Who do you think negotiates the treaty in Daniel 9:27?

[Daniel 11:36]

Correct above .... however, the one who confirms the covenant is the Lord Himself [Daniel 9:24]:

.... the other prince who comes to desecrate is Satan's contrivance 

[Psalms37:4]

5 hours ago, 7trumpets said:

Trump is not the desolator. 

Dan 9:26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The prince that shall come is Antichrist.

Dan 9:27  And he 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 cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Based on Daniel 9:27, do you think the a/c is the one who brokers/negotiates the treaty?

 

 

 

[7trumpets]

2 hours ago, Psalms37:4 said:

Based on Daniel 9:27, do you think the a/c is the one who brokers/negotiates the treaty?

 

 

 

Yes its a peace treaty. 

Dan 11:21  And in his estate shall stand up a vile person(AC), to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

Notes from my Companion bible :a vile person. One of the twelve titles given to the antichrist. See note on Dan_7:8. The prophecy concerning him is continuous to the end of the chapter. It is parallel with Dan_7:8, &c.; Dan_8:9, &c.; and Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27. He is not another successional king of the north, but a totally different and unique personage, still future. He comes in by "flatteries", and in Dan_11:40 he is attacked by both a "king of the south" and a "king of the north". 

Dan 11:22  And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

Read about that flood of lies in Rev 12:15.

Dan 11:23  And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

the league: i.e. the covenant just mentioned (Dan_11:22). 

Dan 11:24  He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

Antichrist comes in peaceably which is just opposite in that most people are expecting.   He is not going to be running around killing people for the instead of Jesus(Anti) wouldn't fool anyone. 

Dan 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Edited December 7, 2017 by 7trumpets

[Daniel 11:36]

Daniel 11:21-35 was Antiochus IV .... he was involved in all of the things listed

Daniel 11:36 begins and ends the career of the antichrist during the 70th week decreed for Israel still pending

[Psalms37:4]

6 hours ago, 7trumpets said:

Yes its a peace treaty. 

OK. So if the a/c is the one who brokers the peace treaty, what is the peace treaty Donald Trump is working on? I'm not saying Trump is the a/c. He most definitely is not. Now if the a/c is the one who actually brokers the peace treaty, shouldn't Daniel 9:27 say something like this.

Then he shall negotiate a covenant with many for one week

or

Then he shall broker a covenant with many for one week

or

Then he shall arbitrate a covenant with many for one week

or

Then he shall facilitate a covenant with many for one week

or

Then he shall mediate a covenant with many for one week

 

All the above words are synonyms indicating the a/c as the individual who will bring about a peace treaty for Israel. Instead Daniel use uses the word "confirm." What does confirm mean in the dictionary?

Daniel 9:27 New King James Version (NKJV)

²⁷ Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

 

I think it's a big misunderstanding of Daniel 9:27 from someone and the idea caught on fire and everyone has accepted that person's interpretation of what it means. 

Who ever started this rumor should of sought "confirmation" by testing the spirit.

 

6 hours ago, 7trumpets said:

Dan 11:21  And in his estate shall stand up a vile person(AC), to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

Notes from my Companion bible :a vile person. One of the twelve titles given to the antichrist. See note on Dan_7:8. The prophecy concerning him is continuous to the end of the chapter. It is parallel with Dan_7:8, &c.; Dan_8:9, &c.; and Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27. He is not another successional king of the north, but a totally different and unique personage, still future. He comes in by "flatteries", and in Dan_11:40 he is attacked by both a "king of the south" and a "king of the north". 

Dan 11:22  And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

Read about that flood of lies in Rev 12:15.

Dan 11:23  And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

the league: i.e. the covenant just mentioned (Dan_11:22). 

Dan 11:24  He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

Antichrist comes in peaceably which is just opposite in that most people are expecting.   He is not going to be running around killing people for the instead of Jesus(Anti) wouldn't fool anyone. 

Dan 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

None of this support the idea of the a/c brokering the peace treaty. They're prophecies of the a/c coming in peacefully. Thanks for posting though.

 

 

 

[Quasar93]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:28 AM, Psalms37:4 said:

OK. So if the a/c is the one who brokers the peace treaty, what is the peace treaty Donald Trump is working on? I'm not saying Trump is the a/c. He most definitely is not. Now if the a/c is the one who actually brokers the peace treaty, shouldn't Daniel 9:27 say something like this.

Then he shall negotiate a covenant with many for one week

or

Then he shall broker a covenant with many for one week

or

Then he shall arbitrate a covenant with many for one week

or

Then he shall facilitate a covenant with many for one week

or

Then he shall mediate a covenant with many for one week

 

All the above words are synonyms indicating the a/c as the individual who will bring about a peace treaty for Israel. Instead Daniel use uses the word "confirm." What does confirm mean in the dictionary?

Daniel 9:27 New King James Version (NKJV)

²⁷ Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

 

I think it's a big misunderstanding of Daniel 9:27 from someone and the idea caught on fire and everyone has accepted that person's interpretation of what it means. 

Who ever started this rumor should of sought "confirmation" by testing the spirit.

 

None of this support the idea of the a/c brokering the peace treaty. They're prophecies of the a/c coming in peacefully. Thanks for posting though.

 

 

 

Who confirms the covenant with many 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 comein 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 princehas 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) (Logos) (Wordsearch)

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[/font]) 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.


For the complete article: http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_927.htm


Quasar93

Edited December 8, 2017 by Quasar93

[Daniel 11:36]

And He shall confirm the covenant with many [of Israel].... this the Lord will do at the beginning of the 70th week decreed [Daniel 9:24]

It is the other prince who will come to desolate .... the anticrist

[Psalms37:4]

12 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming princehas 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...

 

12 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

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)

 

I actually agree with the author's primary argument in that link. The prince of the people to come is the a/c.

There's just two points the author made reference to that I don't share his view. There's not gonna be a revive Roman empire because the people Rome employed during the first century that invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple during 70 AD were not legions of Roman descent. At the time, Rome was separated into two divisions: the West and the East.

The people employed by Rome that conquered Jerusalem were from the eastern division and ancestors to the Muslim Arabic people of the Middle East today.

You can read more. I wrote two posts about it here.  

 

 

The second indifference is his view on the empires of Daniel 7.  This is a common error I see many people make mixing the past empires of Daniel 2 with the modern day empires of Daniel 7. Overall I think it's a thumbs up if it wasn't for these two points.

 

 

 

[WilliamL]

On 12/6/2017 at 2:59 AM, Diaste said:

On 12/5/2017 at 1:47 PM, WilliamL said:

The [singular] Abomination of Desolation is yet to come. Daniel 9:27 does not use that term. You are confusing different prophecies. The prophecy from Luke --

Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.

-- does not speak about the End Times, but rather about the destruction of Jerusalem in Jesus'/"this" generation. Eusebius related that the Christian Jews in Judea did in fact flee from the land across the Jordan after the Roman army from Syria surrounded Jerusalem in the Fall of 66 AD, but then retreated back to Syria.

 

Except for the fact the prophecy is not one verse. The entire prophecy and all the surrounding events must come to pass. The prophecy in Luke 21 begins at v 7 and ends at v 35. Verse 32 speaks to the generation that sees everything in the prophecy. That means there will be an A of D experienced by the generation that will witness GT and the signs in the heavens, along with everything else contained in the prophecy.

That is your opinion. I have a different view.

Jesus' disciples asked him two questions on the Mount of Olives: 1) When will the Temple that they were looking at have every stone thrown down, and 2) what would be the sign of the End of the Age and Christ's return in the clouds of glory. Matthew only recorded the answer to the second question. Luke recorded parts of answers to both questions, but ran both answers together, because he, like all the disciples of that generation, believed that Jesus would return in their generation. Wrong assumption.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

This is exactly what occurred in the Jewish War of 66-73 AD. There is no other prophecy that says the Jews will be taken away captive into all nations in the End Times.

[WilliamL]

On 12/5/2017 at 3:37 PM, Shilohsfoal said:

On 12/5/2017 at 1:47 PM, WilliamL said:

The [singular] Abomination of Desolation is yet to come. Daniel 9:27 does not use that term. You are confusing different prophecies. The prophecy from Luke --

Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.

-- does not speak about the End Times, but rather about the destruction of Jerusalem in Jesus'/"this" generation. Eusebius related that the Christian Jews in Judea did in fact flee from the land across the Jordan after the Roman army from Syria surrounded Jerusalem in the Fall of 66 AD, but then retreated back to Syria.

 

Actually,during the time of the end an army consisting of gentiles will occupy Jerusalem for 42 months.This military is found in daniel luke and revelation.

Ps The same person who places the abomination that causes desolation is the same person who causes that military to occupy Jerusalem for those 42 months.

Again, the term abomination of desolation is not found in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:27. It is found in the text of Dan. 12:11, to which Jesus was referring.

Daniel 9:26-27 is history. Jerusalem will be occupied again in the End Times, as we are clearly told in Daniel 11:40-45, but there is no mention there or in 12:11 of a Temple on the Temple Mount, nor blood sacrifices, nor of Jerusalem and Temple being destroyed.

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Unless you can provide other witnesses that Jerusalem and it's Temple will be destroyed in the End Times, your teaching that Dan. 9:26-27 is a prophecy about the End Times is without Scriptural authority. You and the others who hold this view can make all the claims you want, but you lack two witnesses of biblical evidence, and thus your words are not "established."