PDA

View Full Version : Daniel 9:27 - Jesus or the Antichrist?



Matthehitmanhart
Feb 7th 2008, 05:48 PM
Now I'm premillennial mind you, but I'm having trouble seeing the subject of Daniel 9:27 who "confirms a covenant with many" as the Antichrist that dispensationalism would have us read into the text. From what I gather, that notion didn't even exist within premillennialism until dispensationalism emerged in the 19th century.

It seems much more reasonable to me at the moment that "he" would be referring to the Messiah at the start of verse 26 and that the "covenant with many" (lit. "shall cause the covenant to prevail") would be referring to the triumph of God's covenant faithfulness through Christ's death and resurrection. This accords much better with the whole context of Daniel 9, IMO, for the big issue there, in Daniel's prayer and in Gabriel's response, is the fulfillment of God's covenant promises to Israel.

I'm on the fence though. I'd love to hear everyones reasoning on this passage.

Saved7
Feb 7th 2008, 07:15 PM
I'm with you on that, and i think that particular chapter was referring to the time of Jesus and the Roman occupation. I am not so sure that the whole chapter has anything to do with "the end times".:) And so you know, I too am premillenial.

David Taylor
Feb 7th 2008, 07:23 PM
I agree also.

Even back when I was a Pretribber, that interpretation never seemed to fit what the scriptures themselves actually said.

The interpretation of Daniel 24-27 prior to the 19th century origination of Dispensationalism; was historically applied to Christ's advent, and the fulfillment in the 1st century AD by Messiah the prince; who took away sacrifice and offering forevermore, when he was cut-off in the midst of the 70th week.


The NT many times, tells us God through Christ confirms the covenant; and the covenant with the many, is the one shed in His blood.

Nihil Obstat
Feb 7th 2008, 08:20 PM
I guess I'm confused as to how it *could* be Jesus' covenant spoken of here. He didn't "bring an end to" sacrifice or to offering by His cross. Nor is His covenant limited to seven years, or ever broken by Him - His is an everlasting covenant! The last "he" spoken of wasn't Messiah, but "the prince who is to come", whose people will "destroy the city and the sanctuary". That was the Roman army (made up of Assyrians, etc.) under Titus, not the Jews. Therefore the covenant spoken of is made by a Gentile prince, not the Jewish Messiah. The last half of this seventieth week is mentioned by Jesus in Matt. 24:15, which is speaking about the great tribulation to come; how then the first half of this final week be Jesus' ministry? I can believe a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks (this is what v.26 is about), but not within the seventieth week itself. We know that Dan. 9:24 hasn't yet been fulfilled... the seventieth week (v.27) is still yet future. As seen elsewhere in Daniel, the greatest trouble will come to the Jews before they come into covenant with Jesus.

- Lk.11

David Taylor
Feb 7th 2008, 09:02 PM
I guess I'm confused as to how it *could* be Jesus' covenant spoken of here. He didn't "bring an end to" sacrifice or to offering by His cross.


The Book of Hebrews, among other places, tells me Jesus did bring an end to sacrifice and offering by His cross.

Hebrews 10:5 "Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' " He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins"




Nor is His covenant limited to seven years, or ever broken by Him - His is an everlasting covenant!

I agree. No scripture, neither in Daniel 9:24-27 or elsewhere, limits His covenant to only be 7 years.

Daniel 9:27 only tells us that Messiah's covenant with many would occur in the midst of the final week...it doesn't tell us the covenant's duration is limited to only one week.





The last "he" spoken of wasn't Messiah, but "the prince who is to come", whose people will "destroy the city and the sanctuary". That was the Roman army (made up of Assyrians, etc.) under Titus, not the Jews.


All of Daniel 9:24-27 is talking about Christ.

Daniel 9:26b, the second part of the phrase, is referring to the destruction that occurred in 70 AD; that Christ prophesied about in Matthew 23-24. It was a direct result of Christ coming to remove the sacrifice and offering. But the covenant itself, was confirmed in His blood when the veil of the temple was rent it twain as He became the eternal sacrifice and offering, at His death.







Therefore the covenant spoken of is made by a Gentile prince, not the Jewish Messiah.

Your opinion, and it has been a very popular opinion since the early 20th century.

It was never the popular opinion of the interpretation of that passage before the 19th century however.




The last half of this seventieth week is mentioned by Jesus in Matt. 24:15, which is speaking about the great tribulation to come;


Jesus never mentions any half of a week. He only speaks of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jerusalem and the temple being destroyed; and Jesus speaks of Himself, the true Temple; being destroyed.

Daniel 9:26 tells us plainly that Messiah the prince would be cut off during the 70th week. Why? Because it says He is cut-off after the 62 and 7, or after the 69th week. Since Daniel 9:24 tells us that only 70 weeks are being discussed; we know Messiah was cut-off "in the midst" of the 70th week.





how then the first half of this final week be Jesus' ministry? I can believe a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks (this is what v.26 is about), but not within the seventieth week itself.

There aren't any gaps.

"In the midst of the 70th week" doesn't mean, "in the exact middle". It simply means 'sometime within the 70th week'.

Jesus was cut-off, sometime within the 70th week; confirming the covenant in His blood with the many; and fulfilling the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy.

Hebrews 9:20 "Then he said, 'This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.'"

Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ"

Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many"







We know that Dan. 9:24 hasn't yet been fulfilled... the seventieth week (v.27) is still yet future. As seen elsewhere in Daniel, the greatest trouble will come to the Jews before they come into covenant with Jesus.


I have no problem believing Daniel 9:24 is fulfilled.

Each aspect of that promise, was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

I don't have to look any further than the N.T. scriptures to find each aspect of Daniel 9:24 being fulfilled in Christ during His 1st Advent:


************************************************** ****************
2. "to finish the transgression"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Hebrews 9:15 "That is why he is the one who mediates the new covenant between God and people, so that all who are invited can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant."

John 4:34 "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

Romans 04:15 "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace"




************************************************** ****************
3. "to make an end of sins"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

I John 3:5 "And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not"

2 Cor 5:21 "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."




************************************************** ****************
4. "to make reconciliation for iniquity"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Hebrews 2:17 "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."

2 Corin 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them"



************************************************** ****************
5. "to bring in everlasting righteousness"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Matthew 3:15 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."

Romans 5:21 "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Hebrews 1:08 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."



************************************************** ****************
6. "to seal up the vision and prophecy"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Luke 18:31 "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished."

Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Matt 26:56 "But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."




************************************************** ****************
7. "to anoint the Most Holy"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Acts 10:38 "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."

Acts 04:27 "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed"

Luke 04:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel"



Why not consider give Christ the glory for beautifully and wonderfully fulfilling Daniel 9:24-27, as opposed to placing all that expectation on some future bad guy, and saying that Christ's accomplishments during His incarnation really weren't sufficient or able to make those accomplishments?

Having come out of the viewpoint where I used to believe as you do, I can say that turing the focus over to Christ and what He did accomplish, as opposed to an expectation of some future antichrist and what he was supposedly going to do; sure helped me have a much better understanding of that passage; and caused that passage as a whole, be resolved to a much more harmonious and acceptable position with the N.T. writings.

I'm sure different people look at it differently, but have you ever really considered whether it is possible for Daniel 9:24-27 to be fulfilled in Christ; or have you only just staunchly held the view that it can only be fulfilled by an endtime antichrist bad-guy?

ross3421
Feb 7th 2008, 09:21 PM
Now I'm premillennial mind you, but I'm having trouble seeing the subject of Daniel 9:27 who "confirms a covenant with many" as the Antichrist that dispensationalism would have us read into the text. From what I gather, that notion didn't even exist within premillennialism until dispensationalism emerged in the 19th century.


The "he" in the verse would either have to be all God or all Satan. Let's have a look.....

Da 9:27And he (God) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he (God) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he (God) shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Da 9:27And he (Satan) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he (Satan) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he (Satan) shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Does Satan cause desolation due to his OWN abominations? The question alone should lend the reader to understand the HE in the verse can only be God.



It seems much more reasonable to me at the moment that "he" would be referring to the Messiah at the start of verse 26 and that the "covenant with many" (lit. "shall cause the covenant to prevail") would be referring to the triumph of God's covenant faithfulness through Christ's death and resurrection. This accords much better with the whole context of Daniel 9, IMO, for the big issue there, in Daniel's prayer and in Gabriel's response, is the fulfillment of God's covenant promises to Israel.


The covenant "with many" is first thought of as Christ's death and the new covenant. Understandably most interpreted this as such however It amazes myself that those who interpret as such dismiss the entire chapter prior to this verse. Daniel is not speaking of a new covenant but a preexisting covenant God has made with Israel which he shall confirm once and for all when they reside in the land forever. The covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant.

Da 9:4And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;Da 9:5We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments:Da 9:6Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.Da 9:7O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.Da 9:8O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee.Da 9:9To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him;Da 9:10Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.Da 9:11Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.Da 9:12And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.Da 9:13As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.Da 9:14Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice.Da 9:15And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.Da 9:16O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.Da 9:17Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake.Da 9:18O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.Da 9:19O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.

Mark

jeffweeder
Feb 8th 2008, 12:37 AM
69 weeks until Messiah--

"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;


John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.
33 "I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' 34 "I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."

--70 Weeks for redemption.


Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place


Jesus must have done his work in the 70th week and he did. We preach that atonement to the whole world-the many, for their salvation, and then the end will come.

God is not slow in keeping his promise, but patient and kind, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

IBWatching
Feb 8th 2008, 03:37 AM
Now I'm premillennial mind you, but I'm having trouble seeing the subject of Daniel 9:27 who "confirms a covenant with many" as the Antichrist that dispensationalism would have us read into the text. From what I gather, that notion didn't even exist within premillennialism until dispensationalism emerged in the 19th century...

You really need to read what Jewish scholars think about these passages. They've been so raked over by Christians in the past 50 years, you can't get an objective viewpoint anymore.

Matthehitmanhart
Feb 8th 2008, 06:31 AM
Hey astrongerthanhe,

I see that David Taylor already responded to your post, but, since I am premillennial and have a slightly different take on the passage than he, I thought I’d offer my contribution.



I guess I'm confused as to how it *could* be Jesus' covenant spoken of here. He didn't "bring an end to" sacrifice or to offering by His cross.

I agree with David here, and I would add that, even aside from all of the NT parallels that could be called upon, a simple reading of the passage at hand lends toward the view that “bring an end of sacrifice and offering” is a positive thing at the hand of the Messiah and not a negative thing at the hand of the “prince who is to come”. Note that of the six goals which Gabriel says will be fulfilled by the end of the 70 weeks, three are statements of how God will deal with sin: 1) “to finish transgression”, 2) “to make an end of sins”, and 3) “to make reconciliation for iniquity”. It’s doubtful, given the pervasive goal of the 70 weeks, that Daniel would have understood “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” as anything different than the fulfillment of God’s “new covenant” promise to finally deal properly with sin, so that the impotent sacrificial system could finally cease (Jer 31:31-34).


Nor is His covenant limited to seven years, or ever broken by Him - His is an everlasting covenant!

You’re right; His covenant is an everlasting covenant. And that is exactly what the text says. A more literal translation of verse 27 would say, “And he will cause the covenant to prevail with many for one week”. The idea that the “covenant” in view here would be a flimsy peace treaty in the Middle East, broken soon after it is made, is actually contradictory to what the text says. Quite the opposite, the text says the covenant is made to “prevail”.

That the covenant is made “for one week” doesn’t suggest that the covenant only lasts seven years. This is understood even in the dispensational scheme, since in their view the peace treaty is cut short after 3.5 years. What the text actually means is that the covenant takes seven years to establish. In other words, the process of inaugurating and bringing God’s prevailing covenant to consummation is what characterizes those last seven years.


The last "he" spoken of wasn't Messiah, but "the prince who is to come", whose people will "destroy the city and the sanctuary". That was the Roman army (made up of Assyrians, etc.) under Titus, not the Jews. Therefore the covenant spoken of is made by a Gentile prince, not the Jewish Messiah.

First of all, the “prince who is to come” isn’t the subject of that clause in v. 26, his people are. It would be quite odd, grammatically speaking, for the pronoun of v. 27 to be referring to someone who isn’t even a subject of the preceding text.

Secondly, as far as I know every camp agrees on the fact that, at least initially, the “prince who is to come” refers to the Roman General/Emperor Titus. But again, quite characteristically, dispensationalism went and introduced a really funny idea into the text, saying that the “prince” refers dually to Titus and the Antichrist. To give credence to this view they suggest, out of this very text mind you, that the Antichrist will be of Roman decent (that’s why Tim Lahaye’s version of the Antichrist in his Left Behind series is named “Nicolae Carpathia” and has a thick Romanian accent). But since they gather this notion from the very text held in question, their whole argument falls apart as circular logic.

Thirdly, later on in verse 27 “one who makes desolate” is introduced into the company of characters already present. For the most part premillennialism as a whole views this new character as the Antichrist. But why would the Antichrist be introduced again in v 27b if he were already the subject of the beginning of the verse?

As we can see, dispensationalism has to go through quite a bit of interpretive gymnastics to make the Antichrist the “he” who causes the covenant to prevail. It’s much more natural to read the “Messiah” at the start of v. 26 as the antecedent of the pronoun in v. 27.


The last half of this seventieth week is mentioned by Jesus in Matt. 24:15, which is speaking about the great tribulation to come; how then the first half of this final week be Jesus' ministry? I can believe a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks (this is what v.26 is about), but not within the seventieth week itself. We know that Dan. 9:24 hasn't yet been fulfilled... the seventieth week (v.27) is still yet future. As seen elsewhere in Daniel, the greatest trouble will come to the Jews before they come into covenant with Jesus.

This is where I would differ from David’s amillennial take on the passage. He sees it as completely fulfilled in the past. I still see a gap, as you do. I simply believe that that gap occurs in the middle of the 70th week, not in between the 69th and the 70th. The amillennialist surely finds a gap of any kind untenable, but, IMO, a gap does no less damage to the text than their view, which, in order to make the end occur at AD70, says that the 70 weeks are not meant to be taken as a literal time frame, but are instead supposed to be understood purely in terms of their numeric/theological significance.

I take the gap theory over this for one big reason: it stays faithful to the context of Daniel 9. As I said, the overall context of this chapter is about God fulfilling the covenant with Israel. Daniel reads Jeremiah 25, sees that the 70 prophesied years of exile are near completion, and so he cries out to God for the fulfillment of that promise. He appeals to God's covenant faithfulness and asks that He would restore Israel for the sake of His name and righteousness (vv. 4, 16-17). Undoubtedly Daniel is thinking that at the completion of these 70 years Israel will be fully restored and the "new covenant" promise of Jeremiah 31 will be inaugurated where God will "wipe away their sins" and write His law "on their hearts".

And so, God responds to Daniel's petitions by sending Gabriel to him in order to fill him in on His plan. The point of all the info, as it pertains to Daniel, is to say this: though Israel will be delivered from Babylon at the end of the 70 years, just as Jeremiah 25 says, because of their ongoing sinfulness they will remain in exile and the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 will not come for 7 times 70 years. At the end of those years, when they are fully broken, they will then be restored, spiritually and nationally, and God will fulfill His promises to them (v. 24).

Jesus' ministry on earth was about announcing the Kingdom of God, plundering Satan’s house, and formally inaugurating the new covenant, a "prevailing", everlasting covenant with "many", not just with Israel. That purpose was accomplished at the end of his 3.5-year ministry when he brought an "end to all sacrifice and offering" through his death and resurrection. But we must remember that the promise of the new covenant was made first of all to Israel, and because of their rejection of Christ it has not been realized for them. And because it has not been realized for them, it has not been fully realized for the earth, for it's in their acceptance of Christ that, as Paul says, "life from the dead" and "riches for the whole world" comes (Rom 11:12, 15).

This is why there has been 2,000 year gap in between the first and second halves of the 70th week. Right now we are living in the “already but not yet” of God’s kingdom; the new covenant has been inaugurated, but it has not yet been consummated. According to Ezekiel, that consummation coincides with the resurrection from the dead (Ez 36-37); which, coincidently, is exactly what Daniel says also (Dan 12). The way I see it, God has “pressed pause”, so to speak, on His “prophetic time clock” because of Israel’s rejection of Christ, so that “many” more can come into the covenant. As Paul says, Israel’s fall has resulted in riches for the rest of the world (Rom 11:12). But once “transgressors have reached their fullness”, that is, “at the climax of abominations”, Jesus, by the authority earned at the cross, will take the scroll and open the seals (Rev 5:9), and at that time “one who makes desolate” will come, who according to both Daniel and Revelation, will only have authority for 3.5 years, not 7 (Dan 7:25; Rev 13:5). Finally, at the end of these final 3.5 years, the Antichrist will be judged, Israel will be fully restored, the righteous dead will rise again, and God’s covenant will fully prevail throughout the earth!

This is how I’m reading Daniel 9 right now. But I’m open to change.

2Witnesses
Feb 8th 2008, 06:50 AM
69 weeks until Messiah--




--70 Weeks for redemption.

Jeff,

I see His redemptive work as beginning in the 69th week. But it concludes in the 70th. And this is in keeping with all the prophecies of the Messiah. There is a first coming in which one aspect of redemption is begun. Then a 2nd in which it is concluded. As in our redemption, it is spiritual first, then the resurrection of the body.

THIS, my friend, is a GAP for us all!

2Witnesses




Jesus must have done his work in the 70th week and he did. We preach that atonement to the whole world-the many, for their salvation, and then the end will come.

God is not slow in keeping his promise, but patient and kind, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.Jeff,

I see His redemptive work as beginning in the 69th week. But it concludes in the 70th. And this is in keeping with all the prophecies of the Messiah. There is a first coming in which one aspect of redemption is begun. Then a 2nd in which it is concluded. As in our redemption, it is spiritual first, then the resurrection of the body.

THIS, my friend, is a GAP for us all!

2Witnesses

ross3421
Feb 8th 2008, 07:56 AM
I guess I'm confused as to how it *could* be Jesus' covenant spoken of here. He didn't "bring an end to" sacrifice or to offering by His cross. Nor is His covenant limited to seven years, or ever broken by Him - His is an everlasting covenant!

Everybody is confiused....... The he is God but your points are why some may think otherwise. If we look at this passage as unfulfilled and future then this allows the he to correctly be God which the confusion wrapping the events around the cross.

The passage has nothing to do with Jesus's death and the Gentiles.


70 weeks determined - Past or Future?

Da 9:24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Though there are attempts to show these things happened at the cross this it not Daniel's intent. Rather these things can be shown to occur at the second coming of Christ. Transgressions and sins of Israel still abound today with no end.


The last "he" spoken of wasn't Messiah, but "the prince who is to come", whose people will "destroy the city and the sanctuary". That was the Roman army (made up of Assyrians, etc.) under Titus, not the Jews. Therefore the covenant spoken of is made by a Gentile prince, not the Jewish Messiah.

Remember in verse 27 either all the "he's" are God or Satan. One cannot be God and the other Satan. The Roman invasion was hardly a war and desolations were not determined at this time. "Desolations determined" is speaking of Judgment by God.

Da 9:26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The prince that shall come - The second coming

Is not Christ a prince that will come? Will his people not destroy the city and the sanctuary. The city being Babylon, the war being Armageddon, desolations determined is Christ coming back cutting away their wickedness. Note the Hebrew word for "determined" is to cut, sharpen, decide.......


Am 9:5And the Lord GOD of hosts is he that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn: and it shall rise up wholly like a flood; and shall be drowned, as by the flood of Egypt.

Isa 10:23For the Lord GOD of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of all the land.

Da 9:27he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


If we use scripture and not history books to prove itself, not once is there a mention of a Roman invasion upon Jerusalem in the bible. Rather we see sripture proving a time whereby earthly Jerusalem God will destroy with a flood.



The last half of this seventieth week is mentioned by Jesus in Matt. 24:15, which is speaking about the great tribulation to come; how then the first half of this final week be Jesus' ministry? I can believe a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks (this is what v.26 is about), but not within the seventieth week itself. We know that Dan. 9:24 hasn't yet been fulfilled... the seventieth week (v.27) is still yet future. As seen elsewhere in Daniel, the greatest trouble will come to the Jews before they come into covenant with Jesus.

- Lk.11[/quote]

More confusion brought on about having the subject God/Jesus correct but the timing wrong. Again focus the entire 70 weeks yet to come.


1. 70 weeks are just that 70 weeks. All yet to occur.
2. Messiah being cut off is not the Crucifixion rather a future time when he shall be unattainable to the inhabitants of the earth.
3. The 70 th week is the Feast of Tabernacles whereby Israel rejoices of the covenant confirmed to them.


Mark

jeffweeder
Feb 8th 2008, 08:07 AM
I see His redemptive work as beginning in the 69th week

scripture says that 69 weeks elapse from the time the decree is given...UNTIL MESSIAH.

Jesus lived for 30 years without being the official Messiah, John didnt recognise him as Messiah...yet john seemed to have a good idea before he baptised him ,as he wasnt worthy to tie his shoelaces. This was the official scriptural manifesting of the true Messiah...until Messiah.

Gabriel had told John that messiah would be confirmed by the spirit coming upon him like a dove , and staying there.
Jesus became the messiah when the Spirit came upon him, just like the disciples were told to wait until the Spirit came on them, before they continued his ministry.
The son cannot work alone but hath to wait for the spirit of the father to be with him, to work in power and speak all that the father is saying. No good thing dwell in the flesh or comes from the flesh, but everything perfect comes from the father. The son pleases the father and never leaves him, and by the Spirit ,God wrought by his own arm salvation for the world.---all in the 70 weeks as promised by God and Gabriel.

We go into all the world and tell the gentiles that God did send Messiah and he did achieve salvation and the forgiveness of sins...Gabriel was correct that it would be 70 weeks and atonement and everlasting righteousness was now available to all who believe in the Messiah lord Jesus Christ..Amen

vinsight4u8
Feb 8th 2008, 09:03 AM
Take the "he" part and go clear back to the start of the chapter where Daniel was praying about a he that will desolate Jerusalem.

ross3421
Feb 8th 2008, 09:04 AM
a simple reading of the passage at hand lends toward the view that “bring an end of sacrifice and offering” is a positive thing at the hand of the Messiah and not a negative thing at the hand of the “prince who is to come”. Note that of the six goals which Gabriel says will be fulfilled by the end of the 70 weeks, three are statements of how God will deal with sin: 1) “to finish transgression”, 2) “to make an end of sins”, and 3) “to make reconciliation for iniquity”. It’s doubtful, given the pervasive goal of the 70 weeks, that Daniel would have understood “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” as anything different than the fulfillment of God’s “new covenant” promise to finally deal properly with sin, so that the impotent sacrificial system could finally cease (Jer 31:31-34).


Da 9:27and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

The sacrifice which ceases is not of any people but is God's own sacrifice which he will cease and his fury will rest upon Israel.

Eze 39:17And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood.


Isa 34:6The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea.


Why does God stop his sacrifice? If continued all would be destroyed but for the elect's sake (Israel) those days are shotened.

Mt 24:22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.



You’re right; His covenant is an everlasting covenant. And that is exactly what the text says. A more literal translation of verse 27 would say, “And he will cause the covenant to prevail with many for one week”. The idea that the “covenant” in view here would be a flimsy peace treaty in the Middle East, broken soon after it is made, is actually contradictory to what the text says. Quite the opposite, the text says the covenant is made to “prevail”.

That the covenant is made “for one week” doesn’t suggest that the covenant only lasts seven years. This is understood even in the dispensational scheme, since in their view the peace treaty is cut short after 3.5 years. What the text actually means is that the covenant takes seven years to establish. In other words, the process of inaugurating and bringing God’s prevailing covenant to consummation is what characterizes those last seven years.


The passage is directed towards Israel. What has Israel done always when their promised has been confirmed in the past? The read the law of Moses and celebrate for 7 days. The 70 week is a 7 day celebration whereby Israel will rejoice that God has subdued their enemies and spared those which were faithful (ie. 144,000) to reside in the "promised" land.



First of all, the “prince who is to come” isn’t the subject of that clause in v. 26, his people are. It would be quite odd, grammatically speaking, for the pronoun of v. 27 to be referring to someone who isn’t even a subject of the preceding text.


God's army are the people of the prince.



Secondly, as far as I know every camp agrees on the fact that, at least initially, the “prince who is to come” refers to the Roman General/Emperor Titus. But again, quite characteristically, dispensationalism went and introduced a really funny idea into the text, saying that the “prince” refers dually to Titus and the Antichrist. To give credence to this view they suggest, out of this very text mind you, that the Antichrist will be of Roman decent (that’s why Tim Lahaye’s version of the Antichrist in his Left Behind series is named “Nicolae Carpathia” and has a thick Romanian accent). But since they gather this notion from the very text held in question, their whole argument falls apart as circular logic.


Shall not Jesus be a prince that shall come? Again was the Roman invasion of 70AD really the war Daniel was speaking???? I find that hard to believe. Was it even a war? Was the end thereof with a flood? Does Titus or the AC the one which determines desolations?



Thirdly, later on in verse 27 “one who makes desolate” is introduced into the company of characters already present. For the most part premillennialism as a whole views this new character as the Antichrist. But why would the Antichrist be introduced again in v 27b if he were already the subject of the beginning of the verse?


The AC is never introduced in the passage.



As we can see, dispensationalism has to go through quite a bit of interpretive gymnastics to make the Antichrist the “he” who causes the covenant to prevail. It’s much more natural to read the “Messiah” at the start of v. 26 as the antecedent of the pronoun in v. 27.


Agree, but so is the prince which is to come....



This is where I would differ from David’s amillennial take on the passage. He sees it as completely fulfilled in the past. I still see a gap, as you do. I simply believe that that gap occurs in the middle of the 70th week, not in between the 69th and the 70th. The amillennialist surely finds a gap of any kind untenable, but, IMO, a gap does no less damage to the text than their view, which, in order to make the end occur at AD70, says that the 70 weeks are not meant to be taken as a literal time frame, but are instead supposed to be understood purely in terms of their numeric/theological significance.


Gap? Have you ever entertained the thought that none of the 70 weeks have occurred? Of course this would mean that we wouild need to interpet 70 weeks for what it is, 70 literal weeks.

I know everybody interpets 70 weeks as 70 years for some reason but step back a bit and out of the box. Is this really the right thing to do? Why can't it be 70 literal weeks?

I mean when does man decide to interpet the Hebrew word for week as years? In the next chapter the same word is used when Daniel does not eat for 3 weeks. Are we to say that well this time human logic says it could not be 3 years so it is weeks. This should be a big time warning flag something is fishy.......




The way I see it, God has “pressed pause”, so to speak, on His “prophetic time clock”


You well know there is no scriptural base for this.......


and at that time “one who makes desolate” will come, who according to both Daniel and Revelation, will only have authority for 3.5 years,

Does the AC make it desolate due to his own abominations? God is the one which will make it desolate.



This is how I’m reading Daniel 9 right now. But I’m open to change.
[/QUOTE]

Read the 70 weeks as all future and you will be suprised at the outcome.



Mark

vinsight4u8
Feb 8th 2008, 09:17 AM
Daniel 9:27
"And he shall confirm the covenant..."

9:24
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish...and to bring in everlasting rigtheousness..."
(The people of Israel in the holy land are totally righteous at the point of the end of the 70th week).
Now add in Isaiah chapter 62 as to when Israel gets that righteousness. It speaks of it coming only when that last time passed that it can ever be desolated.

9:23
"At the beginning of thy supplication...understand the matter..."
What matter did Gabriel come to help Daniel understand?
Jeremiah 25:11-13
The 70-yr prophecy as to a "he" that Daniel must have been reading at the start of chapter 9. The Babylonian kings must desolate Jerusalem for seventy years and at the end of those seventy years (which Daniel knew was now impossible at that point of his day) will come the fall of Babylon and her king.

Daniel was writing as to how the Babylonian kings had time left to rule and devastate Jerusalem, yet now their kingdom had fallen to the Medes.

This Jeremiah 25 prophecy was very confusing to Daniel as it was blurr to him as to when the Babylonian "he" will complete the rest of the seventy years.

Gabriel was sent - revealed to Daniel that the Jeremiah 25 prophecy will end when this 70 weeks prophecy does.

jeffweeder
Feb 8th 2008, 09:18 AM
Read the 70 weeks as all future and you will be suprised at the outcome.

Its really impossible to do that, because we know the decree and when Messiah actualy came. We know that when he came, he overcame, and the Gospel has been preached ( the good news that he atoned for sin etc, ) ever since..70 weeks and it was.

2Witnesses
Feb 8th 2008, 12:46 PM
scripture says that 69 weeks elapse from the time the decree is given...UNTIL MESSIAH.

Jesus lived for 30 years without being the official Messiah, John didnt recognise him as Messiah...yet john seemed to have a good idea before he baptised him ,as he wasnt worthy to tie his shoelaces. This was the official scriptural manifesting of the true Messiah...until Messiah.

Gabriel had told John that messiah would be confirmed by the spirit coming upon him like a dove , and staying there.
Jesus became the messiah when the Spirit came upon him, just like the disciples were told to wait until the Spirit came on them, before they continued his ministry.
The son cannot work alone but hath to wait for the spirit of the father to be with him, to work in power and speak all that the father is saying. No good thing dwell in the flesh or comes from the flesh, but everything perfect comes from the father. The son pleases the father and never leaves him, and by the Spirit ,God wrought by his own arm salvation for the world.---all in the 70 weeks as promised by God and Gabriel.

We go into all the world and tell the gentiles that God did send Messiah and he did achieve salvation and the forgiveness of sins...Gabriel was correct that it would be 70 weeks and atonement and everlasting righteousness was now available to all who believe in the Messiah lord Jesus Christ..Amen

Jeff,

You cannot just 'figure' this in absolute 'days'. Besides, 'when' was He actually truly recognized by most as the Messiah? Would that not have been His resurrection, when He was declared the Son of God with power?

Jeremiah's '70 years' was not exact to the day either. And it is silly to think that it was.

And our redemption will not be complete until the end of the 70th week in our resurrection at the return of Christ.

2Witnesses

Roelof
Feb 8th 2008, 01:12 PM
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes explain Dan 9:27 as follow:

Dan 9:27 - He shall confirm - Christ confirmed the new covenant, By the testimony of angels, of John baptist, of the wise men, of the saints then living, of Moses and Elias. By his preaching. By signs and wonders. By his holy life. By his resurrection and ascension. By his death and blood shedding. Shall cause the sacrifice to cease - All the Jewish rites, and Levitical worship. By his death he abrogated, and put an end to this laborious service, for ever. And that determined - That spirit of slumber, which God has determined to pour on the desolate nation, 'till the time draws near, when all Israel shall be saved.

David Taylor
Feb 8th 2008, 01:27 PM
And our redemption will not be complete until the end of the 70th week in our resurrection at the return of Christ.


According to the scriptures, our redemption was made complete with the death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord; who sacrificed Himself, and said, "IT IS FINISHED".....not, 'yall will have to wait until the end of time for complete redemption".

Romans 3:24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood"

Ephesians 1:7 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins"

Colossians 1:12 "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"

Hebrews 9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

Firstfruits
Feb 8th 2008, 03:01 PM
Now I'm premillennial mind you, but I'm having trouble seeing the subject of Daniel 9:27 who "confirms a covenant with many" as the Antichrist that dispensationalism would have us read into the text. From what I gather, that notion didn't even exist within premillennialism until dispensationalism emerged in the 19th century.

It seems much more reasonable to me at the moment that "he" would be referring to the Messiah at the start of verse 26 and that the "covenant with many" (lit. "shall cause the covenant to prevail") would be referring to the triumph of God's covenant faithfulness through Christ's death and resurrection. This accords much better with the whole context of Daniel 9, IMO, for the big issue there, in Daniel's prayer and in Gabriel's response, is the fulfillment of God's covenant promises to Israel.

I'm on the fence though. I'd love to hear everyones reasoning on this passage.

When you look at the following, if it was Christ why would he make a covenant which would lead lead to desolation?

Dan 9:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Dan 11:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Dan 11:32 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=32) And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

This is definately not Jesus.

David Taylor
Feb 8th 2008, 03:15 PM
When you look at the following, if it was Christ why would he make a covenant which would lead lead to desolation?

Dan 9:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Dan 11:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Dan 11:32 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=32) And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

This is definately not Jesus.

Daniel 9:27 was Jesus Christ taking away the sacrifice and offering; by His one-time final offering making the prior abomnible animal sacrifical system desolate forever.

Daniel 11:31 was Antichious Epiphenes polluting Zerubabbel's temple with a sacrifical pig.

Two completely different events.

Firstfruits
Feb 8th 2008, 03:25 PM
Daniel 9:27 was Jesus Christ taking away the sacrifice and offering; by His one-time final offering making the prior abomnible animal sacrifical system desolate forever.

Daniel 11:31 was Antichious Epiphenes polluting Zerubabbel's temple with a sacrifical pig.

Two completely different events.

Not according to verse 26;
Dan 9:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

2Witnesses
Feb 8th 2008, 03:49 PM
According to the scriptures, our redemption was made complete with the death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord; who sacrificed Himself, and said, "IT IS FINISHED".....not, 'yall will have to wait until the end of time for complete redemption".

Romans 3:24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood"

Ephesians 1:7 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins"

Colossians 1:12 "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"

Hebrews 9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."



David,

Of course, in Christ, as have all. But we do NOT have resurrection as of yet. Maybe you are there. I have a ways to go.

2Witnesses

David Taylor
Feb 8th 2008, 03:53 PM
Not according to verse 26;
Dan 9:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.



Why not?

Christ foretold in Matthew 23 and 24, that very soon, the entire temple and its complex would be destroyed, with not one stone being left on another; and soon thereafter; Titus and the Roman armies marched through, to the exact fulfillment of that prophecy.

1) Messiah was cut off.
2) The city and the temple were destroyed as a result of it.

David Taylor
Feb 8th 2008, 03:58 PM
David,

Of course, in Christ, as have all. But we do NOT have resurrection as of yet. Maybe you are there. I have a ways to go.

2Witnesses

Yes our bodily resurrection is future. I don't disagree.

But the redemption of our souls is not postponed.
I Peter 1:18 "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot"


John 11:26 "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? "

I John 3:14 "We know that we have passed from death unto life"

Do you understand how these verses relate to our present redemption by our faith and the Cross?

2Witnesses
Feb 8th 2008, 04:09 PM
Yes our bodily resurrection is future. I don't disagree.

But the redemption of our souls is not postponed.
I Peter 1:18 "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot"


John 11:26 "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? "

I John 3:14 "We know that we have passed from death unto life"

Do you understand how these verses relate to our present redemption by our faith and the Cross?

David,

I understand that. But that is not the point here. The point is that our redemption is not yet complete. We WAIT for its completion by the resurrection of our bodies.

And that is my point about Daniel 0. The redemption was BEGUN in the 69th week. But it is not 'finished' until the 70th and the return of Christ.

If I did not have a point, and all weight of evidence was on your side, there would be no room for disagreement. But I do have a point. I have my view, and you have your view. One of us is correct.

2Witnesses

Firstfruits
Feb 8th 2008, 04:20 PM
Why not?

Christ foretold in Matthew 23 and 24, that very soon, the entire temple and its complex would be destroyed, with not one stone being left on another; and soon thereafter; Titus and the Roman armies marched through, to the exact fulfillment of that prophecy.

1) Messiah was cut off.
2) The city and the temple were destroyed as a result of it.

Ask yourself who is the prince that shall come after Christ has been cut off, also why would christ confirm a covenant for one week, and be the cause abominations, also who was Christ speaking of regarding Matthew 24:15.
Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Dan 9:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Nihil Obstat
Feb 8th 2008, 04:29 PM
Hitman,

I don't know anything about how the church throughout history has interpreted this passage, and anyway I don't know if that should really be used in building a case since revelation is progressive. And as has been pointed out, every other time sacrifices and offerings were brought to an end in this book, it's been bad, and not something Daniel had been hoping in and looking forward to! God never says that sacrifices and offerings are bad (unless done with a presumptuous heart - but, that's what Jeremiah's "new covenant" is all about, isn't it?)! And I'm not sure how Jer. 31:31-34 says anything about an ultimate sacrifice to end all others... what about 33:14-26?

You've brought some very interesting points that I need to consider, but there are some things about it that just don't click yet.

- Lk.11

David Taylor
Feb 8th 2008, 04:33 PM
David,

I understand that. But that is not the point here. The point is that our redemption is not yet complete. We WAIT for its completion by the resurrection of our bodies.

And that is my point about Daniel 0. The redemption was BEGUN in the 69th week. But it is not 'finished' until the 70th and the return of Christ.

The redemption wasn't begun in the 69th week.
Daniel tells us Christ was cut off after the 69th week; which places his death during, or as Daniel says, "in the midst" of the final 70 weeks.

Go back and read Daniel 9:24. It tells us about a 70 week period. It isn't a period that spans 2500 sets worth of weeks.

Our bodies are resurrected at Christ's return; because of His sacrifice for us during the midst of the 70th week; when He "finished the transgression".



If I did not have a point, and all weight of evidence was on your side, there would be no room for disagreement. But I do have a point. I have my view, and you have your view. One of us is correct.


Maybe both of us are wrong.

But the scriptures I listed point to the blood of Christ providing the completion of our redemption; and that points to His sacrifice on the cross during the 70th week Daniel spoke of; when He was cut off.

Do you say that Christ "IS" your redeemer?

Or

Do you say that Christ will eventually one day at at the end of time "eventually become" your redeemer?

I believe Christ is my redeemer, just like Job did...and he lived alot longer from 'the end' than either you or I or most everyone who has ever lived.

Job looked forward to the resurrection also, but Job knew that Christ was His living Redeemer in the present...and saw nothing of a postponed redemption.

Job 19:25 "For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."

the rookie
Feb 8th 2008, 04:37 PM
************************************************** ****************
6. "to seal up the vision and prophecy"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Luke 18:31 "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished."

Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Matt 26:56 "But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."




I know I'm going back a step in this conversation, but wouldn't this conclusion make you, for all intents and purposes, a preterist? If "prophecy and visions" are "sealed up" or finished, than there is no prophetic fulfillment to come - correct?

To see Daniel 9:24 as "fulfilled" means that there is not one OT prophetic utterance that could occur in our future. It also means that Calvary, by your definition, leaves the Book of Revelation as an unscriptural anomaly regardless of the date of its writing. it would be, by definition, impossible for the book of Revelation to be part of the canon because visions were "sealed up" circa 33 AD.

"That the scriptures might be fulfilled" does not mean that, by definition, they had to all be fulfilled by that one act at one time in history. The cross can and does serve as a means for many prophetic promises to come to their fullness in the future, specifically at the time of the Second Coming and beyond.

David Taylor
Feb 8th 2008, 04:50 PM
God never says that sacrifices and offerings are bad

What does that say about God's view of sacrifices and offerings of impure animals?

What about these other passages?

Psalms 51:16 "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. "

Isaiah 1:11 "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity"

Jeremiah 6:20 "To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me."

Hosea 6:6 "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. "

Hosea 8:13 "They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat it; but the LORD accepteth them not; now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins"

Psalms 40:6 "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required."


So what of those OT Passages about sacrifices. Why didn't God want them? What were they pointing forward to?

Hebrews 10:5
"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are sanctified."



They all pointed to Jesus' final and complete sacrifice; the perfect sacrifice that would come. Which because of, people would sacrifice with a clean heart, a contrite spirit, in mercy and thanksgiving to the Lord.

Christ made that possible forevermore; as the Hebrew writer said, "by one sacrifice, he has made perfect forever those who are sanctified".

A few verses later....

"Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

the rookie
Feb 8th 2008, 04:58 PM
How do those verses say that the sacrifice is "bad"?

It seems as if some are saying that the "sacrificer" is bad.

It seems as if others are saying that the system God initiated was always meant to give way to a superior reality. This does not render the former system as "bad".

Am I missing the point?

Nihil Obstat
Feb 8th 2008, 04:58 PM
What does that say about God's view of sacrifices and offerings of impure animals?

What about these other passages?

Psalms 51:16 "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. "

Isaiah 1:11 "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity"

Jeremiah 6:20 "To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me."

Hosea 6:6 "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. "

Hosea 8:13 "They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat it; but the LORD accepteth them not; now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins"

Psalms 40:6 "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required."


So what of those OT Passages about sacrifices. Why didn't God want them? What were they pointing forward to?

God didn't want them because of the people's hearts. Notice in Ps. 51 that *after* David comes to God with a broken and contrite heart, God is pleased with his sacrifices.

David Taylor
Feb 8th 2008, 04:59 PM
I know I'm going back a step in this conversation, but wouldn't this conclusion make you, for all intents and purposes, a preterist? If "prophecy and visions" are "sealed up" or finished, than there is no prophetic fulfillment to come - correct?


No, because I wouldn't take it in an 'all-inclusive' panorama as you would have to do if you were a Preterist.

I would rather, receive it in a scope as I believe both Daniel and Jesus intended it to be; that is regarding the very subject of the passage to begin with; the coming of the long awaited and prophesied Messiah; and all the prophecies and visions that pointed to that.

Look at it this way.

If I am a preterist, by believing Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled by Jesus on the Cross at Calvary; then wouldn't that make Jesus Himself a Preterist; by His own words spoken here in Luke?

Nay, in both cases, they are speaking of the prophecies and visions from the OT that spoke of His coming, and what He would accomplish at Calvary.

Luke 24:25 "Then Jesus said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. "

Now, apply this passage by Jesus, the same way, and in the same manner to what Jesus accomplished in Daniel 9:24.

In doing so, you should see my point. Neither passage is speaking of the fulfillment of all of the endtime prophecies that have yet to occur; but rather only to the OT prophecies like Daniel 9:24 and Pslams 22, and Isaiah 53, etc...that were pointing to His original coming; and what He would accomplish with His death and resurrection.






To see Daniel 9:24 as "fulfilled" means that there is not one OT prophetic utterance that could occur in our future. It also means that Calvary, by your definition, leaves the Book of Revelation as an unscriptural anomaly regardless of the date of its writing. it would be, by definition, impossible for the book of Revelation to be part of the canon because visions were "sealed up" circa 33 AD.


Hopefully now, you can see that this isn't the case.

In the same manner that believe what Jesus spoke in Luke 24 doesn't removed or disallow future endtime-related prophecies; neither does Daniel 9:24.

Both Daniel 9:24 and Luke 24 can harmonize and fit together; as examples; of prophecy and vision being fulfilled....specific to their intent; and what they were referring to. (to the exclusion of endtime specific prophecy which they were not talking about).

Can you see that now?

David Taylor
Feb 8th 2008, 05:01 PM
How do those verses say that the sacrifice is "bad"?

It seems as if some are saying that the "sacrificer" is bad.



What does this mean?

Did He say this:
Hebrews 10:5
"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrificers and offeringbringers you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offeringsbringers and sin offeringsbringers
you were not pleased.



or this:
Hebrews 10:5
"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.

the rookie
Feb 8th 2008, 05:13 PM
No, because I wouldn't take it in an 'all-inclusive' panorama as you would have to do if you were a Preterist.

I would rather, receive it in a scope as I believe both Daniel and Jesus intended it to be; that is regarding the very subject of the passage to begin with; the coming of the long awaited and prophesied Messiah; and all the prophecies and visions that pointed to that.

But that wasn't the subject of the passage to begin with?

The subject, from a straight-forward reading, is Israel's deliverance from Babylonian captivity promised through Jeremiah. Daniel's prayer burden is related to that promise - the "seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem". Thus when Daniel cries out, "Do not delay...!" he is speaking of the return from captivity.

The man Gabriel answers him - but to isolate his answer in v. 24 to mean "the coming of the long awaited and prophesied Messiah; and all the prophecies and the visions pointed to that" seems to limit the passage to:

1. A circa 33 A.D. fulfillment;

2. "To seal up vision and prophecy" but not all vision and prophecy, "only those knit to the first coming and the cross, because that's what all prophecies and visions pointed to anyways. And here's the passage where Jesus tells you this Himself, and I agree with Jesus." :D (Just want to be clear that this is what I have heard you say often over the years)


Look at it this way.

If I am a preterist, by believing Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled by Jesus on the Cross at Calvary; then wouldn't that make Jesus Himself a Preterist; by His own words spoken here in Luke?

Nay, in both cases, they are speaking of the prophecies and visions from the OT that spoke of His coming, and what He would accomplish at Calvary.

Luke 24:25 "Then Jesus said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. "All things "must be fulfilled" is different, grammatically, than "all things are fulfilled", no?


Now, apply this passage by Jesus, the same way, and in the same manner to what Jesus accomplished in Daniel 9:24.

In doing so, you should see my point. Neither passage is speaking of the fulfillment of all of the endtime prophecies that have yet to occur; but rather only to the OT prophecies like Daniel 9:24 and Pslams 22, and Isaiah 53, etc...that were pointing to His original coming; and what He would accomplish with His death and resurrection.Um, why? What hermeneutical rule demands that we interpret the passage that way?



Hopefully now, you can see that this isn't the case. Not really, since you intimated that Jesus was a preterist? I mean, you didn't, because you were making a point, but then you kind of did?


In the same manner that believe what Jesus spoke in Luke 24 doesn't removed or disallow future endtime-related prophecies; neither does Daniel 9:24.

Both Daniel 9:24 and Luke 24 can harmonize and fit together; as examples; of prophecy and vision being fulfilled....specific to their intent; and what they were referring to. (to the exclusion of endtime specific prophecy which they were not talking about).

Can you see that now?No - I think I'm more confused. Sorry?

the rookie
Feb 8th 2008, 05:14 PM
What does this mean?

Did He say this:
Hebrews 10:5
"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrificers and offeringbringers you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offeringsbringers and sin offeringsbringers
you were not pleased.



or this:
Hebrews 10:5
"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.

Are you implying that the writer of Hebrews is telling us that Jesus declared God's hatred of the sacrificial system?

David Taylor
Feb 8th 2008, 05:30 PM
Not really, since you intimated that Jesus was a preterist? I mean, you didn't, because you were making a point, but then you kind of did?


No, I was saying that Jesus 'wasn't a Preterist'.

If you interpret Daniel 9:24's sealing of all prophecy and vision as excluding all non-related endtime prophecy; then you are making Jesus Himself into a Preterist because that same rule you apply in Daniel 9:24, would then need to be applied consistently to Luke 24.

My point was that Jesus wasn't a Preterst; and that neither Daniel 9:24 nor Luke 24 are intended to include endtime prophecy. They rather, were speaking of the prophecies and visions related to His coming and His death and resurrection and what would result from that. (that the OT scriptures spoke of).


As for the rule of hermaneutic....it is a matter of being consistent or inconsistent.

If one is going to stand on the base that forces Daniel 9:24 to require all prophecy including endtime prophecy to be fulfilled; then one must be consistent likewise with Luke 24; OR.....one is stuck being inconsistent.


NOW...get ready....I am going to put on a Millennial hat for one moment.

Ready...here it comes. (Because it relates to the very think you are Preterizing me about in regards to Daniel 9:24.)

I know you are Premill. Fine. But Daniel 9:24 as Premill (either flavor) likes to apply it, is inconsistent.

Premill says Daniel 9:24 is fulfilled at Christ's future endtime return, when the final 70th week is completed. Alot of work and effort goes in to creating gaps, and inserting antichrists and all kinds of activity esiogetically into Daniel 9 because of this premise. (That's ok...I understand why).

But here is the inconsistency of Daniel 9:24 with the Premill model of the 70th week being fulfilled at Christ's return.

Premill truthfully and consistently, cannot have Daniel 9:24 be fulfilled at Christ's future return; but rather, would have to honestly push its fulfillment and the final 70th week another 1000 years even further back. Premill, if it is consistent with its premise of the 70th week fulfillment; cannot have it occur at the 2nd Coming.

Why?

Because even in the Premill systems and views (both of them), not all of the points of Daniel 9:24 can be fulfilled because of the rebellion and sinners who remain alive on the Earth and in Israel and in Jerusalem during the Premill Kingdom era.

The only way that Daniel 9:24 could honestly be presented as being fulfilled in a Premill perspective; is if it were the final 7 year period at the end of the Millennial Period; just prior to the Great White Throne. Because only then, within the Premill model; is the end of sin finally made. Only then is the the transgression truly finished; only then is the prophecy and vision finally sealed up.

(If Daniel 9:24 is truly to include all endtime prophecies and ongoing events).

Sorry to be long winded; but I hope you can see the same inconsistency you are wanting me to avoid; is also causing a similar inconsistency for how Premill itself frames Daniel's 70 weeks.

However, if you allow all of Daniel 9:24-27 to be fulfilled in CHrist at His first advent; there is no inconsistency.

**Hat off, I rarely put on the mill hat anymore, and I am glad to retire it again....but I really needed to make that point**

David Taylor
Feb 8th 2008, 05:31 PM
Are you implying that the writer of Hebrews is telling us that Jesus declared God's hatred of the sacrificial system?

Jesus declared that God did not want nor desire their burnt offerings.
Jesus declared that God sent Him, for His body to replace the first with the se cond; once forevermore.

the rookie
Feb 8th 2008, 05:39 PM
No, I was saying that Jesus 'wasn't a Preterist'.

If you interpret Daniel 9:24's sealing of all prophecy and vision as excluding all non-related endtime prophecy; then you are making Jesus Himself into a Preterist because that same rule you apply in Daniel 9:24, would then need to be applied consistently to Luke 24.

I don't follow this logic, simply because Jesus' grammar / word choice makes it clear that there is room for future fulfillment of prophecy, and that all prophecy was not fulfilled but rather "must" be. I agree - it must be fulfilled, justice and righteousness must come in fullness to the earth, etc.

Dan. 9:24, however, is much more definitive in the way that Gabriel speaks of the plans of God for Israel.


My point was that Jesus wasn't a Preterst; and that neither Daniel 9:24 nor Luke 24 are intended to include endtime prophecy. They rather, were speaking of the prophecies and visions related to His coming and His death and resurrection and what would result from that. (that the OT scriptures spoke of).

How did you conclude this? Neither passage is limited to any such conclusion.


As for the rule of hermaneutic....it is a matter of being consistent or inconsistent.

If one is going to stand on the base that forces Daniel 9:24 to require all prophecy including endtime prophecy to be fulfilled; then one must be consistent likewise with Luke 24; OR.....one is stuck being inconsistent.


NOW...get ready....I am going to put on a Millennial hat for one moment.

Ready...here it comes. (Because it relates to the very think you are Preterizing me about in regards to Daniel 9:24.)

I know you are Premill. Fine. But Daniel 9:24 as Premill (either flavor) likes to apply it, is inconsistent.

Premill says Daniel 9:24 is fulfilled at Christ's future endtime return, when the final 70th week is completed. Alot of work and effort goes in to creating gaps, and inserting antichrists and all kinds of activity esiogetically into Daniel 9 because of this premise. (That's ok...I understand why).

But here is the inconsistency of Daniel 9:24 with the Premill model of the 70th week being fulfilled at Christ's return.

Premill truthfully and consistently, cannot have Daniel 9:24 be fulfilled at Christ's future return; but rather, would have to honestly push its fulfillment and the final 70th week another 1000 years even further back. Premill, if it is consistent with its premise of the 70th week fulfillment; cannot have it occur at the 2nd Coming.

Why?

Because even in the Premill systems and views (both of them), not all of the points of Daniel 9:24 can be fulfilled because of the rebellion and sinners who remain alive on the Earth and in Israel and in Jerusalem during the Premill Kingdom era.

The only way that Daniel 9:24 could honestly be presented as being fulfilled in a Premill perspective; is if it were the final 7 year period at the end of the Millennial Period; just prior to the Great White Throne. Because only then, within the Premill model; is the end of sin finally made. Only then is the the transgression truly finished; only then is the prophecy and vision finally sealed up.

(If Daniel 9:24 is truly to include all endtime prophecies and ongoing events).

Sorry to be long winded; but I hope you can see the same inconsistency you are wanting me to avoid; is also causing a similar inconsistency for how Premill itself frames Daniel's 70 weeks.

However, if you allow all of Daniel 9:24-27 to be fulfilled in CHrist at His first advent; there is no inconsistency.

**Hat off, I rarely put on the mill hat anymore, and I am glad to retire it again....but I really needed to make that point**

I appreciate your "mill hat" - that was awesome.

I just find that there are weaknesses in both viewpoints that make the passage fun to wrestle with. While your conclusions about 9:24 are helpful, they still seem to provide the same "escape clause" that frustrates you about the premill view related to that passage.

the rookie
Feb 8th 2008, 05:43 PM
Jesus declared that God did not want nor desire their burnt offerings.

Why? Because they were "bad" or because the sacrificial system He implemented was bad?

If God institutes a system for a purpose, and the people violate that purpose, would it then render the people's offering "undesirable"?

Or, if the other answer is the right one, and God implements a bad system that the people try to function within to please Him, who then is in the wrong?

Thus, logically, it is impossible for the sacrificial system itself to be "bad".


Jesus declared that God sent Him, for His body to replace the first with the se cond; once forevermore.

Agreed.

Romulus
Feb 8th 2008, 08:22 PM
But that wasn't the subject of the passage to begin with?

The subject, from a straight-forward reading, is Israel's deliverance from Babylonian captivity promised through Jeremiah. Daniel's prayer burden is related to that promise - the "seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem". Thus when Daniel cries out, "Do not delay...!" he is speaking of the return from captivity.

The man Gabriel answers him - but to isolate his answer in v. 24 to mean "the coming of the long awaited and prophesied Messiah; and all the prophecies and the visions pointed to that" seems to limit the passage to:

1. A circa 33 A.D. fulfillment;

2. "To seal up vision and prophecy" but not all vision and prophecy, "only those knit to the first coming and the cross, because that's what all prophecies and visions pointed to anyways. And here's the passage where Jesus tells you this Himself, and I agree with Jesus." :D (Just want to be clear that this is what I have heard you say often over the years)



Hi David,

Since we both agree this was fulfilled already would you possible agree that "to seal up vision and prophecy" was only concerning the nation of Israel? Let me explain, Daniel right from the beginning of the prophecy was praying for Israel and the Jews only, Gentiles were not in view. The fulfillment concerning ethnic Israel ended at Christ's work on the Cross. There would be no more vision and prophecy concerning ethnic Israel since it was all accomplished. Historically (as you already know) after 33 A.D. the Gospel was given to the Gentiles through Paul which was outside of the 70 weeks time frame. The Gospel came to ethnic Israel first which is who Daniel was praying for in the first place and then was now given to the Gentiles as well. It was no longer limited to ethnic Israel anymore. Does not this seal up vision and prophecy for ethnic Israel since the way to salvation through Christ was already given and the majority rejected Him but not the remant such as the disciples, all Jews? There was nothing else needed anymore.

Do you see my reasoning here?

John146
Feb 8th 2008, 09:53 PM
I guess I'm confused as to how it *could* be Jesus' covenant spoken of here. He didn't "bring an end to" sacrifice or to offering by His cross. Nor is His covenant limited to seven years, or ever broken by Him - His is an everlasting covenant! The last "he" spoken of wasn't Messiah, but "the prince who is to come", whose people will "destroy the city and the sanctuary". That was the Roman army (made up of Assyrians, etc.) under Titus, not the Jews. Therefore the covenant spoken of is made by a Gentile prince, not the Jewish Messiah. The last half of this seventieth week is mentioned by Jesus in Matt. 24:15, which is speaking about the great tribulation to come; how then the first half of this final week be Jesus' ministry? I can believe a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks (this is what v.26 is about), but not within the seventieth week itself. We know that Dan. 9:24 hasn't yet been fulfilled... the seventieth week (v.27) is still yet future. As seen elsewhere in Daniel, the greatest trouble will come to the Jews before they come into covenant with Jesus.

- Lk.11

I haven't read any posts beyond this one of yours that I'm responding to so forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said.

The last individual who is the subject before verse 27 is the Messiah in verse 26a. The prince is not the subject in verse 26b. The subject or focus there is "the people of the prince" and not the prince himself. You seem to read it as if it says "the prince of the people to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary".

jeffweeder
Feb 9th 2008, 12:20 AM
The subject, from a straight-forward reading, is Israel's deliverance from Babylonian captivity promised through Jeremiah. Daniel's prayer burden is related to that promise - the "seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem". Thus when Daniel cries out, "Do not delay...!" he is speaking of the return from captivity.

The man Gabriel answers him - but to isolate his answer in v. 24 to mean "the coming of the long awaited and prophesied Messiah; and all the prophecies and the visions pointed to that" seems to limit the passage to:

1. A circa 33 A.D. fulfillment;

2. "To seal up vision and prophecy" but not all vision and prophecy, "only those knit to the first coming and the cross, because that's what all prophecies and visions pointed to anyways. And here's the passage where Jesus tells you this Himself, and I agree with Jesus." (Just want to be clear that this is what I have heard you say often over the years)



In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans—
2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.
3 So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes.
4 I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed and said, "Alas, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments,
5 we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted wickedly and rebelled, even turning aside from Your commandments and ordinances.
6 "Moreover, we have not listened to Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings, our princes, our fathers and all the people of the land.


15 "And now, O Lord our God, who have brought Your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and have made a name for Yourself, as it is this day—we have sinned, we have been wicked.
16 "O Lord, in accordance with all Your righteous acts, let now Your anger and Your wrath turn away from Your city Jerusalem, Your holy mountain; for because of our sins and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people have become a reproach to all those around us.
17 "So now, our God, listen to the prayer of Your servant and to his supplications, and for Your sake, O Lord, let Your face shine on Your desolate sanctuary.
18 "O my God, incline Your ear and hear! Open Your eyes and see our desolations and the city which is called by Your name; for we are not presenting our supplications before You on account of any merits of our own, but on account of Your great compassion.
19 "O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and take action! For Your own sake, O my God, do not delay, because Your city and Your people are called by Your name."


"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish[21][Or restrain ] the transgression, to make[22][Another reading is seal up sins ] an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy[23][Lit prophet ] and to anoint the most holy place

Sounds like Gabriel is saying that your redeemer cometh and he will (by his death and ressurection) fulfill the decree.--in 70 weeks.
Only Messiah can do this, and he has 70 weeks to do it all.

70 years of captivity are coming to an end and Daniel is praying for forgiveness and for God to put things right for them regarding Jerusalem.
While still in prayer he recieves an answer...............from the going forth of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem 7 and 62 weeks of the decree will pass and then messiah would come and atone for your sins etc.
He did it of course, along with the other points of the decree---everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophet, etc..it was all within that 70 week time frame as Gabriel had promised.

Has he atoned for sin? If he has then all them other points are done also as it was 70 weeks for all of them.

King James

and to seal up the vision and prophecy

To seal up this particular vision and prophecy?;


"These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
45 Then He opened their minds[18][Lit mind ] to understand the Scriptures,
46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Messiah would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
48 "You are witnesses of these things.


"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.
21 "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled



Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

Jesus did it for them, but they were not willing.
Behold your house is left unto you desolate...again

Nihil Obstat
Feb 9th 2008, 05:09 AM
I haven't read any posts beyond this one of yours that I'm responding to so forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said.

The last individual who is the subject before verse 27 is the Messiah in verse 26a. The prince is not the subject in verse 26b. The subject or focus there is "the people of the prince" and not the prince himself. You seem to read it as if it says "the prince of the people to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary".

Oh, I understand that. All I was saying was that the last singular person mentioned was the prince to come, and not Messiah the Prince. Again, I truly can see where you guys are coming from; I just disagree with you right now. My questions from post #28 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1530525&postcount=28) haven't yet been sufficiently addressed. I've discussed this before (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=108578) (read posts 8 and 13); sacrifices will continue when Jesus Himself rebuilds the temple in Jerusalem, by His own command. This is all over the OT, and there are hints of it in the NT. So I don't see how Jesus brought an end to sacrifice and offering; and I don't understand what you all mean by "Jesus will take seven years to establish His covenant", and that these seven years is the 3.5 years of His ministry, and the 3.5 years of the great tribulation. These are discussions I'd like to see happen, because it's where I believe your theory to be lacking. I'm a very teachable person. So teach me something. I'm open. - Lk.11

ross3421
Feb 9th 2008, 10:56 AM
Its really impossible to do that, because we know the decree and when Messiah actualy came.

Why can it not be speaking of his second coming?



We know that when he came, he overcame, and the Gospel has been preached ( the good news that he atoned for sin etc, ) ever since..70 weeks and it was.
[/QUOTE]

What we do know is that at his second coming all things these shall be finished.....The cross was the means to the end.

Da 9:24to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


Mark

Firstfruits
Feb 9th 2008, 11:37 AM
David is it possible to have a reply to the following, thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Taylor http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1530461#post1530461)
Why not?

Christ foretold in Matthew 23 and 24, that very soon, the entire temple and its complex would be destroyed, with not one stone being left on another; and soon thereafter; Titus and the Roman armies marched through, to the exact fulfillment of that prophecy.

1) Messiah was cut off.
2) The city and the temple were destroyed as a result of it.

Ask yourself who is the prince that shall come after Christ has been cut off, also why would christ confirm a covenant for one week, and be the cause abominations, also who was Christ speaking of regarding Matthew 24:15.
Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Dan 9:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/progress.gif

vinsight4u8
Feb 9th 2008, 01:30 PM
Look closely at why Daniel chapter 9 is even written. What was the reason that Gabriel came to speak with Daniel?

Your reply should be:
due to Daniel's prayer to understand the Jeremiah prophecy



Jeremiah 25:11

has yet to be finished

ShirleyFord
Feb 9th 2008, 02:36 PM
Dan 9:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/progress.gif


FF,

I couldn't help but notice that you bolded and underlined "the prince that shall come" when Daniel 9:26b says nothing about "the prince that shall come".

If we stick with what this Scripture is actually saying here, we find that it is "the people (of the prince) that shall come" and not "the prince".

"of the prince" is a prepositional phrase which modifies the subject "the people" that describes who "the people" are that shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary after Messiah the Prince is cut off.

Daniel 9:26 was fulfilled when the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed along with many Jews who didn't heed Jesus's warning in 70 AD and leave Jerusalem when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Roman military (Luke 21).

I was also taught for many years that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 was "the prince" of Daniel 9:26b. But that was always so confusing to me. How could "the prince" of 70 AD be the "he", the antichrist, 2000+ years later?


Shirley

the rookie
Feb 9th 2008, 08:33 PM
Hi David,

Since we both agree this was fulfilled already would you possible agree that "to seal up vision and prophecy" was only concerning the nation of Israel? Let me explain, Daniel right from the beginning of the prophecy was praying for Israel and the Jews only, Gentiles were not in view. The fulfillment concerning ethnic Israel ended at Christ's work on the Cross. There would be no more vision and prophecy concerning ethnic Israel since it was all accomplished. Historically (as you already know) after 33 A.D. the Gospel was given to the Gentiles through Paul which was outside of the 70 weeks time frame. The Gospel came to ethnic Israel first which is who Daniel was praying for in the first place and then was now given to the Gentiles as well. It was no longer limited to ethnic Israel anymore. Does not this seal up vision and prophecy for ethnic Israel since the way to salvation through Christ was already given and the majority rejected Him but not the remant such as the disciples, all Jews? There was nothing else needed anymore.

Do you see my reasoning here?

I see your reasoning, but it seems to be off by a few years. The gospel went exclusively to the Jews for a few years after 33 AD (approx.) until Peter's vision began to open the door for the gospel to go to the Gentiles. Even then it would be quite some time before it went exclusively to the Gentiles - it still went to the Jew first according to Paul's pattern.

Thus your reasoning isn't very airtight. Secondly, as a preterist, the very manner in which you interpret the book of Revelation becomes suspect as it is supposedly about God's final judgment on Israel related to her rejection of Christ. Yet your interpretation of Dan. 9:24 renders the canonicity of Revelation an impossibility, by your own definition - as I mentioned earlier.

Firstfruits
Feb 9th 2008, 09:08 PM
FF,

I couldn't help but notice that you bolded and underlined "the prince that shall come" when Daniel 9:26b says nothing about "the prince that shall come".

If we stick with what this Scripture is actually saying here, we find that it is "the people (of the prince) that shall come" and not "the prince".

"of the prince" is a prepositional phrase which modifies the subject "the people" that describes who "the people" are that shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary after Messiah the Prince is cut off.

Daniel 9:26 was fulfilled when the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed along with many Jews who didn't heed Jesus's warning in 70 AD and leave Jerusalem when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Roman military (Luke 21).

I was also taught for many years that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 was "the prince" of Daniel 9:26b. But that was always so confusing to me. How could "the prince" of 70 AD be the "he", the antichrist, 2000+ years later?


Shirley

I do not know which version you are using, but from the versions I have read the prince does not refer to Christ. In V.27 we are told of the abomination as was spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24.
Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Mk 13:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Rev 17:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
This is a reference to future events.

Regarding Daniel 9:26. If the Prince is Jesus, then the people of the prince must be of Christ, and if they are of Christ, then Christs people will destroy the city and the sanctuary. So how would you explain Christs people destroying Jerusalem?

ShirleyFord
Feb 9th 2008, 09:39 PM
If the Prince is Jesus, then the people of the prince must be of Christ, and if they are of Christ, then Christs people will destroy the city and the sanctuary. So how would you explain Christs people destroying Jerusalem?

This is what I actually said:

Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1531413#post1531413)
FF,

I couldn't help but notice that you bolded and underlined "the prince that shall come" when Daniel 9:26b says nothing about "the prince that shall come".

If we stick with what this Scripture is actually saying here, we find that it is "the people (of the prince) that shall come" and not "the prince".

"of the prince" is a prepositional phrase which modifies the subject "the people" that describes who "the people" are that shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary after Messiah the Prince is cut off.

Daniel 9:26 was fulfilled when the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed along with many Jews who didn't heed Jesus's warning in 70 AD and leave Jerusalem when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Roman military (Luke 21).

I was also taught for many years that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 was "the prince" of Daniel 9:26b. But that was always so confusing to me. How could "the prince" of 70 AD be the "he", the antichrist, 2000+ years later?




As you can clearly see, I said nothing about "the prince" in Daniel 9:26b being Jesus Christ.

This Scripture is very clear that Gabriel prophecied to Daniel that "the people" would come and destroy the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary after the Messiah was cut off. The prince of the people was not prophecied "to come".

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

According to historical documents, the people of the Roman military under the Roman general came in 70 AD and destroyed the temple and the city just as Gabriel and Jesus prophecied.

The only "he" that is prophecied in Daniel 9:25-26 is the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the only one who confirmed the covenant with many of Daniel's people in the midst of the 70th week.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Antichrist, is nowhere mentioned in this prophecy or anywhere else in Daniel.


Shirley

2Witnesses
Feb 9th 2008, 10:45 PM
Quote: Antichrist, is nowhere mentioned in this prophecy or anywhere else in Daniel.


Shirley

Well, Shirley, I guess Jesus got it wrong about that 'desolation....' thing! And I kinda think the 'Little Horn' refers to AC.

But I repeat my earlier assertion. The redemption began in the 69th week. And do not object because you 'think' it has to be right on the money, 69th.

This is in keeping with the general theme of prophetic Scripture: there is the initiation of something in one place and time; and its conclusion in another.

Our salvation is purchased by the blood of Messiah. But we do not see its redemption completely until later.

And in the meantime, stuff happens. And a 70th week, complete with AC working abomination and desolation also happens.

Of course, for some, they will have to wait to believe it.

2Witnesses

ross3421
Feb 9th 2008, 11:00 PM
Regarding Daniel 9:26. If the Prince is Jesus, then the people of the prince must be of Christ, and if they are of Christ, then Christs people will destroy the city and the sanctuary. So how would you explain Christs people destroying Jerusalem?


The city and sanctuary will be a place of wickedness not that they are coming to destroy God's sanctuary.

Is not Jerusalem (ie. Babylon) destroyed by God's army upon his return?

We need to realize the city is perverse with wickedness and abominations and by the sanctuary therein.....The city wherein the AC will stand in the holy place will be destroyed alongwith his sanctuary. this will be replace by a holy city and God's sanctuary.

Da 8:11Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his (Satan's) sanctuary was cast down.

Mt 24:15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)


So yes the people of God can destroy the city and sanctuary and they will.


Mark

ShirleyFord
Feb 9th 2008, 11:43 PM
Quote: Antichrist, is nowhere mentioned in this prophecy or anywhere else in Daniel.


Shirley

Well, Shirley, I guess Jesus got it wrong about that 'desolation....' thing! And I kinda think the 'Little Horn' refers to AC.

But I repeat my earlier assertion. The redemption began in the 69th week. And do not object because you 'think' it has to be right on the money, 69th.

This is in keeping with the general theme of prophetic Scripture: there is the initiation of something in one place and time; and its conclusion in another.

Our salvation is purchased by the blood of Messiah. But we do not see its redemption completely until later.

And in the meantime, stuff happens. And a 70th week, complete with AC working abomination and desolation also happens.

Of course, for some, they will have to wait to believe it.

2Witnesses

Jesus was cut off after the 69th during the 70th wk. when He purchased our redemption - our spiritual redemption and the redemption of our bodies - with His own body and blood and His physical resurrection from physical death.

Jesus was first to rise from physical death and His old body changed into an immortal, glorified one. Those in Christ at His Second Coming will be physically resurrected into our immortal, gloryified bodies as well, according to 1 Corinthians 15:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.


And Romans 8:

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.



Where do you find "antichrist" connected to the 70th week? Daniel 9:24-27 is the only place in the Bible I know of that mentions a future 70 weeks from Daniel's time. And I sure don't see "antichrist" anywhere there.


Shirley

2Witnesses
Feb 10th 2008, 12:00 AM
Jesus was cut off after the 69th during the 70th wk. when He purchased our redemption - our spiritual redemption and the redemption of our bodies - with His own body and blood and His physical resurrection from physical death.

Jesus was first to rise from physical death and His old body changed into an immortal, glorified one. Those in Christ at His Second Coming will be physically resurrected into our immortal, gloryified bodies as well, according to 1 Corinthians 15:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.


And Romans 8:

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.



Where do you find "antichrist" connected to the 70th week? Daniel 9:24-27 is the only place in the Bible I know of that mentions a future 70 weeks from Daniel's time. And I sure don't see "antichrist" anywhere there.


Shirley


Shirley

Shirley,

That is what this whole thread is about. See, some DO see AC in Daniel 9. I do not hink it in ANY way refers to Christ.

2Witnesses

ShirleyFord
Feb 10th 2008, 12:36 AM
Shirley,

That is what this whole thread is about. See, some DO see AC in Daniel 9. I do not hink it in ANY way refers to Christ.

2Witnesses

Why not?

Christ is mentioned twice in this prophecy. Once in v. 25 and once in v. 26. Antichrist is mentioned exactly 0 times that I can see. Might not have the right kind of glasses though.


Shirley

Firstfruits
Feb 10th 2008, 11:14 AM
This is what I actually said:



As you can clearly see, I said nothing about "the prince" in Daniel 9:26b being Jesus Christ.

This Scripture is very clear that Gabriel prophecied to Daniel that "the people" would come and destroy the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary after the Messiah was cut off. The prince of the people was not prophecied "to come".

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

According to historical documents, the people of the Roman military under the Roman general came in 70 AD and destroyed the temple and the city just as Gabriel and Jesus prophecied.

The only "he" that is prophecied in Daniel 9:25-26 is the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the only one who confirmed the covenant with many of Daniel's people in the midst of the 70th week.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Antichrist, is nowhere mentioned in this prophecy or anywhere else in Daniel.


Shirley

In order for us to know who the people are we need to know who the prince is that will come, as the people belong to him.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined

Who therefore is the prince that shall come, is it Christ or the antichrist? As in the OP.

ShirleyFord
Feb 10th 2008, 12:42 PM
In order for us to know who the people are we need to know who the prince is that will come, as the people belong to him.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined

Who therefore is the prince that shall come, is it Christ or the antichrist? As in the OP.

The "prince" of Daniel 9:26b is neither Christ or antichrist. Most dispensationalist/premills agree that he is a Roman general whose people came in 70 AD and destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the second stone temple.

The OP is Daniel 9:27 - Jesus or the Antichrist?

Firstfruits
Feb 10th 2008, 06:23 PM
The "prince" of Daniel 9:26b is neither Christ or antichrist. Most dispensationalist/premills agree that he is a Roman general whose people came in 70 AD and destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the second stone temple.

The OP is Daniel 9:27 - Jesus or the Antichrist?

Regarding the OP would you say the event is past or future?

And where does this scripture fit in?
Dan 12:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Dan 9:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Future or past? If future would that then be according to christ description?

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Are they or are they not the same event?

ShirleyFord
Feb 10th 2008, 07:33 PM
Regarding the OP would you say the event is past or future?

And where does this scripture fit in?
Dan 12:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Nothing is said here about a 7 year GT or a 7 yr kingdom of antichrist just before the Second Coming of Christ. We are not told when this time is or who or by what means the abomination that maketh desolate is set up. But the Lord spoke this to Daniel after Gabriel had finished explaining to him in Daniel 11 about the last king of the Greecian empire. And the tells him in Daniel 12 to shut the book and seal it that he is writing down all of these prophecies in to give to the children of Israel.

It certainly doesn't tell us that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 is the antichrist and not Jesus Christ. Nor that the timing of v. 27 is 7 years before the Second Coming of Christ making the 70th week, a 2000+ week of years after the 69th week instead of the actual 70th week.

Jesus was crucified after the 69th week according to Daniel 9:26 which would have been the 70th week. Jesus fulfilled the 70th week already.

Nowhere do we find antichrist fulfilling or prophecied to fulfill the 70th week in the future anywhere in the Bible. Nor do we find in Daniel 9:27 or anywhere else in the Bible where antichrist confirms a covenant with the nation of Israel to restore her kingdom back to her and to rebuild their third stone temple. Nor do we find the Levitical priesthood offering sacrifices in the rebuilt temple. Nor antichrist going into the holy of holies and sitting down on his throne above the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant after 3 1/2 years into the 70th week. Nor do we find the Jews at that moment decide that the antichrist, whom they had accepted and worshipped as their promised Messiah, was not their Messiah after all and then antichrist breaks their 7 year covenant and stops the Levitical priesthood from offering animal sacrifices.

It is just not there regardless of how many Bible scholar prophecy teachers force Daniel 9:27 to say such.


Dan 9:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Future or past? If future would that then be according to christ description?

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Are they or are they not the same event?

I believe that Jesus is speaking about Daniel 9:26b and 27b which was fulfill in 70 AD which was not part of Daniel's 70 weeks of years. I don't believe Matthew 24:15 is about a future 7 yr GT just before the Second Coming of Christ. And I don't believe that He is referring to the 70th week of Daniel. Nor does Jesus say here that antichrist is the "he" of Daniel 9:27.

Jesus answers two questions of His disciples in Matthew 24:
1. When would the temple and all of its buildings be destroyed?
2. When would Jesus come again?

We know that the second temple has been destroyed fulfilling both Daniel 9:26b and 27b and Jesus's prophecy:

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Jesus has not returned yet. So that prophecy is still unfulfilled but will be fulfilled.


Shirley

yoSAMite
Feb 11th 2008, 12:40 AM
Now I'm premillennial mind you, but I'm having trouble seeing the subject of Daniel 9:27 who "confirms a covenant with many" as the Antichrist that dispensationalism would have us read into the text. From what I gather, that notion didn't even exist within premillennialism until dispensationalism emerged in the 19th century.

It seems much more reasonable to me at the moment that "he" would be referring to the Messiah at the start of verse 26 and that the "covenant with many" (lit. "shall cause the covenant to prevail") would be referring to the triumph of God's covenant faithfulness through Christ's death and resurrection. This accords much better with the whole context of Daniel 9, IMO, for the big issue there, in Daniel's prayer and in Gabriel's response, is the fulfillment of God's covenant promises to Israel.

I'm on the fence though. I'd love to hear everyones reasoning on this passage.

I hate to sound like a old record or a one trick pony on this issue, but here's my view. I think what's at the core of this discussion is Biblical hermeneutics, or how one interprets the Bible.

According to Theopedia and various other resources:
Applying sound principles of hermeneutics seeks to answer these sorts of questions:
* Who was the writer?
* To whom was the writer writing?
* "Is the use of a particular word, grammatical construction, verb tense, etc., significant in this instance?"
* What is the cultural, historical context?
* What was the author's original intended meaning
* "How was the text interpreted by the author's contemporaries?"[3]
* Why was he saying it?

From Wikipedia:
The process consists of several theories for best attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s), and below is a process taught by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981):

1. Lexical-syntactical method-
2. Historical/cultural method-
3. Contextual method-
4. Theological method-
5. Special literary methods-

Herman C. Hanko has written what I believe is a good article (http://www.prca.org/articles/issues_in_hermeneutics.html#BasisForGrammaticoHist oricalMethod) called "Issues in Hermeneutics" which discusses some issues and comes up with an amended hermeneutics method called Spiritual-Grammatico-Historical. Here's a quote that I think is pertinent to this discussion.

The Grammatical Method of Hermeneutics presupposes that the Scriptures are written in human language. And because they are written in human language, the ordinary rules of language apply to the interpretation of the Scriptures as well as to any written document. The rules of grammar, syntax, and logic apply to the Hebrew and Greek of the Scriptures just as they apply to any document written in these languages. The same rules applied to Virgil's Aeneid which apply to the Scriptures.

With that being the case, here goes my broken record response. Just the grammar here, not any theology involved.

The pronoun "he" in vs 27 is called a REFERENT because it "refers back." Also important for the interpretation of this prophecy is that a pronoun renames (takes the place of) a noun that comes before it. The question is what does the "he" in vs 27 refer back to? It refers back what's called an ANTECEDENT. An antecedent is the word, phrase, or clause to which a pronoun refers, understood by the context. The antedecent is the noun that comes before the pronoun, providing that it meets certain rules, like plurality and gender. After a compound antecedent connected by or or nor, a pronound agrees with the element of the antecedent nearer to it.

My conclusion is that the "he" in vs 27 would refer back to the "the prince" of the people that shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. It would not skip "the prince" and go to "the Messiah". That is the proper grammatical interpretation of the verse.

John146
Feb 11th 2008, 01:20 AM
Oh, I understand that. All I was saying was that the last singular person mentioned was the prince to come, and not Messiah the Prince. Again, I truly can see where you guys are coming from; I just disagree with you right now. My questions from post #28 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1530525&postcount=28) haven't yet been sufficiently addressed. I've discussed this before (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=108578) (read posts 8 and 13); sacrifices will continue when Jesus Himself rebuilds the temple in Jerusalem, by His own command. This is all over the OT, and there are hints of it in the NT. So I don't see how Jesus brought an end to sacrifice and offering; and I don't understand what you all mean by "Jesus will take seven years to establish His covenant", and that these seven years is the 3.5 years of His ministry, and the 3.5 years of the great tribulation. These are discussions I'd like to see happen, because it's where I believe your theory to be lacking. I'm a very teachable person. So teach me something. I'm open. - Lk.11

You mention something about Jesus Himself rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. What Scripture speaks of this?

You also said that you don't see how Jesus brought an end to sacrifice and offering. I believe the following Scripture shows this:

1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. - Heb 10:1-14

God takes no pleasure in animal sacrifices and offerings. Jesus made the "once for all" offering and sacrifice of His body so that no more sacrifices and offerings would ever be needed again. That is how Jesus brought an end to sacrifices and offerings. Any animal sacrifices and offerings performed after His "once for all" sacrifice and offering are completely meaningless and God takes no pleasure in them and never will.

John146
Feb 11th 2008, 01:32 AM
I see your reasoning, but it seems to be off by a few years. The gospel went exclusively to the Jews for a few years after 33 AD (approx.) until Peter's vision began to open the door for the gospel to go to the Gentiles. Even then it would be quite some time before it went exclusively to the Gentiles - it still went to the Jew first according to Paul's pattern.


Where is your evidence that "the gospel went exclusively to the Jews for a few years after 33 AD (approx.)"?

the rookie
Feb 11th 2008, 02:15 AM
Where is your evidence that "the gospel went exclusively to the Jews for a few years after 33 AD (approx.)"?

Acts 10 .

ShirleyFord
Feb 11th 2008, 02:36 AM
My conclusion is that the "he" in vs 27 would refer back to the "the prince" of the people that shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. It would not skip "the prince" and go to "the Messiah". That is the proper grammatical interpretation of the verse.

So then, Sam, according to your proper grammatical interpretation of "he" in v. 27, we could just as easily read v. 27 this way and be grammatically accurate?

"And the (Roman) prince (of v. 26) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week....."

I don't remember reading in historical documents that Titus confirmed a covenant of any kind with Israel.


Would your proper grammatical style of biblical interpretation also work the same way with v. 25?

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

Is "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" referring to what went on at or after the coming of Messiah?

I know there is no pronoun there in the latter part of v. 25. But I believe if you make "he" of v. 27 "the prince" of v. 26b, then you must have the street and wall of Jerusalem in the process of being built after Messiah comes on the scene and couldn't refer back to the first part of the v. 25 before the Coming the First Time of Messiah.



Shirley

2Witnesses
Feb 11th 2008, 02:45 AM
Why not?

Christ is mentioned twice in this prophecy. Once in v. 25 and once in v. 26. Antichrist is mentioned exactly 0 times that I can see. Might not have the right kind of glasses though.


Shirley

Shirley,

Of course Jesus is mentioned in Daniel 9. I was referring, I thought you understood, to the verse in question.

It seems clear that some have allowed their theology to blind them to an honest view of this verse.

Any good reader of prophecy understands that 'prophetic context' is a fluid reality. For example, when Jesus quoted from Isaiah regarding the 'Spirit of the Lord is upon me...to'. He split the verse. And He did so because two events, separated by many years, were spoken of here.

Likewise, in Daniel 9 two events, separated by many years are spoken of here. But it was all within the 'context' of 'finishing the transgression'.

So actually, in one sense, the '70 weeks' IMO covers all of redemptive history, start to finish, beginning of sin til its demise. And, in that vein, Jeremiah's '70 years' is like a mini 70 weeks. And, the 70 weeks, the 70 years, is all summed up in the '70th week', that 7 years of the end of days.

2Witnesses

ShirleyFord
Feb 11th 2008, 03:20 AM
Shirley,

Of course Jesus is mentioned in Daniel 9. I was referring, I thought you understood, to the verse in question.

Do you then agree that antichrist is not mentioned at all in v. 27 or in the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 but Jesus is mentioned twice in the prophecy?





It seems clear that some have allowed their theology to blind them to an honest view of this verse.


I would have to agree.



Any good reader of prophecy understands that 'prophetic context' is a fluid reality.

Don't rightly know what you mean by "good reader". I would think that anyone who was able to read what was written and comprehend it just as it was written would be a good reader.



For example, when Jesus quoted from Isaiah regarding the 'Spirit of the Lord is upon me...to'. He split the verse. And He did so because two events, separated by many years, were spoken of here.


Isaiah 61:2 To proclaim ... the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

Fulfilled in 70 AD

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.




Likewise, in Daniel 9 two events, separated by many years are spoken of here. But it was all within the 'context' of 'finishing the transgression'.


If the 70th week is cut off from the 69th week, then a 7 year period some 2000+ years down the road couldn't rightly be the 70th week in my opinion.


So actually, in one sense, the '70 weeks' IMO covers all of redemptive history, start to finish, beginning of sin til its demise. And, in that vein, Jeremiah's '70 years' is like a mini 70 weeks.

So it takes Jesus 483 years + 2000+ years + 7 yrs (GT) + 1000 yrs (millennial kingdom age) to finally redemn us from sin? Why that's at least 3490 years.

But Gabriel told Daniel in v. 24, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

And I believe Gabriel meant 70 weeks of years without any gaps. He didn't mention any gaps of the 70 weeks.



And, the 70 weeks, the 70 years, is all summed up in the '70th week', that 7 years of the end of days.

2Witnesses


I believe that all of v. 24 took place during the 70th week nearly 2000 yrs. ago.


Shirley

yoSAMite
Feb 11th 2008, 09:56 AM
So then, Sam, according to your proper grammatical interpretation of "he" in v. 27, we could just as easily read v. 27 this way and be grammatically accurate?

"And the (Roman) prince (of v. 26) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week....."

I don't remember reading in historical documents that Titus confirmed a covenant of any kind with Israel. I guess that I'd come away with 2 conclusions then. The first is that maybe Titus is not the prince spoken of or second the prince hasn't confirmed the covenant spoken of. ;)



Would your proper grammatical style of biblical interpretation also work the same way with v. 25?

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

Is "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" referring to what went on at or after the coming of Messiah?

I know there is no pronoun there in the latter part of v. 25. But I believe if you make "he" of v. 27 "the prince" of v. 26b, then you must have the street and wall of Jerusalem in the process of being built after Messiah comes on the scene and couldn't refer back to the first part of the v. 25 before the Coming the First Time of Messiah.
ShirleyI don't know if that would be a correct interpretation or not. And whether or not it is, it doesn't change what I believe is the correct grammatical interpretation of the "he" in vs 27.

I spent weeks on that aspect of the verse, reading grammar books and asking teachers if my understanding of the grammar was correct or not.

And if I remember correctly, Herod's remodeling of the Temple wasn't finished until 60 something AD.

jeffweeder
Feb 11th 2008, 11:22 AM
So actually, in one sense, the '70 weeks' IMO covers all of redemptive history, start to finish, beginning of sin til its demise. And, in that vein, Jeremiah's '70 years' is like a mini 70 weeks. And, the 70 weeks, the 70 years, is all summed up in the '70th week', that 7 years of the end of days.

.........if 70 years is 70 years, then 70 weeks is 70 weeks.
Daniel knew that it was a time of punishment...because of sin and ignorance.....they were exiled and feeling the displeasure of the lord.
Why then did Daniel go searching the oracles of Jeremiah?
He wanted to know how long this was going to last...he says himself, that it was 70 years.
He took it as the word of lord as he should of, and got on his knees that God may find favour after this and rerstore the place where God dwelt with them, and forgive them and uphold his own name.

The answer that Gabriel brought to him was out of this world, beyond his wildest dreams, that Messiah was going to come and establish salvation for all who would believe.
I ,like Daniel ,searched the scriptures for how long till messiah and the bringing in of atonement etc.
Jeffweeder found that it was 70 weeks-----from the going forth of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, after their 70 years of exile..........this makes Jesus Christ the redeemer and the promised one who atoned for my sin and fulfilled the promise to Daniel as he came and did this all 70 weeks from the going forth of the decree.

His own disciples thought that Jesus was going to set it up, as they watched him rise into heaven. But Daniels decree was to his people, and Jesus said not yet, for this good news of my victory must go forth to the gentiles, and i want every tongue to hear and believe, before the end comes......This is the only gap...by the word of the lord.

ShirleyFord
Feb 11th 2008, 12:53 PM
I guess that I'd come away with 2 conclusions then. The first is that maybe Titus is not the prince spoken of or second the prince hasn't confirmed the covenant spoken of. ;)

Who then do you believe "the prince" is in v. 26b?

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And do you believe that Gabriel is prophecying to Daniel in v. 26b that a rebuilt third stone temple and the city will be destroyed just before the Second Coming of Christ?

That is what I was taught for many years. I was also taught that Daniel 9:26b said, "the prince, who is the antichrist, that shall come...."

But I finally saw that Daniel 9:26b didn't say anything about a third stone temple or the Second Coming of Christ. And I had to ask myself:

Why would Gabriel be referring to a third temple when the second temple had not been built at the time of Gabriel's prophecy to Daniel?

Why would Gabriel be referring to a time leading up to the Second Coming of Christ when He hasn't come the First Time at the time of Gabriel's prophecy to Daniel?

What happened to the second temple after it was rebuilt? It was pretty evident to me that no temple was standing today in Jerusalem.

Then I turned over to the NT and read again Jesus's prophecy:

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.


I had been taught that Jesus was prophecying the destruction of a third rebuilt temple during the 7 yr. GT just before His Second Coming. But then I saw as I carefully read this prophecy that Jesus had to have been referring to the temple that He had just come out of in Matthew 24:1, the one where He had been teaching the Jews since Matthew 21, the one and its buildings that his disciples were showing him in v. 1.

That temple was the second rebuilt temple that we can read about in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jesus never spoke of a third temple being rebuilt and then destroyed.



I don't know if that would be a correct interpretation or not. And whether or not it is, it doesn't change what I believe is the correct grammatical interpretation of the "he" in vs 27.

I spent weeks on that aspect of the verse, reading grammar books and asking teachers if my understanding of the grammar was correct or not.

Sam, I appreciate your diligence in trying to come to the correct interpretation of this Scripture. I spent years on sometimes just a word or part of a verse trying ever so hard to understand it. My problem though was that I was trying to understand it the way scholars taught it. (I refused to listen to anyone for years concerning endtime prophecy who was not an acclaimed "scholar")


And if I remember correctly, Herod's remodeling of the Temple wasn't finished until 60 something AD.

Could have been. But regardless, the second temple is no longer in Jerusalem. And historical records and orthodox Jews living in Israel today say that the second temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.


Shirley

David Taylor
Feb 11th 2008, 12:54 PM
John146[/B]]
Where is your evidence that "the gospel went exclusively to the Jews for a few years after 33 AD (approx.)"?
Acts 10 .

Acts 10, the same chapter where the Roman Centurion named Cornelius and his family are shared the gospel, receive it, and are saved?

Peter is taught by the "holy roll" vision that he shouldn't consider any thing or anyone unclean... But where is anything in this chapter showing exclusivity or racial impartiality of speaking or hearing the gospel to only Jews? There are several examples of Gentiles believing and following Christ prior to Acts 10.

Firstfruits
Feb 11th 2008, 01:34 PM
Nothing is said here about a 7 year GT or a 7 yr kingdom of antichrist just before the Second Coming of Christ. We are not told when this time is or who or by what means the abomination that maketh desolate is set up. But the Lord spoke this to Daniel after Gabriel had finished explaining to him in Daniel 11 about the last king of the Greecian empire. And the tells him in Daniel 12 to shut the book and seal it that he is writing down all of these prophecies in to give to the children of Israel.

It certainly doesn't tell us that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 is the antichrist and not Jesus Christ. Nor that the timing of v. 27 is 7 years before the Second Coming of Christ making the 70th week, a 2000+ week of years after the 69th week instead of the actual 70th week.

Jesus was crucified after the 69th week according to Daniel 9:26 which would have been the 70th week. Jesus fulfilled the 70th week already.

Nowhere do we find antichrist fulfilling or prophecied to fulfill the 70th week in the future anywhere in the Bible. Nor do we find in Daniel 9:27 or anywhere else in the Bible where antichrist confirms a covenant with the nation of Israel to restore her kingdom back to her and to rebuild their third stone temple. Nor do we find the Levitical priesthood offering sacrifices in the rebuilt temple. Nor antichrist going into the holy of holies and sitting down on his throne above the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant after 3 1/2 years into the 70th week. Nor do we find the Jews at that moment decide that the antichrist, whom they had accepted and worshipped as their promised Messiah, was not their Messiah after all and then antichrist breaks their 7 year covenant and stops the Levitical priesthood from offering animal sacrifices.

It is just not there regardless of how many Bible scholar prophecy teachers force Daniel 9:27 to say such.



I believe that Jesus is speaking about Daniel 9:26b and 27b which was fulfill in 70 AD which was not part of Daniel's 70 weeks of years. I don't believe Matthew 24:15 is about a future 7 yr GT just before the Second Coming of Christ. And I don't believe that He is referring to the 70th week of Daniel. Nor does Jesus say here that antichrist is the "he" of Daniel 9:27.

Jesus answers two questions of His disciples in Matthew 24:
1. When would the temple and all of its buildings be destroyed?
2. When would Jesus come again?

We know that the second temple has been destroyed fulfilling both Daniel 9:26b and 27b and Jesus's prophecy:

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Jesus has not returned yet. So that prophecy is still unfulfilled but will be fulfilled.


Shirley

Was Jesus talking about the destruction of the temple or the destructiopn of the world, according to the disciples question and therefore his answer to them?

Mt 24:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

When Jesus spoke of the abomination, it was regarding the end of the world. The beast and the false prophet will be here when Christ returns, and this earth will be destroyed/passed away.

Rev 19:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Rev 19:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

This is a future event, and cannot be fulfilled until the end.

the rookie
Feb 11th 2008, 02:04 PM
Acts 10, the same chapter where the Roman Centurion named Cornelius and his family are shared the gospel, receive it, and are saved?

Peter is taught by the "holy roll" vision that he shouldn't consider any thing or anyone unclean... But where is anything in this chapter showing exclusivity or racial impartiality of speaking or hearing the gospel to only Jews? There are several examples of Gentiles believing and following Christ prior to Acts 10.

Sure there are - that wasn't necessarily my point. Acts 10 and Acts 15 help us connect to the mindset of the Jewish believers after the death and resurrection of Jesus - one that didn't necessarily think or function in terms of taking the gospel to the Gentiles. The gospel examples of Gentile faith would be seen, by a first century Jew, in the same light as the "God-fearers" that participated in the local synagogues.

Gentiles coming into the faith is one thing. Taking the gospel to the Gentiles is another. Thus the idea that Jesus spent 40 days with them after His resurrection, ascended into heaven, and then the early church immediately thought, "Sweet! Let's take this thing to the Gentiles!" is an idea no credible New Testament historian or scholar would endorse.

It took an Acts 10 radical paradigm shift for Peter to understand that the gospel going to the Gentiles was in the heart of God all along - and James recognized this in Acts 15, when the early church clarified the terms by which the Gentles participated in what was still a Jewish faith at that point. The narrative of Acts 10, however, gives us insight into what a difficult idea this was initially to the Jewish preachers. Thus the shift in the early church was this - "Wow, we can take the gospel to the Gentiles too?"

David Taylor
Feb 11th 2008, 03:00 PM
Taking the gospel to the Gentiles is another. Thus the idea that Jesus spent 40 days with them after His resurrection, ascended into heaven, and then the early church immediately thought, "Sweet! Let's take this thing to the Gentiles!" is an idea no credible New Testament historian or scholar would endorse.


It seems you are saying that all of the Jewish witnesses to these statements by Jesus Himself, prior to Acts 10, would have immediately rejected and not endorsed His charge?

Mt 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations"

Mt 26:13 "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her."

Mk 13:10 "And the gospel must first be published among all nations."

Mk 16:15 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

Lk 24:46 "And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. "

Jn 11:51 "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."


And what about Jewish prophecies foretold not just before Acts 10, but even before Jesus spoke the above passages; which told of the gospel going to the Gentiles? (some hundreds of years before Acts 10)

What were the Jews speaking these prophecies talking about, if as you say, the gospel going to the Gentiles was idea they would never think of or endorse?

Mt 4:15 John the Baptist saying, "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."

Mt 12:21 "And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

Lk 2:30 "For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles"

Is 11:10 "And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious."

Is 42:6 "I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison."

Is 49:6 "And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth."

Is 49:22 "Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders."

Is 54:3 "For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles"

Is 60:1 "Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. "

Is 61:9 And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed. I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. "


Weren't all of these statements made by believing Jews in the Scriptures; prior to Acts 10?

Seems to me like a pretty credible expectation for the early Jewish believers to have had ....but I'm not a credible N.T. historian or scholar.

David Taylor
Feb 11th 2008, 03:13 PM
The pronoun "he" in vs 27 is called a REFERENT because it "refers back." Also important for the interpretation of this prophecy is that a pronoun renames (takes the place of) a noun that comes before it. The question is what does the "he" in vs 27 refer back to? It refers back what's called an ANTECEDENT. An antecedent is the word, phrase, or clause to which a pronoun refers, understood by the context. The antedecent is the noun that comes before the pronoun, providing that it meets certain rules, like plurality and gender. After a compound antecedent connected by or or nor, a pronound agrees with the element of the antecedent nearer to it.

My conclusion is that the "he" in vs 27 would refer back to the "the prince" of the people that shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. It would not skip "the prince" and go to "the Messiah". That is the proper grammatical interpretation of the verse.

OK, and applying your same rules of grammatical interpretation; if the 'he' in verse 27 must point back to 'the prince' in verse 26.....

then the same applicaiton must be consistency applied about 'the prince' in verse 26; must also point back to 'Messiah the prince' in verse 25.

There is no new "he" introduced, defined, or differentiated in verse 27.
The "he" of verse 27 points back to 'the prince' of verse 26.

There is no new "prince" introduced, defined, or differentiated in verse 26.
The "prince" of verse 26 points back to "Messiah the prince", the only "prince", the only "he", the person who is the entire subject of the 70 weeks Prophecy.

Nowhere within that prophecy are two different princes introduced, distinguished, and differentiated. The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 is about "Messiah the Prince", "Messiah", "himself", "the prince", "he".

Who caused the sacrifice and offering to Stop when He was cut off, in the midst of the 70th and final week of the prophecy?

Jesus, Messiah!

Good Job! Very good explanation of Grammar and the atencedent referent.

Firstfruits
Feb 11th 2008, 04:21 PM
According to the following who is it that takes away the daily sacrifice?
Who magnified himself as prince?
Dan 8:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
Dan 8:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
Dan 8:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.
Dan 8:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
Dan 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Dan 9:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

David Taylor
Feb 11th 2008, 04:43 PM
Daniel 8 is talking about Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 160 B.C., making an desolate abomination (a pig sacrificed) in the Jewish Temple.

Daniel 9 is talking about Jesus Christ, circa 33 A.D., ending the desolate abominations (God's Son sacrificed) in the Jewish Temple.

Firstfruits
Feb 11th 2008, 04:52 PM
Daniel 8 is talking about Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 160 B.C., making an desolate abomination (a pig sacrificed) in the Jewish Temple.

Daniel 9 is talking about Jesus Christ, circa 33 A.D., ending the desolate abominations (God's Son sacrificed) in the Jewish Temple.

How is this taking away the daily sacrifice since he is giving a sacrifice?
Daniel 8 is talking about Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 160 B.C., making an desolate abomination (a pig sacrificed) in the Jewish Temple

Who is the abomination that shall stand in the holy place?

Firstfruits
Feb 11th 2008, 06:08 PM
One of these scriptures refers to the abomination spoken of by Christ, but which one is it?

This one?
Dan 8:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.
Dan 8:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
Dan 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Or this one?
Dan 9:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Or this one?
Dan 11:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Or could it be this one?
Dan 12:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Which one is Christ speaking of?

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Mk 13:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Remember the beast and the false prophet will be here when Christ returns, to be destroyed by Christ.
Rev 19:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Which of the scriptures spoken of by daniel is the antichrist/false prophet that will be here at Christs return?

David Taylor
Feb 11th 2008, 07:03 PM
How is this taking away the daily sacrifice since he is giving a sacrifice?
Daniel 8 is talking about Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 160 B.C., making an desolate abomination (a pig sacrificed) in the Jewish Temple

Who is the abomination that shall stand in the holy place?


Jesus took away the old daily sacrificial system, when He gave His body to be the final sacrifice.

"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever"

David Taylor
Feb 11th 2008, 07:09 PM
One of these scriptures refers to the abomination spoken of by Christ, but which one is it?

This one?
Dan 8:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.
Dan 8:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
Dan 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Or this one?
Dan 9:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Or this one?
Dan 11:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Or could it be this one?
Dan 12:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Which one is Christ speaking of?

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Mk 13:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Remember the beast and the false prophet will be here when Christ returns, to be destroyed by Christ.
Rev 19:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Which of the scriptures spoken of by daniel is the antichrist/false prophet that will be here at Christs return?


In Matthew 24, Christ spoke of two events.

1) Jesus spoke of the soon-coming destruction of the temple, which the Jews would recognize as the ultimate abomination of desolation; in similar fashion but even worse than, the abomination of the temple that Antiochus Epiphanes did in Daniel 8 & 11.

2) Jesus spoke of His final return at the end of the world.

The 'abomination of desolation' part of Matthew 24, was referring to the destruction of the temple; in like fashion (but worse) to its desecration back in the days of Antiochus.

Jesus did quote from Daniel 9 also, several times; but it was an unrelated event to this prior one. When Jesus quoted Daniel 9; it was to remind them that He was going to put an end to the sacrifices and offerings with the offering of His body, and His blood; to confirm the covenant with many.

Romulus
Feb 11th 2008, 07:50 PM
I see your reasoning, but it seems to be off by a few years. The gospel went exclusively to the Jews for a few years after 33 AD (approx.) until Peter's vision began to open the door for the gospel to go to the Gentiles. Even then it would be quite some time before it went exclusively to the Gentiles - it still went to the Jew first according to Paul's pattern.

Thus your reasoning isn't very airtight.


Hi Rookie!

You posted earlier about Acts 10 where David Taylor mentioned the Centurion. I don't believe it went exclusively to gentiles after the 70 week timeframe since the Gospel was now available to everyone, not just Jews. Also, if we nitpick that fact was even within the ministry of Jesus He did minister to the woman at the well in John 4. She was a Samaritan, a gentile from Samaria. She was a Gentile who Jesus revealed who He was to her. Even more interesting is the statement that she states:

"when the Christ comes, He will explain everything to us".......

The Christ(Jesus) was somehow known to gentiles and somewhere written that He(Jesus) would when He comes minister to all the Gentiles. Here we have a plan already in action for all the world to be saved, even while Israel was first given the Gospel.

Do you see anything different?

Firstfruits
Feb 11th 2008, 08:02 PM
In Matthew 24, Christ spoke of two events.

1) Jesus spoke of the soon-coming destruction of the temple, which the Jews would recognize as the ultimate abomination of desolation; in similar fashion but even worse than, the abomination of the temple that Antiochus Epiphanes did in Daniel 8 & 11.

2) Jesus spoke of His final return at the end of the world.

The 'abomination of desolation' part of Matthew 24, was referring to the destruction of the temple; in like fashion (but worse) to its desecration back in the days of Antiochus.

Jesus did quote from Daniel 9 also, several times; but it was an unrelated event to this prior one. When Jesus quoted Daniel 9; it was to remind them that He was going to put an end to the sacrifices and offerings with the offering of His body, and His blood; to confirm the covenant with many.

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

How do you explain that the abomination will stand in the holy place?

Again I ask which one does Christ refer to?

Accoding to scripture one of these spoken of by Daniel will be here at christs return.

Dan 8:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, And understAnding dark sentences, shall stAnd up.
Dan 8:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
Dan 8:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

The kingdom of these kings will not be destroyed until Christ returns, it is not just the destuction of the temple, but the earth.Dan 2:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: And the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces And consume all these kingdoms, And it shall stAnd for ever.
His final return will be when the baeast and false prophet are destoyed.

David Taylor
Feb 11th 2008, 08:39 PM
Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

How do you explain that the abomination will stand in the holy place?

Again I ask which one does Christ refer to?

Accoding to scripture one of these spoken of by Daniel will be here at christs return.


Christ is talking about the upcoming rampage of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

The Romans would make what the Jews held to be their 'holy place', an abomination, by not only entering the holy of holies; but destroying it; with not one stone left upon another.

That is what Matthew 24:15 was talking about.





Dan 8:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, And understAnding dark sentences, shall stAnd up.
Dan 8:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
Dan 8:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

The kingdom of these kings will not be destroyed until Christ returns, it is not just the destuction of the temple, but the earth.Dan 2:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: And the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces And consume all these kingdoms, And it shall stAnd for ever.


None of Daniel 8 remains in our future. It was in Daniel's future; but Daniel was written circa 500 B.C.

The Grecco-Persian Empire did not triumph over God's kingdom; but eventually was destroyed.

However God's Kingdom still stands; and will standing forever.

You seem to be intermixing passages from Daniel 8, 9, 11, and Matthew 24 interchangeably....yet, they are referring to distinctly different events.

Daniel 8 and 11 speak of future events to Daniel, that were fulfilled during the Grecco-Persian reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 160 B.C.

Daniel 9 refers to future events to Daniel, that were fulfilled between the time of the letter to rebuild Jerusalem, and the coming of Jesus to end the offerings and sacrifice, and to make reconciliation for iniquity.

Matthew 24:15 refers to a future event beyond those two events; and is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple under the Romans in 70 A.D.; which the Jews witnessing it would see similarly and understand it to by an abomination to their holy place; like and in the similar pattern but much worse, than what happened in 160 B.C. by Antiochus Epiphanes.

All of those events were future to Daniel; but are all past to us from our perspective.

the rookie
Feb 12th 2008, 03:59 AM
It seems you are saying that all of the Jewish witnesses to these statements by Jesus Himself, prior to Acts 10, would have immediately rejected and not endorsed His charge?

Um, no. I'm saying that these phrases weren't spoken in a vacuum, and the human beings that heard them also misunderstood things Jesus said like, "I am going to the cross to die..." They seemed to mess up lots of things Jesus said prior to the cross, and Peter didn't always do that great afterwards either - which is why Paul confronted him about his behavior towards the Gentiles later on.

It's our gift for hindsight that allows us to isolate the statements Jesus made and imagine that they understood them as perfectly as we do now.


Mt 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations"

I appreciate throwing passages up for us to consider, but what does doing so prove? It shows what Jesus said, but it doesn't establish what they understood when they heard it. One could imagine a Jew going out to preach to his brethren in the diaspora the good news about the arrival of the long awaited kingdom without fully connecting that the Gentiles would have equal and free access to that kingdom.


Mt 26:13 "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her."

Jesus said this after Mary had been criticized "sharply" by the disciples, according to Mark's gospel; thus it's clear that they didn't quite get what was happening at the time. So including the whole passage would be more helpful.


Mk 13:10 "And the gospel must first be published among all nations."

See above.


Mk 16:15 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

And you imagine that they fully grasped the implications of this at the time Jesus spoke it? So why did God give Peter the Acts 10 vision three times?


Lk 24:46 "And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. "

Yep, they saw it. Didn't fully understand it 'till later, but they saw it. What does this prove, again?


Jn 11:51 "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."

Again, this doesn't prove much, except that Jesus said it. Quoting scripture doesn't change the hearer's understanding at the time the words were spoken. The gospels weren't written in 33 AD, after all. What exactly is the point here again?



And what about Jewish prophecies foretold not just before Acts 10, but even before Jesus spoke the above passages; which told of the gospel going to the Gentiles? (some hundreds of years before Acts 10)

What were the Jews speaking these prophecies talking about, if as you say, the gospel going to the Gentiles was idea they would never think of or endorse?

This is an odd conversation, since there were TONS of prophetic utterances that they didn't fully grasp; one could argue that there are tons that we don't fully grasp to this day. I've heard you state many times how one shouldn't take into consideration the Jewish expectation of an earthly kingdom for precisely that reason - because they so clearly misunderstood the prophetic passages and the true nature of the kingdom that was inaugerated at the coming of Jesus. Are you reversing field and stating emphatically that they fully grasped and understood these passages?


[COLOR=Blue][I]Mt 4:15 John the Baptist saying, "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."

Um, isn't Matthew just quoting Isaiah 9 and the prophetic promise of light coming to the northern tribes after the "gloom" of the Assyrian invasion? Why are you including this passage? Do you know why the region was called Galilee of the Gentiles?



Weren't all of these statements made by believing Jews in the Scriptures; prior to Acts 10?

Um, yes...sort of. They were made by one believing Jew prior to Acts 10 - Isaiah; are you saying that the Jews and the disciples fully grasped all that he had to say about the destiny of the Gentiles in the plans of God? How do you substantiate that leap of logic? Particularly when the gospels that quote those passages were written long after Acts 10, not prior?


Seems to me like a pretty credible expectation for the early Jewish believers to have had ....but I'm not a credible N.T. historian or scholar.

the rookie
Feb 12th 2008, 04:03 AM
Hi Rookie!

You posted earlier about Acts 10 where David Taylor mentioned the Centurion. I don't believe it went exclusively to gentiles after the 70 week timeframe since the Gospel was now available to everyone, not just Jews. Also, if we nitpick that fact was even within the ministry of Jesus He did minister to the woman at the well in John 4. She was a Samaritan, a gentile from Samaria. She was a Gentile who Jesus revealed who He was to her. Even more interesting is the statement that she states:

"when the Christ comes, He will explain everything to us".......

The Christ(Jesus) was somehow known to gentiles and somewhere written that He(Jesus) would when He comes minister to all the Gentiles. Here we have a plan already in action for all the world to be saved, even while Israel was first given the Gospel.

Do you see anything different?

Samaritans weren't technically Gentiles, if we're nit-picking. They were longstanding Jewish converts who practiced and observed Jewish customs.

The "availability" of the kingdom reality of the good news is one thing, the way that history played out was another.

yoSAMite
Feb 12th 2008, 05:55 AM
OK, and applying your same rules of grammatical interpretation; if the 'he' in verse 27 must point back to 'the prince' in verse 26.....

then the same applicaiton must be consistency applied about 'the prince' in verse 26; must also point back to 'Messiah the prince' in verse 25.I don't thinks so. I happen to work for a very large bookstore and have at my use, a slew of reference books. I grabbed a couple tonight on my lunch and from what I can tell so far, what we have are compound complex sentences. Each being able to stand alone. There is no indication that the prince spoken of would need to refer back to the Messiah. I will look at and have a few others look at it and let you know if your assertion is correct.

As an aside I showed the Daniel quotation to a fellow employee who was and English major looking to go to grad school for magazine editing and asked her who the "he" would refer to. She has no eschatological leanings and she said it would refer back to the prince.

yoSAMite
Feb 12th 2008, 06:09 AM
Shirley asked
Who then do you believe "the prince" is in v. 26b?

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And do you believe that Gabriel is prophecying to Daniel in v. 26b that a rebuilt third stone temple and the city will be destroyed just before the Second Coming of Christ?I believe the prince is final world ruler yet to come, the antichrist, the rider on the white horse in Rev 6:2 and about 30 other names through out the Bible.

I've never heard what you describing about the 3rd temple, so I'd have to say no I don't believe what you asked.

Firstfruits
Feb 12th 2008, 09:44 AM
In Matthew 24, Christ spoke of two events.

1) Jesus spoke of the soon-coming destruction of the temple, which the Jews would recognize as the ultimate abomination of desolation; in similar fashion but even worse than, the abomination of the temple that Antiochus Epiphanes did in Daniel 8 & 11.

2) Jesus spoke of His final return at the end of the world.

The 'abomination of desolation' part of Matthew 24, was referring to the destruction of the temple; in like fashion (but worse) to its desecration back in the days of Antiochus.

Jesus did quote from Daniel 9 also, several times; but it was an unrelated event to this prior one. When Jesus quoted Daniel 9; it was to remind them that He was going to put an end to the sacrifices and offerings with the offering of His body, and His blood; to confirm the covenant with many.

Jesus began with not being decieved by fasle christs, and being delivered up to be persecuted/afflicted.

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

All this takes place before Jesus returns.

So which false christ is Jesus refering to, concerning Daniels prophecy that shall stand in the holy place, and also be here at Christs return?

Where is the mention of the destruction of the temple?

David Taylor
Feb 12th 2008, 12:46 PM
24:4 -26
All this takes place before Jesus returns.

So which false christ is Jesus refering to, concerning Daniels prophecy that shall stand in the holy place, and also be here at Christs return?

Where is the mention of the destruction of the temple?

A few verses earlier than you began your quite from.

Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be?(Question #1) and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?(Question #2)

Firstfruits
Feb 12th 2008, 01:46 PM
A few verses earlier than you began your quite from.

Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be?(Question #1) and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?(Question #2)

Is that not in relation to the following?

Rev 16:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, And wast, And shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
Rev 16:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

Rev 17:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Rev 18:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Rev 19:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

Babylon shall fall;

Rev 14:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Rev 16:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

Rev 17:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Rev 18:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Rev 18:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

Rev 18:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

David Taylor
Feb 12th 2008, 02:47 PM
I don't believe 1st Century Jerusalem was Babylon.

I believe Babylon to be a representation of the wicked rebellion against God that has always existed; throughout history; and which will ultimately and finally be beaten and destroyed at Christ's Return.

From my understanding, Babylon the Great would include the ancient wicked people who hunted Enoch, mocked Noah, lived in Sodom, built Babel, drove the Hittites, Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines to idolatry; included Assyria and Babylon Kingdoms; then Greeco-Persian, then Roman, then all the kingdoms throughout the dark ages leading up to current day Germany and Japan and Islam, and the rebellion that still stands against God.


The 1st century destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem was just a small piece of the puzzle of Satan's horde that stands against God throughout time....until the Lord returns to cast them all into the fiery furnace forever and ever.

Firstfruits
Feb 12th 2008, 03:39 PM
I don't believe 1st Century Jerusalem was Babylon.

I believe Babylon to be a representation of the wicked rebellion against God that has always existed; throughout history; and which will ultimately and finally be beaten and destroyed at Christ's Return.

From my understanding, Babylon the Great would include the ancient wicked people who hunted Enoch, mocked Noah, lived in Sodom, built Babel, drove the Hittites, Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines to idolatry; included Assyria and Babylon Kingdoms; then Greeco-Persian, then Roman, then all the kingdoms throughout the dark ages leading up to current day Germany and Japan and Islam, and the rebellion that still stands against God.


The 1st century destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem was just a small piece of the puzzle of Satan's horde that stands against God throughout time....until the Lord returns to cast them all into the fiery furnace forever and ever.

I am not talking about 1st century Babylon, but the Babylon at Christs return, at judgment day.

Rev 18:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

Rev 18:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Babylon will be here when Christ returns, or else how can he destroy it?

What you need to ask is, are they the same?

David Taylor
Feb 12th 2008, 03:55 PM
I am not talking about 1st century Babylon, but the Babylon at Christs return, at judgment day.

Rev 18:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

Rev 18:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Babylon will be here when Christ returns, or else how can he destroy it?

What you need to ask is, are they the same?



I believe 'Babylon' is an ongoing, contining kingdom that is Satan's kingdom in revolt and rebellion against God's kingdom.

It has been in place since ancient times, was in place throughout the centuries, is in place now, and will continue until Christ returns; and casts it into the fiery furnace.

Firstfruits
Feb 12th 2008, 04:00 PM
I believe 'Babylon' is an ongoing, contining kingdom that is Satan's kingdom in revolt and rebellion against God's kingdom.

It has been in place since ancient times, was in place throughout the centuries, is in place now, and will continue until Christ returns; and casts it into the fiery furnace.

Is the first century babylon the same as the Babylon that shall be destroyed when Jesus returns?

The first Babylon, head of gold.

37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

David Taylor
Feb 12th 2008, 04:14 PM
Is the first century babylon the same as the Babylon that shall be destroyed when Jesus returns?


Different individuals within it now; but same kingdom and same leader (Satan).

Just like the first century kingdom of Christ had different individuals than it does today, but is the same kingdom and the same leader (Christ).

Firstfruits
Feb 12th 2008, 04:18 PM
Different individuals within it now; but same kingdom and same leader (Satan).

Just like the first century kingdom of Christ had different individuals than it does today, but is the same kingdom and the same leader (Christ).

But not the beast and the false prophet that shall stand at Christs return.

David Taylor
Feb 12th 2008, 05:08 PM
But not the beast and the false prophet that shall stand at Christs return.

If the Beast and the False Prophet are correctly identified as 'personified individuals' then yes, they can't be the same.

If the Beast and the False Prophet are correctly identified as 'systems', then they could be a continuation of the same.

I don't know that I am personally convince 100% in either direction and have seen good arguements in both directions.

Shouldn't we stop the rabbit-chase though, and let the thread get back to Daniel 9:27; Jesus or the Antichrist.....which is the OP?

Defining Beasts and FPs could always be a more indepth new thread for those interested.

Firstfruits
Feb 12th 2008, 06:48 PM
If the Beast and the False Prophet are correctly identified as 'personified individuals' then yes, they can't be the same.

If the Beast and the False Prophet are correctly identified as 'systems', then they could be a continuation of the same.

I don't know that I am personally convince 100% in either direction and have seen good arguements in both directions.

Shouldn't we stop the rabbit-chase though, and let the thread get back to Daniel 9:27; Jesus or the Antichrist.....which is the OP?

Defining Beasts and FPs could always be a more indepth new thread for those interested.

Since we are trying to find out wether or not Daniel 9:27; Jesus or the antichrist, I would then repeat an earlier question, that is, which of the scriptures concerning Daniel referes to the antichrist according to Matthew 24, (the abomination that shall stand in the holy place).

This does however leads back to wether or not what Jesus spoke of is yet to come, and that the a/c he spoke of will be here at Christs return.

David Taylor
Feb 12th 2008, 07:00 PM
Since we are trying to find out wether or not Daniel 9:27; Jesus or the antichrist, I would then repeat an earlier question, that is, which of the scriptures concerning Daniel referes to the antichrist according to Matthew 24, (the abomination that shall stand in the holy place).


I don't think there is any clear and sound evidence to believe Daniel refers to any end-time antichrist.

Daniel refers to Jesus in Daniel chapter 9.
Daniel refers to Antichus Epiphenes in Daniel chapters 8 and 11.

Revelation 11, 16-20 clearly (to me) speak of an endtime beast, that is popularly called 'the antichrist'. I don't find Daniel doing that however, in neither chapters 8, 9, or 11.



This does however leads back to wether or not what Jesus spoke of is yet to come, and that the a/c he spoke of will be here at Christs return.

Since Jesus doesn't speak of any antichrist in Matthew chapter 23-24, nor in verse 24:15; but Jesus does speak of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple those same passages; why would we want to read 'an antichrist' into Matthew 24:15 in the first place?

Matthew 24:15 can be explained readily, by realizing Jesus was talking about how the Jews would consider the Roman armies entering and standing within the holy of holies, and subsequently destroying the very temple itself; as being the "abomination of desolation that stands in the holy place"....

The Jews who would witness this, would liken it to the same historical desecration of the temple that Antichus Epiphenes did during the Macebean revolt circa 160 B.C....so they would remember that Daniel wrote about that historical event (Daniel chapters 8 and 11).

Just my current understanding though....enjoy reading everyone elses.

Firstfruits
Feb 12th 2008, 07:16 PM
I don't think there is any clear and sound evidence to believe Daniel refers to any end-time antichrist.

Daniel refers to Jesus in Daniel chapter 9.
Daniel refers to Antichus Epiphenes in Daniel chapters 8 and 11.

Revelation 11, 16-20 clearly (to me) speak of an endtime beast, that is popularly called 'the antichrist'. I don't find Daniel doing that however, in neither chapters 8, 9, or 11.



Since Jesus doesn't speak of any antichrist in Matthew chapter 23-24, nor in verse 24:15; but Jesus does speak of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple those same passages; why would we want to read 'an antichrist' into Matthew 24:15 in the first place?

Matthew 24:15 can be explained readily, by realizing Jesus was talking about how the Jews would consider the Roman armies entering and standing within the holy of holies, and subsequently destroying the very temple itself; as being the "abomination of desolation that stands in the holy place"....

The Jews who would witness this, would liken it to the same historical desecration of the temple that Antichus Epiphenes did during the Macebean revolt circa 160 B.C....so they would remember that Daniel wrote about that historical event (Daniel chapters 8 and 11).

Just my current understanding though....enjoy reading everyone elses.

Compare these scriptures, are they the same event/person?

2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Dan 11:36 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=36) And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
Dan 11:37 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=37) Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

John146
Feb 12th 2008, 07:18 PM
Acts 10 .

Can you be more specific than that? :)

Is there any mention of the amount of time that has gone by up to that point? If so, please point me to it because I can't find it.

John146
Feb 12th 2008, 07:31 PM
Was Jesus talking about the destruction of the temple or the destructiopn of the world, according to the disciples question and therefore his answer to them?

Mt 24:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

When Jesus spoke of the abomination, it was regarding the end of the world. The beast and the false prophet will be here when Christ returns, and this earth will be destroyed/passed away.

Rev 19:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Rev 19:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

This is a future event, and cannot be fulfilled until the end.

Jesus had just finished telling them that the temple that was standing at that time was going to be completely destroyed. They then asked when that would happen (when shall these things be?) as well as when His coming and the end of the age would occur. In which verses in Matthew 24 do you believe Jesus answered the first question regarding when the temple (the second temple) would be destroyed?

David Taylor
Feb 12th 2008, 07:40 PM
Compare these scriptures, are they the same event/person?

2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Dan 11:36 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=36) And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
Dan 11:37 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=37) Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)



Daniel 11 speaks about the past actions of Antichious Epiphenes circa 160 B.C.

Matthew 24:15 speaks of the destruction of the Temple circa 70 A.D.

2 Thessalonians 2 is the only even future to our present time; and is an ongoing process where Satan continues to grow his tares among the wheat; and the church continues to grow smaller and weaker and be less and less effective in this apostate, falling away world.

John146
Feb 12th 2008, 08:13 PM
OK, and applying your same rules of grammatical interpretation; if the 'he' in verse 27 must point back to 'the prince' in verse 26.....

then the same applicaiton must be consistency applied about 'the prince' in verse 26; must also point back to 'Messiah the prince' in verse 25.

There is no new "he" introduced, defined, or differentiated in verse 27.
The "he" of verse 27 points back to 'the prince' of verse 26.

There is no new "prince" introduced, defined, or differentiated in verse 26.
The "prince" of verse 26 points back to "Messiah the prince", the only "prince", the only "he", the person who is the entire subject of the 70 weeks Prophecy.

Nowhere within that prophecy are two different princes introduced, distinguished, and differentiated. The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 is about "Messiah the Prince", "Messiah", "himself", "the prince", "he".

Who caused the sacrifice and offering to Stop when He was cut off, in the midst of the 70th and final week of the prophecy?

Jesus, Messiah!

Good Job! Very good explanation of Grammar and the atencedent referent.

I've been considering your interpretation of the prince in verse 26b as a possibility. It's certainly plausible if it is speaking of the Jews "cutting off" the Messiah and thereby virtually destroying their city and sanctuary as a result of their rejection of Christ. Is that your understanding of the text? Jesus did render their house (temple) desolate and predicted its destruction because of their rejection of Him. The literal consummation of the destruction of the city and the temple, of course, occurred in 70 AD.

I think it also could be speaking of Titus and the Roman armies destroying the city and the sanctuary, but it depends on whether it is speaking of the actual people who literally, physically destroyed the city and the sanctuary or not. Regardless, what amazes me is that people somehow determine that the sanctuary is not the temple that would be in existence when the Messiah was cut off (crucified), but instead is referring to a temple that is rebuilt far into the future. That just doesn't compute.

David Taylor
Feb 12th 2008, 08:29 PM
I've been considering your interpretation of the prince in verse 26b as a possibility. It's certainly plausible if it is speaking of the Jews "cutting off" the Messiah and thereby virtually destroying their city and sanctuary as a result of their rejection of Christ. Is that your understanding of the text? Jesus did render their house (temple) desolate and predicted its destruction because of their rejection of Him. The literal consummation of the destruction of the city and the temple, of course, occurred in 70 AD.

I think it also could be speaking of Titus and the Roman armies destroying the city and the sanctuary, but it depends on whether it is speaking of the actual people who literally, physically destroyed the city and the sanctuary or not. Regardless, what amazes me is that people somehow determine that the sanctuary is not the temple that would be in existence when the Messiah was cut off (crucified), but instead is referring to a temple that is rebuilt far into the future. That just doesn't compute.



I agree...either or both of those interpretations seem much more tendable to me; that interjecting a unintroduced, unmentioned in the context, endtime figure thousands of years after the 70 weeks were completed.

Fundamentally, the Jews were responsible for the temple being razed, and the Romans were the tools used for the destruction....all because the true temple Jesus was killed and rejected.

John146
Feb 12th 2008, 08:46 PM
I am not talking about 1st century Babylon, but the Babylon at Christs return, at judgment day.

Rev 18:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

Rev 18:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Babylon will be here when Christ returns, or else how can he destroy it?

What you need to ask is, are they the same?

Where do those verses, or any of the ones you quoted in your previous post, say anything about the destruction of the second temple, which is what Jesus predicted would happen in Matthew 24:2?

Firstfruits
Feb 13th 2008, 10:16 AM
Where do those verses, or any of the ones you quoted in your previous post, say anything about the destruction of the second temple, which is what Jesus predicted would happen in Matthew 24:2?

If when Christ returns he destroys the earth, what happens to the temple that is on the earth?

ShirleyFord
Feb 13th 2008, 11:14 AM
If when Christ returns he destroys the earth, what happens to the temple that is on the earth?

What temple specifically are you referring to?

Firstfruits
Feb 13th 2008, 12:12 PM
What temple specifically are you referring to?

The temple of God in which the beast/antichrist shall sit.

2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

John146
Feb 13th 2008, 10:17 PM
If when Christ returns he destroys the earth, what happens to the temple that is on the earth?

I didn't ask you about any supposed future temple. I was asking you in which verses did Jesus answer the question regarding when the temple buildings that were standing at that time would be destroyed. Are you trying to say that you believe Jesus was speaking of some other temple than the one standing at that time despite the fact that He said "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."(Matt 24:2). Notice, He was clearly speaking of the temple standing at that time as evidenced by His question "see ye not all these things?". In Mark 13:2 it's worded as "Seest thou these great buildings?". So, "these things" were the temple buildings that the disciples had just been marveling at as they said "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" (Mark 13:1).

So, I'll ask the question again. In which verses do you believe Jesus answered the question "when shall these things be"? We saw that "these things" refer to the temple buildings. So, they were asking "when shall the temple buildings be destroyed with no stone left upon another?".

John146
Feb 13th 2008, 10:24 PM
The temple of God in which the beast/antichrist shall sit.

2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

I think you're taking the sitting in the temple too literally. Did God ever literally sit in the temple? I don't believe so. Yet it says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God as if he is God. The "sitting" in the temple is symbolic and not literal. It has to do with where the man of sin dwells. Also, the church is the temple of God. So, it's saying that the man of sin would dwell within the church. There will be no future physical temple building that would be worthy of being called "the temple of God".

ShirleyFord
Feb 14th 2008, 02:23 AM
I think you're taking the sitting in the temple too literally. Did God ever literally sit in the temple? I don't believe so. Yet it says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God as if he is God. The "sitting" in the temple is symbolic and not literal. It has to do with where the man of sin dwells. Also, the church is the temple of God. So, it's saying that the man of sin would dwell within the church. There will be no future physical temple building that would be worthy of being called "the temple of God".

Your are absolutely right, Eric. God never physically was in the tabernacle that He told Moses to build in the wilderness. But God told him that He would meet with him in the sanctuary of the tabernacle:

Ex 25:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=25&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Ex 29:42 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=29&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=42) This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee.

Ex 29:43 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=29&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=43) And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory.

Ex 30:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=30&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And thou shalt put it before the vail that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee.

Ex 30:36 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=30&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=36) And thou shalt beat some of it very small, and put of it before the testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation, where I will meet with thee: it shall be unto you most holy.


God was in the tabernacle spiritually, not physically.


After Solomon finished building the first stone temple, he had the high priest and his priests to move the tabernacle into the temple:

2 Chronicles 5:1 Thus all the work that Solomon made for the house of the LORD was finished: and Solomon brought in all the things that David his father had dedicated; and the silver, and the gold, and all the instruments, put he among the treasures of the house of God.

2 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion.

3 Wherefore all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto the king in the feast which was in the seventh month.

4 And all the elders of Israel came; and the Levites took up the ark.

5 And they brought up the ark, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, these did the priests and the Levites bring up.

6 Also king Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel that were assembled unto him before the ark, sacrificed sheep and oxen, which could not be told nor numbered for multitude.

7 And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, to the oracle of the house, into the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim:

8 For the cherubim spread forth their wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubim covered the ark and the staves thereof above.

9 And they drew out the staves of the ark, that the ends of the staves were seen from the ark before the oracle; but they were not seen without. And there it is unto this day.

10 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.


Notice how God met them:

11 And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place: (for all the priests that were present were sanctified, and did not then wait by course:

12 Also the Levites which were the singers, all of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun, with their sons and their brethren, being arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets)

13 It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the LORD;

14 So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of God.


In the same way, we find the man of sin, the spirit of an antichrist/devil seated in the Church, the true temple of God today on the earth.


Revelation 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.


Shirley

Firstfruits
Feb 14th 2008, 09:42 AM
I think you're taking the sitting in the temple too literally. Did God ever literally sit in the temple? I don't believe so. Yet it says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God as if he is God. The "sitting" in the temple is symbolic and not literal. It has to do with where the man of sin dwells. Also, the church is the temple of God. So, it's saying that the man of sin would dwell within the church. There will be no future physical temple building that would be worthy of being called "the temple of God".

Wether he stands or sits, it simply means he will be in the temple of God.

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Mk 13:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Dan 11:45 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=45) And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

ross3421
Feb 14th 2008, 10:20 AM
Wether he stands or sits, it simply means he will be in the temple of God.

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Mk 13:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Dan 11:45 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=45) And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

He must get tired of standing.........

Isa 14:13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:


Mark

ross3421
Feb 14th 2008, 10:22 AM
[quote=ShirleyFord;1536905]God never physically was in the tabernacle

God was in the tabernacle spiritually, not physically.


Well, God is a spirit........ :D


Mark

Firstfruits
Feb 14th 2008, 11:11 AM
He must get tired of standing.........

Isa 14:13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:


Mark

Do you agree then, that as in the scripture you have given, the antichrist will be in the temple of God? As it is written?

ross3421
Feb 14th 2008, 11:31 AM
Do you agree then, that as in the scripture you have given, the antichrist will be in the temple of God? As it is written?

Absolutely. You should know my take by now.

ShirleyFord
Feb 14th 2008, 12:06 PM
Well, God is a spirit........ :D


Mark


Would you also agree Mark that the devil is not a physical being but a spirit being?


Shirley

ShirleyFord
Feb 14th 2008, 12:23 PM
Wether he stands or sits, it simply means he will be in the temple of God.

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Mk 13:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Dan 11:45 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=45) And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

According to the OP we are trying to determine with Scripture who the "he" is of Daniel 9:27 - Jesus Christ or antichrist.

Now according to what I've been able to glean from what you have posted in this thread, you believe that the "he" refers back to "the prince that shall come" in v. 26b (even though v. 26b says nothing about a prince that shall come) that you believe refers to a future antichrist.

Let's say you are correct and the "he" of v. 27 is the antichrist of v. 26b. How then could he destroy a third rebuilt temple in v. 26b before he builds it in v. 27 and then sits in it in the midst of the week?


Shirley

Firstfruits
Feb 14th 2008, 12:32 PM
Absolutely. You should know my take by now.

With the understanding then that the antichrist will sit in the temple of God, and be here when Christ returns according to the following what will happen to the beasts kingdom?

Dan 7:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) And he shall speak great words against the most High, And shall wear out the saints of the most High, And think to change times And laws: And they shall be given into his hAnd until a time And times And the dividing of time.
Dan 7:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

Where is the Holy mountain that he shall dwell?

Dan 11:45 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=45) And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
Dan 9:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) O LORD, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.

John146
Feb 14th 2008, 06:21 PM
With the understanding then that the antichrist will sit in the temple of God, and be here when Christ returns according to the following what will happen to the beasts kingdom?

Dan 7:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) And he shall speak great words against the most High, And shall wear out the saints of the most High, And think to change times And laws: And they shall be given into his hAnd until a time And times And the dividing of time.
Dan 7:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.



Can you explain to me how a future temple building could be worthy of being called the temple of God?

Firstfruits
Feb 14th 2008, 07:05 PM
According to the OP we are trying to determine with Scripture who the "he" is of Daniel 9:27 - Jesus Christ or antichrist.

Now according to what I've been able to glean from what you have posted in this thread, you believe that the "he" refers back to "the prince that shall come" in v. 26b (even though v. 26b says nothing about a prince that shall come) that you believe refers to a future antichrist.

Let's say you are correct and the "he" of v. 27 is the antichrist of v. 26b. How then could he destroy a third rebuilt temple in v. 26b before he builds it in v. 27 and then sits in it in the midst of the week?


Shirley

According to the following he shall build his tabernacle in the holy mountain, Jerusalem where he shall sits as God.

Dan 11:45 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=45) And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

Who is it that shall take away the daily sacrifice?

Dan 8:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.

Dan 9:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Dan 11:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

When is the consummation?

According to this scripture it is when Christ returns, when he destroyes the antichrist.

2 Thess 2:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Firstfruits
Feb 14th 2008, 07:17 PM
Can you explain to me how a future temple building could be worthy of being called the temple of God?

It is because it is unworthy that is shall be destroyed.

2 Thess 2:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

John146
Feb 14th 2008, 07:20 PM
It is because it is unworthy that is shall be destroyed.

2 Thess 2:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

If it is unworthy, then how can it be called the temple of God in the first place?

Firstfruits
Feb 14th 2008, 07:35 PM
If it is unworthy, then how can it be called the temple of God in the first place?

Have another look at this;
2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

He exalts himself as God so as far as he will be concerned being God would make his dwelling the temple of God. Key word here is "as God"

ShirleyFord
Feb 14th 2008, 10:05 PM
According to the following he shall build his tabernacle in the holy mountain, Jerusalem where he shall sits as God.

Dan 11:45 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=45) And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

FF, "the tabernacles of his palace" is this Grecian king's palace where he reigns from in Jerusalem before the first century and the NT era. Notice that it does not say "the temple of God". Nor does this Scripture say that this king "sits as God".



Who is it that shall take away the daily sacrifice?

Dan 8:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.


Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel:

Dan 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

So the one in v. 11 is one of the kings of the Grecian Empire. Nothing here about a rebuilt third stone temple or about the temple of God. Nor a 7 yr. reign of antichrist before the Second Coming of Christ where he goes into the holy of holies in a rebuilt stone temple in the midst of the 70th week.

Remember, the second temple had been built during the Persian Empire. So a third temple didn't have to be built when Greece came to power. In fact, the second temple was still standing at the birth of Christ and throughout the time of the NT.




Dan 9:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27)Dan 11:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
(http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27)

These Scriptures are not saying the same thing. Daniel 9:27 does not mention the Persian or Grecian empires. Nor does it mention the "little horn" of Daniel 8 & Daniel 11. Nor a 7 yr. kingdom of an antichrist during the 70th week.


When is the consummation?

According to this scripture it is when Christ returns, when he destroyes the antichrist.

2 Thess 2:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

2 Thess 2:8 is in our future but is not the king, "the little horn" of Daniel 8 & 11, nor the "he" of Daniel 9:27 as dispensationalists scholars taught me.


Shirley

Codger
Feb 14th 2008, 11:27 PM
A difficult passage to interpret and there are many different translations most of which lend to a confused interpretation. Here is another to add to the list. I use two interpretations - here is one of them. Remember that the Crucifixion was engineered by God himself - it was not happenstance in any sense of the word.

Daniel 9:27 - NIV
27 He [God] will confirm a covenant [Abrahamic] with many for one seven [years]. In the middle of the seven he [God] will put an end to sacrifice and offering [the sacrifice of Jesus - once and for all]. And on a wing [I]of the temple [Chamber of Hewn stones - hall where the Sanhedrin met] he [God] will set up an abomination [the unjust condemnation of Jesus] that causes desolation, [Destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem, and Israel] until the end that is decreed [death by crucifixion - the wrath of God] is poured out on him [Jesus - his suffering and death].

Comments:
The main thing that I have done is to simply define who “He” and “Him” are. “He” is not “The Antichrist” as so many believe today; And it is not a new "covenant" that is made, but rather a confirmation of an old one that God made long ago with Abraham.

What greater abomination could there be in all history than for the Sanhedrin - sitting in their "wing" [chamber] of the Temple - to condemn the Lord of the universe to death just for the sake of ENVY. This was the ultimate abomination of the Jewish nation and it caused the complete desolation of the Temple of God, the city and the nation itself - all that remained of Jerusalem in 73AD was the Fortress Antonia (according to eyewitnesses), which became the garrison of the 10th Roman legion for over 200 years. Today it is called the Temple Mount - the real Temple Mount with the 600 foot [inclusive] wall was destroyed just like Jesus said it would be. Not one stone left upon another.

As for the real antichrist…

1Jn 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1 Jn 2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son.
1 Jn 4:3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 Jn 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

John was the only one who ever use the term “Antichrist” 3 times in 1 Jn and once in 2 Jn. And in only one case was the definite article used - “The” Antichrist. The letters of John are commonly dated around 90AD. In 93AD the Antichrist that John was looking for appeared in the person of the emperor Domitian - the brother of Titus. Domitian came into power in 81AD. The historian Will Durant said that Domitian came in like a lamb and went out like a lion. He had a severe change in personality that was believed in that day to be the reincarnation of the cruel Nero - Revelation talks about this.

In 93AD Emperor Domitian became very cruel and heartless and began killing Christians. So John was exiled to Patmos probably between the years 91AD to 93AD. Rome always dealt with the leaders first, so John was already banished before 93AD when the persecution started. I would take an average guess of 92AD. The Revelation was written before the persecution started in 93AD.

The “Antichrist” that John was looking for came into view only a year or so after he wrote his letters in 90AD - not sometime in the 21st century some 2,000 years later. What good does it do to give a prophesy to someone 2,000 years in the future - absurd. The only long running prophesies in the Bible are concerning the Messiah. There have always been antichrists in history - even to our day. But the one that John spoke of was assassinated in 96AD. Those exiled were set free after the death of the Emperor who banished them. Tradition has it that John returned to his home in Ephesus - he was a very old man at this time.

Larry

ShirleyFord
Feb 15th 2008, 01:36 AM
And it is not a new "covenant" that is made, but rather a confirmation of an old one that God made long ago with Abraham.

Paul agrees with you:

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


Shirley

Firstfruits
Feb 15th 2008, 09:35 AM
FF, "the tabernacles of his palace" is this Grecian king's palace where he reigns from in Jerusalem before the first century and the NT era. Notice that it does not say "the temple of God". Nor does this Scripture say that this king "sits as God".



Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel:

Dan 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

So the one in v. 11 is one of the kings of the Grecian Empire. Nothing here about a rebuilt third stone temple or about the temple of God. Nor a 7 yr. reign of antichrist before the Second Coming of Christ where he goes into the holy of holies in a rebuilt stone temple in the midst of the 70th week.

Remember, the second temple had been built during the Persian Empire. So a third temple didn't have to be built when Greece came to power. In fact, the second temple was still standing at the birth of Christ and throughout the time of the NT.





These Scriptures are not saying the same thing. Daniel 9:27 does not mention the Persian or Grecian empires. Nor does it mention the "little horn" of Daniel 8 & Daniel 11. Nor a 7 yr. kingdom of an antichrist during the 70th week.



2 Thess 2:8 is in our future but is not the king, "the little horn" of Daniel 8 & 11, nor the "he" of Daniel 9:27 as dispensationalists scholars taught me.


Shirley

Is the covent the daily sacrfice, if so how many times is it taken away?

Dan 8:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.

Dan 8:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

Dan 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Dan 11:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Dan 12:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Since Jesus was cut off in "26, when shall he confirm the covenant, and then in the midst of the week take away the daily sacrifice, knowing that he does not return until the 7th trumpet.

Rev 11:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) And the seventh angel sounded; And there were great voices in heaven, saying, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, And of his Christ; And he shall reign for ever And ever.

ShirleyFord
Feb 15th 2008, 11:25 AM
Since Jesus was cut off in "26, when shall he confirm the covenant, and then in the midst of the week take away the daily sacrifice, knowing that he does not return until the 7th trumpet.

Rev 11:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) And the seventh angel sounded; And there were great voices in heaven, saying, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, And of his Christ; And he shall reign for ever And ever.

FF, notice that the daily sacrifice in not taken away in v. 27.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,


Jesus was cut off in v. 26. Then Gabriel tells Daniel when Jesus will be cut off exactly:

After the 69 weeks - v. 26a
In the midst of the 70th week - v. 27a


Gabriel tells Daniel what His being cut off will accomplish in v. 27:

Confirm the New Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, that will cause the sacrifice and the oblation of the Old Covenant to cease.


Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Acts 3:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.


Heb 12:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel.

Heb 13:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,



Shirley

Firstfruits
Feb 15th 2008, 12:12 PM
FF, notice that the daily sacrifice in not taken away in v. 27.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,


Jesus was cut off in v. 26. Then Gabriel tells Daniel when Jesus will be cut off exactly:

After the 69 weeks - v. 26a
In the midst of the 70th week - v. 27a


Gabriel tells Daniel what His being cut off will accomplish in v. 27:

Confirm the New Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, that will cause the sacrifice and the oblation of the Old Covenant to cease.


Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Acts 3:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.


Heb 12:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel.

Heb 13:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,



Shirley

When somthing has ceased to my knowledge it has ended, which is no different to being taken away, it is no longer there.

Since Jesus was cut off in "26, when shall he confirm the covenant, and then in the midst of the week take away the daily sacrifice, cause it to cease/end, knowing that he does not return until the 7th trumpet?

ShirleyFord
Feb 15th 2008, 01:28 PM
When somthing has ceased to my knowledge it has ended, which is no different to being taken away, it is no longer there.

Since Jesus was cut off in "26, when shall he confirm the covenant, and then in the midst of the week take away the daily sacrifice, cause it to cease/end, knowing that he does not return until the 7th trumpet?

Gabriel first tells Daniel what will occur during the 70th week at the First Coming of Christ, the Coming of the Promised Messiah to Daniel's people, and what He will do for Daniel's people during that 70th week:

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


In verse 25 Gabriel gives Daniel the countdown of the 69 weeks of years.

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

But notice in v. 25b, that Gabriel reverts back to the first 7 weeks of 49 years of 25a and gives more details that will occur during the beginning of the 70 weeks after he mentions Messiah. Does that mean that the street and wall of Jerusalem would be built after the coming of Messiah since that detail comes after "the Messiah the Prince"?

Of course not. Even the most acclaimed dispensationalist scholar doesn't have a problem accepting the fact that "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" is speaking about the time of 25a "to restore and to build Jerusalem" before the coming of Messiah and not after the coming of Messiah the first time, even though this detail of 25b comes after "the Messiah the Prince".

But dispensationalist scholars claim that v. 27a can't be referring to Jesus Christ and His crucifixion since we find Him "cut off" crucified already in v. 26a, plus 26b comes after the crucifixion of Christ.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


But they don't have a problem skipping over "the Messiah the Prince" in v. 25 to connect "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" to "to restore and to build Jerusalem".


Jesus caused the need for sacrifices that were offered in the Old Covenant to cease when His Body and Blood was offered for a sin offering that removed the need to offer animal sacrifices for the sins of the people.


Shirley

Firstfruits
Feb 15th 2008, 01:54 PM
Gabriel first tells Daniel what will occur during the 70th week at the First Coming of Christ, the Coming of the Promised Messiah to Daniel's people, and what He will do for Daniel's people during that 70th week:

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


In verse 25 Gabriel gives Daniel the countdown of the 69 weeks of years.

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

But notice in v. 25b, that Gabriel reverts back to the first 7 weeks of 49 years of 25a and gives more details that will occur during the beginning of the 70 weeks after he mentions Messiah. Does that mean that the street and wall of Jerusalem would be built after the coming of Messiah since that detail comes after "the Messiah the Prince"?

Of course not. Even the most acclaimed dispensationalist scholar doesn't have a problem accepting the fact that "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" is speaking about the time of 25a "to restore and to build Jerusalem" before the coming of Messiah and not after the coming of Messiah the first time, even though this detail of 25b comes after "the Messiah the Prince".

But dispensationalist scholars claim that v. 27a can't be referring to Jesus Christ and His crucifixion since we find Him "cut off" crucified already in v. 26a, plus 26b comes after the crucifixion of Christ.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


But they don't have a problem skipping over "the Messiah the Prince" in v. 25 to connect "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" to "to restore and to build Jerusalem".


Jesus caused the need for sacrifices that were offered in the Old Covenant to cease when His Body and Blood was offered for a sin offering that removed the need to offer animal sacrifices for the sins of the people.


Shirley

Thanks Shirley

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Was christs covenant confrimed for only one week (three and a half years), if so when?

What shall Jesus make desolate?

When and what is the consumation that shall be poured upon the desolate does that mean he would have to be here? ( until the consummation,)

John146
Feb 15th 2008, 02:30 PM
Thanks Shirley

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Was christs covenant confrimed for only one week (three and a half years), if so when?

The everlasting new covenant was confirmed or established by Christ's ministry, death, resurrection and ascension as well as the spreading of the gospel exclusively to the Jews starting at Pentecost before it went out to the Gentiles. His ministry lasted about three and a half years and then the rest of the week confirmed the new covenant starting with the Holy Spirit coming in power at Pentecost and giving the disciples the power and boldness to preach the gospel in Israel before going out to the Gentiles.




What shall Jesus make desolate?

The house of Jerusalem. The temple.

37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. - Matthew 23:37-38




When and what is the consumation that shall be poured upon the desolate does that mean he would have to be here? ( until the consummation,)

Even though Jesus declared their temple to be desolate even before His death, the consummation of this desolation occurred in 70 AD when the temple was physically destroyed by the Roman armies with no stone left upon another just as Jesus prophesied.

1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. - Matthew 24:1-2

40And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
41And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. - Luke 19:40-44

Firstfruits
Feb 15th 2008, 03:31 PM
The everlasting new covenant was confirmed or established by Christ's ministry, death, resurrection and ascension as well as the spreading of the gospel exclusively to the Jews starting at Pentecost before it went out to the Gentiles. His ministry lasted about three and a half years and then the rest of the week confirmed the new covenant starting with the Holy Spirit coming in power at Pentecost and giving the disciples the power and boldness to preach the gospel in Israel before going out to the Gentiles.



The house of Jerusalem. The temple.

37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. - Matthew 23:37-38



Even though Jesus declared their temple to be desolate even before His death, the consummation of this desolation occurred in 70 AD when the temple was physically destroyed by the Roman armies with no stone left upon another just as Jesus prophesied.

1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. - Matthew 24:1-2

40And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
41And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. - Luke 19:40-44

Let me say that I am not saying that the temple has not been destroyed, but if that means that the dwelling place of the antichrist in Jerusalem from which he rules the world will not also be destroyed, with not one stone left upon another, and all that he shall do regarding the martyrdom of the saints, where does Dan 9:27 apply to Matt.24 and the things that the false prophet shall do? Remember both the beast and the false prophet will be here at Christs return, and they will have their own kingdom which shall be destroyed.

John146
Feb 15th 2008, 03:46 PM
Let me say that I am not saying that the temple has not been destroyed, but if that means that the dwelling place of the antichrist in Jerusalem from which he rules the world will not also be destroyed, with not one stone left upon another, and all that he shall do regarding the martyrdom of the saints, where does Dan 9:27 apply to Matt.24 and the things that the false prophet shall do? Remember both the beast and the false prophet will be here at Christs return, and they will have their own kingdom which shall be destroyed.

I don't believe there will be a future temple that an Antichrist dwells in within Jerusalem. So, we're not on the same page there. Also, I don't believe Daniel 9:27 says anything about the second beast/false prophet. I also don't agree with your apparent take that the beast and false prophet refer to individual men. I do agree that the beast and false prophet will be here at Christ's return and He will cast them into the lake of fire at that time.

ShirleyFord
Feb 15th 2008, 03:57 PM
When somthing has ceased to my knowledge it has ended, which is no different to being taken away, it is no longer there.

Since Jesus was cut off in "26, when shall he confirm the covenant, and then in the midst of the week take away the daily sacrifice, cause it to cease/end, knowing that he does not return until the 7th trumpet?

FF, Jesus doesn't have to return to confirm the new covenant, the covenant God made with Abaham. He signed the confirmation of the new covenant with His blood at His crucifixion. And He confirmed it with many of Daniel's people during the 3 1/2 years of His earthly ministry. He continued to confirm the new covenant through His apostles after His ascension back into heaven through the Holy Spirit who was in them.

Where do you find antichrist confirming the new covenant with Israel for one week (7 yrs) before Jesus's Second Coming?


Shirley

Firstfruits
Feb 15th 2008, 04:13 PM
I don't believe there will be a future temple that an Antichrist dwells in within Jerusalem. So, we're not on the same page there. Also, I don't believe Daniel 9:27 says anything about the second beast/false prophet. I also don't agree with your apparent take that the beast and false prophet refer to individual men. I do agree that the beast and false prophet will be here at Christ's return and He will cast them into the lake of fire at that time.

What do you think about the following?

Jer 9:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.
Jer 11:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) Hear ye the words of this covenant, and speak unto the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;
Jer 11:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Then the LORD said unto me, Proclaim all these words in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, saying, Hear ye the words of this covenant, and do them.
Jer 11:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And the LORD said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Jer 11:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) Then shall the cities of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem go, and cry unto the gods unto whom they offer incense: but they shall not save them at all in the time of their trouble.

Jer 33:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=33&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Thus saith the LORD; Again there shall be heard in this place, which ye say shall be desolate without man and without beast, even in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, that are desolate, without man, and without inhabitant, and without beast,

Jer 35:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=35&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered.

If the antichrists kingdom is ruled from Jerusalem as it is written he shall sit/stand/dwell, he shall have a building though it will not be a temple of the true God but that is what it shall be and it shall be destroyed along with Jerusalem.

John146
Feb 15th 2008, 04:45 PM
What do you think about the following?

Jer 9:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.
Jer 11:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) Hear ye the words of this covenant, and speak unto the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;
Jer 11:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Then the LORD said unto me, Proclaim all these words in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, saying, Hear ye the words of this covenant, and do them.
Jer 11:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And the LORD said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Jer 11:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) Then shall the cities of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem go, and cry unto the gods unto whom they offer incense: but they shall not save them at all in the time of their trouble.

Jer 33:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=33&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Thus saith the LORD; Again there shall be heard in this place, which ye say shall be desolate without man and without beast, even in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, that are desolate, without man, and without inhabitant, and without beast,

Jer 35:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=35&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered.

If the antichrists kingdom is ruled from Jerusalem as it is written he shall sit/stand/dwell, he shall have a building though it will not be a temple of the true God but that is what it shall be and it shall be destroyed along with Jerusalem.


I don't see that those verses say anything about a future Antichrist dwelling in a temple in Jerusalem and ruling from there.

Firstfruits
Feb 15th 2008, 04:59 PM
I don't see that those verses say anything about a future Antichrist dwelling in a temple in Jerusalem and ruling from there.

With regards to the following scripture where do you believe this shall be?

2 Thess 2:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Is this yet to come?

Has the man of sin already been revealed?

John146
Feb 15th 2008, 05:52 PM
With regards to the following scripture where do you believe this shall be?

2 Thess 2:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Is this yet to come?

Has the man of sin already been revealed?

You did read my prior posts regarding my belief that the temple of God in that verse refers to the church, right? Since that is my belief, I believe this occurs throughout the world where believers are assembled. I, like many, equate the man of sin with the antichrist. I don't believe there is one man of sin or antichrist, but many, even as there was already in John's time(1 John 2:18). Here is an example of how these antichrists "sit" in the temple of God as if they are God.

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. - Acts 20:28-30

You asked if the falling away and man of sin being revelaed was yet to come. I do believe the falling away and the man of sin being revealed go hand in hand. In other words, the man of sin is revealed when the falling away occurs. And Paul does say that the falling away and the man of sin being revealed must happen first before the coming of Christ. He doesn't say how long before, but I don't see why he would relate the two if the falling away and revealing of the man of sin didn't occur not long before the return of Christ. Therefore, I believe it occurs in conjunction with the beginning of Satan's little season, which I believe occurs just prior to Christ's return.

That begs the question: when does Satan's little season begin? I don't know the date. Perhaps it has already begun? Regardless, I relate the falling away to the time when Satan is loosed from his spiritual chain so that he is once again unrestrained and able to deceive the nations from hearing the truth of God's Word the way he did before Christ came the first time. You asked whether the man of sin has already been revealed? If Satan's little season has already begun then I would say yes. Otherwise, no. If the man of sin and the antichrist are the same then the man of sin would be a reference to everyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ or that He came in the flesh (1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7). They are revealed or exposed as being antichrist by their denial of Christ.

Now, I don't doubt that you are confused as to how I can conclude that the man of sin is not actually referring to an individual man, which you would probably call the Antichrist. It's because I see it as a general term used in much the same way as the phrase "the man of God" is used here:

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

This passage is not speaking of one individual man of God, but is speaking of people of God in general. My view is that there is the man of God, which refers to believers and then there is the man of sin, which refers to unbelievers. Particularly those unbelieving false teachers and prophets who go in among our churches and anywhere else where believers assemble and pretend that they and their teachings are the truth instead of God and His Word and they lead people to follow after them and their false doctrines and teachings rather than following after Christ.

Just a Door Keeper
Feb 15th 2008, 08:48 PM
Well, the 70 weeks have not been finished yet, only 69. There remains a seven year period when the Lord will finish the transgression and annoint the most holy etc (Dan.9:24)
We know that there has not been a fulfillment of Dan.9:27, there has not been an antichrist, the mark of the beast, the Lord Jesus has not gathered His people, He has not returned to rule bodily yet, the millenium has not begun, the devil is not bound etc, etc. the 70th week just hasn't happened yet, it is future.
The Lord Jesus did not confirm the covenant with Israel for 7 years and then stop the sacrifices and oblations halfway. The reference in Daniel is to the abomination of desolation that will occur when the anti sets himself up to be worshipped etc.(2Thess.2:4)
Note also that the day of the Lord has not happened yet, (the time that is synonomus with the remaining 7 years) have the stars fallen? Has the sun been turned to darkness? Has the moon been turned to blood? Has the heavens been rolled up like a scroll? No, none of this has happened, it is yet future.
Why are some of you people calling the Lord Jesus the abomination of desolation? You are calling Him that when you say He is the one spoken of in Daniel chapter 9 as the one who confirms the covenant for 7 years. Be careful about ascribing the works of the devil to the Lord Jesus. It is the abomination of desolation that will make and break the covenant with Israel and then persecute Jews and Gentile believers in the future.
I suppose you think that Revelation chapters 6 to 19 have happened too.

Just a final note, Isn't the Word of God amazing! And so accurate, the 70 weeks spoken of in Daniel ch.9 are weeks of years, ie, 490 years determined upon the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem. Now, the years began with the command to rebuild the city etc. That was given to Nehemiah in Neh. ch.2. That was March 14, 445bc.
Using a Hebrew calendar of 360 days per year, and figuring ahead 69 weeks or 483 years which is 173,880 days, brings us to April 6, 32AD, the very day the Lord Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Psalm Sunday. The 69 weeks ends there, there remains a final 7 year time when God will finish up the prophecy upon Jerusalem. It hasn't happened yet but things are lining up, are you ready for what is coming?
Read Daniel 9:24-27, Matt. 24:1-31, 2Thess.2:1-17, Rev.6-22.

Isn't God's Word great, isn't the Lord Himself great, everything He says will come to pass, Praise the Lord.

Firstfruits
Feb 15th 2008, 08:52 PM
You did read my prior posts regarding my belief that the temple of God in that verse refers to the church, right? Since that is my belief, I believe this occurs throughout the world where believers are assembled. I, like many, equate the man of sin with the antichrist. I don't believe there is one man of sin or antichrist, but many, even as there was already in John's time(1 John 2:18). Here is an example of how these antichrists "sit" in the temple of God as if they are God.

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. - Acts 20:28-30

You asked if the falling away and man of sin being revelaed was yet to come. I do believe the falling away and the man of sin being revealed go hand in hand. In other words, the man of sin is revealed when the falling away occurs. And Paul does say that the falling away and the man of sin being revealed must happen first before the coming of Christ. He doesn't say how long before, but I don't see why he would relate the two if the falling away and revealing of the man of sin didn't occur not long before the return of Christ. Therefore, I believe it occurs in conjunction with the beginning of Satan's little season, which I believe occurs just prior to Christ's return.

That begs the question: when does Satan's little season begin? I don't know the date. Perhaps it has already begun? Regardless, I relate the falling away to the time when Satan is loosed from his spiritual chain so that he is once again unrestrained and able to deceive the nations from hearing the truth of God's Word the way he did before Christ came the first time. You asked whether the man of sin has already been revealed? If Satan's little season has already begun then I would say yes. Otherwise, no. If the man of sin and the antichrist are the same then the man of sin would be a reference to everyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ or that He came in the flesh (1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7). They are revealed or exposed as being antichrist by their denial of Christ.

Now, I don't doubt that you are confused as to how I can conclude that the man of sin is not actually referring to an individual man, which you would probably call the Antichrist. It's because I see it as a general term used in much the same way as the phrase "the man of God" is used here:

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

This passage is not speaking of one individual man of God, but is speaking of people of God in general. My view is that there is the man of God, which refers to believers and then there is the man of sin, which refers to unbelievers. Particularly those unbelieving false teachers and prophets who go in among our churches and anywhere else where believers assemble and pretend that they and their teachings are the truth instead of God and His Word and they lead people to follow after them and their false doctrines and teachings rather than following after Christ.

Would you agree that all that meet the criteria of the antichrist will have the power to do the following?

Mt 24:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mk 13:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

2 Thess 2:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Rev 13:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

ShirleyFord
Feb 16th 2008, 02:43 AM
Would you agree that all that meet the criteria of the antichrist will have the power to do the following?

Mt 24:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mk 13:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

2 Thess 2:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Rev 13:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

Notice FF that Matthew 24 and Mark 13 say "false Christs", plural, more than one false Christ and "false prophets", plural, more than one false prophet.

There were false prophets during the OT era.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 1:21; 2 Peter 2:1)


Jesus spoke of the ancestors of the Pharisee speaking well of the false prophets during the OT era.

Lk 6:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.


There were false prophets during the NT era in Paul's day during the first century:

Acts 13:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus:


John said that many false prophets had gone out in his day in the first century:

1 Jn 4:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.


The apostles were arrested for preaching that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. The council was going to kill them but Gamaliel spoke of two false Christs before those days:

Acts 5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.


Who is antichrist? Let's let John tell us:

1 Jn 2:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah)? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.



Shirley

allenwilkins
May 21st 2013, 05:19 AM
Lets see if I can help get you off the fence. I spent 30 yrs. praying, reading, asking, and waiting for the right answers till one day the spirit tapped me on the shoulder and said, run reference on the word covenant. From then on it was nothing but blue skies. Even today God still shows me little revelations that tie the answers even tighter together. O.K. First run reference on the word covenant. Then carefully study the words a, the, this, and that. The so called '' popular interpretation'' of 9:27 by the famous scholars is most definitely wrong. Lets go to a key scripture, Luke 13:6-9 notice after 3 yrs. of fertilizing he got 0 results.
Notice, the dresser pleads for one more yr. But in farming or agriculture you only have about 6 months. Therefore, Jesus gave Israel 3 1/2 yrs. to repent. O.K., Dan. 9:26-27. After 62 wks. Jesus is crucified, but not for himself. He dies for the church, remember the Bible is written in Jewish poetic form. So Titus the Roman prince is interjected between the death of Jesus and confirming the covenant by his death. O yes, the red hot one wk. Notice it says; confirm THE covenant not a covenant . The, covenant, means it already exist, He just had to confirm it by His own blood. And the many is the church. When Jesus gave up the spirit the veil was torn into, ending all animal sacrifices. Notice again, He shall CAUSE the sacrifice to cease. This scripture is so far reaching. In the 23rd cp. of Mathew Jesus pronouns 8 woes upon the hypocrites, and at the end He says, behold your house is left to you DESOLATE, because of there OVERSPREADING of ABOMINATIONS. There will be more, if I get a response.

luigi
May 21st 2013, 11:15 AM
While the first part in Daniel 9:26 undoubtedly pertains to the Lord Jesus two thousand years ago; the latter part of this verse in which the people of a prince who shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined, I believe corresponds to the end times.
The reason for my position is this verse seems to match the description in Daniel 11:22 (of which I believe all of chapter eleven pertains to the end times), and therefore, the prince in Daniel 9:27 would pertain to the antichrist and not the Lord.

Duggars19fan
May 25th 2013, 09:31 AM
Lets see if I can help get you off the fence. I spent 30 yrs. praying, reading, asking, and waiting for the right answers till one day the spirit tapped me on the shoulder and said, run reference on the word covenant. From then on it was nothing but blue skies. Even today God still shows me little revelations that tie the answers even tighter together. O.K. First run reference on the word covenant. Then carefully study the words a, the, this, and that. The so called '' popular interpretation'' of 9:27 by the famous scholars is most definitely wrong. Lets go to a key scripture, Luke 13:6-9 notice after 3 yrs. of fertilizing he got 0 results.
Notice, the dresser pleads for one more yr. But in farming or agriculture you only have about 6 months. Therefore, Jesus gave Israel 3 1/2 yrs. to repent. O.K., Dan. 9:26-27. After 62 wks. Jesus is crucified, but not for himself. He dies for the church, remember the Bible is written in Jewish poetic form. So Titus the Roman prince is interjected between the death of Jesus and confirming the covenant by his death. O yes, the red hot one wk. Notice it says; confirm THE covenant not a covenant . The, covenant, means it already exist, He just had to confirm it by His own blood. And the many is the church. When Jesus gave up the spirit the veil was torn into, ending all animal sacrifices. Notice again, He shall CAUSE the sacrifice to cease. This scripture is so far reaching. In the 23rd cp. of Mathew Jesus pronouns 8 woes upon the hypocrites, and at the end He says, behold your house is left to you DESOLATE, because of there OVERSPREADING of ABOMINATIONS. There will be more, if I get a response.

Amen! I totally agree with you. The three and half years of the last week (70th), was the time period that God deal solely with the nation of Israel, before the Gospel was wholly open up to us Gentiles. For we read at the end of the 70th week, the Jewish Believer statement: When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life Acts 11:18. The New Covenant could after all also be called the Renew Covenant or Promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:16-22). For we see Jesus coming after His messenger (John the Baptist) for the Lord visited His Temple with the message of the Covenant that is our New Covenant or New Testament in Malachi 3:1,

bunnymuldare
May 26th 2013, 07:02 PM
To understand Daniel 9:27 you have to understand Daniel 12:11

Daniel asked the question (verse 8) what will the end of these things be?
But Daniel didn't get an answer. The answer was simply, "Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end."
But Daniel did get this much information...(verse 11) "And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate (or spiritually hopeless) set up, there shall be 1290 days."

Maybe the Lord was talking about the sacrifices being taken away during Daniel's lifetime, during the Babylonian captivity, 583 BC when they took away the daily sacrifice. Then 1290 "days", meaning years, later, exactly like in the 70 weeks, the abomination that made the temple mount spiritually desolate was then set up on the temple mount, where the antichrist has claimed to be God ever since. Then tack on another 1260 days of the woman fleeing into the wilderness of the world per Rev. 12, making the red dragon very angry, chasing her wherever she went, then we come to 1948, (and a tetrad of blood red moons btw) and Israel becomes a nation. Who could possibly put this together until the end when the dates were clear? The seven, God's number of completion, has lasted since Daniel first began prophecying about the final beast.

So then, Daniel 9:27 becomes -- Satan will make a covenant with the Jews for 1290 + 1260 years, or 2520 years. After 1290 years, in the middle of the final all encompassing seven, he is going to make the temple mount desolate by placing an abomination on a wing of the temple mount leaving it hopelessly desolate. It will stay that way until the end which has already been determined will be poured out on the desolate and the desolator.

Daniel 11:45 "He, the king that exalts himself, will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him."

luigi
May 26th 2013, 07:15 PM
To understand Daniel 9:27 you have to understand Daniel 12:11

Daniel asked the question (verse 8) what will the end of these things be?
But Daniel didn't get an answer. The answer was simply, "Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end."
But Daniel did get this much information...(verse 11) "And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate (or spiritually hopeless) set up, there shall be 1290 days."

Maybe the Lord was talking about the sacrifices being taken away during Daniel's lifetime, during the Babylonian captivity, 583 BC when they took away the daily sacrifice. Then 1290 "days", meaning years, later, exactly like in the 70 weeks, the abomination that made the temple mount spiritually desolate was then set up on the temple mount, where the antichrist has claimed to be God ever since. Then tack on another 1260 days of the woman fleeing into the wilderness of the world per Rev. 12, making the red dragon very angry, chasing her wherever she went, then we come to 1948, (and a tetrad of blood red moons btw) and Israel becomes a nation. Who could possibly put this together until the end when the dates were clear? The seven, God's number of completion, has lasted since Daniel first began prophecying about the final beast.

So then, Daniel 9:27 becomes -- Satan will make a covenant with the Jews for 1290 + 1260 years, or 2520 years. After 1290 years, in the middle of the final all encompassing seven, he is going to make the temple mount desolate by placing an abomination on a wing of the temple mount leaving it hopelessly desolate. It will stay that way until the end which has already been determined will be poured out on the desolate and the desolator.

Daniel 11:45 "He, the king that exalts himself, will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him."

Would the blessing bestowed on the Lords people on day 1,335 (Daniel 12:12), forty five days after the 1,290 days/years then be forty five years later?

bunnymuldare
May 26th 2013, 07:21 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention...360 days (a prophetic year) times 7 = 2520 years.
To put that into our solar years which are 365 dyas you have to convert it by multiplying by .9856.
Then it will translate into our historic dates.

bunnymuldare
May 26th 2013, 07:28 PM
Luigi,
Yes. Forty five years later. That would have been in the year 732 when "The Hammer" or Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours defeated the armies of Islam in France and prevented their spread into Europe. The Jews and Christians could find a little bit of peace finally. You can look up the Battle of Tours pretty easily.

marty fox
Dec 2nd 2013, 01:32 AM
If when Christ returns he destroys the earth, what happens to the temple that is on the earth?

There will not be a temple on the earth God does not need or require a sacrfice or a temple. If a future Antichrist did desecrate a temple why would God care? He doesn't need one. God allowed the temple of the mount to be on the same location to stop one from being built. Matthew 24 was fufilled in 70 AD. Jesus said it will happen in this generation and it did.

lovejesus
Dec 30th 2013, 12:10 AM
You have to really know the history of the temple and know how sac-religious that will be. First, there will be a covenant that will last 3 1/2 years...times ..time and 1/2 times that Daniel spoke of. Then he will set in the temple after it is re built because the new covenant will probably contain the temple mount be shared, so when this happens the new temple will be rebuilt.The antichrist will probabply come in and say the animal sacrifice cannot go on because maybe animal actrivist will not say that they want animals killed or something.. all he has to say is that he is the authority there and stop them. THAT will immediately start the final 3 1/2 years for the great tribulation. My best suggestion is to watch IRVIN BAXTER--END TIMES PROPHECIES.. he reallt knows his stuff and YOU HAVE GOT to be informed so you will not be sucked in. It does say in the Bible that you have got to read the scriptures during this time. I think we are really here because of the Pope being the end pope by the prophecies of St. Malichy. He is changing doctrine just like the Bible said he would..he is the false prophet! Soon the antichrist will make himself know. He will emerge soon after the peace agreement is sign probably in April or May of 2014. They are working on it as we speak. ALSO.. YOU really need to read about the four blood moon starting next year.. IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!

You have to really know the history of the temple and know how sac-religious that will be. First, there will be a covenant that will last 3 1/2 years...times ..time and 1/2 times that Daniel spoke of. Then he will set in the temple after it is re built because the new covenant will probably contain the temple mount be shared, so when this happens the new temple will be rebuilt.The antichrist will probabply come in and say the animal sacrifice cannot go on because maybe animal actrivist will not say that they want animals killed or something.. all he has to say is that he is the authority there and stop them. THAT will immediately start the final 3 1/2 years for the great tribulation. My best suggestion is to watch IRVIN BAXTER--END TIMES PROPHECIES.. he reallt knows his stuff and YOU HAVE GOT to be informed so you will not be sucked in. It does say in the Bible that you have got to read the scriptures during this time. I think we are really here because of the Pope being the end pope by the prophecies of St. Malichy. He is changing doctrine just like the Bible said he would..he is the false prophet! Soon the antichrist will make himself know. He will emerge soon after the peace agreement is sign probably in April or May of 2014. They are working on it as we speak. ALSO.. YOU really need to read about the four blood moon starting next year.. IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!

othniel
Dec 30th 2013, 12:12 AM
You have to really know the history of the temple and know how sac-religious that will be. First, there will be a covenant that will last 3 1/2 years...times ..time and 1/2 times that Daniel spoke of. Then he will set in the temple after it is re built because the new covenant will probably contain the temple mount be shared, so when this happens the new temple will be rebuilt.The antichrist will probabply come in and say the animal sacrifice cannot go on because maybe animal actrivist will not say that they want animals killed or something.. all he has to say is that he is the authority there and stop them. THAT will immediately start the final 3 1/2 years for the great tribulation. My best suggestion is to watch IRVIN BAXTER--END TIMES PROPHECIES.. he reallt knows his stuff and YOU HAVE GOT to be informed so you will not be sucked in. It does say in the Bible that you have got to read the scriptures during this time. I think we are really here because of the Pope being the end pope by the prophecies of St. Malichy. He is changing doctrine just like the Bible said he would..he is the false prophet! Soon the antichrist will make himself know. He will emerge soon after the peace agreement is sign probably in April or May of 2014. They are working on it as we speak. ALSO.. YOU really need to read about the four blood moon starting next year.. IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!

You have to really know the history of the temple and know how sac-religious that will be. First, there will be a covenant that will last 3 1/2 years...times ..time and 1/2 times that Daniel spoke of. Then he will set in the temple after it is re built because the new covenant will probably contain the temple mount be shared, so when this happens the new temple will be rebuilt.The antichrist will probabply come in and say the animal sacrifice cannot go on because maybe animal actrivist will not say that they want animals killed or something.. all he has to say is that he is the authority there and stop them. THAT will immediately start the final 3 1/2 years for the great tribulation. My best suggestion is to watch IRVIN BAXTER--END TIMES PROPHECIES.. he reallt knows his stuff and YOU HAVE GOT to be informed so you will not be sucked in. It does say in the Bible that you have got to read the scriptures during this time. I think we are really here because of the Pope being the end pope by the prophecies of St. Malichy. He is changing doctrine just like the Bible said he would..he is the false prophet! Soon the antichrist will make himself know. He will emerge soon after the peace agreement is sign probably in April or May of 2014. They are working on it as we speak. ALSO.. YOU really need to read about the four blood moon starting next year.. IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!

The He is Jesus Christ not the Antichrist the covenant is the new coveanant that Jesus confirm with His blood

othniel
Dec 30th 2013, 12:16 AM
Daniel 9:27King James Version (KJV)

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.




Verse 23: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy."

Notice that seventy weeks were determined upon the Jewish people and upon the Holy City Jerusalem to bring about six important conditions as mentioned in this verse.

When prophecies are given in relation to days, it has been definitely proven by passing events, that we must take each day for a year in their correct application. The prophet Ezekiel gives us this instruction chapter 4, verses 5 and 6.

:idea:

othniel
Dec 30th 2013, 12:18 AM
You have to really know the history of the temple and know how sac-religious that will be. First, there will be a covenant that will last 3 1/2 years...times ..time and 1/2 times that Daniel spoke of. Then he will set in the temple after it is re built because the new covenant will probably contain the temple mount be shared, so when this happens the new temple will be rebuilt.The antichrist will probabply come in and say the animal sacrifice cannot go on because maybe animal actrivist will not say that they want animals killed or something.. all he has to say is that he is the authority there and stop them. THAT will immediately start the final 3 1/2 years for the great tribulation. My best suggestion is to watch IRVIN BAXTER--END TIMES PROPHECIES.. he reallt knows his stuff and YOU HAVE GOT to be informed so you will not be sucked in. It does say in the Bible that you have got to read the scriptures during this time. I think we are really here because of the Pope being the end pope by the prophecies of St. Malichy. He is changing doctrine just like the Bible said he would..he is the false prophet! Soon the antichrist will make himself know. He will emerge soon after the peace agreement is sign probably in April or May of 2014. They are working on it as we speak. ALSO.. YOU really need to read about the four blood moon starting next year.. IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!

You have to really know the history of the temple and know how sac-religious that will be. First, there will be a covenant that will last 3 1/2 years...times ..time and 1/2 times that Daniel spoke of. Then he will set in the temple after it is re built because the new covenant will probably contain the temple mount be shared, so when this happens the new temple will be rebuilt.The antichrist will probabply come in and say the animal sacrifice cannot go on because maybe animal actrivist will not say that they want animals killed or something.. all he has to say is that he is the authority there and stop them. THAT will immediately start the final 3 1/2 years for the great tribulation. My best suggestion is to watch IRVIN BAXTER--END TIMES PROPHECIES.. he reallt knows his stuff and YOU HAVE GOT to be informed so you will not be sucked in. It does say in the Bible that you have got to read the scriptures during this time. I think we are really here because of the Pope being the end pope by the prophecies of St. Malichy. He is changing doctrine just like the Bible said he would..he is the false prophet! Soon the antichrist will make himself know. He will emerge soon after the peace agreement is sign probably in April or May of 2014. They are working on it as we speak. ALSO.. YOU really need to read about the four blood moon starting next year.. IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!





Daniel 9:24
King James Version (KJV)
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

This seventy-week period, reduced to days therefore equals 490 years, as there are 490 days in 70 weeks. At the end of this 490-year period, reconciliation was to be made for iniquity, and a means provided to forgive sins, or to make an end of sins; also to anoint the Most Holy.

Verse 25: The angel gave Daniel assurance that his prayers were going to be answered and a commandment would go forth sometime in the future to restore and to build Jerusalem. This gave him great hope and joy for the future of the city and people he loved. From the going forth of this commandment until the coming of the Messiah there was to be 69 weeks. After the "three score and two weeks" (one score being 20), the Messiah was to be cut off, but not for Himself. It was for others that he was to be cut off.

Notice verse 26 carefully, that after He is cut off there is to be a destruction of Jerusalem and a period of desolation.

marty fox
Dec 30th 2013, 05:14 AM
Ask yourself why would God care if an antichrist desecrated the temple. God doesn't require sacrafices anymore. Jesus ended the sacrifices at his death. Nowhere in the bible does it mention a 7 year tribulation not even in the book of Revelation.

Blow the Trumpet
Feb 23rd 2014, 10:42 AM
Hello brother. For many years I too believed that the covenant mentioned was referring to a seven years peace treaty that the Antichrist would make with Israel and then break it after three and a half years, however, I have come to believe that the covenant Daniel mentions is referring to the new covenant that the Lord Jesus made with the House of Israel and Judah.(Jeremiah 31:31-34) The New Covenant ratified by the shed blood of the Lord Jesus is the same covenant that was made with "the many," the many being those who make up the faithful believing remnant in both the Old and the New Testament. These are Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus. To my understanding this whole subject has been in discussion since the dispensational view of eschatology was introduced in the 19th Century. Historically Christians have understood the covenant made in Daniel chapter 9 is referring to the work of the Messiah and not to a treaty made by the Antichrist with Israel. I believe this is reading something into the text that is not there but inserted by those who promote the dispensational view of eschatology. Like you I try not to be dogmatic when trying to understand difficult passages in the Bible but I am firmly persuaded that the "He" referred to who makes the covenant is the Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour and Israel’s Messiah and not the Antichrist. * Edited by BrianW to remove link*
By the way I believe in the Historical Premillennial view of scripture. Raoul at BTZ.

shepherdsword
Feb 23rd 2014, 11:37 AM
Now I'm premillennial mind you, but I'm having trouble seeing the subject of Daniel 9:27 who "confirms a covenant with many" as the Antichrist that dispensationalism would have us read into the text. From what I gather, that notion didn't even exist within premillennialism until dispensationalism emerged in the 19th century.

It seems much more reasonable to me at the moment that "he" would be referring to the Messiah at the start of verse 26 and that the "covenant with many" (lit. "shall cause the covenant to prevail") would be referring to the triumph of God's covenant faithfulness through Christ's death and resurrection. This accords much better with the whole context of Daniel 9, IMO, for the big issue there, in Daniel's prayer and in Gabriel's response, is the fulfillment of God's covenant promises to Israel.

I'm on the fence though. I'd love to hear everyones reasoning on this passage.

Clement states that the ministry of Jesus was just over a year. Eusebius first proposed a three year ministry to spin the 70 weeks into his personal prophetic paradigm in the 4th century. He based this on John 6:4 where we see a Passover between the two temple cleansings. However P476 is missing this verse entirely. It may be the most accurate text for this situation for several reasons. Jesus fed the 5000 leavened bread. There were masses of people far away from Jerusalem that should have been there if a feast was close. After the feeding the disciples get on a boat heading for Capernaum and Jesus meets them halfway out.( walking on water). This begs the question that if Jn 6:4 is correct in the CT and Majority texts why did the disciples and Jesus head the other way if a Passover was close? Why is there no mention of any of them attending this feast? And last but not least...if Jesus attended 3 Passovers during His ministry why did He only cleanse the temple twice? This leads me to believe that the 70 weeks is referring to the length of Jesus's ministry.(490 days) I think we have a good argument for there only being two passovers during Jesus's ministry and this would make sense of the 70 weeks "confirming the covenant". I am pre-mil too but the amils are on to something here. I have to agree with Blow the Trumpet

marty fox
Apr 2nd 2014, 04:28 AM
It is about Jesus

In verse Daniel 9:14 it states the HE is the Lord. In verse 21-22 it states the HE is the angle Gabriel. It doesn’t state another person to be the HE in verse 27 it is talking about the anointed one the ruler (Jesus). This shows that it is still Jesus that we are talking about in verse 27.

Jesus is the one who confirms a covenant with many not just the Jews but also the gentiles. Every time in the book of Daniel that the Jews are mentioned it says your people or the holy people. But in verse 27 it says many meaning many nations.
It says CONFIRM a covenant not Make a new covenant which some believe a future antichrist will do.

It does not say what some believe is to be a PEACE covenant just A covenant.
Jesus put an end to sacrifice at his death and he sets up the abomination at the temple. After Jesus' death God saw their sacrifices as an abomination and he doesn't accept them anymore because Jesus paid the price once for everyone. The Jews rejected their Messiah when they missed who he was and killed him. The reasons the temple was destroyed was the rejection of their Messiah and to stop the sacrifices.

Isaiah 66:1-4 tells us that God sees their sacrifices an abomination.

This is what the Lord says:
1“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?
2 Has not my hand made all these things,
and so they came into being?”
declares the Lord..
“These are the ones I look on with favor:
those who are humble and contrite in spirit,
and who tremble at my word.
3 But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a person,
and whoever offers a lamb
is like one who breaks a dog’s neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig’s blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense
is like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
and they delight in their abominations;
4 so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and will bring on them what they dread.
For when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke, no one listened.
They did evil in my sight
and chose what displeases me.”

If you read other versions of the bible like The New King James in Daniel 9:27 it says "and at the temple he will set up the abomination that causes desolation until the end is poured out on desolate". not poured out on him. The sacrifices were an abomination that caused desolation until the temple was destroyed in the year 70AD.

The rest of the 70th week was the 3 1/2 years between Jesus' death and the time that the gospel was to start be preached to the gentiles.

Read Daniel 9:27 twice. First change the (he) to Jesus and then change the (he) to antichrist. The antichrist could stop the sacrifices and desecrate the temple but he could not be the cause its desolation. Only Jesus could be the cause with his death to make it an abomination and cause its desolation by God because of the rejection of his death. His death is the final sacrifice that God needed. The temple was destroyed because they rejected their Messiah. God didn't want or require sacrifices anymore. It is obsolete because of Jesus.
I do not believe that there will be a future temple there is the purpose. Hebrews chapter 10:1-18 tells us that it is not needed.

Hebrews 10:1-18

1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a]
8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”[b]
17 Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”[c]
18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

If God doesn't require sacrifices in the temple anymore why would he care if a future antichrist desecrated it?

God has another plan for them to realize who he is. They will understand one day why their temple was destroyed when they recognize who Jesus was.

Jesus talked about fulfilling all of what the prophets wrote about him with his death. Daniel wrote about him also in Chapter 9.

Luke 18:31 "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished."

Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Matt 26:56 "But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."

Marty Fox 2014

John 8:32
Apr 2nd 2014, 02:49 PM
Here is how I read it...

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

Christ.

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (and should read desolator here)

The man of sin, the Beast or commonly known as the Antichrist.

the he in the first part of the verse is not the same as he he in the second part.

marty fox
Apr 3rd 2014, 12:15 AM
Here is how I read it...

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

Christ.

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (and should read desolator here)

The man of sin, the Beast or commonly known as the Antichrist.

the he in the first part of the verse is not the same as he he in the second part.

But it doesn't specify another person as the HE it would show that it is talking about someone else.

Hawkins
Apr 3rd 2014, 12:38 AM
Now I'm premillennial mind you, but I'm having trouble seeing the subject of Daniel 9:27 who "confirms a covenant with many" as the Antichrist that dispensationalism would have us read into the text. From what I gather, that notion didn't even exist within premillennialism until dispensationalism emerged in the 19th century.

It seems much more reasonable to me at the moment that "he" would be referring to the Messiah at the start of verse 26 and that the "covenant with many" (lit. "shall cause the covenant to prevail") would be referring to the triumph of God's covenant faithfulness through Christ's death and resurrection. This accords much better with the whole context of Daniel 9, IMO, for the big issue there, in Daniel's prayer and in Gabriel's response, is the fulfillment of God's covenant promises to Israel.

I'm on the fence though. I'd love to hear everyones reasoning on this passage.

Here's my take. I think that the first thing is to ignore all the numbers as we can see what is said without those numbers. The numbers may make a prophecy more precise but may need a special key to interpret. Second is that the prophecy is somehow a 2-fold prophecy which you can view it as if it has 2 layers. For example, the first layer may refer to a physical realization of the prophecy in AD 70 when the Temple in Jerusalem was destructed. It is a physical desolation brought by the abomination. The second layer however can represent a spiritual realization of the prophecy where the desolation may refer to an extremely dark age of the church. When the end comes the church may have already made the abomination legalized within the church itself.

Now get back to the verse, it seems to me that some Bible versions give a better description of the situation;

Daniel 9:27 (ESV)
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Here the first 'he' as the first layer of the prophecy may refer to Christ, while the last 'he' from the second layer is translated as 'come the one who...'. Moreover, the last 'he' is characterized by a 'wing' as the representative image of the abomination 'he' brings. More likely it refers to Satan who is characterized as a winged cherub.