Is the land restoration to the nation of Israel found in the new covenant?

[jgr]

The cited passages have nothing to do with the prophetic seventy-weeks written in the book of Daniel but pertain only to the death and resurrection of Christ.

Only if you reject the passages which I cited, which contain the Words of Christ Himself.

What Bible version are you reading from? Does it not contain those passages?

They declare: "all the prophets" and "all the scriptures".

What part of "all" do you not understand?

Do you agree that Daniel was one of "all the prophets"?

Do you agree that what Daniel wrote was part of "all the scriptures"?

Do you agree that what Daniel wrote was "concerning me", i.e. Christ, in Daniel 9:24?

Then according to Christ Himself, He was and is the Fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy.

 

[jgr]

Not everything associated with the Old Covenant passed away with the Old Covenant. And as it pertains to the nation of Israel, God has dealt with them in a way that He has not dealt with any other nation and has made promises to them that have not been made to any other nation. All that He has said and declared concerning them regardless of what covenant they may be associated with, must be fulfilled exactly the way He has declared and every promise made concerning them must be carried out exactly as He has said.

If all that God has said and promised concerning the Jews does not come to pass as He has said or according to what He has said, then the promises made to them have failed and He has made Himself out to be a liar. That all the promises made to Israel must come to pass as He has said and can never be made null and void is not an Old Covenant/New Covenant issue, but pertains to the character and integrity of our God.

If the Lord keeps His promises made to one group of people, then we can be sure that He will deliver on His promises to all who are in Christ (Jew and Gentile alike), but if one set of promises made to one group of people are no good, then no promises God makes to anyone are any good.

You're invited to cite any Scripture which disproves the Scripture which I've cited.


Once upon a time there was a father who wrote his will and testament, and in it bequeathed his son $1 million. He informed his son of the bequest.

Later, without his son's knowledge, the father wrote a new will and testament, and increased the bequest for his son from $1 million to $2 million.

Eventually the father died, and the bequests in his will and testament were executed.

The son, upon learning of his $2 million bequest, publicly accused his deceased father of having been a liar and a deceiver because he had not honored the original $1 million bequest.

Don't be like that son.

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

 

[BABerean2]

Both James and Peter were addressing Jewish audiences. The twelve tribes have been associated with none other than Israel. The followers of Jesus whom James was addressing were of the twelve tribes scattered abroad. They were Jews. The house of Israel, whom Peter was addressing, was a Jewish audience out of whom 3,000 received Jesus as their Messiah.

Peter was addressing a nation. James was writing to people scattered abroad who were a part of that nation.

Do these two passages prove that Israel and the Church cannot be separated?

Has the Church as a whole ever been a "Gentile Church"?

Is the Olive Tree of Romans 11 a symbol of the New Covenant Church made up of both Israelite branches, and Gentile branches grafted together into the same tree?

What does Paul say about Israel in Romans 9:27?

Who is the ultimate fulfillment of Israel in Matthew 1:1, and John 1:1, and John 1:14, and Galatians 3:16, and Luke 24:25-27?

.

 

[BABerean2]

But Daniel 9:27 clearly speaks of a time that has not yet happened because according to the prophet Daniel, this covenant confirmed with the many, including Israel, is confirmed at a time when sacrifices are once again being made in a temple that does not yet exist.

The following comes from 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.

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

In the video below Dr. Kelly Varner reveals the covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27, as the same covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28. This is the same understanding found above from the 1599 Geneva Bible.
It was the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Daniel Chapter 9: Dr. Kelly Varner

.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Only if you reject the passages which I cited, which contain the Words of Christ Himself.

What Bible version are you reading from? Does it not contain those passages?

They declare: "all the prophets" and "all the scriptures".

What part of "all" do you not understand?

Do you agree that Daniel was one of "all the prophets"?

Do you agree that what Daniel wrote was part of "all the scriptures"?

Do you agree that what Daniel wrote was "concerning me", i.e. Christ, in Daniel 9:24?

Then according to Christ Himself, He was and is the Fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy.

I confess that I did not adequately clarify my position. I do not dispute that Daniel 9:25, 26 does pertain to the first coming and death of Jesus and agree that Jesus was referring to what Daniel said concerning Him as well as what the other prophets and the scriptures spoke concerning Him, but what I do take objection to is how Daniel 9:27 is rendered:

Daniel 9:27 speaks of a covenant that is only temporary and has to be periodically renewed and one which is not a new covenant but one already in existence that is given recognition by the one who confirms it for seven years and then breaks it half way through its tenure. This does not sound like the New Covenant under Christ which is forever and ongoing. And Jesus never put a stop to the animal sacrifices nor did He destroy the temple or Jerusalem. The legions of Rome did that nearly forty years after the ascension of Christ.

 

[BABerean2]

Daniel 9:27 speaks of a covenant that is only temporary and has to be periodically renewed and one which is not a new covenant but one already in existence that is given recognition by the one who confirms it for seven years and then breaks it half way through its tenure.

There is nothing in the text about the breaking of the covenant.
There is nothing in the text which says it is a temporary covenant.
The text simply says the covenant is "confirmed" for a period of seven years with Daniel's people, and that the sacrifices are ended in the middle of that period of time.

There is no antecedent for an antichrist, and there is no "gap" of time in the passage.

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

.

 

[jgr]

I confess that I did not adequately clarify my position. I do not dispute that Daniel 9:25, 26 does pertain to the first coming and death of Jesus and agree that Jesus was referring to what Daniel said concerning Him as well as what the other prophets and the scriptures spoke concerning Him, but what I do take objection to is how Daniel 9:27 is rendered:

Daniel 9:27 speaks of a covenant that is only temporary and has to be periodically renewed and one which is not a new covenant but one already in existence that is given recognition by the one who confirms it for seven years and then breaks it half way through its tenure. This does not sound like the New Covenant under Christ which is forever and ongoing. And Jesus never put a stop to the animal sacrifices nor did He destroy the temple or Jerusalem. The legions of Rome did that nearly forty years after the ascension of Christ.

Daniel 9
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many...

Matthew 26
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Daniel points to Messiah.
Messiah confirms Daniel.

 

[jgr]

And Jesus never put a stop to the animal sacrifices nor did He destroy the temple or Jerusalem. The legions of Rome did that nearly forty years after the ascension of Christ.

The expiatory efficacy of animal sacrifices ceased at the moment that the veil was rent in twain, when Jesus, the final, complete, and perfect Sacrifice, died. He indeed “put a stop” to them forever from that time forward.

The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was executed under the command and control of Messiah. The Roman armies were His instruments to accomplish His purposes of divine judgment and destruction.

 

[Contenders Edge]

You're invited to cite any Scripture which disproves the Scripture which I've cited.


Once upon a time there was a father who wrote his will and testament, and in it bequeathed his son $1 million. He informed his son of the bequest.

Later, without his son's knowledge, the father wrote a new will and testament, and increased the bequest for his son from $1 million to $2 million.

Eventually the father died, and the bequests in his will and testament were executed.

The son, upon learning of his $2 million bequest, publicly accused his deceased father of having been a liar and a deceiver because he had not honored the original $1 million bequest.

Don't be like that son.

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

The million dollars in your analogy was never really cancelled out. It was just incorporated into another million dollars.


In the same way for Israel, the earthly blessings that God has promised them were never cancelled. They have simply been incorporated into the New Covenant promises as it pertains to the Jews and both earthly and spiritual blessings given to them will be fulfilled as written.​

 

[jgr]

The million dollars in your analogy was never really cancelled out. It was just incorporated into another million dollars.


In the same way for Israel, the earthly blessings that God has promised them were never cancelled. They have simply been incorporated into the New Covenant promises as it pertains to the Jews and both earthly and spiritual blessings given to them will be fulfilled as written.​

What New Covenant promises can you cite that incorporate them?

 

[Contenders Edge]

What New Covenant promises can you cite that incorporate them?

What New Covenant promises can you cite that expressly cancel them out?

 

[Contenders Edge]

Do these two passages prove that Israel and the Church cannot be separated?

Has the Church as a whole ever been a "Gentile Church"?

Is the Olive Tree of Romans 11 a symbol of the New Covenant Church made up of both Israelite branches, and Gentile branches grafted together into the same tree?

What does Paul say about Israel in Romans 9:27?

Who is the ultimate fulfillment of Israel in Matthew 1:1, and John 1:1, and John 1:14, and Galatians 3:16, and Luke 24:25-27?

.

The cited passages do not suggest that the Church and Israel are the same entity. Israel descends from a single lineage. The Church is comprised of both Jew and Gentile and has been comprised of both Jew and Gentile almost from its very start.

The olive tree in Romans Chapter 11 is not representative of the Church per se, but rather it is representative of how two distinct peoples become one in Christ. That does not negate the fact that while there are things in common that both Jews and Gentiles receive in the Lord, the Jews nevertheless still retain those promises not given to any other nation which also must be fulfilled in order that all things in Christ be fulfilled, for even as Christ said, “the scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35) and therefore, He must fulfill all that is written exactly as it is written.


“What does Paul say about Israel in Romans 9:27?”


What do you think it says?

 

[Contenders Edge]

Daniel 9
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many...

Matthew 26
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Daniel points to Messiah.
Messiah confirms Daniel.

“Daniel points to Messiah.

Messiah confirms Daniel.”



That may be true of Daniel 9:25-26, but not of 9:27 unless you believe that the New Covenant has to be renewed periodically and is a pre-existing Covenant which would not make it really a New Covenant, which is exactly the kind of covenant that Daniel 9:27 describes:

A covenant that expires if it is not renewed after a certain period of time and is not a new covenant but a pre-existing covenant that is simply confirmed.

That does not sound like the Covenant made by Christ which is neither a pre-existing Covenant nor a Covenant with an expiration date.

 

[Contenders Edge]

The expiatory efficacy of animal sacrifices ceased at the moment that the veil was rent in twain, when Jesus, the final, complete, and perfect Sacrifice, died. He indeed “put a stop” to them forever from that time forward.

The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was executed under the command and control of Messiah. The Roman armies were His instruments to accomplish His purposes of divine judgment and destruction.

The tearing of the temple veil did not stop the unbelieving Jews from offering their sacrifices. Do you really think the priests would not have been able to repair that veil? What put the sacrifices to a stop was the destruction of the temple by the legions of Rome which did not take place until nearly forty years after the death and resurrection of our Lord.

That does not sound anything at all like the event described in Daniel 9:27 which states a time when daily sacrifices are permitted to take place for a period of seven years but then are put to a stop half way through that seven year period.

 

[jgr]

What New Covenant promises can you cite that expressly cancel them out?

The inherent definition of a New (Will and) Testament cancels them. Review post 356, and Brother BAB2's excellent posts 384 and 386. Review your own Will and Testament. What does its first clause state?

 

[jgr]

“Daniel points to Messiah.

Messiah confirms Daniel.”



That may be true of Daniel 9:25-26, but not of 9:27 unless you believe that the New Covenant has to be renewed periodically and is a pre-existing Covenant which would not make it really a New Covenant, which is exactly the kind of covenant that Daniel 9:27 describes:

A covenant that expires if it is not renewed after a certain period of time and is not a new covenant but a pre-existing covenant that is simply confirmed.

That does not sound like the Covenant made by Christ which is neither a pre-existing Covenant nor a Covenant with an expiration date.

Was Christ wrong in Matthew 26:28 when He said "For this is My Blood of the New Testament"?

 

[jgr]

The tearing of the temple veil did not stop the unbelieving Jews from offering their sacrifices.

Do you think God recognized them any longer after the final complete perfect Sacrifice of His Son?

Their sacrifices from then on were exercises in futility.

 

[Contenders Edge]

There is nothing in the text about the breaking of the covenant.
There is nothing in the text which says it is a temporary covenant.
The text simply says the covenant is "confirmed" for a period of seven years with Daniel's people, and that the sacrifices are ended in the middle of that period of time.

There is no antecedent for an antichrist, and there is no "gap" of time in the passage.

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

.

Your statement is self-contradictory in that you state:


There is nothing in the text about the breaking of the covenant.
There is nothing in the text which says it is a temporary covenant.


and yet go on to say the following:


The text simply says the covenant is "confirmed" for a period of seven years with Daniel's people, and that the sacrifices are ended in the middle of that period of time.


Seven years is not temporary? That the sacrifices are ended half way through that period does not imply a breaking of that covenant?


“There is no antecedent for an antichrist, and there is no "gap" of time in the passage.”


“and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;” (Dan. 9:26) How is that not an antecedent for an antichrist? Jesus certainly did not come to destroy the temple, nor did He command His followers to do so. As for the “gap of time in the passage” that happens to generally be the case with prophecy with fulfillments taking place years and even centuries apart from one another.


“…the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews for about 7 years before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles. This was the 70th week of Daniel during the first century.”


The Gospel was being taken to both Jew and Gentile from the very start and even as Paul was taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, he always took it first to the Jews in the Gentile communities and nations that he was sent to. The scriptures do not explicitly talk about a seven year period in which the Gospel was preached only to the Jews.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Was Christ wrong in Matthew 26:28 when He said "For this is My Blood of the New Testament"?

It is not Christ who is wrong but it is your rendering of Daniel 9:27 that is wrong. What Christ was establishing was not the "covenant of the many" spoken of by Daniel 9:27 which speaks of events taking place after Christ's death on the cross and resurrection.

 

[jgr]

It is not Christ who is wrong but it is your rendering of Daniel 9:27 that is wrong. What Christ was establishing was not the "covenant of the many" spoken of by Daniel 9:27 which speaks of events taking place after Christ's death on the cross and resurrection.

Who is "he" in Daniel 9:27?