Vic C.
Member
He revel,
You quoted Daniel 12:1, but I don't actually see a commentary on that verse. Maybe I messed, but anyways, I would like to add a commentary by a former Jew and now-converted follower of Christ as Messiah; Marvin J. Rosenthal. He WAS a believer of the Pre-Trib theory for 35 years and WAS director of the "Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry". He was "forced" to leave a 15 year ministry because he could not sign off on their Pre-Trib doctrinal statement, due to his convictions.
I add this commentary because I too believe what he teaches here:
And this:
So why would Daniel be telling us in 12:1 Michael will come to the defense of His people here when in fact, he already has been defending them?? Seems a bit redundant to me.
I could go on an on quoting from the site, but I beg anyone who is really interested in learing this from a Jewish perspective to read this link:
http://www.zionsfire.org/daniel.html
and
http://www.zionsfire.org/daniel_afinallook.html
Why trust scholars on this particular matter, other than Jewish ones, when we know for a fact that the OT was written by Hebrews?
Just some food for thought... this knowledge changes the way we understand End Times and the preconceived ideas of Michael's role in End Times AND our understanding of who the Restrainer is that Paul alludes to in 2 Thess 2:7.
You quoted Daniel 12:1, but I don't actually see a commentary on that verse. Maybe I messed, but anyways, I would like to add a commentary by a former Jew and now-converted follower of Christ as Messiah; Marvin J. Rosenthal. He WAS a believer of the Pre-Trib theory for 35 years and WAS director of the "Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry". He was "forced" to leave a 15 year ministry because he could not sign off on their Pre-Trib doctrinal statement, due to his convictions.
I add this commentary because I too believe what he teaches here:
http://www.zionsfire.org/daniel.html...According to this widely held view then, to "stand up" means that Michael will come to Israel's defense while she is experiencing the Great Tribulation.
With respect for those who champion this position, I nonetheless strongly suggest that the text is teaching precisely the exact opposite. Michael does not "stand up" to help Daniel's people during the Great Tribulation. He "stands still" or "desists" from his normal role as defender of Israel, thus permitting the Great Tribulation to occur.
In other words, the Great Tribulation is not the cause for Michael to come to Israel's defense. Rather, it is because he desists from defending her that the Great Tribulation occurs.
The expression "stand up" is the translation of the Hebrew word amad. Amad simply means to "stand." It does not mean to "stand up," and it does not mean to "stand still." It simply means to "stand." If a man seated and inactive were said to amad, he would "stand up." However, if a man already standing and active were said to amad, he would "stand still," or desist, in his activity....
And this:
Daniel had just been told by the angel who was sharing this prophetic vision with him that Michael was actively involved in the defense of Daniel's people. The angel said to Daniel, "But the prince [a fallen angel] of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me" (Dan. 10:13). Michael was actively engaged in helping Israel. And once again the angel said to Daniel, "But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince" (Dan. 10:21).
So why would Daniel be telling us in 12:1 Michael will come to the defense of His people here when in fact, he already has been defending them?? Seems a bit redundant to me.
What does the word "holdeth" (Hebrew, chazaq) mean? According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, holdeth can mean "to bind" or "restrain." That means, in context, that the archangel Michael already had a hindering or restraining ministry against the forces of Satan on Israel's behalf. So when it is said that Michael will "stand," it means he will "stand still," "desist," or "cease" from defending Israel.
This, of course, would be in dramatic contrast to Michael's normal activity described in the words "which standeth [a present, continuous action] for the children of thy people" (Dan. 12:1). In other words, just prior to the Great Tribulation the archangel Michael will cease or desist from what was his historically ongoing responsibility of defending Israel.
It would make little sense to tell Daniel that Michael was defending his people in Chapter 12 when he had already clearly told him that fact, not once but twice, in Daniel, Chapter 10.
Rashi, one of Israel's greatest teachers, and a man whose Hebrew scholarship is unexcelled, understood "stand up" (Hebrew, amad) to literally mean "stand still" in Daniel 12:1. He wrote: "The Holy One [a Jewish designation for God], Blessed be He, said to Michael, 'You are silent? You do not defend my children.'"
Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible says that amad means "to stand, stand still or fast." And Strong's Concordance cites one of the root meanings of amad as "cease," and one of its definitions as "stand still." A biblical illustration of amad meaning "to be still or desist is, "they...stood still [desisted], and answered no more" (Job 32:16).
I could go on an on quoting from the site, but I beg anyone who is really interested in learing this from a Jewish perspective to read this link:
http://www.zionsfire.org/daniel.html
and
http://www.zionsfire.org/daniel_afinallook.html
Why trust scholars on this particular matter, other than Jewish ones, when we know for a fact that the OT was written by Hebrews?
Just some food for thought... this knowledge changes the way we understand End Times and the preconceived ideas of Michael's role in End Times AND our understanding of who the Restrainer is that Paul alludes to in 2 Thess 2:7.