Nelson Walters | William Struse

William Struse responds to Nelson Walters’ Reasonable Doubt

What if I told you that nearly everything you believe about the Bible’s future prophecies is somehow influenced by an assumption originating in the historical details of Ezra and Nehemiah’s place in the 2^nd temple era?

What many don’t know is that there is a little known and less understood fact of Biblical history, that is the basis for much of what you and I believe about the 7 year tribulation, the rapture, the 2^nd coming of Christ, the identity of the anti-Christ, and most of the events described in the book of Revelation. What I’m talking about is the chronological assumption regarding Ezra and Nehemiah’s place in the 2^nd temple era as it relates to an unnamed Persian king who the Biblical record only identifies by the Persian title “Artaxerxes”.

You see, there are multiple “Artaxerxes” in the Bible and 99% of teachers and scholars who write about Daniel 9 and the 70 “Weeks” date the starting point of the prophecy from a “commandment to restore and build Jerusalem” which they believe was given during the reign of the Persian king “Artaxerxes” Longimanus. This assumption, in nearly every case, is given without a single Biblical chronological fact from which a reader might attempt to verify the claim.

This is important because nearly every event described in the book of Revelation is organized within a framework based at least in part on the 70 Weeks prophecy of Daniel 9. Every interpretation of Daniel 9 and the 70 “Weeks” in turn finds its basis in a “Commandment to restore and build Jerusalem” which is set during the era of Ezra, Nehemiah, and a Persian king who bares only the title “Artaxerxes”. Despite all the incredible theological weight resting upon this 2^nd temple era chronology, it is one of the best kept secrets of Bible prophecy. And for good reason as you’ll soon understand.

Unfortunately, most of today’s scholars, teachers, and writers on the subject of Bible prophecy are either unaware of the subject, unwilling to deal with the implications, or they are simply depending upon the ignorance of their readers to give them a pass. Frankly, the few who are aware of the challenges this subject poses to our understanding of Bible prophecy are loath to Continue reading →

* A note from William Struse:
This week I’m sharing with you a guest post written by Nelson Walters. As many of you probably know Nelson is a popular and respected prophecy teacher at The Gospel in the End Times. Over the past couple of months Nelson and I have been having a spirited discussion on the 2nd temple era chronology as it relates to Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Weeks. We have different perspectives on the chronological basis for this wonderful prophecy, so we decided in the interest of bring clarity to this important subject that we would have a public discussion. This week Nelson offers you his perspective. In a couple of weeks after you’ve had a chance to digest Nelson thoughts on the subject I will reply to Nelson’s article.

Updated: My response to Nelson’s Article: Context, Chronology, & Daniel 9

Accelerated Ezra Chronology – An Examination
By Nelson Walters – 06/2018

Introduction
This article is really the story of two books about Daniel’s 70 Weeks Prophecy: Daniel’s 70 Weeks (2015), by William Struse, and my latest book, 70 Times 7(2018). This article is being posted both on my website, at www.thegospelintheendtimes.com, and on Struse’s website, at www.the13thenumeration.com.

When Struse’s book was first published, I believed several of his insights were quite profound — specifically, that the “decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” in Dan. 9:25 was a command of the Lord (a dabar of the Lord) and that the “Prince who is to come” in Dan. 9:26 was the Lord himself. I incorporated both insights into a rough draft of my own book and sent it to Struse for review. I sent it to eight other teacher/authors who represented the full spectrum of eschatological thought as well. The insights of these teachers — some of whom agreed with me and some of whom did not — led me to revise my draft in very significant ways.

When Struse read what I had written in my book, we began a rather earnest email dialog, because it was clear that I no longer supported his position and had, in fact, come to believe in my own very different principles for the Daniel prophecy. Still, we found that as brothers in the Lord, we were able to share our differences and advance our common understanding of this important prophecy. It’s that discussion that led to this article and to the posting of the article on both websites.

With that background, I’d now like to “pull back the curtain” Continue reading →