The Making of a Covenant in Dan.9:27

Quasar92 · May 6, 2017

BABerean2 said:
1Pe 2:9　 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;　
1Pe 2:10　 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
(In this passage Peter is speaking to the Church.)
　

Heb_10:6　 IN BURNT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES FOR SIN YOU HAD NO PLEASURE.

Heb_10:8　 Previously saying, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING, BURNT OFFERINGS, AND OFFERINGS FOR SIN YOU DID NOT DESIRE, NOR HAD PLEASURE IN THEM" (which are offered according to the law),

Joh 4:20　 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship."　
Joh 4:21　 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.　
Joh 4:22　 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.　
Joh 4:23　 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.　
Joh 4:24　 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

We have not come to Mount Sinai, but to the New Covenant of Mount Zion, instead.

Heb 12:18　 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest,　

Heb 12:19　 and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore.　

Heb 12:20　 (For they could not endure what was commanded: "AND IF SO MUCH AS A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT SHALL BE STONED OR SHOT WITH AN ARROW."　

Heb 12:21　 And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I AM EXCEEDINGLY AFRAID AND TREMBLING.")　

Heb 12:22　 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,　

Heb 12:23　 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,　

Heb 12:24　 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.　

What is the difference between what you are claiming and the doctrine of the Judaisers, who refused to let go of the Old Covenant?　

.

Why will there be animal sacrifices and Feast days and the Sabbath reinstituted in the Millennium period?

Zech. 14 tells us we will celebrate the feasts days along with the sacrifices, these will both be reinstituted in the millennium (Ez.44:1-46- 46:24)

Zech 14:16-18 “And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain. If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.”

v.21 “Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.”

Isaiah also says, Isaiah 56:7 “Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations."

Isa 66:23 "And it shall come to pass that from one New Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come to worship before Me," says the LORD. Isa. 66:23 teaches that we will keep the Sabbath, it also teaches we will keep the New Moon festival! This is on earth in the Millennium period- not in heaven."

If the Sabbath and feast days and the sacrifices are done away with in Christ how do we reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions? How can there be a return to the sacrificial system without taking away from the meritorious sacrifice of Christ?

Millennial Israel will have at its center the Temple. Sacrifices (Ezek. 40:38-39), will continually be done during the Kingdom Age (Ezekiel 45:13 – 46:15).The millennial offerings are distinctly Jewish nature, of Jewish history and will be administered by Jews, their commemorative purpose will be embraced by Gentiles who will join in celebration of the millennial King who will be on earth. This is made clear in Zechariah 8 v.23, 'In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him who is a Jew, saying, We will go with you for we have heard that God is with you'.

It will some similarities to Mosaic system and some new features. So it should not be mistaken for a reinstitution of Mosaic law system, since Moses sacrificial system did not take away sin but Jesus' last sacrifice did.

The problem is easily solved if we view them as being COMMEMORATIVE rather than EFFICACIOUS.

The sacrifices will be a memorial, just as communion is practiced today looking back. They will not be propitiation, or effacacious (they will have no power to redeem) but are a reminder of what took place. The reason this will be instituted is because there will be many unbelievers born in the Millennial period, they will be sinners that will need to understand the sacrifice Christ did. Since his sacrifice is the final one, that cannot be repeated the types he fulfilled will be illustrative of his accomplishment. Just as the church is commanded to continue the Lord's Supper until he comes.

In Isa. 53 the Servant of Jehovah’s sacrifice puts an end to all animals sacrifices. Just as the Old Testament sacrifices pointed forward to Christ, and found their fulfillment in the supreme efficacious sacrifice of Christ, so the millennial sacrifices will look back in commemorative fulfillment in the same manner. In other words, the sacrifices will be symbols to the millennial population of the prior sacrifice of Christ. Just as the church is commanded to continue the Lord's Supper until He comes, they will continue in these because He has come. It will also give testimony of his faithfulness to the Jews for whom he first gave these commands to.

The new moon festivals, the feast of tabernacles, and the Sabbaths, were set times among the Hebrews (not Gentiles) for the worship of God; in the Millennium these will be used as the reminders for the assembly of worship as God will be celebrated in all nations. As all Israel assembled in Jerusalem for the three great feasts under the Old Testament law of Moses, representatives of the nations will journey to Jerusalem every new moon and every Sabbath. The new moon was observed with sacrifices. The Sabbath will be kept by the Gentiles which also includes sacrifices; The Mosaic Law forbid Gentile to enter in the Temple (Deut.231-8), but it will be permitted by the new Law instituted by Christ in the Millennium (Ezek.46:1-5).The Gentiles will show their commitment to the covenant by keeping the Sabbath and the Feast days, thus having fellowship with God.

So, far from being contradictory, the millennial sacrificial system will be instituted as a commemorative celebration of the completeness of the last and efficacious sacrifice of our Saviour, Jesus Christ our Lord and redeemer. The temple will truly become a house of prayer for all nations.

Quasar92

BABerean2 · May 6, 2017

Quasar92 said:
Why will there be animal sacrifices and Feast days and the Sabbath reinstituted in the Millennium period?

Zech. 14 tells us we will celebrate the feasts days along with the sacrifices, these will both be reinstituted in the millennium (Ez.44:1-46- 46:24)

Zech 14:16-18 “And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain. If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.”

v.21 “Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.”

Isaiah also says, Isaiah 56:7 “Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations."

Isa 66:23 "And it shall come to pass that from one New Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come to worship before Me," says the LORD. Isa. 66:23 teaches that we will keep the Sabbath, it also teaches we will keep the New Moon festival! This is on earth in the Millennium period- not in heaven."

If the Sabbath and feast days and the sacrifices are done away with in Christ how do we reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions? How can there be a return to the sacrificial system without taking away from the meritorious sacrifice of Christ?

Millennial Israel will have at its center the Temple. Sacrifices (Ezek. 40:38-39), will continually be done during the Kingdom Age (Ezekiel 45:13 – 46:15).The millennial offerings are distinctly Jewish nature, of Jewish history and will be administered by Jews, their commemorative purpose will be embraced by Gentiles who will join in celebration of the millennial King who will be on earth. This is made clear in Zechariah 8 v.23, 'In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him who is a Jew, saying, We will go with you for we have heard that God is with you'.

It will some similarities to Mosaic system and some new features. So it should not be mistaken for a reinstitution of Mosaic law system, since Moses sacrificial system did not take away sin but Jesus' last sacrifice did.

The problem is easily solved if we view them as being COMMEMORATIVE rather than EFFICACIOUS.

The sacrifices will be a memorial, just as communion is practiced today looking back. They will not be propitiation, or effacacious (they will have no power to redeem) but are a reminder of what took place. The reason this will be instituted is because there will be many unbelievers born in the Millennial period, they will be sinners that will need to understand the sacrifice Christ did. Since his sacrifice is the final one, that cannot be repeated the types he fulfilled will be illustrative of his accomplishment. Just as the church is commanded to continue the Lord's Supper until he comes.

In Isa. 53 the Servant of Jehovah’s sacrifice puts an end to all animals sacrifices. Just as the Old Testament sacrifices pointed forward to Christ, and found their fulfillment in the supreme efficacious sacrifice of Christ, so the millennial sacrifices will look back in commemorative fulfillment in the same manner. In other words, the sacrifices will be symbols to the millennial population of the prior sacrifice of Christ. Just as the church is commanded to continue the Lord's Supper until He comes, they will continue in these because He has come. It will also give testimony of his faithfulness to the Jews for whom he first gave these commands to.

The new moon festivals, the feast of tabernacles, and the Sabbaths, were set times among the Hebrews (not Gentiles) for the worship of God; in the Millennium these will be used as the reminders for the assembly of worship as God will be celebrated in all nations. As all Israel assembled in Jerusalem for the three great feasts under the Old Testament law of Moses, representatives of the nations will journey to Jerusalem every new moon and every Sabbath. The new moon was observed with sacrifices. The Sabbath will be kept by the Gentiles which also includes sacrifices; The Mosaic Law forbid Gentile to enter in the Temple (Deut.231-8), but it will be permitted by the new Law instituted by Christ in the Millennium (Ezek.46:1-5).The Gentiles will show their commitment to the covenant by keeping the Sabbath and the Feast days, thus having fellowship with God.

So, far from being contradictory, the millennial sacrificial system will be instituted as a commemorative celebration of the completeness of the last and efficacious sacrifice of our Saviour, Jesus Christ our Lord and redeemer. The temple will truly become a house of prayer for all nations.

Quasar92

You continue to ignore the words of the Messiah on the road to Emmaus.

Luk 24:25　 Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!　
Luk 24:26　 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?"　
Luk 24:27　 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.　

Every reference to sacrifices in the Old Testament were fulfilled to the letter when the Lamb of God was offered as the final sacrifice for sin.
That is why God ripped the temple veil in half at the moment the final sacrifice was made at Calvary.
Who do you think is going to repair the veil, if God ripped it in half?

You are interpreting the New Testament through the Old Testament, instead of vice-versa.

You are doing this in the same way that you have ripped the "time of Jacob's trouble" out of its historical context during the Babylonian captivity, and have cast it into the future.

There will be no more sacrifices required by God.

It is going to be difficult for the lion to lay down with the lamb, if the lamb's throats are still being cut for a blood sacrifice.

Heb 10:16　 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR HEARTS, AND IN THEIR MINDS I WILL WRITE THEM,"
　
Heb 10:17　 then He adds, "THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."　

Heb 10:18　 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.　

Maybe your church body will begin the slaughter of lambs during your communion service "as a memorial", but mine never will...

.

Quasar92 · May 6, 2017

BABerean2 said:
You continue to ignore the words of the Messiah on the road to Emmaus.

Luk 24:25　 Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!　
Luk 24:26　 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?"　
Luk 24:27　 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.　

Every reference to sacrifices in the Old Testament were fulfilled to the letter when the Lamb of God was offered as the final sacrifice for sin.
That is why God ripped the temple veil in half at the moment the final sacrifice was made at Calvary.
Who do you think is going to repair the veil, if God ripped it in half?

You are interpreting the New Testament through the Old Testament, instead of vice-versa.

You are doing this in the same way that you have ripped the "time of Jacob's trouble" out of its historical context during the Babylonian captivity, and have cast it into the future.

There will be no more sacrifices required by God.

It is going to be difficult for the lion to lay down with the lamb, if the lamb's throats are still being cut for a blood sacrifice.

Heb 10:16　 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR HEARTS, AND IN THEIR MINDS I WILL WRITE THEM,"
　
Heb 10:17　 then He adds, "THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."　

Heb 10:18　 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.　

Maybe your church body will begin the slaughter of lambs during your communion service "as a memorial", but mine never will...

.

Your ongoing procedure of bearing false witness against me as to what I believe and ignore is nothing more than a crutch for your failure to accept the Scriptural facts on issues you have no knowledge of. Review the following that refutes your insistence there will be no sacrificial system practiced in the Millennial reign of Christ. Review the following for more proof there will be.

Why Literal Sacrifices in the Millennium

Quasar92

BABerean2 · May 6, 2017

Quasar92 said:
Your ongoing procedure of bearing false witness against me as to what I believe and ignore is nothing more than a crutch for your failure to accept the Scriptural facts on issues you have no knowledge of. Review the following that refutes your insistence there will be no sacrificial system practiced in the Millennial reign of Christ. Review the following for more proof there will be.

Why Literal Sacrifices in the Millennium

Quasar92

Any interpretation which insists that Christ, who is now the temple of God, needs to reside in a temple made by humans, will continue to be in error.

Joh 2:19　 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."　
Joh 2:20　 Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"　
Joh 2:21　 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.　
Joh 2:22　 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

No man-made temple will be able to contain His Glory, when He returns to this rotten, sin-cursed world.

　

Quasar92 · May 6, 2017

BABerean2 said:
Any interpretation which insists that Christ, who is now the temple of God, needs to reside in a temple made by humans, will continue to be in error.

Joh 2:19　 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."　
Joh 2:20　 Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"　
Joh 2:21　 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.　
Joh 2:22　 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

No man-made temple will be able to contain His Glory, when He returns to this rotten, sin-cursed world.

　

When are you going to start reading the Scriptural proofs there will be a sacrificial system during the Millennial reign of Christ, who will officiate over it. It has nothing whatever to do with the work Jesus did on the cross that provided the salvation for millions, through His shed blood.

Your ongoing argument clearly reveals your lack of understanding the Biblical facts on this issue, mostly because you simply don't want to.

Quasar92

BABerean2 · May 6, 2017

Quasar92 said:
When are you going to start reading the Scriptural proofs there will be a sacrificial system during the Millennial reign of Christ, who will officiate over it. It has nothing whatever to do with the work Jesus did on the cross that provided the salvation for millions, through His shed blood.

Your ongoing argument clearly reveals your lack of understanding the Biblical facts on this issue, mostly because you simply don't want to.

Quasar92

The covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27, which is the same New Covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28, was fulfilled by the Blood of Christ at Calvary.

It was the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and is found fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13. It is specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:18-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.

He defeated both sin and death at Calvary.
Therefore, He is not coming back to rule over a planet where sin and death remain.

Revealing Times · May 6, 2017

Quasar92 said:
Who is the “He” in Daniel 9:27?

Although many say the “he” in Daniel 9:27 represents Jesus Christ, we can scripturally prove that it refers to the Antichrist. The last masculine noun in Daniel 9:26 is “the prince that shall come,” not the Messiah. The prince that shall come is the “he” of Daniel 9:27 and refers to the Antichrist. This becomes clearer when we read what this “he” does. We read that he causes the sacrifice to cease and the abomination of desolation. Jesus did not cause sacrifices to cease but rather He was the ultimate sacrifice. People could still make a sacrifice after the death of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ death took away God’s acceptance of animal sacrifices; it did not decree that animal sacrifices could no longer be made. Jesus also did not commit the abomination of desolation. We have conclusive proof that the Antichrist does both of these things in Daniel 8:11-13 and Daniel 11:31. So it is conclusive that the “he” in Daniel 9:27 is the Antichrist.

(1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this he most closely parallels the prince who is to come in the previous passage (Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (Da 7:8,11-note Da 7:20, 21-note).

It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ.

We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming prince has his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see Da 7:7-note, Da 7:19-note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision...

And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in Da 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (Re 13:1-note; Re 13:2-note; see also study of The Beast; and Beasts, Heads, and Horns)

(2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlasting covenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire? Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ.

Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing...

Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse.

How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (Daniel - H A Ironside)

Quasar92

They will never grasp it.................

Quasar92 · May 6, 2017

BABerean2 said:
The covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27, which is the same New Covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28, was fulfilled by the Blood of Christ at Calvary.

It was the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and is found fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13. It is specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:18-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.

He defeated both sin and death at Calvary.
Therefore, He is not coming back to rule over a planet where sin and death remain.

WHO IS "HE" WHO CONFIRMS A COVENANT IN DAN.9:27 ?

(1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this he most closely parallels the prince who is to come in the previous passage (Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (Da 7:8,11-note Da 7:20, 21-note).

It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ.

We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming prince has his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see Da 7:7-note, Da 7:19-note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision...

And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in Da 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (Re 13:1-note; Re 13:2-note; see also study of The Beast; and Beasts, Heads, and Horns)

(2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlasting covenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire? Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ.

Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing...

Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse.

How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (Daniel - H A Ironside)

Ray adds...

In deciding between the Messiah or the “prince to come” as the antecedent, Barnes contends “it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said (Da 9:26) that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to ‘destroy the city and the sanctuary.’ In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong on two accounts. Da 9:26 says it is the people of the prince, not the prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume Da 9:27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a future leader would bring about such an agreement with Israel; people will do almost anything to have peace in the Middle East....Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-pre-millenarians who admit the “he” is the antichrist. (A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part III)

(3) ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES: (See related discussion on Antiochus Epiphanes - Da 8:9-note, Da 8:17-note, Da 8:19-note; see also Daniel notes and additional discussion) The liberal commentator Montgomery (who to my utter amazement does not even interpret Da 9:25, 26 as a prophecy of Christ's first coming - See list of other Non-Christological Interpreters) identifies the "He" as Antiochus Epiphanes. Montgomery feels that this prophecy was fulfilled in the second century before Christ noting how apostate Jews cooperated with Antiochus (see 1Mac 1:11, 12, 13, 14, 15).

(4) A WEEK: The pronoun He has even been interpreted as a week by some who take he as neuter (not masculine), but such an interpretation of makes absolutely no sense in context. It does emphasize how far some commentators are willing to go in an attempt to "jettison" a literal, futuristic interpretation.

In summary, even applying the elementary grammatical rule of examination of the context for the nearest antecedent noun ("prince" in Da 9:26), there is little question that the pronoun He in Da 9:27 is the future Antichrist, the evil end times anti-Semitic leader who is known by many names in Scripture (see table). And as you review the list of the names of the Antichrist, remember that in Scripture one's name speaks of one's character.

Quasar92

Quasar92 · May 6, 2017

Quasar92 said:
WHO IS "HE" WHO CONFIRMS A COVENANT IN DAN.9:27 ?

(1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this he most closely parallels the prince who is to come in the previous passage (Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (Da 7:8,11-note Da 7:20, 21-note).

It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ.

We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming prince has his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see Da 7:7-note, Da 7:19-note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision...

And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in Da 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (Re 13:1-note; Re 13:2-note; see also study of The Beast; and Beasts, Heads, and Horns)

(2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlasting covenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire? Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ.

Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing...

Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse.

How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (Daniel - H A Ironside)

Ray adds...

In deciding between the Messiah or the “prince to come” as the antecedent, Barnes contends “it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said (Da 9:26) that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to ‘destroy the city and the sanctuary.’ In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong on two accounts. Da 9:26 says it is the people of the prince, not the prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume Da 9:27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a future leader would bring about such an agreement with Israel; people will do almost anything to have peace in the Middle East....Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-pre-millenarians who admit the “he” is the antichrist. (A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part III)

(3) ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES: (See related discussion on Antiochus Epiphanes - Da 8:9-note, Da 8:17-note, Da 8:19-note; see also Daniel notes and additional discussion) The liberal commentator Montgomery (who to my utter amazement does not even interpret Da 9:25, 26 as a prophecy of Christ's first coming - See list of other Non-Christological Interpreters) identifies the "He" as Antiochus Epiphanes. Montgomery feels that this prophecy was fulfilled in the second century before Christ noting how apostate Jews cooperated with Antiochus (see 1Mac 1:11, 12, 13, 14, 15).

(4) A WEEK: The pronoun He has even been interpreted as a week by some who take he as neuter (not masculine), but such an interpretation of makes absolutely no sense in context. It does emphasize how far some commentators are willing to go in an attempt to "jettison" a literal, futuristic interpretation.

In summary, even applying the elementary grammatical rule of examination of the context for the nearest antecedent noun ("prince" in Da 9:26), there is little question that the pronoun He in Da 9:27 is the future Antichrist, the evil end times anti-Semitic leader who is known by many names in Scripture (see table). And as you review the list of the names of the Antichrist, remember that in Scripture one's name speaks of one's character.

Quasar92

Who makes the covenant with many in Dan.9:27 ?

Daniel 9:27 (HCSB) He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.”

The question is, who is the he? The traditional view of this passage is that "he" here refers to the Antichrist. The Antichrist will a covenant and stop sacrifices that at some point a future will resume, and set up the Abomination of Desolation.

Preterists say that he refers to the real Christ; Jesus Christ is actually the one that causes sacrifices to stop by sacrificing himself. As far as the overspreading of abominations I don't know how they explain that.

Confirmer of the Covenant Confirmed Elsewhere

So how do we know who the he is? We can know for sure who he is. The he of Daniel 9:27 does three things: he first confirms the covenant, he stops the daily sacrifices, and he sets up the Abomination of Desolation.

In Daniel 11 we have a discourse about the King of the North. When you get to verse 31, it talks about the Antichrist and his partners placing a abomination that makes desolate and stopping the sacrifices. This is absolute proof that the he of Daniel 9:27 is the Antichrist not the real Christ.

Daniel 11:31 (KJV) 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.

If you're not sure this is the Antichrist, read on what else this man does:

Daniel 11:36 (KJV) And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

For the complete article:

http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/...n-covenant.htm

Annotation from the 1967 edition of the Scofield Bible:

The proof that this final week has not yet been fulfilled is seen in the fact that Christ definitely relates its main events to His second coming [Mt.24:6-15]. Hence, during the interim between the 69th and the 70th weeks there must lie the whole period of the Church set forth in the N.T. but not revealed in the O.T. The interpretation which assigns the last of the 70th weeks to the end of the age is found in the Church fathers. When this 70th week was referred to during the first two and one-half centuries of the Christian Church, it was almost always assigned to the end of the age. Irenaeus places the appearance of the Antichrist at the end of the age in the last week: in fact, he asserts that the time of the Antichrist's tyranny will last just one-half of the week, three years and six months. So likewise Hippolytus states that Daniel "indicates the showing forth of seven years which shall be in the last times."
Endorsed by the Editorial Committee:

1. Frank L. Gaebelein, A.M., Litt.D., Headmaster Emiritus, The Stoney Brook School; 2. William Culbertson, D.D., L.L.D., President, Moody Bible Institute; 3. Charles L. Feinberg, ThD., PhD., Dean, Talbot Theological Seminary; 4. Allan A. Mac Rae, A.M., PhD., President, Biblical School of Theology; 5. Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Th.M., D.D., Dean, Philadelphia College of Bible; 6. Alva J. Mc Clain, Th.M., D.D., President Emeritus, Grace Theological Seminary; 7. Wilbur M. Smith, D.D., Editor, Peloubet's Select Notes; 8. John F. Walvoord, A.M., Th.D., President, Dallas Theological Seminary; 9. C.I. Scofield, D.D., Editor, Scofield Bible; 10. Editorial Committee Chairman, J. E. Schuyler English, Litt.D.

Quasar02

BABerean2 · May 6, 2017

Quasar92 said:
Annotation from the 1967 edition of the Scofield Bible:

The proof that this final week has not yet been fulfilled is seen in the fact that Christ definitely relates its main events to His second coming [Mt.24:6-15]. Hence, during the interim between the 69th and the 70th weeks there must lie the whole period of the Church set forth in the N.T. but not revealed in the O.T.

From the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America, before John Darby showed up on our shores with his modern Dispensational Theology.

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.

...........................................................................................

The summary of the 70 weeks prophecy is found in Daniel 9:24.

Dan 9:24　 "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.　

How much of the above was fulfilled by Christ during His earthly ministry?

Act 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.　

Heb 10:16　 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;　(The New Covenant)
Heb 10:17　 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.　
Heb 10:18　 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.　

Anyone who claims that Christ has not fulfilled Daniel 9:24, has cut the scripture above out of their Bible.

The period of the Church is found in the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13. It is specifically applied to the Chruch in Hebrews 12:18-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8. It is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20.

.

jgr · May 7, 2017

Quasar92 said:
In whom the Word of God disagrees with on various issues,such as in my post #13 above.

Quasar92

More disagreement.

John Wyclif:

"the pope is antichrist here in earth"

"there are two flocks in the militant church, the flock of Christ and manifold flocks of Antichrist."

"Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence
in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a
horn arising in the time of the fourth kingdom. For it grew from [among]
our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because
by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?]
struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time. There-
fore the ten horns are the whole of our temporal rulers, and the horn has
arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things
against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and
thinking that he is able to change times and laws."

Quasar92 · May 7, 2017

BABerean2 said:
From the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America, before John Darby showed up on our shores with his modern Dispensational Theology.

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.

...........................................................................................

The summary of the 70 weeks prophecy is found in Daniel 9:24.

Dan 9:24　 "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.　

How much of the above was fulfilled by Christ during His earthly ministry?

Act 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.　

Heb 10:16　 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;　(The New Covenant)
Heb 10:17　 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.　
Heb 10:18　 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.　

Anyone who claims that Christ has not fulfilled Daniel 9:24, has cut the scripture above out of their Bible.

The period of the Church is found in the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13. It is specifically applied to the Chruch in Hebrews 12:18-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8. It is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20.

.

Your claim that the 1599 Geneva Bible is the one the Pilgrims brought to America is pure speculation. Tell me, in what way is the Geneva Bible any different than any other Bible?

About Dan.9:24: Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place."

Take not of who is being addressed : Daniel's people, Israel, [not the Church] Who to this day, has not accepted the free gift of the New Covenant. And they won't, until the second coming of Jesus in Zech.12:10 and Zech.14:4-5, at the ending of the seven year tribulation.

The problem you are having, is the fact that Jesus brought in all the amenities of verse 34 but they WILL NOT be fulfilled by the nations of the world, until Jesus is seated on the throne of David, during His coming 1,000 year reign on earth., as recorded in Acts 1:6; 2:29-30 and 15:16.

It is crystal clear, transgressions and sin abound in present day society and does nothing but get worse, until the day Jesus begins His 1,000 year reign. The New Covenant HAS NOT yet been fulfilled with Israel!

Quasar92

Quasar92 · May 7, 2017

jgr said:
More disagreement.

John Wyclif:

"the pope is antichrist here in earth"

"there are two flocks in the militant church, the flock of Christ and manifold flocks of Antichrist."

"Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence
in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a
horn arising in the time of the fourth kingdom. For it grew from [among]
our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because
by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?]
struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time. There-
fore the ten horns are the whole of our temporal rulers, and the horn has
arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things
against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and
thinking that he is able to change times and laws."

There are many antichrists in the world today, such as Judaism and Islam, to begin with. Reference to THE ONE AND ONLY final world ruler, before the return of Jesus Christ, is the one Satan will give his throne, power and great authority to, as recorded in Rev.13:1-3. According to Rev.17:8, he is already in the Abyss/Hell. When he is brought out of the Abyss, he will confirm the covenant and the seven year tribulation will begin, as recorded in Dan.9:27.

As I previously posted, the RCC is the mother of all prostitutes in Rev.17, the beast/Antichrist and the ten horns/nations allied to him, will destroy.

Quasar92

CuriousWes · May 7, 2017

BABerean2 said:
You will find your answer in the link below.

The 1599 Geneva Bible

"King James's Authorized Replacement
Recognizing that the Geneva Bible and its notes were undermining the authority of the monarchy, King James I of England commissioned the "Authorized Version," commonly known as the King James Bible, as its replacement. The King James Version did not include any of the inflammatory footnotes, of course, but it also altered key translations to make them seem more favorable to episcopal and monarchial forms of government.
But the people were not fooled. The Pilgrims and Puritans preferred the Geneva Bible over the King James Bible, not trusting the king's purported good faith. The Geneva Bible was brought over on the Mayflower, and it is not an exaggeration to say that the Geneva translation and footnotes were the biblical foundation for the American Republic."

........................................................................

Those who produced the notes of the 1599 Geneva Bible recognized that Acts 10:38 and Hebrews 10:16-18 prove that Christ fulfilled Daniel 9:24, during the first century.

They also knew that the word "he" is a singular pronoun.
There are only two antecedents in Daniel 9 that could fit.
It would either be Christ, or prince Titus, since the word "people" is not a singular pronoun.

Get you a copy and read the notes. You might learn something.
........................................................................

Who Confirmed The Covenant?
James Lloyd
http://christianmediaresearch.com/node/1023

.

I see two possibilities for the confirming or strengthening of the covenant for seven years in Daniel 9:27.

Jesus confirmed the new covenant during His ministry which was continued through the apostles to complete the seven year duration, or:
Jesus confirmed the new covenant during His ministry and the two witnesses will complete the seven year duration during their 1260 days of ministry by confirming the covenant to the woman in the wilderness.

What I don't see is a seven year peace treaty being made and then broken. The prophecy states that the covenant is confirmed for seven years, not made for seven years and then broken. The confirming of the covenant takes place for a full seven years, not three and one-half, or four or anything else.

Quasar92 · May 7, 2017

CuriousWes said:
I see two possibilities for the confirming or strengthening of the covenant for seven years in Daniel 9:27.

Jesus confirmed the new covenant during His ministry which was continued through the apostles to complete the seven year duration, or:

Jesus confirmed the new covenant during His ministry and the two witnesses will complete the seven year duration during their 1260 days of ministry by confirming the covenant to the woman in the wilderness.

What I don't see is a seven year peace treaty being made and then broken. The prophecy states that the covenant is confirmed for seven years, not made for seven years and then broken. The confirming of the covenant takes place for a full seven years, not three and one-half, or four or anything else.

Well said. Indeed, there is no way the New Covenant Jesus brought into His Church is any seven year covenant. But rather, it is eternal. That is precisely why Jesus IS NOT the "he" who confirms a covenant in Dan.9:27, as thoroughly articulated in post 29. Where he is clearly identified as the Antichrist.

Quasar92

jgr · May 7, 2017

Quasar92 said:
There are many antichrists in the world today, such as Judaism and Islam, to begin with. Reference to THE ONE AND ONLY final world ruler, before the return of Jesus Christ, is the one Satan will give his throne, power and great authority to, as recorded in Rev.13:1-3. According to Rev.17:8, he is already in the Abyss/Hell. When he is brought out of the Abyss, he will confirm the covenant and the seven year tribulation will begin, as recorded in Dan.9:27.

As I previously posted, the RCC is the mother of all prostitutes in Rev.17, the beast/Antichrist and the ten horns/nations allied to him, will destroy.

Quasar92

We see no dispensationalized futurized speculation by the Reformers. Their declarations were born directly out of their own personal observation and experience, frequently to the death.

I've bolded the last paragraph below as it is particularly applicable to contemporary dispensational fantasy.

More " disagreement with the (dispensationalized) Word of God."

John Calvin:

"Daniel and Paul foretold that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (Dan. 9:27;2 Thess. 2:4); we regard the Roman Pontiff as the leader and standard-bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom."

"Shall we recognise the Apostolic See where we see nothing but horrible apostacy? Shall he be the vicar of Christ who, by his furious efforts in persecuting the Gospel, plainly declares himself to be Antichrist? Shall he be the successor of Peter who goes about with fire and sword demolishing everything that Peter built? Shall he be the Head of the Church who, after dissevering the Church from Christ, her only true Head, tears and lacerates
her members? Rome, indeed, was once the mother of all the churches, but since she began to be the seat of Antichrist she ceased to be what she was."

"To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul’s words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I wil1 briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity (Dan. 7:25). Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ."

CuriousWes · May 7, 2017

Quasar92 said:
Well said. Indeed, there is no way the New Covenant Jesus brought into His Church is any seven year covenant. But rather, it is eternal. That is precisely why Jesus IS NOT the "he" who confirms a covenant in Dan.9:27, as thoroughly articulated in post 29. Where he is clearly identified as the Antichrist.

Quasar92

Why is it that the eternal new covenant can't be confirmed for seven years? The new covenant is spiritual as were the teachings of Jesus. His ministry was largely spent explaining spiritual concepts like being born again, the leaven of the Pharisees, hating and lusting being the root of murder and adultery, etc. These were new concepts that needed to be explained.

The new covenant addresses the spiritual condition of man and Jesus' ministry confirmed that.

CuriousWes · May 7, 2017

Quasar92 said:
As I previously posted, the RCC is the mother of all prostitutes in Rev.17, the beast/Antichrist and the ten horns/nations allied to him, will destroy.
Quasar92

How is the RCC responsible for the blood of Abel? and the prophets? Revelation 18:24 Mystery Babylon is much, much larger than the RCC and has been around since the fall of man in the garden of Eden.

jgr · May 7, 2017

Great terse and profound observation today from Charles Price, pastor emeritus of Peoples Church in Toronto, preaching on the Living Truth telecast, from Hebrews 1. "Without revelation, there is only speculation."

precepts · May 7, 2017

Quasar92 said:
What is it that "he" will do? The antichrist will "make a firm covenant with the many for one week," that is seven years. Non-literal interpreters of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy usually attempt to make this covenant a reference to Christ’s covenant to save His people, usually known as the covenant of grace. "This, then, is a confirming of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace that Christ confirms (Rom. 15:8)," claims Dr. Gentry. Dr. Gentry and those advocating a similar view, must resort to a non-textual, theological interpretation at this point since there was no seven-year covenant made by Christ with the Jewish people at the time of His first coming. They must back off from the specifics of the text in verse 27 and import in a theological interpretation, thus providing us with a classic example of spiritualization or allegorical interpretation.

If this is supposed to be a reference to the covenant of grace, then "it may be observed first that this would be a strange way to express such a thought," notes Dr. Wood. Christ’s salvation covenant is not limited to seven years rather it is an eternal covenant. Daniel 9:27 says the covenant is to be made with "the many." This term always refers in some way to Israel throughout the book of Daniel (Daniel 11:33, 39; 12:3). Thus it is a narrow term, used in a specific context. It is not a broad term, synonymous with the language of global salvation. Further, "it is evident that the covenant is subsequent to the cutting off of Messiah and the destruction of the City and the Sanctuary, in the twenty-sixth verse; therefore, it could not have been confirmed at the First Advent," says G. H. Pember. Such an interpretation does not fit this text and it does not account for the seven years that Gabriel says this covenant will be in place. Dr. Wood further explains:

Since a covenant as described in verse 27 has not yet taken place in reference to the nation of Israel, it must therefore follow that this will be a yet to occur future event. This then, demands a postponement of the seventieth week with a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of years.

This passage clearly says that the length of the covenant that "he" will make will be for one week or seven years. I suppose that this could mean either that the covenant will be predetermined to last seven years or that it does not specify a length of time when made, but as it turns out, is only in existence for seven years. Many of those who believe that the entire prophecy of the seventy weeks has already been fulfilled around the time of Christ’s first coming teach that the first half of the seventieth week was fulfilled by Christ’s ministry. "We know Christ’s three-and-one-half-year ministry," says Dr. Gentry, "was decidedly focused on the Jews in the first half of the seventieth week (Matt. 10:5b; cf. Matt. 15:24)." G. H. Pember objects to such a view with the following:

Once again we have seen in this installment on the seventy weeks that the text of this passage supports a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the seventieth week is still future to the time in which we now live. "Israel has now been reestablished as a nation (1948), suggesting that the seventieth seven may soon begin."

By: Thomas Ice, PhD.

Quasar92

Has the thought ever crossed your mind, Mr. PhD (and Denominational Christianity), that the covenant that was to be confirmed was the old testament covenant since they were returning from Babylon?

Yours and Denominational Christianity's stumbling block is refusing the stone that the builders refused. Here is the context and the proof of what and who the text is referring to concerning the covenant to be confirmed, in
Daniel.

Eze 21:21 For the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination: he made his arrows bright, he consulted with images, he looked in the liver.
Eze 21:22 At his right hand was the divination for Jerusalem, to appoint captains, to open the mouth in the slaughter, to lift up the voice with shouting, to appoint battering rams against the gates, to cast a mount, and to build a fort.
Eze 21:23 And it shall be unto them as a false divination in their sight, to them that have sworn oaths: but he will call to remembrance the iniquity, that they may be taken.
Eze 21:24 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have made your iniquity to be remembered, in that your transgressions are discovered, so that in all your doings your sins do appear; because, I say, that ye are come to remembrance, ye shall be taken with the hand.
Eze 21:25 And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end,
Eze 21:26 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
Eze 21:27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.

The context is before Zedek--h the king of Judah/Israel is carried away to Babylon; and the text clearly states that there was to be no more kings in Judah/Israel until he whose right it was came.

Now learn the parable of the "great eagle and the highest cedar branch." The context is before Zedek--h was carried away for his disobedience to Nebuchadnezzar.

Eze 17:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;
Eze 17:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; A great eagle with great wings, longwinged, full of feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar:
Eze 17:4 He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants.
Eze 17:5 He took also of the seed of the land, and planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great waters, and set it as a willow tree.
Eze 17:6 And it grew, and became a spreading vine of low stature, whose branches turned toward him, and the roots thereof were under him: so it became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth sprigs.

Zedek--h is punished for breaking his vow to Nebuchadnezzar. As the story goes, he rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar and entreated the king of Egypt for help in overthrowing their captivity.

Eze 17:7 There was also another great eagle with great wings and many feathers: and, behold, this vine did bend her roots toward him, and shot forth her branches toward him, that he might water it by the furrows of her plantation.
Eze 17:8 It was planted in a good soil by great waters, that it might bring forth branches, and that it might bear fruit, that it might be a goodly vine.
Eze 17:9 Say thou, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Shall it prosper? shall he not pull up the roots thereof, and cut off the fruit thereof, that it wither? it shall wither in all the leaves of her spring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the roots thereof.
Eze 17:10 Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither, when the east wind toucheth it? it shall wither in the furrows where it grew.

The interpretation?

Eze 17:11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Eze 17:12 Say now to the rebellious house, Know ye not what these things mean? tell them, Behold, the king of Babylon is come to Jerusalem, and hath taken the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and led them with him to Babylon;
Eze 17:13 And hath taken of the king's seed, and made a covenant with him, and hath taken an oath of him: he hath also taken the mighty of the land:
Eze 17:14 That the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by keeping of his covenant it might stand.
Eze 17:15 But he rebelled against him in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him horses and much people. Shall he prosper? shall he escape that doeth such things? or shall he break the covenant, and be delivered?

You can read the rest on your own. I only want to point out God's next move:

Eze 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:
Eze 17:23 In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.
Eze 17:24 And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.

Who is that cedar branch whose right it is to the crown? And again the context is crucial.

Zec 6:9 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Zec 6:10 Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah;
Zec 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

The stone Denominational Christianity has refused, "The Branch," the man whose right it was to wear the crown and to rule in Israel, the fulfillment of Isa 11 and another verse that I can't recall right now, but it speaks about God reigning on the earth, in Yah-ru-Shalem.

The Making of a Covenant in Dan.9:27

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads