Who confirms a covenant with many?

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

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.

Shalom, WilliamL.

Sorry, but you've made EXACTLY THE SAME MISTAKE! Textually and grammatically, it CANNOT be the "prince who shall come" who is the "he" in verse 27! It's not "Vespacian" any more than it's some future "antichrist!"

Regarding Matthew 23:38, don't you think I would have looked that up in the Greek already? 

It's "oikos," the SAME WORD used here:

Matthew 10:6
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
KJV

The "lost sheep of the TEMPLE of Israel?!" No, that makes no sense, and the word in Matthew 23:38 is not talking about the temple, either! He just finished saying,

Matthew 23:37
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!
KJV

The "pronouns" in this verse are interesting, as well:

Kata Maththion 23:37-38
37 Ierousaleem Ierousaleem, hee apokteinousa tous profeetas kai lithobolousa tous apostalmenous pros auteen, posakis eetheleesa episunagagein ta tekna sou, hon tropon ornis episunagei ta nossia autees hupo tas pterugas kai ouk eetheleesate.
38 Idou afietai humin ho oikos humoon ereemos.
UBS Greek New Testament

37 Ierousaleem = 37 Yerushalayim/Jerusalem
Ierousaleem = Yerushalayim/Jerusalem (reduplicated),
hee = the
apokteinousa = murderess
tous = of-the
profeetas = prophets
kai = and
lithobolousa = stoner (f.)
tous = of-the
apostalmenous = ones-sent
pros = to
auteen, = her,
posakis = how-often
eetheleesa = I-would
episunagagein = have-gathered-together
ta = the
tekna = children
sou, = of-you (sing.)
hon = in-which
tropon = way
ornis = a-hen
episunagei = gathers-together
ta = the
nossia = chicks
autees = of-her
hupo = under
tas = the
pterugas = wings
kai = and
ouk = not
eetheleesate. = you (pl.)-would.
38 Idou = 38 Look!
afietai = is-left
humin = unto-you (pl.)
ho = the
oikos = household
humoon = of-you (pl.)
ereemos. = desolate.

You wouldn't notice the difference between the pronouns unless you studied the Greek of the text OR used the KJV. Thee's and thou's (and thy's and thine's) in the KJV are SINGULAR; ye's and you's (and your's and yours's) are PLURAL! That information is lost in all the modern, English translations! At first, Yeshua` is talking to them as a UNIT, an ENTITY, the CITY. Then, at the end of verse 37, He switches to the plural of the INDIVIDUALS within the city!

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, Psalms37:4 said:

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.

Shalom, Psalms37:4.

My initial reaction was "So what else is new?" ALL of the Islamic states say the same! That doesn't mean Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel! And, it has ALWAYS been the Israeli capital city since David secured it from the "Jebusites!" They just need to get over themselves!

Oh, and if they have a conniption fit over it, and bring back the Messiah by attacking Israel, they will "recognize Israel" VERY QUICKLY!

Edited December 6, 2017 by Retrobyter
Sorry. Couldn't stand my own abuse of English.

[Psalms37:4]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Psalms37:4.

My initial reaction was "So what else is new?" ALL of the Islamic states say the same! That doesn't mean Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel! And, it has ALWAYS been the Israeli capital city since David secured it from the "Jebusites!" They just need to get over themselves!

Oh, and if they have a conniption fit over it, and bring back the Messiah by attacking Israel, they will "recognize Israel" VERY QUICKLY!

ROFL!

Retro, this thread and my post has nothing to do with who will or will not recognize Jerusalem or Israel or even the Jewish people. I just threw that that in there like a newsreel but not the main event. Settle down for a minute and think about what I was really trying to do.  Sorry ol chap, you didn't get it.

 

 

 

 

[WilliamL]

On 12/5/2017 at 7:37 PM, Retrobyter said:

Regarding Matthew 23:38, don't you think I would have looked that up in the Greek already? 

It's "oikos," the SAME WORD used here:

Matthew 10:6
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
KJV

The "lost sheep of the TEMPLE of Israel?!" No, that makes no sense, and the word in Matthew 23:38 is not talking about the temple, either!

Anyone with any biblical literacy and honesty knows that the term "house" is used for a variety of different meanings in the Scriptures. It can mean the Temple, an individual's bloodline, or a common house, depending upon the context. Your use of the example above as some kind of proof of your rightness is sheer nonsense.

[Uriah]

Greetings,

I am new to this board and thought I would stop in and share my thoughts on the subject.

It is my opinion that JESUS is the one seen confirming the covenant in the passage in Daniel 9. In fact He says in Matt. 26:28- For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 

This is is an alternate word for covenant. We also know that He simultaneously fulfilled the sacrifice of the old covenant. But now he takes away the sins of the world...the many.  See Gen 17:4

Furthermore this passage dictates that He would be cut off AFTER 69 weeks. That leaves only the 70th. (or else He would have to be sacrificed in the times of the gentiles thus violating this prophecy) In the midst of it He WAS cut off. He announced when the coming of the Messiah took place- approx. 3.5 yrs earlier in a small synagogue.

[Last Daze]

5 hours ago, Uriah said:

Greetings,

I am new to this board and thought I would stop in and share my thoughts on the subject.

It is my opinion that JESUS is the one seen confirming the covenant in the passage in Daniel 9. In fact He says in Matt. 26:28- For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 

This is is an alternate word for covenant. We also know that He simultaneously fulfilled the sacrifice of the old covenant. But now he takes away the sins of the world...the many.  See Gen 17:4

Furthermore this passage dictates that He would be cut off AFTER 69 weeks. That leaves only the 70th. (or else He would have to be sacrificed in the times of the gentiles thus violating this prophecy) In the midst of it He WAS cut off. He announced when the coming of the Messiah took place- approx. 3.5 yrs earlier in a small synagogue.

I completely agree.  Since the prophecy is "to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity" among other things, it only makes sense that the covenant being referred to helps to accomplish the objectives of the prophecy, and we know that Jesus did in fact confirm the new covenant with the Jews.  How the notion of a peace treaty came about is beyond me.

[Retrobyter]

7 hours ago, Uriah said:

Greetings,

I am new to this board and thought I would stop in and share my thoughts on the subject.

It is my opinion that JESUS is the one seen confirming the covenant in the passage in Daniel 9. In fact He says in Matt. 26:28- For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 

This is is an alternate word for covenant. We also know that He simultaneously fulfilled the sacrifice of the old covenant. But now he takes away the sins of the world...the many.  See Gen 17:4

Furthermore this passage dictates that He would be cut off AFTER 69 weeks. That leaves only the 70th. (or else He would have to be sacrificed in the times of the gentiles thus violating this prophecy) In the midst of it He WAS cut off. He announced when the coming of the Messiah took place- approx. 3.5 yrs earlier in a small synagogue.

Shalom, Uriah, and welcome! And, if you can receive it, Happy Chanukkah! Chag Sameach!

I know that this is a common opinion, but the fact has been stated above that this New Covenant is an ETERNAL Covenant. It is not limited to seven years at all.

On the other hand, I DO agree with you that Yeshua` the Messiah is the One seen confirming the covenant in the passage of Daniel 9. I've been trying to show that the Hebrew grammar and the English grammar agree that this could NOT refer to the "prince that shall come" in verse 26. Anyone who wants to be able to use Daniel 9 to describe the "covenant that the antichrist breaks," needs this antecedent. HOWEVER, the antecedent cannot be the object of a preposition (in English) or the second noun in a noun construct state (in Hebrew). The antecedent is the "Messiah" in verse 26. Therefore, it is the MESSIAH who "shall confirm a covenant with many for one seven ('week'): and in the midst of the seven ('week') He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation (gift) to cease." (Hebrews 10:8-18.) And it is He who "for the overspreading of abominations (Matthew 23:1-37) "shall make it desolate" (Matthew 23:38), "even until the consummation" (Matthew 23:39), "and that determined" ("Jacob's trouble" or the "tribulation") "shall be poured upon the desolate" (the children of Israel, those left "desolate").

 

[Retrobyter]

11 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Anyone with any biblical literacy and honesty knows that the term "house" is used for a variety of different meanings in the Scriptures. It can mean the Temple, an individual's bloodline, or a common house, depending upon the context. Your use of the example above as some kind of proof of your rightness is sheer nonsense.

Shalom, WilliamL, and Happy Chanukkah to you, as well! Chag Sameach!

Of course, you're right. It's not the "proof," per se. The proof is in the pronouns (which I cited) and in the fact that the Temple is NEVER referred to as THEIR "house!" It was "GOD'S house!" It was ALWAYS known as "beyt Elohiym." The "house of God!" OR, as Yeshua` frequently called it, "My FATHER'S House!" (Luke 2:49; John 2:16).

 

[Daniel 11:36]

It is the Lord who will confirm the covenant with a remnant of Israel for one week [the 70th week decreed]

And it is the other prince who will bring desolation to Israel

[Justin Adams]

Yeshua confirms the covenant made while Abraham slept..

After 3.5 years He was cut of, but not for Himself. The Covenant was then reaffirmed and sealed by His shed blood.
For many - the world.

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Justin Adams