Trying to Get the Rapture Right (Part 10)

This installment may be thought of as a digression, but I think it belongs to the overall argument.

Imagine a world where the removal of the saints from planet Earth happened but no one had the foggiest idea of when that might be. If the NT alluded to such a thing there would still be some hope that we just may be the ones to get called up. The doctrine of the rapture would still be a “sure thing”, it just wouldn’t be very concrete in our minds. Well, as a matter of fact, as a starting place for considering the rapture this isn’t that bad; there are far worse ones. A “worse” one would be the dogmatic insistence that the catching away of the Church as pretribulational is a dead-certainty. Another would be the blithe notion that the rapture occurs when Jesus returns to earth and any theories to the contrary are speculative fancies.

What we want when faced with studying the rapture is a method which casts its procedural net over all the relevant scriptures and tries to incorporate its results within the boundaries of more readily identifiable doctrines. Taking fundamental and necessary (C1 & C2) biblical truths as a baseline, the various snippets of prophetic teaching which intersect what can be known about the rapture must be weighed and set within the most comfortable theological context: a context from which many objections can be answered, and the number of those that can’t are at least reduced. This comes down to ones best choice among competing explanations (a C3).

In these posts I have put quite a bit of weight on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks prophecy in Daniel 9. A full exegesis of that passage (Dan. 9:24-27) is beyond the scope of this series, and what persuades me may not persuade others. One reason for this is the amount of work I have put into studying the biblical covenants and how they connect with the Return of Christ and His kingdom. This is an important theme of Daniel 2, 7, 9 and 12, and it connects with many other elements in the Prophets. (Chapters 2, 7 and 12 all concern events just before or at the final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!), so it is more than likely that chapter 9 does too).

Before bringing this series to an end with two summary posts I ask the reader’s forbearance once more as I again make an argument from this future time period. I have also tried to show that there exists a correspondence between the 70th week, especially from its halfway (3 1/2 year) point, and what is known as the Great Tribulation. An obvious point of contact is the “time, times and half a time” formula found in both Daniel and Revelation. In Matthew 24:8 our Lord speaks about “the beginning of sorrows”; an expression even prewrathers like Marvin Rosenthal believe refers to the first part of the Seventieth Week, even if he does not associate it with the “Tribulation” as such (nor the “wrath of God” for that matter), which he thinks comes after. So it is pretty much agreed upon by all except those who try to squeeze it into the first century that the 70th week lies ahead of us. However, a major difference surfaces between the pretrib position and mid, post and prewrath views concerning what I would see as an incongruity with God dealing with Israel and the Church in the 70th week. As I have said before, in my reading of Scripture this period is determined on Israel (with whom God is not explicitly dealing right now), not the Church. Moreover, it centers on Jerusalem and the temple.

The “Temple” and “Abomination” in the Seventieth Week

Daniel 9:26 stipulates that Messiah will be “cut off” after 69 of the 70 weeks. The next verse says that “He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering”. Some hold that this refers to the finality of the cross-work of Christ, which effectively made the sacrificial system redundant. But this “positive spin” on the text has some problems. For one thing the context (v.26) refers to “the people of the prince who shall come” destroying the city (Jerusalem), and the sanctuary (the Temple), which is hard to think of positively. These two connected entities—Jerusalem and the temple—are featured heavily in the chapter (Dan. 9:12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27). In the book Kingdom through Covenant, Peter Gentry tries to vindicate the “positive” interpretation, although he admits to difficulties. I have the bad manners to quote myself in my review of that work:

To put it in a nutshell, the authors believe that the six items listed in Daniel 9:24 were all fulfilled in Christ at the first advent (541, 553-554 – though they admit “anoint the most holy person” is abnormal, typology again steps in to help). “Messiah the Prince” or “Leader” of 9:25 is equated with “the prince [or leader] who shall come” of verse 26 even though it appears that he comes after “Messiah is cut off.” From chapter 7:8, 23-25 the antichrist arises from the fourth kingdom (the Roman empire), seemingly just prior to the second coming (7:13-14 with 7:21-22). This prepares the reader for “the people of the prince who is to come” who “shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” (9:26).

Two questions loom before us if we follow Gentry’s and Wellum’s interpretation. The first concerns the fact that the “he” of verse 26b causes the sacrifice and offering to cease “in the middle of the [seventieth] week.” If this refers to Jesus then it also refers to His crucifixion. That would leave three and a half years of the seventieth week left to fulfill. This is generally where those who don’t like a second coming context will jump thirty-five or so years into the future and see fulfillment in Titus’s armies in A.D. 70. Gentry admits the “people” who destroy city and sanctuary do “appear to be enemy armies” (560), so he has to read two peoples into the context: the Jews who “destroyed” the city metaphorically circa A.D. 30, and the Romans who adopted a more literal method in A.D. 70!

Along with the 35 year gap between the first and second halves of the Week (a cleavage which looks exegetically sorry in itself), this proposal suffers from too many difficulties demanding further explanation. Meanwhile, Daniel 12:11 speaks about the Abomination of Desolation being set up at the same time “the daily sacrifice is taken away” after which it will continue 1,290 days. This linkage of the abomination with the daily sacrifice ties in Daniel 12, with its reference to “the time of the end” (12:9), with chapter 9:26-27. In like manner the reference in Daniel 11:31 brings the abomination and the sacrifice together, and that in a context where the “king” is exalting himself against “the God of gods” (11:36. cf. 7:24-25). Jesus, speaking about “the end”, said,

Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation’, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place. (Matthew 24:15)

To “see” this thing described by Daniel it has to be tangible (I remind you that Daniel says it is “set up”). Quite naturally, the “man of sin” who sits in the temple (naos) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, and the “Beast” who, with help from “the second beast” rears up an image of himself in Revelation 13, are associated with Daniel’s abomination. Even though Revelation 13 doesn’t say the image is erected in a temple, Revelation 11:1-2 indicates that a temple is standing.

So it looks very much like a temple will be standing in the future which will be desolated by an individual and his image. If this is right then it follows that the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 does not fit much of the data. But the main point is that this reinforces an interpretation of Daniel 9:24 which places the six predictive utterances about the prophet’s “people” and “holy city” at the time of the end (thus reinforcing the view that the 70th week is yet future). Daniel 9:24 reads:

Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression [not done till the second coming (Rom. 11:12, 24-27)],
To make an end of sins [specifically Israel’s sins, which Daniel is confessing (Dan. 9:15-20)],
To make reconciliation for iniquity [Israel’s reconciliation is effective (Zech. 12:10; 13:1)],
To bring in everlasting righteousness [to replace Israel’s sin (Rom. 11:12; Isa. 11:1-5)],
To seal up vision and prophecy [because Christ’s presence will preclude it (Zech. 13:3-4)],
And to anoint the Most Holy[ not Jesus’ baptism but the Holy Place (see NASB)].

I perhaps need to write about this separately, but all attempts to force this text into having been fulfilled at the cross look worse off than making the assertion about causing the sacrifices to cease because Christ died on the cross (of course, the sacrifices did not cease literally, Paul even offering one in Acts 21:26). For one thing, attempts to find fulfillments of each prediction often arrive at disparate conclusions. And where they all agree; on identifying “the most holy” with Jesus Christ (which is a real stretch), they have to invert the sequence of predictions and ignore the plain reality that the term “the most holy” refers to the Holy Place and not the Holy Person (It is probably the new temple cf. Ezek. 37:25-28).

This way of reading Daniel 9:24 also diminishes the explanatory introduction of the verse: viz. “your people” (Israel); “your holy city” (Jerusalem) and makes it subsidiary to the supposed meaning. Why do I belabor the point? Because once more the emphasis of the 70th week is not on the Church but upon the nation of Israel. When allied to Romans 11:11-29 this cannot be swept aside as though God didn’t say it. The fact that people from many other nations get saved during this period is not in question. The question has to do with the separating of the children of Israel from the nations in the end time passages in the Prophets, Matthew, Romans, and Revelation. This runs contrary to Paul’s doctrine of a unified Body in e.g., Ephesians 2 and 3 and Galatians 3:28.

The first summation will be next…

3255 reads

There are 7 Comments

J. Baillet's picture

Dr. Henebury states: "...the biblical covenants and how they connect with the Return of Christ and His kingdom. This is an important theme of Daniel 2, 7, 9 and 12, and it connects with many other elements in the Prophets. (Chapters 2, 7 and 12 all concern events just before or at the final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!), so it is more than likely that chapter 9 does too)."

Interesting that the Book of Daniel, a book replete with symbols and figurative language, contains a series of recapitulations.  I would suggest that Chapter 12 is a continuation of Chapter 11 and that each of these episodes, i.e. Chapters 2, 7, and 11-12, present a broad, unbroken sweep of history stretching from Daniel's time to the culmination of history and not just "events just before or at the final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!)." I agree that "it is more than likely that chapter 9 does too."

JSB

Paul Henebury's picture

J. Baillet comments,

 "I would suggest that Chapter 12 is a continuation of Chapter 11 and that each of these episodes, i.e. Chapters 2, 7, and 11-12, present a broad, unbroken sweep of history stretching from Daniel's time to the culmination of history and not just "events just before or at the final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!)." I agree that "it is more than likely that chapter 9 does too.'"

Well, I did not include detailed reasons for my view, but several of these have already been provided in previous installments.  Nevertheless, I shall elucidate a little:

1. In his preamble to his interpretation of the statue dream in ch. 2 Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that God "has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days..." (2:28).  Therefore, this must form part of the interpretation.  

2. The stone cut our without hands which smashes the image and its representation of earthly kingdoms, we are told "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed...it shall stand forever." (2:44).  It is important to note that the sphere of activity is earth.  Hence, this everlasting kingdom (of Christ) is earthly.  

3. As this patently has not occurred yet (the kingdom is just as geographical as the ones it replaces).

4. Chapter 7 features more imagery which rehearses the same material as ch. 2 but with additional information.  In Dan. 7:13-14 we see "the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven", who receives "dominion and glory and a kingdom...which shall not pass away."  Jesus Himself referred to 7:13 at His trial in Matt. 26:64, clearly implying He and this Danielic figure were one and the same.  Jesus was referencing His second coming.

5. The "little horn" (7:11-12; 21-22, etc.) is destroyed by the coming of the Ancient of Days - a reference again to the second coming.  Note, "His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey Him" (7:27c).

6. In fact, the whole of Dan. 10:11-12:4 is one speech given by the angelic messenger.  In ch. 12, after using language which the Lord will pick up in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:21 in the context of His coming again), Daniel is told to "seal the book until the time of the end" (12:4).

I have given reasons for linking chapter 9 to all of this, so here in brief is what lies behind the quote you respond to.  

If you would like to respond in kind I would be sure to read what you have to say.  But please place your remarks within the wider context of these posts.

"Recapitulation" is a cool buzzword right now, but it is often brought out as a kind of wet blanket to throw over the details found in the words of the text.  I'm not saying you are doing that, but I've seen the card played more than once.

 

God bless,

 

Paul H 

 

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

J. Baillet's picture

Thank you for the opportunity to explore this issue a little further. Before I consider the 6 points you set forth above, I want to make sure that I correctly understand your argument. The point to be established is that Daniel's 70th Week is entirely in the future. My understanding of your argument, on what is admittedly a sub-point which I plucked out of the main body of your post, is that:

1.a. The "biblical covenants and how they connect with the" future Second Coming of Christ is an important theme of Daniel 2, 7, and 10:11-12:4; and

1.b. The "final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!)" is the concern of Daniel 2, 7, and 10:11-12:4;

2. Daniel 9, which presents Daniel's 70th Week, is linked to Daniel 2, 7, and 10:11-12:14;

Therefore, Daniel 9, including Daniel’s 70th Week, “is more than likely” to concern the future Second Coming of Christ and the "final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!)".

I have reviewed all ten parts of your series, and I have not seen (but may have overlooked) the link between Daniel 9, on the one hand, and Daniel 2, 7, and 10:11-12:4, on the other hand, that would form the basis for expecting Daniel 9 to concern the same theme. I suggested “recapitulation” as a possible link. Restatement would probably have been a better word. Why this expectation concerning Daniel 9? Why not the expectation that it concerns events contemporaneous with Daniel, such as Daniel 1 (the King’s meat and drink) or Daniel 3 (the fiery furnace) or Daniel 4 (Nebuchadnezzar’s madness and restoration), and so on?

JSB

Paul Henebury's picture

J. Baillet wrote:

Thank you for the opportunity to explore this issue a little further. Before I consider the 6 points you set forth above, I want to make sure that I correctly understand your argument. The point to be established is that Daniel's 70th Week is entirely in the future. My understanding of your argument, on what is admittedly a sub-point which I plucked out of the main body of your post, is that:

1.a. The "biblical covenants and how they connect with the" future Second Coming of Christ is an important theme of Daniel 2, 7, and 10:11-12:4;

Incorrect. My wording might be construed that way, but my real point was not that the covenants are an important theme of these chapters (though see 9:4), but that the covenants have much to say about the return of Christ - as do these chapters, and as I showed in my last response to you.

and

1.b. The "final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!)" is the concern of Daniel 2, 7, and 10:11-12:4;

Incorrect.  I wrote that these chapters do concern this future kingdom, not that (as your phrasing implies) that it is the only concern of the chapters.

2. Daniel 9, which presents Daniel's 70th Week, is linked to Daniel 2, 7, and 10:11-12:14;

Not quite.  I believe there is a connection between the 70th Week and some passages in chs. 7, 11, and 12.  

Therefore, Daniel 9, including Daniel’s 70th Week, “is more than likely” to concern the future Second Coming of Christ and the "final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!)".

Incorrect.  I wrote, "(Chapters 2, 7 and 12 all concern events just before or at the final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!), so it is more than likely that chapter 9 does too)." I did not say that Dan. 9 concerns the Second Coming and the kingdom.  I do think part of ch. 9 concerns events prior to Christ's coming.  To be clear on another thing, When I said, "I have given reasons for linking chapter 9 to all of this" in my response to you, I was referring to the items above that sentence. 

I have reviewed all ten parts of your series, and I have not seen (but may have overlooked) the link between Daniel 9, on the one hand, and Daniel 2, 7, and 10:11-12:4, on the other hand, that would form the basis for expecting Daniel 9 to concern the same theme.

I did not say you would find this is my previous posts.  All I said was that "I did not include detailed reasons for my view" and, after my rather rushed list of reasons, "I have given reasons for linking chapter 9 to all of this", meaning not that I had given these same links in the other posts (which would contradict what I said about not giving detailed reasons), but that what I have said about Dan.9 dovetails with "all of this".  I have referred to passages in Dan 7 & 12 in previous installments.     

I suggested “recapitulation” as a possible link. Restatement would probably have been a better word. Why this expectation concerning Daniel 9? Why not the expectation that it concerns events contemporaneous with Daniel, such as Daniel 1 (the King’s meat and drink) or Daniel 3 (the fiery furnace) or Daniel 4 (Nebuchadnezzar’s madness and restoration), and so on?

Certainly "restatement" (of elements which overlap) is a good word.  Why these chapters and not the ones you refer to?  The six reasons I gave you for one thing.  And because chs. 1, 3, and 4 concern no prophecy for Israel.  

God bless,

 

Paul H  

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

J. Baillet's picture

Thank you for the explanation. I read too much into “(Chapters 2, 7 and 12 all concerns events just before or at the final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!), so it is more than likely that chapter 9 does too).” (Boldface added). You have clarified this by saying, “I did not say that Dan. 9 concerns the Second Coming and the kingdom. I do think part of ch. 9 concerns events prior to Christ’s coming.” Regardless of what Chapters 2, 7, and 12 say, Chapter 9 must primarily stand on its own. Whether all of Daniel’s 70th Week is future must be determined from an exegesis of Chapter 9 and is not made more likely because of Chapters 2, 7, and 12.

In that regard, I will turn to your six points.

“1. In his preamble to his interpretation of the statue dream in ch. 2 Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that God "has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days..." (2:28). Therefore, this must form part of the interpretation.”

Chapter 2 speaks of the Babylonian Empire, the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire and its successors, and the Eternal Kingdom. The Babylonian Empire was current for Daniel and the rest future, although he would live into the Medo-Persian Empire. Daniel’s preamble included King Nebuchadnezzar’s entire dream. God made know to him “what is to be.” (2:29). The Chaldean word, 'achărı̂yth, generally means “later” or “in the future.” In context, the plain reading of “the latter days” would be the future for the Babylonian Empire and its successors through the Eternal Kingdom, which would annihilate the successive earthly kingdoms and fill the entire earth.

“2. The stone cut our without hands which smashes the image and its representation of earthly kingdoms, we are told "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed...it shall stand forever." (2:44). It is important to note that the sphere of activity is earth. Hence, this everlasting kingdom (of Christ) is earthly.”

Since this Kingdom will be eternal, the vast preponderance, if not the entirety, of its duration must of necessity occur on the new earth.

“3. As this patently has not occurred yet (the kingdom is just as geographical as the ones it replaces).”

The new earth will be “geographical.”

“4. Chapter 7 features more imagery which rehearses the same material as ch. 2 but with additional information. In Dan. 7:13-14 we see "the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven", who receives "dominion and glory and a kingdom...which shall not pass away." Jesus Himself referred to 7:13 at His trial in Matt. 26:64, clearly implying He and this Danielic figure were one and the same. Jesus was referencing His second coming.”

Chapter 7 is a restatement of Chapter 2, this time from Daniel’s perspective instead of King Nebuchadnezzar’s. Again, the broad sweep of the future was laid before Daniel culminating in the consummation of the Eternal Kingdom of Christ at His Second Coming.

“5. The "little horn" (7:11-12; 21-22, etc.) is destroyed by the coming of the Ancient of Days - a reference again to the second coming. Note, "His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey Him" (7:27c).”

I agree that, within the context of Chapter 7, a broad sweep of the future was laid before Daniel culminating in the consummation of the Eternal Kingdom of Christ at His Second Coming.

“6. In fact, the whole of Dan. 10:11-12:4 is one speech given by the angelic messenger. In ch. 12, after using language which the Lord will pick up in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:21 in the context of His coming again), Daniel is told to "seal the book until the time of the end" (12:4).”

Daniel 10-12 is a discrete section of the book which again sets for a broad sweep of the future laid before Daniel; this time from the time of the Medo-Persian Empire. This future extends through the Greek Empire and its dynasties culminating in the consummation of the Eternal Kingdom of Christ at His Second Coming. (See also Daniel 8).

JSB

Paul Henebury's picture

J. Baillet wrote,

Regardless of what Chapters 2, 7, and 12 say, Chapter 9 must primarily stand on its own. Whether all of Daniel’s 70th Week is future must be determined from an exegesis of Chapter 9 and is not made more likely because of Chapters 2, 7, and 12.

True, although the thematic links in the Book of Daniel, including ch. 9, should not be ignored.

"In that regard, I will turn to your six points.

1. The Chaldean word, 'achărı̂yth, generally means “later” or “in the future.” In context, the plain reading of “the latter days” would be the future for the Babylonian Empire and its successors through the Eternal Kingdom, which would annihilate the successive earthly kingdoms and fill the entire earth."

I don't have any real issue with this.  But the onus is upon the kingdom set up by the "stone".   

2. "Since this Kingdom will be eternal, the vast preponderance, if not the entirety, of its duration must of necessity occur on the new earth."

This does not follow.  Whereas this verse on its own this could mean that (though there is no mention of a re-creation), there is a welter of scriptural evidence that the everlasting kingdom is set up before the creation of the new earth in Rev. 21.  E.g., in Isaiah 65:17-20 "sinners" and death are still present.  The New heavens and earth of v.17 should be seen as proleptic and anticipatory of the final culmination of things.  Verse 25 repeats material from ch. 11:6 in which context Christ judges people who will include "poor" and "wicked" (v.4).  While this fits the "rod of iron" judgment passages in e.g. Psa. 2 and Rev. 19 (with a millennial reign to follow), it doesn't do as well if you try to have Rev. 21 occur right after Christ's appearing.  For then one would have to teach that sin, death, poverty and wickedness are present in the new earth.  Hence, your statement opens the big question over premillennialism and amillennnialism.    .      

3. "The new earth will be “geographical.”

But it will not be THIS earth.  

4. Chapter 7 is a restatement of Chapter 2, this time from Daniel’s perspective instead of King Nebuchadnezzar’s. Again, the broad sweep of the future was laid before Daniel culminating in the consummation of the Eternal Kingdom of Christ at His Second Coming.

You did not address 7:13-14

5. I agree that, within the context of Chapter 7, a broad sweep of the future was laid before Daniel culminating in the consummation of the Eternal Kingdom of Christ at His Second Coming.

But I specifically pinpointed end time texts in the chapter to support my argument.

6. Daniel 10-12 is a discrete section of the book which again sets for a broad sweep of the future laid before Daniel; this time from the time of the Medo-Persian Empire. This future extends through the Greek Empire and its dynasties culminating in the consummation of the Eternal Kingdom of Christ at His Second Coming. (See also Daniel 8).

Again, you did not interact with the argument I made, citing Matt. 24 and Dan. 12. 

[/quote]

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here.  You have picked out one sentence from a post and questioned it, but have not stated your own opinion clearly.  Are you amillennial?  Do you believe the 70th Week is completed already?  What about Dan. 9:24?  I think it would help if you came out and gave me your interpretation.  If all you wish to do is to challenge whether Dan. 9 has any connection with chs. 2, 7, & 12 then I don't see that you have done that either.  I guess I don't get what it is you are really saying.

 

God bless,

 

Paul H 

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

J. Baillet's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:

 

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here.  You have picked out one sentence from a post and questioned it, but have not stated your own opinion clearly.  Are you amillennial?  Do you believe the 70th Week is completed already?  What about Dan. 9:24?  I think it would help if you came out and gave me your interpretation.  If all you wish to do is to challenge whether Dan. 9 has any connection with chs. 2, 7, & 12 then I don't see that you have done that either.  I guess I don't get what it is you are really saying.

My original comment was not so much to question but to note the interesting idea that Daniel 9 might be of sufficiently similar structure (not merely thematic links) to Chapters 2, 7, and 10-12 to shed significant light on the meaning of Chapter 9.  Chapters 2, 7, 8, and 10-12 are at least in part restatements of the same periods of history, so they in a very direct sense inform each other, recognizing that Chapter 8 covers a more limited period.  I do find the amillennial position the most persuasive but was not attempting to argue that issue.  My comment was a more narrow one relating to the possibility of common structure.

In regard to point number 2, I was not ruling out a 1,000 year "present earth" millennial kingdom, only that if Daniel 2:44 is read literally to mean that this kingdom will "stand forever," the vast preponderance of the duration of this kingdom must of necessity occur afterward on the new earth.  This does indeed follow unless one takes the position that the "present earth" lasts forever.

In regard to point number 3, this may raise the issue of renovation versus re-creation.  Regardless, the new earth will be qualitatively better, and hence in some sense different, than even the pre-fall "present earth."

In regard to point number 4, Daniel 7:13-14 supports my statement that "the broad sweep of the future was laid before Daniel culminating in the consummation of the Eternal Kingdom of Christ at His Second Coming."  These verses literally state that this kingdom will be "everlasting," "shall not pass away," and "shall not be destroyed."  I have not commented on when this kingdom was/will be given to our Lord Jesus Christ.

In regard to point number 5, my comment was not inconsistent with yours.

In regard to point number 6, you are correct.  I do not specifically interact with your arguments.  Again, my comments were directed more generally to comparative structures within the Book of Daniel.  Chapters 2, 7, 8, and 10-12 are in the main restatements of (at least in part) the same sequence of events. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the Book of Daniel, a book replete with symbols and figurative language, contains a series of such restatements. Although there are thematic links with Chapter 9, there is not the same structural parallelism. However, I was intrigued by the suggestion in your post that there might be, i.e. "(Chapters 2, 7 and 12 all concern events just before or at the final culminative kingdom of Christ (on earth!), so it is more than likely that chapter 9 does too)." I now realize that you do not think so.

Finally, as I stated earlier,  I have commented "on what is admittedly a sub-point which I plucked out of the main body of your post."

Thank you for your patience.

 

JSB

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.