If there were but a spark of reason or understanding in them, they would surely say to themselves: “O Lord God, something has gone wrong with us. Our misery is too great, too long, too severe; God has forgotten us!” etc. To be sure, I am not a Jew, but I really do not like to contemplate God’s awful wrath toward this people. It sends a shudder of fear through body and soul, for I ask, What will the eternal wrath of God in hell be like toward false Christians and all unbelievers? Well, let the Jews regard our Lord Jesus as they will. We behold the fulfillment of the words spoken by him in Luke 21:20: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near … for these are days of vengeance. For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people.

In short, as has already been said, do not engage much in debate with Jews about the articles of our faith. From their youth they have been so nurtured with venom and rancor against our Lord that there is no hope until they reach the point where their misery finally makes them pliable and they are forced to confess that the Messiah has come, and that he is our Jesus. Until such a time it is much too early, yes, it is useless to argue with them about how God is triune, how he became man, and how Mary is the mother of God. No human reason nor any human heart will ever grant these things, much less the embittered, venomous, blind heart of the Jews. As has already been said, what God cannot reform with such cruel blows, we will be unable to change with words and works. Moses was unable to reform the Pharaoh by means of plagues, miracles, pleas, or threats; he had to let him drown in the sea.

Now, in order to strengthen our faith, we want to deal with a few crass follies of the Jews in their belief and their exegesis of the Scriptures, since they so maliciously revile our faith. If this should move any Jew to reform and repent, so much the better. We are now not talking with the Jews but about the Jews and their dealings, so that our Germans, too, might be informed.

Martin Luther the Father of the Reformation who was instrumental in giving the world the scriptures, that were once only the domain of the clergy, adresses the challenge to the veracity of Jesus’s claim to be the promised messiah of the Children Israel. Many today are still blinded to this truth by religious leaders who twist the scriptures to suit their own purposes. Dispensationalists who place Gaps in the seventy weeks of Daniel should read this, and understand that when they place gaps where there are none they undermine the truth.

The Link below is to Luthers writings in Adobe Pdf Format.
Martin Luther-the Jews

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, was martyred around 180 A.D. He was a student of Polycarp, the long-lived disciple of St. John himself. Extant quotes of Irenaeus’ writings include quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, I Corinthians, I Peter, Hebrews and Titus (By the time of Irenaeus the Gospels had clearly been around a good while, and all four were well known and recognized among Christians.).

Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) quoted from Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and I Peter.

Barnabas quoted from the N.T. around 70 A.D., Hermas 95 A.D., and Tatian 170 A.D.

Clement of Alexandria, who lived 150-212 A.D., quoted from all but three books of the NT.

Justin Martyr, in 133 A.D., quoted from the Gospels, Acts, Revelation, and both Pauline and the other epistles. (McDowell, pp. 51-52). (History and the Bible

All the New Testament books were written before A.D. 100 (About 70 years after the death of Jesus)
”…. in letters written between A.D. 95 and 110, three early church fathers – Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp – quoted passages out of 25 of the 27 books in the New Testament.{00} Only the short books of Jude and 2 John were not referenced, but they certainly had been written.  (Jude had written his short letter by this time, because, being Jesus’ half brother, he was almost certainly dead by A.D. 100; and 2 John had been written because it came before 3 John, which was one of the 25 books quoted.)Since Clement was in Rome and Ignatius and Polycarp were hundreds of miles away in Smyrna, the original New Testament documents had to have been written significantly earlier; otherwise they could not have circulated across the ancient world by that time.  Therefore, it is safe to say that all of the New Testament was written by A.D. 100.

But that’s just the latest that they could have been written.  Most were written much earlier. How much earlier? Most, if not all, before 70.
 

Most if not all of these books were written before A.D. 70 (about 40 years after the death of Jesus)
Imagine this.  You are devout Jew in the 1st Century.  The center of your national, economic, and religious life is Jerusalem, and especially the temple.  It has been that way in your nation, your family, and almost every Jews family for a thousand years, ever since Solomon built the first temple. Most of the newest temple, constructed by King Herod, was completed when you were a child, but portions of it are still under construction and have been since 19 B.C. For your entire life you have attended services and brought sacrifices there to atone for the sins you’ve committed against God. Why? Because you and your country men consider this temple the earthly dwelling place of the God of ^{the universe, the maker of Heaven and Earth, the very Deity, whose name is so holy you dare not utter it.} 

As a young man you begin following a Jew named Jesus who claims to be the long awaited Messiah predicted in your Scriptures.  He performs miracles, teaches profound truths, and scolds and befuddles the priests in charge of the temple. Incredibly, he predicts his own death and resurrection.  He also predicts that the temple itself will be destroyed before your generation passes away (Mark 13:2, 30).

Jesus is convicted of blasphemy by your temple priests and is crucified on the eve of the Passover, one of your holiest holidays. He’s buried in a Jewish tomb, but three days later you and his other followers see Jesus alive just as he predicted.  You touch him, eat with him, and he continues to perform miracles, the last being his ascension into heaven.  Forty years later your temple is destroyed just as Jesus had predicted along with the entire city and thousands of your countrymen.

Question: If you and your fellow followers write accounts of Jesus after the temple and city were destroyed in A.D. 70, aren’t you at least going to mention that unprecedented national, human, economic, and religious tragedy somewhere in your writings, especially this risen Jesus had predicted it?  Of course!  Well, here’s the problem for those who say the New Testament was written after 70. There’s absolutely no mention of the fulfillment of this predicted tragedy anywhere in the New Testament documents.  This means most, if not all, of the documents must have been written prior to 70.

Some may object, “That’s an argument from silence, and that doesn’t prove anything.” But in fact it is not an argument from silence, for the New Testament documents speak of Jerusalem and the temple, or activities associated with them, as if they were still intact at the time of the writings.{0} But even if this were an argument from silence that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Consider these modern parallels. If a former aboard the USS Arizona wrote a book related to the history of that ship, and the book ends with no mention of the ship  being sunk and 1177 of it’s sailors being killed at Pearl Harbour, do you have any doubt that the book must have been written prior to December 7^{th 1941? Or, if a former tenant of the World Trade Center wrote a book related to the history of those buildings, and the book ends with the towers still standing, there’s absolutely no mention of the Towers being destroyed and nearly three thousand people being murdered by Muslim terrorists, do you have any doubt that the book must have been written prior to September 11th 2001? Of course not.}

Well, the disaster in A.D. 70 in terms of lives, property, and national scope, was many magnitudes greater than Pearl Harbour and 9/11. It marked the end of such terrible war that Josephus, who himself surrendered to the Romans in 67, called it the “greatest” war of all time.{1} The Jews didn’t lose just one ship or a couple of prominent buildings; they lost their entire country, their capital city, and their temple, which had been the center of their religious, political, and economic life for the last thousand years. In addition, tens of thousands of their country men were dead and hundreds of the villages burned to the ground.

So if we could expect tragedy such as Pearl Harbour to be mentioned in the relevant writings of today, we certainly should expect the events of A.D. 70 to be cited somewhere in the New Testament (especially since the events were predicted by Jesus). But since the New Testament does not mention these events anywhere and suggests that Jerusalem and the temple are still intact, we can conclude reasonably that most, if not all, of the New Testament documents must have been written prior to 70

How much earlier?
 

Many New Testament books were composed before A.D. 62 (about 30 years after the death of Jesus)  

Imagine this: You’re a first century medical doctor who was embarked on a research project to record the events of the early church. This research will require you to interview eye witnesses of the early church and to travel with the Apostle Paul as he visits new churches across the ancient world. You record prominent events in the life of the church such as the early work of John and Peter, as well as the martyrdom of Stephen and James (the brother of John). IN Paul’s life you record everything from sermons, beatings, and trials to shipwrecks and imprisonments. You also record his theological summit with Peter and James, who is Jesus’ brother and the leader of the church in Jerusalem.

As you described many of these events, your narrative is so filled with details that every informed reader will know that either you must have access to eyewitness, testimony or you are an eyewitness yourself. For e.g., as you follow Paul on his travels you shift from using the pronoun “they” to “we”, and you correctly record their names of local politicians, local slang, local weather patterns, local topography, local business practices; you even record the right depth of water about a quarter mile off Malta as your ship is about to run aground in a storm! In fact, you record at least 84 such details in the last half of your narrative.

Question: Since you obviously find it important to record all of the minor details, if your main subject, the apostle Paul, was executed at the hands of the Roman emperor Nero, do you think you would record it? Or, If Jesus’ brother, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was killed at the hands of the Sanhedrin, the same Jewish body that sentenced Jesus to die, do you think you would record it? Of Course! And if you failed to record such momentous events, we would rightly assume that you wrote your narrative before their deaths. 

This is the situation we find in the New Testament. Luke, the medical doctor, meticulously records all kinds of details in Acts, which chronicles the early church (a listing of 84 historically confirmed details in the next chapter). Luke records the deaths of two Christian martyrs (Stephen and James the brother of John), but his account ends with two of its primary leaders (Paul, and James the brother of Jesus) still living.  Acts ends abruptly with Paul under house arrest in Rome, and there’s no mention of James having died. We know from Clement of Rome, writing in the late first century, and from other early church fathers, that Paul was executed during the reign of Neo, which ended in A.D. 68.{2} And we know from Josephus that James was killed in 62. So we can conclude, beyond reasonable doubt that the book of Acts was written before 62.

If you’re still not convinced, consider this modern parallel: suppose someone wrote a book recording the events surrounding the main figures of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. The book begins with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and includes the Civil Rights legislation of 1964, the marches and protests of Martin Luther King Jr, including his arrest and imprisonment, and his great “I have a dream” speech on the mall in Washington D.C. 

Question: If the book ends with of Martin Luther King Jr , the very leader of the movement, still alive, when would you conclude the book was written? Obviously before his assassination in April of 1968. This is the same situation we have with Luke’s narrative. His book ends with the main leaders still alive, which means it was written no later than 62. (Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer gives thirteen additional reasons why Acts was written by 62.) {3}.

If Acts was written by 62, then the Gospel of Luke was written before that. How do we know? Because Luke reminds the original recipient of Acts, Theophilus (who was probably an important Roman official), that he had written to him earlier. The first verse of Acts says, “in my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began t do and to teach..” The ‘former book” must be the Gospel of Luke, because Luke addresses that to Theophilus as well (Luke 1:1-4, see citation below).

How much earlier is Luke? It would seem reasonable to place Luke at or before A.D. 60. Why? Because 62 is the latest Acts was written, and there had to be some time between Luke’s first writing to Theophilus and his second. If Acts is no later than 62 (and quite possibly earlier), then Luke is realistically 60 or before.

This date also makes sense in light of Paul’s quotation of Luke’s gospel. Writing sometime between A.D. 62-65. Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 and calls it ‘scripture’ (1Timothy 5:18). Therefore, Luke’s gospel must have been in circulation long enough before that time in order for both Paul and Timothy to know its contents & regard it as scripture. (By the way, this was no minor claim for Paul to make. In effect, he was making the bold assertion that Luke’s gospel was just as inspired as the Holy Jewish Bible. The Old Testament he treasured so much!)

If Luke was written by A.D. 60, then Mark must have been written in the mid-to-late 50’s if not earlier. Why question because Luke says that he got his facts by checking with eyewitness sources:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seems also good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things that you have been taught. (Luke 1-4)

Most scholars believe Mark’s gospel was one of those eye witness sources. And if those Dead Sea Scrolls fragments we mentioned above are really from A.D. 50-70, then certainly Mark is earlier. But even if Mark isn’t before Luke, the very fact that we know beyond reasonable doubt that Luke is before 62 and probably before 60 means that we have meticulously recorded eye witness testimony written between 25 or 30 years of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection. This is far too early to be legendary. It also means that the eyewitness sources go back even earlier. How much earlier?

Some New Testament Book’s Were Penned In The 40s And 50s A.D., With Sources From The 30s (Only The A Few Years  After The Death Of Jesus)  

As certain as we are about the date of Luke’s records, there is no doubt from anyone, including the most liberal of scholars, that Paul wrote his first letter to the church at Corinth (which is in modern day Greece) sometime between 55 and 56. In this letter, Paul speaks about moral problems in the church, and then proceeds to discuss controversies about tongues, prophecies, and the Lord Supper. This, of course, demonstrates that the church in Corinth was experiencing some kind of miraculous activity and was already observing the Lord’s Supper with in 25 years of the Resurrection.

But the most significant aspect of this letter is that it contains the earliest and most authenticated testimony of the Resurrection itself. In the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul writes down testimony he received from others and the testimony that was authenticated when Christ appeared to him:

For I delivered to you what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then the twelve. After that He appeared to more that five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remand until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all of the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Cor. 15:3-8, NASB).

Where did Paul get what he ‘received’? He probably received from Peter and James when he visited them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). Why is this important? Because, as Gary Habermas points out, most scholars (even liberals) believe that this testimony was part of an early creed that dates right back to the Resurrection itself, eighteen months to eight years after, but some say even earlier. {4} There is no possible way that such testimony could describe a legend, because it goes right back to the time and place of the event itself. {5} If there was ever a place that a legendary Resurrection could not occur it was Jerusalem, because the Jews and the Romans were all too eager to squash Christianity and could have easily done so by parading Jesus’ body around the city.

More over, notice that Paul cites fourteen eyewitnesses whose names are known: the twelve apostles, James, and Peter himself (“Cephas” is the Aramaic for Peter), and then references an appearance to more than 500 others at one time. Included in those groups was one skeptic, James, and one outright enemy, Paul himself. By naming so many people who could verify what Paul was saying, he was, in effect, challenging his Corinthian readers to check him out. Bible scholar William Lillie puts it this way:

What gives a special authority to the list as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says, in effect: “If you don’t believe me, you can ask them.” Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within 30 years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago. {6}

If the Resurrection had not occurred, why would Paul give such a list of supposed eyewitnesses? He would have immediately lost all credibility with his Corinthian readers by lying so blatantly.

In addition to 1 Corinthians, there are numerous other New Testament documents that were written in the 50s or earlier. Galatians (A.D. 48), 1 Thessalonians (50-54), and Romans (57-58) are all in this category. In fact (and we know we may be going out on a limb here!) all of Paul’s works had to have been written before he died, which was sometime in the mid-60s.

But it’s not just conservative scholars who believe these early dates. Even some radical critics, such as atheist John A. T. Robinson, admit the New Testament documents were written early. Known for his role in launching the “Death of God” movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited that most New Testament books, including all four Gospels, were written sometime between A.D. 40 and 65.

The great and once-liberal archaeologist William F. Albright, after seeing how well the New Testament fit with the archaeological and historical data, wrote, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80.” {7} Elsewhere Albright said, “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and the 80s of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75).” {8}

So we know beyond a reasonable doubt that most if not all the New Testament documents are early. But skeptics have a couple of objections.
 

SKEPTIC’S ADVOCATE

The Documents Are Not Early Enough

Some skeptics may think that a 15- to 40-year gap between the life of Christ and the writings about him is too wide for the testimony to be reliable. But they are mistaken.

Think about events that occurred 15 to 40 years ago. When historians write about those events, we don’t say, “Oh, that’s impossible! No one can remember events from that long ago! Such skepticism is clearly unwarranted. Historians today write accurately about events in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s by consulting their own memories, those of other eyewitnesses, and any written sources from the time.

This process is the same one the New Testament writers used to record their documents. Like a good reporter, Luke interviewed eyewitnesses.{9} And as we’ll see in the next chapter, some New Testament writers were eyewitnesses themselves. They could remember 15- to 40-year-old events quite easily, just as you can. Why can you remember certain events vividly from 15 to 40 years ago and (if you’re old enough) even further back? You may be able to remember certain events because they made a great emotional impact on you. (In fact, those of us who are “over the hill” can remember some events from 30 years ago better than those from 30 minutes ago!)

Where were you and what were you doing when President Kennedy was assassinated? When the Challenger exploded? When the second plane hit the tower? Why can you remember those events so well? Because they made a deep emotional impact on you. Since an event like the Resurrection certainly would have made a deep emotional impact on the New Testament writers and the other eyewitnesses they may have consulted, it’s easy to see why the history of Jesus could be easily recalled many years later, especially in a culture with an established reliance on oral testimony (more on this below).

Furthermore, if the major works of the New Testament are eyewitness accounts written within two generations of the events, then they are not likely to be legend. Why? Because historical research indicates that a myth cannot begin to crowd out historical facts while the eyewitnesses are still alive. For this reason, Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White calls the mythological view of the New Testament “unbelievable”. {10} William Lane Craig writes, “The tests show that even two generations is too short to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.” {11} Inside of those two generation, eyewitnesses are still around to correct the errors of historical revisionists.

We are seeing this tendency right now with regard to the Holocaust. In early twenty-first century, we’ve begun to see some people claim that the Holocaust never happened. Why are the revisionists trying this now? Because most of the eyewitnesses have now died. Fortunately, since we have written eyewitness testimony from the Holocaust, the revisionists are not successful in passing off their lies as the truth. The same holds true for the New Testament. If the New Testament was written within 60 years of the events it records, it is highly unlikely those events could be legendary. And as we have seen, all of the New Testament documents were written within 60 years of the events, and many much earlier.
 

Why Not Earlier?

At this point the skeptic may say, “Okay, fine. The New Testament is early, but it’s not as early as I would expect. Why didn’t they write down their testimony earlier? If I saw what they said they saw, I wouldn’t wait 15 or 20 years to write it down.” There are a number of possible reasons for the wait.

First, since the New Testament writers were living in a culture where the vast majority of people were illiterate, there was no initial need or utility in writing it down. A first-century people in Palestine, by necessity, developed strong memories in order to remember and pass on information. Craig writes,

•  
  In an oral culture like that of first-century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred traditions. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.{12} 

In such an oral culture, facts about Jesus may have been put into a memorable form. There’s good evidence for this. Gary Habermas has identified forty one short sections of the New Testament that appear to be creeds, compact sayings that could easily be remembered and that were probably passed along orally before they were put into writing (one of these creeds we’ve already mentioned. I Cor. 15: 3-8.) {13}

Second, since some of the New Testament writers may have had high hopes that Jesus was going to come backing their lifetime, they saw no immediate need to write it down. But as they aged, perhaps they thought it wise to put their observations down on Papyrus.

Third, as Christianity spread all over the ancient world, writing became the most efficient means to communicate with the rapidly expanding church. In other words, time and distance forced the New Testament writers to write it down.

On the other hand, there may not have been a gap for at least one Gospel. If those fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls are really from Mark (and they most likely are), then that Gospel might have been written in the 30s. Why? Because the fragments are of copies, not of the original. If we have copies from the 50s, then the original must have been earlier.{14}

Moreover, many scholars believe there actually were written sources that predate the Gospels. In fact, Luke, in the first four verses of his Gospel, says that he checked with other sources, though some of these may have been earlier Gospels (e.g., Matthew and Mark).{15} Was one of his sources Mark’s Gospel? We don’t know for sure. It certainly seems like Luke is speaking of several other written sources, because he says, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us…” (Luke 1:1). Luke may have referenced Mark’s Gospel and other written testimonies including public court records from Jesus’ trial.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether or not there were written sources that predate the New Testament. Nor does it matter if Mark was written in the 30s A.D. Why? Because the documents we do know about are early enough and contain early source material. As we’ll see in the next chapter, many if not all of the New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses or their contemporaries within 15 to 40 years of Jesus, and some contain oral or other written testimony that goes back to the Resurrection itself. In other words, the real issue isn’t so much the date of writings, but the date of the sources used in the writings. 

Why Not More?

Skeptics may ask, “If Jesus actually did rise from the dead, shouldn’t there be more written about Him than there is?” In response, we actually have more testimony that we might expect, and certainly more than enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what happened. As we have seen, Jesus is referenced by far more authors than the Roman emperor at the time (Jesus’ 43 authors to Tiberius’s 10 to 150 years of their lives). Nine of those authors were eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the events, and they wrote 27 documents, the majority of which mention or imply the Resurrection. That’s more than enough to establish historicity.

For those who still think there should have been even more written about Jesus, New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg offers four reasons why that’s not a reasonable expectation: 1) the humble beginnings of Christianity; 2) the remote location of Palestine on the eastern frontiers of the Roman Empire; 3) the small percentage of the works of ancient Graeco-Roman historian that have survived (this could be due to loss, decay, destruction, or all of the above); and 4) the lack of attention paid by surviving historical documents to Jewish figures in general.{16}

Nevertheless, some skeptics still think there should be testimony from some of the 500 people who allegedly saw the risen Christ. Skeptic Farrell Till is one of them. During a debate on the Resurrection that I (Norm) had with him in 1994, Till demanded, “Trot out one of those 500 witnesses or give us something that they wrote, and we will accept that as reliable proof or evidence.”{17}

This is an unreasonable expectation, for a number of reasons.

 First, as we have already pointed out, first-century Palestine was an oral culture. Most people were illiterate and remembered and passed on information orally.Second, how many of those predominately illiterate eyewitnesses would have written something even if they could write? Even today, with a much higher literacy rate and all the conveniences of modern writing and research tools, how many people do you know who have written a book or even an article on any subject? How many do you know who have written a book or article on a contemporary historical event, even a significant event like 9/11? Probably not many, and certainly fewer than one out of 500. (Has Farrell Till ever written an article on a major historical event he witnessed?)Third, even if some of those 500 average people did write down what they saw, why would skeptics expect their testimony to survive for 2,000 years? The New Testament survives intact because of the thousands of manuscripts copied by scribes for a growing church over the centuries. Historical works from the major ancient historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny survive in just a handful of copies, and those copies are hundreds of years from the originals. Why do the skeptics think anything is going to be written, much less survive, from an ancient group of illiterate Galilean peasants?{18}Finally, we do know the names of many of the 500, and their testimony is written down in the New Testament. They include Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and James – plus nine who are named elsewhere as apostles (Matthew 10 and Acts 1).

So we shouldn’t expect more testimony than what we have about Jesus. And what we do have is more than enough to establish historicity.

Below is A Pdf link of  the original with the References

http___www.inplainsite.org_html_dating_the_nt

I have undertaken this work, to promote the Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and his Covenant with those of mankind who have placed their God given faith in him.

During my many sojourns amongst various denominations there were truths I learnt and falsehoods that were being propagated as divinely inspired. It is important for one to discern truth and hold to it, and equally important to be able to recognise error and refute it. Our only safeguard in this matter is the divinely inspired cannon of the scripture. But even that alone is not enough for there are many counterfeit Christian cults who use the scripture to ensnare the ignorant. Only God by the inspiration of Holy Spirit can guide us into the truth contained in the divine scriptures. Now in order to see that we are following the correct path and are not being deluded by a counterfeit spirit, we need to confirm our steps by reading the writings of those who have gone before us, and examine the truth’s they held to.

One of the problems we encounter on the way is that men can be extremely credible, and due to our limited knowledge of the scripture, they may earn our trust and acceptance, and yet still bring us into the bondage of plausible falsehoods. This they normally do by stringing isolated bits of scripture to produce a mosaic of uncorroborated myths. The pathway out of this is Context, and always and only Context. Every passage must be examined in the light of its setting and context. To do otherwise would be to misquote Christ and place another meaning upon his words. Some portions of scripture are extremely difficult to believe, and require the abandoning of your will and some of your cherished notions. In order to build knowledge of the scripture, one must focus on Christ for he is the only foundation of our faith. Secondly we must learn to recognise what God is doing in the passages, so often we look for what we must do, or think it is ourselves that the passage refers to. I have heard acclaimed preachers make such notorious mistakes like saying someone in the scripture made the wrong decision, when re-examining their assertion you discover that had they done so we would never have received the Gospel, for Israel would have perished had Joseph decided not to tell anyone about his dreams, as they recommend to their hearers. This is because they champion human sovereignty in matters of faith, instead of God’s sovereignty in saving the elect. They Champion mans will instead of God’s will. They Champion works instead of Grace.

So now we come to the contents of this book and its purpose. Its purpose is to discount some very popular preached notions of the seventieth week of Daniel, and the covenant in its midst. I once was under the sway of these notions and some of their falsehoods I cherished and was thoroughly deluded by them. You the reader may be in the same spot on your Journey with Christ and are still holding to these erroneous views. Please read my treatise for I am not condemning you but attempting to lead you into a greater understanding of this very important subject, for at its heart is priceless Gem that will establish you and ground you in the truth that is in Christ Jesus. It will also set you free of those who seek to make merchandise of you. I spent much money on books about the end times, which I later discovered to be mere myth because the foundational structure was erroneous. This has not happened overnight and it has taken twenty years on this journey of faith and looking behind I can now see through this specific delusion. I hope this work will help you to get there quicker than I did. If you begin reading this work please finish it, for if you do not finish plowing through it you will glean no harvest from it. Should you put it aside I trust that God will one day lead you back to it when you have sufficient grasp of the scriptures to stomach it.

This book is dedicated to the Elect of God to Glorify Christ and the Covenant he laid his life down to confirm.

Yours in Christ

David Harry Hume

21st Day of January 2002.

Note this is Excerpt from  a work I undertook a few years ago, Below is the Link to the complete document in Adobe pdf format .

Jerusalem and the Messiah

1Co 13:12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I must add this comment  that during following years after writing this treatise , some of  my formely held views of Eschatology changed from a futurist position to a preterist position of  fullfilment in the first century AD. Their is a video on this site by Kenneth Gentry on audience relevance and one should view this to grasp the reason why!  Use the video tag to find it.

 

I have created an excerpt from this on his conclusions on the chronology of the scriptures. It makes intresting reading for those intrested in the differing views of Chronology.

The original was published in the 1830′s and contains Profane History and Bible History.  The Author was obviously a very learned man from the contents . For he reconciles the differing cultures of antiquity’s history to the scripture in vary lengthy detailed section .

He also has an understanding of  the use of the Hebrew Alphabet to denote large numbers.

Their are some surprises within its contents , that to some will be highly controversial.

 If you want the entire document then copy  the heading of this  post to paste and search in google as they scanned and digitized the book (511 pages).

Below is a link to my excerpt.

Historical Chronology_ by_ William_ Hales

NB If  you dont have a high speed broadband connection the download may take some time.

To those who aspire to produce a Chronology , this one contains the Scriptures verses and their contents as a reference. It also contains comments from other sources which  help for research.

The Protestant reformation led to the incorporation of the Masoretic text into the Divine Canon.  Prior to this the Early Church Fathers favoured the Septuguaint.

Bishop Usher devised his Chronology from the Masoretic Text.

a-chronology 

The link Below is to a revision of the one above, it contains the occupations of  the land of Israel by other nations up to the Jewish Nation recaptured it in 1967. It is a Pdf Document,

Excell Chronology -Apocalypse-occupations

Attached is another Document that contains the criticism towards the use of the Masoretic  Text. It is worth reading for it highlights the problems encountred due to different texts.

a_dissertation_on_sacred_chronology

The Links Above are PDF files which you can save for your own use as  a source of reference.

Also their is another factor in this puzzle concernining the Chronology  as today some who challenge the validity of the Messiah we proclaim use the  Aleppo Codex which has been translated  from the Hebrew into english and differs substatantially from our translation of the Masoretic text.  When you quote the old testament  to them they produce their modern version to prove that the messiah has not come yet.

Secular Chronology appears to have some errors in it as well , one of them seems to be the  586bc destruction of Jerusalem and Solomons Temple.

The 360 day years that some use to prove the dispensational view of the Seventy weeks of  Daniel disregards the fact that the Levites corrected their calendar periodicaly to align with the Solar by adding in a extra month.  If  this is not taken into account there  will be no Wave offering at the feast of Pentecost because the seasons will be out of kilter with the prescribed feasts.  This includes when Lambs are born as well. 

490 times 5.25 days gives you a discrepancy of  2572.5  days  (a seven year discrepancy).

One other problem is the modern Jewish Year which differs substantially from our division of time into BC and Ad.  If you look up a Jewish Chronology you will discover vast differences from the  Masoretic Text.  Usher computed 4004Bc  they compute 3760 BCE.

So happy hunting , if you have a good chronology you would like to add to this site let me know , or add a Comment with a PDF link to the source for others. If you have any recommendations to correct any Major problems in mine  drop me a line , because sometimes two heads are better than one.

Mt 1:1  The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

The New Testament begins with the lineage of the Messiah. Yet many would dispute this today because they turn a blind eye and refuse to accept it because they choose to follow other traditions or voices.

Lukes gospel differs from Mathews , in that the lineage is longer and extends all the way to Adam in the reverse order to Mathews.

Lu 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. 

There are some differences between the two lineages  and  I have selected  these two commentaries below to aid your understanding.

Adam Clarke’s Commentary

Verse 23. Thirty years of age This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office: See note on “Nu 4:3″.

Nu 4: 3  From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph This same phrase is used by Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a particular person: touton paiv nomizetai he was SUPPOSED to be this man’s son.

Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in St. Matthew, {#Mt 1:1-17}, and there are several ways of doing it; the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the reader is referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter.

MATTHEW, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of SONS properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to GOD himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED the son of Joseph—of Heli—of Matthat, considerable support from Raphelius’s method of reading the original wn wv enomizeto uiov iwshf tou hli, being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.

As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, nomizesyai bears, in a variety of places—Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.

The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, {#Mt 1:16}; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: {#1Ch 3:17}, and {#Mt 1:12}. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter.

Mat 1:16  And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
             12  And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
1Ch 3:17  And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son,

Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli; so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim.

Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, {#Mt 1:13}, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. {See #Lu 3:27}.

Salathiel and Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ to proceed, were themselves descended from Solomon in a direct line: and though St. Luke says that Salathiel was son of Neri, who was descended from Nathan, Solomon’s eldest brother, {#1Ch 3:5}, this is only to be understood of his having espoused Nathan’s daughter, and that Neri dying, probably, without male issues the two branches of the family of David, that of Nathan and that of Solomon, were both united in the person of Zerubbabel, by the marriage of Salathiel, chief of the regal family of Solomon, with the daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Nathan. Thus it appears that Jesus, son of Mary, reunited in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called, The son of David.

1 ch 3:5  And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon,

It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity.

Mathew Pooles Commentary

Ver. 24-38 There have been great disputes about the genealogy of our Saviour, as recorded both by Matthew and Luke. The adversaries of Christian religion have taken no small advantage from the seeming difference between them, which even many sober writers have thought it no easy matter to reconcile. The apostle hath cautioned us against giving too much heed to endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith, #1Ti 1:4; yet certainly it is our duty, as well for the stopping the mouths of such as would clamour against the truth of the whole Scripture, (if not of the whole Christian religion), as, so far as we can, to vindicate holy writ from their little cavils, and thereby also to confirm those who are weak in faith. To make these things as clear as we can: It is plain that both the evangelists agree in their design, by setting down the genealogy of our Saviour, to prove him lineally descended both from Abraham and David, the two persons to whom was made the promise of the Messiah, and the stability of his kingdom, and also in the names of the first fourteen generations, mentioned by Matthew, and here by Luke, #Lu 3:32,33, and to Abraham, #Lu 3:34.

Their disagreement lieth in four things.

1. In the form of the pedigree; Matthew beginning with those who were first, Luke with those who were last in order of time. But this is no valuable exception, one evangelist counts forward, another backward.

2. Matthew counts by three periods, each consisting of fourteen generations; Luke doth not: but neither is this of any moment.

3. Matthew sits down our Saviour’s genealogy before he tells us any thing of his conception or birth; Luke, after his relation of his conception, birth, and baptism.

4. Matthew derives our Saviour’s genealogy but from Abraham; Luke, from Adam.

All these differences lay no foundation for any exception. Several accounts are given why Luke carrieth up the genealogy to Adam; the best seemeth to be this: that Matthew intending his history primarily for the Jews, judged it enough to prove Christ the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David; but Luke designing the information of the whole world, derives him from the common father of mankind. By which means he also showeth the antiquity of the gospel, and lets us know that Christ was he who was promised to Adam, before Abraham’s time, and that the grace of the gospel is not limited to the seed of Abraham. Thus also Luke supplieth what was wanting in Matthew, and truly derives both the first and second act from God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of us all. But besides these differences (hardly worth the taking notice of under that notion) there are some seeming contradictions in the genealogies, yet not such but I think a fair account may be given of to any who will but first consider:

1. That they all lie in what Luke hath, from #Lu 3:23-31, and from the latter end of #Lu 3:34 to the end. So that in #Lu 3:32,33, and part of #Lu 3:34, we have nothing to reconcile.

2. That these words the son is in the Greek only #Lu 3:23, where Christ is said to be “the son of Joseph,” but ever after it is supplied by the translators. So as the Greek runs thus: The Son of Joseph, which was of Heli, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, &c. Which consideration cuts off the first cavil, how Joseph could be the son of Jacob, as Matthew saith, and the son of Heli, as Luke saith; for indeed Luke saith no more than, And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, #Lu 3:23; that is, Christ was of Heli, the supposed son of Joseph, but truly of Heli, the father of Mary his mother. I know that some think Jacob was also called Heli (as it was ordinary with the Jews to have two names); others think that Joseph is called the son, because he was the son-in-law of Heli, by the marriage of the virgin Mary his daughter. (Naomi calleth those her daughters who were but her legal daughters, #Ru 1:11) In this the most agree. But I must confess I think it is Christ, who is here said to be of Heli (though he was reputed, and generally taken, to be the son of Joseph).

3. That Luke is here deriving our Saviour, not from his supposed father Joseph, but from Mary his true mother. It is not to be conceived that Luke, after such a narration of the predictions of his conception as he had given us in the first chapter, should go to derive Christ from Joseph; and this gives us a fair account why the names are so different from David’s time to the birth of Christ.

Joseph (whose pedigree Matthew relates) deriving from Solomon, who was the son of David, succeeding him in the kingdom. Mary (whose pedigree Luke relates) descending from Nathan, #Lu 3:31 1Ch 3:5 tells us he was another son of David. So as after David’s time the persons named which before were the same in our Saviour’s pedigree became diverse, some the progenitors of Joseph, whom Matthew reckons, others the progenitors of Mary, whom Luke nameth. This answereth the objection from the differing number of the persons from Joseph to Zorobabel (excluding them both). Matthew reckoneth but nine, Luke here reckoneth eighteen, in #Lu 3:23-28. From Zorobabel to David Luke reckons twenty-two progenitors, Matthew but fourteen, (leaving out three kings of the half blood of Ahab, of which we gave an account in our notes: See Poole on “Mt 1:1″), so as the Scripture nameth seventeen, though Matthew leaves out three. In two different lines, it is not impossible that one person in so many years might have so many more progenitors than another, supposing Matthew designed to reckon all, which it is plain from his leaving out three kings named in Scripture that he did not.

4. That ordinarily the Jews had two names, sometimes three. All Josiah’s sons had each of them two at least. Matthew had also the name of Levi, &c. This solves the difference from #Lu 3:27, where Rhesa is said to be the son of Zorobabel, whenas Matthew saith, #Mt 1:13, Zorobabel begat Abiud. That Abraham was the son of Terah or Thara, and Terah the son of Nachor, appeareth from #Ge 11:24,26. That Saruch or Serug was the son of Reu or Ragau, appeareth from #Ge 11:20 1Ch 1:25. That Reu was the son of Peleg, (here called Phalec), and Peleg the son of Eber, and Eber the son of Sala, appears from #Ge 11:18 1Ch 1:25. But in #Ge 11:12 we read, that Sala was the son of Arphaxad, whereas he is here said to be the son of Cainan, and Cainan is made the son of Arphaxad. So as Luke maketh Sala grandchild to Arphaxad; Moses makes no mention of Cainan at all, but mentions Salah as begotten by Arphaxad. Those who are curious to know what is said for the resolution of this difficulty, may read it largely both in Spanheim’s Dubia Evangelica, and Mr. Pool’s Synopsis Criticorum. It is a difficulty which hath exercised many very learned men, and I doubt whether ever any yet satisfied himself in the resolution of it. It is not probable that Luke should correct what Moses said; the best account I can give of it is, the Septuagint in #Ge 11:12 have it just as Luke here hath it; and it is certain that Luke, in his quotations out of the Old Testament, doth generally follow the Septuagint, being the translation most in use among them. Beza tells us of an ancient copy of the Gospel he had, which mentions no Cainan. The best of it is, that it is a matter of no great moment, for the question is not, whether Sala was the son of Arphaxad, (for so he was, though Arphaxad was his grandfather, in the same sense that Christ is called the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David, and Elisabeth the daughter of Aaron, #Lu 1:50) but whether he was the immediate son of Arphaxad or Cainan; whether Moses omitted Cainan, or some transcriber of Luke added Cainan out of the Septuagint (being then the current translation among them): the last is most probable. For the other part of the genealogy, #Lu 3:36-38, it plainly agreeth with #Ge 5:6 6:10. So that I must profess I see no great difficulty to reconcile the genealogies, admitting the one to give the genealogy of Joseph, and the other to give the genealogy of Mary. That indeed Mary was the daughter of Heli is not to be proved by Scripture, nor yet contradicted, but it is very probably judged so. And though we cannot prove that Cainan, mentioned #Lu 3:36, was added out of some later copies of the Septuagint, yet it is more than probable it was so. Which two things if we admit, I see no great difficulty remaining, but a fair agreement between both the evangelists. For I presume none will stumble at the alteration of some letter, or omission of some letter in a name, or addition to it in the end; there is nothing more ordinary than that, when names are mentioned in several languages.

My Comments:

In the Koran there is no lineage for Mohammed except for the claim that Ishmael was the first born son of  Abraham.

Modern day Jews and Israeli’s would have a very tough time trying to prove their lineage , because of the diaspora after the destruction of Jerusalem (ad 66-70)  as this was the task of the Levites who never intermarried.

If you have some understanding of the Old Testament you would know that God always worked through his true prophets, and that the Levites were commanded not to intermarry with others.

Ezra 10:18  And among the sons of the priests there were found that had taken strange wives: namely, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah.19  And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.

So who today could claim the right to the High Priesthhod after the order of Aaron , or the right to offer sacrifices for modern Israeli’s.

They would need a prophet from the tribe of  Levi to appoint a High Priest and make the atoning sacrifice. No arbitarily selected sacrifice of a red heifer can solve this problem.

Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The letter to the Hebrews is explicit that at the time of writing, the remnants of  the levitical priesthood and its sacricfices would soon be know more.  And as history records all was gone when the Temple was burnt in ad 67 to the 8th of ab Ad 70 all on the temple mount perished.

So those who are promulgating a rebuilt temple  and a reinstituted High Priest Hood and animal sacrifices , must  prove by lineage who will be the High Priest and also who will hold the office of a levite priest.

I seriously doubt that any such records exist today, as the Divine canon is now closed.

The Last person who had a true claim was John the Baptist as the Herod’s took upon themselves to sell the High Priesthood to those of their choice.

Also many of the true levites like Mathew followed Christ.

Ac 6:7  And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

One must beware the self confessed Elijah’s who think they are the modern forerunners to Christ’s reappearance.

Mat 11:13 /14 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.  And if ye will receive it, this is Elias(heb Elijah), which was for to come.

John the Baptist descent was from Aaron , so no gentile can claim this title today.

Mal 2:7  For the priest’s (levites) lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
Mal 3:1  Behold, I will send my messenger(John), and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant(Christ), whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Mal 4:5  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

Mt 17:12  But I say unto you, That Elias( Heb Elijah) is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Lu 1:5  There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Lu 1:12  And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
Lu 1:13  But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

William Branham and John Alexander Dowie led many astray in the past , for they indirectly claimed to be Elijah.

In 1901 Dowie proclaimed himself “Elijah the Restorer” and began to wear High-Priestly robes. This caused many disciples to fall away; the subsequent decrease in income combined with the expenses of building Zion marked the beginning of Dowie’s slide into bankruptcy. It was at this time that rumors of his polygamous teaching and activities, use of alcohol, and extravagant lifestyle began to gain currency, not only in the world, but also within the Church. http://www.james-joyce-music.com/extras/dowie_bio.html

William Branham’s Beliefs

• Branham started off as a Baptist and then changed over to a Oneness Pentecostal. He vehemently denied the Trinity of God and took a strong “Jesus Only” stance in regards to the godhead. This alone places him in the ranks of earlier heretics. The early church fathers fought long and hard battles against those who denied the reality of One God in three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, his Jesus was not the true Jesus of the Bible.
• Branham also believed he was Elijah the prophet, see the picture above. This picture is available on the William Branham Homepage and many many other sites on the web. What was more, other people believed him to be the prophet Elijah who was to come before the return of Christ Jesus. Branham was not Elijah, thus we can easily see the depth of the deception working in him and his followers.
• Branham taught a works salvation, not uncommon for most Pentecostals, although his form was rather extreme in regards to dress, make-up, etc. Thus, his doctrine of salvation was not sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura as the reformers correctly taught.
• Branham held to the belief in UFO’s and somehow they figure into the end times (which is interesting when one considered the X-Files and Heavens’ Gate).
• He also taught about the great pyramid and its Biblical meaning and significance to his ministry.

Branham died in 1963 after his car was struck by a drunk driver. For many days after his death several well known Latter Rain ministers prayed over his body in an attempt to raise Branham from the dead. . .obviously they failed. Source http://forgottenword.org/branham.html

So the moral of all this is beware the false prophet’s coming in sheeps clothing , who make claims to those whose ignorance of the scripture is obvious. When I was a babe in Christ I got caught up in the hype of these so called great men of God, due to my lack of knowledge. There is no support in the scripture for another coming of Elijah or a Physical return of Christ.

For years I kept trying to calculate the length of the Gap between 69th an 70th week of  the Arch Angel  Gabriel’s message to the Prophet Daniel.

Da 19:1 ¶  In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;
2  In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
3  And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:…….
19  O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.
20 ¶  And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God;
21  Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
22  And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
23  At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
24  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
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.

At that time I had been influenced by my peers who taught the Futurist Dispensational view of  eschatology.

But the nagging question of the length of the Gap  they proposed between Christ triumphant entry into Jerusalem and the rebuilding of  another Temple  for the Anti Christ to sit in , I could not resolve.

I tried the year day theory with no success, then I attempted using the 50 year Jubilee Cycle which brought me to date in 1997.  The Year passed and that too failed.

I downloaded a Online Bible shortly after that and the work I am attaching to this post arrived with it.

I had read many futurist books before this and I reluctently viewed this inspired work, thinking here comes another fanciful end times view.

Is there a gap in Daniels seventy weeks ?  Here is the Pdf link to the answer just click on it 1921_mauro_seventyweeks

An Elucidational Exposure of the Riberian-Dispensationalist Falsehood Concerning the Coming of the Rapture, Antichrist, and Seven Year Tribulation.
Featuring the Noble Particular Baptist Historicist Interpretation of the Day of the Lord  Proven by the Word of God.Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the Role They Play in Prophecy.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint the most Holy.

“Gabriel shows him that there are seventy weeks determined relative to a redemption from another sort of captivity, which shall commence with the going forth of the edict to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, and shall terminate with the death of Messiah the Prince, and the total abolition of the Jewish sacrifices. In the four following verses he enters into the particulars of this most important determination, and leaves them with Daniel for his comfort, who has left them to the Church of God for the confirmation of its faith, and a testimony to the truth of Divine revelation. They contain the fullest confirmation of Christianity and a complete refutation of the Jewish cavils and blasphemies on this subject.”

Seventy weeks are determined tells us immediately that the date is set and nothing can change it–not even the Biblical footnotes of a Satanic-inspired former attorney. There are some governing rules whereby Scriptures must be interpreted and these rules are never permitted to be broken by mankind. Absolutely nothing is ever to be based upon mankind’s speculation and surmise. God never gave us the right to surmise about His Word and the interpretation thereof but does, with the prophecy, give the interpretation–if we are but willing to search the Scriptures and find the answers. This is why rule number two is so important. We must always, without exception, base our proofs upon the Scriptures themselves. This is the only Authority in all matters of interpretation. Likewise, with this in mind, history itself will also provide for us and show us the fulfillment of that prophecy as we look upon the unfolding of mankind through the years.

Just as all solid Baptist theologians will agree that the four major empires– Babylonian, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Roman–were predicted in the Bible, history does show the fulfillment of these empires as they each rose and fell in the annals of mankind’s world. So history does offer to us the picture of the fulfillment if we will look at it and find it there. Another major rule governing the prophecy is that the Bible has its own chronology.

“Prior to the publication of Martin Anstey’s great work in 1913, all the existing systems of Bible chronology were dependent, for the period of time embraced by the Seventy Weeks, upon sources of information outside the Bible, and which are, moreover, not only unsupported by proof, but are in conflict with the Scriptures. Anstey’s system has the unique merit of being based on the Bible alone. Therefore it is capable of being verified by all Bible readers. But for the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks there is no need to resort to any system of chronology, seeing that the prophecy contains its own chronology. In fact, the difficulties and confusion which have arisen in connection with this prophecy are due in large measure to the attempt to make it conform to an incorrect chronology.” We need not go to some infidel who assumed certain events happening at certain times. And Daniel is explicit about the chronology. Yea, even, seventy weeks are determined.

This exact and specific determination was set in Heaven by the Triune Godhead and was done so before ever the world itself was created. Of this eternal council, Dr. John Gill writes: “None but the blessed Three in One were of this council and fit to be of it. The thing consulted about was nodus Deo vindice dignus, worthy only of God!” Further, it may be noted about this determining council, “it was to be expected that, in as much as God has been pleased to give in His Word, an exact time-measure from a given event unto Christ, He would also make it clear beyond a doubt what the event is from which the count of years was to begin. And this expectation is fully met.” Thus we are able, by employing the Word of God rightly divided, to clearly understand all about this prophecy found in the last few verses of Daniel chapter nine.

Next, let us ask: What is meant by a week? It does not mean seven 24-hour days as we think presently of a week. Because the rules of correctly interpreting prophecy must be based upon the Scriptures first, let us look into God’s Word to define this ‘week’ and reveal what is meant thereby. The answer is clearly revealed to all who will but look into the book of Ezekiel. The riddle, if such be the case, about what is meant is given by the Words of God that He has “appointed thee each day for a year.” [Ezekiel 4:6] The interpretation therefore, may be seen to be that a day is symbolical for a year in understanding prophecy. Therefore, if we have a week, the interpretation is that it refers to seven years. Simple mathematics then shows that the Seventy Weeks equals 490 years. Four hundred ninety years were determined for the completion of the prophecy (not 420 years with a gap of over 2,000 years before continuing the prophecy). Nowhere in the Word of God is prophecy ever dealt with by postponing the time factor when that factor is said to be determined. Again, enough said.

So what shall happen at that specified time? Daniel tells us, by means of the Holy Spirit giving him the inspired verbiage, that this prophecy is upon thy people. Who else can this be but the Jews? Fortunately, none of the scholars deny this portion of the meaning. Therefore, it is certain, four hundred ninety years are determined upon the Jews when this event will come to pass and be completely fulfilled. And that event will be fulfilled down to every detail–including to the city of Jerusalem being destroyed in the ‘Great Tribulation’ of 70 A.D. But before the destruction of Jerusalem, Daniel writes, shall come the event which shall finish the transgression and make an end of sins and make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness and seal up the vision and prophecy and anoint the Most Holy. “It is essential to a right understanding of the prophecy to observe, and to keep in mind, that the six things of verse 24 were to be fulfilled (and now have been fulfilled) by Christ being ‘cut off,’ and by what followed immediately thereafter, namely, His resurrection from the dead, and His ascension into Heaven. With that simple fact in mind, it will be easy to ‘understand’ all the main points of the prophecy.” That event, the event which was pre-determined before the foundation of the world, was for Christ Jesus to come and die upon Calvary in the year 30 A.D. (The reason for the extra 40 years before the complete destruction of Jerusalem was due to the beseeching of Christ Jesus upon the cross when He prayed: “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do.” [Luke 23:34] This was granted at the request of Christ Jesus as a trial or probationary period as found throughout the Old Testament where 40 years is repeatedly talked about.)

Just how would the dying of Christ on the cross fulfill these statements in the latter portion of verse twenty-four?

First, “to finish the transgression.” “The transgression of Israel had long been the burden of the messages of God’s prophets,” notes Philip Mauro in his excellent work on this subject. “It was for their transgression that they had been sent into captivity, and that their land and city had been made a desolation for seventy years.” Verse eleven of this same chapter details this as being admitted by Daniel himself. However, even the angel of the Lord was about to show Daniel how the complete fulfillment of this was not yet accomplished and more was to come before the finale in 70 A.D. Yea, to finish this transgression of theirs, nothing shy of crucifying the Son of God would be demanded and brought about by the will of the people of Israel. Yea, even down to the very betrayal itself, was to be accomplished by a Jew. While the Romans may have driven the nails into the cross, it was the Jews who committed the worst of the transgressions in the crucifixion. [John 19:11] Jesus further confirmed this truth about the Jews filling up the transgression at His crucifixion when He proclaimed: “Fill you up then the measure of your fathers? You serpents! You generation of vipers! How can you escape the damnation of Hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes and some of them you shall kill and crucify and some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues and persecute them from city to city. That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the Earth. From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias–son of Barachias–whom you slew between the Temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you: All these things shall come upon this generation.” [Matthew 23:32-36] (Notice: Not some future generation two thousand years later but the one to whom Jesus was addressing right then and there–this generation! ] Much more could be offered to prove this Truth. But let us move on.

Second, “to make an end of sins.” It would be foolish to doubt this point about the coming of Christ Jesus the first time–even if one were an Arminian. It was the reason Jesus came and that was to purge our sins. [Hebrews 1:3] Barnabas, the writer of Hebrews, gave a large list of factual proofs about this truth. It was why Jesus came the first time and none dare deny it.

Third, “to make reconciliation for iniquity.” Paul spoke about this fact throughout Romans about how Christ Jesus came to make reconciliation. [Romans 5:8-10] So also he wrote in Colossians. [Colossians 1:12-22] “Keep in mind that the atonement and reconciliation were to be accomplished and actually were accomplished, within the measure of Seventy Weeks from the going forth of the decree by King Cyrus.” This was spoken about by Jesus when He exclaimed: “The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent you and believe the gospel.” [Mark 1:15] He had come to reconcile the chosen children of God back to the Father who had chosen them from before the foundation of the world. [Ephesians 1:4]

Fourth, “to bring in everlasting righteousness.” Be there any that would attempt to deny it is the righteousness of Christ Jesus by which we are justified? Of course not. For the Scriptures clearly teach it is His righteousness imputed to us in the eternal council of the Godhead whereby we are able, as children of God, to stand before the Throne of God and be recognized by Jehovah as justified. [Isaiah 51:8; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Jeremiah 23:5-6] Paul definitely had some strong views upon this subject in Romans and wrote them down for all to read. [Romans 5:1, 9, 18]

Fifth, “to seal up the vision and prophecy.” Christ Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophecy throughout the Scriptures. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. [Revelation 1:8, 11] When He came and walked to Calvary, He was the fulfillment of this prophecy and the prophecy was sealed up, completed, fulfilled, “finished.” [John 19:30]

Sixth, “to anoint the Most Holy.” “Dr. Pusey cites much evidence in support of this idea. But without going into the discussion of the matter at length, we will simply state that we were led thereby to the conclusion that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples of Christ, on the day of Pentecost, thereby anointing (see: 2 Corinthians 1:21) a spiritual temple ‘the temple of the living God’ (2 Corinthians 6:16), furnishes a fulfillment of this detail of the prophecy. A fulfillment that is not only in keeping with the other five items, but which brings the whole series to a worthy climax…All six items were completely fulfilled at the first coming of Christ, and in the ‘week’ of His crucifixion. For when our Lord ascended into Heaven and the Holy Spirit descended, there remained NOT ONE of the six items of Daniel 9:24 that was not fully accomplished.”

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand: That from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks. The street shall be built again and the wall–even in troublous times.

The first four words of this verse tells us the vision is easily understood and that it did not take nineteen hundred years before some Bible scholar (?) could figure it out and write it down in his footnotes. But rather the vision was understood from the start. The angel of the Lord is going to explain it for Daniel and give him the necessary clues for solving the puzzle–which he is able to easily do. That from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem. Here is the first major clue. It deals specifically with a commandment issued to restore and build Jerusalem. Not to merely repair the walls as did Nehemiah. But to restore and build.

“The going forth of the commandment (literally word) to restore and to build Jerusalem is one of the most important of the chronological landmarks of Scripture; for from it stretches the measuring line of 483 years unto the Messiah, the Prince. This is a matter that Daniel was specially charged by the angel to know and to understand. Unless the time of the going forth of that word be known, and unless its relation with the entire chronological scheme of the Bible be understood, the Divinely-given measuring line will be of no avail for the very purpose for which it was given,” begins Philip Mauro in another work about Bible chronology. It is a proven fact, for anyone who will take the time to study his book on chronology (stretching from Adam to the resurrection of Christ), that the Bible tells us all the information we need to determine when this commandment was given and, furthermore, the Bible is the only reliable source of information on the issuing of that commandment.

It is most important to note about this verse that the time begins, not at the restoring and building of Jerusalem, but “at the going forth of the ‘word,’ or decree, to restore and to build. That word went forth in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, and, moreover, its going forth was for the express purpose ‘that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled. (Ezra 1:1) To that end the Lord Himself ‘stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation (literally caused a voice to pass) throughout all his kingdom.’ Here certainly was a royal ‘word’ or proclamation going forth. And the express object of it was to release the captives of Judah that they might ‘go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (He is the God) which is in Jerusalem.’ (Ezra 1:2-3)”

Mauro goes on to give extensive evidence as to how the Bible gives us the date spoken about in Daniel. Needless to say, however, the date is determined by comparing various Scriptural references and concluding it to be 457 B.C. or 3,589 years after the creation of Adam. In that specific year, “Cyrus becomes sole king. Issues proclamation in his first year releasing the captive Jews and giving permission to ‘go up and build the house.’ (Ezra 1:14) This year marks the end of the 70 years’ captivity, and the beginning of the 70 sevens of years ‘determined’ upon Daniel’s people and his holy city, to finish the transgression, etc. (Daniel 9:24).” And, after careful consideration and study, we may safely deduce, and correctly it may be added, that the “Scriptures do not leave us in uncertainty as to those essential matters of fact.”

As was mentioned above, most scholars (?) rely upon Ptolemy’s chronology which is false and in great error. Three reasons may be given for this truth, though we do not attack Ptolemy out of spite but simply because he was wrong, and those three reasons are:

“First, that the canon of Ptolemy is untrustworthy as a basis for a system of chronology, its statements being not authenticated in any way; and that, therefore, it should be rejected as unworthy of our confidence, even if it did not come into conflict with the statements of Scripture;

“Second, that the ‘commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem,’ from which the prophetic period of Seventy Weeks began to run (Daniel 9:25), was the decree of Cyrus the Great, referred to in Ezra 1:1-4;

“Third, that the 483-year period of Daniel 9:25, reaching ‘unto the Messiah, the Prince,’ ended at the baptism of our Lord, in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, when He was thirty years of age.”

And this, it is a Biblical fact, is what is meant by “unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks.” John Calvin comments upon this one portion and writes:

“Some, again, think the dignity of Christ lessened by the use of the word dygn , negid, prince or leader, as if in his leadership there existed neither royalty, nor scepter, nor diadem. This remark is altogether without reason; for David is called a leader of the people, and Hezekiah when he wore a diadem, and was seated on his throne, is also termed a leader. (2 Samuel 5:2; 2 Kings 20:5.) Without doubt, the word here implies superior excellence.”

The words unto the Messiah tells us with all requisite clearness and absolute certainty to just what point in the 33-year lifetime of Jesus on this Earth as the measure of 69 weeks (483 years) reaches to that specific date. Many are the proofs of this and may be searched out in-depth over the many pages Mauro devotes to it. This is a most clear indication that the things that were to be consummated within the ‘determined’ period of Seventy Weeks were matters that concerned, not only the Jews by themselves, but all of mankind–Jews and Gentiles alike–and it had to do with the salvation of God’s chosen and elect children. From the day God had created Adam until this event wherein Christ Jesus would be baptized by the first Baptist, God had dealt strictly with the Jews–with a very few exceptions. It had been the history of the Jews that filled the Old Testament but now it was about to change. Beginning with the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare you the way of the Lord, a new period of history was beginning wherein God would deal with both the Jews and the Gentiles. One wherein the dealings were to be matters of world history on a grand scale.

Consequently, we must now turn to Gentile chronology to complete this analysis and understanding. It was the complete time wherein Christ Jesus had come in the fullness of time.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. But not for Himself. And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end thereof shall be with a flood and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Of verse 26, Adam Clarke writes: “And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary- By the ‘prince’ Titus, the son of Vespasian, is plainly intended; and ‘the people of that prince’ are no other than the Romans, who, according to the prophecy, destroyed the sanctuary, çdqh hakkodesh, the holy place or temple, and, as a flood, swept away all, till the total destruction of that obstinate people finished the war.”

It was precisely 483 years from the going forth of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem that Christ Jesus was baptized by John the first Baptist. That, in other words, was the first 69 weeks. One week now remained in the prophecy given to Daniel. And the final event of the prophecy was to take place within that 7-year (one week) period. And all six predictions of verse 24 would occur during that final week. But before going any further, duty demands, because of the multitude of heresy accepted by the vast majority of professing Christians, that we discuss the idea of: Are the Seventy Weeks consecutive? For it is at this point that the Scriptural teachings and the 20th century theologians (?) part company on a large scale. It is the difference between the Scriptural Historicist view point and the heretical Futurist view point which “has no basis whatever in the Scriptures. It is entirely a work of the imagination, resting upon nothing but unprovable assumptions.”

Again, it is wise to notice the first words within this prophecy: Seventy Weeks are determined. “These are words of clear and certain meaning. They are just the words which would be used by one who wished to be understood as saying that, within the measure of 70 weeks, the six things specified in Daniel 9:24 would happen. If the speaker meant something very different, even that the specified things would not occur for more than two thousand years, [as the Futurist view point falsely teaches] then manifestly the words used by him could serve only to mislead those who trusted in them.” In support of our Scriptural argument, we appeal solely to the Scriptures and not the Satanic-inspired Biblical footnotes of a heretic. After having read the entire Bible through many times, this writer can never remember having found anything where any determined period of time, “expressed in the way always used for that purpose (that is, by stating the number of time-units making up the complete measure) been treated according to the view we are now discussing. Never has a specified number of time-units, making up a described stretch of time, been taken to mean anything but continuous or consecutive time-units.”

First, in every instance where periods of time are given before the event occurs in the Bible prophecies they always mean that the time-units composing the period named are continuous. Mauro calls it

 ”a necessary law of language that the time-units be understood as being connected together without a break.” One of the most obvious and greatest examples of this is the seventy year prophecy God gave to Jeremiah. [Jeremiah 29:10] It was the very prophecy Daniel read and knew about the forthcoming decree of Cyrus, etc. Further, dear reader, THERE WAS NO POSTPONEMENT BETWEEN THE WEEKS OR YEARS OF THAT PROPHECY!

Another even better example, not that this one was not good for it is absolutely TRUE, is the example given by Christ Jesus Himself about His death and resurrection. Over and over He spoke about how, after three days in the grave, He would rise again. And He did as He said WITHOUT ANY POSTPONEMENT BETWEEN THE DAYS! Suffice it to say, these two prove the false idea of a postponement is exactly that–FALSE! Prophecy does not contain a postponement or Gap and, it may added, the only gap is that between the ears of the false prophet who concocted this hair-brained idea–Francisco Ribera and C. I. Scofield.

“Actually the Church Age occurs in an unmentioned parenthetical period between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks,” writes Scofield disciple William MacDonald. There is no where in the Scriptures that teaches a separation of these weeks–not even in Daniel. I do not deny what he says about it being “unmentioned.” Why should it be mentioned? There is a good reason for it. That is because it is not there in fact. (And, if I were to be as sarcastic as I feel toward him and his writings, I would state emphatically that the only “parenthetical period between” anything is that between his ears. But I will prefer that be “unmentioned” also.)

Second, the first 69-weeks bring us to the baptism of Christ Jesus but not to His death, burial, resurrection and ascension. Whereby Israel, we may add, would complete her role in the transgressions against God by betraying and crucifying the Son of God. This was to occur within the midst of the week, as is talked about in the next verse, and would be that thing wherein He would confirm the Covenant made in the eternal council of the Godhead about the Son coming and dying for the elect of God. It would take place three and half years into Christ’s ministry–or the midst of the week. At that time, because of His sacrificial death, as is repeatedly taught in Hebrews, there was no longer any need for the sacrifices to continue after the Perfect Sacrifice had been offered up. Therefore, Christ Jesus, by His death, burial, and resurrection, would cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. This would take place in the middle of the last week or the 70th Week.

Third, the things predicted in verse 27 below were to be the means whereby those predictions of verse 24 would be accomplished and fulfilled. “Thus the first and last parts of the prophecy are bound firmly together. It is impossible to detach the 70th week from the other 69 without destroying the prophecy as a whole. For if the 70th consecutive week from the starting point was not the 70th of the prophetic period, then none of the six predicted things came to pass within that period. In that [Futurist-Dispensational] view they all happened in an unmentioned Gap between the 69 (which brought us ‘unto the Messiah’) and the 70th which is yet future. Thus, according to this [Futurist-Dispensational] view, the prophecy has been completely falsified.”

Last, God has given to us a measuring stick or canon whereby we may examine and evaluate a prophet or someone who claims to be a prophet for the Lord. That measuring device is found in Deuteronomy 18:21. (See also: John 14:29) According to what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy, and he did write it, the Seventy Week prophecy must be interpreted “according to its plain and ordinary sense, else those who looked for the fulfillment of it in its time would have been fully justified in rejecting it as the thing which the Lord had not spoken.” Thus it is more than obvious to all who are not subject to the curse of 2 Thessalonians 2:11, and many there be suffering from this in the 20th century, that the time-units in Daniel ARE CONSECUTIVE and NO POSTPONEMENT IS TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE!

The question is then asked: Why apply a different rule to the 70th week than the first 69 weeks? There is absolutely no reason. Nor should we apply a different rule. There is no dispensational gap anywhere in the Scriptures whereby God has slipped in 2,000 years without telling us and calling it ‘the church age.’ It is high time to awake out of sleep and go back to believing the Scriptural teachings and not the footnotes and writings of a heretic and his disciples.

It is now necessary to look at the latter portion of this verse. “And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary and the end thereof shall be with a flood and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.” Who is the people of the prince that shall come?

“Notwithstanding, however, the differences of translation, it is not difficult to gather the meaning of the passage. Indeed, so far as we are aware, all expositors agree that it foretells the exterminating judgment of God, which in due time was executed by the Roman armies under Titus, by whom the city was overwhelmed as ‘with a flood’ (a figure often used for an invading army), and the city and the land were given over to the age-long ‘desolations,’ which had been ‘determined’ in the counsels of God…Who is the prince that shall come? At this point we are confronted with a question which very seriously affects the interpretation of the prophecy. Taking the words according to their apparent and obvious meaning (which should always be done except where there is a compelling reason to the contrary) [and there is none here] it would seem quite clear that ‘the prince,’ whose people were to destroy the city and the sanctuary, was Titus, the son of the then emperor Vespasian, he (Titus) being the ‘prince’ or ‘leader’ who was in actual command of those armies at the time. In fact we are bold to say that the words of the prophecy, which are the words of God sent directly from Heaven to Daniel, do not reasonably admit of any other interpretation.”

But why did not the predicted judgment take place at the time Jesus was crucified? Mauro answers this, as this writer has written above, and shows it was because of Jesus’ prayer that a probationary period of 40 years was granted. “The predicted judgment did not immediately follow; for Christ prayed for His murderers in His dying hour, ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’ (Luke 23:34) In answer to that prayer the full probationary period of forty years (30 to 70 A.D.) was added to their national existence, during which time repentance and remission of sins was preached to them in the Name of the crucified and risen One, and tens of thousands of Jews were saved.”

Daniel 9:27 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.

Before continuing, let us notice what Calvin says about the word many in this verse. He writes: “I take the word “many” here, comparatively, for the faithful Gentiles united with the Jews. It is very well known that God’s covenant was deposited by a kind of hereditary right with the Israelites until the same favor was extended to the Gentiles also.

Therefore Christ is said not only to have renewed God’s covenant with a single nation but generally with the world at large.” In other words, the gospel was now to be preached to the whole world and not just to the Jews as Christ had first commanded His disciples to do.

Now we come to the final verse and the one that also causes great disagreement among the so-called theologians of today. Rather than waste time writing about what it is not, this writer would prefer to write about what it is and, it may be observed, only mention that which it is not in passing proof of what it is. The whole verse hinges on the word He after the opening word and. Again, it is important to remember, this entire prophecy is about the coming of the Messiah–not some Antichrist–but the Christ Jesus Himself. With this Scriptural truth in mind, it is easy to continue with our understanding and interpretation without getting bogged down in assumptions and massive speculations for which none have any Biblical proof. “If we take the pronoun HE as relating to ‘the Messiah’ mentioned in the preceding verse, then we find in the New Testament Scriptures a perfect fulfillment of the passage, and a fulfillment, moreover, which is set forth in the most conspicuous way. That pronoun must, in our opinion, be taken as referring to Christ, because: (a) the prophecy is all about Christ, and this is the climax of it; (b) Titus did not make any Covenant with the Jews; (c) there is not a word in Scripture about any future ‘prince’ making a covenant with them…Each of them is completely fulfilled in the inspired accounts of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ given in the New Testament. Those three points are: (1) confirming the Covenant with many; (2) what happened in the midst of the week; (3) causing the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

In dealing with these three points, let us begin with:

(1) Confirming the Covenant with man. The preposition for is not really there. Therefore, the reference to one week is not speaking about the duration of time but the time when it was confirmed. That Covenant, we then may correctly and safely deduce, was confirmed by the shedding of the blood of Christ Jesus on Calvary (Hebrews 9:14-20) in the ‘one week’ which, of course, was the final week of the prophecy and was determined. Many Scriptural verses could be offered as further proof of this fact including the entire four gospels.

(2) In the midst of the week. We have already seen how it is that a day represented a year in Ezekiel. Therefore, a week would represent seven years in prophecy. The midst of that week would be three and a half days into the week or three and a half years into the ministry of Christ Jesus when He would be crucified or cut off. Again, many verses could be employed to prove this including the entire gospel account of John.

(3) He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. As already mentioned above, the writer of Hebrews spent chapters 8-10 showing how the Spirit of God, with solemn emphasis, set aside the Old Covenant, which contained the yearly offering of sacrifices, and no longer was it needed but it ceased. Behold, a New Covenant was confirmed and, in that New Covenant, Christ Jesus was the Perfect Lamb of God.

Of verse 27, Adam Clarke writes: “Alas for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate- This clause is remarkably obscure. ‘And upon the wing of abominations causing amazement.’ This is a literal translation of the place; but still there is no determinate sense. A Hebrews MS., written in the thirteenth century, has preserved a very remarkable reading here, which frees the place from all embarrassment. Instead of the above reading, this valuable MS. has, ‘And in the temple (of the Lord) there shall be abomination.’ This makes the passage plain, and is strictly conformable to the facts themselves, for the temple was profaned; and it agrees with the prediction of our Lord, who said that the abomination that maketh desolate should stand in the holy place, Matthew 24:15, and quotes the words as spoken dia danihl tou frofhtou, by Daniel the prophet. That the above reading gives the true sense, there can be little doubt, because it is countenanced by the most eminent ancient versions. The Vulgate reads, Et erit in templo abominatio, ‘And in the temple there shall be abomination.’ The Septuagint, kai epi to ieron bdelugma twn erhmwsewn, ‘And upon the temple there shall be the abomination of desolation.’ The Arabic, ‘And upon the sanctuary there shall be the abomination of ruin.’”

The latter portion of that final 70th week was another three and a half years that extended to the murder of Stephen by Saul of Tarsus and the Pharisees outside of Jerusalem. Because of Jesus’ prayer on the cross, in 30 A.D., Jerusalem and the Jews were spared another 40 years–which is always the number in the Bible for trial or probationary period and is employed over and over in this meaning. So is the explanation of the Seventy Week vision which the angel of the Lord gave unto Daniel and interpreted for him so that he would know when the Messiah was to come and the destruction of Jerusalem for their rejection of the Messiah. If this be the meaning, and it is a Scriptural fact that it is, then there is no need to point out all the fallacies of the Dispensational-Futurists.

The following is from P. Mauro’s Table Twelve.

Event An. Hom. B. C.
In the 7th month of the year last mentioned (the 1st of Cyrus, 3589) the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem. But not until the 2nd year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem in the 2nd month did they begin to set forward the work of the house of the Lord. (The intervening 7 months would doubtless have been needed for building habitations for themselves). So we have the date of the beginning of the second Temple. 3590 456
In the 3rd year of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1) Daniel had the vision recorded in chapters 10-12 of his prophecy, in course of which he was informed that 3 kings of Persia should yet stand up (after Cyrus) and that the 4th should be far richer than they all. This 4th king was the fabuously wealthy monarch Xerzes, who ‘stirred up all against the realm of Grecia;’ and the ‘mighty king’ who succeeded him, and whose kingdom was broken, and divided toward the four winds of Heaven, but not to his posterity, was Alexander the Great, whose kingdom was divided between his four generals. This vision was in the 3rd year of Cyrus. 3591 455
From the decree of Cyrus in his first year there were to be ‘seven weeks and three score and two weeks unto the Messiah, the Prince.’ The ‘seven weeks’ (49 years) are apparently the measure of the ‘troublous times’ during which the street and wall of the city were to be built. This would bring us (the reckoning being inclusive of the year of the decree was issued) to: 3637 409
From the 1st year of Cyrus ‘unto Christ’ that is to His baptism, was 483 years, which would bring us to the year 4071; and since the Lord was then beginning to be 30 years of age, we have for the year of His birth on September 21st. 4041 5
Add 30 years to His baptism (15th year of Tiberius Caesar) 4071 26 A.D.
Add three and a half years to His crucifixion, the Ascension, the coming of the Holy Spirit, and we have, as the year of those, the greatest by far of all events in the history of the Heavens and Earth. 4075 30 A. D.

This table shows us that the life of Jesus upon this Earth ended at His ascension in the year 30 A.D. Three and a half years after that, approximately, Stephen, the first martyr was stoned to death by Paul and the other Pharisees outside of Jerusalem–concluding the full Seventy Weeks. And so we are able to determine exactly when Christ was born; that is, up to the year of His birth from the Biblical references found here in Daniel.

Dare any to claim this is impossible? It is because they deny what the Scriptures say about the Seventy Week vision which Daniel was given by the Lord. It is because they follow the heresy of C. I. ‘The Big S’ Scofield and his two forerunners: Francisco Ribera and John Nelson Darby. But when we are willing to throw away those demonic-inspired footnotes of ‘The Big S’ and rely solely upon the Scriptures, when we are willing to burn those books written by heretics like Pentecost, Wolvoord, Ryrie, and other Dispensational lunatics, we will find the Scriptures can give us an abundance of information about many wonderful things. Perhaps that is why Philip Mauro chose to call his excellent book: The Wonders of Bible Chronology.

One final note before we explore the history of this false teaching and refute it by the Word of God. “Futurists teach that ‘tribulation’ and ‘wrath’ are added to the 70th week. Some teach the first three and a half years as tribulation, and the second half of this terrible period, wrath. The ‘rapture’ of the church has various interpretations within the framework of this most eventful week: Pretribulationists–put the rapture at the beginning of the week; Posttribulationists–put the rapture at the end of the week. And some put it in the middle of the week.

Regardless of their rapture theories, [and that is all they are--THEORIES], they all revolve around the 70th week of Daniel’s time measure occurring in the future at the end of the age. The [false] teachers of this Roman theology are numerous. And to make things worse, some Futurists teach three very perplexing scenarios.”