Eschatologwalvoordical Problems I.docx(John Walvoord)

8/12/2019 Eschatologwalvoordical Problems I.docx(John Walvoord)

1/70

Eschatological Problems I: Is Satan Bound?Part 1

[Author s Note: This article begins a series on problems in eschatology. Without attemptinginclude all the important subjects which are embraced in Biblical prophecy, aspects, of

prophecy which are pivotal will be considered, giving particular attention to those whichnaturally arise in any attempt to form a system of interpretation. It is hoped that the series will

be helpful to those who have serious problems in the interpretation of prophecy and thatmaterial will be supplied to confirm the faith of those who look for the coming of the Lord forHis Church.]

Introduction.

There are many approaches to the field of eschatology, which includes the consideration of allthat was prophetic in the Scriptures when written. Prophecy can be studied from the viewpointof the purposes of God, with all history in its detail being a fulfillment. Prophecy can beexamined as portraying Christ in His Person and work, a most fruitful field of study as every

important aspect of prophecy has some relation to Christ. Prophecy can be viewed as anunfolding picture of human sin and a divine remedy of grace or judgment. Prophecy can betraced as it deals with Israel and the Gentile nations, constituting a most illuminating study ofGod s program. Prophecy can be viewed, also, from God s program for the angels, as reveain the Scriptures, including the course and destiny of Satan. Each approach has its owncontribution to the total of prophecy. The present subject involves the consideration of the lastnamed, the place of Satan in the prophetic program. While any of the other approaches would

be as suitable, the present subject has been selected because it establishes so simply anddirectly the point in God s program in which we find ourselves. If the question in regard to

binding of Satan can be answered, as it can, a forward step of tremendous importance has beentaken in establishing the whole point of view.

Most systems of interpretation of prophecy can be classified by their interpretation of themillennial doctrine. The Old Testament has frequent allusions to the glory and righteousnessof a future kingdom. The New Testament reveals that this kingdom will continue for onethousand years. The nature of this millennium, or thousand year period, and its relation toother prophesied events constitute a determining factor in any system of propheticinterpretation.

There have been at least four important millennial views, all involving the relation of theChrist to the millennium. Three of these are mutually exclusive concepts. Postmillennialismhad its rise in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, during the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries. Berkhof lists as its originators, Coecejus, Alting, the two Vitringas,d Outrein, Witsius, Hoornbeek, Koelman, and Brakel.1 In its original form postmillennialismheld that Christ would return to the earth after a millennium or period of time of great blessingduring which the Gospel triumphed and righteousness and peace characterized the world.Postmillennialism constituted a rejection of premillennialism, admittedly an early doctrine ofthe church, and the amillennialism which characterized the eschatology of many Roman

Catholics. Postmillennialism was particularly popular during the nineteenth century. The hopefor a millennium on earth to be ushered in by the progress of the church was rudely shattered,however, by the first world war and succeeding events. The prospect of converting the worldto an era of righteousness and peace by human effort is no longer a prominent factor intheology or preaching. A modern type of postmillennialism has persisted, however, though
http://www.walvoord.com/article/18http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D051http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D051http://www.walvoord.com/article/18


2/70

quite divorced from an attempt to expound the Scriptures. It may be identified with theevolutionary hypothesis that man is gradually evolving to a higher state. Adherents of thismodern type of postmillennialism deny that there is much connection with world-bettermentand the Gospel of salvation by grace. They advance the theory that it is the duty of man to

better his conditions by a constructive policy of world-improvement. Just as human disease is being conquered by improvement in medical methods, so, they say, social problems can besolved by improved sociology and political science.

With the passing of the old type of postmillennialism, those who continued to preach aScriptural message have turned back to the eschatology which characterized the period ofstagnation prior to the Protestant Reformation, giving it the more or less new designationof amillennialism , by which is meant that there will be no millennium on earth. While the termis relatively new, the idea that there would be no earthly millennium was quite suited to themoral and spiritual temper of the centuries after Constantine the Great, when the church itself

became corrupt and became more of an institution than an evangelizing agency.Amillennialism has not produced any considerable literature in the field of eschatology,

contenting itself with the reaffirmation of the belief in the final triumph of righteousness, the judgment of all men, the destruction of the present earth and heavens, and the creation of anew heaven and earth. While their system stands in considerable contrast to the premillennialsystem, it hinges on the fact that amillennialism believes the millennium began when Chrdied, and that it applies only to the heavenly estate, not the earth, and that there will be noearthly millennium in a literal sense. While it offers a pleasing simplification of the wholescheme of unfulfilled prophecy, and does not intend to cast any doubt on the inspiration of theScriptures, it leaves unsolved many important passages of Scripture. Any amillennial work ineschatology is notable for the Scriptures it does not use. An interesting example is the recent

work of Floyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial Faith , an attempt to present fairly theamillennial objections to premillennial interpretation. In this work there is no mention at all ofthe many prophecies of Jeremiah, no mention of 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 72, or Isaiah 11, passageswhich are among the most important in the Old Testament in relation to the prophesiedkingdom. While the work is the result of careful study and is not intentionally unfair to

premillennialism, it takes for premillennial truth positions which no intelligent premillennialistholds. It totally neglects the issue that by no principle of hermeneutics can the word earth bemade to represent heaven in the millennial passages, as it is necessary to interpret the word inthe amillennial position.

The consideration of the present subject of the binding of Satan is an important preliminaryconsideration to premillennial truth in that it determines at once many of the issues. Theamillennial position requires the hypothesis that Satan is now bound. If it can be demonstratedthat Satan is not bound, it will at least leave an important if not insuperable obstacle to theamillennial system of interpretation.

The premillennial position, which is here assumed, in its s implest form asserts that Christ willreturn before the millennium and will by His own power and presence institute a period ofrighteousness and peace on the earth to continue for a thousand years. It offers a satisfactory

solution to all the prophetic Wo rd, allows for the literal fulfillment of all of God s promises,and honors the Bible as meaning what it appears to mean. It is significant that specialists in prophecy are usually premillennial, that those who hold the premillennial faith are usuallyconservative in their theological positions, that they uphold the doctrine of verbal inspiration,
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


3/70

that they preach the old-fashioned Gospel, and as a class are comparatively free from liberaltheology. Other millennial views have been signally sterile in their prophetic studies. Thewriter has never heard of those holding either the postmillennial view or the amillennial viewconducting a prophetic Bible conference. Many amillennialists and postmillennialists willfrankly admit that they have never seriously st udied prophecy. It is the writer s opinion thatanyone coming to the Scripture without preconceived ideas will naturally assume that theWord of God teaches the premillennial return of Christ.

A fourth millennial view may be merely mentioned. There are some who spiritualize the returnof Christ, advancing the theories that Christ returned in the Person of the Spirit at Pentecost, orat the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., or at the death of saints. While as a class they denythe millennium, and are therefore amillennial, they do not attempt to interpret the Scriptures ordevelop any system, and are always more or less liberal in their theology. Their position iseasily refuted by the Scriptures themselves. None of the prophesied events to follow thesecond coming of Christ occurred either at Pentecost or 70 A.D., nor do they occur at the deathof saints. John, writing the book of Revelation long after 70 A.D., was still looking for the

coming of Christ (Rev 22:20) .

I. The Power of Satan Is Limited.

In coming, now, directly to the question to be considered, whether Satan is bound, it isnecessary, first, to establish some of the elements of Satanology. It is, after all, a matter oftremendous significance whether Satan is bound as indicated in Revelation 20:1-3. The ideathat it matters little what view is taken of the millennium is contrary to fact. A fullunderstanding of the wiles of the devil is essential to spiritual victory and it is unfortunatelycharacteristic of amillennial and postmillennial systems of theology to ignore or minimize the

power and activity of Satan, as a survey of their systematic theologies will illustrate. Satan isrevealed in the Scriptures as a created being of great power, wickedness, and cleverness. TheScriptures never minimize the Adversary. It is essential, then, to know the extent of this powerand its nature.

A brief summary of the power of Satan is afforded in the following quotation:

According to hisown declaration, which Christ did not deny, he [Satan] has power over thekingdoms of this world, which kingdoms he said were delivered unto him, and which power

he bestows on whom he will (Luke 4:6) . It is said of him that he hath the power of death (Heb2:14) , but that power has been surrendered to Christ (Rev 1:18 ). Satan had the power oversickness in the case of Job (Job 2:7 ), and was able to sift Peter as wheat in a sieve (Luke22:31; 1 Cor 5:5) . Likewise, Satan is said to have weakened the nations, to have made theearth to tremble, to have shaken kingdoms, to have made the earth a wilderness, destroying thecities thereof, and not to have opened the house of his prisoners ( Isa 14:12-17) . Against the

power of Satan even Michael the archangel durst not contend (Jude 9) ; but there is victory forthe child of God through the power of the Spirit and the blood of Christ (Eph 6:10-12; 1 John4:4; Rev 12:11 ). Satan s power and authority are exercised always and only within the

permissive will of God.2The Scriptures present, then, on the one hand the great power of Satan and on the other handthat this power is limited and under the sovereign control of God. It is important to note thatthe premillennialist, seeking as he does to honor the Word of God, does not for one moment
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D052http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D052http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


4/70

deny that the power of Satan is limited in the present age, in fact, in any age. Strangely, someamillennial writers have attempted to demonstrate that the premillennial view is erroneous by pointing to Scriptures which speak of Satan s limitation. Both the Old and New Testaments bear a clear revelation on this point, and all millennial views must accept what the Scripturesteach. Whether this limitation should be identified with the binding of Satan in Revelation20:1-3 is quite another issue. While all agree that Satan is limited, all do not agree that Satan is

bound.

II. The Amillennial View of the Binding of Satan.

The central passage on the subject of the binding of Satan is, of course, Revelation 20:1-3, which in the revised edition is as follows:

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chin his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan,and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and cast him into the abyss, and shut it, and sealed it

over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years should befinished: after this he must be loosed for a little time.

Whatever view may be taken of the nature of the millennium, it is obvious from the passagewhether taken literally or symbolically that Satan is bound before the millennium. If, then, themillennium is still future, it follows that Satan is not bound, but if the millennium has already

begun and is now in progress, as the amillennialist believes, then Satan must be bound now.The usual amillennial approach to this passage points out the fact, which all recognize, that the

book of Revelation uses symbols, that its chronological scheme is that of recapitulation, andthat it is therefore difficult to determine dogmatically what the exact meaning of any symbolmay be and the exact place in the chronological plan of the book in which to fit each newrevelation. It is the opinion of the writer, however, that the events of the nineteenth andtwentieth chapters are progressive and successive and that this is plain in the nature of thenarrative, but it is not necessary to assume this in order to determine the meaning of the

binding of Satan.

The most obvious fact in Revelation 20 is that the binding of Satan makes the millennium possible, i.e., there is a causal relation -the millennium would be impossible without Satan bound. If that is the case, then it is well to ask at the outset, where will the millennium take

place, on earth or in heaven? If the millennium has its only fulfillment in heaven, then the binding of Satan applies only to heaven; if the millennium takes place on earth, then Satan is bound in respect to the earth.

A survey of amillennial literature reveals a most significant fact: they all agree that themillennium will take place only in heaven, but they have at least four contradictoryexplanations of the binding of Satan. First, and least important, is the group which spiritualizesthe return of Christ-suggests He returned at Pentecost, at 70 A.D., or at the death of saints.While this group is amillennial in its main characteristics in that they believe Satan is now

bound, they are in a certain sense an off-brand of premillennialism, as they believe Christ hasalready come and that the millennium is following His return. They hold, then, that Christ hasreturned to earth, and the millennium has begun in heaven. They identify the binding of Satanas an act subsequent to the triumph of Christ in His life, death, and resurrection. A secondgroup, in which may be classed the work of William Masselink, Why a Thousand Years? ,
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


5/70

takes the position that Satan is fully bound in relation to heaven, and partially bound inrelation to the earth. This group identifies the binding of Satan with the victory of Christ in Hislife, death, and resurrection. A third view is advanced by Floyd E. Hamilton, in his recentwork, The Basis of the Millennial Faith , which sets forth the evidence to prove that Satan isnow bound in relation to the earth . A fourth view to be mentioned-and it is the only one whichis logically consistent with the conclusion-was expounded by B. B. Warfield. His view is thatthe binding of Satan refers only to the freedom of saints in the intermediate state, i.e., those inheaven now, from attacks of Satan. He states clearly that the binding of Satan does not refer tothe earth.

The amillennialists often refer to difference of opinion among premillennialists in respect todetails of prophecy. They may well look to their own system. All premillennialists worthy ofthe name believe that Satan is bound just before the millennium. Amillennialists offer insteada strange series of interpretations. One group believes Christ has come to earth and produced amillennium in heaven . Another believes Satan is bound in respect to heaven and partially inrespect to earth and that this results in a heavenly millennium. Another believes that Satan is

bound in respect to the earth, but that this produces a millennium in heaven. Still another believes that Satan is not bound in respect to earth, but only in heaven. From a standpoint oflogic itself, apart from specific revelation of Scripture, it would follow that if Satan is boundonly in respect to heaven, the millennium can be only in heaven; if partially bound in respectto earth, a partial millennium on earth would follow; if fully bound in respect to earth, then themillennium must be on earth rather than in heaven. An argument to demonstrate that Satan isnow bound in respect to the earth has no logical connection with demonstrating a millenniumin heaven, though if proved, would indicate that the millennium has already come to the earth.

In the nature of the case, the issue relative to the binding of Satan breaks into two pointedquestions: Is Satan bound in respect to heaven? Is Satan bound in respect to earth? In reality itis necessary only to demonstrate the answer to the first question to undo the amillennial

position, but inasmuch as many amillennialists also have dealt with the second question, itmay well be handled too.

III. Is Satan Bound in Respect to Heaven?

B. B. Warfield, acknowledged by all to be a great theologian, can well be taken as offering themost incisive analysis of the amillennial position. To present this, he is quoted somewhat at

length:

The binding of Satan is, therefore, in reality, not for a season, but with reference to asphere; and his loosing again is not after a period but in another sphere: it is not subsequence but exteriority that is suggested. There is, indeed, no literal binding of Satan to be thoughat all: what happens, happens not to Satan but to the saints, and is only represented ashappening to Satan for the purpose of the symbolical picture. What actually happens is that thesaints described are removed from the sphere of Satan s assaults. The saints described are ffrom all access to Satan-he is bound with respect to them: outside of their charmed circle his

horrid wor k goes on. This is indicated, indeed, in the very employment of the two symbols thousand years and a little time. A thousand years is the symbol of heavenly completenand blessedness; the little time of earthly turmoil and evil. Those in the thousand years asafe from Satan s assaults: those outside the thousand years are still enduring his attacks.3
http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D053http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D053


6/70

The amillennial position as stated by Warfield may be summed, then, as follows: (1) There isno chronological system to the twentieth chapter of Revelation at all-the millennium is not amillennium and events which are stated to occur after the millennium, i.e., the loosing ofSatan, actually occur during the millennium. (2) In reality, Satan is not bound at all, but saintsare merely removed from his power by being taken to heaven. (3) The nations mentionedin Revelation 20:3 are really glorified saints, not nations upon earth. (4) Revelation 20:1-3 isnot an historic or prophetic event but just a symbolic picture of peace after trial. It will appearto the most casual student that Warfield s interpretation has no basis in the text itself, but thit is superimposed upon the text. No one reading Revelation would possibly arrive at such aconclusion unless determined to make it harmonize with a preconceived idea. Warfield s viis pure opinion-he offers no proof for his definition of terms worthy of consideration; hemakes no attempt at a real exegesis. In reality he holds that the passage teaches nothing. If thesame principles of hermeneutics used by Warfield in Revelation were applied to the wholeBible, theology would be impossible and there would be no sure foundation for any doctrine.

In the study of prophecy it is absolutely essential to distinguish a revelation in symbolic form

from its interpretation. Warfield states that the primary principles of interpretation of prophecyare (1) the principle of recapitulation; (2) the principle of successive visions; (3) the principleof symbolism; (4) the principle of ethical purpose .4 It is noteworthy that he omits from his

principles that prophecy may be interpreted as factual history prewritten, that prophecy mayhave a chronological scheme, and that the Bible itself may give the interpretation. His conceptseems to be that prophecy is merely ethical-a portrayal of moral purpose rather than aforetelling of a coming event.

In the study of Revelation 20:1-3, there is a careful distinction between the vision whichJohn saw and its interpretation which was revealed . In fact, this is the key to the chapter. Johnsaw an angel bind Satan with a chain, cast him into the abyss, shut him up, and set a seal uponhim. This was the vision. Now consider the interpretation-i.e., facts which are revealed to Johnwhich in the nature of the case could not be seen. It was revealed to John that Satan was thusshut up for a thousand years, that the purpose of the act was that he would not deceive thenations, and that he would be loosed again for a short time after the thousand years. If Johnhad merely recorded what he saw, there would be room for varied interpretation, but he wasguided by the Spirit in also writing the interpretation of the vision. This interpretation must betaken in the same degree of authority as any doctrinal portion or historical portion of theScriptures. When John wrote of a thousand years, or Satan not deceiving the nations, etc., hewas revealing a doctrine, not a vision.

In its simpler statement, Warfield s position concerning the binding of Satan is that saints inglory are free from his attacks. To this all must agree, even those who believe that Satan is notcast out of heaven until the time of the tribulation (Rev 12:9) . It is inconceivable that saints inany period were open to attacks from Satan, and if the binding of Satan means only that, it ismerely a reaffirmation of Satan s limitations and no new revelation. The millennium becomthen identical with the glorified state, nothing more, nothing less.

The binding of Satan is not, however, in reference to attacks on glorified saints. The onlydefinition we have of the binding of Satan and its purpose in Revelation 20:1-3 is that he is nolonger permitted to deceive the nations. Now was Satan ever permitted to deceive glorifiedsaints? While it is clear from the Scripture that Satan is the accuser of saints and is permitted
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D054http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D054http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


7/70

access to heaven, it can hardly be held that at any time Satan could attack saints in heaven oreven deceive them.

In the last analysis, we must choose between two alternatives: either Revelation 20 revealsnothing more than what has already been made clear in other Scriptures, i.e., that the saints inheaven are safe from all his evil work, or, the binding of Satan must have reference to the earthand consists in a total end to his work of deceiving the nations. Facing this obvious alternative,Masselink and Hamilton in their defense of the amillennial position present the binding ofSatan as related to the earth, not simply to heaven.

A fact apparently overlooked by the amillennial interpretation is that the binding of Satan isnot the total of his limitation. According to Revelation 20:3, Satan is not only bound but theangel cast him into the abyss, and shut it, and sealed it over him.... This is not even asymbolic picture of partial limitation, but of total limitation. Only the premillennialinterpretation can fit such a description. According to the Scriptures Satan is far from beingtotally inactive either in heaven or in earth. While it is true that the victory of the disciples in

performing great miracles is connected by Christ to Satan falling as lightning from heaven(Luke 10:18) , i.e., a sign pointing to his ultimate downfall, and it is also said that Satan is now judged through the work of Christ on the cross (John 16:11 ), the actual dismissal of Satanfrom access to heaven does not occur until the time of the great tribulation accordingtoRevelation 12:9. That Satan does have access to heaven is the clear implication of theScriptures (Job 1:6; 2:1, 2;Rev 12:7-13 ). Obviously, Satan cannot be cast out of heaven unlesshe once was in heaven. The terrible conditions on earth during the tribulation period are tracedto the fact that Satan knows he has only a short time ( Rev 12:12) , and pours out his wrath uponthe earth and manifests his power as never before. If the binding of Satan and his being shut upin the abyss occur at the same time, then it is inaccurate and misleading to say that Satan isnow bound. While his power is limited, and always has been, and while saints have always

been free from his assaults, it is not proper to refer to this limitation as the binding of Satan.One can conclude, therefore, that Satan is not bound now in respect to heaven in the sensof Revelation 20:1-3. If this conclusion be accepted, obviously, there is no ground for theamillennial position that there is now a millennium in heaven following the binding of Satan.

IV. Is Satan Bound in Respect to the Earth?

As has been previously stated, one of the peculiarities of the amillennial position is that they

cannot agree among themselves as to the extent of the binding of Satan. Warfield denies thatthe binding of Satan has any reference to the earth now, as indicated in his s tatement, Outsideof their charmed circle [the saints in glory] his horrid work goes on.5 Other amillennialistsare more prone to attempt to meet the premillennial arguments that the Old Testamentdemands a kingdom of righteousness on earth , if prophecy is to be fulfilled. After theamillennialist has referred all the passages to heaven which can possibly be made to refer to aheavenly kingdom, there remains a great bulk of passages which cannot be explained away. Ifwords mean anything, Isaiah 11 refers to the earth, not to heaven. Psalm 72 could not possibly

be twisted to apply to heaven, and so with other passages. In an attempt to meet this problem,

and a major one, of the amillennial interpretation, the binding of Satan has also been referredto the earth, even though logically, it would have nothing to do with a heavenly kingdom. Thequestion is, then, Is Satan now bound in respect to the earth? If he is, we must find someexplanation for this present evil world, for apostasy in the church, for the rapid growth of non-
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D055http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D055http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


8/70

Christian religions. We must be able to explain all reference in the New Testament to the present activity of Satan. If this is impossible, as it is not hard to demonstrate, then Satan is not bound in respect to the earth, and the amillennialist must find some other explanation for passages referring to a period of righteousness on earth and universal peace and knowledge ofthe Lord.

What is the testimony of the Scriptures? Can Satan deceive the nations now? Is he totallyinactive? We need only quote Scripture. Acts 5:3 , But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satanfilled thy hear t to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 1Corinthians 7:5 , Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that yemay give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not becauseof your incontinency. 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4 , And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled inthem that perish: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, thatthe light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn uponthem. 2 Corinthians 11:14 , And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angelof light. 2 Corinthians 12:7 , And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations,that I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messengerof Satan to buffet me, that I should not be exalted overmuch. 1 Thessalonians 2:18 , Becausewe would fain have come unto you, I Paul once and again; and Satan hindered us. 2Thessalonians 2:8, 9 , And then shall be revealed the lawlessone, whom the Lord Jesus shallslay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming;even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs andlying wonders. 1 Timothy 1:20 , Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I deliveredunto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme. 1 John 3:8 , He thaf doeth sin is ofthe devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. To this end was the Son of God manifested,

that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:10 , In this the children of God aremanifest, and the children of the devil. ... 1 Peter 5:8 , Be sober, be watchful: your adversarythe devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

Satan is seen to tempt, to deceive, to blind, to buffet, to hinder, to work signs and lyingwonders, to have children (i.e., unbelievers), to walk about seeking whom he may devour. Isthis a picture of Satan bound? Is this in harmony with the amillennial interpretationof Revelation 20:1-3 ? The obvious answer is that Satan is not bound, that he still deceives, thathe still has great power, and that in respect to the earth he can severely attack both theChristian and the unsaved-howbeit in the will of God.

Compare these Scriptures with the following statement of the amillennial view by WilliamMasselink:

The binding of Satan for a thousand years is the symbolical figure used to teach us that his power is completely broken for a season... From this passage in Revelation we learn that Satanis bound in a two-fold sense: in the relative sense and in the absolute sense. With respect to thenations he is not bound completely. The result of this binding is that he can deceive the nationsno more. In regard to the saints he is bound in the absolute sense. The glorified souls are

entirely beyond his dominion?6Revelation 20:1-3 teaches, in contrast to William Masselink, that Satan will be completely

bound, that he will be totally inactive. At the present time, the Scriptures themselves indicatethe continued activity of Satan, his attacks upon saints in the earth, his deceiving of men.
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D056http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D056http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D056http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


9/70

Floyd Hamilton s argument from Matthew 12:24-29 that Satan was already bound at that timeis refuted by the plain facts of the context. In the first place, Christ does not say that Satan is

bound-he uses the word only in the illustration. Obviously, Satan was not bound in the senseof Revelation 20:1-3 as demon possession abounded. Even Mr. Hamilton would be loath tostate that the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Christ were not deceived by Satan. Yethis hypothesis demands that Satan can no longer deceive the nations. He states, The way osalvation has been opened to all nations and there is nothing that Satan can do to block thatway.7 Does not the Scripture reveal that the reason for the unbelief of the world in relation tothe Gospel is due to S atan s deceptive and blinding work(2 Cor 4:3, 4 )? How is it that afternineteen centuries of proclamation, the Gospel has yet to win even a majority of those whohave heard it? How is it that in contrast to the Christian faith with its Spiritual power theheathen religions such as Mohammedanism are actually gaining converts faster thanChristianity? How is it that apostasy has overtaken the church to-day? There can be only oneanswer, and that is that Satan is working, deceiving, hindering, blinding, devouring. If so, thenSatan is not bound, nor is he shut up where he cannot deceive the nations. If Satan is not

bound, then the millennium is yet future and our hope is for the coming of the Lord.

Conclusion.

A,study of all the factors which enter into the interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3 leads to threeconclusions: (1) Satan is not now bound and shut up in the abyss in relation to heaven, thoughhis power has always been limited. (2) Satan is not now bound and shut up in the abyss inrelation to the earth, though here too his power is limited; Satan stands judged and defeated;and Christ is victorious. (3) The binding of Satan and his period of total activity are still futureand will constitute a major feature of the future millennium on earth. There is not now nor everwill be a fulfillment of the prophecies of a righteous rule upon earth until after Satan is bound-an event coincident with the return of Christ to establish His earthly kingdom.

Dallas, Texas

(Series to be continued in the January-March Number, 1944)

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission ofGalaxie Software.

1 Systematic Theology , Second Edition, p. 716.

2 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes , p. 121.

3 Biblical Doctrines , p. 651.

4 Ibid ., pp. 645, 646.

5 Ibid ., p. 651.

6 Why a Thousand Years? p. 202.
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D057http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D057http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.galaxie.com/http://www.galaxie.com/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/18#GB43D057http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


10/70

7 The Basis of Millennial Faith , p. 130.

Eschatological Problems II: Is the Seventieth Week of Daniel Future?

The interpretation of the revelation given to Daniel concerning the seventy weeks (Daniel9:24-27) constitutes one of the determining factors in the whole system of prophecy. Theattention given to it by all schools of interpretation, and the attacks upon the authenticity of the

book itself combine to focus the white light of investigation upon it. The interpretation of this passage inevitably colors all other prophetic views, and a proper understanding of it is the sinequa non of any student of prophecy.

I. The Importance of the Revelation.

The importance of the revelation of Daniel nine lies first of all in the chronology which itestablishes. Properly understood, we have here the major outline of the period from Daniel toChrist and from the rapture of the Church to the second coming of Christ in glory. Certainly,no other Old Testament passage does as much for ordering events future from Daniel s poinof view as does the passage under consideration.

Properly interpreted, the prophecy of Daniel furnishes an excellent example of the principlethat prophecy is subject to literal interpretation. Practically all expositors, however opposed to

prophecy per se , agree that at least part of the seventy weeks of Daniel is to be interpretedliterally. In fact, such is the force of the literal interpretation that those who deny the

possibility of accurate prophecy are compelled to move the date of the writing of Daniel untilafter the events which they believe fulfilled it. From the standpoint of this article, if the firstsixty-nine weeks of Daniel were subject to literal fulfillment, it is a powerful argument that thefinal seventieth week will have a similar fulfillment.

Another important aspect of the passage is frequently overlooked by expositors. The seventyweeks of Daniel, properly interpreted, demonstrate the distinct place of the Christian churchand Israel in the purposes of God. The seventy weeks of Daniel are totally in reference toIsrael and her relation to Gentile powers and the rejection of Israel s Messiah. The peculiar

purpose of God in calling out a people from every nation to form the church and the programof the present age are nowhere in view in this prophecy.

II. The Historic Fulfillment of the Sixty-Nine Weeks.The interpretation of the seventy weeks of Daniel is divided into two main problems, thefulfillment of the sixty-nine weeks, and the fulfillment of the seventieth week. Our presentstudy is primarily concerned with the latter problem. However, in order to have a backgroundfor judgment and interpretation, it is necessary to survey briefly the various interpretations ofthe first sixty-nine weeks.

There are few passages of Scripture which have occasioned a greater variety of interpretationthan Daniel 9:24-27. A comparison of commentaries reveals that seldom can two be foundwith exactly the same exegesis. As Dr. James A. Montgomery states in concluding his longdiscussion of the passage: To sum up: The history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is theDismal Swamp of O.T. criti cism. The difficulties that beset any rationalistic treatment of thefigures are great enough, for the critics on this side of the fence do not agree among
http://www.walvoord.com/article/19http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19


11/70

themselves; but the trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories in the efforts to obtain anexact chronology fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2, 000 years of infinitelyvaried interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determinationof a definite prophetic chronology.1 While we do not share Dr. Montgomery s pessimism, wemust face a bewildering lack of unanimity among expositors.

Most of the difficulty of expositors in the study of this passage may be traced to their premises. In general, there are two main divisions of interpretation: Christological and non-Christological. The former interprets the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel as culminating inChrist while the latter finds fulfillment of Daniel s prophecy in events before or after Christ.Most writers on the subject have not been slow to notice the repeated use of the numberseventy in relation to the prophetic program. It had been predicted that Israel s servitude unthe Babylonians would last seventy years. The seventy years were inflicted because of herfailure to observe her Sabbatic years (Lev 26:34, 35; 2 Chron 36:21) . The plan for the Sabbaticyears involved the basic number seven . Sir Robert Anderson also advances the interestingconclusion that it was exactly 490 luni-solar years (360 days each) or seventy times seven

years from the dedication of the temple in the eleventh year of Solomon to the dedication ofthe second temple in 515 B.C .2 These facts have led expositors to seek a literal fulfillmentof Daniel 9:24-27.

The non-Christological interpretation of the passage attempts to find fulfillment of the seventyweeks in the events leading up to the persecution of Antiochus IV, known commonly asAntiochus Epiphanes. In 168 B.C., a pagan altar was constructed on top of the great altar of

burnt sacrifices, and a pagan sacrifice was offered under the rulership of AntiochusEpiphanes .3 The act precipitated the Maccabean revolt which Antiochus attemptedunsuccessfully to put down with great cruelty (167-164 B.C.). The system of chronologyadopted by those who interpret Daniel to prophesy this event varies with the writer.

Generally, there is agreement among them that the seventy weeks of Daniel began with the beginning of the seventy years of Jeremiah. The beginning of the servitude of Jerusalem in 606B.C. does not, however, give a satisfactory terminus for the first seven weeks, or forty-nineyears of the prophecy. Accordingly, Dr. Montgomery quotes with approval the view that theseventy weeks began at 586 B.C., when Jerusalem was completely desolated according to hischronology and the forty-nine years accordingly bring us approximately to 538 B.C. when theJews were permitted to return to Jerusalem. The sixty-two weeks or 434 years begin at 538B.C. and culminate in the desecration of Antiochus in 168. As is apparent, however, there aretwo drastic errors in this system of computation. The beginning of the seventy weeks did not

begin with the Jeremianic prophecy but with the command to restore Jerusalem, which isidentified most satisfactorily as occurring in 445 B.C. The terminus of the seventy weeks doesnot take us to 168 B.C. as would be expected, but to 104 B.C. There is an error, here, of morethan sixty years which no amount of juggling can erase.

Dr. Montgomery solves the problem by conveniently determining that Daniel was in error inhis calculation: To be sure, a similar objection may be made against our identification of th

final Week of the Seventy with the period of Ant. s tyranny, for the 62 Weeks would then taus down some 65 years too far. We can meet this objection only by surmising a chronologicalmiscalculation on the part of the writer [Daniel]. For the first 49 years he had exact Scripturalinformation; he was profoundly conscious of the epochal character of his own age; there was
http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A031http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A032http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A033http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A033http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A032http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A031


12/70

the necessity of extending Jer. s 70 years into a much larger figure in order to bring it up todate (the natural process of all interpretation of prophecy), and the 70 years became 70 Year-Weeks, 490 years, too high a figure indeed, but he was not embarrassed, in the absence of aknown chronology, in squeezing these 434 years between the Return and the Antiochian persecution.4

It will be noticed that the interpretation of Daniel s seventy weeks to make them fulfilled inthe Antiochian persecution involves the premises: (1) Jeremiah was wrong; (2) Daniel was inerror; (3) The Christological view is not worthy of serious consideration even though it

provides for a literal interpretation. For anyone having a serious view of the inspiration of theScriptures, this non-Christological interpretation must be dismissed as being only a clumsyattempt to counter the better interpretations which provide for a literal fulfillment. It is reallyno solution at all.

A more interesting non-Christological view is advanced by the Jews themselves. The prevailing interpretation of the Jews after 70 A.D. was that the events of Daniel s seventieth

week have their fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem. Like other forms of the non-Christological view, they are not too concerned with a literal fulfillment of Daniel schronology, though their interpretation is more satisfactory than the view of the destructivehigher critics. Some aspects of their interpretation find their way even into the Christologicalview as portrayed by some writers.

The Christological view, which finds the sixty-nine weeks of Daniel culminating in Christ, has been accepted by most conservative expositors. The fathers from the second to the fourthcentury abound in explanations which bring the culmination of the sixty-nine weeks to the period of Christ s public ministry and death.5 The most satisfactory solution of theChristological interpretation is that of Sir Robert Anderson, a view that fully honors theaccuracy and authority of Daniel s revelation.6 His conclusions embrace the following points:(1) the seventy weeks of Daniel represent 490 years, divided into three parts: forty-nine years,four hundred and thirty-four years (following the first forty-nine years), and the last week ofseven years. (2) There was only one decree ever issued for the rebuilding of Jerusalem-thatgiven to Nehemiah and its date is 445 B.C., specifically the first of Nisan or March 14 of thatyear. (3) The city was actually rebuilt during the time of Nehemiah at the end of the

prophesied desolations of Jerusalem. (4) The sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, immediatelyfollow the first forty-nine years, and on the basis of a prophetic year of 360 days total 173,880days, which would end April 6, A.D. 32-the probable date when Christ rode into Jerusalem infulfillment of Zechariah 9:9.

The chronology of Sir Robert Anderson has a number of distinct advantages over othersystems. It provides a literal fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel. It is based on soundhistorical and chronological data. Most of all, it presents an interpretation of Scripture whichfully honors the doctrine of inspiration. If a system of interpretation based on carefullyestablished principles can bring the fulfillment of the prophecy into such accurate detail, it isridiculous to attempt to warp Daniel s prophecy, into some sort of interpretation which

admittedly does not fulfill the chronology of the passage. If Antiochus missed the proper date by more than sixty years, by occurring too soon, and the destruction of Jerusalem obviouslyoccurred too late, undoubtedly all true scholars would immediately embrace the Christologicalinterpretation if it were not for prejudice either against the Person of Christ, as in the case of
http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A034http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A035http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A035http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A036http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A036http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A036http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A035http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A034


13/70

the Jew, or against a literal fulfillment of prophecy, as in the case of the destructive critics. Thecase for the Christological interpretation, particularly the viewpoint of Sir Robert Anderson,stands on every point superior to other views.

The important point of the Christological interpretation is that the first sixty-nine weeks hada literal fulfillment, both as to details and as to chronology. In approaching the task ofinterpreting the prophecy concerning the seventieth week, we must in all fairness to the

principles approved by the fulfillment of the sixty-nine weeks, expect a literal fulfillment ofthe seventieth week both in its detail and in its chronology. The beginning of the seventyweeks of Daniel was marked by a definite event. At the end of the sixty-nine weeks, or 483years, there was a definite break in the prophecy which was fulfilled literally by the death ofChrist. Likewise the final week of the prophecy, the seventieth week, apparently has a definite beginning and ends with the full end of the period of desolations. There are indications inthe text that a considerable time period elapses between the close of the sixty-ninth week andthe beginning of the seventieth week. The question naturally arises, and it is decisive, is theseventieth week of Daniel future, or has it been already fulfilled in history? To this question

we now direct our thought.

III. Have the Events of Daniel s Seventieth Week Been Fulfilled?

There are at least five theories in regard to the fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel,that is, most interpretations can be classified in one of five categories. Those who find thefulfillment of the first sixty-nine weeks in the events of the Maccabean persecution usuallyfind the fulfillment of the seventieth week in the same period of persecution. As this view has

been previously found to fail in fulfilling the passage, their interpretation of the fulfillment ofthe seventieth week likewise fails. The view of the Jews that the seventieth week is fulfilled inthe events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. likewise fails in fitting thechronology of Daniel.

Three other views have commended themselves to conservative scholars. There are some whohold that the seventieth week of Daniel is an indefinite period beginning while Christ was onearth and extending to the consummation of all things. This is in harmony with Daniel 9:24, which indicates that the program of God for bringing in everlasting righteousness andcessation of Israel s persecutions will be completed by the end of the seventieth week. Thisinterpretation breaks down utterly, however, as a literal fulfillment. The chronology of the

sixty-nine weeks established the principle of literal fulfillment, and we cannot for the sake ofconvenience postulate an indefinite period for the final week of the prophecy. While wecannot accept this spiritual interpretation of the passage, it is an interesting confession on the

part of those who accept it that history does not record events which correspond with the prophecy of the seventieth week .

One other view, however, claims our serious attention. It is advanced by a number of ableexpositors and claims to be a literal interpretation. In brief, the view accepts a system ofchronology which allows for the termination of the sixty-nine weeks of the prophecy at the

baptism of Christ. The first half of the seventieth week is, in their judgment, fulfilled by theevents of the public ministry of Christ. In the middle of the week, Christ is crucified, thesacrifice and oblation cease, and the events of the last half of the seventieth week areimmediately fulfilled in the events which follow. The seventy weeks terminate, perhaps, in
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


14/70

some event such as the conversion of Cornelius. In other words, the seventieth week hasalready been fulfilled literally, and we cannot look for any future fulfillment.

In opposition to this view, the interpretation is advanced that there is an indefinite period oftime between the close of the sixty-ninth week and the beginning of the seventieth week. Atsome future date, the seventieth week will begin, and its events will come to pass literally andwill follow the chronology of the seven years of the seventieth week of Daniel. This is the onlyview which provides a reasonable ground for believing the final week of Daniel is future. Ifwe accept the premise that the final week of Daniel demands a literal fulfillment, we are shutup to the last two views named: that it was fulfilled literally in the first century before 40 A.D.,or that it is yet future and we can look for a literal fulfillment at some future date. The twoexplanations oppose each other; both cannot be right; accordingly, we may well weigh thecontentions of those who support each view as a basis for decision.

One of the most clever writers to support the interpretation that the seventieth week of Danielis already fulfilled is Philip Mauro, whose views are set forth in his work, The Seventy Weeks

and the Great Tribulation . Mr. Mauro believes that God s purpose for Israel as a nation wasfinished upon their rejection of Christ and that the promises given to Israel are now beingfulfilled in the church. He denies the possibility of a future millennium to fulfill the promisesof a kingdom given to David and Israel. His work is accordingly prejudiced by his premises,

but his appeal is to the Scriptures rather than human authority and for this reason hiscontentions should be weighed. He states the case in support of his position with all the forceof a clever thinker and skillful debater. It is characteristic of his style, however, that he neverdiscusses facts for which he does not have a ready solution, i.e., he selects for discussion onlythose points which are in favor of his viewpoint. This defect is too often overlooked by theunwary. He also has great skill in magnifying a minor point until it appears to be a decisiveone, at the same time running rapidly over material which might upset his argument.Accordingly, it is more important to consider what he does not say, on some points, than whathe states.

Philip Mauro s system of interpretation, in brief, involves the following points: (1) The firstsixty-nine weeks of Daniel run from the decree of Cyrus (536 B.C.) to the baptism of Christ.As this amount totals 562 years rather than 483, Mauro, while insisting on literal fulfillment,claims that there can be no certainty of the exact historic length of years between the decree ofCyrus and the baptism of Christ-in fact, claims to find an error of eighty years which adjuststhe difference .7 (2) The baptism of Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy, to anoint the moholy(Dan 9:24 ), the anointment being the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the most holy being Christ Himself. (3) The prince that shall come is Titus, and one who makes thecovenant of Daniel 9:27 is Christ. (4) The cessation of the sacrifices in the middle of theseventieth week is the fulfillment of Old Testament sacrifices by the death of Christ. (5) Allthe six elements of the decree in relation to thy people and thy holy city mentionedin Daniel 9:24 are fulfilled by the life, death and resurrection of Christ. (6) There cannot beany break between the sixty- ninth and the seventieth week of Daniel: Never has a specifiednumber of time-units, making up a described stretch of time, been taken to mean anything

but continuous or consecutive time- units.8The issue between the two literal interpretations of Daniel s seventieth week is, then, clearlydrawn. A glance at the six points enumerated will readily reveal that some of them are decisive
http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A037http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A038http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A038http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A037


15/70

in the interpretation. All six elements of the decree relating to Israel and Jerusalem must befulfilled by the death of Christ. If so much as one of these was not fulfilled, then theinterpretation is revealed to be faulty. If the one who makes the covenant is not Christ, it isadmitted even by Mr. Mauro that the seventieth week must be still future: Manifestly thosetwo ideas stand or fall together; for if verse 27 relates to Christ, then the last week followedimmediately after the 69th; but if it relates to antichrist, or a coming Roman prince, then it isyet future.9 If the sacrifices actually ceased at the death of Christ, it would do much tosubstantiate Mr. Mauro s contention. While the final point, i.e., that there cannot be a break

between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks is begging the question, it is well to considerwhat parallels the Scripture may afford on the question.

Is Titus the Prince that Shall Come?

According to Daniel 9:26, after the sixty-ninth week (sixty-two and the first seven weeks) theanointed one shall be cut off, and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroythe city and the sanctuary. It is clear that the anointed one is Christ-the authorized

translatio n is correct, Messiah. But who are the people and the prince? It is a well-established fact of history that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Roman armies, tothe utter destruction of upwards of one million Jews in the area. The people represented herecan be none other than those of Rome. The prince of the people is accordingly a Roman

prince. The interpretation of Mr. Mauro is that this is clearly the character Titus who led thearmies of Rome in 70 A.D. against Jerusalem. There are good reasons, however, for believingthat the character thus introduced is to be identified with the future political ruler of theMediterranean world in the time just before the second coming of Christ. Mr. Mauro flatlydenies that there will be any such ruler, denies that the Roman people of the first century are to

be identified in any way with the people of that future time.

It is not necessary to engage in a disputation of Mr. Mauro s entire system to show his errorthis particular. It is a plain fact of history that God is dealing with the Jews of to-day in a waydetermined by the rejection of Christ by their fathers. If this can be true, then why should it bethought incredible that a future prince should be identified as Roman and as connected withthe people who destroyed Jerusalem? Mr. Mauro overlooks a most significant fact in hischronology, however. If Titus is the prince of Daniel 9:26, then the destruction of Jerusalemoccurred after the seventieth week, rather than after the sixty-ninth week. Is it not utterlyinexplicable that the prophecy of verse twenty-six should be stated to be after the sixty-ninthweek, if in matter of fact it is during and after the seventieth week? Does not the way in whichthe truth is stated infer that the events occur after the sixty-ninth week but before theseventieth week? If so, a parenthesis is called for, allowing for all events in their proper placeand for a fulfillment of the seventieth week in the future.

Not only does the form of the prophecy infer a parenthesis between the sixty-ninth andseventieth week, but the expression the people of the prince is unusual. Normally, it wou

be expected that the prophecy would state that the prince would destroy the city. In Daniel7 and 8, prophecies there in dealing with military triumphs speak of them as consummated by

their leader. In Daniel 9:26, however, the usual form of statement is turned around and it isstated that the people of the prince destroyed the city. Now it is clear that such would be tcase if the prince had no direct connection with the event, but Jerusalem was destroyed under
http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A039http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A039


16/70

the personal direction of Titus. The language of the prophecy would seem to indicate thatsome other person than Titus was in view.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contribute prophecies concerning the coming ofa military leader who will rule the Mediterranean world. From Revelation 13:1-10, we gatherthat he will be the greatest military ruler in matter of power that the world has ever seen. Acomparison of Revelation 13 with the events of the destruction of Jerusalem reveals nosimilarity and must refer to a future event. Other passages (Dan 7:8, 11, 24- 27; 11:36-45; 2Thess 2:1-12) apparently refer to the same person. In view of the revelation of Daniel 7, it isnot strange to find another reference in Daniel 9.

Who Makes the Covenant for One Week?

Mr. Mauro strenuously objects to identifying the prince that shall come with a future political ruler, not so much because it contradicts the plain meaning of verse 26 but because it provides an interpretation of verse 27 which utterly destroys his theory. In verse 27 it is

revealed: And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of eweek he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominationsshall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shallwrath be poured out upon the desolate. Now, it is normal exegesisfor a pronoun to claim asits antecedent the nearest noun with which it could be identified. The nearest antecedent in thiscase is the prince that shall come. This could not be Titus for he did not make such acovenant, and according to Mr. Mauro s theory the seventieth week must immediately followthe sixty-ninth-and Titus did not appear on the scene until years later. Accordingly, Mr. Mauroidentifies the one who makes the covenant as Christ.

In support of Mr. Mauro s contention is the fact widely recognized by the Scriptures andexpositors of the Scripture that Christ is the minister of the new covenant and that in His deathon the cross the new covenant was duly executed. An attempt to connect Daniel s covenantwith the new covenant, however, is a work of desperation rather than a natural exegesis. Thenew covenant is expressly called an everlasting covenant(Heb 13:20 ). The covenantof Daniel 9:27 continues only for one week in its intent, and if the break at the middle of theweek may be so interpreted, the covenant is broken before it runs its course, i.e., at the end ofthe first half of the week. The two covenants have nothing in common as to their duration.

Now, it is also widely accepted that the new covenant was enacted by the death of Christ. Mr.Mauro s theory would involve that the death of Christ occur at the beginning of the seventiweek. Because of the fact that he believes the death of Christ occurred in the middle of theweek, he is forced to the conclusion that the covenant is made in the week rather than for oneweek- in opposition to the usual translation. It is obvious that Mr. Mauro s interpretationrequires an unnatural exegesis.

A fact of great significance is t hat the covenant is made with the many which could onlyrefer to thy people(Dan 9:24 ), Israel. The new covenant, insofar as it relates to Israel, isconnected in Scripture with their millennial blessings and the future regathering of Israel(cf. Heb 8:8-12 ). Mr. Mauro, however, flatly denies that Israel has any place in God s future

program. He believes that the covenant mentioned in Daniel 9:27 is a covenant of gracetoward all people as contained in the present Gospel of grace. Mr. Mauro, accordingly, isfaced by a dilemma. If this is indeed a covenant between Christ and Israel regarding their
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


17/70

future blessing, then his whole system breaks down for the passage would teach a future forIsrael as such. The alternative is to admit that the covenant is not the new covenant and thatChrist is not the one who enters into the covenant. Mr. Mauro s escape from this dilemma ideny what the passage plainly teaches- that the seventy weeks refer specifically to thy people, Israel, and thy city, Jerusalem. In the last analysis, there is nothing whatever in revelation concerning this covenant (Dan 9:27 ) to connect it with Christ.

Were Old Testament Sacrifices Ended by the Death of Christ?

The argument concerning the identity of the one who makes the covenant is decisive in itself.If Christ did not make the covenant, then the last of the seventy weeks is yet awaitingfulfillment. A further question, however, has an important bearing on the issue. Accordingto Daniel 9:27, the sacrifice and oblation are stopped in the midst of the seventieth week by theone who makes the covenant. According to Mr. Mauro this is the event of the death of Christwhich supplanted Old Testament sacrifices. Mr. Mauro quotes from Hebrews 10:8, 9, where itis stated: He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second. Mr. Mauro asks: W

perfect agreement with the words of the prophecy, He shall cause the sacrifice and oblatiocease !10

Now, this is an important point. If indeed the death of Christ causes the sacrifice and oblationto cease, it would be a powerful argument in support of Mr. Mauro s view. That the newcovenant supplants the old and the one sacrifice of Christ supplants the many sacrifices of theold covenant is indeed the teaching of the Scriptures. It is something else, however, to statethat He caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. As a matter of fact, the sacrifice andoblation did not cease until the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. It was the ruthless work ofviolence of the Roman armies that caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the firstcentury, and if we interpret the passage correctly, the seventieth week of Daniel is a prophecyof a future restoration of these sacrifices under a covenant and their violent conclusion. Eventhe book of Hebrews speaks of the fact that at the time of the writing of the epistle, probablyshortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, the priests were still ministering in the templemore than thirty years after the death of Christ. In Hebrews 8:4 , we read, Now if he were onearth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to thelaw. The argument is that Christ is a priest in heaven not in earth as there are still priests onearth serving according to the law of Moses. The Scriptures themselves are careful, then, byusing the present tense, are , to include evidence which makes Mr. Mauro s interpretationinadmissible.

Have the Desolations of Daniel s Seventieth Week Been Fulfilled?

Mr. Mauro is probably more embarrassed by the lack of a good explanation of the latter partof Daniel 9:27 than by any other feature of his interpretation. His system requires that theseventieth week of Daniel be a definite time period of seven years. It is therefore necessarythat the desolations of the latter part of verse 27 be fulfilled within a period of three and one-half years of the death of Christ-according to his system. Mr. Mauro comes to the conclusion,

however, that the desolations mentioned in this verse are those accomplished by the armies ofTitus in 70 A.D. In other words, Mr. Mauro is unable to find any event within the seventiethweek of Daniel to fulfill the prophecy of the latter part of Daniel s seventieth week, and in theend is forced to abandon his major thesis that the prophecies of Daniel s seventy weeks aresubject to literal fulfillment.
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0310http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0310http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0310http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


18/70

In contrast to Mr. Mauro!s difficulty, we have in Matthew 24:15, from Christ Himself, the prophecy of the fulfillment of Daniel s promised desolations. Christ said, When therefore see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standingin the holy place (let him that readet h understand),... The context which follows indicates thatthe events are preliminary to the second coming of Christ. In fact, so direct is the connectionthat some who like Mr. Mauro connect Matthew 24:15 with the destruction of Jerusalem underTitus, have attempted to find fulfillment of the promise of Christ s return in the events of 70A.D. The desolations o fDaniel 9:27 instead of being fulfilled in connection with thedestruction of Jerusalem are rather one of the signs pointing to the early return of Christ inglory.

The Declared Purpose of God for the Seventy Weeks.

One of the decisive questions facing any interpreter of Daniel 9:24-27 is the question whetherGod s declared purpose for that period has been fulfilled. In this period, according to Daniel9:24 , it is God s purpose to (1) finish transgressions, (2) make an end of sins, (3) make

reconciliation for iniquity, (4) bring in everlasting righteousness, (5) seal up vision and prophecy, (6) anoint the most holy. It is Mr. Mauro s interpretation that points one throughfour were fulfilled by the death of Christ; point five is the resulting spiritual blindness which

befalls Israel; point six is fulfilled by the anointing of the church on the day of Pentecost.

There are many interesting details involved in the discussion of each of these points which inthe interest of brevity we cannot consider. It is of great importance to gain a clear view of the

principles which dominate the interpretation, however. Mr. Mauro must find fulfillment of allthe purpose of God revealed here before the end of the period extending three and one-halfyears beyond the death of Christ. In his interpretation, he claims to find such fulfillment, and itis this claim we must examine.

There are many details in his system which are open to question. For instance, he claimsfulfillment of the prophecy that vision and prophecy are sealed up, by which he means thIsrael comes into permanent spiritual blindness. He perhaps overlooks the fact that God usedJews to write the New Testament after the date he claims for the close of Daniel s seventietweek-Jews without an exception if Luke was an Israelite. While Paul reveals that blindness in

part befell Israel because of their rejection of Christ, it is also clear that the blindness will belifted after the fulness of the Gentiles is come in (Rom 11:25) . Mr. Ma uro s interpretation ofthe anointing of the most holy, that it refers to the baptism of Christ, while supported by some,is in violation of the consistent usage of the Old Testament. Tregelles states on this point, expression does not in a single case apply to any person .11 It is a better interpretation that itrefers to a future return of the Shekinah glory. The Revised Version margin renders it, a mholy place.

All these details are insignificant, however, before the principal objection to Mr. Mauro sinterpretation. According to the specific limitation of Daniel 9:24, the prophecy pertains tothy people, Israel, and to thy city, Jerusalem. To make it plain, then, transgressions must

be finished in relation to Israel and Jerusalem ; an end must be made to sins, and iniquitymust be purged away (cf. Revised Version margin) in relation to Israel and Jerusalem ;everlasting righteousness must be brought in for Israel and Jerusalem ; and so on through the

prophecy.
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0311http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0311http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


19/70

What does Mr. Mauro do with the passage? For him the passage deals with the whole world, ageneral provision of salvation through the death of Christ which, according to hisinterpretation, does not relate to Jerusalem or to Israel as such at all. Jerusalem is onlyscheduled for destruction and Israel to be utterly cast off- according to Mr. Mauro s view. Tomake this prophecy of coming blessing to Israel and Jerusalem-which can only be fulfilled bythe return of Christ to bring in a kingdom of righteousness-a reference to the work of Christ onthe cross is to confuse the work of God in Christ on the cross and its application historically.The benefits of the death of Christ will be realized b y Israel only after they shall look unto mewhom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him... (Zech 12:10) , and in the day whena fountain be opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Zech13:1) -events still future from our point in history. Sir Robert Anderson has demonstrated thatnone of the prophecies of Daniel 9:24 have been fulfilled: A careful study of the Angel s words will show that not so much as one of them has been thus accomplished.12

Is a Parenthesis Between Daniel s Sixty-ninth and Seventieth Week Unparalleled in Scripture?

The entire burden of Mr. Mauro s argument is intended to support his contention that there isno break between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel. He not only holds that the passage does not admit such an interpretation, but he states that such an interpretation would be a violation of a consistent principle in Scripture that time-units are always continuous. Toquote his exact words: Never has a specified number of time-units, making up a describedstretch of time, been taken to mean anything but continuous or consecutive time units.13

Fortunately, for the brevity of our own study here, there is an entirely adequate answer to thisstatement. Not only does the internal evidence of the passage demand it by stating certainevents are after the sixty-ninth week, rather than in or after the seventieth week, but there are

parallel cases in the Scripture where God as it were stopped the clock of fulfillment only toresume the progress of fulfillment later.

The recent monograph of Dr. H. A. Ironside, The Great Parenthesis , is a worthy and timelycontribution to the subject. Dr. Ironside shows a number of instances of parentheses in God program: (1) The interval between the acceptable year of the Lord and the day ofvengeance of our God(Isa 61:2- a parenthesis already extending more than nineteen hundredyears. (2) The interval between the Roman empire as sympolized by the legs of iron of thegreat image of Daniel 2 and the feet of ten toes. Confer also Daniel 7:23-27; 8:24, 25. (3) The

same interval is found between Daniel 11:35 and Daniel 11:36. (4) A great parenthesis occurs between Hosea 3:4 and verse 5, and again between Hosea 5:15 and 6:1. (5) A great parenthesisoccurs also between Psalm 22:22 and 22:23 and between Psalm 110:1 and 110:2. (6) Peter inquoting Psalm 34:12-16 stops in the middle of a verse to distinguish God s present work andHis future dealing with sin (1 Pet 3:10-12) .

(7) The great prophecy of Matthew 24 becomes intelligible only if the present age beconsidered a parenthesis between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27. (8) Acts 15:13-21 indicates that theapostles fully understood that during the present age the Old Testament prophecies would not

be fulfilled, but would have fulfillment after this when God will build againthe tabernacleof David(Acts 15:13 ). (9) Israel s yearly schedule of feasts showed a wide separation between the feasts prefiguring the death and resurrection of Christ and Pentecost, and thefeasts speaking of Israel sregathering and blessing. (10) Romans 9-11 definitely provide forthe parenthesis, particularly the figure of the olive tree in chapter 11. (11) The revelation of the
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0312http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0313http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0313http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0313http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0312http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


20/70

Church as one body requires a parenthesis between God s past dealings and His futuredealings with the nation Israel. (12) The consummation of the present parenthesis is of such anature that it resumes the interrupted events of Daniel s last week.

To this imposing list of arguments for the parenthesis between Daniel s sixty-ninth andseventieth week, we can add the interesting computations of Sir Robert Anderson in regard tothe statement in 1 Kings 6:1, that Solomon began to build the temple in the 480th year afterthe children of Israel were come out of Egypt. A computation of the evidence indicates thatthis period was, instead, 573 years .14 On the basis of a study of Judges, Sir Robert Andersondiscovered a total of 93 years during which Israel was cast off as a nation-divided into fivedifferent periods of time (cf. Judges 3:8, 14; 4:2, 3; 6:1; 13:1) . By subtracting this from 573,the figure is corrected to 480, the exact figure stated by the writer of 1 Kings.

Conclusion

The answer to our leading question, Is the Seventieth Week of Daniel future?, can only be

answered in the affirmative. The Scriptures bear a full testimony that God has a purpose yetunfulfilled for His people, Israel. If the events of Daniel s seventieth week are future, it is clethat the person who makes the covenant must be the wicked character who is the persecutor ofall who will not worship him. The many with whom the covenant is made can be,on the basis of the context, only Israel, still in unbelief. The end of which Daniel 9:27 speaks can be only the return of Christ to bring righteousness, peace, prosperity, and universal knowledgeof the Lord to this evil world. Before the world will witness these stirring events, we who areHis look for that blessed moment when caught up from this world at the return of the Lord forHis own we shall see His face and forever thereafter know one passion and one love-toworship and serve our blessed Lord.

Dallas, Texas

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission ofGalaxie Software.

1 International Critical Commentary : Daniel , pp. 400, 401.

2 The Coming Prince , p. 71, note.

3 International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia , s.v., Abomination of Desolation .

4 Op. cit ., p. 393.

5 Montgomery, ibid ., pp. 398,399.

6

The Coming Prince .7 The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation , pp. 23-25.

8 Ibid ., p. 95.
http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0314http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.galaxie.com/http://www.galaxie.com/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/19#GB44A0314http://%7B%7D/


21/70

9 Ibid ., p. 94.

10 Ibid ., p. 85.

11 Tregelles, Daniel , p. 98, as cited by Anderson, op. cit ., p. 51.

12 Op. cit ., p. 79.

13 Op. cit ., p. 95.

14 Anderson, op. cit ., p. 81ff.

Eschatological Problems III: Is Moral Progress Possible?

Introduction.

There are few questions in the realm of human thought more arresting than the question of thedirection of human experience. Are we making any progress, particularly in the moral sphere?Is there a teleological significance in history? What is the direction in which we are going? InChristian theology as well as in non-Christian philosophy, these agelong questions reappearlike persistent moonbeams through a cloud-spattered sky. Sometimes the question is statedmore directly, if more tritely, Is the world getting better? Is it our duty to introduce a newmoral order? Are we building a new world socially? Many of these questions producevarying answers, due in part to difference of opinion in basic beliefs, partly from a failure toascertain the real issues of the question. The present article is an attempt to outline the majorconsiderations involved in the question of the possibility of moral progress-outline, becausemanifestly a full treatment would involve many times the space devoted to it here.

I. The Issue.

The importance of the question is apparent even without a careful study. Dr. James H.Snowden, an ardent exponent of the idea that the world is getting better, in discussing thequestion wrote this analysis: It is one of the great dividing ridges and shaping forces ofhuman thought and experience. It is the watershed between two opposite views of the world,

pessimism and optimism: the one holding that the world, though mixed with some good, is yetessentially evil and will grow worse and worse; and the other holding that the world, though

infused with some evil, is yet fundamentally good and will grow better and better; the onedestroying the value of life and killing interest in it, and the other making life worth while andgiving us courage and cheer in living it. It is still more profoundly the line of cleavage betweentwo types of religion: impersonal pantheism and personal theism; between two systems of

philosophy: materialistic monism and idealistic personalism; and between two hemispheres ofthe globe: the pessimistic Orient and the optimistic Occident. Such a radical distinction mustenter deeply and vitally into our daily living and necessarily lowers or lifts our ideals andhopes, weakens or strengthens our wills, and colors with dark or bright hues our whole worldand tinges all our temperaments and moods.1

The foregoing quotation is an illustration of the viewpoint that the only possible Christianapproach to the subject is that the world is improving. Dr. Snowden leaves us two alternatives:

pessimism or optimism, materialism or personalism, pantheism or personal theism. If thequestion were as simply solved as this, no further discussion would be necessary. However,
http://www.walvoord.com/article/20http://www.walvoord.com/article/20#GB44B031http://www.walvoord.com/article/20#GB44B031http://www.walvoord.com/article/20


22/70

there are many who, while fully expecting the ultimate triumph of right and the establishmentof God s righteousness upon the earth and fully believing in the deity and sovereignty of Gnevertheless doubt whether the theory of moral progress is sustained by either history orrevelation. They substitute instead a dual line of development of both good and evil, bothcontinuing on their own course without either triumphing over the other, being brought to theirconclusion by the personal return of Christ and His manifested power in destruction of eviland in establishment of permanent righteousness.

The issue before us is not, then, whether we should accept a Christian or a non-Christianviewpoint. It is rather whether there are reasons justifying the hope of an increasingmelioration in the world s moral conditions, a moral progress in which the world becomeseventually good. The issue is not whether there is progress in extent of knowledge of thenatural world, better treatment of disease, better working conditions, more beneficialgovernments. All of these could be brought in without a change in moral conditions, and evenif they should effect a partial change in moral conditions, would not assure its permanence.The writer seriously doubts if statistics as such prove a great deal in the issue before us. The

great bulk of the world is not subject to many vital statistics. Arguments based onimprovement in America or in any one section of the world are obviously not characteristic ofthe whole. Even in sections of the world subjected to intense analysis, it may be questionedwhether morality lends itself to accurate statistical computation. Two writers upholdingopposite sides of the question could without doubt find many arguments in support of theirviews from the same group of statistics.

II. Determining Factors.

The basic weakness in any set of statistics is that they can only tell us what has been true in the past, and in the field of moral history there is considerable room for argument also on themeaning of the past in ascertaining whether there has been moral progress. The evanescentoptimism which characterized some preaching before the first world war was disheartened bythe events of 1914 and after, and the second world war has left little ground for conclusion thatmoral progress has been established. Almost every barbarism of history has been repeated inrecent history. The theory that man is naturally good is not sustained by the facts which areopen to all.

There is only one authoritative approach to the problem, and this is to ascertain what the

Scriptures reveal on this important subject. If the Scriptures can speak with authority on suchsubjects as heaven and salvation, they can also speak with authority on the question of moral

progress. The Scriptures record in their expanse a history of the world up through the apostolicage, and they provide abundant prophecy of future events. From the Christian viewpoint, onlythe Scriptures speak with complete authority, and their revelation whether history or prophecyis the determining factor in settling the question of moral progress.

III. The Constitution of the Natural Man.

One of the pivotal points of Biblical doctrine is its anthropology. Herein is revealed theessential moral problem which faces man. Here too is found the need of salvation and itsnature and extent. Systems of theology can be classified on their anthropology. If on the onehand, man is naturally good and has within him the latent forces which can be cultivated to

produce a noble character, that is one concept. If man has fallen from his original perfect


23/70

creation and is spiritually dead and morally enslaved by sin and blinded by Satan, that isanother.

The testimony of the Scriptures is clear that men are sinners by imputation, by nature, and bychoice. According to Romans 3:23 , All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.According to Romans 5:12 , As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; andso death passed upon all men, for all have sinned.... The one sin of Adam has plunged thewhole race into sin without excep tion. As by the offence of one judgment came upon all mento condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. The sin of Adam brought judgment to the race even as the one act ofobedience of Christ

Eschatologwalvoordical Problems I.docx(John Walvoord)

Documents

Transcript of Eschatologwalvoordical Problems I.docx(John Walvoord)