A Defense of the Doctrine of a Future “70th Week”

In Daniel 9:20-27, we read the following:

While I was speaking, praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my petition before Yahweh my God concerning the holy mountain of my God— while I was praying, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the first vision, came to me in my extreme weariness, about the time of the evening offering. He gave me this explanation: 

“Daniel, I’ve come now to give you understanding. At the beginning of your petitions an answer went out, and I have come to give it, for you are treasured by God. So consider the message and understand the vision:

Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city—to bring the rebellion to an end, to put a stop to sin, to wipe away iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.

Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince will be seven weeks and 62 weeks. It will be rebuilt with a plaza and a moat, but in difficult times.

After those 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the coming prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come with a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations are decreed.

He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.”

Because the Hebrew noun translated “answer” in v. 23 (dabar) is the same word translated “decree” in v. 25, some students of Scripture believe that Gabriel was referring to this “decree” in v. 23. However, the Hebrew word dabar simply means “word” or “speech,” and the exact nature or content of the “word” or “speech” in view must be determined by the immediate context. In v. 23, the “word” that went forth from Yahweh (and which Gabriel wanted Daniel to understand) is simply the prophecy of which we read in verses 24-27. It was this prophetic word that was spoken by Yahweh to Gabriel, and which Gabriel then brought to Daniel. It should also be noted that King Darius the Mede was ruling over the Babylonian kingdom when Daniel’s prayer was answered (Dan. 9:1; cf. Dan. 6:25-27). Evidently, Cyrus succeeded Darius as king after Darius’ death (Dan. 6:28).

Now, when reading the above prophecy, it must be continually kept in mind by the reader that the entire time period in view is said to have been “decreed” (or “segregated”) for Daniel’s people and their holy city. In other words, all “seventy weeks” of the prophecy concern Israel (whom Daniel referred to as “my people”) and the city of Jerusalem. 

But what did Gabriel mean by “seventy weeks?” It’s my understanding that the “weeks” (literally, “sevens”) referred to in this prophecy are seven-year-long periods of time. That is, each “week” of which the “seventy weeks” are comprised equals seven years. This means that all “seventy weeks” (or “seventy sevens”) referred to in v. 24 will equal a total of 490 years. Thus, the seventy weeks prophesied in Daniel 9:24 are a single unit of time (with all of the weeks or “sevens” collectively constituting a single period of time lasting 490 years). It is for this reason that the word translated “decreed” (or “segregated”) in v. 24 is singular. But as we'll see, this fact doesn’t mean that there can’t be an interruption or “gap” between the first 69 weeks and the last week. For regardless of whether the 70^th week occurs immediately after the 69^th week or after an unspecified period of time has elapsed, the 70^th week would still be just as much an integral part of the whole 70 weeks as any other week. The 70 weeks would still be 490 years in length (and thus a single whole unit of time) regardless of whether or not there is an interruption between the first 483 years and the last seven years.

There are some who believe that the total number of years in view in this prophecy should be understood as 500 years rather than 490 years. In defense of this view, an appeal is made to the jubilee cycle that we find referred to in Leviticus 25:8-22. However, according to Lev. 25:8, it’s evident that “seven Sabbaths of years” (or “seven times seven years”) equals 49 years. The next year – which is the 50^th year – is then the jubilee year (vv. 10-12). Just as one can’t count seven Sabbaths of years as 50 years, one shouldn’t count the “seventy sevens” of Daniel 9:24 as 500 years. Seventy sevens (70 x 7) equals 490, and since each “seven” (or “week”) is a seven-year-long period of time, the total number of years must be 490. Moreover, as will be argued below, the first sixty-nine “weeks” of the seventy weeks prophecy are equal to 483 years, and can be understood as having already been fulfilled. And since these 483 years of Israel’s history continued without any gaps, this period of time necessarily included jubilee years (which would have occurred on the 50^th year of each jubilee cycle). And since this 483-year-long period of time in Israel’s history would’ve necessarily included jubilee years, no additional jubilee years need to be added to it. 

Now, in accord with the view that each “week” or “seven” of which the “seventy weeks” are comprised is a period of time equaling seven years, the first division of the seventy weeks (which is said to be “seven weeks”) should be understood as equaling 49 years, while the second division (“62 weeks”) should be understood as equaling 434 years. And since these two specified divisions of the seventy weeks add up to a total of 483 years, what we find being revealed in verse 25 of the prophecy is that there would be 483 years ”from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince.” 

Some students of Scripture believe the “decree” referred to here was that which was issued by Cyrus in 538 BC. Others have argued that it was the decree issued by King Artaxerxes I in 457 BC (Ezra 7:11-25); see the following article for a defense of this view: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1988/04/establishing-the-date-457-b.c. Still others believe it to be the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 445 BC (see Nehemiah 2:6-8; the decree or word of the king concerning the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem is implied in v. 8 where we read, “And the king granted me what I asked”). Although I formerly held to the 538 BC view (albeit, tentatively) I've since come to believe that the later decree of Artaxerxes – that given to Nehemiah in 445 – is that which is prophesied in Daniel 9:25 (for a defense of this view, see NEHEMIAH AND THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIEL).

In defense of the Cyrus view, an appeal is commonly made to Isaiah 44:28 and 45:13. Here is how these verses read in the CVOT:

Saying as to Cyrus, `My shepherd,' and `All My desire he will perform.' Saying as to Jerusalem, `It shall be built.' And the temple, `It shall be founded.’”

“I, I rouse him in righteousness, and all his ways am I straightening. He shall build My city, and My deportation he will let go, not for a price, and not for a bribe, says Yahweh of hosts.”

2 Chronicles 36:22-23 (cf. Ezra 1:1-2 and Ezra 6:3) tells us that Cyrus issued a decree to rebuild the temple (interestingly, the completion of the temple-rebuilding work begun under Cyrus was understood by the inspired historian to have been completed under the reign of Artaxerxes, for in Ezra 6:14 we read the following: “Thus they rebuilt and completed the work due to the command of Eloah of Israel and due to a decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia”). Although the rebuilding of the temple could be considered the first step in the process of rebuilding the city of Jerusalem (and to have thus initiated the rebuilding of the city), it’s significant that Cyrus’ decree does not actually mention the city. 

Nor did Cyrus’ decree concerning the temple result in the state of affairs involving the city that we find described at the end of Daniel 9:25. We know that Jerusalem was still in ruins in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 1:3; 2:11-17; Ezra 4:7-23), and that the population was so sparse in Nehemiah’s time that “the people cast lots to bring one out of ten to live in Jerusalem the holy city, while nine out of ten remained in the other towns” (Neh. 11:1). This was almost one hundred years after Cyrus’ decree concerning the temple. We also know that the period of rebuilding under Ezra and Nehemiah could, in light of the opposition they faced (see Ezra 4), be described as “difficult times.”

Now, in v. 24, we read of six events for which the seventy weeks are said to be “decreed” for Israel and Jerusalem:

Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city—to bring the rebellion to an end, to put a stop to sin, to wipe away iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.

The clear implication of this verse is that the six events referred to will occur, or begin to occur, when the 70 weeks are accomplished. And based on what we’re told these events are, it’s reasonable to conclude that they will not begin to occur until after Christ has returned to earth at the end of the eon. For it is at this time that the promised new covenant of which Christ was made the Mediator is concluded “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:6-13), and Israel will enter into her covenant-based expectation. Then, Israel’s transgression will be detained, and sin will come to an end for God’s covenant people. As we read in Romans 11:26-27, “And thus all Israel shall be saved, according as it is written, ‘Arriving out of Zion shall be a Rescuer. He will be turning away irreverence from Jacob. And this is My covenant with them whenever I should be eliminating their sins.’”

Although Christ’s death is undoubtedly the basis for (and secured the future fulfillment of) the occurrence of the blessings referred to in Dan. 9:24, the actual fulfillment of these prophesied blessings can only be future. The six events for which the seventy sevens are said to be “segregated” did not occur when Christ died, or at any time following his death. They will, however, begin to occur when the new covenant comes to be in force at Christ’s return. And insofar as that’s the case, it’s reasonable to conclude that the completion of the seventy weeks is still future as well. And this means that the 70^th week that we find first referred to in v. 27 is still future.

Moreover, the way in which the seventy weeks prophecy was presented to Daniel most definitely allows for a chronological gap. Here, again, are verses 26 and 27:

After those 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the coming prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come with a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations are decreed. 

He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.”

It is in accord with the most natural and straightforward reading of Daniel 9:24-27 to understand the prophesied events referred to in these verses as occurring in chronological order. Here is the sequence of prophesied events as they were revealed to Daniel:

1. The first 69 (7+62) weeks of the seventy weeks prophecy transpire.

2. After these weeks, the Messiah is cut off.

3. The city and the sanctuary are destroyed by “the people of the coming prince.”

4. The “coming prince” (or coming governor/ruler) makes “a firm covenant with many for one week” (which is the 70^th week).

5. In the middle of the week, this individual puts a stop to sacrifice and offering, and “the abomination of desolation” (or “desolating abominations”) will be “on a wing of the temple.”  

When we understand the seventy weeks prophecy in a sequential and chronological way, such an interval in time between the 69^th and 70^th week is both natural and required. In v. 26 we read of “after the 62 weeks,” but nothing is explicitly said concerning the last “week” until verse 27. That is, we have no reason to think that events occurring during the 70^th week are in view until we get to v. 27 (where we find the 70^th week first mentioned). The order of the prophesied events is such that the 70^th week should be understood as beginning sometime after the occurrence of the last-mentioned events of v. 26. Thus, verse 26 is precisely where we would expect a “gap” in time to be present if the prophesied events referred to in verses 26 and 27 occur in chronological/sequential order. And we have no good reason to think that they don’t occur in chronological order.

It is not at all obvious or natural to understand the cutting off of the Messiah as occurring during the 70^th week (which isn’t mentioned until v. 27), or to understand the other prophesied event (the destruction of the city and the sanctuary) as occurring after the 70^th week has ended. Rather, both the cutting off of the Messiah and the subsequent destruction of the city and sanctuary are referred to in the prophecy as if they occur after the 7 + 62 (or 69) weeks but before the start of the 70^th week (when “a firm covenant” will be made “with many”). In contrast, those who believe the seventy weeks were fulfilled 3 ½ years after Christ’s death must “hop back and forth” between events taking place during the 70^th week and events that (supposedly) took place after the 70^th week was fulfilled.

Significantly, Paul clearly understood there to be a “gap” in God’s prophecy-fulfilling dealings with Israel as a nation. In Romans 11:25-27, Paul prophesied concerning the nation of Israel as follows:

“For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering. And thus all Israel shall be saved, according as it is written, Arriving out of Zion shall be the Rescuer. He will be turning away irreverence from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them Whenever I should be eliminating their sins.

In other words, the state of affairs that Paul referred to as “callousness, in part, on Israel has come” is to continue until “the complement of the nations may be entering.” But what did Paul have in mind by “callousness, in part” coming on Israel? I believe Paul explained this state of affairs in Romans 11:11-15 as follows:

“What then? What Israel is seeking for, this she did not encounter, yet the chosen encountered it. Now the rest were calloused, even as it is written, God gives them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day.

And David is saying, "Let their table become a trap and a mesh, And a snare and a repayment to them: Darkened be their eyes, not to be observing, And their backs bow together continually.”

I am saying, then, Do they not trip that they should be falling? May it not be coming to that! But in their offense is salvation to the nations, to provoke them to jealousy.

Now if their offense is the world's riches and their discomfiture the nations' riches, how much rather that which fills them! Now to you am I saying, to the nations, in as much as, indeed, then, I am the apostle of the nations, I am glorifying my dispensation, if somehow I should be provoking those of my flesh to jealousy and should be saving some of them. For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will the taking back be if not life from among the dead?"

This passage begins with Paul contrasting Israel as a nation (to which he referred simply as “Israel”) with the “chosen” from among the nation (which, in v. 5, we find referred to as “a remnant according to the choice of grace”). After stating that the chosen encountered what Israel did not, Paul then put the focus on the “calloused” and “blinded” state of Israel as a nation (verses 7-10). From the immediate and larger context, then, it’s evident that the calloused condition of which Paul wrote in Rom. 11:25 is one in which Israel had been made insensitive and unreceptive to the truth concerning Jesus’ identity as the Christ and the Son of God.

Paul went on to refer to this calloused, “non-remnant” group of Israelites with the words “they” and “their” in the next verses, all the way to v. 15. So when Paul wrote of “their casting away” in v. 15, he had in view the “casting away” of the majority of Israelites that constituted the nation of Israel in his day. Thus, by the time Paul wrote to the Romans, the majority of Israelites had been “cast away” by God. And we know from verses 7-9 that the “casting away” of Israel is equivalent to God’s bringing “callousness, in part” on the nation – i.e., God’s giving Israel a “spirit of stupor” so that they cannot believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. God “cast away” the nation of Israel when he gave the majority of Israelites a “spirit of stupor” and made them insensitive and unreceptive to the truth of Jesus’ Messianic identity. And this means that the “taking back” of Israel must refer to God’s removal of this “callousness” and “spirit of stupor” from Israel, so that Israel becomes more sensitive and receptive to the truth.

But when did “callousness, in part,” come on Israel? That is, when did the “casting away” of Israel take place? Based on the words of Christ in Matthew 13:11-17 (cf. Mark 4:10-12; John 12:37-40), we can conclude that the “callousness, in part” of which Paul wrote had come upon Israel at some point prior to when Christ said what he did in this passage. This means that the “casting away” of Israel could very well have taken place at some point near the beginning of Christ’s earthly ministry. I believe that the first 69 weeks (or 483 years) of the “seventy weeks” prophecy were fulfilled when Christ entered Jerusalem in the spring of 32 AD. It is therefore plausible that the “gap” implied in Romans 11:25-27 (which began when Israel was “cast away” by God) began when the first 483 years of the seventy weeks prophecy ended. And if that’s the case, it’s reasonable to conclude that the “taking back” of Israel by God (which will involve the removal of the “callousness” that is presently on the nation) will occur when the “break” in the seventy weeks prophecy ends, and the 70^th week begins.

A Response to Objections

Having made a brief case for the view that the 70^th week of the “seventy weeks” prophecy is still future – and that there is a gap of unspecified time between the 69^th and 70^th week – I’m going to spend the remainder of this article responding to objections to this position (which I believe will help further strengthen the case I’ve made for a future 70^th week).

Objection: We have no reason to believe that Daniel would’ve understood the seventy weeks prophecy to include a chronological gap.

Response: Daniel’s understanding of whether or not a chronological gap exists in a certain prophecy is simply not relevant to how we ought to understand the prophecy. There is no reason to think that every prophet had a fully accurate understanding of when, exactly, the events of which they prophesied would take place, or how much time would elapse between prophesied events. It’s already been noted that, as revealed to Daniel, the seventy weeks prophecy allows for an interval of time between the 69^th week (or 7+62 weeks) and the final 70^th week. Moreover, there are a number of prophecies in Scripture where an unspecified chronological gap exists between two or more events that were still future when the prophecy was first given (e.g., Zech. 9:9-10). In fact, there are at least three more prophecies in the book of Daniel in which chronological gaps are arguably present (Daniel 2:39-41, Daniel 8:8-9 [cf. 8:21-23] and Daniel 11-12).

Consider, for example, Daniel 11-12. Although there is disagreement among students of Scripture as to where, exactly, the prophecy shifts from describing events that have already been fulfilled to events that are still future, most students would agree that there is, in fact, a transition from fulfilled to unfulfilled prophecy at some point in these chapters. I believe that this transition occurs in Daniel 11:33-36 (with v. 36 marking the beginning of unfulfilled prophecy), and that the rest of the book of Daniel is focused on events that are yet to occur. However, it must be emphasized that even if one believes that the transition between past and future events occurs earlier (e.g., in Daniel 11:5 or 11:21), it still follows that there is a “gap” of unspecified time between past and future events in Daniel 11. And what’s more, such a gap of time between prophesied events described in Daniel 11-12 is, arguably, far less conspicuous and obvious than the interval of time that I believe to be present within the 70 weeks prophecy (and it’s unlikely that Daniel would’ve been aware of a gap between the prophesied events described in chapters 11-12 when he was given the prophecy).

Thus, any student of Scripture who believes that a chronological gap is present somewhere in Daniel 11-12 – but denies that such a gap could be present in Daniel 9:25-27 – is simply being inconsistent.

Objection: Scripture speaks of a period of great tribulation for Israel that will last 1,260 days (or 3 ½ years), not seven years.

Response: The fact that we find an emphasis placed on the final 3 ½ years of this eon – i.e., the time of “great affliction” for Israel – in Daniel and Revelation doesn’t mean that these final 3 ½ years shouldn’t be understood as the second half of the 70^th week prophesied in Daniel 9:27. 3½ years is, of course, exactly half of a 7-year period. Thus, rather than seeing the emphasis on a future 3 ½ year-long period of time as somehow inconsistent with or undermining the position that the prophesied 70^th week of Dan. 9:27 is still future, I see it as further confirmation of this view.

Another point that supports this understanding involves the ministry of the two witnesses. As I’ve argued in an earlier article (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-timing-of-snatching-away-in_18.html), the view that the ministry of the two witnesses will be taking place during the final 3 ½ years of this eon is simply not tenable. Instead, the more plausible view is that it will be occurring during an earlier 3 ½ year-long period (i.e., the first half of the 70^th week). Consider the following:

1. When we understand the prophetic ministry of the two witnesses as the fulfillment of the future prophetic ministry of Elijah (Mal. 4:5-6), we can conclude that the people to whom they will be witnessing will be Israelites. But if Israel is going to be their “target audience” during the 3 ½ years of their prophetic ministry, it wouldn’t make sense for this ministry – which is going to take place in the city of Jerusalem – to cover the last 3.5 years of this eon. When this period of time begins, the Jewish remnant dwelling in Judea (and who are represented by “the woman” in Revelation 12) will – in accord with Christ’s warning in Matt. 24:15-16 – be fleeing the land of Israel for the mountainous region (or “wilderness”) in which they will be supernaturally protected until Christ returns to earth (Rev. 12:6, 13-16). And any Israelites who fail to escape at this time would be unlikely to receive much – if any – benefit from the ministry of the two witnesses during the time of Israel’s “great affliction.” On the other hand, a prophetic ministry spanning the first 3 ½ years of the 70^th week would be extremely beneficial to Israel. In addition to providing un-calloused Israel with vital information concerning what they must believe and do in order to be saved, it would serve to prepare them for the coming time of great affliction. 

2. Understanding the prophetic ministry of the two witnesses as spanning the second half of the 70^th week implies a scenario that is incompatible with the fact that Christ’s return is going to be taking place immediately after the 70^th week ends. If the two witnesses begin their ministry at the beginning of the second half of the 70^th week, then their death will be occurring on the last day of the 70^th week. But this would mean that the corpses of the two witnesses are going to be lying in the street of Jerusalem for approximately three days after Christ has returned, and that the nations are going to be joyfully celebrating their deaths (even going so far as to be giving gifts to each other) for this same period of time. Such a scenario is clearly absurd and impossible. Not only would such blatant wickedness not be tolerated after Christ’s return, but we know that the man of lawlessness and all who will be aligned with him are going to be destroyed on the day of Christ’s return. Moreover, even if we placed the death of the two witnesses a few weeks or months before the end of the 70^th week, we would still run into problems. For we know that the final prophesied calamities that will be occurring during the latter part of the 70^th week will also be among the most severe (Rev. 16). And it seems highly implausible that the various calamities associated with the “seven bowls” (or even the last of the trumpet-related calamities) could coincide with the joyful, celebratory behavior of the unbelieving earth-dwellers for the 3 ½ days during which the two witnesses will be dead.

3. At the beginning of the second half of the 70^th week, the man of lawlessness will be “given authority to do what it wills forty-two months,” and will be using his authority “to do battle with the saints and to conquer them” (Rev. 13:4-7). This is in accord with Daniel 7:25, where it’s revealed that this future world ruler ”shall wear out the saints of the Most High…and they shall be given into his hand for a season and two seasons and half a season” (i.e., for 3 ½ years). We also know that the satanically-inspired persecution of God’s people during the time of “great affliction” will begin with events taking place in the city of Jerusalem, and that it’s here that the man of lawlessness will begin to “do battle with the saints and to conquer them.” The Jewish saints at this time will either be taken into captivity, killed, or forced to flee. In light of this fact, consider the words of Rev. 11:7: “And whenever they [the two witnesses] should be finishing their testimony, the wild beast which is ascending out of the submerged chaos will be doing battle with them and will be conquering them and killing them.”

The implication here is that, as soon as the “wild beast” does battle with the two witnesses, he will conquer them and kill them. Since we know that he begins to do battle with the saints at the beginning of the second half of the 70^th week, we can conclude that the two witnesses will be killed at this time (and may likely be the first saints to be killed when the time of great affliction begins). If, on the other hand, their prophetic ministry were to overlap with any part of the second half of the 70^th week, it would create a contradictory situation involving two opposing forces who both have the authority to destroy, and not be destroyed by, the other (with the “wild beast” having authority to “do battle with the saints and to conquer them,” and the two witnesses having the authority to destroy with fire “anyone wanting to injure them”). When we understand the ministry of the two witnesses to take place during a different half of the 70^th week than that of the saint-conquering reign of the wild beast, such a contradictory situation is avoided.

Based on the above considerations, I believe the most reasonable view is that the 1,260 days during which the two witnesses will be prophesying will constitute the first half of the 70^th week. It will be by means of their prophetic ministry that un-calloused Israel will come to believe the truth concerning Jesus’ Messianic identity (for a more in-depth defense of this position, see the article to which I’ve provided a link above).

Objection: The covenant referred to in Daniel 9:27 is the new covenant, which Christ “confirmed” when he died on the cross. This confirmation of the covenant continued until Stephen’s death.

Response: What we’re actually told in Dan. 9:27 concerning the “covenant with many” will, I believe, lead one to a different view than that expressed in the objection. Here, again, is how Dan. 9:27 reads in the HCSB:

“He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering.”

In the Concordant Version of the Old Testament, the verse reads as follows:

“Then he will be master of a covenant with many for one seven; at half of the seven, he shall cause to cease the sacrifice and the approach present; on a wing of the sanctuary shall be desolating abominations.”

And here is how the verse reads in Young’s Literal Translation:

“And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate…”

The Hebrew verb translated “make firm,” “be master of” and “strengthened” in these translations is gabar. The only other occurrence of the form of this verb as found in Dan. 9:27 is in Psalm 12:4. And there, the term seems to mean “have mastery” or “prevail.” Thus, the idea being communicated in Dan. 9:27 is that the 70^th week “covenant with many” is going to be made to “prevail” by the “ruler” (or “governor”) who is in view (or, if the CVOT is correct, it means that the governor in view is going to become “master of” this covenant).

In some Bibles (such as the KJV, the NIV and the NET), the verb gabar is translated as “confirm.” However, because of the ambiguity inherent in the word “confirm,” I think we need to be careful when using it in reference to the covenant referred to in Dan. 9:27. Insofar as we understand the word “confirm” to mean “strengthened” (which is one definition of “confirm”), this word can be considered an acceptable translation of gabar in Dan. 9:27. However, the English word “confirm” can also mean “verify.” And when the word “confirm” is understood in this sense, it is not consistent with the meaning of the Hebrew term gabar (for, as already noted, the form of the verb gabar used in Dan. 9:27 does not merely communicate the idea that the truth or veracity of the covenant in view is being established). Even in the LXX, the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew term gabar (dunamoo) means “to strengthen” or “make firm” (and not merely to “verify”).

Moreover, the wording of Dan. 9:27 implies that the “covenant” in view will be in effect when the 70^th week begins, and that this will be the result of the actions of the “coming governor.” However, the new covenant that we’re told God “shall be covenanting with the house of Israel after those days” (Heb. 8:10) did not go into effect either before or after Christ’s death. We do know that it was through his death that Christ became the “Mediator” of the new covenant (see Hebrews 8:6-13, 9:15-17, 10:15-22, 29 and 12:24). However, this fact did not cease to be the case at any point after Christ’s death (whether at Stephen’s death or any subsequent time). Christ’s status as “Mediator of the covenant” has never been annulled. That which Christ accomplished through his death on behalf of those who will be “obtaining the promise of the eonian enjoyment of the allotment” (Heb. 9:15) has never been undone. The new covenant of which Christ became the Mediator was just as certain to be put into effect AFTER Stephen’s death as it was BEFORE Stephen’s death.

Objection: After his resurrection, Christ “confirmed” (i.e., he verified) the new covenant with many through signs and wonders for 3.5 years, until Stephen was stoned (at which point this “confirmation” of the new covenant with many through signs and wonders was put on hold until the end-time).

Response: It’s already been noted that the term translated “confirm” in a few translations of Dan. 9:27 (gabar) does not simply mean “verify.” It means, “cause to prevail,” “strengthen” or “make firm.” However, the new covenant was not “caused to prevail,” “strengthened” or “made firm” by Christ “through signs and wonders” during the time prior to Stephen’s death. But let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that the term gabar can be understood to mean “verify” in Dan. 9:27. Is it true that the new covenant was verified through signs and wonders for a period of 3 ½ years (from the resurrection of Christ until the death of Stephen)? No.

We know that the apostles heralded the evangel of the kingdom to Israelites in Jerusalem prior to the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen’s death (and which led to the ecclesia in Jerusalem – except the apostles – being “scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria”). It’s also evident that signs and wonders were performed among the people of Israel during this time (Acts 2:43, Acts 4:30, Acts 5:12, Acts 6:8). However, it’s equally true that “signs and wonders” were still performed in connection with the ministry of those who heralded the evangel of the kingdom even after Stephen’s death and the subsequent persecution-caused scattering (Acts 8:6-7, 13, 17-18, 39; 9:32-43; 10:44-47 [cf. 11:15-17]; 11:27-28; 12:6-11, 22-24). In Acts 11:19 we read, “Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews.” And we know that, as a result of the ministry of those who were scattered, Jews continued to believe and be added to the ecclesia “throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts 9:31). Jews continued to be saved through the miracle-working ministry of Peter as well (Acts 9:32-42). And we also know that, both before and after Paul’s ministry among the nations began, he heralded the evangel of the kingdom to Israelites in the synagogues (including in Jerusalem).

So not only did “signs and wonders” not end with Stephen’s death, but the heralding of the evangel of the kingdom to Jews/Israelites didn’t end, either. This simple fact contradicts the theory assumed in the above objection. Moreover, even if the “signs and wonders” of the apostolic era should be understood as having “confirmed the new covenant” (which I don’t think is the case), we would have to conclude that the new covenant was being “confirmed” even after the death of Stephen (which, again, contradicts the theory assumed in the objection). However, we’re never told that the purpose of the signs and wonders that occurred during the apostolic era was to “confirm the new covenant.” Instead, the primary purpose of the signs and wonders that occurred in connection with the ministry of the apostles (including the ministry of Paul) was to authenticate the apostleship and authority of the apostles (for a defense of this view, see the following article: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-status-of-body-of-christ-prior-to.html).

Objection: The one referred to as “the prince who is to come” in Dan. 9:26 was the Roman general, Titus. However, the “he” who we’re told would “make a firm covenant with many for one week” and then “put a stop to sacrifice and offering” in “the middle of the week” can’t be a reference to Titus. We thus have good reason to believe that Jesus Christ is in view.

Response: Although this objection is correct in not identifying “the prince who is to come” with Jesus Christ, there is no good reason to understand the “he” of v. 27 as a reference to someone other than “the coming prince” of v. 26. In accord with the ordinary rules of grammar, a pronoun should be understood as referring to the nearest antecedent unless there is a contextual reason to think otherwise. And the nearest antecedent in agreement with “he” in v. 27 is “the prince who is to come” (or “the coming governor”) referred to in v. 26. Thus, the reader is justified in understanding the “he” of Dan. 9:27 as a reference to the previously-mentioned “coming prince” or “governor” of v. 26.

In fact, I have actually understated my case here. On pages 161-162 of his book Daniel and the Latter Days, Robert Culver explains the grammar-based difficulty facing the non-futurist interpretation of Dan. 9:27 as follows:

“…the ordinary rules of grammar establish that the leading actor of this verse is the Antichrist, the great evil man of the end time. “He shall make a firm covenant” (ASV), –thus the verse opens. A more literal reading of [the Hebrew expression] is: “And he shall cause to prevail a covenant.” If the pronoun “he” were present in the Hebrew, a case might possibly be made for the introduction of an entirely new personality into the story at this point. However, there is no pronoun; only the third masculine singular form of the verb indicates that an antecedent is to be sought, and that of necessity in the preceding context. Usually, the last preceding noun that agrees in gender and number and agrees with the sense is the antecedent. This is unquestionably…”the coming prince” of verse 26.”

Since Titus didn’t “make a firm covenant with many for one week” or “put a stop to sacrifice and offering” in the middle of the 70^th week, we can reasonably conclude that Titus did not fulfill the prophecy concerning “the prince who is to come.” But what about Christ? It’s already been shown that Christ didn’t “make a firm covenant with many for one week,” and for this reason alone we can rule out any interpretation which understands the “he” of Dan. 9:27 as a reference to Christ. And one could also argue that, since Christ isn’t “the prince who is to come” of v. 26, he can’t be in view in v. 27.

But what about the claim that, in the middle of the 70^th week, Christ “put a stop to sacrifice and offering” (or “caused sacrifices and offerings to halt”) when he died on the cross? The clear implication of what we read in Dan. 9:27 is that sacrifice and offering will be caused to cease in the middle of the 70^th week. However, we know from history that sacrifice and offering did not cease in the first century until 70 AD (which is forty years too late to fulfill a prophecy that, according to the view expressed in the objection, was fulfilled when Christ died). Some have suggested that sacrifice and offering ceased when the “curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom” (Matt. 27:51). However, Scripture doesn’t actually reveal that the tearing of the curtain resulted in a cessation of the daily sacrifice and offering, and it’s unlikely that this event would’ve resulted in a complete cessation of this activity. And even if there was a temporary disruption in the work of the Levitical priests in the temple when the curtain was torn, the simple fact is that it was God – and not Christ – who miraculously caused the curtain to tear. The tearing of the curtain was not Christ’s doing at all.

Some want to understand the expression “put a stop to” (or “cause to cease”) in Dan. 9:27 to mean that Christ’s death de-legitimized or invalidated the sacrificial system, and rendered any further sacrifices unnecessary (and even “abominable” to God). However, the expression translated “put a stop to,” “cause to cease,” “put an end to” (etc.) simply does not mean this. The clear idea being communicated in Dan. 9:27 (especially in light of what we read in Dan. 8:11-14, 11:31 and 12:11) is that, in the middle of the seven-year-long period or “week” in view, the coming “prince” or “governor” in view will cause the actual occurrence of sacrifice and offering to cease/be stopped (such that sacrifice and offering are prevented from occurring for the remainder of the “week”). Moreover, it’s simply not the case that Christ’s death de-legitimized or invalidated Israel’s sacrificial system. Although this belief is deeply entrenched in the hearts and minds of most Christians, it betrays a misunderstanding of both Scripture and of the Jewish sacrificial system itself. For a refutation of this commonly-held Christian position, see the following blog articles: 

Why I believe there’s going to be a future “abomination of desolation” in a rebuilt Jewish temple 

A Defense of Israel’s Expectation (Part One).

Moreover, in the larger context of the book of Daniel, the stopping of sacrifice and offering is associated with an abomination-related desolation taking place, as well as the persecution of the saints (Dan. 7:25; 8:11-14, 24-25; 11:31; 12:1-2, 7, 11-12). In accord with these other prophecies, the clear implication of Dan. 9:27 is that, at the midpoint of the 70^th week, certain “desolating abominations” in the temple will coincide with the cessation of sacrifice and offering. When understood in the larger context of Daniel, it’s evident that what we read in Dan. 9:27 concerning a certain governor causing sacrifices to cease (and associated “abominations” to occur) did not take place when Christ died on the cross.

Objection: In Daniel 9:27, desolating abominations (plural) are referred to, whereas in Daniel 12:11 and Matthew 24:15, the singular “abomination” is used. This means that two different events and time periods are in view.

Response: It should first be noted that, while the plural “abominations” is used in Daniel 9:27 in the Hebrew Masoretic text (or MT), the singular “abomination” occurs in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation (which reads, “…there shall be an abomination of desolations”). But let’s assume that the MT is more accurate here than the LXX. Does this mean that the event and time period in view in Dan. 9:27 is different from that referred to in Daniel 12:11 and Matt. 24:15? No. Elsewhere in Scripture, the term “abomination” is connected with the false gods and idols of the nations (for example, in 1 Kings 11:5, 7 and 2 Kings 23:13, the false gods of the Ammonites, Moabites and Sidonians are referred to as the abominations of these nations). The idols/images associated with the worship of false gods are also referred to as “abominations” (Deut. 29:17; Jer. 4:1; 7:30; 13:27; 32:34; Eze. 5:11; 7:20; 20:7). We also find the plural “abominations” used to refer to the worship of idols/false gods (Jer. 13:27; Isa. 66:3).

In view of these considerations, the use of the plural “abominations” in Dan. 9:27 can be understood as indicating that both an idol and the worship of the idol are in view here. We know that the abomination of desolation will involve not only an idol being set up in the temple, but also the worship of this idol (Rev. 13:14-15). The fact that the worship of this idol will also be an abomination to God accounts for why Daniel 9:27 would refer to “desolating abominations” as being present in the sanctuary during the second half of the 70^th week. Thus, the prophesied “desolating abominations” of Daniel 9:27 and the prophesied “abomination of desolation” of Daniel 12:11 and Matt. 24:15 need not be understood as referring to two different events and time periods.

Another point concerns the clear connection that exists between the desolating abominations and the cessation of sacrifice and offering referred to in Dan. 9:27. In support of this connection, let’s consider the following prophecy in Daniel 11:31: ”Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.”

Most scholars understand this prophecy to have been fulfilled in 168 BC when the Syrian ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, put an end to the daily sacrifice in the temple and set up an altar to a Greek god (probably Zeus) in the most holy place, thereby polluting the sanctuary (see 1 Maccabees 1:48, 54). This is the view to which I hold as well. However, according to Christ’s prophecy in Matt. 24:15, there is another “abomination of desolation” that is “declared through Daniel the prophet,” and which will be “standing in the holy place” at a yet-future time. And it is this prophesied event that I believe is in view in the remaining verses from Daniel that refer to the “abomination of desolation.” In Daniel 8:11-13, it was revealed that the cessation of the daily sacrifice (or the “continuous ritual”) would coincide with a “desolating transgression” occurring in the temple. In Dan. 9:27, the reference to “desolating abominations” in the sanctuary comes immediately after we’re told that sacrifice and offering will be caused to cease in the middle of the 70^th week. And in Dan. 12:11, it’s evident that the setting up of the “abomination of desolation” will coincide with the taking away of “the continuous ritual.”

In all of these verses (including Dan. 11:31), an abominable object and/or event resulting in “desolation” is inseparably connected with the cessation of sacrifice and offering. In fact, the clear implication of each of these verses is that the desolation-causing object and/or event is something that either coincides with or shortly follows the cessation of sacrifice/offering, and that both of these related events will be occurring on the same day (this is especially evident from Daniel 12:11, where it's revealed that the taking away of the regular burnt offering and the setting up of the abomination of desolation will occur 1,290 days before another related event takes place). It’s thus reasonable to conclude that the mid-70^th week event referred to in the first part of Dan. 9:27 (the causing of sacrifice and offering to cease) will coincide with the “desolating abominations” that are referred to in the second part of this verse. It’s also reasonable to believe that Daniel would’ve understood the cessation of sacrifice and offerings referred to in Dan. 9:27 as a negative event, and to be directly related to the desolating abominations to which Gabriel referred.

For more on this subject, see the following article: Why I believe there’s going to be a future “abomination of desolation” in a rebuilt Jewish temple

They Will Not Tolerate Sound Teaching: Exposing Christianity’s Counterfeit Church (Part Two)

Turning their hearing away from the truth

We know that, during the time of the apostles, major doctrinal errors had already begun to enter into the various ecclesias. The Greek Scriptures are full of warnings and exhortations for believers against apostatizing and giving heed to false teaching (1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 11:3-4, 12-15; Gal. 1:6-9; 3:1; 2:4; 5:4; Col. 2:8-9, 18;). This is especially the case in the later writings (1 Tim 1:3-11; 4:1-3; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 1 John 2:18-20, 24; 4:1-3; 2 Pet 2:1-3, 20-21; Jude 1:3-4). These and other similar verses indicate that doctrinal error in the ecclesias grew worse over time. Had Paul and the other apostles not been around to intervene and pull up the doctrinal “weeds” that were continuously springing up, the doctrinal problems that arose would’ve likely become far worse than they were, and resulted in far more believers being led astray.

We have absolutely no reason to think that the threat of deception and doctrinal error entering and taking root in the ecclesias ended after the death of the apostles. If there were false doctrines popping up in the ecclesias so recently established by the apostles (and while Paul and his co-labourers were still living), it stands to reason that the ecclesias became even more vulnerable to being led astray during the post-apostolic era. The death of Paul and the other apostles would’ve made the various communities of believers far more susceptible to believing false teachings and engaging in practices that Paul would’ve spoken or written against had he been around to do so. Rather than thinking that doctrinal and ecclesiastical purity would improve – or at least stay the same – after his death, Paul seemed to believe just the opposite (2 Tim. 2:15-18; 3:13-15).

In accord with this fact are the following words with which Paul exhorted Timothy:

“Herald the word. Stand by it, opportunely, inopportunely, expose, rebuke, entreat, with all patience and teaching. For the era will be when they will not tolerate sound teaching, but, their hearing being tickled, they will heap up for themselves teachers in accord with their own desires, and, indeed, they will be turning their hearing away from the truth, yet will be turned aside to myths.” 2 Timothy 4:2-4

When Paul wrote the letter in which the above exhortation is found, Timothy was dwelling in the city of Ephesus (which was the capital of the Roman province of Asia) and ministering to the ecclesia there, as Paul’s apostolic representative (1 Tim. 1:3). Timothy’s duties in Ephesus included refuting false teaching (1 Tim. 1:3-7; 4:1-8; 6:3-5; 20-21) and supervising the affairs of the then-growing ecclesia (which included matters pertaining to worship [ch. 2] and the appointment of qualified leaders [3:1-13; 5:17-25]).

In light of Timothy’s role, we can reasonably conclude that those whom Paul referred to as “they” in the above passage were not unbelievers. It wouldn’t make sense for Paul to predict that those belonging to the unbelieving world would stop tolerating “sound teaching,” and would be “turning away from the truth.” In order for one to turn one’s hearing away from the truth, one has to already have one’s hearing turned toward it. Thus, it was believers – i.e., members of the body of Christ – whom Paul had in view in this passage.

The fact that Timothy was in Ephesus when Paul wrote to him is significant, since, in Acts 20:24-32, we read that Paul had earlier declared the following to the elders of the ecclesia in this city:

“But of nothing have I a word, nor yet am I making my soul precious to myself, till I should be perfecting my career and the dispensation which I got from the Lord Jesus, to certify the evangel of the grace of God. And now, lo! I am aware that you all, among whom I passed through heralding the kingdom, shall be seeing my face no longer. Wherefore I am attesting to you in this very day that I am clear from the blood of all, for under no circumstances do I shrink from informing you of the entire counsel of God. Take heed to yourselves and to the entire flocklet, among which the holy spirit appointed you supervisors, to be shepherding the ecclesia of God, which He procures through the blood of His Own. Now I am aware that, after I am out of reach, burdensome wolves will be entering among you, not sparing the flocklet. And from among yourselves will arise men, speaking perverse things to pull away disciples after themselves. Wherefore watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I cease not admonishing each one with tears. And now I am committing you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to edify and give the enjoyment of an allotment among all who have been hallowed.”

Thus, even before his imprisonments in Caesarea and Rome took place, Paul knew that there was major trouble looming on the horizon for the believers who belonged to the ecclesia in Ephesus. Paul knew that an era was coming when the believers in this city would “not tolerate sound teaching,” but would instead “heap up for themselves teachers in accord with their own desires.” According to Paul’s prophecy in verses 29-30, these “heaped-up” teachers would be entering the ecclesia from outside as well as arising from among the Ephesian elders themselves. It’s interesting that, although Paul referred to the things these teachers would be speaking (in order to “pull away disciples after themselves”) as “perverse,” it was going to “tickle the hearing” of the believers in the ecclesia.

But what kind of “perverse things” did Paul have in mind in Acts 20:29-30? Paul doesn’t specify here. However, it’s significant that Paul went on to commit the elders to whom he spoke “to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to edify and give the enjoyment of an allotment among all who have been hallowed.” Paul’s emphasis on God’s grace here suggests that the “perverse things” that would begin to be taught (and which would result in believers being led astray from the truth) would involve, in some way, a denial of the grace of God that is revealed in Paul’s evangel. Thus, we have good reason to believe that these “perverse things” would, in some way, be inconsistent with the dispensation which Paul said he got from the Lord Jesus, and which essentially involved testifying of ”the evangel of the grace of God.”

Paul did provide Timothy with a few details concerning at least some of the erroneous teaching that would be associated with those believers who would be “withdrawing from the faith.” In 1 Tim. 4:1-5 we read the following:

“Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized; forbidding to marry, abstaining from foods, which God creates to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and realize the truth, seeing that every creature of God is ideal and nothing is to be cast away, being taken with thanksgiving, for it is hallowed through the word of God and pleading.”

The little that Paul reveals here concerning what those giving heed to deceiving spirits would be teaching – i.e., that believers must be celibate and abstain from foods (which likely refers to abstinence from certain kinds of foods, such as meat) – indicates that the “teachings of demons” that Paul had in view here would involve what Paul elsewhere referred to as “asceticism.” In Col. 2:20-23 we read the following:

If, then, you died together with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as living in the world, are you subject to decrees: “You should not be touching, nor yet tasting, nor yet coming into contact,” (which things are all for corruption from use), in accord with the directions and teachings of men? -- which are (having, indeed, an expression of wisdom in a willful ritual and humility and asceticism) not of any value toward the surfeiting of the flesh.

Why would any believers willingly subject themselves to the sort of “decrees” that Paul had in mind in these verses? Answer: Such practices – including those specified by Paul in 1 Tim. 4:3 – were believed by some to curb sin by promoting self-discipline and suppressing the desires of “the flesh.” Such decrees were all about “sin management,” and designed to enable those who subjected themselves to them to stop sinning. And since Paul associated these decrees with a rejection of the truth that believers have “died together with Christ from the elements of the world” (Col. 2:20) and are “complete in Him” (v. 10), we can conclude that the self-denying practices against which Paul warned had, as their goal, the improving or maintaining of the believer’s position before God. However, as A.E. Knoch rightly noted in his remarks on Col. 2:19, “Any attempt to improve our position before God [or, I would add, to maintain our position before God] by physical means, whether it be an appeal to the senses or a curbing of its normal needs, denies our completeness in Christ.”

Evidently, then, those whom Paul predicted would be promoting the practices referred to in 1 Tim. 4:3 would be doing so out of the conviction that it would help prevent themselves and other believers from sinning. Moreover, according to v. 1, those who would be promoting the self-denying practices referred to in v. 3 would no longer be in the faith (for they are referred to as “withdrawing from the faith”). This implies that they would longer affirm one or more of the essential elements of the evangel through which those in the body of Christ are called and justified by God. And the fact that the decrees referred to would be an expression of their having withdrawn from the faith suggests that their belief was that sinning jeopardized their justified status or position before God (and that not sinning was, therefore, essential to their being saved). In other words, the belief of those whom Paul prophesied would be “withdrawing from the faith” and “giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons” would involve the idea that the salvation of the believer depended on something other than the saving grace of God. This, however, is completely contrary to what Paul had taught concerning the salvation of those in the body of Christ.

“In grace are you saved!”

According to Paul, every member of the body of Christ was foreknown and designated beforehand by God (Rom. 8:29-30), chosen in Christ “before the disruption of the world” (Eph. 1:4-5) and “preferred from the beginning for salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13). Those chosen beforehand by God are subsequently “called” by God through the evangel (Rom. 8:30; 2 Thess. 2:14). This “calling” not only involves hearing the evangel, but also being graciously granted a measure of faith to believe it (Rom. 12:3; Phil. 1:29). And, upon believing “the word of truth, the evangel of [our] salvation,” those called are then “sealed with the holy spirit of promise,” which is “an earnest of the enjoyment of our allotment, to the deliverance of that which has been procured” (Eph. 1:13-14). In other words, the salvation of every believer is certain, and cannot be lost or forfeited under any circumstances (for a more in-depth examination of this important subject, see my two-part study “The Golden Chain of Salvation”: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-golden-chain-of-salvation-study-on.html).

In accord with the above truth, we read in 2 Tim. 1:8-11 that the salvation and calling of believers is ”not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian...”

Similarly, in Titus 3:3-7 we read the following:

For, we also were once foolish, stubborn, deceived, slaves of various desires and gratifications, leading a life in malice and envy, detestable, hating one another. Yet when the kindness and fondness for humanity of our Saviour, God, made its advent, not for works which are wrought in righteousness which we do, but according to His mercy, He saves us, through the bath of renascence and renewal of holy spirit, which He pours out on us richly through Jesus Christ, our Saviour, that, being justified in that One's grace, we may be becoming enjoyers, in expectation, of the allotment of life eonian.

This is in accord with the fact that, according to Romans 11:6, grace and works are mutually exclusive:

“Now if it is in grace, it is no longer out of works, else the grace is coming to be no longer of grace. Now, if it is out of works, it is no longer grace, else the work is no longer work” (cf. Rom. 4:4).[1]

Nothing can be “of grace” and “out of works” at the same time. As soon as works of any kind become “part of the equation” of salvation, the salvation is no longer of grace (and vice-versa). In accord with this fact, we read the following in Eph. 2:4-9:

“…God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us (we also being dead to the offenses and the lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!) and rouses us together and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus, that, in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For in grace, through faith, are you saved, and this is not out of you; it is God's approach present, not of works, lest anyone should be boasting.

According to what Paul wrote in these verses, the salvation that every believer in the body of Christ will be enjoying (and which will involve God’s “displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus”) is not “out of” us. It is not dependent on our will or effort. Rather, this salvation is “in grace.” It is “God’s approach present” (or “gift”), and is thus “not of works, lest anyone should be boasting.” This is further confirmed by Romans 5:20-21:

“Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds, that, even as Sin reigns in death, thus Grace also should be reigning through righteousness, for life eonian, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.”

For those who have been chosen by God for the salvation referred to in v. 21 – i.e., life eonian – God’s grace “reigns” over them. The believer cannot “out-sin” grace; the more that he or she sins, the more God’s grace “superexceeds” for them. For – as we’re told in Romans 6:23 – the life eonian that every member of the body of Christ is destined to enjoy is “the gracious gift of God…in Christ Jesus, our Lord.”

If the belief of those whom Paul prophesied would be “withdrawing from the faith” and “giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons” did, in fact, involve the idea that the salvation of the believer depended on something other than the saving grace of God, then this means that it was simply a newer (and less “distinctively Jewish”) version of the doctrinal error that required Paul to write his letter to the saints in Galatia. The nature of the Galatian error was such that it led to some believers being transferred from the evangel through which they’d been called “in the grace of Christ” to “a different evangel, which is not another” (Gal. 1:6-9). The false “evangel” to which at least some of the saints in Galatia were being “transferred” was, apparently, a distortion of the true evangel that Paul had previously brought them (v. 7), and which Paul had been heralding among the nations (2:2, 7).

The nature of the error which resulted in this distortion of the true evangel is, I believe, summarized by Paul in Galatians 3:1-3:

“O foolish Galatians! Who bewitches you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was graphically crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you get the spirit by works of law or by hearing of faith? So foolish are you? Undertaking in spirit, are you now being completed in flesh?”

Based on what we read in these verses, the teaching that was endangering the Galatian ecclesia involved the erroneous claim that believers had to do something to attain and/or maintain their righteous standing (or justification) before God, and implied a denial of the truth that the death of Christ was sufficient for our salvation (notice Paul’s reference to Christ’s crucifixion in v. 1). Despite the fact that the Galatian believers had received the spirit[2] through faith in the truth of what Christ did on our behalf, they had been “bewitched” into thinking that certain “works of law” had to be performed in order for them to be “completed” (i.e., completed with regard to their righteous standing before God, and – by implication – their salvation).

The first of the “works of law” that Paul had in mind was receiving the sign of the covenant between God and Israel (circumcision), and was an act that signified that one was placing oneself “under the law” (Gal. 4:21) – i.e., under Israel’s covenant-based legal obligation – and thus becoming a “debtor to do the whole law” (Gal. 5:3).[3] For those under this legal obligation, righteous conduct was not merely beneficial or recommended (as Paul considered “good works” to be for all believers); rather, they were considered mandatory, and necessary expressions of one’s faith (apart from which the believer’s faith would’ve been “dead” and unable to result in their salvation).[4]

Against the idea that our justification could possibly depend on our righteous conduct, Paul wrote the following in his letter to the saints in Galatia: “I am not repudiating the grace of God, for if righteousness is through law, consequently Christ died gratuitously” (Gal. 2:21). In other words, for someone to do anything (or refrain from doing something) in an attempt to attain and/or maintain a righteous standing before God would involve “repudiating the grace of God.” In the same letter, Paul went on to write, “Now I, brethren, if I am still heralding circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? Consequently the snare of the cross has been nullified” (Gal. 5:11). For those who believe that our righteousness before God depends in any way on something that the sinner must do (or refrain from doing), the cross of Christ becomes a “snare” to them (i.e., it becomes something from which they will struggle to free themselves).

Paul, however, saw the cross of Christ as the only thing in which he could “boast” (Gal. 6:14), for it was on the cross that Christ accomplished the only work of obedience on which the salvation of sinners depends. No other work is needed to complete it. Christ’s death on the cross was an act of perfect obedience through which the justification and salvation of all sinners was procured, and belief in this truth for eonian life is simply not compatible with the belief that anything further must be done to procure one’s justification and salvation. To believe that there is something that one must now do to be “completed” with regard to one’s justification (and in order to “guarantee” one’s salvation) is to deny the truth of the sufficiency of Christ’s work for one’s salvation.

They shall not tolerate sound teaching

In 2 Tim. 1:15-16 we read that, during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, all in the province of Asia turned away from him, being ashamed of his chain (2 Tim. 1:15-16). If anyone was more likely to become deceived by false doctrines and led astray from the distinctive truths that Paul had labored to bring the nations during his apostolic ministry, it was those believers who turned away from Paul at this time. Significantly, three of the so-called “early church fathers” – i.e., Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 70-155), Theophilus of Antioch (died c. 180 AD) and Irenaeus of Gaul (c. 125-202 AD) – became Christians in or near the very province in which Paul said “all” had turned away from him during his imprisonment. And – in contrast with Paul’s teaching that the salvation of those in the body of Christ is not based on our righteous deeds and obedience – these church leaders taught that both faith and righteous conduct (including the avoidance of sin) were necessary to salvation, and that believers could, therefore, lose their salvation through disobedience.

In his “Letter to the Philippians,“ Polycarp wrote, “He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness…” (chap. 2, emphasis mine)

In his work To Autolycus, Theophilus (who was, apparently, the first writer to have used the term “trinity” to refer to God) wrote, “For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption.” (Book II, chap. 27)

And in another place, Theophilus wrote, “He who acts righteously will escape the eternal punishments, and he will be thought worthy of the eternal life from God.”

Similarly, Irenaeus (who was a disciple of Polycarp, and also made use of the works of Theophilus in his writings) wrote the following in his work “Against Heresies”: “Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin because death shall no more have dominion over Him…Therefore we should not be puffed up…But we should beware lest somehow, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins but rather be shut out from His kingdom…” (Book IV, chap. 27)

Irenaeus went on to write, “With respect to obedience and doctrine, we are not all the sons of God. Rather, it is only those who truly believe in Him and do His will. Now, those who do not believe, and do not obey His will, are sons and angels of the devil…Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” (Book IV, Chapter 41)

We also know that Irenaeus’ disciple, Hippolytus (c. 170-235 AD), taught that salvation required righteous deeds. In one work, Hippolytus wrote the following:

“…the fire that is unquenchable and without end awaits [the lovers of wickedness]. So does a certain fiery worm that does not die and that does not consume the body, but continues bursting forth from the body with unending pain. No sleep will give them rest. No night will soothe them. No death will deliver them from punishment. No voice of interceding friends will profit them. For the righteous are not seen by them any longer, nor are they worthy of remembrance. Rather, the righteous will remember only the righteous deeds by which they reached the heavenly kingdom…”

Later, we find Hippolytus asking the following rhetorical question: “…who are the ones who have reconciliation made for their sins – except those who believe on his name and propitiate his countenance by good works?”[5]

Although the doctrinal position affirmed by these Christian leaders concerning the relationship between salvation and righteous conduct is completely contrary to what Paul taught concerning the salvation of believers, their beliefs were not considered “heretical” at that time. Instead, the doctrinal position affirmed in the above quotes can also be found expressed by nearly every post-apostolic “church father” whose writings have been preserved. For example, Justin Martyr – who was born in Samaria around 100 AD and carried out a Christian ministry in Rome (where he was martyred in 165 AD) – wrote the following:

“…we hold this view…that each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire…“ (The First Apology, chap. 10)

“…those who have been persuaded that the unjust and intemperate shall be punished in eternal fire, but that the virtuous and those who lived like Christ shall dwell with God in a state that is free from suffering—we mean, those who have become Christians…” (The Second Apology, chap. 1)

Similarly, Tertullian – who lived and died in Carthage (c. 160-240) – believed that Christians had to “attain a blameless life” in order to avoid “eternal punishment for sin”:

“We receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and we Christians anticipate eternal punishment from Him for sin. Therefore, we alone make a real effort to attain a blameless life. We do this under the influence of…the magnitude of the threatened torment. For it is not merely long-enduring; rather, it is everlasting.” (Apology, chap. 45)

Many more similar quotes could be provided from these and other Christian writers. However, I think these should be sufficient to demonstrate that, by the time the apostolic era ended, the Christian church had already begun to descend into a state of grace-denying doctrinal apostasy in relation to what Paul had referred to as “sound teaching.”

Moreover, it’s further evident from a number of these quotes that, as early as the second century AD, a belief in the endless punishment of the wicked had already gained a foothold within Christianity.[6] For example, Justin Martyr makes his view concerning the fate of the wicked pretty clear with the following statement: “And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold.”

Mark Minucius Felix (who died c. 250 AD in Rome) was even more emphatic (and sickeningly graphic) in his affirmation of the nightmarish fate that he believed was in store for the wicked:

“There is neither limit nor termination of these torments. There, the intelligent fire burns the limbs and restores them. It feeds on them and nourishes them…That penal fire is not fed by the waste of those who burn, but is nourished by the unexhausted eating away of their bodies.”

Based on these quotes (and, again, many more could be provided), it’s clear that, during the first few centuries of post-apostolic “church history,” the truth of the saving grace of God that’s revealed in Paul’s evangel had already begun to be denied and opposed by Christians in positions of ecclesiastical authority and influence. Still, there is some evidence that, as late as the early fifth century, the truth of the salvation of all mankind was more generally accepted in at least some parts of the Christian world (at least, more so than it is today). According to the influential Christian theologian, Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), there were “very many” Christians in his day who – in contrast with the belief of Augustine himself (but in harmony with what we find affirmed in Rom. 11:32) – believed that God would eventually show mercy to all. In chapter 29 of Augustine’s work The Enchiridion (written from the city of Hippo in 420 AD), we read the following rather dismissive remarks concerning these Christians:

It is quite in vain, then, that some--indeed very many--yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture--but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express the literal truth. “God will not forget,” they say, “to show mercy, nor in his anger will he shut up his mercy.”[7] 

However, the doctrinal position of Augustine ultimately “won the day” within Christendom, and by the sixth century AD, the truth to which “very many” Christians held in Augustine’s day had become almost completely eclipsed by the grace-denying, nightmarish doctrine of “eternal conscious torment.” And ever since this time, the majority of Christians – regardless of their ecclesiastical background – have simply taken it for granted that most sinners will never be saved.

The Protestant Reformation

It’s not uncommon among many non-Catholic Christians to consider the Protestant Reformation as a pivotal time in church history when the most essential truths of Scripture were recovered and “true Christianity” began to be restored in the world. To be sure, I do believe that this important movement was a step in the right direction. By weakening the influence of the most established and powerful expression of Christianity’s counterfeit church – i.e., the Roman Catholic Church – it helped clear the path that would, over time, lead to a greater number of people coming into a realization of the truth (although I would argue that the invention of the printing press – which greatly contributed to the widespread and lasting impact of the Protestant Reformation and related Christian movements – was far more important and historically revolutionary than anything accomplished by any of the leaders of the Reformation).

As important as the Protestant Reformation was, however, it failed to recover the truth of the evangel of the grace of God, and challenge the unscriptural doctrine of “eternal conscious torment.” Instead, the most influential leaders of this movement (e.g., Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin) left this grace-denying doctrine fully intact. In fact, not only did these Christian leaders retain the belief that most sinners will never be saved, but they provided the Christian world with yet another explanation for why most sinners will never be saved.

Most Christians throughout church history (both before and after the Protestant Reformation) have believed that the ultimate explanation for why most people will never be saved is to be found in the way that humans exercise their so-called “free will.” According to this view, the “eternal destiny” of each individual ultimately hinges on certain volitional acts made by each individual in their lifetime. However, the system of “Reformed theology” that was developed during the Protestant Reformation (primarily by John Calvin) attributed the “eternal damnation” of most sinners to the sovereign will of God. According to this view, the ultimate explanation for why most humans will never saved is that God doesn’t want them to be saved, and never intended on saving them.

Calvin was not actually the first theologian to believe and teach that God unconditionally elected only some human beings for “eternal salvation” while “reprobating” the rest of humanity to “eternal damnation” (including the non-elect who die in infancy).[8] Despite being most commonly associated with the theology of Calvin, this theological position actually originated with Augustine. It was this view that Augustine advocated in his well-known theological controversy with the British/Celtic monk, Pelagius (a contemporary of Augustine who advocated asceticism and “holiness,” and emphasized man’s ability to obey God and meet the requirements of salvation through the proper use of his “free will”). Although Augustine correctly affirmed the scriptural truth that sinners are utterly dependent on God for their salvation from start to finish, he incorrectly concluded that most people would never be saved. The combination of these two positions led Augustine to the then-novel belief that the ultimate explanation for why most humans will never saved (including most who die in infancy) is the sovereign will of God. However, this particular understanding of election and predestination didn’t really “catch on” within Christendom until the leaders of the Protestant Reformation rediscovered it and then incorporated it into their own theological systems.

It should be emphasized that the primary error underlying this disturbing theological position is not that God unconditionally elects and predestines some people but not others. Although rejected by many Christians who believe in “free will,” predestination and election are undeniable Scriptural truths (see my two-part study “The Golden Chain of Salvation”: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-golden-chain-of-salvation-study-on.html). Nor is the problem with Reformed/Augustinian theology found in its affirmation that sinners are utterly dependent on God for their salvation from start to finish (which is also completely Scriptural). Rather, the real problem with this theological position lies in its denial of the truth that some of the sinners for whose sins Christ died will not receive “the grace of God and the gratuity in grace, which is of the One Man, Jesus Christ,” and shall not be “constituted just.”

This denial, of course, makes the Reformed theological position just another way of denying “the saving grace of God” that “made its advent to all humanity.” For regardless of whether one appeals to the “free will” of human beings (as most Christians do) or to the sovereign will of God (as “Reformed” Christians do) in an attempt to explain why most sinners will never be saved, one is still denying the foundational truth that “Christ died for our sins,” and is thus rejecting the fact that all sinners are destined to obtain “the superabundance of grace and the gratuity of righteousness.” We can therefore conclude that the majority of Christians today – whether they’re members of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church or the various churches that have emerged since the time of the Protestant Reformation (whether denominational or “non-denominational”) – are just as blind to the truth of the saving grace of God that’s revealed in Paul’s evangel as were the unbelievers of whom Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 4:3-4:

“Now, if our evangel is covered, also, it is covered in those who are perishing, in whom the god of this eon blinds the apprehensions of the unbelieving so that the illumination of the evangel of the glory of Christ, Who is the Image of the invisible God, does not irradiate them.”

---

[1] It should be noted that what Paul was denying was “out of works” (and was instead “grace” and “according to the choice of grace”) in Rom. 11:5-6 was the fact that there was a remnant of believing Jews. Apart from God’s grace, all Israel would’ve remained in calloused unbelief.

[2] The “spirit” to which Paul was referring in these verses (and which the Galatian believers received when they believed the evangel) is referred to in Ephesians 1:13-14 as follows:

“In Whom you also–on hearing the word of truth, the evangel of your salvation–in Whom on believing also, you are sealed with the holy spirit of promise (which is an earnest of the enjoyment of our allotment, to the deliverance of that which has been procured) for the laud of His glory!”

It is this spirit which “seals” every believer when we believe “the evangel of [our] salvation,” and is the guarantee of our eonian life (our “allotment”) until our “deliverance” (which, in Rom. 8:23, is referred to as “the deliverance of our body”). See also 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:1-6, where Paul used the expression “the earnest of the spirit” in connection with our being made immortal.

[3] By “works of the law” Paul did not have in mind only those works that we would classify as “ritualistic” or “ceremonial.” He would’ve understood the works of the law to include, for example, the “Ten Commandments” as well. It should also be kept in mind that the precept in which Paul said the “entire law” is fulfilled – i.e., “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14; cf. Rom. 13:8-10) – is among the requirements of the law given to Israel (Lev. 19:18; cf. Matt. 22:39-40). Thus, Paul would’ve included this precept as being among the “works of the law.”

[4] This was precisely the view affirmed by James, the brother of Jesus (see James 2). However, as I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere, the company of believers to whom James (as well as Peter, John and Jude) wrote should be understood as distinct from the company of believers to whom Paul wrote his thirteen letters. See, for example, my four-part study “God’s Covenant People” (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/09/gods-covenant-people-why-most-believing.html), as well as the subsequent related articles on this subject that I posted in the months of October and November of 2018.

[5] The Extant Works and Fragment of Hippolytus (http://www.catholiccrossreference.com/fathers/index.php/Ps%20119:137)

[6] Some scholars believe that Irenaeus (and perhaps some other early church fathers) believed that the wicked would ultimately be annihilated. Although this belief is certainly less nightmarish and soul-crushing than the doctrine of endless torment, it is still contrary to the truth of the saving grace of God. And regardless of whether Irenaeus believed in annihilation or eternal torment, the following quote indicates that Irenaeus denied that all would ultimately be saved:

“Those, therefore, who cast away these aforementioned things because of apostasy are in fact destitute of all good. So, they experience every kind of punishment…Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these things is also eternal and never-ending.”

[7] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/augustine_enchiridion_02_trans.htm#C29

[8] Like Augustine before him, Calvin believed that only some infants (those who were elect) would be saved, and that all non-elect humans who died in infancy (which Calvin probably understood to be the majority) were just as hell-bound as those who reached adulthood. As disturbing and depraved as this belief was (and is), at least Calvin – unlike many Calvinists and other Reformed Christians after him – was being consistent here. For more on this subject (including quotes from Calvin, for those who can stomach them), see my 2014 article, “Reformed Theology and the Doctrine of Election” (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2014/06/reformed-theology-and-doctrine-of_7974.html). See also the follow-up article, “The Truth about Election” (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-truth-about-election.html).