#eli kittim

By Eli Kittim

World-renowned biblical scholar Bart Ehrman falsely “states that eternal rewards and punishments aren’t found in the Old Testament” (Fresh Air Interview with Terry Gross).

This statement directly contradicts the teachings of the Old Testament.

Much to Bart Ehrman‪’s‬ dismay, there is a clear reference to a resurrection from the dead in the Old Testament in which there are definite rewards and punishments that await both the righteous and the wicked.

In fact, these rewards and punishments are said to be “everlasting.”

In the New Revised Standard Version, the one most scholars prefer to use, Daniel 12.2 reads:

“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

The so-called “Theodotion Daniel” form of the Septuagint (LXX) confirms that the rewards and punishments in the aftermath of the resurrection are indeed continuous by using the Greek word αἰώνιον, which means “everlasting.” Daniel Th 12.2 reads:

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν γῆς χώματι ἐξεγερθήσονται, οὗτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ οὗτοι εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον.

The Hebrew text (BHS) of Daniel 12.2 reads:

‎וְרַבִּ֕ים מִיְּשֵׁנֵ֥י אַדְמַת־עָפָ֖ר יָקִ֑יצוּ אֵ֚לֶּה לְחַיֵּ֣י עֹולָ֔ם

‎וְאֵ֥לֶּה לַחֲרָפֹ֖ות לְדִרְאֹ֥ון עֹולָֽם׃ ס

The key Hebrew words are עוֹלָ֔ם

‘ō·w·lām (everlasting) and לְדִרְא֥וֹן lə·ḏir·’ō·wn (contempt).

In short, the dead are not annihilated, nor do they sleep forever, as Ehrman mistakenly assumes, but are rather resurrected to exist either in an “everlasting life” of Blessedness or in “everlasting contempt.” What is more, Daniel 12 is found in the Masoretic and Qumran texts and is not, therefore, a later edition.

As for Ehrman’s other false statement “that eternal rewards and punishments aren’t found . . . in the teachings of Jesus,” he should go back and restudy the Koine Greek of the earliest New Testament gospel, namely, the gospel of Mark! The English translation (NRSV) of Mark 9.47-48 reads as follows:

“And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.”

Two things are indisputably mentioned by Jesus that are both unequivocal and categorical: the punishment is everlasting in that neither human beings nor the fires of hell (γέενναν) are put out or extinguished. In short, human beings never die and the fires of hell never end. And this pericope is considered to be part of the sayings of Jesus! Thus, in accordance with Daniel 12.2, Jesus definitely confirms the duration, rather than the extinction, of the afterlife! In fact, the Greek term πῦρ (“fire” of hell) in Mark 9.48 is the exact same term used to designate “the lake of fire” (Gk. λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς) in Revelation 20.10!

The Greek text (NA28) of Mark 9.48 is illuminating in this regard. It reads:

ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται.

The Greek term σκώληξ (skóléx) means “worm,” “symbolizing perhaps the loathsomeness of the penalty” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) or it maybe used figuratively as a general term of contempt for a living being.

Moreover, the Greek phrase οὐ τελευτᾷ means that their “organism” (or “worm”) never ceases to exist; it does not come to an end. Equally, the Greek phrase οὐ σβέννυται means that the fires (Gk. πῦρ) of punishment are not put out: they are not extinguished or quenched! It’s also important to note that Mark 9.48 is not an interpolation because it’s preserved in Isaiah 66.24. It’s part of the Old Testament tradition.

In other words, Jesus clearly teaches in Mark 9.47-48 that there are eternal punishments precisely because people do not cease to exist after death, nor are the fires of hell put out (cf. Mt. 25.46). And Daniel 12.2, among other places in the Old Testament (cf. e.g., Isa. 66.24), supports the New Testament teaching of the abiding presence of rewards and punishments for both the righteous and the wicked in the afterlife! Further supportive evidence comes from Rev. 20.10, which contradicts annihilationism by explicitly stating that the damned will be “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Gk. βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων)!

It is, therefore, deeply misleading and particularly dangerous to assume that the Bible does not speak of an afterlife or that there are no ultimate consequences for our actions here on earth!

This is the PDF of my article——published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3 (Fall 2018)——entitled, The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles.

Who Gave Satan the Authority to Become the God of this World?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Because God supposedly had given him dominion over the earth, most people assume that Adam surrendered his authority to Satan after his transgression, and therefore allowed the latter to become the god of this world. But in order for this particular *dominion theory* to work, it must impinge on *divinity* itself. However, Adam was a created being. He was not a god and could never be understood as a god in any sense of the word. The fundamental problem with the classical view is twofold. First, a mere mortal, such as Adam, does not have authority over the earth. Second, Adam doesn’t have any *divinity* to give away, much less any “divine” dominion over the earth. A close reading of Gen. 1.26 reveals that the dominion God gave to Adam was limited to the animals and creatures of the earth. In other words, Adam was not “the god of this world” (cf. 2 Cor. 4.4); God was! Adam was simply placed on earth “to till it and keep it” (Gen. 2.15). By contrast, only Christ is said to have “all authority . . . on earth” (Mt. 28.18).

What is more, Adam had not yet eaten from “the tree of life” (Gen. 3.22, 24) at the time of his transgression. So, given that Adam was a created being who was not even immortal, much less a god, how could Satan *become* the “god” of this world by taking this divinity from Adam? It’s a logical impossibility; a logical fallacy, if you will. Adam, by default, is not a divine being and therefore cannot, by definition, surrender godhood to Satan. It is both logically and ontologically impossible!

So the question remains, how then did Satan become the god of this world? Who gave him the title deed to the earth, so to speak? The only person who has full authority over the earth, and who is truly a god, is the only one who can surrender this right to Satan. And this is in fact conceivable both from a logical and an ontological perspective. Thus, by the process of elimination, the only person capable of surrendering his divine authority over the earth is none other than Christ! Without a doubt, this relinquishment would temporarily make Satan the god of this world.

This, of course, would imply that Adam could not have been anyone else but Christ. And it would help explain why “God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness’ “ (Gen. 1.26). It would further imply that although the first human was created, nevertheless God breathed his own divine Spirit into him and gave him “the breath of life” (Gen. 2.7). If Christ was Adam, it would also help explain why he would have to die to pay for the sins of the world. This view would also help clarify how the transgression of one man could possibly spread biologically to his posterity, which would otherwise be inexplicable.

I’m by no means espousing the “Adam–God doctrine” of Brigham Young (Mormonism). This is a totally fictitious and bogus account based on UFOs and aliens. I do not accept this LDS *account* at all.

But why does Christ say in Rev. 22.13 (NIV) that he’s “the first and the last”?:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First

and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

We know why he is the last. But how exactly is he the first? In fact, Heb. 1.6 calls Christ “the Firstborn” (πρωτότοκον). Let us review some key Biblical points. Whereas Adam was made in the image of God, Christ is said to be “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1.15). Both Adam and Christ are said to have dominion over the earth. Both are givers of life (1 Cor. 15.45 NIV):

The first man Adam became

a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving

spirit.

Both became men. Both are called “son of God” (Lk 3.38; 1 Jn 5.10). Both were pure and holy. Both were tested by Satan. One suffered in the Garden of Eden, the other in the Garden of Gethsemane. There are far more similarities than differences. And the Biblical passages make much more sense when understood from this point of view than from the classical one. If humankind is made in the image of Christ, who was the first Man, then this special creation would refute the conclusion of evolutionary science that Adam was not a historical person. In fact, the classical perspective makes no sense whatsoever. It’s neither logically nor ontologically feasible, or even possible, that a mere mortal, who was not god, surrendered both his authority and divinity to Satan, who subsequently became the god of this world. That’s a contradiction in terms. It’s like talking about a married bachelor or a squared circle. It can never happen in any possible world!

How Do We Know What We Know?

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim

A posteriori Vs A priori Knowledge

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony.

Postmodern epistemology is generally skeptical of “a posteriori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from observed phenomena (i.e. empirical knowledge). Because this knowledge gradually changes and evolves over time, its so-called “facts” also change and are not therefore necessarily true. This would imply that scientific knowledge is not necessarily true and is therefore incapable of informing us about reality as it truly is!

The only necessary “truths” appear to be contained in what is known as “a priori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions. Since the time of Immanuel Kant this knowledge has been understood as being acquired independently of any particular experiences. Thus, logical and mathematical propositions fall under this category.

If you think about it, science cannot prove the existence of the external world independently of our perceptions or faculties. Kant was one of the first thinkers to suggest the idea of the philosophical gaze turned inward upon the self rather than focused on the external world per se. Rather than concentrating on observed phenomena, he zoomed in on the observer himself. Since then we have sought to find out what constitutes “necessary truth,” as well as its justification. In short, we have become skeptical of reality and have seriously questioned whether our perceptions of it can be trusted or not.

The Phenomenological Perspective of Experience

Along comes Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938), a German philosopher, who founded the school of Phenomenology, which studies the structures of experience and consciousness. Consciousness at the most fundamental level is simply the awareness of existence, both internal and external. In other words, phenomenology is primarily concerned with how consciousness perceives and relates to phenomena. A phenomenon is defined as an observable event. This is in contrast to a “noumenon,” which, according to Kant, cannot be directly observed. Thus, Husserl is interested in understanding not the external world as it really is but rather how an individual experiences or perceives it subjectively. Husserl influenced many notable 20th century thinkers, such as Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, and many others!

What is more, Husserl acknowledged a type of gnosis that is far greater than any knowledge derived from the empirical world of the senses. He called it “authentic intuition,” denoting its capacity to grasp the essence of being (Manfred Frank. What is Neostructuralism? Trans. Sabine Wilke and Richard Gray. [Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989], pp. 411-412)! Since “testimony” is acceptable as a source of knowledge in epistemology, the multiple and independent attestations of the born-again experience can be employed as potential sources of knowledge for a justified true belief in the Platonic sense. Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, would acknowledge its validity, given that the born-again experience (Jn 3.3) cannot be proven empirically but experienced existentially! The great mystics Rumi, Kabir, and John of the Cross would certainly concur with that statement. This is analogous to what Karl Jaspers, the German-Swiss psychiatrist and philosopher, calls a leap of faith, which is a belief in something outside the confines of reason.

From an interdisciplinary perspective, psychological testing can further confirm the existence of radical changes in the personality as a result of such experiences, not unlike those depicted in the Bible. For example, a murderer named Saul was said to be changed into a lover named Paul. Such cases abound in the “conversion-experience” literature. It seems to be a case where a new identity has replaced an older one (cf. Eph. 4.22-24). In the language of psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, it is the difference between the False self (i.e. pseudo self) and the True self (i.e. authentic self)! Thus, there are many indicators which suggest that the born-again experience is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge (cf. Eph. 2.5).

Why Then Are There Differences Between Various Belief Systems?

The contradictory doctrinal statements of various religious traditions do not invalidate the authenticity of the existential experience precisely because they do not accurately represent the born-again experience itself, but rather the afterthoughts that follow it. Human reason tries to make sense of its experiences, thereby leading to theological diversity. However, at the point of the “mysterium tremendum” itself the experience is ubiquitous. In other words, whether one is reared in a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist culture is irrelevant because the authentic mystical experience will be the same. The person will primarily experience a new birth, a profound sense of peace, as well as an all - encompassing love. The attempt to categorize it within a specific cultural and spiritual milieu is a secondary process. As Hegel once wrote:

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only

with the falling of the dusk.”

In other words, only after the experience is gone does philosophy arrive to try to understand it. In our case, theology arrives too late. It’s the same with the doctrinal variations of the different spiritual traditions!

The Absolute Being of philosophy (i.e. God) is often said to instill revelation upon humankind. There are various theological schools, such as pantheism, deism, theism, and the like, but most historians would agree that the various holy books are testaments of God’s alleged revelations (e.g. the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Quran, New Testament). However, the degree of revelation varies. It is important to note what Paul reveals in 1 Cor. 12.11:

“All these are the work of one and the same

Spirit, and he distributes them to each one,

just as he determines.”

In other words, not all get an equal share of the spiritual pie. Not all receive an equal portion of the truth. Each one gets a small amount of it. Some get more, others less. Thus, some know more, some less. This, then, explains the differences that exist between various belief systems without necessarily refuting their undergirding existential experiences per se! Put differently, they all believe in God, but which God is a question pertaining to different levels and degrees of revelation. So, given that belief systems are disseminated later, after the fact, doctrinal differences are irrelevant in refuting the initial born-again experience as a whole.

Conclusion

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations

By Author Eli Kittim

Christological readings

The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks is given by the angel Gabriel and inscripturated in the Book of Daniel ch. 9. Despite being the subject of much hermeneutical study for thousands of years, it has nevertheless continued to baffle scholars and prophecy pundits alike. I will only deal with Christological readings and will not consider the historical-critical approach to Jewish eschatology, which usually presumes that the 70-weeks prophecy of Daniel pertains to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c. 215-164 BCE). Liberal epistemology is based on historical reductionism, which often leads to gross misinterpretations of Scripture. Historically speaking, Jews began to return to Jerusalem from their Babylonian exile in 538 BCE. They were prompted to do so under an edict issued by Cyrus, King of Persia, aka Cyrus's edict. They also began to rebuild their Temple which had previously been destroyed by the Babylonians. By ca. 515 BCE, the Second Temple was completed.

There are Three Major Historical Starting Points for the 70-Weeks Prophecy

The key passage to the 70 weeks prophecy is Dan. 9.25 (NRSV):

Know therefore and understand: from the

time that the word went out to restore and

rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an

anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks;

and . . . sixty-two weeks . . .

Daniel 9.26 goes on to predict the timeline pertaining to the death of the Messiah:

After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one

shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and

the troops of the prince who is to come shall

destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end

shall come with a flood, and to the end

there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

So, with regard to Daniel 9.25, there are 3 historical starting points of the prophecy. One is 538 BCE, which is associated with Cyrus’ edict. If you’re going to apply a historical interpretation, this appears to be the most precise date, given that it accurately portrays when “the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” as well as the timing of the restoration and rebuilding of the Temple sometime around 515 BCE!

The second date of the alleged starting point of Daniel’s 70-week prophecy, that some scholars employ, begins with the decree bestowed to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (Ezra 7), which supposedly terminates with Jesus’ Baptism 483 years later (i.e. 7 weeks = 49y & 62 weeks = 434y; thus 49 + 434 = 483y). These calculations employ the day to year principle (cf. Num. 14.34; Ezek. 4.5-6): one year for each day.

The third possible date, and the most popular, that follows Sextus Julius Africanus, is 445 BCE, which refers to the letter given to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes I (Longimanus cf. Ezra 2). It’s important to note that many writers use a 360-day year period based on biblical passages for reckoning time (e.g. Gen. 7.11, 24; 8.4).

Criticisms of the 70-Weeks Prophecy Historical Interpretations

There are, however, many confounds in these historical theories. One problem is that the text itself does not explicitly state whether the king reference in the passage is to Artaxerxes I (465–424 BCE) or to Artaxerxes II (404–359 BCE). Although many scholars contend that Ezra probably lived during the time of Artaxerxes I, others are not convinced. Another problem is that the 69 weeks of years are supposed to terminate with the death of Christ, and yet the calculations from this perspective do not match the time of the purported Crucifixion.

Another exegetical problem is that although Christ and Antichrist appear simultaneously as contemporaries and are juxtaposed in the same verse (e.g. Dan. 9.26) regarding the 70th week, exegetes nevertheless deliberately separate the 70th week from the 69th week by a proposed 2,000 year gap between them. This decision doesn’t account for the end-time events that are described in the text (cf. Dan. 9.27). Furthermore, despite the violence done to the text, the proposed dates still do not match: they’re either too early or too late. They only appear to be close if you round them out.

There are other problems as well. Those who hold to the second possible date as the starting point of the prophecy, namely the date 457 BCE, contend that Jesus appeared during the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus (Lk 3:1), who reigned from 14 to 37 CE. This would put Jesus’ appearance at approximately 28 CE. But Daniel predicted not that the messiah would appear but that he would die on that date. So, this is also an inexact calculation. In his lectures, Chuck Missler frequently quoted a phrase that was coined by economist Ronald Coase: “if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”

The Historical Model: Sleight of Hand Hermeneutics

The first and only possible decree or edict to return, restore, and rebuild Jerusalem has to be the first one issued by Cyrus II of Persia, aka Cyrus the Great! In fact, the rebuilding process of Jerusalem had actually begun under Cyrus the Great, who had freed the Jews from Babylon, allowing them to return to Jerusalem in order to rebuild Solomon's Temple. As a result, many Jews returned in 538 BCE and began building the Temple in 536 BCE (Ezra 3.8). Not only that, but they completed it by 516/5 BCE (Ezra 6.15).

So why do most prophecy scholars attribute the starting point of the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel to the letter of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) in 445 BCE? Almost a century earlier, in 538 BCE, King Cyrus made a public declaration granting the Jews the right to return to Judah and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. But because that date doesn’t fit their calculations——because it would put Jesus’ appearance at about 55 BCE——scholars conveniently try to manhandle the Danielic prophecy in order to force their own private interpretations. So they arbitrarily move up the starting point of the prophecy to 445 BCE, 93 years later, with the aforesaid letter of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus). But this is underhanded exegesis which is not supported by the data.

In fact, many such theories were devised in the 1800s (to calculate the coming of Jesus) which had as their starting point the *Babylonian exile.* All of them were wrong! The classic work on the 70 Weeks of Daniel is Sir Robert Anderson’s 1894 book, “The Coming Prince.” Similarly, the Millerites also used the *Babylonian exile* as their starting point to predict the future coming of Jesus. They also used the Book of Daniel chapter 8 (specifically Dan. 8.14), which ultimately led to a false prophecy and the “Great Disappointment” of 1844! In short, these 19th century writers have devised complicated, elaborate, and convoluted schemes which ignore history and arbitrarily assign chronological dates that only match or confirm their specific biases.

Returning to the 70 Weeks historical model, the alleged chronological timetable is also intentionally broken up and divided, as if there is a 2,000 year gap between the 69th and the 70th week, even though this is not what the text is describing. For example, the death of the *anointed messiah* and the timing of *the prince to come* are inextricably linked together and juxtaposed in the same verse as if they are contemporaries rather than separated by 2,000 years (Dan. 9.26). In fact, this thought continues seamlessly into the following verse (v. 27) as part of a running narrative without the slightest hint of a change in chronology!

This exegetical decision is therefore a case of special pleading. These exegetes make little effort to support the data. They use bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous, and vice versa.

The construction of this confusing exegesis is unwarranted. It embraces some questionable assumptions that do not square well with the data. It’s a failed attempt by Christian evidentialism to validate historical Christianity and the historical Christ by appealing to his fulfillment of Daniel 9. This is bad exegesis that prevents the text from being interpreted in a straightforward manner that is consistent with its grammatical and canonical contexts.

The Futurist Eschatology of Daniel 9

Notice that these events take place not in Antiquity but at “the end of time.” The Brenton LXX has the following footnote regarding Daniel 9.27:

. . . the original writes ἕως τῆς συντελείας,

i.e. -until- the end of time.

The realization that the 70-week prophecy is not referring to Antiquity is clear from Dan. 9.23-24:

So consider the word and understand the

vision: ‘Seventy weeks are decreed for 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.’

Notice that fulfillment of this prophecy requires the end of all transgression and sin, and the beginning of everlasting righteousness, which signifies the end of all vision and prophecy. This is reminiscent of the end-times in Rev. 10.7 when “the mystery of God will be fulfilled.” Many scholars know that the chronology of Dan. 9.24 is within a futurist eschatological timetable. To attribute it to the Babylonian exile is therefore inappropriate. Why? Because sin has not yet ended. Neither has prophecy. Another reason is that the Babylonian exile didn’t last for 70 years. Historically, if the first deportation came after the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II in c. 586 BCE, and the Jews returned to Judah in c. 538 BCE and began to rebuild the second temple in Jerusalem in c. 537 BCE, according to the Book of Ezra, then the Jews were actually held in Babylonian captivity for approximately 48 years, not 70. Let’s not forget that Ezekiel 38.8 prophesied that “In future years” Israel would be restored as a nation. So what is the timeline that the prophecy is alluding to?

The question is twofold:

If the 70-Weeks prophecy is referring to a restoration and a rebuilding that takes place in the end-times,

1) is it referring to the nation of Israel?

2) or is it referring to the rebuilding of Jerusalem?

Possible Answers:

1) Israel 1947/8

2) Jerusalem 1967/8

These are the most pertinent questions that should guide our hermeneutic. Depending on one’s exegetical decision, the calculation will take a different trajectory. In hindsight, we should be more accurate than our predecessors. We are not trying to set dates but only to frame the question correctly so as to set the tone for further exegetical studies.

How Can Weeks Be Interpreted as Years?

How can “weeks” be interpreted as years rather than heptads or seven-year periods?

The first reason is that Gabriel himself imparts a cryptic clue which, in effect, equates the “seventy weeks” of Daniel (Dan. 9.2) with the “seventy-year” oracle revealed to Jeremiah (Jer. 29.10). Gabriel suggests that the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy must continue to be calculated as “years” within Daniel’s seventy-weeks oracle. In other words, this framework allows us to perform calculations using “weeks” as the standard of measuring time in addition to using actual “years.” That’s precisely why Gabriel doesn’t say 69 weeks but rather 7 weeks and 62 weeks! The values of these numbers appear to be different. The former is interpreted as weeks of years; the latter as years per se. However, an inversion would not work. For instance, if the former (i.e. the 7 weeks) is calculated as years, the calculation cannot work simply because we have exceeded the 50-year time period. That’s why the author did not clamp them together but carefully separated them to emphasize that their values are not equivalent.

The second reason why weeks can be interpreted as years has to do with the meaning of the Hebrew term for “weeks” (Heb. שָׁבֻעִ֨ים šā·ḇu·‘îm; BHS) in Dan. 9.24. This term comes from the Hebrew term “shabua,” which typically means a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week, etc. But it can also refer to a Feast of weeks (Shavuot), otherwise known as Pentecost (cf. Exod. 34.22; Num. 28.26; Deut. 16.10, 16; 2 Chr 8.13):

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7620.htm

Interestingly enough, a Shavuot occurs once per year. So, using this definition of one “week” or one Shavuot per year would give us *70 weeks* or 70 Shavuots in 70 years.

Therefore, from starting point x until the coming of Messiah there will be 7 weeks and 62 weeks (Dan. 9.25). Why doesn’t Gabriel just say, “from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be” 69 weeks? But that’s not what he says, precisely because the 7 and the 62 do not comprise identical values. And why is that? Because the 7 weeks represent *one of the 2 Questions* we asked earlier, while the 62 weeks represents *another one of the 2 Questions* that I proposed. It appears, then, that the 7 weeks represent *weeks of years,* while the 62 weeks represents actual *years.*

Bear in mind that the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem technically began in 1968 when Israel started to rebuild the Jewish Quarter. Thus, the starting date for this variable may actually be 1968. Let’s not forget that the calculation must be consistent with a period “After the sixty-two weeks” in which “an anointed one shall be cut off” (Dan. 9.26).

The rebirth of Israel in 1948 may also be a viable option. The 70-year generation that culminated in 2018 may represent the final generation that “will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Mt. 24.34). Notice that the Danielic verse (9.26) says AFTER the 62 weeks (not during) the messiah will be slain. So, hypothetically, 1948 could still work as a starting point since the messiah’s death may come a little while after the 62 weeks run out (i.e. *after* 2018). As already mentioned, there’s evidence to suggest that the 70 weeks of Daniel may be referring to 70 Shavuots or 70 actual years. This lends credence to an alternative interpretation that the 70 Shavuots may actually begin on Sabbath years. That is to say, the 70-Shavuots countdown may actually *begin* on the first Sabbath year in the modern State of Israel (which was 1951-1952), rather than in 1948!

How do we know which date is correct?

There is a litmus test. The coming of Messiah should fall within one generation from its starting point, be it Israel (1948) or Jerusalem (1967).

In fact, there is still one generation from 1948 to 2037 because Ps. 90.10 reads:

The days of our life are seventy years, or

perhaps eighty, if we are strong;

This means that people born in 1948 would still be in their 80s by the year 2037 CE. This would qualify as one generation!

It is important to remember Irenaeus’ claim in Against Heresies Book 2 Chapter 22 that Jesus lived to be about 50 years old. Compare Jn 8.57:

You are not yet fifty years old, and have you

seen Abraham?

This is why the Bible repeatedly emphasizes that the “promise” is fulfilled in Abraham’s old age. That’s why something happened to Enoch when he was 65 years old, represented metaphorically through his giving birth to Methuselah, a symbol of eternity (Gen. 5.21; cf. 5.24)! All these pericopes are symbols of the promised “seed” who is Christ (Gal. 3.16).

Conclusion

To sum up, in contrast to the *historical* starting points of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy that have been traditionally proposed, I have presented an alternative *futurist-eschatological* model that can be equally applied with more success, and one that is actually more straightforward and faithful to the text’s grammar, canonical context, and authorial intent.

Here’s a case in point. By way of allusion, Dan. 12.1 is almost certainly employing the messianic terminology of “an anointed prince” (Dan. 9.25; cf. 10.21; Isa. 9.6) to signify the Messiah’s death and resurrection at the time of the end:

At that time Michael, the great prince, the

protector of your people, shall

arise.

The Fullness of Time Theology: A Critique of Covenant And Dispensational Theology

By Author Eli Kittim

My Agreements and Disagreements with both Camps

One has to be au courant with Biblical Hermeneutics to evaluate various facets of Christian theology. I would like to stress at the outset that I’m not a proponent of either covenant or dispensational theology. I do accept certain aspects of both theologies while rejecting others.

I’m not a reformed theologian but I do agree that the Old Testament (OT) is essentially Christocentric (not Jewishcentric) and that the New Testament (NT) is not talking about two peoples (the church and the Jews) but rather one: the elect (cf. Eph. 2.19-20), which is to say the Biblical metanarrative of the OT is not about a race but about a person: the Messiah! Some pastors, like John Hagee, have gone so far as to say that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved by their own covenants. The dispensational view is therefore unbiblical because it creates 2 people of God: the Jews and the church. Part of the problem is their reliance on denotative meanings and a literal interpretation of Scripture. In my view, the church doesn’t replace Israel. The church is Israel (cf. Rom. 9.8; Gal. 3.29; 6.16). It’s always been about the elect in Christ. If in fact there are 2 peoples with 2 sets of standards (law & grace) by which they’re saved, then that would invalidate Christ’s atonement, as would the rebuilding of the third temple, which would necessitate the reinstituting of animal sacrifices.

The Dispensation of the Fullness of Time

As a framework for biblical interpretation, dispensationalism is often described as a series of ages or different periods in history. This interpretative framework defines each distinctive time period as a dispensation or an administration of an age. But the only temporal dispensation I find in the NT is that of the fullness of time. Ephesians 1.9-10 reads:

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν

τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ

τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ.

Translation (NRSV):

“he has made known to us the mystery of his

will, according to his good pleasure that he

set forth in Christ, as a plan [οἰκονομίαν] for

the fullness of time, to gather up all things

in him, things in heaven and things on

earth.”

In short; the designation “the fullness of time” (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) refers to the period of time (οἰκονομίαν; dispensation) when all things, both in in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ. The Greek word ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι means to “sum up” (see G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], pp. 1094-95).

So, according to Eph. 1.10, it’s “a plan [dispensation] for the fullness of time,” which will culminate “at the end of the age” (cf. Gal. 4.4; Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Heb. 9.26b)! Surprisingly, neither covenant theology nor dispensational theology refer to this Biblical dispensation. Similarly, in Acts 3.19-21, Peter is addressing a crowd and astoundingly refers to Christ’s coming in the context of futurist eschatology. He refers to “the Messiah appointed for you” as the προκεχειρισμένον (i.e. appointed beforehand) Christ “Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.” Peter says:

“Repent therefore, and turn to God so that

your sins may be wiped out, so that times of

refreshing may come from the presence of

the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah

appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must

remain in heaven until the time of universal

restoration that God announced long ago

through his holy prophets.”

Thus, the key Biblical dispensation or plan of God is the one pertaining to the fullness of time (i.e. at the end of the age) when all his plans will be fulfilled.

Grace Has Always Existed

Ephesians 3.1-9 explains that God’s plan was always to turn the entire world into Israel (i.e. a holy people, not a race):

“This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner

for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles

—for surely you have already heard of the

commission [οἰκονομίαν; dispensation] of

God’s grace that was given me for you, and

how the mystery was made known to me by

revelation [ἀποκάλυψιν], as I wrote above in

a few words, a reading of which will enable

you to perceive my understanding of the

mystery of Christ. In former generations this

mystery was not made known to

humankind, as it has now been revealed to

his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:

that is, the Gentiles have become fellow

heirs, members of the same body, and

sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus

through the gospel. Of this gospel I have

become a servant according to the gift of

God’s grace that was given me by the

working of his power. Although I am the very

least of all the saints, this grace was given

to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of

the boundless riches of Christ, and to make

everyone see what is the plan [οἰκονομία;

dispensation] of the mystery hidden for

ages in God who created all things.”

In other words, it was part of God’s plan from the outset to call the entire world Israel! The dispensation or plan of God was to reveal the mystery that the Gentiles also form part of the chosen people of God. However, before we can demonstrate this point, we first need to show how grace was always available, even from the time of the Pentateuch (the Torah).

I should note, parenthetically, that there’s a theological confusion pertaining to God’s dispensation of grace with regard to soteriology. Many Biblical thinkers mistakenly assume that God’s grace is not offered to humanity until the *timing* of the atonement, or the cross, if you will. The age prior to that is often viewed as a time that precedes the age of grace. But that is an incorrect position which presumes that our salvation cannot precede the timing of Christ’s sacrifice (see my article: Theology Versus Chronology https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611676639545393152/theology-versus-chronology-a-soteriological-view).

One could reasonably argue that grace was always available “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2.23) and was even explicitly mentioned in the writings of the law and the prophets. Deut. 30.6 is a case in point. The undermentioned verse from the Torah doesn’t appeal to works but to grace:

“circumcise your heart and the heart of your

descendants, so that you will love the Lord

your God with all your heart and with all

your soul, in order that you may live.”

Ezekiel 36:26 is very similar. Here, once again, the OT is not referring to Works but to Grace. The text reads:

“I will give you a new heart and put a new

spirit in you; I will remove from you your

heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.”

Jeremiah 31.33 (cf. 24.7; 32.39-40) is along similar lines:

“I will put my law within them, and I will write

it on their hearts.”

In a comparable manner, Ezekiel 18.31 (cf. 11.19) says:

“Cast away from you all the transgressions

that you have committed against me, and

get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!

Why will you die, O house of Israel?”

But if this covenant with Israel is a covenant of Grace (cf. Jer. 31.33; Heb. 8.10), then who is Israel? Answer: the elect; the chosen people; those who are in Christ. If that was always God’s plan or οἰκονομίαν, to which all things in the OT pointed, then Grace was always available and did not suddenly come into play during NT times.

Therefore, there are not two people of God but only one: those who are in Christ. At the end of the age, Christ will not judge the world like a shepherd separating three types of people: the elect, the reprobates, and the Jews. Rather, he will separate “the sheep from the goats” (Mt. 25.32). In other words, there are only two categories: you are either in Christ or out of Christ!

What is more, Pastors do Christianity a disservice when erroneously stating that the Jews will be saved after the rapture. No they will not! The gates will be shut after the church leaves the earth. Matthew 25.10-12:

“and the door was shut. Later the other

bridesmaids came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord,

open to us.' But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I

do not know you.' “

That’s what the Parable of the Ten Virgins signifies. The 10 virgins represent the church that is waiting for the Bridegroom, who is Jesus (Mt. 9.15), to take her away in the rapture——“for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready” (Rev. 19.7).

That is what the parable of the 10 virgins means. To teach that Jews will be saved after the rapture is a false and dangerous teaching that is jeopardizing people’s lives.

Just because the Jews misinterpreted their Scriptures doesn’t mean that grace wasn’t available or that God didn’t refer to their regeneration-through-the-spirit in the OT. Therefore, to arbitrarily superimpose different dispensational ages and read them back into the text is as dangerous as it is reprehensible.

So, Grace was always present from the very beginning. But it was not fully understood until the NT era. But that doesn’t mean that it was not alluded to or explicitly referenced in the OT. It certainly was, as I have demonstrated.

What Does the term Israel Mean?

The term Israel can refer to many things. It can mean the promise land (Palestine); it can signify the former northern kingdom; it can refer to the purported historical person known as Jacob; it can be a reference to the 12 tribes; it can refer to God’s chosen people (of which a subset would be God’s people of the OT & NT); Israel can refer to Jews; it could mean the modern nation that’s located in the Middle East; it can also refer to anyone who is of the Abrahamic covenant; that is, the descendants of Abraham (both figuratively and literally) can be called Israel; the religion itself can be called Israel (i.e. those who worship Yahweh); the people of God in today’s generation (aka the church) can also be called Israel; and so on and so forth. Thus, to interpret this term exclusively as “the Jews” is to ignore all the nuances of meaning that the text provides. Using the analogy of Scripture, we allow Paul to give us an exact definition of what it means to be a "Jew" within the NT context. Apparently, the biblical term Jew does not denote a race but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. In Romans 2.28-29, Paul writes:

“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,

nor is circumcision that which is outward in

the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one

inwardly; and circumcision is that which is

of the heart.”

To further explore the significance of this passage, read William Barclay, a world-renowned NT scholar, and his commentaries in the book, The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975, p. 47). What is more, 1 Pet 2.9 uses OT language, related to Israel, to describe the elect in Christ:

“But you are a chosen race, a royal

priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his

own possession, that you may proclaim the

excellencies of him who called you out of

darkness into his marvelous light.”

Who Are the Heirs of the OT Promises of God?

In the Book of Romans, Paul does not explicitly deny the notion that the concept of grace existed in OT writings. Since this was foreshadowed but not fully explained in the OT——with the exception of some soteriological allusions in certain passages, such as Isaiah 53.3-8 and Zechariah 12.9-10, for instance——Paul takes it upon himself to expound the merits of Grace vis-à-vis the messianic atonement in his letter to the Romans.

Even Covenant theologians find this so-called new manifestation of grace rather disturbing. According to them, there is only one covenant of grace that has been operating uniformly in each and every age. Thus, when Paul discusses “the commission of God's grace that was given” to him (Eph. 3.2), he’s referring to a “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψιν) in Eph. 3.3-7:

“the mystery was made known to me by

revelation, as I wrote above in a few words,

a reading of which will enable you to

perceive my understanding of the mystery

of Christ. In former generations this mystery

was not made known to humankind, as it

has now been revealed to his holy apostles

and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the

Gentiles have become fellow heirs,

members of the same body, and sharers in

the promise in Christ Jesus through the

gospel. Of this gospel I have become a

servant according to the gift of God's grace

that was given me by the working of his

power.”

What is this secret that “in former generations” was unknown? Ephesians 3.6 asserts that “the Gentiles have become fellow heirs”:

συνκληρονόμα [joint-heirs] καὶ [and]

σύσσωμα [a joint-body] καὶ [and]

συμμέτοχα [joint-partakers] τῆς [of

the] ἐπαγγελίας [promises] ἐν [in] Χριστῷ

[Christ] Ἰησοῦ [Jesus].

This means that the Israelites are not the sole inheritors of the OT promises of God. The Gentiles are co-inheritors. That is, they are identical with or equivalent to the people of Israel. In other words, they are like Israel in every conceivable way with regard to their divine relationship and position. In short, they share equal rights and status with Israel as the chosen people of God, the elect, so that they and Israel have become one and the same! This means that the OT passages regarding Israel, or the chosen people of God, necessarily allude to them, given that they figure prominently in the economy of God’s plan. However, in the end, it is those that are in Christ that are truly chosen (whether Jew or Gentile), not simply the literal Israelites. As descendants, Jews cannot appeal to their tradition for salvation, as if to say “We have Abraham as our father” (Mt. 3.9), because race alone will not save them (cf. Rom. 2.28-29).

The Fallacies of Dispensationalism

What is more, the arbitrary dispensations that refer to the age of innocence or the age of conscience have always been uniformly present in the development of human beings. They are not ages of time but rather stages of human development. A child is innocent until he/she reaches the age of reason or conscience after which they can make moral choices and decisions. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of humankind. It is the tale of temptation during the age of innocence in the life of every human being. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a connotative representation of those dual proclivities latent within the unconscious mind. There is no literal Cherubim wielding a flaming sword, or a literal garden, nor is there a tree of life planted somewhere on the earth which can make one live forever (i.e. the so-called fountain of youth). This is metaphorical language. To turn allegory into biography and call it the age of innocence or the age of conscience is a literal misrepresentation of Scripture.

Moreover, dispensationalists hypothesize the coming of a Millennial Kingdom, which seems to be a representation of the *timing* pertaining to the end of the age rather than a literal thousand year reign on earth (See my article, The Fallacies of Millennialism: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/634098142546198528/the-fallacies-of-millennialism).

Conclusion