PDA

View Full Version : God shall cause the sacrifice to cease



ross3421
Nov 14th 2008, 11:26 AM
Da 9:27 And 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.

Now if we insert Satan for "he" the verse is contradictory. Will Satan really make it desolate do to his own abominations? No.

Da 9:27 And he (SATAN) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he (SATAN) shall cause the "daily" 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.

Ok, so what sacrifice are we then speaking?

Most interpret the sacrifice as the "daily" sacrifice in which the little horn does away however the example shown above makes that an impossibility. Does not God have a sacrifice which shall make it desolate? Yes.

Eze 39:17 And, 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.

Eze 39:19 And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you.

Re 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

Re 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Why does God cease his own sacrifice?

Mt 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved:

The remnant of Israel.


Mark

bennie
Nov 14th 2008, 11:40 AM
Da 9:27 And 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.

Now if we insert Satan for "he" the verse is contradictory. Will Satan really make it desolate do to his own abominations? No.

Da 9:27 And he (SATAN) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he (SATAN) shall cause the "daily" 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.

Ok, so what sacrifice are we then speaking?

Most interpret the sacrifice as the "daily" sacrifice in which the little horn does away however the example shown above makes that an impossibility. Does not God have a sacrifice which shall make it desolate? Yes.

Eze 39:17 And, 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.

Eze 39:19 And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you.

Re 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

Re 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Why does God cease his own sacrifice?

Mt 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved:

The remnant of Israel.


Mark


hi mark

i also read that dan9:27 does not speak of satan. it does talk about Jesus instead. He was the ultimate sacrifice. He came and did what was needed of Him.

bennie

ross3421
Nov 14th 2008, 11:50 AM
hi mark

i also read that dan9:27 does not speak of satan. it does talk about Jesus instead. He was the ultimate sacrifice. He came and did what was needed of Him.

bennie

Thanks bennie, I see it as the sacrifice at his second coming not upon the cross.

Veretax
Nov 14th 2008, 02:19 PM
I've always interpreted that verse as if Israel will one day sacrifice again on the Mount. That the AC would permit this, but after 3.5 years roughly he will break the promise and set himself up as god to be Worshiped there. A t least this is how I've always understood it.

mfowler12
Nov 14th 2008, 02:27 PM
I may be wrong, but I have always understood that when deity is mentioned in the bible, a capital letter is used for that deity (ie, Messiah, He, etc).

Does that not apply to Daniel 9:27?

mfowler12
Nov 14th 2008, 03:15 PM
I would like to add a little more to this discussion with my previous post.

As I was reading Daniel 9, I noticed something here. God's archangel, Gabriel, has been sent to Daniel during his prayer to "give you (speaking to Daniel) skill to understand." I use the NKJV when studying the bible and will use it here as well.

So, Gabriel starts giving the skill to understand at verse 24, "Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy."

So, it appears that Gabriel is talking about Israel, not the gentiles. He is speaking about finishing, completely, fulfilling, and lastly to "anoint the Most Holy." Who is the Most Holy? I would think God, but is Gabriel referring to Jesus? I think he is because he continues to talk about the "Messiah" in vv 25 and 26.

So, Gabriel talks about the coming Messiah. In verse 26, Gabriel says that the "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself..." Sounds like a sacrifice that bridges the gap between God and His creation.

BUT WAIT!!

What's that after "Himself?" "And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Wait a second, people of what prince? If Gabriel is speaking of the Messiah, with deity, wouldn't prince be capitalized? Who then is the prince? Well, let's look back at verse 25 and you'll read that Gabriel refers to the Messiah as "the Prince," and then explains that there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. After sixty-two weeks, in verse 26, the Messiah is cut off.

Okay, so Gabriel has called the Messiah a "Prince" and then said that the "people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Gabriel has moved from talking about the Messiah as the Prince to a prince that is to come. Now, reading verse 26, after the Messiah has been cut off, a new prince, which is to come, will destroy the city and sanctuary. Now, continue on with verse 27, "then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week, he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering." But, the Messiah has already been cut off. How will He confirm a covenant with many for one week and then end it in the middle? If Jesus, the Messiah, has already be cut off, then the sacrifice for our sins has already been completed.

So, it appears that something is going to happen after the Messiah is gone. And, where did the seven weeks go? Is it a 7 year tribulation? Maybe it's 49 years after Israel is restored. Maybe it was already fulfilled by something else. Maybe it didn't even matter to the grand scheme of things with the exception of how long it'll be until the Messiah makes His presence. I don't know and won't claim to know. I pray and ask for your prayers that God will show me or have it explained to me.

Maybe I am wrong. I could be. I am not a biblical scholar. However, when I read 9:20-27, it is plainly obvious that Gabriel is speaking of two different people. Why would Gabriel call the Messiah a Prince and then say that this same prince is to come with people to destroy the city.

Did the Romans have princes in the first century? Weren't they a dictatorship with Caesar?

I am interesting in everybody's thoughts.

ross3421
Nov 14th 2008, 10:17 PM
So, it appears that Gabriel is talking about Israel, not the gentiles.

Absolutely, this is the main reason why the passage has nothing to do with a supposed AC.


He is speaking about finishing, completely, fulfilling, and lastly to "anoint the Most Holy." Who is the Most Holy? I would think God, but is Gabriel referring to Jesus? I think he is because he continues to talk about the "Messiah" in vv 25 and 26.

Note all those events spoken in verse 24 will actually be completed when Christ returns the second time. Now I know most make the case as yourself for it being at the cross but was this really the NEW covenant in which Daniel is speaking to Israel?

Da 9:4 And 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;

No. The covenant is not the new covenant but a past covenant given to Israel in which he will confirm once again when Christ returns the second time.



So, Gabriel talks about the coming Messiah. In verse 26, Gabriel says that the "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself..." Sounds like a sacrifice that bridges the gap between God and His creation.[/QUOTE]

The term "cut off" here is probably the single most misinterpeted phrase in scripture. Does cut off really mean death in this passage? Note the phrase does not always mean death could it then mean something else?

Cut off is not speaking of the death upon the cross but of one being removed away from, blocked, inaccessable. Look up the Hebrew text "Kawrath" and though it does also have meaning for death it also speaks of cutting a COVENANT.

Does not the cutting of a covenant from a group of people more apply to the text? Of course as in the next verse we see the subject matter.

Da 9:4 And 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 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

Da 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

When Christ returns the second time he will be "cut off" from the wicked and shall confirm the covenent with those which keep his commandments.



"And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Wait a second, people of what prince? If Gabriel is speaking of the Messiah, with deity, wouldn't prince be capitalized?

Well it is not capitalized in the following........is not the Messiah the prince of the host?

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

Note the "host" would equate to the "people" which shall come and destroy the city (Jerusalem/Babylon) upon Christ's second coming.


Who then is the prince?

God has many princes in his government but note they are really all one in the same individual.

Da 10:13 but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me;


So, it appears that something is going to happen after the Messiah is gone. And, where did the seven weeks go? Is it a 7 year tribulation? Maybe it's 49 years after Israel is restored. Maybe it was already fulfilled by something else. Maybe it didn't even matter to the grand scheme of things with the exception of how long it'll be until the Messiah makes His presence. I don't know and won't claim to know. I pray and ask for your prayers that God will show me or have it explained to me.

Maybe I am wrong. I could be. I am not a biblical scholar. However, when I read 9:20-27, it is plainly obvious that Gabriel is speaking of two different people. Why would Gabriel call the Messiah a Prince and then say that this same prince is to come with people to destroy the city.

View the 70 weeks as a literal 490 day period prior to the second coming of Christ.


Mark

mfowler12
Nov 15th 2008, 03:27 AM
Note all those events spoken in verse 24 will actually be completed when Christ returns the second time. Now I know most make the case as yourself for it being at the cross but was this really the NEW covenant in which Daniel is speaking to Israel?

Matthew 5:17
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

So, Jesus was lying? Your opinion is that Jesus will fulfill everything at the second coming yet Jesus says during His sermon that He has come to fulfill the Law and Prophets. Also, if your opinion is right, then all prophecy of the Messiah was about His second coming with no mention of His first coming. Wouldn't that make His second coming His first coming? Wouldn't that mean that the Messiah hasn't come yet? Do you see where this is going?

Why would God send His angel to speak to Daniel and it not be inclusive? Could you explain why you think Gabriel message is not good enough for your question?

ross3421
Nov 15th 2008, 08:37 AM
Matthew 5:17

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus above specifically speaks of the events of his birth, life, death, and resurrection which he fulfilled. But there is still much more to be fulfilled.

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


So, Jesus was lying? Your opinion is that Jesus will fulfill everything at the second coming yet Jesus says during His sermon that He has come to fulfill the Law and Prophets. Also, if your opinion is right, then all prophecy of the Messiah was about His second coming with no mention of His first coming. Wouldn't that make His second coming His first coming? Wouldn't that mean that the Messiah hasn't come yet? Do you see where this is going?

You make it sound as Christ's death fulfilled every thing spoken by the prophets which is not true. As the prophets spoke of his first coming they also spoke of his second. Dan 9:24 speaks of the completion of the fulfillment of the first coming.

Mark