Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[Marcus O'Reillius]

A little history:

On 6/8/2016 at 11:04 AM, WilliamL said:

(Daniel 9:27) has nothing to do with the End Times, being already completely fulfilled within the Jewish War of 66-73 AD:

To which I replied:

On 6/9/2016 at 9:44 AM, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Partial Preterism, which is what you're advancing, is not Pre-Wrath, which is also Pre-Millennial.  

And I received this rebuttal:

On 6/13/2016 at 2:19 PM, WilliamL said:

What I wrote has nothing whatsoever to do with a Preterist view: straw man argument.

However, this is a definition of Preterism from http://www.theopedia.com/preterism

Quote

Partial Preterism, the older of the two views, holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ were fulfilled circa 70 AD when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices. It identifies "Babylon the great" (Revelation 17-18) with the ancient pagan City of Rome or Jerusalem.

And this is a definition of "straw man" - which is a common fallacy in argument:

Quote

Straw man  This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.

Since you relegate Daniel 9:27 to the past, saying, in effect, that the one 'seven' has a gap in prophecy and was fulfilled nearly 40 years later after the "Messiah comes" -

Typecasting your expressed opinion of Daniel 9:27 which you say is fulfiled prophecy as Partial Preterism is NOT a straw man argument.

What we have in your case is a wild hybrid of Partial Preterism within your predominantly Pre-Wrath view - which is what you typify yourself as eschatologically.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

On 6/13/2016 at 2:19 PM, WilliamL said:

Marcus, your point #1 is pretty ambiguous. But to say that it takes a prophecy about a specific event -- the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple,, and the events associated with it -- and then interjects into it a prophecy about all time -- the end of war -- is simply not supported by the context.

On Saturday I was typing on an Ipad Air 2, in Miami, at the Sherry Fontenac on Miami Beach - an insect-ridden hotel with lousy wifi service.  I was not able to cut and paste; I had no reference manuals, nor did I have access to my computer.  I was also bone-dead tired after getting up at 3am, and I was pretty groggy after flying down there.  So I apologize for any ambiguity and I hope my excuse allows me some allowance to further clarify what I so hastily wrote.

Let me expound:

Daniel 9:27 does not occur in a vacuum; it is part of an overall, very abbreviated, outline of God's Plan for "Daniel's people" and his holy city.  

First of all: Who are "Daniel's people?"  From the Bible we can discern not two, but three categories:

• Jews in exile.
• Jews
• Those who are selected to receive their inheritance.

The Man in Linen, who I think is Jesus, says this to Daniel at the end of chapter 12:
13 But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

This "end of the age" is also used for the Church, as Jesus said:
Mt 13:39: and the harvest is the end of the age;

Now to be fair, Jesus also uses the "end of the age" for the final disposition of the Second Resurrection when the wicked are eliminated from the Kingdom - which encompasses both Heaven and Earth.  The problem with "age" is that it can denote more than one period of time - however - it does designate that such a time period has an end.  This beginning/end linear version of time is unique to Judeo-Christian theology when compared to older pagan religions which were circular in design, never-ending birth/death cycles - like the "circle of life" taught to young children in Disney's movie: the Lion King.  (Islam is a satanic rendition of the Bible, using works instead of faith, and operating on shame rather than guilt: it allows for endless murder.  However, since it is a take-off of the Bible, it too has a beginning and an "end" but one that is hellish.  Yes, Satan knows there is an end; he is just delusional about it because although he knows, he does not believe.)

However, what seals this to me, is that Daniel is to receive his allotted portion.  This is reflected in the New Testament usage of paralambano: which is the word used to denote this translated phrase for the Christian: to receive Christ in 1Co 11:23; Gal 1:12; 1Th 2:13 and 1Th 4:1.  This word is also used in Mt 24:40 following on the Olivet Discourse for those who are "taken".

From Geoffrey W. Bromiley's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" (a great reference book by the way for word study that goes way beyond simple concordances) is this description:
A. -In the Greek and Hellenistic World:
This compound has such senses as "to take over," e.g., a position, and "to inherit," especially intellectual things, e.g., a student from a teacher.
C. -In the NT
1. With a personal object the term is used for the reception of Christ by the world (Jn. 1:11) and for acceptance into the kingdom of Christ (Jn 14:3; Mt. 24:40-41).
2. With a material object we find "to take over" an office in Col. 4:17, to "inherit" the kingdom in Heb 12:28, "to adopt" traditions in Mk 7:4, and "to receive" Christian teachings in 1Co 11:23; 1Th 4:1
= quoted excerpts from pages 496/7.

So how you define Daniel's people determines to whom this prophecy is for.
As Daniel is in more than one defined set of people, discerning which group is very important for the applicability of this crucial eshatological passage in Daniel from Gabriel.

I will include Daniel in the Dead in Christ: all those who are gathered up from Paradise with the Last Trumpet.
To me, the Dead in Christ includes such Old Testament Saints like Daniel and Job; people who trusted in God and called upon His Name for their Salvation.
In my opinion, Daniel 9:24-27 is part of God's overall end-time plan and it includes the Church Age - which ends when the Elect are removed from the field of this world.
(Later, at the Second Resurrection, all the souls are hauled up as fish in a net, and the bad ones are thrown away, adding those souls who lived during the Millennium, to those souls who were raised up to receive their inheritance at the First Resurrection)

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Now as to my point that Daniel 9:27 does not occur in a vacuum.  Leaving off v.24 which encompasses the aspects of God's Plan which will be accomplished (all by Jesus, by the way) here is the seventy 'sevens' action:

Daniel 9:25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty- two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

know and discern
This requires both knowledge and discernment.  It can be known, but it must not be misconstrued.  It does take wisdom to discern; this is not a simple text.  And like the hand that wrote upon the wall, meaning can surpass mere words.  One of the things I am always in wonder of - is how succinct God's Word is in its written form, but how profound and extensive is its meaning, implication, and application.  Commentators write volumes on a simple sentence; that is how powerful God's Word is.

there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks
The first thing about the seventy 'sevens' is that the reader reacquaint themselves with Leviticus 26:18.  Another bit of discernment is that Daniel is reading from Jeremiah, who was not favored by the Jews of his time.  He was not considered an esteemed prophet until quite after the fact of Israel's exile.  So at this juncture, Daniel is far ahead of his fellow Jews in recognizing the significance of Jeremiah's writing.  It is because of this reading that Daniel prays on behalf of his people - and for that Gabriel comes to him.

The second thing about the seventy 'seven's is that they are broken apart in an unusual way: 7-62-1.  There is no precedence for this breakdown in Scripture.  However, the first thing that is important is to note that the first two segments are linked by the conjunction "and."  This is not an addition in translation, but it occurs in the original Hebrew.  So no matter how you want to get out the calculators to determine dates, this linkage should prevail.  I have a separate paper on dates which I have done years ago.  To sum that up: I use the commission of King Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 446 B.C. for the start date, prophetic years to count, and Jesus' arrival at Jerusalem on Palm Sunday as for when the 'Messiah comes' which would put His Crucifixion in the spring of A.D. 31 (with a birth date of 6-4 B.C.).

This first sentence is very complicated.  I diagrammed it.  This is old-school schooling; they don't teach this stuff anymore.

Again, to sum up this first long post.  The linkage in Daniel 9:25 puts the seven and the sixty-two 'sevens' together; they run concurrently.  While people will hem and haw over the start dates and end dates, no matter how you slice it, at the end of the sixty-two 'sevens', the Messiah comes.  I think this is one reason people were on fire for the Lord.  Another reason may be more spiritual in nature; His Presence was felt at a very common level which also set people to seek Him at this time.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Daniel 9:27 does not exist in a vacuum.

No matter how you arrive at the point when the Messiah comes, whenever you place His Coming, that ends the seven and sixty-two sevens.

Now we read this so fast, it's easy to pass by what happens.  
Gabriel does not continue on with the long mistranslated "confirmation" of the one 'seven'.
Instead, Gabriel lists what happens after the sixty-ninth 'seven'.
This is an important distinction, so we ought to pay attention to verse 26.

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

1. the Messiah will be cut off.
- This is what Jesus did on the cross.
- Sometimes people want to place this as coming at the midpoint, but rather than even the start of the one 'seven' much less get halfway through it, Gabriel lists this outside of the 'sevens' and altogether first.
- Cut off comes from karat.  We read pass this too fast too.  It has deeper theological meaning for the Christian.

Concerning karat:
"The most important use of the root is “to cut” a covenant berît (q.v).  The word here is pregnant with theological meaning.  A covenant must be cut because the slaughter of animals was a part of the covenant ritual (Speiser, Genesis, in AB, p.112; BA 34:18)."  Earl S. Kalland, Th.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Former Dean of Conservative Baptist Seminary, Denver, Colorado.  Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament p.456-457

2. (the Messiah will) have nothing.
- Jesus left no lineage, unlike the conspiracy theorists who want to look for a son of the Son of God.
- This is in the normal meaning of cutting down a tree.
- It also can describe the complete absence of Jesus' body.

3. and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
- One criticism of the book of Daniel is the unnervingly accurate portrayal of the generational struggle between the Ptolemies and Selucids in chapter 11.  Because the oldest book of Daniel is late second century B.C., critics who scoff at this important eschatological book say it is historical rather than prophetic.  However, this portion is prophetic.  Another reason to reject the critics on the book of Daniel is that his use of Aramaic reflects a fifth century usage.
- According to Josepheus, when the city was broached by Titus and the Romans, the Zealots actually started a fire inside the Temple.  The Roman soldiers, in their blood-lust savagery then, and much against the commands of Titus who wanted to capture the Temple whole, fed the fire.  The stones, weakened by the heat, were torn down.  In fact, the Roman army performed a major leveling of the Temple Mount buildings Herod had constructed.  The West Wall is actually a foundation structure, so complete was the razing of the Temple.  No ceremony was performed in the Temple; nothing was erected within it.  The Romans did capitalize upon their victory over the Zealots by parading on the Temple Mount.
- Read simply, the people will destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The only reason the people are the subject causing the destruction is to point to the source for the object of the prepositional phrase: of the prince who is to come.
- Thus, an important logical conclusion is that Titus, being part of the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary, cannot be the prince who is (yet) to come.
- Furthermore, this clause backed up by the historical record of the First Jewish Revolt, determines that the prince who is to come is European in origin; not Jewish, nor Arab.
- Some people will still insist that the Zealots caused the city and the sanctuary to be destroyed and deny a European prince to come, but that is spinning history on a technicality: Gabriel does not say they caused the city and the sanctuary to be destroyed, but actually did it as the Hiphel stem is used.  Saying it is a causative stem is not accurate enough to lay the blame on the Zealots.

4.  And its end will come with a flood
- "End" - qes, it not defined here.  "its" is added in translation.
- Likewise, with the cryptic, succinct style of God, there is no verb; will come is added in translation.
- there is a preposition, beth, the second letter as a prefix to flood, translates as "with".
- However, flood, while a noun, deluge; is also used descriptively by the Man in Linen in another vision of the end in Chapter 11 with the closely related overflowing.  Floods come suddenly in arid regions, often from rainfall miles away.  They tend to sweep everything away in a massive debris mass being pushed along at its head.  They are quick and destructive.
- It is important that the flood is not associated with judgments per se, nor with Jerusalem.  The end (will come) with (a) flood.  
- "end", qes, however, carries strong eschatological overtones with it, often associated with the Day of the Lord.
- This is the first "end" in Daniel 9:26.

5.  even to the end there will be war.
- This is the second usage of "end" in Daniel 9:26.
- As the "end" here is tied to the condition of war, and since war has been ongoing ever since Jesus was crucified, this buttresses an eschatological end-time meaning for "end" as being the end of the seventy-sevens.
- There is no way to say the seventy 'sevens' could have ended without utterly ignoring this important timing phrase Gabriel gives Daniel from God.

6. desolations are determined.
- It is important to note that even with the bad news that Daniel receives, that God reveals that a Plan already exists to deal with what will be.
- It is my conclusion that these desolations, determined so long ago, are stored in the Scroll.
- In like fashion, the Trumpet and Bowl Judgments take the form of physical desolations upon the earth which makes human lives expire.

Daniel 9:27 does not exist in a vacuum.
Daniel 9:26 spells out three conditions which must pass before the end will come with a flood, and desolations.

• The Messiah cut off - done on the cross.
• The city and sanctuary destroyed - done in the first century after a gap of decades from the cross.
• War as a continual state until the end - which disqualifies any Full or Partial Preterist viewpoint - as this is still ongoing!

This can be set in picture form as this:

The destruction of the city and the sanctuary cannot be the end because it is set as one of three conditions to happen before the end comes.
The destruction of the city and the sanctuary only points to the origin for the future prince who will come.

As in all good hero epic stories, the evil-doer advances the plot and then, and only when he crosses the line, then the hero arises.
Onto verse 27.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Daniel 9:27
27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."  NASB

The first wording of this verse is very important.

And he will make a firm covenant-
- There are only two words here, gabar and berit; prevail and covenant.  The pronoun "he," however, is found in the verb conjugation, and thus makes a third word that can be found in the original text.  Everything else is added in translation to try and convey what is written in Hebrew.

1.  gabar
- גָּבַר  means be strong as an adjective, and to prevail as a verb and that is how it is translated when in the Qal stem as it is in Genesis, Exodus, 1st and 2nd Samuel, Lamentations for a total of 14 times..  Only one time is gabar used in the Hiphil stem and only in Daniel 9:27 do the KJV authors translate it as confirm.  This crucial change of word meaning has had a lasting consequence.  Ever since this bar has been set, every other translation version follows suit.
- The problem with confirm as a translation is that it takes the adjective meaning and applies it with a word which has positive connotation.  This positive connotation leads many to believe that Jesus is the actor here.
- confirm as a verb is used by Daniel in 9:12.  That same word (Strong's 6965) is also found in Nu 30:14, and Dt 19:15.
- That word is qum.  It is a prime root word meaning to arise, stand up, stand.
- IF Daniel has meant to say the covenant was to be confirmed, he could have used that word.
- The predominant word in the OT used to mean confirm is aman, (Strong's 539) which is also a prime root word meaning to confirm.
- Here the quoted NASB text translates gabar as make and it adds the adjective firm to the covenant, so as to not stray too far from the bar set by the KJV - yet trying to keep with the actual word meaning.
- The NASB is perhaps the best word-for-word English version of the Bible you can read.
- וְהִגְבִּיר as is used in Daniel 9:27 is in the Hiphil stem, perfect, third person singular.  The last part is where the pronoun "he" comes from.
- The Qal stem is a simple action.  He prevailed.  This is how gabar is translated in the OT Bible.
- The Hiphil stem shows a causative action: He caused to prevail.  This is how gabar ought to be translated in the Hiphil stem.
- The nuance of the Hiphil stem distances the actor from the action, but more importantly: it does not change the action!  This was only done in translation.
- Concordances are not authoritative word dictionaries.  They only show how the translators handled the translation.  As such, using them to buttress 'confirm' becomes a circular argument.
- In a wider application to this juncture in prophecy, the use of the Hiphil stem demonstrates the "behind-the-scenes" machinations of the anti-Christ, who is to come.
- It is important to note in Scripture, that the Man of Lawlessness is only revealed when he takes his seat in the Temple proclaiming himself as God (2Th 2:4).
- In addition in Scripture, the "little horn" comes up within the ranks of the ten kings who rule the fourth terrible beast (Dan 7:24 and Rev 17:12) "hamstringing" them.  This is an entirely Machiavellian political maneuver rather than a result of outright war.  "uproot" in Daniel 7 is not an agricultural term, but also means to hamstring.  Remember, the ten kings are also all opposed to God.  What the anti-Christ does here is rise up from the inside.  The covenant, then, is not the anti-Christ's initiative outright, but it is done on his impetus.
- So it is perfectly correct to say "he causes a covenant to be prevailed," and in keeping with the word gabar in its adjective connotation, with might, especially military might.
- This would, in my opinion, reflect the nature of the anti-Christ who rises within the power structure of the end-time, fourth terrible beast - acting behind the scenes to make this happen.
- The aspect of might comes with the enforcement.  Like with the "Roadmap" where Europe dictated the secession of the Gaza Strip and Israeli soldiers evicted Israeli citizens; the covenant is backed up by the military might of the powers that make it. 
- To complete this word study, the perfect form, shows the action as an entire singular event or situation, and shows the action or situation as a whole, complete, (not yet completed).

2. he
- The pronoun "he" is found in the verb conjugation of gabar.
- The rules for Hebrew Grammar can be found in a good reference book.  I use: An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor.
- The rule for pronouns is that they refer to the last person mentioned, the "leadword" as Waltke and O'Connor write.
- "the third-person pronouns must be specified to be definite." (13.1 of that book)
- 13.2 "I'm looking for a tent, but can't find one," is non-specific.  "I'm looking for a tent, but I can't find it," is specific.
- "As simple surrogates they (pronouns) relieve the tedious monotony of the same noun being repeated again and again.  Such is their normal function, of example, in these verbless clauses." (Judg 11:1; Gen 37;2) 16.3.1 Ibid.
- "The second group of uses of independent personal pronouns with finite verbs involves a logical structure."  (The referent of the pronoun).  16.3.2d.10
- Since Daniel 9:27 does not exist in a vacuum, the pronoun "he" in the conjugation of gabar refers to the last person mentioned - the prince who shall come.  This specifies who causes the prevailing of a covenant.

3. berit
- "covenant (ASV and RSV); between nations; a treaty, alliance of friendship; between individuals; a pledge or agreement; with obligation between monarch and subjects; a constitution; between God and man; a covenant accompanied by signs, sacrifices, and a solemn oath that sealed the relationship with promises of blessing for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it." -- Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament p. 128 by Elmer B. Smick, Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts.
- A covenant is NOT just between God and man.  A covenant covers a wide variety of agreements possible in the course of human endeavor.
- Thus, any criticism that this covenant cannot be a treaty is specious, void, and totally incorrect.

Now as to Jesus "confirming" a covenant:

• I have long challenged my Preterist friends to tell me which covenant Jesus "confirmed:" the Davidic, Abramaic, or Mosaic.  I have yet to hear an answer.
• Secondly: I challenge anyone to substantiate where Jesus "confirmed" any covenant at the beginning of His Ministry - mindful now - God's covenants show a distinct quid-pro-quo between the parties and are sealed in blood.  Any attempt to say this or that saying of our Lord at the beginning of His First Advent must show a Biblically correct God-derived covenant.
• Furthermore: THE ONLY COVENANT JESUS MADE was at the Last Supper - and He "CUT" that deal with the shedding of HIS OWN BLOOD on the cross.
• That covenant Jesus made on the cross, where He paid the ransom for you and me is NOT limited to seven years.  (The offer of salvation through faith will expire though when He comes again.)
• As to the use of gabar, while critics who want to say Jesus is the actor for the pronoun "he" say 'He prevailed upon the cross' - that goes against: 
• .....1. The causal use of the Hiphil stem.  The Jews and Pilate caused Jesus to "prevail" on the cross.  "Jesus prevailing" would be with the Qal stem as a simple action He performed.
• .....2. Implicit in the connotation of gabar is its adjective meaning, with strength, especially military might.  While Jesus defied the form of execution (meant to exhaust a person's ability to breath and thus "drown in mid-air") by going out with a shout - He did not use military might to achieve this, but rather submitted to the Cross!

I hope this is beneficial to the reader as a way of study.
Again, I use Seminary-level reference books for my authority; I am no expert on the original languages.
I do hope to show how a Pre-Wrath view of a futuristic fulfillment of this important prophetic passage is quite inline with the original language though.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius
Added wording for clarification / added additional content in reasoning.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

1.  with the many
- לָרַבִּים is "with the many."
- Ostensibly "with" includes Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.
- "with the many" is: lā·rab·bîm.  The first syllable la, conveys a sense of direction, with.  rab is the root word, great, or many, and the suffix denotes the plural = many.

2.  for one week,
- Two words here: 'seven' one.  
- "one" is pretty straight forward in this context of the seventy 'sevens'.  (It can have deeper meaning as in Dt 6:4).
- shābûa، means: A period of seven, a week, the Feast of Weeks.  (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p.899)
- Commonly understood for a 7-year peace treaty, the coincidence, perhaps, is not that it is timed for seven years, but because the covenant initiates the one 'seven' - it only lasts for seven years because at the end of the one 'seven', the desolator is undone.  His covenant with many, which he caused to prevail, then is dissolved when he is no longer present.  Bringing in the wider prophetic sphere of the book of Revelation, after all the Trumpet and Bowl Judgments, the anti-Christ and false prophet are captured alive at the final battle of the one 'seven' at Armageddon (Rev 16:16; 19:20a), and thereafter face judgment (Rev 11:18; 19:20b).

3. but in the middle
- וַחֲצִי is one word.
- The root word, Strongs' H2677, means half, or middle.
- The prefix is the wa consecutive.  There is over a page of information on this prefix in the TWOT, (pp 229-230) but it is how the translators insert "but".  
- "in the" are added in translation to aid normal reading.
- The importance of this single word cannot be understated.  The one 'seven' is immediately split into halves by Gabriel for a very important, seminal event.  The counting of this split time period, as a half, is first done by the Man in Linen in Daniel chapter 12.  This is also reflected in the two halves of the one 'seven' that are presented five times in the book of Revelation.  The fifth reference, in Revelation 13:5, also involves a "beast of a man" at the head of the "beast of a nation" which is tied to the fourth terrible beast of Daniel 7 by its animal parts (Rev 13:2).  His story is supplemented by the false prophet ("beast of the land", ostensibly Israel) who then combine to erect a talking image of the man with authority for 42 months who suffers a false resurrection.
- Again = Daniel 9:27 does not exist in a vacuum; it is tied to other prophecies, and itself is a template for the end-times.

4. of the week
- Simple prepositional phrase

5. he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering
- Three words here with a conjugated pronoun on the Hiphil stem for to cease, and a prefix conjunction on the third word joining the second to the third, which are nouns for sacrifice / offering ("and" being the wa consecutive).
- The same person who causes the covenant to prevail, causes a cessation of sacrifice and offering.
- It is a common, and constant complaint against futurism in eschatology by Amillennial and Preterist advocates, that Jesus ceased sacrifice and offering when He died.  They cite Hebrews for this authority.  However, while the (unknown) author of Hebrews makes the contrast between Jesus' single, perfect, atoning sacrifice and the futility of perpetual animal sacrifice, at no time does either Jesus or the author of Hebrews declare the sacrificial system as being totally kaput.  Indeed, Jesus makes the declarative statement that He did not come to abolish the Law!  (Mt 5:17)  As the "Appointments with God" or Festivals involve animal sacrifice, and as Jesus participated in accordance with the Law in their observance - there is no definitive Scripture which has Jesus causing the cessation of that Jewish practice.  The only thing for the Christian community is that we do not look for our salvation through the sacrificial Law!  
- Furthermore, concerning the Preterist notion that this was accomplished in the past: the Jews kept observing the sacrificial Law system - and immediately after Jesus' death on the cross.  So, in fact, Jesus' death did not cause the cessation of sacrifice and offering - by the Jews.  They kept on with it and in the book of Acts, v.12:5, the Passover is still in practice.  (For you KJV, the word is rendered "Easter" and this is another example of the translators of that time, making the Greek read in a way that it doesn't; the word is "pasha" and it means Passover.) 
- While no Lawful sacrifice can be made outside of Jerusalem's Temple Mount, there is prophecy that such a system will exist in a Temple, and the cessation of lawful observance - by the Jews (we need not) - is interrupted when the next prophetic event occurs - the AoD.  This is reflected in Mt 24:15, 2Th 2:4 and Rev 13:14-15.  Daniel 9:27 does not exist in a vacuum.
- In addition, a Temple is referenced in the first half of the split week in Revelation 11:1-2.  The measuring is not detailed by John, but you can find those measurements in the book of Ezekiel for what is termed the "third Temple." - It is within this structure that the false prophet, in conjunction with the anti-Christ, sets up the talking image of him in tribute to him after he invades the Holy Land.  The causal factor is that this is orchestrated between the two main evil actors.  While the false prophet erects the talking image, it is because of the "beast of a man, little horn, King of the North, anti-Christ."  

6. and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate
- This is verbless phrase of three nouns with a prefix preposition to "wing".
- Literally, it reads: "on-wing, abominations, desolation."
- This phrase gives the translators fits, as evidenced at how many ways (between the best word-for-word or meaning-for-meaning translational method they use) they render this so as to be readable in the English.
- It is much like the handwriting on the wall was indecipherable even to those who spoke the language and it took Daniel to give the proper interpretation thereof.
- Here is something I have already written on this phrase:

Concerning the first word, wing, the NASB does the best word for word translation.  The NIV, while rightfully correcting itself by removing the reference to a “wing” of the Temple, however, still has no basis in the Masoretic Text for temple and set.  These words are interjected to bring it in line with Paul’s epistles in line with the version’s thought for thought translation style.  While the context may be correct, the original language does not support this version at this point.  Oddly enough, the King James captures some of the flavor of the Hebrew better than the more modern translations, where wing is a figurative translation.  The reference for “wing” continues to confound the translators as evidenced by their wide array in bringing the ancient Hebrew into English.  Examining the words individually allows for an insight into the depth of the language and concludes with an alternate interpretation.

The reference to wing, or kanap, is obscure and while it can mean wing as with a bird or insect, it can also relate to a corner, or extremity as with a garment, or even as in reference to the ends of the earth (Isa 24:16). (BDB p.489)  While the origins of this usage are not known, the flowing nature to the lower corners of a robe would resemble a wing when moving swiftly. (TWOT p.447) The aspect of overspreading, could describe the power of this ruler in the one ‘seven’ over the world like the hawk like wings that adorned the royal insignia of Rome. (EBCOT) This would comply with the first meaning of kanap, and used figuratively indicates the swift attack of a predatory bird as in Jer 48:40 and 49:22.  Used figuratively, the Hebrew is flexible enough for kanap to be construed as speedy or swift.  While reading it as in the extreme, or on a corner or extremity could give this as a place setting, the aspect of overspreading remains a characteristic of either a garment or a wing as when a mother bird protects her young by spreading out her wing over them. 

Because wing can have figurative usages especially when applied to aspects of God, to literally say this must be a ‘wing’ as when the word is applied to an animal would not align with the subject matter in Daniel 9:27.  Thus rather than being used as a noun, kanap can be thought of as modifying the subject in some figurative sense.  In one sense, it could mean strong attack, since the wing of a bird is its strongest muscle.  Finally, one last aspect of the nature of a wing is that it is swift.  More so than any other attribute, a wing makes creatures of flight the fastest of all. As it is used as overshadowing in the King James Version, saying “quickly” or “swiftly” would convey the same sense of speed as is used with ‘flood’ in describing the actions of the anti-Christ at this point.  This author favors this final figurative interpretation of “wing.”  The midpoint happens rapidly from the invasion, which is like a flood, to the surprise unveiling of the abomination.

The word for abomination in Daniel 9:27 has a suffix, im, that acts just as our plural modification, s, and so the EBCOT literally translates this phrase as desolator of abominations.  One distinction of the plural in Hebrew is to show the magnitude of noun, as Elohim is described from Genesis 1:1 as being to show the greatness of God, El, by being in the plural.  Since the other references for the midweek point all describe a single manifestation of evil, rendering “abominations” in interpretation as describing how bad this instance will be is supported.  Concerning the second, causes desolation, is defined by Dr. Austel as:

   “The book of Daniel has four passages employing the Polel form of the verb (meshomen and shomem).  There is a causative (or better, factitive) force here similar to the use of the Hiphil, except that the Hiphil generally involves a physical devastation, while the Polel seems to put more stress on the fact that someone has caused the sanctuary or altar to be polluted, thus rendering it unfit for the worship and service of God. …Antiochus Epiphanes is depicted as doing away with proper sacrifices and in 11:31 as setting up an “abomination” (shiqqus), generally understood to be an idol of pagan altar.  In this activity he foreshadows the anti-Christ as described in 9:27 and 12:11.”  (TWOT p.936-7)

Referencing the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon; it relates this 9:27a me-somen as a noun, being a “horror-causer.”  Thus, it renders the simple condition as a person causing it.  In the latter case of verse 9:27b, with the simpler ol-somen; it is the “one being desolate” which again points back to the first who caused the desolation.  Certainly, there is some word play going on here just as between a beast of a nation and a beast of a man describing the final nation and its leader.  The anti-Christ is a desolator who causes the Temple to be desolate, and God returns the transgression back on him by heaping desolations upon him.

The use of the noun ol-somen at the end of 9:27 as an object of the preposition includes the person who does it.  Thus, as God’s Wrath is an expression of His Judgment and since God does not judge conditions, but rather only beings; then depicting the person by what he causes can be justified, i.e., a desolator.  This is how the Expositors rendered mesomen in Daniel 9:27. 

- I would render this phrase as "quickly, great abomination / desolator"  Interjecting verbs and relating words would be based on my Pre-Wrath eschatology: "Quickly, the terrible abomination of the desolator is set up."

7. even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
- Again, while Jesus said that your Temple is left to you desolate, the wording of Daniel 9:26-27 has desolations which has been decreed poured out (like with the Bowl Judgments) onto the desolator.  God's Wrath is NEVER directed to a condition.  So merely having a Temple emptied of the presence of God (signified by the splitting of the Curtain between the Most Holy Place and the Holy Place) does not fulfill Daniel 9:27's ending statement.
- Jerusalem was not completely destroyed with the First Jewish Revolt, nor was Israel.  It rebelled again some sixty years later, and then Rome dispersed the Jews.  Jerusalem continued to be a city, and some Jews continued to live in it even after both Revolts.  This is not a complete destruction as Daniel 9:27 dictates.
- The destruction must be complete.  This is done through the desolations as revealed and enumerated in the book of Revelation - which reduces mankind to a mere small group of survivors and lays waste to the whole earth.
- This destruction is already decreed, as per verse 26, and it is, in my opinion, contained on the Scroll, which only the Lamb of God can open.
- As detailed above, this destruction ultimately is poured out on the desolator - the anti-Christ and his second, the false prophet.
- This is done initially in thirds and Woes with the Trumpets.
- The third Woe, in my opinion, shows the depth of God's Wrath in the seven Bowl Judgments.
- Importantly, and with word-play and no mere coincidence of language, these are poured out and their effect, while mimicing the Trumpets, is this time: total.

• Daniel 9:27 does not exist within a vacuum.
• It's prophecy still contains applicability to the Church, since Daniel will receive the same inheritance promised to us: he is one of us.
• Daniel 9:25-27 fits with other major linear narratives; one half of the one 'seven' is expressly mentioned in Daniel 12 and in Revelation chapters 11, 12, and 13.
• Jesus references Daniel's AoD in the Olivet Discourse; of the three occurrences in his book, I can tie that succinctly to Daniel 9:27.
• Daniel 9:27 has not been fulfilled; no act of history comports with its conditions.

[WilliamL]

On 6/15/2016 at 6:54 AM, Marcus O'Reillius said:

On 6/9/2016 at 7:44 AM, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Partial Preterism, which is what you're advancing, is not Pre-Wrath, which is also Pre-Millennial.  

And I received this rebuttal:

On 6/13/2016 at 0:19 PM, WilliamL said:

What I wrote has nothing whatsoever to do with a Preterist view: straw man argument.

However, this is a definition of Preterism from http://www.theopedia.com/preterism

Quote

Partial Preterism, the older of the two views, holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ were fulfilled circa 70 AD when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices. It identifies "Babylon the great" (Revelation 17-18) with the ancient pagan City of Rome or Jerusalem.

Since I don't teach or agree with the parts in the red, that means I don't fit this definition of Partial Preterism. Of which source you left out quoting a great deal to which I also do not hold. This is deceptive cherry-picking on your part.

Saying that Daniel 9:24-27 was historically fulfilled within 66-73 AD is no more Preterism of any kind than saying that Daniel 11:31 was historically fulfilled. So yes, you have created a straw man argument, no matter what you call it.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I also posted the definition of straw man.  My typecasting of your eschatology does not fit that definition at all, because I did not try to tear down your point because of it.  I can see this conversation isn't going anywhere.  

Saying your take on Daniel 9:24-27 is done while still looking for a future end-time is Partially Preterist, with a wild twist on your part since you limit yourself to just one prophecy.  However, when I typify your hybrid eschatology as being partially Preterist, I am not making a straw man argument at all; I am categorizing your take on it.  That is not an argument; that is my opinion.  What is ironic is that the only argument we're having is whether or not this is an argument at all.  You seem to want to fight on this ground: why?

Like I said in the last few posts, if you want to say it's all been done as far as Daniel 9:27, then the onus is upon you to show it. So where and when, specifically with chapter and verse did Jesus "confirm" a covenant at the beginning of His Ministry?

Second question, what specific covenant did Jesus "confirm?" Please show how whatever you point to as this nice, warm confirmation, actually confirms in the positive whichever OT covenant you'd like to name it as confirming.  Please show the quid-pro-quo parts of the relative parties of a properly God-ordained covenant that occurs with this confirmation.

Third question: since war continues today, what end is Gabriel speaking about in verse 26?

Fourth question: why is this "end" NOT the end of the subject he introduced: the seventy 'sevens'?

Edited June 18, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Jesus did not cause a covenant to be prevailed with many for only seven years. 

gabar does not mean to confirm when used as a verb.  It means to prevail.

Even then, Jesus did not confirm any covenant, Davidic, Abramaic, or any other at the beginning of His First Advent.

War continues as a constant state until the end is poured out upon the desolator, at Armageddon, which concludes the seventy "sevens.'

Edited June 18, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[WilliamL]

On 6/15/2016 at 8:46 PM, Marcus O'Reillius said:

3. and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

...- Read simply, the people will destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The only reason the people are the subject causing the destruction is to point to the source for the object of the prepositional phrase: of the prince who is to come.

And as I have already pointed out, twice, the people are not the subject of the Hebrew Hiphil verb -- the coming prince is:

On 6/10/2016 at 1:42 PM, WilliamL said:

וְהָעִיר and the city  וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ and the sanctuary  יַשְׁחִית he shall cause to destroy [Hiphil/causative Imperfect 3ms: with active voice]  עַם people  נָגִיד leader/ruler/captain/prince  הַבָּא the coming [Qal active participle: verbal adjective]   וְקִצֹּו  and its end  בַשֶּׁטֶף with a flood   וְעַד and unto   קֵץ end  מִלְחָמָה of war  נֶחֱרֶצֶת being decreed/determined [Niphal passive participle]  שֹׁמֵמֹֽות desolations [Qal active Participle, plural]

And the coming ruler shall cause his people to destroy the city and the sanctuary...

But you continue to deny the Hebrew syntax and verb parsing, because you have no understanding of them:

יַשְׁחִית is a 3rd person masculine singular verb, agreeing with the singular noun nagyd/leader -- look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. This singular-in-person verb does not agree with the plural noun "people." According to Hebrew grammar, the subject of the verb cannot be "people," it has to be "ruler."

Therefore, this coming ruler/captain/prince who caused these events, must have come during the very era of all the events of verses 26-27 which he caused: there is no other possible reading of the text.

On 6/17/2016 at 4:39 PM, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Like I said in the last few posts, if you want to say it's all been done as far as Daniel 9:27, then the onus is upon you to show it. So where and when, specifically with chapter and verse did Jesus "confirm" a covenant at the beginning of His Ministry?

Where and when did I ever say Jesus did? You have read something into my posts that was never there.

All of my posts have clearly stated that the one having caused to confirm/make firm/prevail [Hiphil Perfect tense] was the "coming ruler" of verse 26. And that ruler was Vespasian, who fulfilled in precise detail everything attributed to the coming ruler in verses 26-27. I don't believe in historical coincidence when it occurs in such detail, nor do I believe that these events will occur a second time in the exact same sequence. This prophecy has been fulfilled. Others in Daniel have not.