To my Pentecostal brothers and sisters in Christ: (part 1)

This week, our Church is starting a series on the Holy Spirit, entitled “The Grace Awakening: Discovering the Power of the Holy Spirit.” As you embark on this journey, I would put these few small pearls in your brains to keep your rudder under control.

Many of you who read this blog have children in the Noize.  What is the last song that they sing at every show?  “It’s not about you, it’s not about me, it’s about Jesus.”  Oh, that we would remember that refrain at all times, but most particularly as we read and study the Bible.  The whole Bible is about Jesus, every Word.  So, when we discuss the Holy Spirit in the coming weeks, after every “lesson,” ask yourself whether what you heard was about Jesus, or about you.  It is a simple test.  Try it.  Can you remember a time when you were taught about what Jesus did and why it matters?  Or is it always about our favorite topic, you and me?

Here is another question: does the Bible contradict itself?  If the Bible is the inspired (some would say expired or breathed) Word of God, and we believe God to be the very definition of perfection, how can His Word contradict itself?  Therefore, if we perceive a contradiction, we have interpreted one or the other passage, or both, incorrectly.  This is simple logic.  If A contradicts B, then either A is false, or B is false, or both A and B are false.  Since the Bible is not false, it must be our understanding of that passage that must be false in these instances.  This has to be the case.

Another question: can it be said that quotes from Jesus have more weight than quotes from Paul?  While I would certainly argue that not all verses have equal importance, I am not ready to make this statement.  First of all, Paul never contradicts Jesus in scripture by definition.  If it is in scripture, then by definition, it is the breathed Word of God.  Still, since there are some Red Letter Christians out there, is it reasonable to say that if Jesus voiced a view on a topic first, that Paul should be interpreted in light of what Jesus said about that topic?  Sure, that seems like a reasonable approach.  We can agree on that point as well.

Now, let us apply these three simple principles to some scripture.  To reiterate:

• 1.    It’s not about you, it’s not about me, it’s about Jesus.
• 2.    The Bible never contradicts itself.
• 3.    If Jesus says something about a topic, perhaps all of the other passages should be interpreted in light of that.

What we are going to do is look at the primary scriptural text regarding the Holy Spirit.  Here are the big ones.  John 14-16, Acts 2-4, 1 Corinthians 12-14.  That is three sections from three authors.  John is an Apostle and an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.  He gives us direct quotes from Jesus.  Luke, the author of Acts, gives us testimony from a second hand source.  We know that he received his information in this way because he tells us thus in Luke 1:2.  We also know that he was a companion of Paul, and therefore an eyewitness to much of the Book of Acts that concerns Paul.  Paul himself wrote 1 Corinthians, or at least dictated it to his scribe.  Paul is an eyewitness to the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus. 

John 14-16.

This whole section is a quote from Jesus at the Last Supper, and it actually begins in Chapter 13 and extends down into Chapter 17.  This is an amazing section of scripture.  Take a moment and read it.  I’ve linked it for you in the heading just above.  Now, let’s get down to the key sections.  John 14:15-31  Here, Jesus tells us about the Holy Spirit, whom He calls the Helper.  Verses 16-17: He is the Spirit of Truth.  Verses 25-26: He will teach us about Jesus, and give us remembrance of what Jesus said to us.  John 16: 4b-15  The rubric calls this section the Work of the Holy Spirit!  Surely, we will gain some insight here.  The Helper will not come until Jesus is gone.  He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.  He does not speak on His own authority but only what He hears from Jesus.  He will declare the things that are to come.  He will glorify Jesus and take what is of Jesus and declare it to us.  Heavy stuff.

And so a brief recap of this section can be stated this way.  The Holy Spirit will come to be the Helper, who will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness and judgment, then He will declare the things that are to come concerning Jesus.  The Law and the Gospel.  He will declare the Law that convicts us, and then declare the Gospel and what is to come concerning Jesus.

Now, let us apply our test.  It was all about Jesus.  Yes, the Holy Spirit always testifies about Jesus, what He has done and what He will do on the Last Day.  No internal contradiction.  The Law convicts and Jesus saves.  Now, let’s apply this section to the others for the third test.

Acts 2-4

Before we dive too deeply into Acts 2, let me say a word about Acts 1:5.  This passage is often interpreted as a second event, that we require a second Baptism.  Let me be plain.  If you accept that you require a second baptism of any type, it implies that the resurrection of Jesus was insufficient in some way.  If you do not understand the vicarious atonement and penal substitution, then, perhaps, yes, you might need something else.  But the Christian has no such need of second Baptisms!  The Christian is full of the certain hope in the resurrection, that through Christ, he will receive all of the just rewards in heaven that Christ has promised.  I have gone over some of the exegesis of this question in my last post, almost a month ago now, so let me refer you there, then, I will return to this topic again at the end here.

I want to do something that I don’t often do in these posts.  I want to go out of order.  Skip down to Acts 2:41, 47.

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.  (Acts 2:41 ESV)      

…praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.  (Acts 2:47 ESV)

These are not small statements, indeed, these statement are the point of all that has occurred.  What does Luke say happened that day?  Did 3000 people find their best life now?  Did 3000 people find health, wealth and happiness in this present evil age, in this world?  Did 3000 people have fire dancing on their heads?  Let’s learn some grammar, shall we?  Acts 2:41 is written in passive voice.  This means that the subject of the sentence is not the 3000, nor the ones who received his word, but rather they are the object of the verb baptized.  These 3000 didn’t do anything.  They were acted upon by the Holy Spirit through the Words of Peter, who were given to him by the Holy Spirit.  The book is called the Acts of the Apostles, not the acts of all the people who received His Word.  The people received his word.  They didn’t seek it.  They didn’t go on a search party for the truth.  In fact, most of them were minding their own business being good Jews, when they happened upon this guy Peter speaking loudly in their native tongue about another Jewish guy, who they thought was dead, who turned out to be the messiah after all.

What did most Jews in the first century think was their largest problem?  Was it righteousness?  No, they had the Law and their sacrifices; they were covered there.  Was it health, wealth and prosperity?  Certainly, Jesus and the Apostles went around healing people, but they thought that disease was a consequence of sin.  They had sin covered by the sacrifices.  No, they had bigger fish to fry than personal affluence and happiness.  It was the Roman occupation!  They believed that their largest problem was that this piece of dirt that was promised to them by God hundreds of years earlier, but that they had lost through their own disobedience, was still not their own piece of dirt again.  And we would all say about them today that they sort of missed the point.  Jesus tried to explain this to them over and over.  The pharisaical righteousness that they claimed was falling miles short of the mark.  Jesus tried to explain to them repeatedly that their biggest problem was an issue of righteousness before God on the Last Day in judgment for their sin.

Today, what do we see as our largest problem?  Is it righteousness?  No, we have Jesus for an example, and we can work out our righteousness through His example.  Is it health, wealth and prosperity?  We don’t think that misfortune is the result of sin any longer.  So, for many, yes it is the biggest problem.  Is it that Israel is now back on that piece of dirt (though not all of it, not even all of Jerusalem,) and a new enemy has arisen against them?  For many more, yes it is.  Now, you icons of proficiency in English grammar, do you see the parallel construction of these last two paragraphs?  Let me spell it out for you in table form.

First Century	Today
Righteousness by the Law	Righteousness by Works
Health, wealth and prosperity	Health wealth and prosperity
Israel occupied	Israel partially occupied

OK, do these columns look similar?  What can we say about these three Jewish opinions in the First Century?  That they were wrong?  Jesus said that they were.  Now, look at the second list.  What has changed in this list?  Did Jesus give us any reason to believe that this list is any less wrong today?  Hmmm, we’ll come back to that question.

What were the conclusions of Acts 2:41, 47?  Souls were being saved.  Salvation is the issue.  Salvation is our biggest problem.  We don’t have it.  We need it.  Jesus came to do it for us and then give it away.  So, we can agree perhaps, that according to Jesus, Peter, and Paul, that our greatest problem is Salvation.

Ok, are you with me so far?  Let’s get to another key verse. 

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:37-39 ESV)

Wow!  This looks like action!  This is something for us to do!  Repent!  Wait.  What is that and what does it mean and why do we need to do it?  Be baptized!  Wait.  We just said that we cannot Baptize ourselves.  We receive Baptism from someone else.  You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Stop!  Another gift!  That means we have to sit and wait for someone else to do the giving!  We can’t go get it, we have to receive it.  Now, I like this next part.  It’s about a promise for me and my children and everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.  Oh, no.  God does the calling?  God does the calling to himself?  What if we don’t hear him call?  What if we do?  Then what?

My friends, this is the point.  There is a Holy Spirit.  His job is to bridge this gap that you are starting to perceive, this gap between God and man.  You know about a promise now, but to whom was it made?  You know about a gift, but you don’t know how to receive it.  The gift is about Salvation.  I hope that at least in this first part, we have made that much plain.  These first parts are the building blocks upon which we will build the rest of Acts 2-4 and Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians.

Maranatha!

--Ogre--

Biblical Foreign Policy? - White Horse Inn Blog

Biblical Foreign Policy? - White Horse Inn Blog

Michael Horton talks about Obama, Israel and Jack Hayford. For those of you who don't know, Hayford is from California, like Horton, and is also the mentor of the pastor at the church that my family has been attending in our break from mainline Protestantism. In this week that has so spotlighted dispensational eschatology, this again brings home the point, it is really Biblical?

--Troll--

Daniel 9, Part 2

Part 2.  There are two important points to this portion of the discussion.  Let’s start with verse 27. 

27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

That verse is very dense and worthy of considerable conversation.  Let’s start with the word “he.” The antecedent of pronouns is a subject that causes grammar teachers to turn blue in the face discussing, and perhaps Daniel should have been subjected to such a tirade.  Much has been made of the issue of the antecedent of this one pronoun.  The history of the 20^th century is punctuated by a lack of understanding of this one word.  I am referring, of course, to the recreation of the political state of Israel in 1948.  But, I’m moving ahead; let’s go back to the text.  Who can “he” be?  The dispensational view is that “he” is the desolator at the end of the verse.  Also, in verse 26, the prince who is to come and destroy the temple is read as the devil as opposed to some earthly and human prince.  Therefore, they believe that the devil is in the covenant making business.  This concept is nowhere else seen in scripture.  In fact, throughout scripture, it is God who is in the covenant making business.  Instead, in the Christocentric view of this pronoun, it is Jesus who makes a strong covenant.  Jesus does put an end to sacrifices and burnt offerings.  Jesus does declare the end of the Old Covenant and states that there is a New Covenant in Him.  It is amazing that Dispensationalists will work so hard to make the numbers fit to get Jesus into this prophesy, but then will clearly miss the prophesy about the New Covenant in Christ, who ends sin. 

The second point is that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in 70 A.D.  While the final apostasy is what is probably meant in verse 27, dovetailing with Revelations, it is this temple destruction that seems to be spoken of in verse 26.  The secular accounts of Titus’ reign of carnage over Jerusalem would make a grotesque movie even by modern standards.  It is interesting that the preterist position looks at this whole passage as being completed by 70 A.D.  As horrible as the sacking of Jerusalem was, the final apostasy most would hold involves the whole world.

We could go farther about which half of the last week Gabriel is discussing, but most people believe that it is the first half of the week.  Christ has a ministry on the world for about 3 ½ years.  At the end of his ministry, His death and resurrection occur, and that changes everything.  The end of the Old Covenant, the end of the bondage of man to sin, the end to the curse of the first Adam, the binding of the desolator, for all who believe in Christ, this all comes with His death, resurrection and ascension.  The second half of the week is interpreted by Revelation, according to the amillennial position as representing all of the time between the first and second Advent, however long that might be.  The point of 70 x 7 again is symbolic, and the leftover half of a week gets us to the Second Advent.  This is not the same as the gap that follows in an important way.  All of the events of prophesy except for the final apostasy and the Second Coming are finished by the end of 70 A.D.  This means that the last 3 ½ weeks represent the whole inter-advental period.  The final apostasy is a result of the unbinding of Satan and his lashing out against the world one final time before the second coming and judgment.

And finally, dispensationalists, where is the second gap, the one between week 69 and week 70?  I’m reading along, Gabriel is telling us a smashingly good story, and then Gabriel says, that there will be a gap of 700 weeks between weeks 69 and 70.  What?  You don’t see those words?  Neither do I.  The Dispensational view requires some clarification so that you will see the problem.  In the dispensational view, remember that the “he” is the devil.  The devil has to make a covenant with Israel.  And notice that it has to be national Israel.  Gabriel says that the covenant will be with “many.” Importantly, there is no mention of Israel in this place.  Gabriel knows that Jesus will be redefining the elect in His own covenant.  And so “many” is intentionally vague at this point in redemptive history.  Assuming that Daniel means ethnic and political Israel by the word “many” flies in the face of logic.  It seems more likely that many will be chosen, but some will not.  It is easy to see that the Apostles would initially look at this as meaning that many of the ethnically Jewish will be saved and miss at first glance that Christ’s ministry was much larger than that.  But it is equally clear that they understood that the New Covenant was with individuals, not with the state of Israel.  This is where that often abused idea of a personal relationship with Jesus comes into play.  In Christ, there is no corporate deal; personal and individual redemption is on the table.  The New Covenant is not with the whole of any nation.

The temple in Ezekiel 40-48 is part of the Dispensational problem.  This temple is a real earthly building in their literalistic hermeneutic.  The problems for this begin immediately, however.  This temple is supposed to be built on a mountain, a mountain that overlooks Jerusalem.  Such a mountain doesn’t exist.  Secondly, as the temple grows in the text to the size of the whole city, the obvious imagery of the spread of the temple beyond its traditional boundaries is lost.  In the NT, this spread, according to Jesus, is to the whole world.  See Revelation 21.  Read the whole chapter, then look carefully at verses 22-27.  Look at verse 22 again.

22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.

Remember that the dispensationalist takes the Bible literally.  Does the OT interpret the NT or does the NT interpret the OT?  Look at verse 27.  There is that pesky Book of Life, the one that Daniel had to shut.  John is looking at it.  There is no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb.

Getting back to the Dispensational view, the idea of the rapture is that Jesus comes and quietly calls his elect from the world just before this new covenant with the Devil is made.  In the passage I sited in part one from Matthew 24, it seems that Christ’s second coming will be rather loud and obvious, not the sort of stealth move implied by the idea of the rapture.  I will deal with the rapture specifically in a later post, but the implications of this theology in redemptive history are startling and probably not what any Christian really wants to believe, if they just thought it through.  For our current purposes, let us just ask the Dispensationalist to show us the 2000+ year gap in the text.  If their hermeneutic is that they take the Bible literalistically, and it is, then where is the gap?

Why is this important to the modern Geopolitical debate?  If you are a dispensationalist, you need Israel to be back in the land.  In order for the end to come, in order for there to be a second coming, in order for there to be a treaty between Satan and Israel, you need an ethnic and political entity called Israel to be in that ground.  Not only that, but they expect to achieve national borders that resemble Biblical borders.  If you haven’t noticed, somewhere in the last 1000 years, this other group build a mosque in Jerusalem, to follow a descendant of a different of Abraham’s sons.  They claim this same real estate and want to convert everyone to their theology or else kill them.  And so, while Christ came into this world and made a new Covenant with His elect, the Dispensationalists want another covenant, with a national Israel, after reestablishing old borders, so that they can help bring about the second coming of Christ.

This really is what is at the heart of this whole post WWII drama.  We have leaders, who with good intentions, but with really bad theology, who felt really badly for the Jews after Hitler, who took advantage of the political climate to force Israel back into the land.  In the book by Hal Lindsey, The Late, Great Planet Earth, in 1970, this was all laid out for us, as plain as day.  The thought was that 1948 plus half of 70 or 35 is 1973; there was a war that year in Israel.  That year came and went and the rest of the story didn’t unfold.  And so the Dispensationalists have had to recalculate.  Add another 35 and you get 2018.  If you subtract 7 for the rapture, you get 2011.  If you pile on the Mayan Calendar and Nostradamus and some planetary alignment that will happen this year, you get a lot of people who are nervous about events in the world and the period around May 21 of this year.  My son plans to have a party on May 22.  I hope that he comes up with an appropriately clever name for that bash, perhaps the Hal Lindsey earth renewal celebration.

*Is it necessary for Israel to be in the land?  No.  The land promise of Sinai was broken.  Daniel and other OT prophets make that clear.  The land promise of Abraham is expanded by Christ to mean the whole world.  *Did Jesus make a specific land Covenant with His people?  No, not really.  He made a wholly, and Holy, different type of Covenant.  *Does this make me an anti-Semitic bigot?  Absolutely not.  The Jews have access to the same Covenant that I do.  In fact, it can be argued that they may get one last chance at it before the end (again, for another post.) Many Jews will be saved, but through their faith in the promise that is manifested in Christ Jesus.  *Is it horrible that we have such incredible tension in our day in the Middle East?  Absolutely, but the Bible is silent about this.  Remember Matthew 24. (There are other similar passages, for another post.) *Why is Israel back in the land?  Because a bunch of secular rulers decided to make it happen.  There is no Biblical prophecy that requires it, nor forbids it.  The Bible is silent about this issue.  *Is there a reason to be nervous about current events?  Yes, for their own sakes, yes.  For more, I refer you to Kim Riddlebarger, here: see the right column Amillennialism 101—Audio Resources, or here and here: the printed versions of the material in the audio series.

--Troll--  and  --Ogre--

Daniel 9, Part 1

Daniel 9:24-27 is the key to modern Middle Eastern politics.  The whole understanding of the Premillennial, Dispensational view of eschatology hangs upon the interpretation of this passage.  What I am going to attempt to do in two posts is summarize about 40 hours of lectures that I will cite at the end.  Why should we care about this topic?  Many of the leaders of our country subscribe to this flawed world view and make decisions that affect our future based upon these ideas.

There is one basic hermeneutic that runs throughout scripture.  The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about the redemptive work of Jesus.  It is incredible that so many learned men can miss this point.  The first corollary to this principle is that Jesus and the Apostles, in the New Testament, interpret the Old Testament for us; the Old Testament does not tell us how to interpret the New Testament.  This notion is called Christocentricity and is the proper way to interpret scripture.  One of the best descriptions of this I heard recently was from Rod Rosenbladt who said that when we read the OT today, it is like watching the movie “The Sixth Sense” for the second time; we already know the ending and we can now see how the OT events clearly point forward toward the first Advent.

Dispensationalists have a different hermeneutic.  They claim to interpret the Bible literally.  While this sounds faithful and proper on the surface, it is not exactly what Jesus and the Apostles did.  Frequently, we find Jesus quoting OT passages and referring them to himself.  The Apostles likewise do this from Acts to Revelation.  But the Dispensationalist will argue that you cannot do this because it changes the clear and obvious meaning of the text.  The best example of this is the term Israel.  While Israel means ethnic and political Israel in the OT, it is clearly expanded by Jeremiah and Isaiah as well as Jesus, Peter and Paul to mean all of the elect in the whole world, Jews and Gentiles.  This is the beginning of our problem.

In the lead in to the passage in question, I’d like to bring up a couple of points.  First, the genre of Daniel is apocalyptic literature.  It is written with allegory and symbolism.  You clearly need to understand the historical background behind the passage and also which OT passages are being cited and quoted in order to understand the meaning.  Daniel is having a prophetic vision.  This is not a clear snapshot of the future, but rather a dream.  Another example of this genre is Revelations, which will be discussed as we go along. 

As far as this apocalyptic literature goes, the key item of interest is the Book of Life.  Daniel is told to close it, but John gets to open it and have a look.  This is a very important point.  If John gets a better look at the book, then it is John who should be used to interpret Daniel, not the other way round.  Going back to the movie analogy, if you know that Bruce Willis’ character died at the beginning of the movie, you can no longer make assumptions that his wife hears their conversation during the earlier portions of the movie.  The end has changed our understanding of the beginning.  Such is also the case concerning Revelation and our understanding of Daniel.  But it can also be said that Jesus speaks prophesy regularly and that all of the New Testament should be viewed as relevant to the interpretation of the Old Testament.  Since Jesus fulfills the OT prophesy, what he says about the OT matters.  This is also true of the Apostles.  Putting on blinders to the NT makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

To begin our discussion of Daniel 9, let’s look at verses 4-5.  In this section, Daniel makes two key points: God is a covenant maker, but He expects the other side to keep the Commandments.  He is talking about the Sinai Covenant and this refers back to Deuteronomy 7.  Israel in that passage is clearly national and ethnic Israel.  Let us continue and see what happens next.

I often wonder if Dispensationalists have actually read the next ten or so lines of Daniel.  Daniel describes in no uncertain terms that Israel has broken the Sinai Covenant and that God, as promised, has already delivered His wrath, in accordance with the broken Sinai covenant, upon his people.  It is already done.  This is why Daniel is praying for Israel.  He is already in captivity in Babylon.  What is remarkable is that Daniel records that the angel Gabriel answers his prayer and Gabriel’s response is recorded in verses 24-27.

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Now we need to break down the reply.  The first and most obvious question to ask is whether 70 weeks means a literal 70 weeks.  There seems to be some consensus on this point that a week is actually a year, and that there is an implied multiplication by 7 meaning that the actual time frame is 490 years.  I have cited a chart that discusses the possible interpretations of each of the three main eschatological systems.  Notice that after the 70 years of captivity, the next 483 years added brings us up to about one group of 70 from Christ’s life on earth.  The starting point of these years is variably held to be based on a decree of Cyrus versus a decree of Artaxerxes.  Let’s compare the differences between these two passages in Ezra.

In Ezra 1, we read the decree from Cyrus for the Israelites to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.  The next 5 chapters are about the red tape and obstruction that came to hinder the effort.  In Ezra 7, Ezra is commended by Artaxerxes to return to the now completed temple and teach.  The number of years of this gap is 80.  What 80 years does is close the gap in the number of years between Daniel 605 B.C. to Christ’s life and ministry 26-33 A.D.  Therefore, to literalists, it makes sense to number the years from Ezra’s arrival with the later decree rather from the first decree, for mathematical reasons.  The point here is that both sides are going to have to do some funny business with numbers, because there is this extra 80 years.

Next, the issue is the word “week.” Since we have already decided to deal with this term figuratively, a week is a year, perhaps we should investigate whether a week is some other measurement.  Let’s start with the captivity.  Jeremiah prophesied the captivity as 70 years and this is supported in three other places in the Bible.  Therefore, it seems that those 70 years are literal.  Particularly important in this regard is that the historical years of the exile are known and rooted in the lives of non-Jewish kings.  Cyrus existed and is documented in literature outside of the Bible.  But what of the gap? 

Ezekiel 4:5-6 uses days to mean years, so it is reasonable to accept this idea of prophetic speech having symbolic uses for numbers when dealing with Daniel.  There is much agreement on this issue.  So what does Gabriel actually say to Daniel in the vision.  The time from the setting out with the decree to rebuild to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, shall be 7 weeks.  I’ve tried several times to make 49 years fit much of anything, but the 80 years between Cyrus’ edict and Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem seem to fit the best.  What can we say about this apparent discrepancy?  First, once we start saying that the numbers are not exact, this will affect all of the calculations.  Second, it seems rather clear to me that Gabriel is talking about the edict from Cyrus.  There is no 80 year gap in the Passage the way that I read this.  Is there a translation issue for this word “week?” Maybe, there is some use of the word “seven” in place of week.  With this type of thinking, 7 is the number of the Sabbath, the number of perfection, the number of God.  One less is 6, repeated three times is the number of another.  So 70 x 7 is a period that symbolizes God, but is not meant to be an exact number.  There is help in this vein from Jesus in discussion over the timing of His second Advent.  If we are not to know the exact timing of His second Advent, perhaps the exactness of the prophesies concerning his first Advent are also purposefully vague.  There are many other theories of how to calculate these sevens or weeks, and each runs into a problem.  So, let us shift our conversation to the issue of the second gap, the Dispensationalists' gap between the 69^th and 70^th week.  End part one.