quarta-feira, 27 de junho de 2012

How Do Man-Made Theories Fail to Justify Morality Apart from God?

By





What are the various philosophies of ethics that mankind adheres to? When I was in law school, I was required to examine this question as a part of my study of Professional Responsibility for attorneys. I know what you’re thinking: “Attorneys are required to study about ethics?!” Yes, it is true, and the fact that this study makes little difference on the ethical reputation of attorneys demonstrates once again what Jesus said long ago that one can “make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within [be] full of extortion and excess” (Matthew 23:25). Mere education will not make a person more ethical. Becoming truly moral begins with God changing the inside through redemption.
The Bible teaches us that there are ultimately only two schools of ethics: (1) God’s; and (2) man’s. But “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts,” saith the Lord. (See Isaiah 55:9.)
That being the case, however, it is helpful to be aware of the prevalent variations of man’s philosophy of ethics. Below, I have adapted a book report I wrote for lawschool summarizing the ten schools of ethics observed in the world. To some of you, these descriptions may sound incredibly basic, but I think it’s good for us to review the basics at times. Each of these schools of ethics are applications of many other schools of philosophy and religion, but we’ll save the analysis on those for another time. Nearly all of the man-made schools of ethics described below have aspects of truth to them, but ultimately they each fall short. The final one does not because it is not man-made.
Might Is Right
Under the “might is right” view of ethics (sometimes called “authoritarianism”), the person who has the most power is right. Usually, this is referring to political power although it has also been applied to physical, psychological, or other kinds of power. While few people profess this view, many of them practice it. However, it has multiple flaws, including: (1) a failure to distinguish between power and goodness; (2) a historical contradiction found in the examples of men like Nero, Stalin, and Hitler.

 Morals Are MoresThis view defines ethics as being determined by the ethnic group to which it belongs. The community says what is right. The view is justified under the idea that whatever the way things are (tradition) is the way they ought to be. However, many tragedies occur in the world such as murder, rape, and kidnapping tied to various culture’s traditions, but the mere fact that these things happen does not justify their morality. The Mayans, for example, traditionally killed children and offered their hearts to pagan gods. Can we really say that the fact that this activity was deeply rooted in tradition from that culture justified it?
Individual Man Is the Measure
This view holds that each person’s will determines what is right and wrong for that person. Existentialists and pure humanistic libertarians often favor this view. The problem with it is that two different people could conceivably have totally opposite but equally valid standards of ethics under this view. Thus, even something hateful or cruel may be right if a person believes it is right. Furthermore, it is a weed for chaos as every person does what is right in his own eyes.
The Human Race Is the Basis of Right
Under this view, what mankind wills determines what is right and wrong. However, the moral beliefs of mankind change over the years, and often mankind differs among itself on morals. Multiple nations often have warred with other nations having differing views of morality.
Right Is Moderation
Aristotle was one to argue that morality is found in the “golden mean.” For example, he believed that bravery is the halfway point between fear and aggression, and that pride is the halfway point between vanity and humility. The problems with this view are that sometimes the right thing to do may be the extreme thing. The first-century Christians were “extreme” when compared to the Jews or the Romans because they were challenging the status quo. There is no universal agreement among men on what is “moderate” for all subjects and time periods, and thus moderation can only be a general relative guide, not an objective one.
Right Is What Brings Pleasure
The Epicureans were among the first to profess this view. As hedonists, they believed that what brings pleasure is morally right and what brings pain is morally wrong. The good, they believed, is what brings the greatest pleasure and least pain to the greatest number of people. However, sadists receive pleasure from inflicting pain on others. So is the sadist’s pleasure good or bad? Also, is long-term pleasure or immediate pleasure the test?
Right Is the Greatest Good the for the Greatest Number
This is the utilitarian view of morality. Utilitarians believe what is good is what brings the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run. Do you detect the circular reasoning? Utilitarians also differ as to whether good should be understood in terms of quality or quantity.

Right Is What Is Desirable for Its Own SakeUnder this view, virtue is what is only desirable for its own sake. Virtue is thus an end but not a means. The weakness of this view is three-fold: First, it only states the direction of morality but fails to define it. Second, we often desire what is evil such as adultery, theft, and harm to others. Third, some things that seem good to someone are actually bad, such as suicide at a time of distress.
Right Is Indefineable
Under this view, if good is defined in terms of something else then that something else becomes the standard of intrinsic good. Thus, those holding to this view of ethics refuse to define moral goodness at all. Without a standard of what is good, however, we have no way to distinguish between a good act and a bad act. Also, although what is right may not be defined in terms of something “more ultimate,” that does not mean it cannot be defined at all.
Good Is God’s Will
The Christian view is that good is what God wills. It is what He sovereignly decrees to happen or what He prescribes in His Word. It is what He approves by His own holy nature. While some may call this “authoritarianism,” it is not because authoritarianism occurs only when the one claiming authority is less than ultimate. God, being truly ultimate in His authority, has the right to play the role of the ultimate authority.
As Jesus  Christ said, “ there is none good but one, that is, God” (Matthew 19:17). A theory of ethics is only as good as its foundation. Since man without God is not morally good, no theory resting on man can be good either. Our ethics, our morals, and our laws, must be built on the righteous foundation of God. This is one example of why we say that law, ethics, morality, and philosophy are inescapably religious in nature.

Yes, Early Humans Wrote

 
Exodus 17:14
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this [for] a memorial in a book, and rehearse [it] in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."
Evolutionary scientists have been amazed by the discovery that the very oldest artifacts left by humans indicate written language and mathematical ability. Creationists, on the other hand, are as pleased as can be at the findings, since they predicted that it would be possible to find that humans have had language throughout their history on Earth. After all, they were created by the Early Humans WroteWord of God – who later took human flesh upon Himself. And before the Fall away from God into sin, humans were able to speak directly with God.
While we do not accept the inflated evolutionary years, evolutionists now say that human written language goes back at least 30,000 years. Not long ago they said writing had not even been invented at the time of Moses!
When archaeologist Alexander Marshack determined that one ancient carving was a calendar, scientists sat up and took notice. This discovery meant not only that ancient humans had a sense of time, but that they also had a written language and the desire and ability to do math. No matter how far back one is able to find evidence of humanity, language was already established.
Humans have always been human. If our actions are less than human, it is because sin has taken over. But there is rescue from sin in Jesus Christ. If you don't know Him, or if your life seems less than human, take a look at the Bible and see what He has to offer you.
Prayer: 
Because of his sin, man seeks escape from You. He is so driven to escape that he would rather see himself as a child of apes than a child of God. Help me to bear witness to Your love for us in Christ so that those around me desire Your love more than escape. In Jesus' Name. Amen.
Notes: 
"Ice age artists open doors on early man." Science Digest, May 1978. p. 87. Photo: Middle Babylonian legal tablet is an example of cuneiform script. 
 
Source: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/yes-early-humans-wrote

terça-feira, 26 de junho de 2012

Lançamento da Frente Parlamentar pela ED

Na última terça-feira (29/05/2012) foi lançada, no auditório Freitas Nobre em Brasília, a Frente Parlamentar Mista de Educação Domiciliar, presidida pelo Deputado Federal Lincoln Portela – líder do PR-MG e autor do Projeto de Lei nº 3179/12, que regulamenta a Educação Domiciliar no Brasil.
Além do Deputado, entre os integrantes da mesa estavam Caleb O'kray (diplomata americano, adido de Agricultura na Embaixada dos Estados Unidos); Edilberto Sastre (sociólogo colombiano); Ricardo Iene (presidente da ANED) e Alexandre Magno Moreira (consultor jurídico do MEC e diretor jurídico da ANED).
Estiveram presentes, também, autoridades, parlamentares, chefes de gabinetes e pais que defendem a proposta da ED.
Entre os Deputados presentes, manifestaram-se, subindo à Tribuna os parlamentares: Gonzaga Patriota (PSB-PE), Laércio Oliveira (PR-SE), Luciano Castro (PR-RR), Izalci (PR-DF), Paulo Freire (PR-SP) e o deputado distrital Raad Massouh (PPL). Todos se manifestaram de forma favorável à ED, parabenizando o Dep. Lincoln pela iniciativa.
Em sua fala, Alexandre Magno fez um discurso emocionante sobre a questão jurídica da ED no Brasil. Para tanto, buscou um “caminho inverso” àquele geralmente tomado ao tratar desse assunto: ao invés de tratar do direito dos pais ensinarem em casa, falou sobre o dever dos mesmos com a educação de seus filhos.
Já o diplomata Caleb O'kray, juntamente com a esposa, falou ao público sobre suas experiências como aluno domiciliar. Ele parabenizou a iniciativa e disse que está “empolgado” com o sucesso da modalidade no Brasil.
Destacamos, ainda, a participação dos irmãos irmãos Jônatas e Davi Nunes, que falaram sobre a experiência de serem ensinados em casa e sobre a satisfação de terem recebido o prêmio da Campus Party. Os irmãos foram muito aplaudidos quando honraram o pai pela coragem e iniciativa de educá-los em casa.
Após esse grande passo na luta pela regulamentação da ED, o próximo será uma reunião com o Ministro da Educação Aloízio Mercadante, que ocorrerá na próxima semana. Posteriormente, também haverá uma audiência com a OAB.
Também pretendemos conversar com o Dep. Valdenor Prereira (PT), que foi nomeado relator do projeto de lei.
Diante de tantas boas notícias, nos resta apenas agradecer a todos que têm participado desse movimento.
Muito obrigado!
Fonte: http://www.aned.org.br/

Do Jews Have a Divine Right in the Promised Land?

By John Pipper

How should Bible-believing Christians align themselves in the Jewish-Palestinian conflict? There are Biblical reasons for treating both sides with compassionate public justice in the same way that disputes should be settled between nations generally. In other words, the Bible does not teach us to be partial to Israel or to the Palestinians because either has a special divine status.
I do not deny that Israel was chosen by God from all the peoples of the world to be the focus of special blessing in the history of redemption which climaxed in Jesus Christ, the Messiah. "The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth" (Deuteronomy 7:6).
Nor do I deny that God promised to Israel the presently disputed land from the time of Abraham onward. God said to Moses, "This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, 'I will give it to your offspring'" (Deuteronomy 34:4).
But neither of these Biblical facts leads necessarily to the endorsement of present-day Israel as the rightful possessor of all the disputed land. Israel may have such a right. And she may not. But that decision is not based on divine privilege. Why?
First, a non-covenant-keeping people does not have a divine right to hold the land of promise. Both the blessed status of the people and the privileged right to the land are conditional on Israel's keeping the covenant God made with her. Thus God said to Israel, "If you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples" (Exodus 19:5). Israel has no warrant to a present experience of divine privilege when she is not keeping covenant with God.
More than once Israel was denied the experience of her divine right to the land when she broke covenant with God. For example, when Israel languished in captivity in Babylon, Daniel prayed, "O Lord . . .we have sinned and done wrong . . . To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame . . . to all Israel . . . in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you" (Daniel 9:4-7; see Psalm 78:54-61). Israel has no divine right to be in the land of promise when she is breaking the covenant of promise.
This does not mean that other nations have the right to molest her. She still has human rights among nations when she has no divine right. Nations that gloated over her divine discipline were punished by God (Isaiah 10:5-13).
Secondly, Israel as a whole today rejects her Messiah, Jesus Christ, God's Son. This is the ultimate act of covenant-breaking with God. God promised that to Israel "a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6-7). But with tears this Prince of Peace looked out over Jerusalem and said, "Would that you . . . had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. . . . You did not know the time of your visitation" (Luke 19:42-44).
When the builders rejected the beautiful Cornerstone, Jesus said, "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits" (Matthew 21:43). He explained, "Many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness" (Matthew 8:11-12)
God has saving purposes for ethnic Israel (Romans 11:25-26). But for now the people are at enmity with God in rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ, their Messiah (Romans 11:28). God has expanded his saving work to embrace all peoples (including Palestinians) who will trust his Son and depend on his death and resurrection for salvation. "Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith" (Romans 3:29-30).
The Christian plea in the Middle East to Palestinians and Jews is: "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). And until that great day when both Jewish and Gentile followers of King Jesus inherit the earth (not just the land), without lifting sword or gun, the rights of nations should be decided by the principles of compassionate and public justice, not claims to national divine right or status.

segunda-feira, 25 de junho de 2012

THE DISPENSATIONAL COVENANT IN DANIEL’S 70 WEEKS

 By Kenneth L. Gentry Jr

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Dispensationalists woefully misunderstand the covenant’s confirming in Daniel 9:27. This verse reads: “And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”
According to Walvoord: “This refers to the coming world ruler at the beginning of the last seven years who is able to gain control over ten countries in the Middle East. He will make a covenant with Israel for a seven-year period. As Daniel 9:27 indicates, in the middle of the seven years he will break the covenant, stop the sacrifices being offered in the temple rebuilt in that period, and become their persecutor instead of their protector, fulfilling the promises of Israel’s day of trouble (Jer. 30:5–7).”
Several problems plague this interpretation, some of which I deal with above in another connection:
(1) The covenant here is not made, it is confirmed. This is actually the confirmation of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace, which Christ confirms (Ro 15:8; cp. Ro 4:16; 2Co 1:20).
(2) As I note above the term “make a firm covenant” relates to the angel’s name who delivers the message to Daniel: Gabriel (“God is strong“). The lexical correspondence between the name of God’s strong angel and the making strong of the covenant suggests the covenant’s divine nature. In addition, covenantal passages frequently employ related terms, when speaking of God’s strong covenant.
(3) The parallelism with verse 26 indicates that the Messiah’s death directly relates to the covenant’s confirming. he is “cut off” but “not for himself” (v 26a), for he “confirms the covenant” for the “many” of Israel (v 27a). His “cutting off” brings the covenant’s confirmation, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb 9:22).
(4) The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince who is to come” of verse 26. That “prince” is a subordinate noun; “the people” (plural) is the dominant noun. Thus, the “he” refers back to the last dominant individual mentioned: “Messiah” (v 26a). The Messiah is the leading figure in the whole prophecy, so the temple’s destruction relates to his death. In fact, the people who destroy the temple are providentially “his armies” (Mt 22:2–7).
Clearly, the dispensational view of Daniel’s covenant is mistaken.


1. John F. Walvoord, Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 257. J. D. Pentecost, “Daniel,” Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1:1364.
2. Dt 7:9, 21; 10:17; Neh 1:5; 9:32; Isa 9:6; Da 9:4. See my earlier discussion above.

Preoccupied with the Antichrist

By Gary DeMAr




Dr. Michael Yousseff is an Egyptian-born American and founding rector of The Church of The Apostles. His messages are broadcast 3,800 times a week into 200 countries through Leading the Way Ministries. He holds a PhD from Emory University in Social Anthropology. Church of the Apostles is a magnificent church that has an old-world cathedral look about it. It’s located just north of Atlanta, Georgia, on I-75. If you’re ever in the Atlanta area, you need to take some time and visit. You won’t be disappointed.
I was disappointed, however, when I read Dr. Youseff’s article “The Fall of Dictators and the Antichrist” that was published on the Christian Post website. Here’s part of what he wrote:
The Bible indicates that a world-dominating character will rise at some point. That person is often referred to as the Antichrist.
The Antichrist has certain characteristics that appear to fit many past despots, which led some to speculate about Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein, for example. But speculations are not very helpful. Because of contradictory elements within suspected people, it will be very difficult to predict the Antichrist until he actually appears on the scene and identifies himself publicly.
The Antichrist will show up at a time when there’s true global, political, social, and economic upheaval. And people will believe that he is the only one capable of solving those seemingly insurmountable problems.
He will be charismatic and affable, and he’ll mesmerize people everywhere. Even those normally at odds with each other will be united in liking and following him. He will win global approval by his sheer ability to identify with people of all religions and of no religion at all. Only after he is able to receive adoration from the masses will he reveal his true character and intentions.
The following is an extended comment that I posted on the Christian Post in response to Dr. Yousseff’s article. I’ve made a few corrections and additions for its publican on American Vision’s site:
Dr. Yousseff does not cite a single Bible passage. The only person who uses the word ‘antichrist’ is John in two of his epistles. The word isn’t even found in Revelation. First, the biblical definition of antichrist is someone who does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (2 Jn 7; 1 Jn 2:22). Romans and Greeks would not care about the claim that Jesus was the messiah. Only a Jew would.
Second, the time of the antichrist: “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour” (1 Jn 2:18). “Even NOW many antichrists HAVE arisen,” John writes. “It is the last hour,” he told his first readers. Antichrists (note the plural) were alive and well in John’s day. There is no indication by John that there will be a super-duper, end-time political, European-Union leading, antichrist.
Third, the antichrist is not a political figure; he (‘they,’ because there were ‘many antichrists’: 1 Jn 2:18) is most likely a religious figure. The Jews who rejected Jesus denied that He was the Christ (1 Jn 2:22), that God was His Father (Jn 8:31-59). John’s definition, number, and timing fit his era, not ours.
Of course, not all Jews rejected Jesus. The first Christians were Jews – “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:1–13). The first Church was made up of Jews (Acts 8:1). Gentiles were grafted into an already existing congregation (ekklēsia) of believers. Non-believing Jews rejected the notion that Jesus was the messiah, the Christ (Greek for “anointed one”). They were anti-Jesus-is-the-promised-Christ (messiah).
Fourth, too many Christians have created a composite religious-political antichrist, taking passages out of their historical context, ignoring the timing of those contexts, and then manufacturing a demon-controlled superman who supposedly will make a covenant with the Jews and then break it. Jesus is “the Prince” (Dan. 9:24–27) who makes a covenant with “the many” (Matt. 26:28) not the antichrist. Satan doesn’t make covenants; God does.
Yes, there have been bad people in the world, as Dr. Yousseff points out. Many prophecy writers have claimed that some of these very bad people were the biblical antichrist. Oswald J. Smith, for example, wrote a book on the antichrist in 1926 using the composite methodology and came up with Benito Mussolini. He was wrong.
The list of antichrist candidates is too long to duplicate. Not one of these antichrist candidates fits the biblical definition. Yes, there are people today who do not acknowledge that Jesus came in the flesh, but the circumstances of that denial do not fit what was going on in John’s day about “the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Rev 2:9; 3:9).
The following is a portion of the message THE CORNERSTONE AT THE CROSSROADS that was presented by Romanian pastor Josef Tson at the Graduate School of Wheaton College in 1991 where he received an honorary doctorate. It was later published in the August/September 1991 edition of the Wheaton Alumni.
This is a historic time. It is in fact one of the great turning points in human history. I wonder if you here in peaceful America grasp the magnitude of the change we have experienced in Eastern Europe. Radical changes, however, are taking place not only in Eastern Europe, but also in the whole climate of the intellectual life of the world.
 It shouldn’t be necessary to speak about the importance of understanding the times, but let me remind you of that great insight that we find in 1 Chronicles 12:32 in the description of the 200 men of the tribe of Issachar “who understood the times” and because of that understanding of history, “were able to tell Israel what to do.”
 Let me illustrate the importance of understanding the times from my own experience. The communist disaster fell on my country [of Romania] when I was a teenager. For many years after that, my life was a battle for intellectual and spiritual survival under Marxist indoctrination and totalitarian and Christian terror. I struggled to understand the nature of that calamity, and the Lord gave me that understanding. In the forties, I wrote papers on the nature of the failure of communism. One of them, published under the title The Christian Manifesto landed me in six months of house arrest with harsh interrogations by the secret police. But for me the crucial moment came in 1977, when a friend of mine challenged me to set up an organization that would openly expose communism.
Here is what I told him: “Communism is an experiment that has failed. It wasn’t able to fulfill any of its many promises and nobody believes in it any more. Because of this, it will one day collapse on its own. Now, why should I fight something that is finished? I believe that our task is a different one. When communism collapses, somebody has to be there to rebuild society! I believe our job as Christian teachers is to train leaders so that they will be ready and capable to rebuild our society on a Christian basis.”
To my surprise, here is what my friend said to me: “Josef, you are wrong. Communism will triumph all over the world, because this is the movement of the Antichrist. And when the communists take over in the United States, they will have no restraining force left. They will then kill all the Christians. We have only one job to do: to alert the world and make ready to die.”
A few years later my friend was forced to leave Romania. He came to the U.S. and settled down. Then I was forced into exile, and I moved to the U.S. as well. Since then, my friend has not done anything for Romania. He simply waited for the final triumph of communism and the annihilation of Christianity.
On the other hand, when I came here in 1981, I started a training program for Christian leaders in Romania. We translated Christian textbooks and smuggled them into Romania. With our partners in the organization, The Biblical Education by Extension (BEE), we trained about 1200 people all over Romania. Today, those people who were trained in that underground operation are the leaders in churches, in evangelical denominations, and in key Christian ministries.
You see, the way you look to the future determines your planning and your actions. It is the way you understand the times that determines what you are going to do.

domingo, 24 de junho de 2012

IS THERE A GAP IN THE SEVENTY WEEKS?

By Kenneth L. Gentry Jr

Dispensationalism incorporates a gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. This gap spans the entire Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the rapture. [1] The dispensational arguments for a gap of undetermined length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks are not convincing. Let us consider a few of their leading arguments in this regard.
First, the peculiar phraseology in Daniel. Daniel places the cutting off of the Messiah “after the 62 ‘sevens,’ not in the 70th ‘seven.’” [2] This (allegedly) allows for a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth-weeks. If the cutting-off did not occur during the sixty-ninth week or during the seventieth week, a gap must exist between them.
In response it is obvious that seventy occurs after sixty-nine, and thus fits the requirements of the prophecy. Consequently, such an argument does not prove that the word “after” requires a gap. Besides, Daniel mentions only seventy weeks and, as LaRondelle has pointed out, Daniel most certainly does not say “after sixty-nine weeks, but not in the seventieth.” [3] Such an explanation is a gratuitous assumption demanded by dispensational system requirements. Since Daniel has yet to deal with the seventieth week, and since he clearly deals with the preceding sixty-nine weeks (Da 9:25), it is quite natural to assume this cutting off of the Messiah must be sometime within the seven-year period covered by the seventieth week.
Second, a fatal admission. Walvoord writes: “historically the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in AD 70 almost forty years after the death of Christ.” [4] So, the argument goes, since Daniel prophesies this event as occurring within the seventy weeks, “the continuous fulfillment theory [is] left without any explanation adequate for interposing an event as occurring after the sixty-ninth seven by some thirty-eight years.” [5]
I explain the relation of the seventy weeks to the destruction of the temple in AD 70 above. The goal of the Seventy Weeks is not the AD 70 destruction of the temple, which Daniel does not mention in Daniel 9:24. That destruction is a later consequence of certain events that will occur within the seventy weeks. The actual act of God’s reserving judgment (v 24) occurs within the seventy weeks; the later removal of that reservation does not. No necessity at all for a gap exists.
Third, the general tendency in prophecy. Walvoord writes: “Nothing should be plainer to one reading the Old Testament than that the foreview therein provided did not describe the period of time between the two advents. This very fact confused even the prophets (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).” [6] His argument then is: Old Testament prophecy can merge the first and second advents into one scene, though separated by thousands of years. Consequently, we have biblical warrant for understanding the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks as merged into one scene, although separated by a gap of thousands of years.