All:

 

The "Covenant/Reformed" understand the Bible mostly as symbolically or allegorically.   There is nothing "logical" about the understanding of the Bible that way.  This is not to say Symbolism and Allegory is unimportant or non-existent in the Bible.  Nor is to say it should be ignored, however, if studied through proper methodology.

 

Steven "Mark" Wohlberg and his followers see prophecy relegated to the opinions of the allegoricalization and symbolic application, like as an example, his understanding of the "Mark" of the Beast in Revelation 13:16-18.  Anyone who interprets prophetic texts literally are shouted down or ridiculed.  This is what is happening here with Steven "Marky" Wohlberg's interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27.  This is true of those having bought into his line of reasoning, confused as it is.

 

He does not buy it and because of that, he has done his utmost best to negate any possibility that there is a "GAP" between weeks 69 and 70.  He has also created many "straw-man" arguments that have no basis or substance in faith or reality.

 

Take note of how the Pre-Wrath and Mid-Trib people at that other prophecy site try to shut down the Pre-Trib Rapture Dispensational position.  Their opinions are stated as if they were fact.  That's why I said they must hear from on High because of their pontificating style.  For those of you seeking information or confirmation in reading their posts, I ask you, is not their discourse formed by trying to shout down and ridicule the Pre-Trib Rapture.  Their choice of Scripture to make a point is often taken out of context or they "cherry-pick" verses to force their view. They may attempt to talk a good game about an open forum for exchange of ideas.  Their rhetoric wreaks of papal pontification ex-cathedral.

 

Steven "Mark" Wohlberg works very hard to discount, discredit, and defeat the possibility that he just might be wrong.  To hear the followers of Steven "Mark" Wohlberg talk, with their declarative statements, that they are correct, and anyone who believes to the contrary, and anyone who believes differently is 100% wrong and they will be really left behind.

 

You will notice his statements are abundantly laced with words like "deceived", "deluded", and "delusional", "apostasy", and "heretic".  They use them like a club or sword.  They seem to be always ready and willing to unsheathe their weapon at a drop of a hat, in order to beat everyone else over the head with their version of the truth.

 

Dave MacPherson does the same thing.  He has written eight books about one subject - The attack of the Pre-Trib Rapture.  Why is he so concerned about this subject, when people are literally (not allegorically) leaving this life and arriving in Hell daily.  This is completely illogical to me.  This man has written eight books blasting the Pre-Trib Rapture.  It confounds me since there are so many other topics he could write about.  It seems to me he could have stated his view in one or not more than two books.

 

As Steven Wohlberg implied at the beginning of one of his articles regarding the Pre-Trib Rapture, he believes it could very well be part of the end times deception, because he and others believe it to be part of the deception, they believe they must fight against it, because they believe that it somehow connects with salvation itself, or will keep people from it.  Well I have news for Steven "Mark" Wohlberg, and others like the "Scripturalist for the Lord" and those caught up in the agenda, it doesn't affect your salvation one iota whatsoever. 

 

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I have backed up my opinion with conclusive Biblical and antidotal evidence proving the existence that God uses "Gaps" to deal with His people, the Jews.  I offered examples and illustrations that support a (parenthesis or Gap) between weeks 69 and 70. 

 

The Apostle Paul admonished Timothy to study to show himself a workman rightly dividing the Word of God. 

 

What has struck me to be a problem as much as interesting is the fact that a subtle deception exists in the church today.  Satan has persuaded theological institutions to water down curriculums.  Today, they are loaded with courses on "church growth", "church management", "spiritual formation", and with less emphasis on the Bible itself.  Today, fewer than a dozen seminaries require of their students basic Greek or basic Hebrew. 

 

To my knowledge, not one seminary today offers a course on "Israelogy" Despite the word Israel and its derivatives occur nearly a thousand times in the Bible.  You would think that a theological institution would offer a course on a topic that takes up 80% of the Biblical text.  Theological seminaries offer theology courses in three areas:

 

            Systematic Theology

            Denominational Theology

            Biblical Theology

 

Each has a specific focus and purpose.  Nearly twenty years ago, a strikingly significant book was published by Dr. Arnold Fruechtenbaum, entitled "Israelogy".  It is no small book at close to a thousand pages.  The author, a messianic believer, and soft spoken, laid out the case, which became obvious since Israel is the primary focal point of the Bible as to God's Master Plan for the salvation of humanity.  Not withstanding that fact, it deserves a greater place in the theological studies of a pastor.  The fact is a Master's of Divinity (3-year program) today contains few courses of in depth Bible.  Basic survey courses in Old Testament and New Testament, one of the Gospels, and a few electives is about the most many pastors receive today. 

 

While a M.Div. equips (or should) a pastor with the basic tools and foundational studies, few pastors have or take the time to use them to grow in their calling.  Seminary students are encouraged to do a 1-year D. Min. (Doctor of Ministry) to get that doctorate they will impress people with.  The D. Min. is nothing to be especially proud of; it is a rehash of courses in the M.Div. program, just different course numbers to hide the fact they are offered in the M.Div. program.   There are no Biblical language requirements for a D. Min. program.  In my opinion a D. Min. program is a joke.  You just have to spend five or six thousand dollars to do the class work, research and write longer papers than when one was in the M.Div. program.   A Th.D. and Ph.D. all require language skills in the Greek and Hebrew.

 

Back to Dr. Arnold Fruechtenbaum's book 'Israelogy: A Systematic Theology of Israel''  It does more to resolve the problems created by "Covenant/Reformed" theology.  It helps to understand how early Christians were guilty of replacing the Jews and that "Covenant/Reformed" theology interpreted the idea that the Church replaced Israel in God's economy.  It exposes the corrupt Catholic theology that has led us to the problems we face today between Israel and the world, especially the Church.

 

Of all the various methods or views of the Rapture issue, the fact is, Dispensationalism has the fewest unresolved questions or issues.  By that I am stating that all the other views have greater unresolved issues or problems than that of the Pre-Trib Rapture. 

 

I believe the evidence supports the Pre-Trib Rapture, far better than any of the differing opinions.  There are other implied or inferred reasons in the Bible that support this view as well.  They are not always explicit in the text but rather submerged into the larger context.  These include typology, patterns, and concepts of the Hebrew wedding, or the Feast Days of the Lord in Leviticus 23.  I once noted that the Bible contains nearly 200 examples of the theme of deliverance before judgment.  These are not identified as such, but rather have to be gleaned from the context and message.  Another example, that should be noted as well is that of the theme of the Tabernacle/Temple.  There are numerous models that God has provided the Jews and us to get our attention, but even more, our devotion and worship.  The Hebrew sages of old interpreted and understood the Old Testament through a form known as Midrash, in which they suggest the text may have as many as four levels of meaning. 

 

Whatever position you hold, the collective evidence refutes SDA teachers like Doug Batchelor and Steven "Mark" Wohlberg, and many of their followers at that other rapture site. 

 

We will consider two more of his statements found in his messages, writings, books, etc. 

 

++ That he does not believe that Daniel 9:27 mentions:  A. The Tribulation,  B.  Rebuilt Temple,  C.  The Antichrist.

 

++ That the entire section of Daniel 9:24-27 speaks of the Messiah.

 

Please note that my statements, my opinion, are backed up with Scriptural evidence, evidence that demands a verdict as Josh McDowell would say.

 

To make clear a distinction in Steven "Mark" Wohlberg's statements, I want to point out the distinction of his words.  He did not simply say that he believes Daniel 9:24-27 do not include references to the Tribulation, the Temple, or the Antichrist.  He stated, without equivocation that they do not reference

those things.  However, he should have prefaced his remarks with his belief, because he cannot prove his own statements.  Some will argue that I cannot prove mine either, but I am simply presenting an opinion of what I believe the passage is saying.  The reader then should make up his or her own mind.  Steven "Mark" Wohlberg and even the "Scripturalist for the Lord" pontificates by making declarative statements as if they were the law or truth.

 

Wohlberg's opinion is more than amateurish, really, because though the passage does not use the words "Tribulation", "Temple" or "Antichrist", arguments can be made to show they are there.  The first rule of interpretation of any passage is "context, context, context."  In verse 24, reference is made to a "Holy Place."

 

While the Bible does not use the word "Trinity", it can be shown that God is "triun", plus there are passages that name the all the persons of the God Head.  These are child-like arguments and should be ignored by the serious Bible student. 

 

With respect to the phrase, a "Holy Place", people disagree about its meaning.  Could it mean the inner portion of the Temple?  It could and there is no reason why it cannot.  Verse 25 speaks of rebuilding Jerusalem,  How could Jerusalem be said to be fully rebuilt if the Temple is not reconstructed?  This is the situation in Israel today, and as far as the Jews are concerned, Jerusalem is not finished, because the Temple has not been rebuilt.  I have noted the fact that the Masonic Grand Orient Lodge of Boston handed the purchase of 60,000 tons of Bedford, Indiana limestone shortly after the Jews retook the Temple Mount in 1972.  I know for certainty their existence for having personally seen them in railroad cars placarded with destination signs - "Destination Kearney, NJ for Export to Israel."

 

Verse 26 indicates, "The people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" note here, the mention of the word "sanctuary" which could also be taken to mean "Temple", or a place of worship.  Wohlberg is positive that "this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman armies led by prince Titus in 70 AD.  This might be one way of looking at it, but again, it is difficult to be dogmatic about it.  This is a classic "Preterist" and "Covenant/Refromed" position, since this occurred in 70 AD, the Tribulation has already occurred.

 

While one might agree this is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD, it does not prove the Great Tribulation has already come and gone.  One could argue the case that Titus is the identity or the prince to come. 

 

The event - the destruction of Jerusalem - to me is clearly the fulfillment of Jesus' words to His disciples that not one stone would stand upon another in Matthew 24.  Please note that Wohlberg states that there is no mention of the rebuilt Temple in this passage.  If he is going to state "unequivocally" that verse 26 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, then he is admitting that there is a clear reference to the Temple as well, since there was a Temple that existed at the time of the 70 AD destruction.  History has proven that the Temple did exist in 70 AD, but was burned to the ground and that the very stones were on top of one another were removed.  One can see this is the case to this day.

 

In his insisting that the passage does not directly mention a Temple, he seems ignorant of the facts of history, yet he has no problem, also stating "unequivocally" that the destruction of Jerusalem took place in 70 AD.  This is also when the Temple was fully destroyed as well.  If he is stating that there is no mention of a rebuilt Temple of the future, he still needs to prove that, not merely stating it.  It is but one of dozens of statements Steven "Mark" Wohlberg and his parroting followers makes without proof.  He pontificates excathedra as do many of those following his teachings on White Horse Ministry. 

 

It is possible that Wohlberg means that there is no mention of a rebuilt Temple in the verses of (;24-27.  The larger problem is that there is mention of the sacrificial system.  This system cannot exist outside of the Temple area proper.  Synagogues cannot be used for this, so the text must be referring to the Temple proper.  He makes the choice to interpret this part of the text to mean that Jesus Christ Himself caused the sacrifices to cease through His death.  However, this is not accurate at all, since the sacrificial system in Judaism continued long after Jesus Christ's death.  Wohlberg and others of his following undoubtedly say Jesus Christ's sacrifice, being final, is the one God recognizes.  Fine, but that does not really take care of the sacrificial system problem in the passage.

 

The real difficulty in the passage is the reference to the person that the use of the word "prince" (small "p") points to (as well as the pronoun "he" points to in this passage).  Steven believes that this "prince" is Titus; however, this is not instantly clear from the text, nor can it be proven without equivocation.  The text says "the people of the prince to come."  If we know that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD, then all we really know is that the prince will either be merely their leader, or will be their leader and of the same nationality as the Romans; or Gentiles.

 

In essence, the angel Gabriel (who is sharing this information with Daniel), could just as easily be stating that the coming one-world ruler, known as the Antichrist, will be of the same lineage as the people who will destroy the city and the Sanctuary; Gentile, which took place in 70 AD.  However, Wohlberg chooses to believe that Titus is the "prince" who led the Romans to destroy Jerusalem.

 

However, in truth, "which" prince are we talking about here?   History indicates when the siege of Jerusalem first began (about 66 AD), General Vespasian led the troops, until he was recalled to Rome.  Then, and only then, did his son Titus took over.  Wohlberg has not decided which of the two is the prince to come in Daniel and must be referring to Titus simply because Titus finished the job his father began?

 

A problem exists because Rome, to my recollection, never used the term "prince".  Actually, two individual generals took part in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.  By what standard are we to say that either man was really a "prince" when they were involved in attacking and destroying Jerusalem?   Neither was actually a Caesar of Rome at the time, unless being a general equates to being a prince, but that would seem to be a stretch of the imagination. 

 

Vespasian became Caesar after he began to attack Jerusalem, which is the reason his son took over.  If anyone should be noted as the prince in this passage, of the two, it would be best to declare Vespasian the prince, not Titus, since Vespasian became a Caesar.

 

Verse 27 simply says "He will make a firm covenant for one week."  The need to be thoroughly investigated before coming to any conclusions.  Wohlberg and other SDA's decided that the "he" refers to Jesus of Nazareth, and for Wohlberg, there is no other alternative.  That is fine if one is as dogmatic about it as is Wohlberg, but it is difficult to support his position, especially when considering the rules of good grammar and the context of the passage itself.  I have previously explained why the "he" cannot be Jesus.  The rules of grammar and the context of the passage itself, not opinion.  Ultimately, Wohlberg is offering his opinion, as are the rest of us, and the one with the greater evidence is the one to believe. 

 

It is my educated opinion that verse 27, is the start of the 70th week of Daniel, or the seven years defined as a 2-part Tribulation.  Regarding the use of the pronoun "he", it is determined who this refers to that makes or breaks this verse and its overall meaning.

 

Wohlberg looks to commentators like Henry, Clarke, Jamison, and other "Covenant/Reformed" theologians for proof of his position, all of whom share the same or similar views about Daniel.  The list of names in this camp are many, as noted at the "Scripturalist of the Lord" site; however, they are all "Covenant/Reformed" theologians that believe the Church replaced Israel in God's plan.  As the Apostle Paul says in Romans 9-12, it hasn't happened!

 

While this series of posts are long for many, I assure you, they are essential in understanding the Daniel passage of 9:24-27.  These are by far the most important prophetic passages of the Bible.  Despite what some might say, you can correlate Daniel 9:24-27 with the book of Revelation.  That is another matter but the evidence that I have offered up, Biblically and antidotal supportive inference, or implied, become supportive of the "GAP" between the 69th and 70th week.  I am suggesting that all of this is laying the groundwork to support the 70th week or Tribulation week which draws a distinction in support of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. 

 

I have not even gotten into the Hebrew Midrash, which is made up of four levels of interpretation.  We will look at this aspect in another post.  It is important because it is Biblical by Hebrew standards.  It deals with idioms, idiomatic expressions, and contains nuances never brought out in the English text. 

 

As I stated in a previous post, I have earned degrees from two of the "Covenant/Reformed" seminaries in the USA.  After eight years of formal education, I came out of the cemetery's (excuse me - seminaries) holding to a much different view, that is Dispensational, that teaches a Pre-Tribulation Rapture.  I argued the literal historical view all that time and not once could any of the professors of the "Covenant/Reform" theology dismember my written work, oral class room presentation, or debating the evidence.  It is my view the reason Biblical languages are not required (since 1950's) was to downplay the importance of word-for-word translation equivalence.  Today, Bible translators use what is known as "dynamic equivalence" (consensus) to please their Roman Catholic participants on the boards of the various Bible societies.  This is solid grounds for not sacrificing your King James Bible for any of the modern perversions.  The Geneva Bible is ok other than its use of old style English letters.

 

Keep looking up, your redemption draweth near!

 

Pastor Bob