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS.

When the “Transgression of ISRAEL” has come to an end, and her sins are “sealed up,” then everlasting righteousness shall be brought in. The King will come, and the Kingdom be restored to Israel, and the Millennium will be here, and the “Knowledge of the Lord” shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea. Hab. 2:14.

5. TO SEAL UP THE VISION AND PROPHECY.

When the “Transgression of ISRAEL” has ceased and they have uninterrupted communion with God, there will no longer be any need for “Vision” or “Prophet.” It is a noteworthy fact that “Vision” and “Prophecy” has been confined to the Jewish race.

6. TO ANOINT THE MOST HOLY.

This probably refers to the anointing of the “Most Holy Place,” or the “Holy of Holies” of the MILLENNIAL TEMPLE, described by Ezekiel. Ezek. 41. There is great significance in this announcement; for, although the Tabernacle of Moses was anointed (Lev. 8:10), there is no mention of such a ceremony in the Consecration of either Solomon’s Temple, or the Temple of Zerubbabel, for those buildings were considered merely as continuations of the Mosaic Tabernacle. But when the King comes back and sits upon the Throne of His father David, there is to be a magnificent Temple erected, the like of which has never as yet been seen on this planet of ours. There will be no “Ark of the Covenant” with its “Mercy Seat,” in the “Most Holy Place” of the Millennial Temple (Jer. 3:16), but in its place will stand the ROYAL THRONE on which the “BRANCH,” the Messiah shall sit as a KING-PRIEST (Zech. 6:12-13), and whose anointing is here referred to.

Now as the fulfilment of this “Six-Fold” purpose of the “SEVENTY WEEKS” synchronizes with the things that shall happen at the close of this Dispensation, and that are described in Rev. 6:1; 19:21, it is clear that the last, or “SEVENTIETH WEEK” of Daniel’s “Seventy Weeks,” covers the “TIME PERIOD” of Rev. 6:1; 19:21, and confirms the claim that that “Period” is Jewish and has nothing to do with the Church. To prove this it is only necessary to outline Daniel’s “Seventy Weeks.”

The “Seventy Weeks” are divided into “THREE PERIODS” of 7 Weeks, and 62 Weeks, and 1 Week. They cover the time from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, which was the 14th day of the month Nisan (March) B. C. 445, to the Second Stage (The Revelation) of the Second Coming of Christ. The “First Period,” 7 WEEKS, refers to the time required to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, which was 49 years, thus giving us the “Key” to the meaning of the word “WEEK,” for if 7 WEEKS are equal to 49 YEARS, then 1 WEEK is equal to 7 YEARS. Now we are told that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (B. C. 445) unto the “MESSIAH THE PRINCE,” shall be 7 WEEKS, and THREESCORE AND TWO WEEKS, or 69 WEEKS, or, if 1 WEEK is equal to 7 YEARS, 7 x 69 or 483 YEARS. Now Jesus, as “MESSIAH THE PRINCE,” rode in triumph into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, April 2, A. D. 30. The difference in time between B. C. 445 and A. D. 30 is 475 years, but, as we have seen, 69 WEEKS equal 483 years, a difference of 8 years. How are we to explain this difference?

The 475 years between B. C. 445 and A. D. 30, are Julian or Astronomical years of 365¼ days each, but when we reduce them to Calendar years of 360 days each, the year used in the Scriptures, we find that we have exactly 483 years of 360 days each. This proves that there was no break between the “First” and “Second” Periods of the “Seventy Weeks,” and that the prophecy that there should be 69 WEEKS to the coming of “MESSIAH THE PRINCE” was literally fulfilled. Now as 69 WEEKS of Daniel’s “SEVENTY WEEKS” have already expired, and all that was prophesied to occur during those “SEVENTY WEEKS” has not yet been fulfilled, it stands to reason that the things unfulfilled are still future, and must be fulfilled in the remaining “ONE WEEK,” and that that “ONE WEEK” shall be “SEVEN YEARS” long, for it must be of the same length as the other “WEEKS.” This then gives us the length of time of the reign of the “PRINCE THAT SHALL COME” (Antichrist), who we are told in verse 27 (Dan. 9:27) shall make a Covenant with the Jews for “ONE WEEK” (7 years), the last or “SEVENTIETH WEEK,” and that in the “Middle” of the WEEK he shall break the Covenant and cause the “sacrifice and oblation” that the Jews will have restored, to cease, and then the “overspreading of abominations that maketh desolate,” shall continue until the end of the WEEK. As this is just what is foretold will occur during the reign of Antichrist (2. Thess. 2:3-4) we see that the “Period” between Rev. 6:1 and Rev. 19:21, that we are now about to study, is the “Third Period” of ONE WEEK, of Daniel’s “SEVENTY WEEKS” and that it is to last SEVEN YEARS. From this we see that while there was no “Time Space” between the “First” and “Second” Periods of the “Seventy Weeks,” there is a “Time Space” between the “Second” and “Third” Periods or the 69th and 70th Week, of already (A. D. 1919) 1889 years, or the present Church Age. This was hidden so the Church should not fail to watch. See the “Chart”, “05100.”

Articles: The Realization of Osama bin Laden’s Dream

Articles: The Realization of Osama bin Laden’s Dream.

THE MESSAGES TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES (Revelation 1-4)

II. The Things Which Are

This is the Rev. Clarence Larkin’s guide to the Book of Revelation

It is worthy of note that the “Messages to the Seven Churches” are inserted between Two Visions, the “Vision of Christ” in the midst of the “Seven Lampstands” in chapter one and the “Vision of the Four and Twenty Elders” round about the Throne, in chapter four.

As chapter four is a vision of the “Glorified Church” with the Lord, after it has been caught out (1 Thess. 4:13-17), then the Second Division of the Book–

“The Things Which Are,”

and which includes chapters two and three, must be a description or prophetic outline of the “Spiritual History” of the Church from the time when John wrote the Book in A. D. 96, down to the taking out of the Church, or else we have no “prophetic view” of the Church during that period, for she disappears from the earth at the close of chapter three, and is not seen again until she reappears with her Lord in chapter nineteen. This we shall find to be the case. See Chart of the Book of Revelation.

This interpretation of the “Messages to the Seven Churches” was hidden to the early Church, because time was required for Church History to develop and be written, so a comparison could be made to reveal the correspondence. If it had been clearly revealed that the Seven Churches stood for “Seven Church Periods” that would have to elapse before Christ could come back, the incentive to watch would have been absent.

While the character of these Seven Churches is descriptive of the Church during seven periods of her history, we must not forget that the condition of those churches, as described, were their exact condition in John’s day. So we see that at the close of the First Century the leaven of “False Doctrine” was at work in the Churches. The churches are given in the order named, because the peculiar characteristic of that Church applied to the period of Church History to which it is assigned. It also must not be forgotten, that, that which is a distinctive characteristic of each Church Period, does not disappear with that Period, but continues on down through the next Period, and so on until the end, thus increasing the imperfections of the visible Church, until it ends in an open Apostasy, as shown on the chart–”The Messages to the Seven Churches Compared with Church History.”

It is noteworthy that the “Salutation” to each Church contains a reference to some characteristic of the Son of Man as described in chapter one. We will now consider each message separately.

p. 19

The Messages to the Seven Churches Compared with Church History
Click to enlarge
The Messages to the Seven Churches Compared with Church History
I. THE CHURCH AT EPHESUS.

(A Backslidden Church.)

Rev. 2:1-7.

1. THE SALUTATION–”Unto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus write; these things saith He that holdeth the ‘Seven Stars’ in His right hand, who walketh in the midst of the ‘Seven Golden Candlesticks’.”

2. THE COMMENDATION–”I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil; and thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars; and hast borne, and hast patience, and for My Name’s Sake hast labored, and hast not fainted.”

3. THE COMPLAINT–”Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou Hast Left Thy First Love.”

4. THE WARNING–”Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy CANDLESTICK out of his place, except thou repent.”

5. PRAISE–”But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.”

6. THE PROMISE–”He that hath an ear, let him hear what the SPIRIT saith unto the Churches: To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the TREE OF LIFE, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.”

The complaint that Christ makes against this Church is that it “had left its First Love.” Its character is seen in its very name, for Ephesus means to “let go,” “to relax.” It had become a Backslidden Church. Paul, who founded it, warned it of what should happen, in his parting message.

“I know this, that after my departing shall grievous ‘wolves’ enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, ‘speaking perverse things,’ to draw away disciples after them.” Acts 20:29, 30.

The significance of this warning is seen in the commendation of the Message, vs. 6–”But this thou hast, that thou ‘hatest’ the deeds of the Nicolaitanes which I also hate.” Here Paul’s “wolves” are called Nicolaitanes. They were not a sect, but a party in the Church who were trying to establish a “Priestly Order.” Probably trying to model the Church after the Old Testament order of Priests, Levites, and common people. This is seen in the meaning of the word, which is from “Niko” to conquer, to overthrow, and “Laos” the people or laity. The object was to establish a “Holy Order of Men,” and place them over the laity, which was foreign to the New Testament plan, and call them not pastors, but–Clergy, Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, Popes. Here we have the origin of the dogma of “Apostolic Succession,” and the separation of the Clergy from the Laity, a thing that God “hates.” The Church at Ephesus was not deceived, but recognized them as. false apostles and liars.

The character of the Church at Ephesus is a fair outline of the Church Period from A. D. 70 to A. D. 170.
II. THE CHURCH AT SMYRNA.

(A Persecuted Church.)

Rev. 2:8-11.

1. THE SALUTATION–”And unto the Angel of the Church in Smyrna write; These things saith the First and the Last, who was dead, and is alive.”

2. THE PERSECUTION–”I know thy works, and TRIBULATION, and poverty, (but thou art rich), and I know the blasphemy of them which say, they are Jews, and are not, but are the ‘Synagogue of Satan’.”

3. THE EXHORTATION–”Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold the Devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have TRIBULATION ten days: be thou faithful UNTO death, and I will give thee a CROWN OF LIFE.”

4. THE PROMISE–”He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches: He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the SECOND DEATH.”

The Church in its “Ephesian Period” having lost its “First Love,” the Lord is now about to “chastise” it, so as to cause it to return to Him. Smyrna has for its root meaning “bitterness,” and means “Myrrh,” an ointment associated with death, and we see in the meaning of the word a prophecy of the persecution and death which was to befall the members of the Smyrna Church. They were told not to “fear” the things that they should be called on to suffer, but to be faithful “unto” death, not “until” death. That is, not until the end of their “natural” life. They were not to “recant” when called upon to face a Martyr’s death, but remain faithful until death relieved them of their suffering. The reward would be a “Crown of Life.” This is the Martyr’s crown.

They were told that the “author” of their suffering would be the Devil, and its duration would be “ten days,” which was doubtless a prophetic reference to the “Ten Great Persecutions” under the Roman Emperors, beginning with Nero, A. D. 64, and ending with Diocletian in A. D. 310. Seven of these “Great Persecutions” occurred during this “Smyrna Period” of Church History. Or it may refer to the 10 years of the last and fiercest persecution under Diocletian. This Period extended from A. D. 170 to Constantine A. D. 312.
III. THE CHURCH AT PERGAMOS.

(A Licentious Church.)

Rev. 2:12-17.

1. THE SALUTATION–”And to the Angel of the Church in Pergamos write: These things saith He which hath the Sharp Sword with two edges.

2. THE COMMENDATION–”I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where SATAN’S SEAT IS: and thou holdest fast My Name, and hast not denied My Faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

3. THE COMPLAINT–”But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the DOCTRINE p. 22 OF BALAAM, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the Children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the DOCTRINE OF THE NICOLAITANES, which thing I hate.

4. THE WARNING–”Repent! or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the SWORD OF MY MOUTH.

5. THE PROMISE–”He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the HIDDEN MANNA, and will give him a WHITE STONE, and in the stone a NEW NAME written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.”

In this Message Pergamos is spoken of as “Satan’s Seat.” When Attalus III, the Priest-King of the Chaldean Hierarchy, fled before the conquering Persians to Pergamos, and settled there, Satan shifted his capital from Babylon to Pergamos. At first he persecuted the followers of Christ, and Antipas was one of the martyrs. But soon he changed his tactics and began to exalt the Church, and through Constantine united the Church and State, and offered all kinds of inducements for worldly people to come into the Church. Constantine’s motive was more political than religious. He. wished to weld his Christian and Pagan subjects into one people, and so consolidate his Empire. The result of this union was that two false and pernicious doctrines crept into the Church. The first was the “Doctrine of Balaam,” and the second the “Doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.” The latter we have already considered under the Message to the Church at Ephesus. And the foothold it had secured in the Church was seen in the First Great Council of the Church held at Nicaea, in A. D. 325. The Council was composed of about 1500 delegates, the laymen out-numbering the Bishops 5 to 1. It was a stormy council, full of intrigue and political methods, and from the supremacy of the “Clergy” over the “Laity” it was evident that the “Doctrine of the Nicolaitanes” had secured a strong and permanent foothold.

The “Doctrine of Balaam” is disclosed in the story of Balaam found in the Book of Numbers, chapters 22 to 25 inclusive. When the Children of Israel on their way to Canaan had reached the land of Moab, Balak the king of Moab sent for Balaam the Son of Beor, who lived at Pethor on the river Euphrates, to come and curse them. When the Lord would not permit Balaam to curse Israel, he suggested to Balak that he invite them to the licentious feasts of “Baal-Peor,” and thus cause Israel to fall into a snare that would so anger the Lord that he would Himself destroy them. This Balak did, and the result was that when the men of Israel went to those sensual feasts and saw the “daughters of Moab” they committed whoredoms with them, which so kindled God’s anger that He sent a plague that destroyed 42,000 of them. Now the word “Pergamos” means “Marriage,” and when the Church entered into a union with the State it was guilty of “Spiritual Fornication” or “Balaamism.”

The “Balaam Method” that Constantine employed was to give to the Bishops of the Church a number of imposing buildings called Basilicas for conversion into churches, for whose decoration he was lavish in the gift of money. He also supplied superb vestments for

p. 23

the clergy, and soon the Bishop found himself clad in costly vestments, seated on a lofty throne in the apse of the Basilica, with a marble altar, adorned with gold and gems, on a lower level in front of him. A sensuous form of worship was introduced, the character of the preaching was changed, and the great “Pagan Festivals” were adopted, with but little alteration, to please the Pagan members of the church, and attract Pagans to the church. For illustration, as the Winter Solstice falls on the 21st day of December, which is the shortest day in the year, and it is not until the 25th that the day begins to lengthen, which day was regarded throughout the Heathen world as the “birthday” of the “Sun-God,” and was a high festival, which was celebrated at Rome by the “Great Games” of the Circus, it was found advisable to change the Birthday of the Son of God, from April, at which time He was probably born, to December 25th, because as He was the “Sun of Righteousness,” what more appropriate birth-day could He have than the birthday of the Pagan “Sun-God”?

It was at this time that

“Post-Millennial Views”

had their origin. As the Church had become rich and powerful, it was suggested that by the union of Church and State a condition of affairs would develop that would usher in the Millennium without the return of Christ, and since some scriptural support was needed for such a doctrine, it was claimed that the Jews had been cast off “forever,” and that all the prophecies of Israel’s future glory were intended for the Church. This “Period” extends from the accession of Constantine A. D. 312 to A. D. 606, when Boniface III was crowned “Universal Bishop.”
IV. THE CHURCH AT THYATIRA.

(A Lax Church.)

Rev. 2:18-29.

1. THE SALUTATION–”And unto the Angel of the Church in Thyatira write: These things saith the Son of God, who hath His eyes like unto a flame of fire, and His feet are like fine brass.

2. THE COMMENDATION–”I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

3. THE COMPLAINT–”Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman JEZEBEL, which calleth herself a Prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication: and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am He which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.”

4. THE PROMISE–”But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already, p. 24 hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of My Father. And I will give him the MORNING STAR. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.”

In His commendation of this Church, Christ lays the emphasis on their “works,” as if they depended on them, and claimed they de-served merit for “works” of “Supererogation.” But He had a complaint to make against them that was terrible in its awfulness. He charges them not merely with permitting a bad woman, Jezebel, who called herself a “Prophetess,” to remain in the Church, but with permitting her to “teach” her pernicious doctrines, and to “seduce” the servants to “commit fornication,” and to “eat things sacrificed to idols.”

Who this woman was is a question. She was a “pretender,” and called herself a “prophetess.” Probably she was of noble lineage. She certainly was a woman of commanding influence. Whether her real name was Jezebel or not, she was so like her prototype in the Old Testament, Jezebel the wife of Ahab, that Christ called her by that name. Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, was not by birth a daughter of Abraham, but a princess of idolatrous Tyre, at a time, too, when its royal family was famed for cruel savagery and intense devotion to Baal and Astarte. Her father, Eth-baal, a priest of the latter deity, murdered the reigning monarch Phales, and succeeded him. Ahab, king of Israel, to strengthen his kingdom, married Jezebel, and she, aided and abetted by Ahab, introduced the licentious worship of Baal into Israel, and killed all the prophets of the Lord she could lay her hands on. And this influence she exercised, not only while her husband was alive, but also during the reign of her two sons, Ahaziah and Jehoram. Moreover, the marriage of her daughter Athaliah to Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, introduced idolatrous worship into Judah, and it was not long before there was a house of Baal built in Jerusalem, and so Jezebel caused all Israel to sin after the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 1 Kings 16:29-33.

There is no question that, whether Jezebel was a real person or not, she typified a “System” and that “System” was the “Papal Church.” When the “Papal Church” introduced images and pictures into its churches for the people to bow down to it became idolatrous. And when it set up its claim that the teaching of the Church is superior to the Word of God, it assumed the role of “Prophetess.” A careful study of the “Papal System” from A. D. 606 to the Reformation A. D. 1520, with its institution of the “Sacrifice of the Mass” and other Pagan rites, reveals in it the sway of “Jezebelism.” It was also a period of “Jezebelistic Persecution,” as seen in the wars of the Crusades, and the rise of the Inquisition. A careful comparison of this “Message” with the Parable of “The Leaven” will reveal the wonderful correspondence between the two, the “Jezebel” of the Church of Thyatira, being the “Woman” of the Parable, who inserted the “Leaven” of “False Doctrine” into the Meal of the Gospel. This Period extended from A. D. 606 to the Reformation A. D. 1520.

V. THE CHURCH AT SARDIS.

(A Dead Church.)

Rev. 3:1-6.

1. THE SALUTATION–”And unto the Angel of the Church in Sardis write: these things saith He that hath the Seven Spirits of God, and the Seven Stars.

2. THE CONDEMNATION–I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and ART DEAD.

3. THE COUNSEL–Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent.

4. THE WARNING–If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

5. THE PROMISE–Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in WHITE RAIMENT; and I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.”

The Church at Sardis was called a “Dead Church” though it had a name to live. That is, it was a “Formalistic Church,” a church given over to “formal” or “ritualistic” worship. It had the “Form of Godliness without the power.” The meaning of the word “Sardis” is the “escaping one,” or those who “come out” and so it is an excellent type of the Church of the

Reformation Period.

By the Reformation we mean that period in the history of the Christian Church when Martin Luther and a number of other reformers protested against the false teaching, tyranny and claims of the Papal Church.

This Period began about A. D. 1500. The condition of affairs in the realm dominated by the Papal Church became intolerable, and came to a crisis when Martin Luther, on October 31, 1517 A. D., nailed his 95 Theses on the church door at Wittenberg, Germany. From that date the Reformation set in. But it was more a struggle for political liberty than a purely Christian or religious movement.

It had the advantage of encouraging and aiding the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, that had hitherto been a sealed book, the revival of the Doctrine of “Justification by Faith,” and a reversion to more simple modes of worship, but the multiplication of sects only led to bitter controversial contentions, that, while they threw much light on the Word of God, interfered greatly with the spiritual state of the Church, until it could truthfully be said, “That she had a name to live and was dead.”

While the reformers swept away much ritualistic and doctrinal rubbish they failed to recover the promise of the Second Advent. They turned to God from idols, but not to “wait for His Son from the Heavens.” The “Sardis Period” extended from A. D. 1520 to about A. D. 1750.
VI. THE CHURCH AT PHILADELPHIA.

(A Favored Church.)

Rev. 3:7-13.

1. THE SALUTATION–”And to the Angel of the Church in Philadelphia write: These things saith He that is Holy, He that is True, He that hath the Key of David, He that openeth; and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.

2. COMMENDATION–I know thy works: behold I have set before thee an OPEN DOOR, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name.

3. THE PROMISE–Behold, I will make them of the Synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of My Patience, I also will keep thee from the HOUR OF TRIBULATION, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy CROWN. Him that overcometh will I make a PILLAR in the Temple of My God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the NAME of My God, and the name of the CITY of My God, which is NEW JERUSALEM, which cometh down out of Heaven from My God: and I will write upon him My NEW NAME. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.”

There is no question about the meaning of the word Philadelphia. It means “Brotherly Love,” and well describes the charity and brotherly fellowship that dissipated the bitter personal animosities that characterized the theological disputants of the “Sardis Period,” and made possible the evangelistic and missionary labors of the past 150 years. Three things are said of this Church:

1. It had a “little strength.” It was like a person coming back to life who was still very weak. It was the “dead” Sardis Church “revived,” and Revivals have been characteristic of the Philadelphia Period. These Revivals began with George Whitefield in A. D. 1739, followed by John Wesley, Charles G. Finney and D. L. Moody.

2. It had set before it an “open door,” that no “man” could shut. Note that this promise was made by Him, who “hath the ‘Key of David,’ He that ‘openeth’ and no man shutteth; and ‘shutteth’ and no man openeth.” In 1793 William Carey sailed for India, where he found an “open door,” and since then the Lord has opened the door into China, Japan, Korea, India, Africa and the isles of the sea, until there is not a country in the world where the missionary cannot go.

3. It was to be kept from the “Hour of Temptation” (TRIBULATION), that shall come upon ALL THE WORLD, and as there has never as yet been a WORLDWIDE Tribulation, this “Hour of Tribulation” must still be future and refers doubtless to the “Great Tribulation” that is to come upon the “whole world,” just before the return of the Lord to set up His Millennial Kingdom, and as the promise is that the “Philadelphia Church” shall not pass through the Tribulation, is not this additional proof that the Church shall be “caught out” before the Tribulation?

p. 27

The Philadelphia Period covers the time between A. D. 1750 and A. D. 1900. We must not forget that the characteristics of all these Periods continue on in the Church down to the end. This is true of the Evangelistic and Missionary movements of the “Philadelphia Period,” but they are now more mechanical and based on business methods, and there is less spiritual power, and this will continue until Christ returns.

VII. THE CHURCH AT LAODICEA.

(A Lukewarm Church.)

Rev. 3:14-22.

1. THE SALUTATION–”And unto the Angel of the Church of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

2. THE COMPLAINT–I know thy works, that thou art neither hot nor cold: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold or hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.

3. THE COUNSEL–I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

4. THE CHASTENING–As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

5. THE PROMISE–Behold I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My Throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His Throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.”

Christ has no “commendation” for this Church, but much to complain of. He says–

“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold or hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold or hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

There is nothing more disgusting or nauseating than “tepid” water. So there is nothing more repugnant to Christ than a “tepid” church. He would rather have a church “frozen” or “boiling.” It was the “chilly spiritual atmosphere” of the Church of England that drove John Wesley to start those outside meetings which became so noted for their “religious fervor,” and it was the same “chilly atmosphere” of the Methodist Church that drove William Booth in turn to become a “Red-hot” Salvationist.

Our churches today are largely in this “lukewarm” condition. There is very little of warm-hearted spirituality. There is much going on in them, but it is largely mechanical and of a social character. Committees, societies, and clubs are multiplied, but there is

p. 28

an absence of “spiritual heat.” Revival meetings are held, but instead of waiting on the Lord for power, evangelists and paid singers are hired and soul winning is made a business. The cause of this “lukewarmness” is the same as that of the Church of Laodicea–Self-Deception.

“Because thou sayest I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind and naked.”

They thought they were rich, and outwardly they were, but Christ saw the poverty of their heart. There are many such churches in the world today. More so than in any other period in the history of the church. Many of these churches have Cathedral-like buildings, stained glass windows, eloquent preachers, paid singers, large congregations. Some of them have large landed interests and are well endowed, and yet they are poor. Many of the members, if not the majority, are worldly, card playing, dancing, and theatre going Christians. The poor and the saintly are not wanted in such churches because their presence is a rebuke. These churches do not see that they are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.

If we were to visit such churches they would take pride in showing us the building, they would praise the preaching and singing, they would boast of the character of their congregations, the exclusiveness of their membership, and the attractiveness of all their services, but if we suggested a series of meetings for the “deepening of the Spiritual Life,” or the “conversion of the unsaved,” they would say–”Oh, no, we do not want such meetings, we have need of nothing.” The Church at Laodicea was not burdened with debt, but it was burdened with WEALTH.

The trouble with the church today is that it thinks that nothing can be done without money, and that if we only had the money the world would be converted in this generation. The world is not to be converted by money, but by the Spirit of God.

The trouble with the Church of Laodicea was that its “Gold” was not of the right kind, and so it was counseled to buy of the Lord “gold tried in the fire.” What kind of gold is that? It is gold that has no taint upon it. Gold that is not cankered, or secured by fraud, or the withholding of a just wage. What a description we have of these Laodicean days in James 5:1-4.

But the Church of Laodicea was not only poor, though rich, it was blind. Or to put it more accurately–”Near-Sighted.” They could see their worldly prosperity, but were “Short-Sighted” as to heavenly things, so the Lord counseled them to anoint their eyes with “Eye-Salve.” Their merchants dealt in ointments and herbs of a high degree of healing virtue, but they possessed no salve that would restore impaired Spiritual Vision, only the Unction of the Holy One could do that.

But the Church was not only poor, and blind, it was naked. Their outward garments were doubtless of the finest material and the latest fashionable cut, but not such as should adorn the person of a Child of God. So they were counseled to purchase of Christ “White Raiment,”

p. 29

in exchange for the “raven black woolen” garments for which the garment makers of Laodicea were famous.

Then a most startling revelation was made to the Church of Laodicea, Christ said–

“Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock.”

These words are generally quoted as an appeal to sinners, but they are not, they are addressed to a Church, and to a Church in whose midst Christ had once stood, but now found Himself excluded and standing outside knocking for admittance.

This is the most startling thing recorded in the New Testament, that it is possible for a church to be outwardly prosperous and yet have no Christ in its midst, and be unconscious of the fact. This is a description of a Christless Church. Oh, the

EXCLUDED CHRIST.

Excluded from His own nation, for they Rejected Him; excluded from the world, for it Crucified Him; excluded from His Church, for He stands outside its door Knocking for Entrance.

How did Christ come to be outside the Church? He had been within it once or there never would have been a Church. How did He come to leave? It is clear that they had not thrust Him out, for they do not seem to have missed His presence. They continued to worship Him, to sing His praises, and engage in all manner of Christian service, yet He had withdrawn. Why? The reason is summed up in one word–Worldliness.

But how is Christ to get back into His Church? Does it require the unanimous vote or invitation of the membership? No. “If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.” That is the way to revive a lukewarm church is for the individual members to open their hearts and let Christ re-enter, and thus open the door for His reappearance.

The character of the Church today is Laodicean, and as the Laodicean Period is to continue until the Church of the “New-Born” is taken out, we cannot hope for any great change until the Lord comes back.

What do these “Messages to the Churches” teach us? They clearly teach the DECLINE OF THE CHURCH. That the professing Church instead of increasing in spiritual and world converting power will become lukewarm, faithless, and CHRISTLESS.

In Paul’s Parable of the “Two Olive Trees” (Rom. 11:15-27), he shows how the “natural branches” of the “Good Olive Tree,” (Israel) were broken off because of UNBELIEF, that the “Wild Olive Tree” of the Church might be “grafted in,” which in turn, because of UNBELIEF, would be displaced that the “Natural branches” might be “grafted back again,” thus showing that the Church does not take the place of Israel permanently, but simply fills up the “Gap” between Israel’s “casting off” and “restoration to Divine favor.” As the Laodicean Period closes the “Church Age,” the Church disappears at the end of Chapter Three, and Israel comes again into view.
III. The Things Which Shall Be Hereafter

We have now come to the Third Division of the Book. The Three Divisions of the Book do not overlap nor are they concurrent. The word translated “hereafter,” would be better translated “after these things.” The word “hereafter” permits a “time space,” while the words “after these things” refer to the things that shall immediately follow the completion of the “Church Age,” as prefigured in the Messages to the Seven Churches. The Church disappears from view with the close of the third chapter and is not heard of again until the nineteenth chapter, where her marriage to the Lamb is announced. Rev. 19:7-9. The removal of the Church at the end of the third chapter opens the way for God to renew His dealings with Israel, and take up the broken thread of Jewish History. That the portion of the Book from chapter three to the end of chapter nineteen is largely made up of symbols taken from the Old Testament, as the Tabernacle, Ark of the Covenant, Altar, Censer, Elders, Cherubim, Seals, Trumpets, Plagues, etc., is conclusive evidence that we are here back on Jewish ground, and that the Parenthetical Dispensation of the Church is complete, and that the last or “Seventieth Week” of Daniel’s “Seventy Weeks” is in course of fulfilment. It is clear therefore that we must look for the explanation of these symbols to the Old Testament.

Chapters four and five are introductory and preparatory to the “Prophetic Action” of the “Seals,” “Trumpets” and “Vials,” and must be considered first.

The “Key” to the Book of Revelation

The “Key” to the Book is its

“THREE-FOLD DIVISION.”
Rev. 1:19

1. The Things Which Thou Hast “SEEN.”
2. The Things Which “ARE.”
3. The Things Which “SHALL BE HEREAFTER.”

This is the only book in the Bible where the Divisions are given, and they are here given by Christ Himself.
1. The Things Which Thou Hast “SEEN.”

The Vision of the Son of Man in the midst of the “Seven Lamp-stands.” Rev. 1:10-20.
2. The Things Which “ARE.”

The Messages to the Seven Churches, Rev. 2:1-3; 22. As these Messages were to seven churches that were in existence in John’s day, and to whom he personally wrote, the advocates of the theory that John was in the Spirit on a certain Sabbath or “Lord’s Day,” naturally claim that John at that time could not have been trans-ported into the “Day of the Lord.” But that does not necessarily follow. As we now know (see exposition of chapters 2 and 3) those Churches were REPRESENTATIVE CHURCHES, and were typical of seven well defined periods in Church History, that could not be so understood until the history of the Christian Church would be complete, and that will not be until the “Day of the Lord,” so John could have been projected in vision by the Spirit into the “Day of the Lord,” and after his Vision of the Glorified Son of Man, the “Messages to the Seven Churches” were dictated to him by they Son of Man Himself, that John when he recovered from his vision and found himself back on the Isle of Patmos could send them to the churches.
3. The Things Which “SHALL BE HEREAFTER.”

Literally–”after these.” In other words the “Things” which shall come to pass after the “Church Period” ends. The Book naturally divides into
Seven Sevens.

I. THE SEVEN CHURCHES. Rev. 2:14:22.

II. THE SEVEN SEALS. Rev. 6:1-8:5.

III. THE SEVEN TRUMPETS. Rev. 8:7-11:19.

IV. THE SEVEN PERSONAGES. Rev. 12:1-13:18.

V. THE SEVEN VIALS. Rev. 15:1-16:21.

VI. THE SEVEN DOOMS. Rev. 17:1-20:15.

VII. THE SEVEN NEW THINGS. Rev. 21:1-22:5.

Between these series of “Sevens,” and between some of the parts of a series there are Parenthetical Statements and Episodes or Intervals, as seen in the following Table of Contents.

p. 14
Table of Contents

The Title–Rev. 1:1-3.

The Salutation–Rev. 1:4-6.

The Announcement–Rev. 1:7.

The Testimony Of The Almighty–Rev. 1:8.

I.

“THE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST SEEN.”

The Vision Of The Son of Man–Rev. 1:9-20.

II.

“THE THINGS WHICH ARE.”

The Messages To The Seven Churches–Rev. 2:1-3:22.

III.

“THE THINGS WHICH SHALL BE HEREAFTER.”

1.

The Heavenly Door.

Rev. 4:1.

2.

The Heavenly Throne.

Rev. 4:2-3, 5-6.

3.

The Four And Twenty Elders.

Rev. 4:4.

4.

The Four Beasts.

Rev. 4:6-11.

5.

The Seven Sealed Book.

Rev. 5:1-14.

Daniel’s Seventieth Week
1. THE SEVEN SEALS.

FIRST SEAL–A White Horse.

Rev. 6:1-2.

SECOND SEAL–A Red Horse.

Rev. 6:3-4.

THIRD SEAL–A Black Horse.

Rev. 6:5-6.

FOURTH SEAL–A Pale Horse.

Rev. 6:7-8.

FIFTH SEAL–Souls of Martyrs.

Rev. 6:9-11.

SIXTH SEAL–Physical Changes.

Rev. 6:12-17.

___________________________________

INTERVAL

Between The Sixth And Seventh Seals

(1)

Sealing of 144,000.

Rev. 7:1-8.

(2)

Blood Washed Multitude.

Rev. 7:9-17.

___________________________________

SEVENTH SEAL–Silence.

Rev. 8:1.

Golden Censer.

Rev. 8:3-5.

2. THE SEVEN TRUMPETS.

FIRST TRUMPET.

Hail–Fire–Blood.

Rev. 8:7.

SECOND TRUMPET.

Burning Mountain.

Rev. 8:8-9.

THIRD TRUMPET.

Star Wormwood.

Rev. 8:10-11.

FOURTH TRUMPET.

Sun–Moon–Stars Smitten.

Rev. 8:12.

p. 15

The Angel Warning

“Three Woes” Announced. Rev. 8:13.

FIFTH TRUMPET.
FIRST WOE–Plague of Locusts. Rev. 9:1-12.

SIXTH TRUMPET.
SECOND WOE–Plague of Horseman. Rev. 9:13-21.

___________________________________

INTERVAL

Between The Sixth And Seventh Trumpets

(1)

Little Book.

Rev. 10:1-11.

(2)

Two Witnesses.

Rev. 11:1-14.

___________________________________

SEVENTH TRUMPET.

THIRD WOE–Cover Remainder of the Week.
And Includes the “Seven Personages”
The “Seven Vials” and “Four Dooms.”
Rev. 11:15-20:10.

THE MIDDLE OF THE WEEK.
3. THE SEVEN PERSONAGES.

FIRST PER.

The Sun-Clothed Women.

Rev. 12:1-2.

SECOND PER.

The Dragon.

Rev. 12:3-4.

THIRD PER.

The Man-Child.

Rev. 12:5-6.

FOURTH PER.

The Archangel.

Rev. 12:7-12.

FIFTH PER.

The Jewish Remnant.

Rev. 12:13-17.

SIXTH PER.

The Beast Out of the Sea.

Rev. 13:1-10.

SEVEN PER.

The Beast Out of the Earth.

Rev. 13:11-18.

___________________________________

INTERVAL

Between The “Seven Personages”

And The “Seven Vials.”

(1)

The Lamb On Mt. Zion.

Rev. 14:1-5.

(2).

The Three Angel Messengers.

Rev. 14:6-7.

(3).

The Blessed Dead.

Rev. 14:12-13.

(4).

The Harvest And Vintage.

Rev. 14:14-20.
4. THE SEVEN VIALS.

Prelude. Rev. 15:1.

(1).

The Sea Of Glass.

Rev. 15:2-4.

(2).

The Tabernacle Of Testimony.

Rev. 15:5-8.

p. 16

FIRST VIAL.

Boils.

Rev. 16:1-2.

SECOND VIAL.

Blood On The Sea.

Rev. 16:3.

THIRD VIAL.

Blood On The Rivers.

Rev. 16:4-7.

FOURTH VIAL.

Great Heat.

Rev. 16:8-9.

FIFTH VIAL.

Darkness.

Rev. 16:10-11.

SIXTH VIAL.

Euphrates Dried Up.

Rev. 16:12.

___________________________________

INTERVAL

Between The Sixth And Seventh Vials

Three Unclean Spirits.

Rev. 16:13-16.

___________________________________

SEVENTH VIAL.

Great Hail.

Rev. 16:17-21.
5. THE SEVEN DOOMS.

FIRST DOOM–Ecclesiastical Babylon.

Rev. 17:1-18.

SECOND DOOM–Commercial Babylon.

Rev. 18:1-24.

___________________________________

INTERVAL

Between The Second And Third Dooms.

(1).

The Hallelujah Chorus.

Rev. 19:1-7.

(2).

The Marriage Of The Lamb.

Rev. 19:8-10.

(3).

The Battle Of Armageddon.

Rev. 19:11-21.

___________________________________

THIRD DOOM–The Antichrist And The False Prophet.

Rev. 19:20.

FOURTH DOOM–The Antichristian Nations.

Rev. 19:21.

___________________________________

INTERVAL

Between The Fourth And Fifth Dooms

(1).

Satan Bound.

Rev. 20:1-3.

(2).

First Resurrection.

Rev. 20:4-5.

(3).

The Millennium.

Rev. 20:6.

(4).

Satan Loosed.

Rev. 20:7.

___________________________________

FIFTH DOOM–Gog and Magog.

Rev. 20:8-9.

SIXTH DOOM–Satan.

Rev. 20:10.

SEVENTH DOOM–The Wicked Dead.

Rev. 20:11-15.

6. THE SEVEN NEW THINGS.

First New Thing–The New Heaven.

Rev. 21:1.

Second New Thing–The New Earth.

Rev. 21:2-8.

Third New Thing–The New City.

Rev. 21:9-23.

Fourth New Thing–The New Nations.

Rev. 21:24-27.

Fifth New Thing–The New River.

Rev. 22:1.

Sixth New Thing–The New Tree.

Rev. 22:2.

Seventh New Thing–The New Throne.

Rev. 22:3-5.

The Final Testimony And Warnings.

Rev. 22:6-21.

Next: The Messages to the Seven Churche

Rightly Dividing the Word By Clarence Larkin

“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.” 2 Timothy 2:15.

The Holy Scriptures are not a systematic treatise on Theology, History, Science or any other topic. They are a REVELATION from God of His Plan and Purpose in the Ages as to the earth and the human race. They were given to us piecemeal “at sundry times and in divers manners.” Heb. 1: 1. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit during a period of 1600 years, extending from B. C. 1492 to A. D. 100. The Bible consists of 66 separate books; 39 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New. These books were written by about 40 different authors. By kings, such as David and Solomon; statesmen, as Daniel and Nehemiah; priests, as Ezra; men learned in the wisdom of Egypt as Moses; men learned in Jewish law, as Paul. By a herdsman, Amos; a tax-gatherer, Matthew; fishermen, as Peter, James and John, who were “unlearned and ignorant” men; a physician, Luke; and such mighty “seers” as Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariab.
Chart: THE PROPHETIC DAYS OF SCRIPTURE

It is not an Asiatic book though it was written in that part of the world. Its pages were penned in the Wilderness of Sinai, the cliffs of Arabia, the hills and towns of Palestine, the courts of the Temple, the schools of the prophets at Bethel and Jericho, in the palace of Shushan in Persia, on the banks of the river Chebar in Babylonia, in the dungeons of Rome, and on the lonely Isle of Patmos in the Aegean Sea.

While the Bible has been compiled in the manner described, it is not a “heterogeneous jumble” of ancient history, myths, legends, religious speculations and apocalyptic literature. There is a progress of revelation and doctrine in it. The judges knew more than the Patriarchs, the Prophets than the judges, the Apostles than the Prophets. The Old and New Testaments cannot be separated. You cannot understand Leviticus without Hebrews, or Daniel without Revelation.

While the Bible is a “Revelation from GOD” it is not written in a superhuman or celestial language. If it were we could not understand it. Its supernatural origin is seen in the fact that it can be translated into any language. The language of the Scriptures is of three kinds: Figurative, Symbolical and Literal. The Figurative is explained by the context, the Symbolical either in the context or somewhere else in the Scriptures, and the rest should be taken literally. That is, we are to read the Bible as we would read any other book, letting it say what it wants to say, without allegorizing or spiritualizing its meaning.

While the Bible was written FOR all classes of people, and FOR our learning, it is not addressed to all people in general. Part of it is addressed to the JEWS, part to the GENTILES, and part to the CHURCH. These three constitute the “Three Classes” into which humanity is divided. 1 Cor. 10: 32. It follows therefore that while the whole Bible was written for the instruction of the Church, it is not all written about the Church. The Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is mostly taken up with the history of one nation, that of Israel. When we take the Old Testament promises and apply them to the Church we rob the Jew of that which is exclusively his. For illustration, the prophecy of Isaiah in the chapter headings is largely applied to the Church, whereas the very first verse declares that it is- “concerning JUDAH and JERUSALEM.” Isa. 1: 1. In the New Testament the Epistles of Hebrews and James are Jewish. The Epistle of James is addressed, not to the Church, but to the “TWELVE TRIBES scattered abroad.” James 1: 1. In the Epistle to the Hebrews many Christians stumble at the words, “sin wilfully,” “fall away” (Heb. 6:4-6), and “if we sin wilfully,” Heb. 10:26. But these words do not apply to Christians. They were spoken to apostate Jewish professors of Christianity who had never been born again, and who, if they did not accept Jesus as their Messiah, practically crucified Him again, and were as bad as their brethren who did crucify Him. ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, (2 Tim. 3: 16), and what happened to Israel was written for our ENSAMPLE and ADMONITION, (1 Cor. 10: 11), but we must not apply to the Church what does not belong to it. To do so is to misapply Scripture and lead to confusion.
Chart: The “TIMES” AND “SEASONS”
For a full-size version of this chart (111 kb), click here…

In “Rightly Dividing” the Word we must also distinguish between the work or offices of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King. A careful study of the Chart, “The Threefold Work of Christ,” page 250, will show that these offices are not held at the same time. We must also distinguish between the “Prophetic Days” of Scripture. See the Chart on “The Prophetic Days of Scripture,” (see above). We must also distinguish between the “Times” and “Seasons.” Between the “TIMES PAST” when He spoke by the Prophets, and these “LAST DAYS” in which He has spoken to us by His Son. Heb. 1: 1-2, As to the “TIMES” we have them designated as the “TIMES OF IGNORANCE,” (Acts 17:30); the “TIMES OF THE GENTILES,” (Luke 21: 24); the “TIMES OF REFRESHING,” (Acts 3:19); the “TIMES OF RESTITUTION,” (Acts 3:21); and the “Dispensation of the FULNESS OF TIMES.” Eph. 1: 10. See the Chart of “The Times and Seasons,” page 4. From the statement the “TIMES OF THE GENTILES,” we see that when the “Gentiles” are in power, the “Jews” are not. And as the “Times of the Gentiles” is still running, the Church cannot be in this Dispensation a governing or Kingdom power. We must also not forget the “DIVINE CONJUNCTIONS” and the “DIVINE DISJUNCTIONS” of the Word of God. We must not separate what God has joined, as the “Word of God” and the “Spirit of God,” nor join what He has separated as Baptism and Regeneration, Law and Grace, the Church and the Kingdom.

But it is not enough to classify the Scriptures in the manner already mentioned, we must learn to separate the Scriptures as to “TIME” and “ETERNITY,” and the different “AGES” and “DISPENSATIONS” of “Time.”

Messianic Prophecy Booklet

By Steven Waterhouse – Read Booklet Here

Ezekiel’s Prophecy of the Temple


By Randall Price
One of the most crucial texts for the futurist interpretation of prophecy concerning Israel is the vision of the prophet Ezekiel in chapters 40-48. In this text the prophet presents God’s instructions for the construction of a new Temple to be built as part of the promise of Israel’s divine restoration. The concern of the exiles, as exemplified by Daniel’s prayer, was for a literal rebuilding of both the city of Jerusalem and its Temple (Daniel 9:3-19). Ezekiel’s prophecy of the Temple, delivered to these exiles, should be interpreted in light of this literal concern. Recognizing that the Second Temple constructed by the Jewish remnant that returned from the Exile (538-515 B.C.) did not implement Ezekiel’s detailed plan, Futurism, therefore, interprets the literal fulfillment of this prophecy eschatologically with the erection of a restoration Temple in the earthly Millennial Kingdom. This text is crucial to futurism because if literal interpretation fails with respect to this prophecy, then there is no reason to insist on a literal interpretation of any Old Testament prophecy, including messianic prophecy, which is an inseparable part of the restoration prophecies.
Despite this caution, the symbolic interpretation of this portion of Ezekiel’s prophecy is the dominant view advanced by critical scholars and conservative non-futurists (historicists, preterists, idealists) based on their contention that prophetic visions employ apocalyptic language that uses the literary device of hyperbole (exaggerated speech) to convey idealistic or symbolic, rather than literal, concepts. Therefore, non-futurists explain that the reason why the builders of the Second Temple did not follow Ezekiel’s plans for the Temple was because the Jewish audience understood apocalyptic as symbolic rather than literal. However, the symbolic school of interpretation is divided on what this symbolism was intended to portray. Some interpreters believe it was meant to preserve the memory of the First Temple through an idealistic remembrance, others say it idealistically describes the Second Temple, which was constructed upon the Jews return to Judah after the Exile (538-515 B.C.), while others see it illustrating a spiritual ideal (God’s dwelling in holiness in the midst of His people) or a spiritual reality (heaven, the eternal state, the Church). It is necessary to evaluate the symbolic school’s interpretive theories of this pivotal text and compare it with the literal school’s interpretation, to determine whether the intended fulfillment is to be understood as timeless (idealistic), to have occurred in the past (with the First or Second Temples), or is reserved for the eschatological age (the Millennial Temple).
An Idealistic Remembrance of the First Temple
This view draws its support from the need of the returning exiles, some of whom wept when the foundation of the Second Temple was laid, because they had seen the greater grandeur of the First Temple, and others, who born in the Captivity, lacked such a reference point in the past and therefore shouted for joy (Ezra 3:12-13), to share a common historical memory. To satisfy this need, Ezekiel shared his priestly memories in order to preserve the historical heritage of the Temple and its services for a new generation and to comfort them with the message that God was with them as He had been in the past. This interpretation raises a number of textual and historical objections.
First, Ezekiel states that this vision was communicated during the Captivity, not after the Return (Ezekiel 40:1-2). If it was given in the Exile and was meant to unite the Israelites in a common memory of the past and assure them of God’s presence, it apparently failed in its purpose since the Israelites were divided in their reaction to the construction of the Second Temple. The argument that God’s message was only received, but not delivered, by the prophet in the Exile, cannot be sustained in view of Ezekiel 11:25 which states “Then I told the exiles all the things that the Lord had shown me.” Although this applies to the judgment section of the book, is it reasonable to assume the prophet would share only the bad news (the destruction of the First Temple), but not the good news (the prophetic promise of a restored Temple)? However, it is clear that Ezekiel did deliver his prophetic vision to the exilic community, for God’s command to him was to describe the plan of the Temple to a still unrepentant “house of Israel” who had “defiled My holy name by their abominations” (Ezekiel 43:8). In fact, the purpose of Ezekiel’s description of the plans for the Temple is so “they may be ashamed of their iniquities” (Ezekiel 43:10-11). This is in harmony with the judgment of the book in which Ezekiel is commanded to deliver his message to “the sons of Israel, to a rebellious people who have rebelled against Me” (Ezekiel 2:3-4). By contrast, those who had returned to Judah to rebuild the Temple displayed repentance (Ezra 1:5; Haggai 1:12; Zechariah 1:6; cf. 2 Chronicles 6:38) and therefore could not have been the original recipients of Ezekiel’s message.
Second, there was no need for Ezekiel to give a description of the First Temple since such a description already existed, as preserved in the books of Kings and Chronicles (1 Kings 5:1-8:66; 2 Chronicles 2:1-7:22). Moreover, it is obvious from a comparison of the details given in both these texts that the description of the Temple and its services given by Ezekiel varies radically from the historical record of the construction of Solomon’s Temple and its services recorded by the traditional authors Jeremiah (Kings) and Ezra (Chronicles). These differences include unprecedented divergences in structure (immensely larger dimensions), style, and ceremony, as well as a river that flows eastward out of the Temple to refresh the arid areas of the Arabah and the Dead Sea (Ezekiel 47:1-12). Moreover, some of Ezekiel’s instructions for the Temple and its service contradict or are a departure from those in the Mosaic Law. For example, Ezekiel’s instruction to make the Altar of Burnt Offering with steps (Ezekiel 43:17) violates a specific commandment in the Mosaic ceremonial legislation against such a construction (Exodus 20:26). Some of the apparent departures from the Mosaic Law include the absence of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies, no mention of the table for the shew-bread or lampstand in the outer Holy Place, no anointing oil within the Temple or its court, the absence of the High-Priesthood. These factors argue strongly that Ezekiel could not have had the First Temple in view since it was constructed in accordance with the Mosaic legislation (2 Kings 6:12; 8:56-58; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 6:16; 8:12-13).
A Plan for the Post-Exilic (Second) Temple
Another interpretation holds that Ezekiel’s description was a visionary plan for the rebuilding of the post-exilic (Second) Temple. This view argues that since the expectation of the exilic community was to rebuild the Temple and restore its service (Ezra 5:11-14), Ezekiel as their priest-in-exile provided these plans to enable them to do so. While this appears on the surface to be the logical position, it requires a non-literal interpretation because the post-exilic High Priest Zerubbabel did not literally employ these plans. However, the same objections to the previous view also apply, since Zerubbabel’s Second Temple was a reduced form of the Solomonic Temple and the reinstituted services were strictly in accordance with the Mosaic Law (Ezra 3:2-4; Nehemiah 8:1-18; 10:28-39). Too, if Ezekiel’s model
formed the basis, even symbolically, for the Second Temple, there should have been some reference to this in the post-exilic prophets who oversaw its construction. However, Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, and Nehemiah, who led the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple, made no mention of Ezekiel’s prior instructions. This is quite inexplicable if the purpose for the prophecy was to provide the exiles returning from Babylon a description for renewing the Temple and its services. Moreover, if this were the case, these prophets, critical of the post-exilic delay in rebuilding the Temple, would certainly have included in their address to the exiles an appeal to rebuild based on Ezekiel’s Temple plans.
In response, this view has offered some areas of compatibility to the Second Temple, yet such would be expected for any rebuilding of the Temple, and again, the significant differences in topography, dimensions, details, and priestly performance with that of the Second Temple, including the fact that the post-exilic Land of Israel was never divided among the tribes as Ezekiel’s prophecy required, argue against the utilization of Ezekiel’s model. However, the most significant difference between Ezekiel’s Temple and the Second Temple was the absence of the Shekinah Glory. Ezekiel made the departure of the Shekinah the sign of God’s judgment on Israel (Ezekiel 10:18; 11:22-23) and envisioned its return as the sign of the Nation’s divine restoration (Ezekiel 43:1-7; 44:1-4; 48:35; cf. Ezekiel 37:25-28).
A Symbol of a Spiritual Reality
A final interpretation proposes that Ezekiel’s Temple is symbolic of either a spiritual ideal or a spiritual reality. No consensus exist among proponents as to what these symbols signify; consequently, Ezekiel’s vision has been said to represent variously the returned Israelite Nation, Jesus, the Church, Christ and the believing community, heaven, and the new heavens and the new earth. Among evangelical and Reformed non-futurists the most common symbol is of Christ as the spiritual temple, taking the statement in John 2:21 concerning “the temple of His body” as teaching that the resurrected Christ would replace the physical Temple in Jerusalem as the place where the presence of God would forevermore be centered. Similarly, the view that Ezekiel’s Temple symbolizes the Church on earth or the redeemed saints (Church) in heaven is based on New Testament texts that speak of the Church or Christians as a spiritual temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16-18; Ephesians 2:21-22). Again, this analogy is said to indicate that the spiritual organism of the Church replaced the material edifice of the Temple as the site of the indwelling presence of God (the Holy Spirit). In particular, the interpretation of the Temple as figurative of the righteous in heaven or the eternal state is based on a number of correspondences (proponents would say “parallels”) between Ezekiel 40-48 and Revelation 21-22. Both accounts are visionary and deal with Jerusalem; therefore, reading the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, especially with a Christological focus, the New Jerusalem of Revelation is read back into Ezekiel’s text.
A Critique of the Symbolic Interpretation
Beginning with the aforementioned use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, let us consider the weaknesses of symbolic view in these chapters. While there are a number of impressive correspondences between Ezekiel and Revelation, these would be expected in the shared nature and subject of the visions, especially if both shared an eschatological perspective. Therefore, when one considers these similarities through a comparison of the Millennial Temple and the Heavenly Temple one finds a literal fulfillment and completion of restoration: what was lost in the Garden of Eden (a place
on earth) is restored in the Temple of the Millennial Kingdom (a place on earth). Likewise, both are characterized by the divine presence and universal holiness (seen in the latter by a reversal of previous conditions). However, when we compare the text of Ezekiel with that of Revelation from a symbolic perspective, we find that there are more profound differences than striking similarities. The most significant difference is with the makeup of the objects described. Ezekiel’s description of the Temple (aside from its dimensions) is quite ordinary, with the Temple and it implements built of carved wood and common stones (Ezekiel 40:16, 22, 26, 34, 37, 42; 41:16-22, 25-26). It’s priests’ dress in linen, and sometimes wool (Ezekiel 44:17), sweat (Ezekiel 44:18), need to trim their hair (Ezekiel 44:20), marry (Ezekiel 44:22), need to be cleansed after contact with the dead (Ezekiel 44:25-27), and eat grain and meat (Ezekiel 44:29, 31). This sounds like an earthly arrangement both in structure and service. By contrast, John’s description in Revelation of the New Jerusalem is of a celestial city constructed of gold, pearls, and rare gemstones (Revelation 21:16-21), while its priests wear only white robes, never sleep, and never hunger or thirst (Revelation 7:14-16). Another significant contrast is that Ezekiel’s city has a well-defined structural Temple while in the New Jerusalem John said he “saw no temple in it” for its spiritual sanctuary will be comprised of “the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb” (Revelation 22:21). Yet another significant difference is Ezekiel’s declaration that in his new Temple there will be the reinstitution of the sacrificial system offering “peace offerings,” “guilt offerings,” “sin offerings” (Ezekiel 44:27) and “burnt offerings” of “fat and blood” (Ezekiel 44:15) “for atonement” (Ezekiel 43:19-20), with the priests and people alike keeping God’s appointed feasts and sabbaths” (Ezekiel 44:24). While Christ offered His the sacrifice of Himself in the heavenly Temple and is said to have sprinkled its vessels with blood (Hebrews 9:11, 21-26), there is no statement that the saints will offer sacrifices or celebrate the ceremonial feasts in the New Jerusalem.
This comparison reveals the greatest difficulty for the symbolic interpretation in attempting to explain the spiritual sense of the detailed architectural and geographical measurements, and the intricate instructions concerning priestly dress and the preparation of the sacrifices and offerings. For example, when the text says that eight steps led up to the vestibule of the inner court (Ezekiel 40:31), is it more appropriate to interpret this as a cryptic symbol or as an architectural measurement? It has no discernable sense if taken as a symbol, but the meaning is simply understood if it is part of an actual design. Both Moses (Exodus 25:8-40) and King David (1 Chronicles 28:11-19) were shown a visionary plan (Hebrew tabnit) of the sanctuary and went on to construct the literal Tabernacle and (with Solomon) Temple based on what they had seen. The descriptions of structures and vessels in these accounts are identical to that in Ezekiel and there is no reason to believe he was not shown the same divinely constructed model, as were they. In fact, the terms “plan” (Hebrew tabnit) and “design” (Hebrew tzurat) in Ezekiel 43:10-11 in the instructions concerning the visionary Temple are best understood as architectural terms that expect the activity of literal construction. Moreover, the claim that Ezekiel is here using figurative language does not explain why his measurements differ so radically from those of the only Temple (Solomon’s Temple) with which he and all the exiles were familiar. If it is an intended exaggeration for some symbolic purpose, what in the text determines for us this purpose? For the exiles, there would be far greater comfort in actual plans to rebuild the Temple (which demonstrated the tangible reality of restoration) than an intangible symbol that was not self-interpreting and therefore subject to various applications (as seen in the variety of interpretations in the symbolic school).
If Ezekiel’s only intention were to convey spiritual truth through visionary symbols, why would he diverge from accepted ritual standards and established Jewish law? This would not engender spiritual
contemplation but spiritual confusion, for how could such deviations from God’s holy requirements be understood spiritually? On the other hand, the returning exiles were quite familiar with Ezekiel’s priestly language from the descriptions of the Sanctuary and its service in the books of Exodus and Leviticus (as demonstrated by Jeremiah and Ezra’s recording of the Temple’s construction in the books of Kings and Chronicles). They would have expected to see these instructions literally fulfilled in the promised divine restoration in continuity with God’s previously revealed commands to rebuild. While one might object that the returning Jews could never have hoped to rebuild according to Ezekiel’s extraordinary design, there is no suggestion that this Temple was meant for the immediate return, which occurred during the time of Gentile dominion and was inferior in every respect, but was reserved for the eschatological age (as the preceding context of chapters 33-39 argues). Even though the post-exilic community would not experience the promised restoration, they could take real comfort in knowing that the God was with them and would fulfill this promise for their Nation at the end of the age. The same hope of Christ’s literal coming at the end of the age has encouraged the saints down through the millennia despite their failure to experience it in their generation.
Unless one has been predisposed to see the Church in the Old Testament through a presupposed theological system and to view ritual language as spiritually anticipating a “New [spiritual] Israel,” there is nothing in Ezekiel’s prophecy that corresponds to the New Testament Church. As mentioned earlier, Ezekiel 40-48 offers no textual clues that it is to be interpreted symbolically. The entire section is devoid of the kind of unrealistic features that would indicate figurative use, a fact that contrast dramatically with Ezekiel’s prolific use of symbols in the early chapters of his book. Indeed, these chapters are said to represent one of the greatest uses of symbols among the Prophets. For example, in the vision of chapter 1:4-28, Ezekiel is called upon by God to perform symbolic acts (concerning the siege and destruction of Jerusalem) such as eating a scroll (Ezekiel 2:8-3:3), writing on a brick and setting up an iron plate (Ezekiel 4:1-3), lying on his side (Ezekiel 4:4-8), cooking strange bread (Ezekiel 4:9-15), shaving his head and beard and burning the hair (Ezekiel 5:1-4), carrying baggage (Ezekiel 12:1-7), eating and drinking with trembling (Ezekiel 12:17-18), and restraint in mourning for his dead wife (Ezekiel 24:15-17). In addition, the book has a number of parables (chapters 15-17, 23-24, 34, 37), which by nature are meant to be understood figuratively (though applied literally).
As demonstrated by the many commentaries adopting the symbolic view, the diversity in interpretation reveals that no shared interpretation is possible. The lack of interpretive clues in these chapters results in the many details in the text being assigned arbitrary meanings or ignored as irrelevant or meaningless by the symbolic school. Yet, this result is the opposite of what the prophet himself desired: “Then I said, ‘Ah Lord God! They are saying of me, ‘Is he not just speaking parables?’” (Ezekiel 20:49). His concern was that they did not understand the literal interpretation of his symbolic acts (which demanded literal application), but only understood them as symbols (which would result in inaction and so spell their doom). However, some of the people did come to their senses and asked for the literal meaning: “And the people said to me, ‘Will you not tell us what these things that you are doing mean for us?’(Ezekiel 24:19). Therefore, while Ezekiel could have continued his symbolic imagery in chapters 40-48, and still had in mind a literal structure, the absence of language that would plainly indicate this (as previously), emphasizes his intention that this section be understood as a literal promise for the future.
The Promise of a Literal Eschatological Temple
Given the objections against the views of the symbolic school presented above, the only remaining option is to take Ezekiel chapters 40-48 literally and its application as eschatological, that is, for the period of the future restoration of National Israel during the Millennial Kingdom. A number of arguments based on internal and external evidence can be made in support of the literal and eschatological interpretation of this section.
(1) The literary unity of the book requires a literal Temple be understood throughout its chapters. Chapters 40-48 form an inseparable literary conclusion to the book. Although these chapters constitute a new vision in the prophecy, they are linked with chapters 1-39 in repeating earlier themes in a more detailed fashion. This linkage may be seen in the fact that the beginnings of both chapters 1 and 40 share a number of similar features. For example, Ezekiel’s vision of the presence of God in Babylon (Ezekiel 1:1; compare 8:1) finds it complement and completion in the vision in the Land of Israel (Ezekiel 40:2). In like manner, the problem created by the departure of God’s Presence in the opening section of the book (chapters 9-11) finds an anticipated resolution with its return in this section (Ezekiel 43:1-7). In fact, the concern for the Presence of God could be argued as the uniting theme of the entire text of Ezekiel. Without chapters 40-48 there is no answer to the outcome of Israel, and in particular Jerusalem and the Temple, no resolution to the Nation’s history of sacred scandal, and no grand finale to the divine drama centered from Sinai on the Chosen Nation.
Ezekiel’s prophecy of the future Temple is the means to restoring the Presence of God to Israel (a physical as well as spiritual concern). Its focus in the book falls into three divisions: (1) Prophecies of the Temple’s desecration and destruction (Ezekiel 4:1-24:27), (2) Prophecies of Israel’s return and restoration (Ezekiel 33:1-39:29), and (3) Prophecies of the Temple’s rebuilding and ritual (40:1-48:35). If it were a literal Temple (the First Temple) whose desecration and destruction was discussed in the first section of the book, the last section’s discussion of a Temple’s restoration would also expect a structure of the same kind. A comparative view of the exilic understanding of return from captivity reveals the prophets saw the rebuilding the physical Temple as essential to restoration (Daniel 9:20; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Ezra 1:2-11; Haggai 1:2-2:9; Zechariah 1:16; 6:12-15; 8:3). Would Ezekiel as a like-minded prophet (or God as the ultimate Author) have attempted to comfort his people’s physical and spiritual loss with anything other than the literal restoration of a Temple to which the Divine Presence could return?
If it is countered that chapters 40-48 are a spiritual vision and therefore not meant to be a literal reality, the literary structure of the book argues against this possibility. In chapters 8-11 all interpreters are in agreement that the literal First Temple in Jerusalem is in view. Although Ezekiel’s depiction of its desecration is visionary and serves as the basis for a spiritual warning to the exilic community of impending divine judgment, not one commentator doubts that an actual structure is described. Again, it must be emphasized that Ezekiel was not physically in Jerusalem when he reported these things, but in Babylon with the Judean exiles. It was “in the visions of God” that he was spiritually transported to Jerusalem (Ezekiel 8:3). Therefore, everything he mentions in this first section concerning the Temple, its “inner court” (8:3), “porch” (8:16), “altar” (8:16), “threshold” (9:3), and “East gate” (10:19), were all seen in a vision. Despite this fact, the symbolic school is unanimous in accepting this as a vision of the literal Temple. Why then in chapters 40-48, when the prophet, still “in the visions of God” (Ezekiel 40:2), mentions the exact same places in the same order: “inner court” (40:27), “porch” (40:48), “altar”
(43:18), and “East gate” (43:3), are these structures now declared to be only spiritual symbols? If the desecration and destruction of a literal Temple was described in a vision, the vision of the restoration and reconsecration of a Temple should also be understood as literal.
(2) The context of the Temple’s restoration requires an eschatological and literal interpretation. Chapters 40-48 open with a statement marking the specific date of Ezekiel’s vision: “the tenth of the month [of Tishri]” (Ezekiel 40:1). The Jewish Sages viewed the purpose of this chronological note as marking an eschatological context, since the tenth of Tishri is reckoned as a Jubilee year [Hebrew, yovel], and the date of Ezekiel’s vision was determined to be the first Day of Atonement [Hebrew, Yom Kippur] of the Jubilee year. Together, this date prefigured Israel’s Day of Redemption in both its physical (Land) and spiritual (repentance) aspects. Rabbi Joseph Breuer notes: “On that day, which summoned the subjugated and estranged among God’s people to accept freedom and called upon all the sons of Israel to return to their God, on that day it was given to the Prophet to behold a vision of the rebuilt, eternal Sanctuary of the future and to receive the basic instructions for the establishment of the State of God that would endure forever”(Sepher Yechezkel, 353). Therefore, from the very first verse the Rabbis considered the context both eschatological and literal.
The restored Presence of God with Israel in His Sanctuary (Ezekiel 37:26-28) appears as the climatic event in the restoration context of Ezekiel 33-37 as well as in chapters 40-48 where it returns to fill the Temple and consecrate it as God’s throne (Ezekiel 43:1-7). The Ezekiel 37 text reveals its eschatological setting by describing this restoration as a time when “David will [again] be king over them (Israel)” (verse 24), an “everlasting covenant of peace” (verse 26) will be established between God and Israel, God’s Sanctuary will [again] be in their midst” (verse 26), and “the nations will know I am the Lord” (verse 28). In particular, the “everlasting covenant of peace” (the idea being of security and well-being in the Hebrew term shalom) is unique, being described in more detail in Ezekiel 34:25-29 as Land-centered, completely eliminating harmful animals, guaranteeing security from any foreign invasion, and bringing unparalleled agricultural renewal accompanied by divinely-sent seasonal rains (cf. Zechariah 14:17). Such a covenant was never enacted with Israel in the past and therefore must have its fulfillment in the eschatological age (Millennial Kingdom).
The terms used for the Temple in Ezekiel 37:26-28 likewise indicate an eschatological setting. The Temple is called a mishkan, the Hebrew word used formerly for the Tabernacle, and said to be “over them” (Hebrew, ‘lyhm). This pictures God’s “sheltering Presence” as once the pitched Tabernacle in the wilderness protected the Israelite tribes. One of the false hopes of the past was in the inviolability of the Temple and its ability to preserve the disobedient Nation simply because it existed. In the future, however, the Nation will not sin and the Temple, with the Shekinah, will serve as the source of the Nation’s, and the world’s, prosperity and peace. The Temple is also called miqdash “Sanctuary,” emphasizing its holiness, and is said to be, like the covenant and the restoration of God’s Presence, “eternal” (verses 26, 28). Again, such a Temple could only find its fulfillment in the Millennial Kingdom where the protective “Glory-cloud” of God will return to fulfill this concept of the Temple (see Isaiah 4:5-6). This Temple, presented as part of the eternal covenant, in is that which is expanded upon in greater detail in the prophecy of chapters 40–48.1
1For additional confirmation of this connection see Mark F. Rooker, “Evidence from Ezekiel,” A Case for Premillennialism: A New Concensus, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), pp. 128-129.
The fivefold repetition of “forever” in Ezekiel 37:25-28 serves to show the irreversibility of Israel’s new condition and experience. The Temple is presented here as part of the “eternal covenant,” undoubtedly a reference to the New Covenant. This may also apply to Ezekiel’s Temple since it is said to be built according to “the law of the house” (Ezekiel 43:12), an independent (new) law that rightly belongs to the New Covenant rather than the old.
The restoration Temple introduced in chapter 37 is expanded upon in greater detail in the prophecy of chapters 40—48 as a proleptic [anticipatory] corroboration of these promises. Understanding the nature of the promised restoration in Ezekiel 37 to be eschatological, the exilic community surely must have understood the nature of Ezekiel’s Temple in chapters 40-48 to be the same. For this reason, the rebuilding of the Second Temple did not attempt to implement the architectural design or priestly instructions since they were reserved for the eschatological age. Their assessment of the limited return and restoration they were experiencing under foreign clemency had to be weighed against several factors: (1) The larger proportion of the Jewish population had chosen to remain in Persia and Egypt, (2) Only 49,897 of the Jewish remnant had returned to Judah (Ezra 2:64-65), (3) the low level of spiritual life and commitment to rebuild the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem evident among the resident Jewish population in the Land (Ezra 3:6; 5:16; 9:1-4; Haggai 1:2-6; Nehemiah 1:3-7), (4) the opposition in the Land and from foreign authorities that postponed rebuilding and restoration of the city and Temple and the inferior state of the completed work (Haggai 1:9; 2:3; Ezra 3:12-13; 4:1-24; Nehemiah 4:7-12). These realities further confirmed that their return and rebuilding was not the fulfillment of the final restoration described in Ezekiel 40-48 but awaited the complete promise of restoration at the coming of the Messiah (Ezekiel 34:11-31). At that time a full regathering of the Jewish Remnant as well a national spiritual regeneration would be affected in keeping with the provisions of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:27-34, 38-40; 33:6-21) as Ezekiel had prophesied (Ezekiel 36:24-28; 37:1-14). If Ezekiel’s readers were interpreting his restoration program for the eschatological age, then they would understand the interruption of Ezekiel’s “Gog and Magog” battle (Ezekiel 38-39) between the discussions of the Temple in chapters 37:25-28 and 40-48. This literary placement not only helped the readers understand an eschatological context for the Temple prophecy, but added the assurance that, unlike the foreign invasions of the past, even this greatest of foreign invasions in the future would not prevent the final fulfillment of God’s plans for Jerusalem and the Temple.
(3) The description of the Temple indicates that it is to be a literal construction. The impression the reader has when reading in this section of precise measurements, the detailed design of its courts, pillars, galleries, rooms, chambers, doors, ornamentation, vessels, and the careful instructions concerning the priestly service, is that an actual Temple is intended. Despite this obvious reading, Daniel Block, one of the leading commentators on the book, has contended: “the description of the temple is not presented as a blueprint for some future building to be constructed with human hands … nowhere is anyone commanded to build it”(NICOT 2:505). Yet, in Ezekiel 43:10-11 it is clearly stated: “As for you, son of man [Ezekiel], describe the Temple to the house of Israel … and let them measure the plan … and do them.” These verses declare that those Jews who will live in the time of the final restoration (when the prophecy will be fulfilled) are to build the Temple according to Ezekiel’s instructions. Later in this context (43:13-27) when the same kind of architectural measurements as given for the Temple are given for the altar, it is stated that “these are the statutes for the altar on the day it is built …” (verse 18). Literary consistency (as well as logic) demands that if the altar of the Temple is to be built, then so must the Temple itself. This deduction is substantiated by the wording in the command
in Ezekiel 43:11 to the “house of Israel.” The words “observe its whole design and all its statutes, and do them” is parallel in expression to God’s original command to build a Sanctuary in Exodus 25:8-9. If Israel at the beginning of its national history interpreted God’s instructions to build the Tabernacle and carry out the priestly service literally, why would they not interpret its restatement in Ezekiel as literal? When a further comparison is made between the details for the construction of the Temple, buildings, and the sacrificial system in Ezekiel and those recorded elsewhere for the construction of the Tabernacle and First Temple and their service in Kings and Chronicles, there is no reason to take them as less literal or historical. Would the house of Israel be expected to interpret them in any manner other than that which was historically consistent with God’s previous revelation, especially in the absence of any textual guidelines for an alternate (symbolic) interpretation? There is a suitable test that can be applied to this question. If Ezekiel 40-48 is to be interpreted literally and the Temple plans are intended to function as blueprints, then it should be possible to construct an actual model based on these plans. Conversely, if these plans are merely symbolic and never expected to render an actual construction, then no such construction should be possible. But in fact, three-dimensional miniature scale models of Ezekiel’s Temple have been successfully built (see diagram). Is it conceivable that Ezekiel would have communicated such practical instructions if only spiritual or symbolic realities were intended?
Although commentators have long found symbolical and spiritual significance in the many details of the Tabernacle and Temple’s construction and ceremonies, no such symbolism is to be actually found in the biblical text. Of course, there is an analogous use of ritual language in relation to the spiritual service of the believer (Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19) and of the Spirit-filled Church (Ephesians 2:21-22), but this is not the same as typological usage in which a type is fulfilled by an antitype. Even in the Book of Hebrews, in which a comparison is made between Israel’s liturgical system and the believer’s gracious access in Christ, where such a symbolic significance might be expected, only a description of the Tabernacle and its furniture is given (Hebrews 9:1-5). This passage does refer to the “outer Tabernacle” as a “symbol” (Greek parabole, “figure,” “illustration”) for “the present time” (verses 8-9). While the interpretation of these verses are much debated, the main point is that the Levitical system was inferior in that it offered only limited and exclusive access to God’s Presence. However, this does not mean that the Levitical system did not accomplish the purpose for which God instituted it, nor that it could not be reinstituted with purpose in the future. Yet, even if the Scriptures were replete with symbolical and spiritual uses of the entire Levitical system with its Sanctuary, this would in no way affect their literal interpretation since they were, in fact, an historical structure and service. In the same way, finding spiritual or symbolic significance in Ezekiel’s Temple would not affect a literal interpretation. Therefore, even if one could impute symbolic meaning to the Temple and ritual descriptions in Ezekiel 40-48 (although there is no clues for this in the immediate text and no precedence for this in other texts), the interpretation should be considered as literal as were similar descriptions for previous Temples in Israel’s past.
(4) The eschatological interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 is in harmony with other Old Testament prophetic passages. As a restoration text, Ezekiel 40-48 should exhibit traits familiar to and consonant with other such texts in the prophetic corpus. For example, in examining the text that commands the house of Israel to build the Temple (Ezekiel 43:10-11), we find that the time for this is stated to be after “they are ashamed of all that they have done.” The nature of this national “shame” as spiritual repentance was already defined in Ezekiel 36:22-38 as part of the regenerative work of the Spirit (verse 33). The occasion of this national repentance accords with numerous references in the Prophets (Isaiah 55:3-5; 66:7-9; Jeremiah 31:34; Hosea 3:4-5; Zechariah 12:10-13:2), as well as by Jesus (Matthew
24:30-31; Mark 13:26-27), Luke (Acts 3:19-21) and Paul (Romans 11:25-30). These Old Testament passages in their prophetic contexts reflect an ultimate hope for the Nation, which in continuity with the New Testament writers, must be projected into an eschatological Kingdom. This is especially so with respect to Ezekiel’s Temple when compared with similar accounts of a future Temple, a raised Temple Mount, and the transformed conditions for its worshippers in the prophetic books, most of which contain eschatological time markers (Isaiah 2:2-4; 56:6-7; 60:10-22; Jeremiah 3:16-17; 31:27-40; 33:14-18; Joel 3:18-21; Micah 4:1-8; Haggai 2:7-9; Zechariah 6:12-15; 14:16, 20-21. As a point of comparison we may consider the statements in Ezekiel 40-46 that speak of the sacrificial system and especially of making atonement for Israel through blood sacrifices. The symbolic school argues that interpreting Ezekiel 40-48 literally means that one must accept a future reinstatement of the sacrificial system, which they believe has been completely fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 9-10). While this theological conclusion can be debated, the immediate problem for those who take this position is that a number of other prophets also envisioned both a restored Temple and sacrifices in the eschatological future.
Prophecies of a Millennial Temple
Joel 3:18
Isaiah 2:3
Isaiah 60:13
Daniel 9:24
Haggai 2:7, 9
Prophecies of Sacrifices in Future Temple
Isaiah 56:6-7
Isaiah 60:7
Jeremiah 33:18
Zechariah 14:16-21
Moreover, not only is Ezekiel in concert with other prophets who predict the restoration of the Levitical priesthood in the future, but Ezekiel’s prophecy contains the most important statement of this fulfillment upon which messianic interpretation (which understands a literal fulfillment in Jesus Christ) depends. God promised to Zadok, the Aaronide high priest at the time of David and Solomon (1 Samuel 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kings 1:34; 1 Chronicles 12:29), and his descendants an everlasting priesthood (1 Samuel 2:35; 1 Kings 2:27, 35). This promise was the reconfirmation of similar promises made to Zadok’s ancestor Phinehas (Numbers 25:13), and Phinehas’ grandfather Aaron, the progenitor of the Israelite priesthood (Exodus 29:9; 40:15). The Zadokite priesthood was the dominant priesthood up until the time of the Maccabean Revolt, after which it was corrupted and replaced by political appointments to the priesthood under the Hasmonean dynasty. Thus, the last priests serving the Temple when it was last destroyed in A.D. 70 were not of the legitimate Zadokite line. Jewish sects like those at Qumran, who claimed to be Zadokite priests (1QS 5:2, 9; 1Qsa 1:2, 24; 2:3; 1Qsb 3:22), rejected the Jerusalem Temple and its priesthood and expected their priesthood to regain its position of service in a future Temple to be rebuilt after a climatic end time war in which the Hasmonean priests would be punished (1 QpHab 9:4-7; 4QpNah 1:11). Only Ezekiel unequivocally provides the fulfillment of the promise to the sons of Zadok by designating their priestly line to serve the Temple (Ezekiel 40:46; 44:15).
Ezekiel’s contemporary Jeremiah in his prophecy linked the perpetuity of the Levitical priesthood with the perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty and guaranteed it by the perpetuity of the earth’s rotation on its axis (Jeremiah 33:17-22). If Ezekiel’s prophecy of a future Zadokite priesthood is spiritualized, then, according to the textual link with Jeremiah’s prophecy, the promises of the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:13, 16) could also be spiritualized. This would put New Testament messianic fulfillment in jeopardy since Jesus’ messiahship is qualified by His Davidic descent and the promise that
He will be given David’s throne (Matthew 1:1; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-31; Romans 1:3). Consequently, if we accept a literal and eschatological fulfillment for the Levitical priesthood we must also accept it for the Temple that they serve, and in harmony with other prophets, Ezekiel depicts an eschatological restoration of which the Temple and its priesthood are an essential part.
Finally, the fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48 cannot be limited to a temporary restoration such as that which occurred under the Persian administration of Darius I. If Ezekiel’s restoration was meant to find fulfillment in the Second Temple, then it must be considered a failure, unless one abandons literal interpretation, which the foregoing arguments will not allow. For this reason Jewish interpreters such as Rashi concluded that the post-exilic community did not experience the predicted restoration and that the Second Temple was not built according to Ezekiel’s plan: “The return to Israel in the days of Ezra could have been like the first time the Jewish people entered Israel in the days of Joshua …However, sin prevented this, for their repentance was imperfect. Since they were not worthy, they did not have permission to build the Temple, which was designated as the Temple for the eternal redemption, for when it will be built according to this design, the [divine] glory will rest upon it forever.”
Even though Ezekiel 40-48 lacks some of eschatological language associated with an eschatological context such as “on that day,” “in the latter days,” these phrases appear in chapters 34-37, and in the immediately preceding chapters (38-39). Moreover, the literary linkage of chapters 40-48 with other prophetic texts that concern the same theme, establishes an eschatological setting. Ezekiel’s descriptions include transformations and enlarged boundaries of the Land, Jerusalem, the Temple and priesthood (Ezekiel 44:1-31; 47:1-23; 48:1-35), the return of the Glory of God (Ezekiel 43:1-12), and the unprecedented change from the laws of the past (e.g., Ezekiel 43:17) also indicate that the time of fulfillment is eschatological. In addition, Ezekiel, in conjunction with several of the prophets, report extraordinary topographical changes that will occur to the Land of Israel provide the answer to this objection. During the Tribulation period the earth will experience violent changes as earthquakes alter both cities and terrain. One of the cities hardest hit is Jerusalem (Revelation 11:13), which will also suffer a mountain splitting earthquake at the end of the Tribulation with the ascent of Messiah to the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4-5). Zechariah also speaks of the flattening of huge portions of land and the elevation of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:8, 10). Other prophets also say the Temple Mount itself will be raised up above all other mountains (see Isaiah 2:3; 60:14; 61:6; Zechariah 8:20-23). Ezekiel reflects these changes not only in its enlarged territory for the tribal allotments (Ezekiel 47:13-23; 48:1-14, 23-29), but also by the changes it describes taking place in the southern part of the country (Ezekiel 47:1-12). According to Jeremiah 3:17 and Zechariah 14:20-21 the entire city of Jerusalem will become the Throne of the Lord and be a dedicated holy place. This means that Ezekiel’s Temple will occupy an elevated and greatly expanded Temple Mount, which will include the former city of Jerusalem itself (Ezekiel 48:10). To the north of this will be the place of the priests (Ezekiel 48:11-12), south of the Temple will be the place of the Levites (Ezekiel 48:13-14), and south of this a new city will be built for workers out of the Israelite tribes (Ezekiel 48:18-19). To the east and west of it will be an administrative center for the prince (Ezekiel 48:21-22). In this list, one of the most distinguishing factors in Ezekiel’s Temple is that the restoration of the rest of Land of Israel appears to be sourced out of the Temple. In Ezekiel 47:1-12 fructated waters will flow from beneath the Sanctuary transforming the Dead Sea into a body of water teeming with aquatic life and from there possibly renewing all of the Land so that it resembles the Garden of Eden (Ezekiel 36:35). Therefore, given the predicted topographical changes predicted in the prophets, the new boundaries and dimensions of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 are realistic and expected.
(5) The theological resolution of progressive revelation demands that Ezekiel 40-48 be fulfilled literally and eschatologically. The demand for literary resolution argues that the departure of the Shekinah Glory in Ezekiel 9-11 be completed by its return in Ezekiel 43:1-7. Ezekiel presents the return of the Shekinah along the path of its previous departure, carefully describing the order of return to match the order of abandonment detailed in chapters 9-11: departure: Holy of Holies to Inner Court to Eastern Gate to east; return: east to Eastern Gate to Inner Court to Holy of Holies. This reverse progression was obviously intended to convey the sense that what had been lost (the Divine Presence) was being restored. None of Ezekiel’s original audience would have understood these two events other than as complementary events, the latter resolving the former. If (and no commentator doubts it) the Divine Presence literally left the First Temple before its destruction, why should not it literally return to the Final Temple after it’s rebuilding? However, theological resolution also demands this be literally fulfilled. Nowhere in Scripture (or in extra-biblical Jewish literature) is it stated that the Divine Presence filled the Second Temple as it did the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34-35) and the First Temple (1 Kings 8:10-11; 2 Chronicles 5:13-14; 7:13). Rather, Jewish sources (e.g., Tosefta Yom Tov) made a point of its absence and relegated such a hope to the eschatological period. Progressive revelation also requires that the theological dilemma created for Israel by divine judgment in a literal exile be resolved by a divine grace in a literal return and restoration. These are the two sides of prophetic prediction in the prophets, of which Ezekiel is a part. The rebuilding of the Temple and its dedication by the installation of the Shekinah resolves is the center point of the restoration program because it rejoins God to His people restoring them to their chosen status as a holy Nation and a kingdom of priests as well as a light to the nations (cf. Ezekiel 37:27-28). If there is not a literal restoration (not a symbolic restoration through the Church) of what was literally lost through a national repentance toward the Messiah, national regeneration, return and restoration in a Messianic Kingdom, then the consummation in history is reduced to an ideal that makes all of the promises to Israel subject to reinterpretation rather than actual resolution. While the symbolic school has opted for this interpretation, it is not consistent with Scripture, as salvation history has been progressively revealed on an earthly stage with the promise of restoration understood to be experienced in the same place and with the same people as the penalty of judgment was imposed.
Since a literal fulfillment did not historically occur on the earthly stage with the return from exile to the extent it was originally predicted, the symbolic view argues that fulfillment must have been intended other than literal. However, the first advent of Christ did not historically fulfill all that was predicted to the extent originally predicted. The lack of Israel’s political and spiritual redemption, the continued domination of the Gentile nations, the absence of a messianic reign over a restored Jerusalem in perfect, universal peace and undefilable holiness, was, and continues to be, a major stumbling block for Jews. Yet, if these events will be fulfilled literally at His second advent, as were those at His first advent, then a prophetic postponement is to be understood. Regardless of one’s interpretive stance, all evangelical interpreters still accept a literal return of Christ and resurrection of the dead, yet these are as inseparable from Israel’s prophetic promises as those concerning the restoration of its Temple. Therefore, in order to consistently resolve the theological tension created by Israel’s failure, there must be a return of her fortunes (both physical and spiritual). In this resolution the prophecy of Ezekiel’s Temple figures prominently, concluding with the realization of restoration and the guarantee of its success by the declaration that “the Lord is there” (Ezekiel 48:35).

The Kingdom Program in Daniel 2 | Bible Prophecy Blog

The Kingdom Program in Daniel 2 | Bible Prophecy Blog.

DANIEL’S SEVENTY WEEKS, AMILLENNIAL INTERPRETATION


Written by J. Randall Price
The historical and theological developments which produced the amillennial interpretation of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27) were the result of direct opposition to premillennialism which was considered Judaistic. The New Testament, early Jewish-Christian, and Patristic evidence supports premillennialism as the dominant eschatological view up until the third-century A.D. In the controversy over chiliasm, the hermeneutic of the Alexandrian school (followed by Augustine and consequently the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformed churches, and modern amillennialism), which was a non-literal, allegorical hermeneutic, was applied to the Seventy Weeks prophecy to prove the political and spiritual program for the Jewish People had ended with the first advent of Christ and had been replaced by the Church. While adopting an historicist approach, the amillennialists’ spiritual hermeneutic permits only a subjective application of events which in turn invites a broad spectrum of interpretation. This is particularly problematic for their interpretation of the seventieth week where the events do not fit with any known history (see traditional versus symbolic schools, below).
For the amillennialist, the focus of the Seventy Weeks passage is wholly christological. The six infinitives of verse 24 that form the purpose of the prophecy and establish its terminus ad quem (conclusion), are viewed as completed by Christ. The traditional school of amillennialism sees this completion having taken place in the seventieth week, which followed consecutively (and historically) after the sixty-nine weeks. Christological fulfillment occurred within the ministry of Christ or, at the latest, the time of the first preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles (i.e., Pentecost). The symbolic school, however, extends final fulfillment to an indefinite period, which includes the Second Advent and eternal state. In this case, the six statements represent the successive stages in the history of Christ’s Kingdom. In like manner, the last of the six prophetic goals: “to anoint the most holy [one],” is taken either as Christ’s own anointing by the Spirit (traditional school), or of the eschatological anointing of the new holy of holies (= Christ) in the New [heavenly] Jerusalem (symbolic school). While some amillennialists follow premillennialists in attempting to determine historical dates for the terminus a quo (commencement) and terminus ad quem (conclusion) of the 490 years (vs. 25), other amillennialists have concluded that the figure of 490 is only symbolic (7×7).
Amillennialists and premillennialists agree on the messianic interpretation of the “anointed prince” (vs. 25) as Jesus the Messiah, however, the reference to his being “cut off and having nothing” (vs. 26) is variously interpreted to apply to Jesus’ death (traditional school) or Jesus’ influence and prestige as Messiah (symbolic school). Most in the traditional school support their interpretation that Messiah was “cut off” in the middle of the seventieth week, by identifying “the prince who is to come” (vs. 26) with the one whose activity is described (the “he” of vs. 27) as occurring in “the middle of the week,” with Christ. On this basis, the “firm covenant” that this “prince” makes with “the many” is interpreted as the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-37) which Christ made with the Church. In this view the “the city” and “the sanctuary” are interpreted literally as Jerusalem and the Temple, while the destruction wrought by “the prince” is applied non-literally to Christ’s “pronouncements of destruction.” However, while E.J. Young agrees that the “he” of verse 27 refers to Christ, he identifies the “prince that shall come” with Titus, the commander of the Roman
forces in A.D. 68-70 who destroyed Jerusalem. In a dramatic departure from the traditional school, the symbolic school approximates the view of premillennialism and identifies “the prince that shall come” with the Antichrist and the “firm covenant” as one made in imitation of Christ and imposed on the masses (H.C. Leupold), or made to deceive people to follow him as God (C.F. Keil), but in any case is a covenant of terror and violence.
The difficulty with interpreting Christ’s being “cut off’ in the middle of the seventieth week again is present in the problem of resolving the statement of cessation of sacrifice and oblation as having occurred at this time. Recognizing that these sacrifices did not immediately stop with the death of Christ, but continued another forty years, amillennialists apply the meaning spiritually to either the “rending of the veil” in the Temple or the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, both of which (in their view) delegitimitized the sacrificial system. Thus, according to Young, at Christ’s death Jerusalem “ceased to be a holy city” and its Temple was “no longer the house of God, but an abomination,” while the actual destruction of both was “but the outward manifestation of what had already been put into effect by our Lord’s death” (Daniel, 217-218). The New Testament, however, depicts a continued reverence for Jerusalem during the apostolic period as the center for the mother church (Acts 1:8; 15; Gal. 1:18-2:2) and the Temple as a place for Christian meeting (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:12-13), ritual festival observance (Acts 2:1; 20:6), and even worship (Acts 18:18; 21:23-26; 22:17; 24:11, 17-18). Amillennialists generally conclude that while the terminus ad quem of the sixty-nine weeks is Christ, the terminus ad quem of the seventy weeks is unstated in the text. However, the destruction of the desolator at the conclusion of verse 27 is stated as the event that terminates the desolations of the last half of the seventieth week, apparently concluding the week itself. Again, the amillennial interpretation has difficulty reconciling this event with historical events, For this reason, Young (traditional school) advises against an emphasis on dates, while Leupold (symbolic school) abandons any historic fulfillment to the seventieth week.
Bibliography
Michael Kalafian, The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of the Book of Daniel: A Critical Review of the Prophecy as Viewed by Three Major Theological Interpretations and the Impact of the Book of Daniel on Christology (New York: University of America Press, Inc., 1991), pp. 107-136, J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973), pp. 383-388, Charles L. Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism? (Wheaton, Illinois: Van Kampen Press, 1954), John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1959), Abraham Kuyper, Chiliasm or the Doctrine of Premillennialism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1934), C.F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Trans. M.G. Easton in A Commentary on the Old Testament 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), 9:336-402, Edward J. Young, The Prophecies of Daniel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949), pp. 191-222, The Messianic Prophecies of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the great Tribulation. Revised ed. (Swengel, Pennsylvania: Reiner Publications, n.d.), H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), pp. 403-440, Oswalt T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1949).

The Prophecy of The Ten-Nation Confederacy

The Prophecy of The Ten-Nation Confederacy

The interpretation of the prophecy of a future ten-nation confederacy as found in four major passages of Scripture is a determinative issue in any system of prophetic interpretation. This is because the principles of interpretation applied to this prophecy are the key to the total prophetic outlook. Accordingly, the Scriptures related to this problem present one of the decisive interpretive questions facing any expositor.

At least four major Scripture passages make a contribution to this subject (Dan 2:31-35, 40-45; 7:7-8, 19-24 ; Rev 13:1-2; 17:3, 7, 12-16 ). These passages either directly or by implication prophesy a ten-kingdom confederation which will be an important aspect of the end-time political situation. The question of whether this has already been fufilled in the past or is subject to future fulfillment is an important issue in determining the Biblical prophetic program.
Principles of Interpretation

At the outset the expositor who attempts to interpret these portions of Scripture is confronted with the major hermeneutical problem of how to interpret prophecy. Two major points of view are reflected in the conclusions reached by various expositors. One view adopted by amillennial and postmillennial interpreters is the dual hermeneutics of Augustine, namely, that while Scripture as a whole should be interpreted normally or literally, prophecy is a special case which should be interpreted allegorically, symbolically, or in a nonliteral sense. Opposed to this is the normal interpretive principle adopted by the single hermeneuties of premillennialism, which is that prophecy should be interpreted much the same as other types of Scripture, namely, that the normal literal sense should be followed unless the context or the thought requiries a nonliteral or symbolic interpretation. The expositor must therefore weigh the respective merits of these two schools of thought in attempting to interpret the major Scriptures related to the ten-nation confederacy.
The Image of Daniel 2

The second chapter of Daniel reveals the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in which he saw a great image. The interpretation of this dream revealed to Daniel in a night vision constituted the first comprehensive revelation of Gentile prophecy. The head of gold according to Daniel’s interpretation represented Babylon and the Babylonian Empire headed by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:31, 37-38). The breast and arms of the vision made of silver symbolized the next kingdom which later in Daniel is identified as Medo-Persia (Dan 2:32, 39; 8:1-20 ). The third empire represented by the lower part of the body and the thighs which were of brass is later identified as Greece (Dan 2:32, 39; 8:21 ). The fourth kingdom was portrayed as the legs of iron, and the feet and toes part of iron and part of pottery (Dan 2:33, 40-43). The fourth kingdom is not named in Daniel, but is pictured as continuing up to the time when God establishes a kingdom which shall never be destroyed (Dan 2:44). Normative interpretation accordingly would identify the fourth kingdom as the Roman Empire.

In the interpretation of the dream, the stone is seen smiting the image in the feet with the result that the image is totally destroyed, and the stone increases in size until it is a great mountain which fills the whole earth. This is obviously related to the divine consummation of human history.

The nonliteral interpretation of this portion of Scripture has usually recognized the first three empires much in the same fashion as the literal interpretation, namely, referring them to Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece. Some few refer the fourth kingdom to a subdivision of the third and the two legs of the image as the two major divisions of the Seleucid Empire. Even the nonliteral interpretation, however, more generally has identified the fourth empire as Rome with the main difference in the interpretation of the stone. premillennial interpretation, the image and its corresponding prophetic fulfillment has already become historic down to the feet stage of the image. The two legs represent the divided aspect of the Roman Empire into its Eastern and Western divisions. The feet stage, including the implied ten toes, is yet future and is related to the period just before the second coming of Christ. This interpretation involves the thesis that the Roman Empire in some form or fashion will be revived and therefore the toes representing a ten-nation confederacy are yet to be fulfilled.
The Vision of Daniel 7:7-8

In the seventh chapter of Daniel a companion vision given to Daniel himself reveals four beasts symbolizing four great world empires. Although some expositors have resisted the correspondence of this chapter to chapter two , the similarities are such that anyone attempting to interpret this normally comes to the conclusion that this is another view of the same truth presented in chapter two of Daniel . Here again are the familiar four empires: the first represented as a lion corresponding to Babylon, the second as a bear corresponding to Medo-Persia, the third as a leopard with four wings on its back and four heads corresponding to Greece under Alexander, and the fourth empire as a terrible beast having ten horns. To this point the revelation coincides precisely with the empires portrayed in the image of Daniel 2. Here, however, an additional activity is described in the little horn which uproots three of the ten horns and apparently introduces a personage who will be prominent in the last days. According to the vision, the fourth beast is later destroyed by the Son of Man who comes from heaven. The dominion of the fourth beast is succeeded by a kingdom which has an everlasting dominion which comes from God (Dan 7:9-14).

The interpretation of the vision of Daniel 7 is more detailed than that of Daniel 2 and is found in Daniel 7:17-28. Here we learn specifically that the four beasts are four kings or kingdoms. Our attention is directed especially to the fourth beast and more particularly to the little horn. An important point in the interpretation is that the ten horns, apparently corresponding to the ten toes of the image of Daniel 2, are pictured as reigning simultaneously and as subdued by the little horn of Daniel 7:8. This is a frontal refutation of the postmillennial and amillennial concept that the ten kingdoms were successive kingdoms in the latter phase of the Roman Empire or, as some would have it, fulfilled in the empire of Seleucids. Instead, it is clear that the ten kingdoms are simultaneous as three of them are subdued by the little horn and the other seven apparently capitulate. The fourth kingdom under the domination of the little horn becomes a world empire described in the phrase: “Shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces” (Dan 7:23).

Any reasonably literal interpretation of this prophecy requires necessarily the expositor to take the position that this is yet future from the standpoint of the twentieth century. Nothing in history corresponds to a ten-nation confederacy subdued by another king which endures until it is succeeded by the kingdom of heaven. If this passage is allowed to speak as a genuine prophetic revelation, it necessarily requires a future ten-nation confederacy as a key to the political and international situation in the days just preceding the second coming of Christ and His kingdom.
Revelation 13:1-2

The New Testament revelation afforded by the Apocalypse, coming as it does hundreds of years after Daniel’s prophecy, constitutes a confirmation as well as additional revelation of that which had been previously introduced by Daniel the prophet.

In Revelation 13:1-2 John “saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” The correspondence of this beast to that in Daniel 7 is obvious in that the beast has ten horns and ten crowns, speaking of political power and yet having seven heads. The meaning of the seven heads is not immediately clear but may be related to the deposition of three kingdoms by the little horn of Daniel 7:9. Another interpretation is that the seven heads represent seven successive rulers in the Roman Empire which are succeeded by a ten-nation confederacy which has ten simultaneous kings (Rev 17:10-13). From the standpoint of establishing a future ten-nation confederacy, the passage adds its weight to that previously revealed in Daniel, in that again there are ten horns and these rulers are under the domination of a single ruler described in Revelation 13:3-8.

Here even more clearly than in Daniel the prophecy relates to that which is future. The ruler who dominates the political scene is declared to have power given to him to continue forty and two months. This three and one-half year period may be identified with the future great tribulation of Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 which is in turn related to the prophecy of Daniel 9:27 as being the last three and one-half years of the 490 years of Daniel’s prophecy pictured in Daniel 9:24-27. More important is the fact that the forty-two months (Rev 13:5) culminate in the second coming of Christ when, according to Revelation 19, the beast of Revelation 13 is captured and cast into the lake of fire (Rev 19:20). This clearly identifies the time factor as that immediately preceding the second coming of Christ and therefore future, not a part of past Roman history.
Revelation 17:3,7,12-18

The fourth major passage relating to the ten-nation confederacy is the description of the beast found in Revelation 17. According to Revelation 17:3 the wicked woman depicting the apostate church is astride the beast having seven heads and ten horns. Because of the precise description, there should be little question that this is the same beast which has seven heads and ten horns found in Revelation 13:1, and represents, therefore, the political government of that time. The position of the woman astride the beast describes her relationship, namely, one of dominance and yet supported by the political government.

The description of the ten horns as given in Revelation 17:12-16 confirms again that the ten horns are ten kings who are subservient to the one dictator who reigns over the entire government. Their blasphemous character is described and their ultimate destruction is assured. An amazing detail is added in Revelation 17:16, namely, that the ten horns, representing the kings, destroy the wicked woman in order that the dominion which she had religiously should be transferred to the political ruler. This, of course, is in line with intimations in Scripture that at the beginning of the final forty-two month period the ruler of the revived Roman Empire will take upon himself the role of God and demand that all the world worship him (Rev 13:8, 15). Again the identification of the horn and the beast and the times in which they are pictured as exercising their power relate them to a future period, namely, that just preceding the second coming of Christ to the earth.

On the basis of this investigation of four major passages which make a contribution to the prophetic foreview of the ten-nation confederacy, it has been presented that a normal, literal interpretation of the prophecies lead to the concept that there is yet coming a future ten-nation confederacy within the bounds of the ancient Roman Empire. The speculation as to which ten nations these may be is, of course, not answered in the Scriptures. Suffice it to say there were more than ten kingdoms within the ancient Roman Empire and this revival, identified as it is with the Roman prince of Daniel 9:26, may well include Rome itself and representative countries in Northern Africa, Western Asia, and Southern Europe. As the Scriptures make plain, the ten-nation confederacy is only the beginning, and the power of the ruler continues to extend until he reigns over every kindred, tongue, and nation (Rev 13:7). Hence, it may be concluded that a normative and literal interpretation of prophecy leads to the conclusion that the world is yet to see a revival of the ancient Roman Empire in its ten-nation confederacy form. In the light of the amazing unification of Europe under the Common Market and the pressures of a modern situation which make the survival of small, independent nations very difficult, such a move toward confederacy fits precisely into the temper of our modern international situation. The appropriateness of this prophecy to our present day is another indication that the church may be ending its earthly course and that end-time prophecy is about to be fulfilled.

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers