RESPONSE
TO IRVIN BAXTER JR.
AND FUTURISTIC PROPHECY TEACHING
|
Dear Bro. Irvin Baxter Jr.,
I read your article posted on Jim Yohe's website, and wish to respond to you personally. I wish to also post this response to you on my website at http://mikeblume.com/prophecy.htm I respect you as a minister, but wish to note that you severely misrepresented us as Apostolic preterists. I also have your video series refuting preterism, and will respond to you personally via email and on my website. In your article you make the abomination noted in Dan 9:27 to be equal with the abomination of Dan 11:30-31, and then you noted the ridiculous proposals we make based upon that, as though we agreed the two references spoke of the same person. They are not the same abominations. Secondly, you speak against "historicism" and not Partial Preterism. Historicists believe the papacy is the Beast, while Apostolic Preterists do not. Jesus said that Jerusalem is the one guilty of all blood shed on earth (Mat 23:35), telling us that Jerusalem is the whore of Rev 18:24 who had all blood shed on earth inside her. Jesus said that, brother. You correctly say that historicists believe Jesus is the "HE" in Dan 9:27 who confirms a covenant for one week. Apostolic Preterists agree. But you say this demands that Jesus be the one who places an abomination of desolation in the temple. This is incorrect. I feel that you are incorrect when you state that the "he" in Dan 9:27 is the same "he" (actually the pronoun is "his") in Dan 11:30-31. We cannot say they are the same person simply because there is a similarity in thought of sacrifices and abomination. Dan 11:30-31 is speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes, whom you admit is understood by others to be that one noted in Dan 11. You disagree, because you feel that Jesus made reference to Dan 11:30-31 in Matthew 24:15. Jesus did not make reference to Dan 11. He made reference to Dan 9:27. But since I believe that you confuse Dan 9:27 and Dan 11:30-31 to refer to the same man, you mistakenly accuse us of demanding that Jesus must commit abomination of desolation in the temple. There is no such conclusion when we realize that the two references in Daniel are not referring to the same person. We claim Jesus is the one in Dan 9:27. And Antiochus Epiphanes is the one noted in 11:30-31. So when Jesus referred to Dan 9:27 and the abomination of desolation, he said nothing about a single person placing the abomination. In fact, Jesus discussion in Matthew 24 is also recorded in Luke 21. And if you compare notes between the two Gospel accounts you realize that Rome's siege against Jerusalem was associated with the abomination of desolation. QUOTE Matthew 24:15-16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, ... then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains.." Luke 21:20-21 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains... If Matthew's account says the Church must flee when it sees the abomination of desolation, and the same discussion in Luke's account says the church must flee when it sees Jerusalem compassed with armies, then the abomination of desolation is associated with the siege against Jerusalem by those armies! And Luke even mentions the desolation associated with the abomination when it says, "KNOW THAT THE DESOLATION THEREOF IS NIGH." You refuse to acknowledge the full picture presented by looking at both Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the same event. You cancel out Luke's version, and focuses on Matthew's alone. You may have done what one futurist did when I was told that Matthew is speaking of the future, while Luke is speaking of 67 AD. But that brother failed to note that both accounts speak of the same conversation in different words! This point completely destroys futurism. You claim that the one who takes away the sacrifices in Dan 9:27 must be the one who takes it away in Dan 11:30-31. But Dan 9 does not say he takes it away. He causes it to cease. Did not Jesus cause sacrifices to cease according ot Hebrews 10? Hebrews 10 says that if sacrifices could have been offered by the worshippers of Old Covenant to make them perfect, or complete, then they would have ceased to have been offered. But they could not make the comers perfect (Heb 10:1-3). Heb 10:1-3 (1) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. (3) But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. Notice Hebrews 10 uses the same words as Dan 9:27 -- cease to be offered! Dan 9:27 (27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. But Jesus and his sacrifice of Himself does make the comers perfect or complete! Heb 10:14 (14) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. And since his offering causes REMISSION OF SINS, there is no more offering for sin! So the sacrifices ceased to be offered. This view makes the wording of Heb 10 identical to that of Dan 9:27! Does this not witness with your spirit? You say the 70th week is spoken separately from the others, thereby giving credence to the thought that there is a gap between the 69 and the 70th weeks. However, you fail to tell us that the first 7 weeks are also spoken separately from the next 62 and the last 70th week. But you do not use this argument to say there is a gap between the first 7 and the next 62! You are not being consistent! Bro Baxter, in short, you base your greatest argument upon making Dan 9:27 a reference to the same man spoken of in Dan 11:30-31. If this can be proven wrong, you are simply refuted. Antiochus Epiphanes was in Daniel's future. He took away the daily sacrifice and placed an abomination of desolation on the alter by offering a pig there. That explains Dan 11:30-31's abomination. But what about Dan 9's abomination? Dan 9 is speaking about Jesus' reference in Mat 24:15. But Dan 9 never said it would occur in the 70 weeks. Nor did Daniel say it would occur when the sacrifices cease to be offered. We simply read that the desolation would occur and be a form of judgment. Jesus mentioned this desolation in Matt 23:38, as well as 24:15. Dan 9:27 is also rendered, according to the margin, "and upon the battlements shall be the idols of the desolater, with the abominable armies, even unto the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolater." It does not say the one who is to cease sacrifice is the desolater, as Dan 11:30-31 does. It simply says a desolater will come. You correctly state that the abomination of desolation will start a 3.5 year great tribulation period. But this 3.5 years is not part of the 70th week. Dan 9:27 says nothing about the abomination of desolation occurring midweek in the 70th week. It just says there will come such an abomination. 3.5 years of Great tribulation is not the 3.5 years after sacrifices cease in Dan 9:27. Dan 9:27 does not say it is! We propose that Jesus confirmed the covenant of Abraham with Israel for 7 years, because Paul teaches us that this promise of Abraham was to Abraham and his Seed, Christ. And all who are in Christ are counted as that seed. You fail to make these New Testament connections in such detail as Apostolic preterists make them. It makes one wonder, on that point alone, if futurists make very many New Testament references at all, without mingling up texts that God never intended to have us mingle! The reason Jesus confirmed it for one week alone to Israel was because he foreknew that the Jews would reject Him, and that 3.5 years after the cross, the gospel would turn to the gentiles after Paul saw Stephen's stoning. It would not be exclusive to Israel any more. Recall that only Jews got the gospel in Acts 2. Whether or not an exact date is indicated in Acts when the gospel turned to the gentiles, the point is that Dan's 70 weeks referred to Israel alone. And the gospel did not go to the gentiles until Acts 10, after Stephen was stoned by Jews. According to Daniel 9 it must have been 3.5 years after the cross. So 40 years later, Rome smashed Jerusalem for 3.5 years! Bro Baxter, you know this fits the scenario. It has nothing to do with a covenant confirmation that the abomination occurs. You then speak about the sun turning black and the moon to blood as though you are not aware of these being common Old Testament idioms for the downfall of a kingdom. Check it out in the Old Testament and see that this was said about Egypt's fall, and Babylon's fall. And you should see how partial preterism shows that Jesus fulfilled all the 6 points mentioned in Dan 9:24 that would be fulfilled in the 70 weeks! But that is another post. What was interesting, as well, in your article on faithchildforum, is that you noted how futurism has been the popular interpretation of prophecy for the last 200 years. I wonder how fast you would reject any other biblical doctrine if it was only known to be understood in the last 200 years. -- |
