King of the North, Prince of the Covenant?

[Jamdoc]

This isn't a literal sighting of Jesus soaring through the clouds. It's apocalyptic
language in reference to Daniel 7

and there you go, watering down scripture to force a worldview into it. Is that what the word of God is? Exaggerations and hyperbole?

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

 

[mkgal1]

You can play semantics all you want. 70AD didn't have Jesus coming in the clouds and gathering His elect.

Regarding "gathering His elect"

Quoting from blog post:
Did you know that belief in a sudden rapture of the church at the end of time is a recent invention? John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) created the idea to fit his belief that all Old Testament prophecies about Israel’s glory days were going to come true for a future Jewish nation on earth. The popularity of his rapture doctrine grew at the end of the 1800s and into the mid-1900s because of DL Moody, Billy Sunday, and the Scofield Reference Bible. In less than 100 years, the idea went from unknown to a virtual litmus test for whether you believed what the Bible really says. ~ Left Behind or Taken: Which Is Better at Jesus' Promised Judgment?​

 

[Jamdoc]

Regarding "gathering His elect"

Quoting from blog post:
Did you know that belief in a sudden rapture of the church at the end of time is a recent invention? John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) created the idea to fit his belief that all Old Testament prophecies about Israel’s glory days were going to come true for a future Jewish nation on earth. The popularity of his rapture doctrine grew at the end of the 1800s and into the mid-1900s because of DL Moody, Billy Sunday, and the Scofield Reference Bible. In less than 100 years, the idea went from unknown to a virtual litmus test for whether you believed what the Bible really says. ~ Left Behind or Taken: Which Is Better at Jesus' Promised Judgment?​

Never said I was pretrib. Jesus gave signs before the gathering of the elect.

 

[mkgal1]

and there you go, watering down scripture to force a worldview into it. Is that what the word of God is? Exaggerations and hyperbole?

No....Scripture is not just exaggerations and hyperbole....however there is context, themes and meaning.

Revelation opens with:

Revelation 1:1 ~ This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John​

 

[mkgal1]

Never said I was pretrib. Jesus gave signs before the gathering of the elect.

The entire modern belief of a literal rapture (whether pre-trib or post-trib) was unknown prior to the 1800s.

 

[Jamdoc]

The entire modern belief of a literal rapture (whether pre-trib or post-trib) was unknown prior to the 1800s.

Only the pretrib part is not traditional. Earlier church traditions either taught a mid trib, pre wrath, or post trib position. Virtually everyone agreed that persecution of the saints by the antichrist took place and that the coming of the Lord was the gathering of the saints, the resurrection, and also the start of the day of the Lord.

The historicist, preterist view starts watering down scripture, first it's claiming Daniel and Revelation already happened, and dodging the question of why the world still has sin and death and why Jesus didn't come back at the supposed fulfillments (which is taking descriptions of global scale events and reducing it down to a regional conflict to begin with). Then it decides to go amillennial and just throw the word "spiritual" in front of everything, they stop believing in a physical return of Christ, and a Physical Resurrection, a Physical New Heavens and New Earth, and believe that we just die, go to a spiritual heaven and stay there forever. It is all sourced from being unable to accept the word of God as written.

It's as much heresy as pretrib.

 

[Cis.jd]

so from this, I gather that the vile man who becomes King of the North kills the prince of the covenant? or am I reading it wrong.

Well, it was believed that the King of the North would kill the Night King but it turns out it, was just his little sister. It's not that we were wrong, it's just the writing became really bad.

 

[BABerean2]

So I have heard some people interpret the King of the North in Daniel 11 to be the son of perdition, based on the "vile man" passages
Daniel 11:21


and in 11:22 he goes into a war


so from this, I gather that the vile man who becomes King of the North kills the prince of the covenant? or am I reading it wrong.

Is the prince of the covenant this guy?

Daniel 9:27

The guy who forms the covenant here performs the abomination of desolation, which would make him the antichrist.

So by my reading the King of the North kills the Prince of the Covenant, the antichrist, which could make sense in that

Revelation 13:3



But I'm not all that sure on the meaning? Cause like I've said some people interpret the King of the North to be the antichrist too.

Daniel 9:27, and the lie:

Are we supposed to believe the angel Gabriel came to Daniel to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then the angel failed to even mention the New Covenant?

Or, is the covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28?


.

 

[Jamdoc]

Daniel 9:27, and the lie:

Are we supposed to believe the angel Gabriel came to Daniel to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then the angel failed to even mention the New Covenant?

Or, is the covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28?


.

9:27 is probably about Jesus, sure. But the guy's point about 70AD being the fulfillment of the 70th week is utter nonsense. There was no cleansing of the temple, sacrifices went on longer than 2300 days, and it certainly wasn't the end of the world and Jesus didn't return then.

and if that's the case what's with the covenant only being 7 years? It's not referring to His ministry, that was 3, maybe 3.5 years (which would be prophetic in a sense, that the antichrist's reign would be a mirror image of Jesus' ministry). The new covenant is eternal not 7 years right?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

So I have heard some people interpret the King of the North in Daniel 11 to be the son of perdition, based on the "vile man" passages
Daniel 11:21


and in 11:22 he goes into a war


so from this, I gather that the vile man who becomes King of the North kills the prince of the covenant? or am I reading it wrong.

Is the prince of the covenant this guy?

Daniel 9:27

The guy who forms the covenant here performs the abomination of desolation, which would make him the antichrist.

So by my reading the King of the North kills the Prince of the Covenant, the antichrist, which could make sense in that

Revelation 13:3



But I'm not all that sure on the meaning? Cause like I've said some people interpret the King of the North to be the antichrist too.

My translation (NIV84) renders these verses a little different, but not so very much.
I read Daniel recently and a couple or even three times. I may be quite off track...still puzzling it over...but seems these wars are defined on two planes...the spiritual realm as well as how those spiritual battles influence the earthly realm.
Therefore, I am not certain if the prince of the covenant is an angel of some degree who becomes or is made ineffectual in his ministry or if that prince is of the earth...say a very influential Christian (evangelist or preacher with long reaches). Just my thoughts here on the subject.
In your work remember Daniel 12:7 (the power of His holy people will be broken in the end). Also see Revelation 13:7 (he was given permission to wage war against the saints and was defeating them) end days???
This matches Daniel 7:21 (the horn that made war against the saints and defeated them.)
The sections you outline could be the scenario or rather part of the scenario of the end days.
Christ says when the Son of Man returns will He find faith on the earth.
Matthew 24 says because of the increase in wickedness the love of many (some translations say MOST) will grow cold.
We also know from Revelation 20 that Satan will be unleashed at the end...is this the permissioon granted to wage war against the saints? I think so.
Well, this is in piece meal, I did not write out a total scenario because they are Bible snippets and the putting together of them are my ideas...you may differ with those.

 

[BABerean2]

9:27 is probably about Jesus, sure. But the guy's point about 70AD being the fulfillment of the 70th week is utter nonsense. There was no cleansing of the temple, sacrifices went on longer than 2300 days, and it certainly wasn't the end of the world and Jesus didn't return then.

and if that's the case what's with the covenant only being 7 years? It's not referring to His ministry, that was 3, maybe 3.5 years (which would be prophetic in a sense, that the antichrist's reign would be a mirror image of Jesus' ministry). The new covenant is eternal not 7 years right?

Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to Israel for a period of about 7 years, before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles.
This was the 70th week of Daniel during the first century.


This same interpretation is found below in the notes of the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America.

Dan 9:27 And he shal confirme the couenant with many for one weeke: and in the middes of the weeke he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the ouerspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, euen vntill the consummation determined shalbe powred vpon the desolate.

Daniel 9:27
And he (a) 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 (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.


.

 

[Jamdoc]

My translation (NIV84) renders these verses a little different, but not so very much.
I read Daniel recently and a couple or even three times. I may be quite off track...still puzzling it over...but seems these wars are defined on two planes...the spiritual realm as well as how those spiritual battles influence the earthly realm.
Therefore, I am not certain if the prince of the covenant is an angel of some degree who becomes or is made ineffectual in his ministry or if that prince is of the earth...say a very influential Christian (evangelist or preacher with long reaches). Just my thoughts here on the subject.
In your work remember Daniel 12:7 (the power of His holy people will be broken in the end). Also see Revelation 13:7 (he was given permission to wage war against the saints and was defeating them) end days???
This matches Daniel 7:21 (the horn that made war against the saints and defeated them.)
The sections you outline could be the scenario or rather part of the scenario of the end days.
Christ says when the Son of Man returns will He find faith on the earth.
Matthew 24 says because of the increase in wickedness the love of many (some translations say MOST) will grow cold.
We also know from Revelation 20 that Satan will be unleashed at the end...is this the permissioon granted to wage war against the saints? I think so.
Well, this is in piece meal, I did not write out a total scenario because they are Bible snippets and the putting together of them are my ideas...you may differ with those.

Yeah it's a tough book to understand all these various characters, that's why I made the thread, trying to sort through them. The main question was answered though in that the covenant in 9:27 is not a reference to the prince of the covenant in Daniel 11, they're separate entities. But of course, there's more confusing elements and characters to discuss from the whole book.

 

[Jamdoc]

Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to Israel for a period of about 7 years, before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles.
This was the 70th week of Daniel during the first century.


This same interpretation is found below in the notes of the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America.

Dan 9:27 And he shal confirme the couenant with many for one weeke: and in the middes of the weeke he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the ouerspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, euen vntill the consummation determined shalbe powred vpon the desolate.

Daniel 9:27
And he (a) 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 (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.


.

Okay so chapter 9 was fulfilled in that regard. But chapter 8 gives a period of 2300 days from the beginning of daily sacrifices (remember Daniel was writing from a time where the temple had been destroyed, to see daily sacrifices again was a future event for him) till the cleansing of the temple.

I am noting that in Daniel 9 the period of 69 weeks is not given to be the time of the end. Daniel 8 is given for the time of the end, and Daniel 12 is given for the time of the end.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Yeah it's a tough book to understand all these various characters, that's why I made the thread, trying to sort through them. The main question was answered though in that the covenant in 9:27 is not a reference to the prince of the covenant in Daniel 11, they're separate entities. But of course, there's more confusing elements and characters to discuss from the whole book.

I know, many say all these things have transpired, but with all the end time language I don't believe so...but I'm no expert on Daniel.
Thanks for the thread!

 

[mkgal1]

Earlier church traditions either taught a mid trib, pre wrath, or post trib position.

Citations?

 

[klutedavid]

This is so untrue, Matthew 24:29 explicitly says just after the tribulations of those days He gives the cosmological signs from Joel 2 and describes coming in the clouds.
He outright gave signs to watch for, we won't know the day or hour, but we will know the season, figuratively speaking.

Don't just read Matthew 24 on it's own. Read Luke 21 and Matthew 24 together. Luke's gospel separates the destruction of the temple from the age of the Gentiles. Where as Matthew 24 has these two separate events combined.

 

[klutedavid]

You can play semantics all you want. 70AD didn't have Jesus coming in the clouds and gathering His elect.

Partial Preterism does not claim that Jesus returned in 70 AD. The return of Jesus is a future event.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is so untrue, Matthew 24:29 explicitly says just after the tribulations of those days He gives the cosmological signs from Joel 2 and describes coming in the clouds.
He outright gave signs to watch for, we won't know the day or hour, but we will know the season, figuratively speaking.

The same signs--the same passage--is quoted by St. Peter in Acts ch. 2 in reference to the pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost.

Yet, and I can't stress this enough, at no point do we read that the sun was darkened and the moon turned to blood on that day the Spirit was poured out. And yet, St. Peter--filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking by His Divine power and authority--declares the words of the prophet having come to pass.

Was Peter wrong?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mkgal1]

Okay so chapter 9 was fulfilled in that regard. But chapter 8 gives a period of 2300 days from the beginning of daily sacrifices (remember Daniel was writing from a time where the temple h
ad been destroyed, to see daily sacrifices again was a future event for him) till the cleansing of the temple.

I am noting that in Daniel 9 the period of 69 weeks is not given to be the time of the end. Daniel 8 is given for the time of the end, and Daniel 12 is given for the time of the end.

Daniel 8 is a separate time period from the vision in Daniel 9 (the 70 week prophecy).

Regarding Daniel 8:

Quoting linked article:

The little horn will take away the daily sacrifice and brought low the sanctuary (11). The daily sacrifice (tamid) was to be offered twice each day. Priests offered sacrifices on behalf of all the people (Exodus 29:38-41, Numbers 28:3-8). In 167 B.C. Antiochus ordered these daily sacrifices to be stopped (1 Maccabees 1:44-45).

The sacrifices are suspended for 2300 days. There are several schemes for showing paralleling with Antiochus’ suspension of sacrifice. ~ "Daniel 8 –The Ram and the Goat – Reading Acts" Daniel 8 –The Ram and the Goat​

 

[Jamdoc]

Citations?

https://tms.edu/m/tmsj13e.pdf
This is actually a study trying to show that the early church fathers taught a doctrine of imminency or pretribulation rapture, intsead it shows that the early church fathers taught an "intra tribulational or post tribulational" eschatology.