Header Image: The angel Gabriel coming to Daniel

Daniel's 70 Weeks

 

To fully understand Jesus's first, and indeed what is commonly called his "Second Coming," we need to understand the book of Daniel. This prophetic books give many details and glimpses into the future about coming kingdoms, rulers and above all, the Messiah. I'm going to be focussing on just one part of the book, chapter nine, often referred to as "Daniel's 70 Weeks". But just what is "Daniel's 70 Weeks" you might be asking as you read this. For those unfamiliar with Old Testament prophecy, it is a prophetic vision that Daniel was given from God, and interpreted by the angel Gabriel. You can read the prophecy in full below: 

Dan 9: 20-27 (NRSV)

While I was speaking, and was praying and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God on behalf of the holy mountain of my God— while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen before in a vision, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. He came and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding. At the beginning of your supplications a word went out, and I have come to declare it, for you are greatly beloved. So consider the word and understand the vision:

“Seventy weeks are decreed for 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. Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops 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. He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.”

Now, in this prophecy, it speaks of "weeks" (or literally, "sevens") – 70 in total, which if taken at face value would only be just over a year in length. This would be a very short time to do all that is spoken of by the angel — especially the rebuilding of a city!

Advertisement

The prophecy in Daniel gave the time span for the rebuilding of the city and even mentions that it will be in a "troubled time" as Gabriel told Daniel, which we can see happen in the book of Nehemiah in about 444 BC (around 94 years later):

Nehemiah 4:7-8

But when Sanballat and Tobiah and the Arabs and the Ammonites and the Ashdodites heard that the repairing of the walls of Jerusalem was going forward and the gaps were beginning to be closed, they were very angry, and all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and to cause confusion in it. (cf. Neh 4:16-18; Ezra 3:3) 

The is a prophetic metaphor for years – each day equals one year. You may wonder how the "sevens" or "week" equals 7 years, and by looking at other examples of prophetic language in the Bible, we can find two other places where one day is equal to one year in a prophetic sense: Ez 4:6 and Num 14:34. There's also two other places where one day is equalled with one thousand years: Ps 90:4 and 2 Pet 3:8 – unlike the previous examples, these aren't spoken of in a prophecy or vision as to have a specific time meaning, but are rather hyperbole to make a point, as the surrounding context of those verses will show.

Advertisement

If we were to calculate Daniel's prophecy based on 1000 years to each day, it would cover a timeframe of 70,000 years instead of 490 – which is just slightly ridiculous!

So lets break down the prophecy to see what's going on and being said:

"Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city" — 70 weeks, or 490 years (70x7), have been decreed by God as the time set for the following things to take place for the Jews and Jerusalem. These things can be split up into six parts:

  1. To finish the transgression
  2. To put an end to sin
  3. To atone for iniquity
  4. To bring in everlasting righteousness
  5. To seal both vision and prophet
  6. To anoint a most holy place (Heb. or "thing" or "one").

The angel Gabriel then gives a brief overview of how all of these things will happen, when the seventy week countdown begins, and the timescale for each part. The nation of Israel were basically on probation from God to get their act together; they have 490 years to get right with God, which is point 1. Then follows points 2-6. This prophecy is actually very precise and specific!

...from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

I'm going to include this same quote from the NIV translation too (all other quotes are NRSV), as it keeps the original wording of "sevens" instead of using "weeks", which I find makes the grammar of the sentence flow a little better:

From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’  It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

This in total means that there are to be 483 years from when the word "goes out" to start restoration on Jerusalem. I point this out because of the way the English translations make the initial seven and the sixty-two sevens appear as separate events, as in the NRSV ("there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks...") whereas the NIV quote doesn't come across that way, and neither does it in some other versions, such as the KJV. I looked this up in a Hebrew interlinear (since I can't read ancient Hebrew) and the flow of the sentence is more akin to the NIV, KJV etc., with a Sof passuk (ie. a full stop/period) marking the end of the sentence at the end of verse 25. But I'm not a Hebrew expert so I may be overlooking other aspects of grammar here.

What has this got to do with Jesus?

Advertisement

Now you may be asking, what has all this got to do with the "Second Coming?" Well, in order to fully understand when the return and "the end" is to take place, we must first understand the timing of Daniel's prophecy about the Messiah as his first coming and death, and then what's oftern thought to be his return are all wrapped up in this 70 weeks.

"From the time the word went out" is often related to King Cyrus, who gave the initial decree that allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem to begin rebuilding their temple (cf. 2 Chron. 36:23; Ezra 1:2-5). This is assumed because Cyrus was prophesied about by Isaiah 150-200 years before he was born. The amazing thing about this prophecy is that Isaiah actually named Cyrus and that he would do this! Check it out:

Isaiah 44:28

...who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd,
    and he shall carry out all my purpose”;
and who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,”
    and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”

Advertisement

But what is often overlooked in this is that Cyrus only gives a decree to rebuild the temple. We see this fulfilled in Ezra 3:8-13 which tells of when the foundations were laid after the Jews returned to Jerusalem following Cyrus's decree. Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, gives a nice little insight into this aspect of Jewish history (Antiquities 11:1,2) when he recounts that King Cyrus didn't realise this was written but when it was shown to him, he then had a desire to go about and fulfil it - despite being a Persian king who didn't even know nor worship the God of the Jews (Isa 45:5)!

So when did the seventy week clock begin ticking, if not with Cyrus? There are four decrees by three kings to the Jews concerning the rebuilding of the temple and the city, over a period of time: Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes (twice, although there is some dispute over whether there was a second king with the same name later on).

But is it the decree of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-26) in which the Jewish people were allowed to go back to Jerusalem with the blessing of the king, so that they may restore it fully. This happened  in the 7th year of his reign (Ezra 7:8), which according to historical records, would have been 457 BC.

As a point of interest, there is another way in which these initial 7 weeks and 62 weeks can be read which could also explain why the "weeks" are phrased in two parts ("until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks..."). This first anointed price could well reference Cyrus (as "anointed" doesn't always mean the Messiah in the Saviour sense), and the "word" that went out could be a reference to Jeremiah's prophecy about the Babylonian captivity (which is during the time that Daniel was written). Jeremiah prophesied about Jerusalem about 587 BC, which would in fact be 49 years before Cyrus gave his decree, around 538 BC. The break in the time, and then continuing with "and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built..." would still begin when the rebuilding actually took place, in the reign of Artaxerxes, still leading us up until the time of Jesus. 

Linking into the New Testament

Advertisement

It is generally accepted that Jesus was baptised around 26 or 27 AD, given the timescales and points in history the authors of Scripture give us (eg. Luke 3:1). This now brings us from "the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" right up until "after the sixty-two weeks" when the next "anointed one" appears in the prophecy, as when Jesus was baptised it was then he was anointed by the Holy Spirit to begin his ministry (Matt 3:16-17; Acts 10:38). As an aside for those reading who may not realise the connection: Messiah is the Hebrew word for "anointed," and Christ is the Greek version of that Hebrew word – hence Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Messiah (although, not all who were anointed were thought or expected to be the promised Saviour-Messiah).

This timescale brings us perfectly up to the 69 "weeks" of Daniel's prophecy, which is 483 years leaving only the remaining "week" to go.

There is a 'pause' here, similar to the first 7 weeks, in the way the angel Gabriel phrases the prophecy to Daniel in verse 26: "After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing" – so the initial 483 years brings us up to the next appearance of the Anointed One, and then after this he shall be "cut off", ie. killed. Jesus was crucified after about 3 years of ministry.

Before getting into that last 7 year period, I'd just like to point out some aspects of the Gospels and Galatians which should hopefully make more sense now in light of Daniel's prophecy and its timing:

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law... (emphasis mine)

Mark 1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” (emphasis mine)

 Jesus began his ministry at that time because it was when the "time [was] fulfilled", referencing Daniel's prophecy (which would also "seal both vision and prophet" about this event; v.24) , which his original audience would have understood. The Jewish people had that time while Jesus was with them to repent and turn back to God and enter his eternal kingdom which was promised to the Messiah – the kingdom which Daniel also prophesied about in Daniel chapter two, that would be founded not by human hands, and which would last forever. That was the time which God had given his people, and those who rejected it would suffer what was prophesied about in the final "week".

Dan 2:44

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever

2 Peter 1:11

For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you

Jn 18:36

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.

The Final Week

There is some contention about this final seven years. The details about what happens during that time are divided in half: a ruler will come to destroy for the first half (3.5 years), and then war will ensue until the end, which will also be this ruler's end too when the final 3.5 years are complete.

Some say that it is still yet to come, in some far-flung future, as the "prophetic clock" stopped when Jesus was killed. I suspect if you've ever been taught anything about the "End Times," that is what you believe or expect, especially if you have read or watched the Left Behind books or films which are based heavily on a futurist interpretation of Daniel, Revelation and the Olivet Discourse.

But it may surprise you to know that this isn't the only interpretation or school of thought, despite how popular this view is. I used to believe that this was what was going to happen, that it could happen at any moment as "Jesus is coming soon!" along with great tribulation and "armageddon" as people often proclaim. But after studying this topic for quite some time now, I've found that it doesn't reconcile with what the Scriptures say, or what Jesus taught, nor what history shows, and thus have had to adjust my views.

Advertisement

Lets have a look at what is to happen in the final seven years:

Dan 9:26-27

After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops 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. He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.

 Now some say that since Jesus' ministry was about 3 and a half years long, that this was the final week and why the sacrifices were ceased. On the face of it this seems to make sense, as the sacrificial death of Jesus was the be the final sacrifice for sins for all time in the eyes of God, thus any other animal sacrifices aren't accepted. While Jesus's death did fulfil other aspects of this prophecy: "an anointed one shall be cut off  ... to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness" which the New Testament authors were clearly aware of and saw fulfilled in Jesus, I won't write them all out here but will give references – John 1:29; 1 Cor 1:30;  2 Cor 5:17-19,21; Romans 3:21-22 ; Romans 5:17-19; Heb 13:12; Heb 9:15;  1 Peter 2:24; Col 1:20, plus many more.

Advertisement

I will quote one passage though, which I think summarises the fulfillment of Jesus in Daniel's prophecy:

Heb 9:26b-25

But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Not only does this state that the early Christians saw Jesus as being the ultimate sacrifice to remove sins for all time, and give those who believe in him everlasting righteousness, but that they also recognised the times as being "the end of the age". I will be going more into that topic later in this series. 

Advertisement

So while I do see a fulfillment here in part, and agree with the New Testament authors that Jesus's sacrifice did put an end to the need for animal sin sacrifices, however I don't believe that this is what Dan 9:26-27 is all about, as the Jews will have continued to sacrifice in the temple as they always did, even after Jesus's death.

No, this part is also what Jesus prophesied about in Matt 24:15 "So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel" and also in verse 30, "they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’" which is also a reference to the book of Daniel chapter seven: "As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven."

Here, Jesus also says that the temple will be destroyed too, which is what this final week in Daniel is also saying: "the prince ... shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" – contrast this with Matt 24:1-2.

Some reading this now may be thinking of something else Jesus said, "But about that day and hour no one knows" — this can still be true despite the preciseness of Daniel's prophecy, simply because the 70 weeks appear to have some time breaks which leave it open to happen only when certain events are in play – by which point the signs of what's coming will be obvious yet still not definite.

Advertisement

"After the sixty-two weeks ... the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city..." – there's an indefinite period of time here, which is why Jesus told his disciples, "when you see all these things, you know that he is near..."

I'll be discussing Matthew 24-25 in more detail in Part 3 of this series; the next part will be looking at what exactly "coming on the clouds of heaven" means in terms of it's usage in the Old Testament prophetic texts, and how the disciples and those listening to Jesus would have understood it, as all these phrases link the New to the Old Testament. As 1st century Jews who knew their Scriptures, they would have undoubtedly have heard it differently to how we do in a 21st century context with all of our "End Times" baggage and bias.

 

Feel free to leave a comment below and share your thoughts!

Advertisement

 


 

Further reading: 

 

Contribute on Patreon

Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!

Subscribe to Updates
Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 684 times   Liked 0 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates ?

Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to Blog updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS

‹ Return to Blog

We never share or sell your email address to anyone.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

On the Feast of the Nativity, a sermon by Leo the Great

| 22nd December 2018 | Christmas

In the days leading up to Christmas, I wanted to share a sermon from a man known as Leo the Great (aka Pope Leo I), who was a Pope from 440-61 AD. He was one of the most significant and important men in Christian antiquity, as he tried to combat the heresies which seriously threatened church unity in the West, such as Pelagianism. This sermon of his about the incarnation of Christ and what it means for us has always stuck with me since I first read it last April when writing my own book on the Early Church Fathers. It's not that long, so take the time to read it through and let the words sink in as we prepare for Christmas to remember and celebrate the birth of our Saviour and Lord, Christ Jesus. On the Feast of the Nativity, I. I. All share in the joy of Christmas Our Saviour, dearly-beloved, was born today: let us be glad. For there is no proper place for sadness, when we keep the birthday of the Life, which destroys the fear of mortality and brings to us the joy of promised eternity. No one is kept from sharing in this happiness. There is for all one common measure of joy, because as our Lord the destroyer of sin and death finds none free from charge, so is He come to free us all. Let the saint exult in that he draws near to victory. Let the sinner be glad in that he is invited to pardon. Let the gentile take courage in that he is called to life. For the Son of God in the fullness of time which the inscrutable depth of the Divine counsel has determined, has taken on him the nature of man, thereby to reconcile it to its Author: in order that the inventor of death, the devil, might be conquered through that (nature) which he had conquered. And in this conflict undertaken for us, the fight was fought on great and wondrous principles of fairness; for the Almighty Lord enters the lists with His savage foe not in His own majesty but in our humility, opposing him with the same form and the same nature, which shares indeed our mortality, though it is free from all sin. Truly foreign to this nativity is that which we read of all others, no one is clean from stain, not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth (Job 19:4). Nothing therefore of the lust of the flesh has passed into that peerless nativity, nothing of the law of sin has entered. A royal Virgin of the stem of David is chosen, to be impregnated with the sacred seed and to conceive the Divinely-human offspring in mind first and then in body. And lest in ignorance of the heavenly counsel she should tremble at so strange a result, she learns from converse with the angel that what is to be wrought in her is of the Holy Ghost. Nor does she believe it loss of honour that she is soon to be the Mother of God. For why should she be in despair over the novelty of such conception, to whom the power of the most High has promised to effect it. Her implicit faith is confirmed also by the attestation of a precursory miracle, and Elizabeth receives unexpected fertility: in order that there might be no doubt that He who had given conception to the barren, would give it even to a virgin. II. The mystery of the Incarnation is a fitting theme for joy both to angels and to men Therefore the Word of God, Himself God, the Son of God who in the beginning was with God, through whom all things were made and without whom was nothing made (John 1:1-3), with the purpose of delivering man from eternal death, became man: so bending Himself to take on Him our humility without decrease in His own majesty, that remaining what He was and assuming what He was not, He might unite the true form of a slave to that form in which He is equal to God the Father, and join both natures together by such a compact that the lower should not be swallowed up in its exaltation nor the higher impaired by its new associate. Without detriment therefore to the properties of either substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the p...

Who was the real Santa Claus?

| 17th December 2018 | Christmas

It's that magical time of year when the lights go up, the trees get decorated and a familiar bearded man in a red suit pops up everywhere. He goes by a few names: Santa Claus, Father Christmas, Saint Nick. But who was the real Santa Claus? Well, to answer that, we need to go way back in history to the fourth century to a Bishop called Nicholas of Myra (present-day Demre, Turkey). Memes abound about St Nicholas and Arius Some early lists place him as one of the Bishops who attended the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and there are some questionable legends which states that he was temporarily defrocked (a removal from office) and imprisoned during the Council for apparently slapping the heretic Arius across the face! The following is an excerpt from a book called The Book of the Saints, which details some of the main aspects we know about St. Nicholas’ life and the miracles attributed to him: ST. NICHOLAS was born into a wealthy family at Patara, Lycia, Asia Minor. He was imprisoned during the persecution of Diocletian, attended the Council of Nicaea, and died at Myra, where he was buried in the cathedral. Nicholas was chosen Bishop of Myra and devoted himself to helping the poor. Tradition says that Nicholas devoted himself to works of charity. Hearing that an impoverished father had to sell his three daughters into prostitution because he had no money for their marriage dowry, Nicholas threw a small bag of gold into the poor man's window on three different evenings, and his daughters were able to marry. Finally, he was discovered as the bearer of these gifts. At one time, he saved three innocent young men from execution by the powerful civil governor, Eustathius. At another time he came to the aid of seamen who called for his help during a storm at sea off the coast of Lycia. Suddenly appearing on their ship, he manned the ropes and sails beside the weary sailors and brought the vessel to port. Another tale relates that during a famine in his country, Nicholas was able through his prayers to guide some passing ships filled with grain to come to relieve his starving people. Needless to say, with stories like these to his credit, Nicholas became a popular saint after his death. Seamen throughout Europe and Asia, as well as his own people, adopted him as their patron. His relics were carried to Bari, Italy, in 1087, after the Moslem invasion of Asia Minor. Countless churches in England, France and Germany bear his name. In Germany he became associated with Christmas, and as a giver of gifts on that holyday he is known in America as the kind and generous "Santa Claus." “Lord, giver of good gifts, make us generous to others, especially to the needy.”  The book of the Saints, Hoagland, V, Regina Press, pp. 288-290 From the excerpt above, it becomes clear how Nicholas became associated with gift-giving and charity, and the level of miraculous events that were part of his life could explain how “Old Saint Nick” came to be seen as a magical figure too. So how did a fourth century Bishop from Turkey end up as a jolly old man with a beard and a red suit? Well you can thank the sailors who took him on as their patron saint for that. As they travelled, stories of St. Nicholas went with them all over the world, eventually going to the Dutch who called him Sinterklaas (or Sint-Nicolaas). This, in time, became “Santa Claus” via American Dutch settlers where the tradition then came to England and merged with other ancient traditions of “Father Christmas”, a 15-17th century personification of Christmas in Britain. Sinterklaas played by Bram van der VlugtBy Gaby Kooiman, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link It’s also from the Dutch incarnation of St. Nicholas that we get the traditional red outfit and big white beard of Santa Claus. In the Dutch tradition, the Sinterklaas figure wears a red outfit styled after a liturgical vestment and traditional Bishops items, such as the mitre, alb and a crosier – a ce...

John Chau, missionary to the Sentinelese: martyr or madness?

| 03rd December 2018 | Missions

You've probably seen it in the news lately: John Chau, the American guy who tried to evangelise the secluded Sentinelese tribe off the coast of India. Much of the debate in secular media has centered around the grief of his friends and family; how he could have brought outside disease to the tribespeople and potentially killed them all (despite this not being their first contact with outsiders, with no known ill effect), or that he ventured there completely in ignorance with no preparation or wisdom — something which the missionary agency, All Nations, has recently debunked. But the question I want to look at is this: was Chau's mission total madness or is he a modern-day martyr? Well first, what is a martyr? The dictionary definition is simply: “a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs”, and the word itself comes from ancient Greek meaning “witness”. For those who may be unfamiliar with the whole story (as much as we can see), John Chau had said since 2011 that he felt called by God to go and tell the good news of Jesus to the Sentinelese people. After many years of preparation, about two weeks ago in late November, he succeeded in getting to the remote island via a fishing boat (which was illegal to visit under normal circumstances). But after a few attempts at making contact, he is believed to have been killed. The fishermen saw some tribespeople dragging Chau’s body across the beach, so it has been assumed that he is dead – and no one knows any differently to date. So in the strictest sense as the definition above, he may not be a martyr as he wasn’t necessarily killed because of his beliefs, as the tribespeople couldn’t even understand his preaching, and on the face of it, it does seem like madness. In the broader sense of the word, I think it’s fair to call him a martyr, as that would be one who “sacrifices his or her life, station, or something of great personal value, for the sake of principle or to sustain a cause”. His cause was Christ, his principle was to spread the Gospel and he sacrificed his life for it. This was living out the message of Jesus to its fullest. Luke 9:23-24 Then he said to them all, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it. There are those who argue that he died purely because the islanders were hostile towards any who would try and step foot on their land, and his death had nothing to do with whatever purpose Chau went there with, therefore he wasn’t technically martyred. But if that is the case, then you could make the same point about many of the early Christian martyrs who were killed by the Romans. Sure, there were times of specific and targeted persecutions against the Church, but there was also times where persecution was more of a by-product of the Roman Empire’s hostility to those were disloyal to the Emperor. The men and women who were killed during those times were still seen and declared to be martyrs for the faith since they stood strong in their convictions in the face of death. For example in the early centuries, on pain of death, the people of the Roman Empire had to swear loyalty to the Emperor and publicly perform some act of worship and veneration towards him. This wasn’t an attempt to root out Christians necessarily, but they did refuse to partake due to their beliefs in worshipping God alone and not committing idolatry by performing an act of worship towards the reigning Caesar. As far as the Romans were concerned, the Christians were traitors and committed a treasonous act. It didn’t really matter why, only that they couldn’t be convinced otherwise and were killed for it to be an example to others. Were these early Christians martyrs or completely mad? How you answer that, I suspect, will inform you of how you view young John ...

The Reality of Sin

| 19th November 2018 | Sin

Sin is like a mold on us, like a rotting, black skin disease. If only we could see it on us, we'd be disgusted and repulsed! Zombies are popular on TV etc. right now, think of the grossness of those images and realise that when we sin and keep sinning, that's what we end up looking like before God! We are living stones, together building up the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 2:5; 1 Cor 6:19). Think about that for a moment. Think of the splendor of Solomon's temple when it was built (re-read it again if you can’t remember: 1 Kings 6:14-36). We are that and SO much more! But now imagine it with mold and mildew and all that horrible black damp growing and spreading across the walls. Totally unbefitting of a holy temple for the Lord! You'd clean it up straight away if that happened in your home, but for some reason we just let it fester in the temple of God like it's no big deal. But what happens if it's left? It can destroy the wall with rot and become poisonous causing sickness. These days we can just buy some spray to squirt on the walls and wipe clean, but how did God command his people to deal with mold and mildew in the Old Testament? Leviticus 14:45He shall have the house torn down, its stones and timber and all the plaster of the house, and taken outside the city to an unclean place. Pretty drastic, right? But it's a serious thing! And sin is an even more serious thing to God, much more than mold in a house, but if WE are that house and WE have that mold then how much more serious will God take that? How much more will God tear down our bodies in order to save us from the disease festering in our lives? Look at what Paul told the Corinthian church to do with a man living in sin: 1 Corinthians 5:5you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Did you catch that? They were to hand this person over to Satan! How? By putting them out of the church— excommunication, basically, so that the "rotten" one wouldn't infect the rest. 1 Corinthians 5:13God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” Deuteronomy 17:7 So you shall purge the evil from your midst. God takes sin amongst his own people very seriously, as you can see from the verses above. And he will deal with us as he sees fit so that he can form and shape us into the image of his Son, Christ Jesus. That is the aim and purpose of our salvation (cf. Phil 2:5; Rom 12:2). As Irenaeus (and Athanasius) said: Jesus became what we are so that we might become what He is! In other words, we are to be renewed and transformed into the image of Christ so that, as Peter wrote, we “may become participants of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Remember, judgement begins with the house of God! (1 Peter 4:17). We aren't spared from God's judgement simply by being Christians; no, if anything we will be judged more! We represent Christ on earth (2 Cor 5:20), we should be doing good works in the power and name of Jesus for the glory of the Father. God will judge those works and our lives as Christians (Matt 5:16; Eph 2:10; Rom 2:13), which is a different kind of judgement to non-believers. Consider the following verses; God will judge and destroy any of those who destroy his temple! Are we exempt from that judgement simply by being that temple if we are still partaking in that destruction through our sin? 1 Corinthians 3:16-17Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. We can have hope though, if we are judged, because the Lord doesn't judge us without purpose or just to punish for the sake of it, but he does it for our own good and salvation; so that we are disciplined in order not to be condemned with the world (1 Cor 11:32; cf. Rev 3:4-6) — sometimes that judgement includes ...