The little horn

[douggg]

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

In English, you will only find the "prince that shall come" as a CLAUSE WITHIN A PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE! As such, it cannot participate in the sentence with the main verbs!

Hi Retrobyter,    the prince who shall come did not himself destroy the temple and the city.    So he did not participate in that action.     So since the prince who shall come did not do anything in Daniel 9:26, the only place in Daniel 9 left to have a reason for even mentioning the person is the "He" in Daniel 9:27.

But the reason the prince who shall come is the person who confirms the covenant for 7 years, and not the messiah,  is that the only other place in the bible referring directly to a covenant and 7 years stated so in the text is in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

The 7 years are in Ezekiel 39, following the destruction of Gog's army.    And in Revelation 6-19, the components of the 7 years are the 1260 days, the 42 months, the time, times, half time.      All of those timeframes are tied to that person in Daniel 9, called the prince who shall come.

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by douggg

[Retrobyter]

20 hours ago, douggg said:

Hi Retrobyter,    the prince who shall come did not himself destroy the temple and the city.    So he did not participate in that action.     So since the prince who shall come did not do anything in Daniel 9:26, the only place in Daniel 9 left to have a reason for even mentioning the person is the "He" in Daniel 9:27.

But the reason the prince who shall come is the person who confirms the covenant for 7 years, and not the messiah,  is that the only other place in the bible referring directly to a covenant and 7 years stated so in the text is in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

The 7 years are in Ezekiel 39, following the destruction of Gog's army.    And in Revelation 6-19, the components of the 7 years are the 1260 days, the 42 months, the time, times, half time.      All of those timeframes are tied to that person in Daniel 9, called the prince who shall come.

Shalom, douggg.

Do you believe in the laws of grammar or don't you? This is NOT a question of whether or not the "prince" did anything in being mentioned. It's just a FACT that the second noun in a Hebrew noun construct state CANNOT participate in the verbs of that sentence! The sentence doesn't end in verse 26, and the verbs in verse 27 have NO subject in that verse! (There's no real "he" in the verse; the "he's" are implied by the gender and number of the verbs!) While it is true that one must go back to verse 26 to find the subject of the sentence, it CANNOT be the "prince!" One must go back farther, and the next (and only other) noun that could be the subject is "Messiah!"

Western Christians absolutely MUST learn Hebrew if they want to look at the nuances of the passages in the OT! It's not enough to go to Strong's (for instance) or some lexicon or vocabulary book for the definitions of words. One MUST get a feel for what is being said and how it is being said by the GRAMMAR of Hebrew!

Anyone who has studied biblical Greek KNOWS that the definitions of the words is not enough! One must learn the Greek GRAMMAR, as well! One can't just memorize the vocabulary list and expect to do well in class! That's only half of the battle! One must also learn the declensions of those words and the conjugation of the verbs!

It's no different in Hebrew! One must learn the declensions of the nouns, adjectives, AND verbs, because in Hebrew, verbs have gender and number, too! And, one must also learn the declensions of the verbs, as well!

Show me ONE place where we are told that the "tribulation" is restricted to 7 years! That is a FALLACY based on linking Daniel incorrectly with the Messiah's Olivet Discourse. Deut. 31:9-13 doesn't do it. All that passage is saying is that Israel must come together every seventh year to read the whole Torah in a special meeting.

[douggg]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Do you believe in the laws of grammar or don't you? This is NOT a question of whether or not the "prince" did anything in being mentioned. It's just a FACT that the second noun in a Hebrew noun construct state CANNOT participate in the verbs of that sentence! The sentence doesn't end in verse 26, and the verbs in verse 27 have NO subject in that verse! (There's no real "he" in the verse; the "he's" are implied by the gender and number of the verbs!) While it is true that one must go back to verse 26 to find the subject of the sentence, it CANNOT be the "prince!" One must go back farther, and the next (and only other) noun that could be the subject is "Messiah!"

I am assuming you believe that "Rashi" understood Hebrew?     Rashi is considered one of the highest authorities in Judaism on commentary of the Tanach.

At the online Tanach at Chabad.org, Rashi comments that the anointed one cut off in Daniel 9:26 was "Agrippa" the king of Judea.

And the "He" in Daniel 9:27, who confirms (strengthens) the covenant for seven years was Titus, not Agrippa.    Rashi's interpretation is that the anointed one cut off in Daniel 9:26 is not the person who confirms the covenant for seven years in Daniel 9:27.

Do you see the difference and similarities, to what I am saying?    The anointed one cutoff was a Jew, Jesus of course as we know and not Agrippa.    While the prince who shall come is of the Roman Empire people, but not Titus, instead the little horn person the leader of the EU..

 

So I think that apparently you have drawn some wrong conclusions about the Hebrew language.

Here is the link, so you can read for yourself.   Be sure and click on the box that says show Rashi's commentary.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16492/showrashi/true

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Show me ONE place where we are told that the "tribulation" is restricted to 7 years! That is a FALLACY based on linking Daniel incorrectly with the Messiah's Olivet Discourse. Deut. 31:9-13 doesn't do it. All that passage is saying is that Israel must come together every seventh year to read the whole Torah in a special meeting. 

"tribulation" as in 7 year tribulation is an arbitrary term by end times commentators to refer to the 7 year 70th week.

I don't use that term "tribulation", but instead I will say the 7 years, or the 70th week, or a combination thereof.    The reason I don't use the "tribulation" term is because it is not found in the bible that way, and it gives a mis-impressionism - as for the first half, the bigger part of it, Israel and the world will be saying peace and safety.

The "great tribulation", however, will be last 1335 days of the 2520 day 7 years.    Which Jesus used  "great tribulation" in Matthew 24:21 to describe the period beginning with the Abomination of Desolation is place in the temple.

_______________________________________________________________________

Regarding Deuteronomy 31:9-13, the term "confirm" does not appear in the text.   But the action required is the equivalent of confirm.      Moses aimed the law at future generations distanced by time in the future from when that second generation of the exiles would go into the promised land to possess it.

It is a reminder that under the Mt. Sinai covenant, that God gave the land of Israel to the children of Israel as theirs forever.

In Deuteronomy 31, Moses is making his last speech to the assembly of Israel, right before they were to cross over the Jordan and enter the promised land.

One part of the requirement was that the speech by the future leaders of Israel, replicating Moses's speech, is that the speech has to be given from the place of God's choosing.     I have discussed the Deuteronomy 31:9-13 requirement with the Jews (Judaism) themselves and they informed me that the place of God's choosing is presently considered by them to be the temple mount.

Which for obvious reasons, it hasn't be done in modern times because of the powder keg it would ignite if a Jewish leader would stand on the temple mount in front of huge assembly for that purpose - to say God gave the land of Israel to the children of Israel as theirs forever.

It is not going to be possible to make that speech until after Gog/Magog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by douggg

[Retrobyter]

8 hours ago, douggg said:

I am assuming you believe that "Rashi" understood Hebrew?     Rashi is considered one of the highest authorities in Judaism on commentary of the Tanach.

At the online Tanach at Chabad.org, Rashi comments that the anointed one cut off in Daniel 9:26 was "Agrippa" the king of Judea.

And the "He" in Daniel 9:27, who confirms (strengthens) the covenant for seven years was Titus, not Agrippa.    Rashi's interpretation is that the anointed one cut off in Daniel 9:26 is not the person who confirms the covenant for seven years in Daniel 9:27.

Do you see the difference and similarities, to what I am saying?    The anointed one cutoff was a Jew, Jesus of course as we know and not Agrippa.    While the prince who shall come is of the Roman Empire people, but not Titus, instead the little horn person the leader of the EU..

 

So I think that apparently you have drawn some wrong conclusions about the Hebrew language.

Here is the link, so you can read for yourself.   Be sure and click on the box that says show Rashi's commentary.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16492/showrashi/true

Shalom, douggg.

Of course Rashiy would understand Hebrew. HOWEVER, it would not be wise to expect "the blind to lead the blind!" "Rashiy" (an acronym for Rabbi Shlomoh Yitzchaqiy) was born in 1040 A.D. and lived during the Crusades of Europe, a time when Jews, as well as others, were killed needlessly and violently by angry, uneducated mobs, attempting to "help" in those Crusades, all in the name of "Jesus Christ" (Jesu Christo). His father, Rabbi Yitzchaq, refused to sell a diamond of great worth to a cardinal when he learned that the cardinal planned to put it on his cross!

Truth is like walking on a fence. Lean too far to the right, and you will fall; counterbalance too far to the left, and you will still fall. It was a noble quest to liberate the Land of Israel from the Moors. However, the mobs and the false motivations of the Crusaders took it too far to the right. But, the counterbalance of the Jews' reaction to "Jesus Christ" was just as wrong, too far to the left!

Just as Rashiy was wrong about the Messiah being King Agrippa instead of Yeshua` who was said BY GOD to be the Mashiyach, so too he was wrong about the "prince who would come" (Titus) doing the things in verse 27! Do you really think he was all that knowledgeable about Hebrew when he used Old French most of the time and was ADAMANTLY BLINDED against the true Messiah?

Just as a person could be fallen off a fence by many different reasons, doesn't tell you HOW a person fell off, so too, how a person is wrong about the interpretation of a prophecy is not clear when one is found to be wrong about that prophecy!

He was right about it being Titus; however, he made the SAME MISTAKE that you all are doing when you carry it into verse 27 as though the "prince" could be the one who does those verbs! See, he made the SAME MISTAKE that YOU are doing! "It couldn't possibly be the Messiah who is performing those verbs!"

Bluntly speaking, Rashiy NEVER STUDIED WITH AN OPEN MIND the TRUTH about the Messiah Yeshua`! That was a fact that was never even considered to be "on the table!"

The bottom line is this: Using Rashiy is NOT a good argument for your position.

8 hours ago, douggg said:

"tribulation" as in 7 year tribulation is an arbitrary term by end times commentators to refer to the 7 year 70th week.

I don't use that term "tribulation", but instead I will say the 7 years, or the 70th week, or a combination thereof.    The reason I don't use the "tribulation" term is because it is not found in the bible that way, and it gives a mis-impressionism - as for the first half, the bigger part of it, Israel and the world will be saying peace and safety.

The "great tribulation", however, will be last 1335 days of the 2520 day 7 years.    Which Jesus used  "great tribulation" in Matthew 24:21 to describe the period beginning with the Abomination of Desolation is place in the temple.

But, see, THAT'S my point! Why does the "tribulation" have to be "7 years" or any part (1335 days) of those "7 years?" What proof do you have for that interpretation?

If, as you say, the "Abomination of Desolation" takes place in the future, then, yes, one MIGHT be right to say it could be the "7 years" or a part of the "7 years." BUT, if the Abomination of Desolation took place in 70 A.D, then the "tribulation" could be MUCH LONGER than a mere "7 years!"

Indeed, I believe that the "7 years" are about something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT! And, I believe that the "tribulation" was stuck in the MIDDLE - in the GAP - between the first and second halves of the "7 years." What were the reasons for the 70 Sevens in the first place?

(1) to finish the transgression, and
(2) to make an end of sins, and
(3) to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
(4) to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
(5) to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
(6) to anoint the most Holy. 

These six were SUPPOSED to be accomplished by the Messiah Yeshua` at His First Coming, His First Advent. However, the religious leaders of Yhudah wouldn't relinquish the right to rule to God's Messiah! Instead, they CRUCIFIED Him! Because of their rejections of Him, He left them "desolate" until they could say, "Welcome, Comer on behalf of YHWH!" This all happened in the first half of the 70th Seven.

WHEN they can say those words to their hated "Jesus Christ," THEN He shall return! (This fact is KEY to how we should be working with the Jews.)

So, when Yeshua` the TRUE Messiah returns, THEN those six goals will be accomplished! But, this will occur in the second half of the 70th Seven, yet to be fulfilled when the Messiah again offers the Kingdom to Israel.

Right now, we're IN the "gap" that Yeshua` created when He left them "desolate." It's called the "times of the Gentiles" in which Yerushalayim ("Jerusalem") is "trodden under foot by the Gentiles." It's also when this "tribulation" occurs.

8 hours ago, douggg said:

_______________________________________________________________________

Regarding Deuteronomy 31:9-13, the term "confirm" does not appear in the text.   But the action required is the equivalent of confirm.      Moses aimed the law at future generations distanced by time in the future from when that second generation of the exiles would go into the promised land to possess it.

It is a reminder that under the Mt. Sinai covenant, that God gave the land of Israel to the children of Israel as theirs forever.

In Deuteronomy 31, Moses is making his last speech to the assembly of Israel, right before they were to cross over the Jordan and enter the promised land.

One part of the requirement was that the speech by the future leaders of Israel, replicating Moses's speech, is that the speech has to be given from the place of God's choosing.     I have discussed the Deuteronomy 31:9-13 requirement with the Jews (Judaism) themselves and they informed me that the place of God's choosing is presently considered by them to be the temple mount.

Which for obvious reasons, it hasn't be done in modern times because of the powder keg it would ignite if a Jewish leader would stand on the temple mount in front of huge assembly for that purpose - to say God gave the land of Israel to the children of Israel as theirs forever.

It is not going to be possible to make that speech until after Gog/Magog.

It's good that you "discussed this requirement with the Jews," and they were right to conclude that the "place of God's choosing" is the Temple mount in Yerushalayim; HOWEVER, that's only a baby step to what is needed.

[douggg]

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

He was right about it being Titus; however, he made the SAME MISTAKE that you all are doing when you carry it into verse 27 as though the "prince" could be the one who does those verbs! See, he made the SAME MISTAKE that YOU are doing! "It couldn't possibly be the Messiah who is performing those verbs!"

Rashi was not saying that the anointed (messiah) cutoff was the person who confirms the covenant for 7 years, but instead Titus was the one who confirms the covenant for 7 years.

 

What Rashi was wrong about is the identity of the anointed being cutoff - as being Agrippa.

And the person who confirms the covenant for 7 years as being Titus.

What is the correct interpretation is...

the anointed cutoff - is the messiah, Jesus

the prince who shall come  - is the end times little horn person, who will confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant 7 years.

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

The bottom line is this: Using Rashiy is NOT a good argument for your position.

Well, Rashi obviously being an expert in Hebrew, having commented on the entire Tanach and his treatment of Daniel 9:26-27, proves that your rationale that the prince who shall come cannot be the one who confirms the covenant for 7 years is wrong.

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

But, see, THAT'S my point! Why does the "tribulation" have to be "7 years" or any part (1335 days) of those "7 years?" What proof do you have for that interpretation?

I have not and never said the "tribulation" is 7 years long.     What is 7 years long is the 70th week of Daniel 9:27.

 

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

If, as you say, the "Abomination of Desolation" takes place in the future, then, yes, one MIGHT be right to say it could be the "7 years" or a part of the "7 years." BUT, if the Abomination of Desolation took place in 70 A.D, then the "tribulation" could be MUCH LONGER than a mere "7 years!"

I am not basing any of my arguments on the term the "tribulation".    Because the term is not associated with the 7 years.    The term associated with the 7 years is the "great tribulation", which the great tribulation obviously did not begin in 70 AD.

Regarding the Abomination of Desolation, Antiochus's act in Daniel 11:31 pre-shadowed the end times Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 12:11-12, which will trigger the great tribulation (to last the 1335 days).

_______________________________________________________________

Rebtrobyter, I think you may be having an argument with pre-tribbers, with their calling the 7 years as the "tribulation?     Actually their calling the 7 years as the "tribulation" is a misnomer.   What they should be calling their view of the rapture is "pre-70th week".

I personally am "anytime" rapture view.    The rapture could happen anytime, including possibly before the 70th week begins, but not necessarily.    The rapture has to happen before the person goes into the temple, sits, claims to be God, though.     What we don't know is how far before that event.

At any rate, I am not basing any of my arguments by referring to the 7 years as the "tribulation".    It is not part of my thinking or vocabulary regarding the 7 years.

____________________________________________________________

If you want to say Christians are subject to tribulation while we are in the world, I don't have a problem with that - ever since the resurrection until Jesus comes to take believers out of the world.

But I would not use that argument in conjunction with claiming that the 7 years have already been fulfilled in part.

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by douggg

[douggg]

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

But, see, THAT'S my point! Why does the "tribulation" have to be "7 years" or any part (1335 days) of those "7 years?" What proof do you have for that interpretation? 

The entire 7 year 70th week is still unfulfilled.

In Ezekiel 38-39, we have a condensed view of the end times...

Gog/Magog event....

then the 7 years....

then Armageddon in Ezekiel 39:17-20.     And Jesus Himself speaking in Ezekiel 39:21-29, having returned to earth and is reflecting back over why the house of Israel went into dispersement into the nations for rejecting him as their King.    But have come back into good standing with him.  

In Ezekiel 39:28, after he has returned, he thus brings every single one of them back to the land of Israel, corresponding to Matthew 24:31.

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by douggg

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, douggg said:

The entire 7 year 70th week is still unfulfilled.

In Ezekiel 38-39, we have a condensed view of the end times...

Gog/Magog event....

then the 7 years....

then Armageddon in Ezekiel 39:17-20.     And Jesus Himself speaking in Ezekiel 39:21-29, having returned to earth and is reflecting back over why the house of Israel went into dispersement into the nations for rejecting him as their King.    But have come back into good standing with him.  

In Ezekiel 39:28, after he has returned, he thus brings every single one of them back to the land of Israel, corresponding to Matthew 24:31.

 

Shalom, douggg.

Boy, you guys are really mixed up! It wasn't Yeshua` talking in Ezekiel 39:21-29; it was GOD, whom Yeshua` called "My Father!"

Look, the reign of Yeshua` will be like the reign of David: David recognized GOD being the true King of the nation Israel! David was merely His PROXY! His MESSIAH! His PHYSICAL REPRESENTATIVE king! Even as king, David did not hesitate to consult with God regarding his choices as king (until he became complacent and "relaxed" into his own sinful choices).

Yeshua` shall be the SAME WAY when He is reigning! He said this to the P'rushiym (the "Pharisees" or "Separatists"):

John 5:19-30 (KJV)

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them,

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

One of the jobs of a king of Israel was to judge matters that were escalated to him. He was like the Supreme Court for the kingdom of Israel.

Regarding "then the seven years...," where in Ezekiel 38:1-39:16 do you see this? (It's not there.)

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, douggg said:

Rashi was not saying that the anointed (messiah) cutoff was the person who confirms the covenant for 7 years, but instead Titus was the one who confirms the covenant for 7 years.

 

What Rashi was wrong about is the identity of the anointed being cutoff - as being Agrippa.

And the person who confirms the covenant for 7 years as being Titus.

Shalom, douggg.

Nope. Rashiy was NOT wrong about Titus being the "prince that shall come"; however, he WAS wrong about Titus being the One who confirms (strengthens) the covenant (the DAVIDIC Covenant) for 7 years! That One was the Messiah Yeshua`!

It's even quoted before Yeshua`s conception!

Luke 1:30-33 (KJV)

30 And the angel said unto her,

"Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

Just what do you think all the commotion was about when He was called the "Messiah" (or in Greek, the "Christ")?!

What Gavri'el said to Miryam was a quotation from 2 Samuel 7:

2 Samuel 7:4-17 (KJV)

4 And it came to pass that night, that the word of the LORD came unto Nathan, saying, 

5 "Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, 'Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in? 6 Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. 7 In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?'

8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, 'Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel: 9 And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth. 10 Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime, 11 And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.'" 

17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

 

[douggg]

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Nope. Rashiy was NOT wrong about Titus being the "prince that shall come"; however, he WAS wrong about Titus being the One who confirms (strengthens) the covenant (the DAVIDIC Covenant) for 7 years! That One was the Messiah Yeshua`!

The point being made by Rashi saying that the prince who shall come as the one confirming the covenant for 7 years - show that there is no Hebrew grammatical reason the person who confirms the covenant cannot be the prince who shall come.

5 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It's even quoted before Yeshua`s conception! 

I don't see anything in the verses you provided of anything about confirming the covenant for 7 years.     The verses you provided support that Jesus is the messiah, the anointed one cutoff, but we have no disagreement over that.

[douggg]

6 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Boy, you guys are really mixed up! It wasn't Yeshua` talking in Ezekiel 39:21-29; it was GOD, whom Yeshua` called "My Father!"

Jesus is God.    He is the one who executes judgement on the heathen in Ezekiel 39:17-20, corresponding to Revelation 19:17-20.     That it is Jesus Himself speaking in Ezekiel 39:21 is confirmed by Psalms 110.    Copied and pasted from the KJV....

 

1 (A Psalm of David.) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.

7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

 

Okay, David was speaking about Jesus as "my Lord".     Sitting at the right hand of God.    In verse 5  on the day of his wrath (Jesus's wrath, the wrath of the Lamb in Revelation) striking though kings and judging the heathen, and filling places with the dead bodies.

It is Jesus Himself, David's Lord in Psalms 110,  speaking in Ezekiel 39:21-29, having returned to the earth (in the future).

21 And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

6 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Regarding "then the seven years...," where in Ezekiel 38:1-39:16 do you see this? (It's not there.) 

Ezekiel 38-39 is a condensed picture of the end times.   Gog/Magog event.   Then the 7 years.    Then Armageddon in Ezekiel 19:17-20, with Jesus Himself speaking in Ezekiel 39:21-29 having returned to the earth.

The 7 years following the destruction of Gog's army in Ezekiel 39:4 are the 7 years of not having to cut gather wood to make fires, in Ezekiel 39:9-10.      God is making the remains of the weapons of Gog's army a provision for when during the second half of the 7 years when the Jews will have fled into the wilderness escaping persecution from the beast.     What is going to be burnt instead of wood will be in the vehicles, that is, the fuel in the tanks, personnel vehicles and the like.

The 7 years following the destruction of Gog's army are the 7 year 70th week.    Which following Gog/Magog, the prince who shall come, the little horn ruler of the EU, will enter the middle east with his military, on the premise of being an occupying peace keeper.      The Jews will think the person is the messiah, and he will be anointed the King of Israel.    Which he confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant in Daniel 9 for the 7 years as required by Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-31.    That will kick off the 7 years.

It will be very obvious at the time, because it will be a world wide broadcast speech from the temple mount.    Which Israel and the world will think it has entered the messianic era, saying "peace and safety" in 1Thessalonians5.

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by douggg