8 Responses

1. Joel, sorry about your dad and you being apart for awhile. I know you’ll see him again good as new.
   My mom lost her brother to cancer January last year. Their dad died last May, just four months later, and she lost a great-great aunt last year too. She was 102.

   Mark Davidson is going to respond to your video.

2. I’m thinking both viewpoints are possible, and if we are the generation that witnesses the 70th week unfold, we will surely have the answer of what was the primary focus of the text.

   Just like the rise of ISIS and COVID 19, things can move very quickly. This is the main reason I see the starting of the 70th week Daniel as corresponding with the opening of the first seal of the book of Revelation and moving quickly and steadily through the seals and eventual revealing of the AC, the great tribulation, the second coming of the Lord Jesus, the day of the Lord, and cumulating with the Lord taking possession of the Earth and setting up His Kingdom.

   We have a cause (the Lord breaking the seals) and effect (the things that take place on the Earth) that overtakes the world very quickly. This instead of being drawn out over decades as the first coming of Jesus was. Seven years and seven seals to finish what has been written going into the 7000th year- the 1000 year reign of Jesus on the Earth before the eternal Kingdom is ushered in and death and hell are done away with being thrown in the lake of fire. (Rev 20)

   16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
   17The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.
   18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
   20He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

3. So Joel, have you changed your traditional Post-Tribulation belief on the second coming of Jesus to the Pre-Wrath, or are you still not sure? It seems Dalton is Traditional Post as far as I can glean about the last trump.

   Was just wanting to know if you will eventually write a book about the second coming of Jesus that wraps everything together-kind of like a “Things to Come”, by Pentecost? 🙂

4. I’ve been Pre-Wrath for a long time.

5. That’s good to know. Me too.

   Hope your running is going well and can’t wait until we get our resurrection bodies and maybe we can run together in the Kingdom! 🙂

   31Yet those who wait for the LORD
   Will gain new strength;
   They will mount up with wings like eagles,
   They will run and not get tired,
   They will walk and not become weary.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odOJE0tneto

6. Hi Joel. Thank you so much for your ministry. I appreciate you all that you do. I was hoping you could give me your take on something I have been wrestling with between the visions of the four beasts in chapter 7 and the vision of the goat and ram in chapter 8. It appears that the Antichrist arises out of two different kingdoms. If he arises on the heals of ten kings in an Islamic empire (the fourth beast) as depicted in chapter 7, how can he also arise from one of the four dynasties that emerged from Alexander’s kingdom (the goat) as depicted in chapter 8?

7. No contradiction there. Daniel 7 does not say on the heals of the ten kingdoms. It says he conquers Egypt and Libya and Sudan join, then all ten fall to him.

8. Yes, I see that thank you. In terms of my other question regarding the Antichrist arising from the 4th (Islamic) kingdom in chapter 7, but the third (Grecian) kingdom in chapter 8, I found a helpful essay written by Mark Hassler who argues that the little horn in chapter 8 does not need to be Grecian. He states:

   Fifth, the little horn originates “Out of one of them” (v. 9). This raises a significant interpretive issue: What is the grammatical antecedent of “them”? Does the little
   horn originate from one of the “four conspicuous horns” (i.e., one of the four Greek successors of Alexander the Great) or from one of the “four winds of the sky” (i.e.,
   one of the four directions of the compass)? Young assumes the former option: “this regarding horn grows out of one of the four horns.”9 Antiochus certainly meets the criterion of
   being a Greek lord who lives after the Diadochi chronologically. On the other hand, the current writer espouses the latter option based on three lines of argumentation.10
   (a) “Winds” is the closest grammatical antecedent to “them.” (b) The little horn“comes forth” (יצא (from its place, whereas the other horns of verses 3 and 8 “come
   up” (עלה .(The contrast in verb choice suggests a geographical origin, as reinforced by the geographical references in verse 9 (south, east, beautiful land). (c) The literary
   structure of the vision informs the interpretation. The descriptions of the three main players (the ram, goat, and little horn) unfold according to a set pattern: geographic
   origin → conquests → demise.11 Given that the ram originates “before/east” (יֵ נְ פִ ל (of the canal (v. 3), and the goat originates from the west (v. 5), the reader would expect
   the segment about the little horn to follow suit by beginning with a statement of geographic origin. Such an interpretation would obviously leave the little horn unattached to a creature, which sometimes happens in Scriptural symbolism (e.g., Zech 1:18–19). The little horn does not need to be Grecian.

   What are your thoughts on Hassler’s argument?