Who confirms a covenant with many?

[Quasar93]

What is it that "he" will do? The antichrist will "confirm a 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." Maranatha!

By Thomas Ice, PhD

Source: http://www.raptureme.com/featured/70-weeks-9.html  [site has moved]


Quasar93

[Daniel 11:36]

"The antichrist will "confirm a covenant with the many for one week," that is seven years."

 

This confirmation is made by the Lord with the believing remnant of Israel in Daniel 9

It is the other prince who will come to desecrate Israel at the mid point of the 70th week decreed

 

[missmuffet]

23 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

What is it that "he" will do? The antichrist will "confirm a 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." Maranatha!

By Thomas Ice, PhD

Source: http://www.raptureme.com/featured/70-weeks-9.html  [site has moved]


Quasar93

Yep the Antichrist. I like Thomas Ice. I have watched several of his videos.

[Retrobyter]

On 12/1/2017 at 12:28 AM, Quasar93 said:

What is it that "he" will do? The antichrist will "confirm a 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." Maranatha!

By Thomas Ice, PhD

Source: http://www.raptureme.com/featured/70-weeks-9.html  [site has moved]


Quasar93

Shabbat shalom, Quasar93.

Nope. It's NOT the "antichrist." That's a typical answer from those who hold to the Pretribulational Rapture theory. (I should know; I used to BE one!)

Nor is this covenant the NEW Covenant or the "Covenant of Grace." That's a typical answer from a Preterist or Amillennialist.

It's the DAVIDIC Covenant (2 Kings 7:1-17), which is an extension and an elaboration of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; and 22:15-18) that God made with Avraham (Abraham), passed down to his son, Yitschaq (Isaac), and to his grandson, Ya`aqov (Jacob)/Yisra'el (Israel), and his great grandson, Yhudah (Judah) was named as the source of their sheeVeT ("sceptre") and then through the Mosaic Covenant when the children of Yisra'el were rescued from Egyptian slavery at the Exodus. THIS was the Covenant that extended to David and his SEED! All of the kings of Yisra'el (Israel) and Yhudah (Judah) were "anointed ones," even David's predecessor, Sha'uwl (Saul). The Hebrew word for an "anointed one" was "mashiyach." And, this word is transliterated to the English word "messiah." This Hebrew word was translated into Greek as "christos," from which, through transliteration, we get our English word "christ." Therefore, there were MANY "christs" down through time, but the final "Christ" - the ULTIMATE "Christ" - was Yeshua` (Jesus), God's Son!

Observe how Matthew's Gospel starts:

Matthew 1:1
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
KJV

And, then, the Gospel goes into Yeshua`s lineage, submitted as PROOF of His inheritance of both the title and to what end that title embodies.

The antecedent of the instances of "he" in Daniel 9:27 have "mashiyach" in verse 26 as their antecedent! It cannot be referring to the "prince that shall come" (naagiyd habaa')  because "prince" (naagiyd) is an object of a preposition (namely, "of") in English and the second noun (following `am, meaning "people") is in a noun construct state in Hebrew!

So, let's put the Messiah's name in Daniel 9: 27:

Daniel 9:27
27 And Yeshua` (Jesus) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:  (reminiscent of David's early kingdom, 1 Kings 2:11)
and in the midst of the week Yeshua` (Jesus) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, (Hebrews 9 and 10)
and for the overspreading of abominations Yeshua` (Jesus) shall make it desolate, (Matthew 23:1-39)
even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (Matthew 24:29-31)
KJV
 

[Quasar93]

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, Quasar93.

Nope. It's NOT the "antichrist." That's a typical answer from those who hold to the Pretribulational Rapture theory. (I should know; I used to BE one!)

Nor is this covenant the NEW Covenant or the "Covenant of Grace." That's a typical answer from a Preterist or Amillennialist.

It's the DAVIDIC Covenant (2 Kings 7:1-17), which is an extension and an elaboration of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; and 22:15-18) that God made with Avraham (Abraham), passed down to his son, Yitschaq (Isaac), and to his grandson, Ya`aqov (Jacob)/Yisra'el (Israel), and his great grandson, Yhudah (Judah) was named as the source of their sheeVeT ("sceptre") and then through the Mosaic Covenant when the children of Yisra'el were rescued from Egyptian slavery at the Exodus. THIS was the Covenant that extended to David and his SEED! All of the kings of Yisra'el (Israel) and Yhudah (Judah) were "anointed ones," even David's predecessor, Sha'uwl (Saul). The Hebrew word for an "anointed one" was "mashiyach." And, this word is transliterated to the English word "messiah." This Hebrew word was translated into Greek as "christos," from which, through transliteration, we get our English word "christ." Therefore, there were MANY "christs" down through time, but the final "Christ" - the ULTIMATE "Christ" - was Yeshua` (Jesus), God's Son!

Observe how Matthew's Gospel starts:

Matthew 1:1
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
KJV

And, then, the Gospel goes into Yeshua`s lineage, submitted as PROOF of His inheritance of both the title and to what end that title embodies.

The antecedent of the instances of "he" in Daniel 9:27 have "mashiyach" in verse 26 as their antecedent! It cannot be referring to the "prince that shall come" (naagiyd habaa')  because "prince" (naagiyd) is an object of a preposition (namely, "of") in English and the second noun (following `am, meaning "people") is in a noun construct state in Hebrew!

So, let's put the Messiah's name in Daniel 9: 27:

Daniel 9:27
27 And Yeshua` (Jesus) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:  (reminiscent of David's early kingdom, 1 Kings 2:11)
and in the midst of the week Yeshua` (Jesus) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, (Hebrews 9 and 10)
and for the overspreading of abominations Yeshua` (Jesus) shall make it desolate, (Matthew 23:1-39)
even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (Matthew 24:29-31)
KJV
 

Thanks for your extensive input.  Negative.  The Davidic Covenant will be fulfilled during the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth, as recorded in Acts 2:29-30 and 15:16 together with Zech.6:12-13, described in Ez.40-47.

 

Review the follow3ing, from another source:

 

WHO IS "HE"?

(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)

(

For much more: http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_927

 

 

Quasar93

[Daniel 11:36]

The Lord will confirm His covenant with a believing remnant of Israel during the coming tribulation period

The other prince [the anti-christ] will come to destroy and desolate

Edited December 4, 2017 by Daniel 11:36

[Retrobyter]

21 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

Thanks for your extensive input.  Negative.  The Davidic Covenant will be fulfilled during the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth, as recorded in Acts 2:29-30 and 15:16 together with Zech.6:12-13, described in Ez.40-47.

Shalom, Quasar93.

Oh, absolutely! The Davidic Covenant will DEFINITELY be fulfilled during the Millennium and BEYOND (Luke 1:30-33)! Let's look at this carefully, though:

I'm not saying that Yeshua` is this "prince who is to come"; I'm saying that the "prince who is to come" was Titus of Rome, and the mashiyach (Messiah; Christ) performs the activities in verse 27 because those activities CANNOT be done by this "prince who is to come!" It's just a matter of the grammar!

HOWEVER, there will be some things done by the mashiyach that do NOT happen all at once! Just as king David was accepted slowly over a period of time, so will king Yeshua` also slowly be accepted. His first three-and-a-half-year "ministry" was a LEGITIMATE offer of the Kingdom to the Jews, those of His own tribe. When they rejected Him as their King, He rejected that generation and POSTPONED the Kingdom to the future! HE is the One who put the "gap" in the 70 Sevens of Daniel 9 but He didn't put it between the 69th and 70th Sevens; He put it between the 69 and a half Sevens and the one half Seven! HE'S the One who left the Jews of Jerusalem "DESOLATE!"

Matthew 23:29-39
... (their overspreading of abominations)
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
KJV

They would be in that condition "until the consummation (or the end)" and suffer "that determined [pressure/tribulation which] would be poured upon the desolate (the Jews)." Notice, too, that they would NOT see Yeshua` from that point on until they can say, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the LORD." This was quoted from Psalm 118:26, and the Hebrew of that phrase in that verse is "Baruwkh haba' b-shem YHWH," which means, "Welcome, Comer on-the-authority of-YHWH."

Quote

 

Review the following, from another source:

 

WHO IS "HE"?

(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).

First, as I've already addressed, whether we look at the English, "the people OF THE PRINCE that shall come," or look at the Hebrew, "`am NAAGIYD habaa'," the conclusion is the same: the "prince that shall come" CANNOT be the antecedent of the verbs' pronouns in verse 27!

Second, you must recognize that the authors of the "most conservative evangelical commentaries" are not necessarily students of Hebrew.

Third, you must also understand that the authors of the "most conservative evangelical commentaries" will have already formed a bias on what they believe to be true, which may differ from what the text actually allows.

Quote

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.

Here, the Christ is also called a "prince" ("naagiyd"), but elsewhere He is also called a "prince of peace" ("sar shalom")! A "naagiyd" is one who stands out in front of a group of people and gives them orders. He's also the one who leads his troops into battle. A "sar" is one who has dominion over others. Of the two, a "sar" is the one who is a ruler.

Quote

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...

No, the "coming prince" IS the prince whose people destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D!

Quote

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 don't have a problem with fitting Revelation 13 with Daniel 7. This part is appropriately compared. I only have a problem with trying to fit Daniel 9 into the works.

Quote

(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.

And, the author of this Precept Austin article has LIKEWISE made the opposite assumption, namely "that there IS a future 'prince" making a covenant with Israel!" The irony is that this location in Daniel 9:24-27 is the ONLY place from which pretribulational rapturists argue that there SHALL be a future prince called the "antichrist" who makes a covenant with Israel! Isn't that circular reasoning? Using one's view of eschatology to support one's interpretation of Daniel 9:27, and using one's interpretation of Daniel 9:27 to support one's eschatological view?

Quote

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)

Of course, Harry Ironside is a pretribulational rapturist; so, he's not going to be a reputable source for the view that the Messiah is the antecedent of the "he's" in Daniel 9:27. And, he has not faithfully transmitted my point of view, at all. "The Lord Jesus Himself is NOT the prince that shall come!" His crucifixion IS the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. See Hebrews 10:8-18.

Hebrews 10:8-18
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
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;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
KJV

Yeshua` put an END to the offering for sin! EXACTLY as predicted by Gavri'el to Daniel in 9:27!

Quote

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)

(

For much more: http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_927

 

 

Quasar93

AH! But, you see, Yeshua` DID bring about the desolation! HE is the one who declared them "DESOLATE!"

[Daniel 11:36]

Again, this covenant is the one that the Lord has with the believing remnant of Israel during the coming tribulation period

"He will confirm His covenant with many for the 70th week decreed for Israel"

And it is the other prince [Satan] who will come to desecrate

[WilliamL]

I copied this post over from the Prophecy section -- it answers the same question here about who confirmed the covenant and destroyed the
Temple in the Jewish War of 66-73 AD. This post is comprised out of a number of past posts of mine on this same subject.

Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Preface 8: “[Vespasian] took…some of its [Galilee’s] cities by treaties, and on terms.”  III:ii:4: “…the inhabitants of Sepphoris…the largest city of Galilee…received Vespasian, the Roman general, very kindly, and readily promised that they would assist him…”  III:ix:8: “Now the seniors of the people [of Tiberius]…fell down before Vespasian, to supplicate his favor… Vespasian…accepted of their rights hands by way of security…[and] the citizens opened to him their gates…”]

During the Jewish War of 66-73 AD, Vespasian established the policy of keeping covenant with those of the Jews who rejected the rebellion against Rome, and who would confirm the long-standing Pax Romana in the Holy Land, whereby the Romans were acknowledged to be in control of all civil government.

... In 70 A.D., the “midst of the week/7 years” – no mention here of the 3½ times/1260 days prophesied elsewhere in Daniel – the Romans captured the Antonia Fortress on the northwest “corner/wing” of the Temple Mount, which provided access to the Temple complex via a narrow passage. Josephus, The Jewish War VI:i. Jewish Temple “sacrifice and (meal) offering ended” soon after, on Tammuz 17 = July 15. Ibid., VI:ii:1. The “desolating abominations” [Dan. 9:27, literal Hebrew] that ensued consisted of the most savage combat between the Romans and Jews, including instances of Jewish fratricide; piles of corpses within the Temple complex; and the Jews setting fire to the Temple’s own cloisters on the corner opposite the Roman-occupied Antonia. Ibid. VI:ii-iii. Also, the Romans began bringing their idolatrous ensigns (Aquilae) into the Temple precincts, to which sacrifices were offered. VI:iv:1; vi:1.

... from Josephus's account ...of Roman customs: "1. AND now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple (24) and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them..."  War, VI.vi.1

 

... Matt. 23:29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! ... 35 ...upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation. ... 38 Behold, your house [i.e. the Temple] is left to you desolate."

Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. ... 22 “For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written [only in Daniel 9:26-27] may be fulfilled."

JESUS SAID THE PROPHECY THAT WAS WRITTEN WOULD BE "FULFILLED" IN "THIS [his] GENERATION".

DANIEL 9:26-27 IS WHERE THE PROPHECY OF JERUSALEM AND THE TEMPLE'S DESTRUCTION AND DESOLATION IS WRITTEN. It has been fulfilled.

 

 

 

 

[Psalms37:4]

Big day in the news tomorrow, but in today's news, Erdogan threatens to break off relationship with Israel if Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Turkey threatens diplomatic crisis if US recognizes Jerusalem

Turkish President Recep Erdogan calls recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital a 'red line', threatens to break off ties with Israel.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/238885

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42232158

I think he's partially bluffing and will someday recognize Israel too.