“From what I’ve briefly read, it seems as though you reject dispensationalism and yet hold to non-cessationism. I personally see this as very conflicting (though not as conflicting as a non-c dispensational).
Forgive me if I am wrong in this, but if I’m not, what then would you hold to in regards to Daniel’s 70 weeks? Are they completed (like most A-mill and post-mills affirm), or are there gaps (like dispy’s teach)? If they are completed, then why are you a Non-C given the clear indication of Dan 9:24?
This one always gets people riled up 🙂 ” -Nathan White
First off, let me express my utter amazement that you have actually read anything I have written. Secondly (you’ll love this), I attended a Real Evangelism service last night. Johnny Hunt did not preach. Fred Luter did, and I thought he did a good job. The only problem was that the service started at 6:30pm and the preaching started at roughly 8:00pm (I’m being generous) and was very rushed. I don’t care if I never hear the names Pfeiffer, Speck, or Booth again.:-) Trumpets were also ruined for me. Speaking of trumpets, let’s talk about eschatology…
None of the other members of this blog will agree with me on this…
I don’t believe there are any gaps in Daniel’s seventy weeks. And yet I also believe the New Testament is inspired. According to your question, and forgive me if my understanding of it is flawed, wouldn’t I have to say that all prophetic words ended with Christ’s Ascension?
Now obviously neither of us believe this. We believe that the New Testament writer’s were inspired, we believe that there were prophets operating in the early church, and we believe that Christ had something to say to the seven churches in Asia Minor nearly 80 years after his Ascension.
What then is the Angel referring to when he says, “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.” (Dan 9:24)
In my mind he is not referring to the complete cessation of all words from God. Otherwise the New Testament goes out the window, except for the red letters, of course. Rather, the obvious implication is the fulfillment of all prophetic word in Christ.
Consider Gill’s comments;
“and to seal up the vision and prophecy”; not to shut it up out of sight; rather to set a mark on it, by which it might be more clearly known; but to consummate and fulfil it: all prophecy is sealed up in Christ, and by him; he is the sum and substance of it; the visions and prophecies of the Old Testament relate to him, and have their accomplishment in him; some relate to his person and office; others to his coming into the world, the time, place, and manner of it; others to the great work of redemption and salvation he came about; and others to his miracles, sufferings, and death, and the glory that should follow; all which have been fulfilled:
“to seal up the vision and prophet” (y); the prophets were until John, and then to cease, and have ceased ever since the times of Jesus; there has been no prophet among the Jews, they themselves do not deny it; Christ is come, the last and great Prophet of all, with a full revelation of the divine will, and no other is to be expected; all that pretend to set up a new scheme of things, either as to doctrine or worship, through pretended vision or prophecy, are to be disregarded:
I can affirm both interpretations by Gill. I think the first interpretation by Gill is right on target and the clearest exposition of the phrase in question. The second I don’t think applies directly to this text, but is an excellent side note. Christ is the great Prophet. If there is any prophecy, it comes by Christ. If any prophecy doesn’t line up with what Christ has already spoken in Scripture, it should be disregarded. We are to always obey all three aspects of this command, “Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.” (1Th 5:20-21)
Feel free to rake me over the coals now.