This could easily be separated by 2000 years. It doesn't need to be mentioned.
For instance what would you say about this
Dan 12:1-2
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
(KJV)
Do you believe Daniel 12:1 is speaking of 70 AD. If so you must also believe the resurrection occurred directly afterward if you are consistent with your theory that anything side by side absent from any mention of a gap must occur at the same time.
So is Daniel 12:1 about a future tribulation or has there already been a resurrection?
Kingdom poll
-
_AARONDISNEY
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:39 pm
- Location: southernINDIANA
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Aaron,
I am one who thinks it is possible that the tribulation in Daniel 12:1 is AD 70, and that the event described in verse two is probably the resurrection of the last day—2000+ years removed from AD 70. However, I would not call that 2000 years a "gap" in a case like this.
Between the two events, we are told: "And at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is written in the book" (v.1b). It is therefore predicted that there will be a "time" during which Daniel's people, the believing remnant of Israel, will be delivered (saved). It does not tell whether this "time" will be one second or one million years. It is an undesignated length of time.
If we were to suggest that the period of the past 2000 years is to be identified with this time of deliverance (or "day of salvation," as Paul puts it—2 Cor.6:2), we would not thereby be advocating the insertion of an unmentioned "gap" in the prophecy. We would merely be indicating the length of the "time" mentioned in the passage.
It is quite different to say, for example, that there is a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel 9, or between the first and second halves of Isaiah 61:2, or in Matthew 25:31ff. Such gaps do not correspond to any of the words in the passages themselves. They are simply imported ex nihilo.
In the case of Matthew 25:31ff, in particular, I am not clear even between which portions one would suggest placing a gap. I suppose it would be between verses 31 and 32. I am not sure if you are suggesting that the millennium be placed in this passage (you mentioned a 2000 year gap, though you might have meant 1000 years). I will admit that the passage would not specifically exclude there being a thousand years between these two verses, but if Jesus believed in such a millennium, I do not know why He would never mention it (nor did any of the apostles in any of their discussions of eschatology).
I guess I would see the suggestion of a millennium between these two verses as arbitrary, not based upon any teaching of Christ elsewhere, nor particularly consistent with His and the apostles' other eschatological teachings. Also, one must admit that the passage gives the strong impression that the events described occur at the same time. If there was a millennium intended by Christ, it would almost seem that He was trying to conceal it from His hearers, which doesn't strike me as something He would have any reason to do.
One more point. I know that one of your concerns is that you should not unnecessarily reject the literal interpretation of the promises to Israel in relastion to the kingdom. While I have come to the place where I feel comfortable with spiritualizing most of these passages, I would recommend that you not worry about that aspect at this point. Even if you feel you must take them all literally, consider this: there is no passage about the kingdom or the restoration of Israel that identifies it with a thousand-year period. The Bible always says that the reign of the Messiah is "forever" and having "no end" (e.g., Isaiah 9:6-7, and many others).
The only mention of the thousand years is in Revelation 20, and that passage does not mention Israel or any of the promises you are referring to in the passages that you are asking about. Suppose you continue to understand all these passages literally, and apply them (as Isaiah 65:17ff does) to the New Earth, instead of an interrim millennium. What is lost by this proceedure? The only thing you would need to abandon, would be the insistence on taking Revelation 20 literally (and I have not yet been able to persuade a premillennialist to tell me what arguments exist for taking this passage literally, instead of symbolically).
What you would gain in exchange would be an ease of application of every other scriptural passage about eschatology, without being required to spiritualize the kingdom. In other words, you would still see the restoration of Israel in all the same ways as you now see that subject, but you would see them fulfilled forever in the New Earth, rather than in a millennium. I am not saying you would be correct in seeing things this way, but you would be more correct than at present (in my humble opinion), and it would remain for you to decide at your leisure, on a case-by-case basis, which passages should or should not be spiritualized. This is obviously a "baby step" toward amillennialism, which fact may make it frightening (a "slippery slope," perhaps).
However, it may just turn out that amillennialism is correct (the church taught it as official orthodoxy for 1600 years). In any case, I don't care whether you ever become amillennial or not. I just think that there are certain hills that are not worthy of dying on—like the insistence that Revelation 20 must be taken literally (unlike the rest of the Book of Revelation)—which is the only bit of biblical material that forms any basis for belief in a millennium.
I realize that you have expressed a desire to draw back from the eschatological discussion, and I want to honor that desire. I don't mean to draw you back in. However, I thought you might wish to see the difference between an approach like mine to a passage like Daniel 12, and the approach to several passages taken by dispensationalism.
I am one who thinks it is possible that the tribulation in Daniel 12:1 is AD 70, and that the event described in verse two is probably the resurrection of the last day—2000+ years removed from AD 70. However, I would not call that 2000 years a "gap" in a case like this.
Between the two events, we are told: "And at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is written in the book" (v.1b). It is therefore predicted that there will be a "time" during which Daniel's people, the believing remnant of Israel, will be delivered (saved). It does not tell whether this "time" will be one second or one million years. It is an undesignated length of time.
If we were to suggest that the period of the past 2000 years is to be identified with this time of deliverance (or "day of salvation," as Paul puts it—2 Cor.6:2), we would not thereby be advocating the insertion of an unmentioned "gap" in the prophecy. We would merely be indicating the length of the "time" mentioned in the passage.
It is quite different to say, for example, that there is a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel 9, or between the first and second halves of Isaiah 61:2, or in Matthew 25:31ff. Such gaps do not correspond to any of the words in the passages themselves. They are simply imported ex nihilo.
In the case of Matthew 25:31ff, in particular, I am not clear even between which portions one would suggest placing a gap. I suppose it would be between verses 31 and 32. I am not sure if you are suggesting that the millennium be placed in this passage (you mentioned a 2000 year gap, though you might have meant 1000 years). I will admit that the passage would not specifically exclude there being a thousand years between these two verses, but if Jesus believed in such a millennium, I do not know why He would never mention it (nor did any of the apostles in any of their discussions of eschatology).
I guess I would see the suggestion of a millennium between these two verses as arbitrary, not based upon any teaching of Christ elsewhere, nor particularly consistent with His and the apostles' other eschatological teachings. Also, one must admit that the passage gives the strong impression that the events described occur at the same time. If there was a millennium intended by Christ, it would almost seem that He was trying to conceal it from His hearers, which doesn't strike me as something He would have any reason to do.
One more point. I know that one of your concerns is that you should not unnecessarily reject the literal interpretation of the promises to Israel in relastion to the kingdom. While I have come to the place where I feel comfortable with spiritualizing most of these passages, I would recommend that you not worry about that aspect at this point. Even if you feel you must take them all literally, consider this: there is no passage about the kingdom or the restoration of Israel that identifies it with a thousand-year period. The Bible always says that the reign of the Messiah is "forever" and having "no end" (e.g., Isaiah 9:6-7, and many others).
The only mention of the thousand years is in Revelation 20, and that passage does not mention Israel or any of the promises you are referring to in the passages that you are asking about. Suppose you continue to understand all these passages literally, and apply them (as Isaiah 65:17ff does) to the New Earth, instead of an interrim millennium. What is lost by this proceedure? The only thing you would need to abandon, would be the insistence on taking Revelation 20 literally (and I have not yet been able to persuade a premillennialist to tell me what arguments exist for taking this passage literally, instead of symbolically).
What you would gain in exchange would be an ease of application of every other scriptural passage about eschatology, without being required to spiritualize the kingdom. In other words, you would still see the restoration of Israel in all the same ways as you now see that subject, but you would see them fulfilled forever in the New Earth, rather than in a millennium. I am not saying you would be correct in seeing things this way, but you would be more correct than at present (in my humble opinion), and it would remain for you to decide at your leisure, on a case-by-case basis, which passages should or should not be spiritualized. This is obviously a "baby step" toward amillennialism, which fact may make it frightening (a "slippery slope," perhaps).
However, it may just turn out that amillennialism is correct (the church taught it as official orthodoxy for 1600 years). In any case, I don't care whether you ever become amillennial or not. I just think that there are certain hills that are not worthy of dying on—like the insistence that Revelation 20 must be taken literally (unlike the rest of the Book of Revelation)—which is the only bit of biblical material that forms any basis for belief in a millennium.
I realize that you have expressed a desire to draw back from the eschatological discussion, and I want to honor that desire. I don't mean to draw you back in. However, I thought you might wish to see the difference between an approach like mine to a passage like Daniel 12, and the approach to several passages taken by dispensationalism.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve