The following posting will be my final posting in this discussion-debate thread. Brother Day and I have engaged in this matter now for a number of months. My family and ministry responsibilities simply will not permit me to continue herein for a number of months more. Throughout the discussion-debate thus far, we have touched upon each of the details of truth that are found within Daniel 9:24-27. In some manner we are now simply repeating that which we have already presented. Indeed, there are three details in Daniel 9:27 that I wish to focus upon one further time (and shall do so in this posting). Since I took the opening posting of this discussion-debate, I fully expect that Brother Day should receive the closing remarks herein (before the thread is locked). Thank you all for following the discussion-debate in what manner that you did.
You compel me yet again to defend my focus upon grammatical analysis in Bible study. Concerning your accusation above, I believe that a more accurate word would have been the word “precise,” rather than the word “extreme.” That in which I have engaged is precise grammatical analysis in order that we might rightly understand what God the Holy Spirit has precisely inspired. It is our responsibility as Bible students to be “rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) This instruction portrays the picture of precisely cutting a line in accord with a precise pattern. Through inspiration God the Holy Spirit has established the precise pattern of truth in God’s Holy Word. It is now our responsibility to be just as precise in our study of that word of truth. Now, when God the Holy Spirit precisely inspired God’s Holy Word, He not only precisely inspired the words; He also precisely inspired the grammatical placement of those words into sentences and the flow-of-thought placement of those sentences into contexts. Therefore, when I engage in the precise grammatical and contextual analysis of a passage, I am being directly obedient unto my Lord’s instruction to be “rightly dividing” (cutting the line of understanding with precision) His Holy Word in accord with the precise pattern of words, grammar, and context that God the Holy Spirit precisely inspired. Even so, let it be known unto you, unto those who have joined with you in this debate against me, and unto all others – No matter how much you may attack me for engaging in such precise grammatical and contextual analysis, I will NOT disobey my Lord by complying to your wishes and by giving up on that precise grammatical and contextual analysis!
Now, concerning the matter of appreciation for my precision in the grammatical and contextual analysis of the passage – Any individual who desires to pursue a precise understanding of the passage will greatly appreciate my precision in handling the passage. However, it is just as certain that an individual who prefers to handle God’s Holy Word with loose generalities and who finds the precise grammar and context to be against his position will not at all appreciate my precision in handling the passage. Indeed, the very fact that you and those who stand with you in this matter so regularly seek to disregard and disrespect precise grammatical analysis is evidence in itself that the precise grammar of the passage is more in favor of my position and more in contradiction to your position. Certainly, why would you want to find appreciation for that?
Most certainly I will stand against you for so doing. God the Holy Spirit Himself precisely inspired the grammatical arrangements for the words of Scripture in order to communicate precisely the truth of God as He intended. Do you believe that He has given you the authority to rearrange the grammatical arrangement of those words as you see fit? I am certain that He has not. Do you believe that you know better than He did and does concerning how the grammatical arrangement of those words ought to be? I am certain that you do not. Now, since you have revealed how little regard and respect you have for the precise grammar of the passage, I am not actually surprised that you feel comfortable rearranging the Holy Spirit inspired, grammatical arrangement of the words in that passage.
Even so, I would repeat the warning that I gave in my previous posting -- Whenever an individual changes the grammatical arrangement that God the Holy Spirit inspired in any given statement of God’s Holy Word, that individual changes the meaning from that which God the Holy Spirit communicated into some other meaning. Such changing of the meaning from that which God the Holy Spirit communicated by inspiration is not right dividing of God’s Word of truth. Yet again, I would challenge all to develop a greater respect for every single word that God the Holy Spirit inspired and for the grammatical arrangement of those words in each sentence that God the Holy Spirit inspired in each given context.
That which follows the adversative conjunction “but” in your statement above – Is this your defense for rearranging the precise grammatical arrangement of the words that God the Holy Spirit inspired. How can you come to a right understanding of what God the Holy Spirit precisely intended to communicate in the Scriptures, if you first rearrange the precise grammatical arrangement for the words by which He communicated? Precise grammatical analysis (as that in which I engage) handles each statement of God’s Holy Word word-for-word according to the precise grammatical arrangement in which God the Holy Spirit inspired and communicated that statement of God’s Holy Word. (For example – If God the Holy Spirit inspired the coordinating conjunction “and” to be precisely arranged at the beginning of each and every independent statement (sentence, clause) in a series of statements, then God the Holy Spirit had a precise reason for so arranging that conjunction; and it is my responsibility as a Bible student to discern and understand God the Holy Spirit’s precise reason for so doing.) Such a practice is not “extreme” grammatical analysis. Rather, such a practice is a precise, word-for-word (“jot and tittle”) grammatical analysis that regards and respects every single word that God the Holy Spirit inspired, in the precise grammatical arrangement in which God the Holy Spirit inspired it. Indeed, such a practice is “rightly dividing” God’s Holy Word of truth. Indeed, such a practice is the only way to understand precisely what God the Holy Spirit has inspired and communicated, before we engage in the matters of “interpretation” and “application.”
By definition “to interpret” is “to explain the meaning of something, to make understandable.” As such, interpreting does indeed require “additional words” and an “emphasis upon actual words” for the sake of explanation. However, rearranging the grammatical arrangement of the words is not engaging in the process of explanation in order to make God’s truth understandable. Rather, it is engaging in the process of transformation in order to adapt God’s truth unto one’s own ideas.
My efforts of precise grammatical and contextual analysis have not engaged in changing that statement even one word. (Although if I remember correctly, there was another who did seek to change that Scriptural statement from “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city” to something like “Seventy weeks are determined upon all the nations of the earth and upon thy holy city.”) However, my efforts of precise grammatical and context analysis have made note that the statement does not actually read, “Seventy consecutive weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city.” Furthermore, my efforts of precise grammatical and contextual analysis have engaged in combating the loose generalities by which you have sought to support your position.
I myself did not insert the “gap;” God the Holy Spirit did. By inspiration He arranged for Daniel 9:25 to mention specifically the conclusion of the 69th “week” of years. By inspiration He arranged for Daniel 9:27 to mention specifically the beginning of the 70th “week” of years. And by inspiration He arranged for Daniel 9:26, along with its reported events, to be placed precisely between these two other verses. Now, 69 plus 1, regardless of any “gap” between them, still equals the 70 “weeks” of years that the Lord God determined to administer upon Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.
So then, what about that “gap” of time? Does it not have any administration upon the children of Israel? Actually, the New Testament passage of Romans 11:25 teaches that this is the time wherein spiritual “blindness in part is happened to Israel” and that this spiritual blindness will continue upon them “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” Even so, this “gap” of time is to be understood, not as the time for Israel, but as “the times of the Gentiles.” (See Luke 21:24) Yet the New Testament passage of Romans 11:26-27 further teaches that after “the fulness of the Gentiles” comes in and “the times of the Gentiles” are fulfilled, then the Lord shall bring forth the salvation of and fulfilled covenant blessings upon the children of Israel.
Indeed, you have presented many “supporting” passages from the New Testament. Yet you have not provided a single passage that precisely indicates that the 70 “weeks” of years of Daniel 9:24-27 were fulfilled at any time during the 3.5 years after Christ’s resurrection. Indeed, not a single New Testament passage that you have presented has mentioned the 70th “week” of Daniel at all.
Indeed, as much as I have been able, I have attempted to remain with a precise examination of the grammar and context of Daniel 9:24-27 itself. Certainly, I have made some references to other supporting passages concerning the Lord God’s new covenant promises unto the children of Israel. Since Daniel 9:24-27 is a prophecy concerning the Lord God’s intended blessing upon Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, and since the Lord God’s new covenant promises unto the children of Israel are prophetic utterances concerning the Lord God’s intended blessings upon the children of Israel, it seemed Biblically appropriate. However, when I have handled these passages at length, I have done so in “external” threads. Furthermore, in so doing I have also handled at least one New Testament passage concerning this matter, that is – Romans 11:25-27.
Actually, we have no such thing; for no New Testament Scripture directly indicates that it is the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27. Oh, in your manner of loose generalities, you have made the claim that there are such passages. Yet when these passages are examined with precision, your loose generalities are found faulty.
Yes, this is the assumption of your position. Yet you have not given evidence for that assumption. You have simply made the assertion of your assumption over and over again as if your personal declaration thereof is evidence enough. Did the transgression of the children of Israel “finish” (completely stop) at the event of Christ’s death and resurrection (“. . . upon thy people . . . to finish the transgression”)? No, it did not. Did the sins of the children of Israel “end” (completely stop) at the event of Christ’s death and resurrection (“. . . upon thy people . . . to make an end of sins”)? No, they did not. Did the children of Israel as a national people group enter into their condition of reconciliation with God at the event of Christ’s death and resurrection (“. . . upon thy people . . . to make reconciliation for iniquity”)? No, they did not. Did the children of Israel as a national people group enter into a walk of everlasting righteousness at the event of Christ’s death and resurrection (“. . . upon thy people . . . to bring in everlasting righteousness”)? No, they did not. So then, we should not look at Daniel 9:24 as being fulfilled at the event of Christ’s death and resurrection. Rather, we should look for a future event wherein the Lord God will precisely fulfill every detail of the new covenant promises that He declared that He would make with the children of Israel as a national people group.
Furthermore, even if for the sake of the argument we considered that the event of Christ’s death and resurrection was the fulfillment for the six-fold purpose statements of Daniel 9:24, we would find another problem of imprecision. According to your position, Christ did not die at the end of the 70th “week,” but in the midst of the 70th “week.” As such the event of Christ’s death and resurrection would have been 69.5 “weeks” of years, not 70 “weeks” of years. Yet Daniel 9:24 declares that 70 “weeks” of years were determined in order to bring forth the six purposes. Again, when the matter is examined with precision, loose generalities are found faulty.
Indeed, He did consider that “He had finished the work the Father had given Him.” Indeed, He did finish that work! However, that is not the point of the debate. The point of the debate, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, is whether Daniel 9:24 is even speaking about the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ that God the Father had given for Him to finish.
Indeed, it was necessary for Christ to have suffered those things “and to enter into his glory.” It was necessary for the Lord God’s plan of salvation for us sinners to be fulfilled, and it was necessary for the Old Testament prophecies concerning those things to be fulfilled. (Although at the moment wherein our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking to these disciples, He had not yet fully entered “into His glory.”) Indeed, all of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ that pertain to His first coming were fulfilled in His first coming. Such does not mean that every single Old Testament prophecy of any and all types was fulfilled in His first coming, for some of the Old Testament prophecies are not “concerning” Him and His first coming. In addition, such does not mean that every single Old Testament prophecy concerning Him of any and all types was fulfilled in His first coming, for some of the Old Testament prophecies “concerning” Him are “concerning” His second coming (which has not yet occurred). Even so, we find ourselves returning to the point of the debate – Is Daniel 9:24 one of those Old Testament prophecies that is “concerning” His first coming? Nothing in either Luke 24:25 or Luke 24:44 precisely indicates such; therefore, neither of these two verses is precisely relevant to the point of the debate.
I have no desire “to deny the simple words of Scripture” by any means. Rather, I have a desire to be “rightly dividing” God’s Holy Word of truth with precision in accord with the precise grammar and context that God the Holy Spirit inspired.
Concerning Scofield – I believe that any individual who reads through my postings in this discussion-debate can quite clearly observe that I have placed my emphasis upon the grammar and context of the passage (not upon the “Scofield” of the passage). The foundational authority for my understanding is just that – the precise grammar and context of the passage. Brother Scofield’s teachings concerning the passage serve as an authority for my understanding of the passage exactly none at all.
(Note: It is interesting to me that you would engage in this practice of “throwing Scofield in my face.” It is interesting since you were the one who, at the beginning of the discussion-debate, made significant request (such that it became a rule of the discussion-debate) that I not do a search for the beliefs of other partial preterists, and then apply the resulting information to you. So then, Brother Day, are you now practicing a double standard?)
By its very nature, the phrase, “we should expect,” indicates human assumption and expectation. However, human assumption and expectation is not at all the authority for Bible study and Biblical understanding. The Lord our God’s wisdom and ways are far above human wisdom and ways. Therefore, it is far better to accept what God’s Word says according to precise grammatical and contextual study, than to expect what God’s Word meant according to human assumptions.
As I have indicated above, not one New Testament passage precisely indicates that it is a fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th “week” of years. It is only your method of human assumptions and loose generalities that makes this application. Does any New Testament passage speak precisely concerning our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion? Certainly. Does any New Testament passage state precisely that the event of our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was a part of Daniel’s 70th “week” of years? No, not one. Does Daniel 9:26 state precisely that the event of our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was to be within the 70th “week” of years? No, it does not; for Daniel 9:26 does not directly mention the 70th “week” of years at all; and then Daniel 9:27 begins by directly mentioning the beginning of that very 70th “week” of years.
Furthermore, your method of human assumption finds another difficulty. If (for the sake of the argument) by the method of human assumption, we humanly assume and expect the events of the 70th “week” to follow immediately upon the end of the 69th “week,” and thus humanly assume and expect Daniel 9:26 to present those events because it follows immediately after verse 25 – then we should also humanly assume and expect all of the events of Daniel 9:26 to fall within the 70th “week,” since Daniel 9:24 only speaks concerning 70 “weeks” being determined upon the Daniel’s people, the children of Israel (not 70 “weeks” plus some time more), and because Daniel 9:26 and its events are presented before verse 27 wherein the 70th “week” is still being specifically referenced. Not a single statement of Daniel 9:24-27 precisely speaks concerning anything after the 70 “weeks” that were determined; therefore, by human assumption and expectation, we should expect every detail of the prophetic utterance to be a part of the 70 “weeks” of years (which even your position denies).
Yes, we are agreed.
Indeed, we are still agreed, especially on the fact that Daniel 9:26 does not necessarily speak concerning events that are during the 70th and final “week” of years. The difference and disagreement between us is that I would place the events of Daniel 9:26 between the end of the first 69 “weeks” of years as recorded in verse 25 and the beginning of the 70th “week” of years as recorded in verse 27, just as verse 26 was arranged by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit to be between verse 25 and verse 27 – whereas you would indicate that the events of Daniel 9:26 occur during and beyond the 70th “week” of years.
Indeed, we know by historical record that our Lord Jesus Christ, “the Messiah the Prince,” was crucified approximately 3.5 years after His baptism. Furthermore, we know by historical record that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was approximately another 40 years after that. Finally, we know by historical record that “the end of the war” (if we view this as a reference only to that immediate conflict, and do not view this as a reference to the ongoing conflict between Rome and the children of Israel that has continued unto this very day) occurred even some number of years after that. As such, by historical record we know that the prophesied events of Daniel 9:26 extend after our Lord’s baptism to a time period of 44+ years. That is quite a bit longer than one “week” of years. In fact, this is so because Daniel 9:26 not even once precisely states that it is prophesying concerning events that would fall within the 70th and final “week” of years. Rather, the beginning of that 70th and final “week” of years is not precisely mentioned until the beginning of Daniel 9:27, which then proceeds to mention precisely the middle of that 70th and final “week” and the consummation of that 70th and final “week.”
Herein, we are fully agreed.
Your use of the word “naturally” in the above statement reveals you reliance upon human assumption.
Your above conclusion (“so runs from . . .”) is founded upon your human assumption (“the 70th week naturally . . .”). I myself reject that human assumption (as I have revealed many times throughout this discussion-debate) based precisely upon the Holy Spirit inspired information and arrangement of Daniel 9:25, Daniel 9:26, and Daniel 9:27.
Now, concerning the three elements of detail in Daniel 9:27.
1. To whom does the pronoun “he” make reference?
My own answer has been given previously, as follows:
Grammatically and contextually, there are two possible antecedents for the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27. The first of these is “the Messiah the Prince.” The second is “the prince that shall come.” Three times throughout the context of Daniel 9:24-26 the Messiah is referenced, and each time He is referenced with an exalted title, as follows: (1) “the Most Holy” in verse 24, (2) “the Messiah the Prince” in verse 25, and (3) “Messiah” in verse 26. Considering that such exalted titles are used for Him in each of these prior cases, it seems out of contextual character then to reference Him in verse 27 simply with the pronoun “he” for all three uses. Furthermore, when the pronoun “he” could have been used for the Messiah in verse 26 without any ambiguity from the context of verse 25 (since the other “he,” “the prince that shall come,” had not even been mentioned yet in the context), still the exalted title “Messiah” was employed. As such, this seems to emphasize the characteristic of this context to reference the Messiah only with exalted terminology. On the other hand, by referring to “the prince that shall come” with such a more general and less exalted phrasing, it would fit the character of the context quite well then to reference him in verse 27 with the simple pronoun “he.” Furthermore, it is a common principle of communication (although not a universal principle) to arrange the antecedent for a pronoun as the closest possibility, which “the prince that shall come” would be in the contextual flow of thought from verse 26 unto verse 27. As such, the grammatical and contextual evidence seems to point unto “the prince that shall come” as the correct antecedent for the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27, rather than “the Messiah the Prince.”
Even so, I myself would contend that the “he” of Daniel 9:27 refers to some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force) “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm” some specific “covenant” with some “many” (presumably, in this context, a “many” from among the children of Israel). Furthermore, I myself would contend that this “prince” from the Roman kingdom “shall confirm” this specific “covenant” only and specifically for a period of “one week” (or, for a period of 7 years), even as the modifying prepositional phrase, “for one week,” directly indicates. Finally, I myself would contend that this confirming of this specific “covenant” will initiate the beginning of the 70th and final “week” (of years) of the 70 “weeks” that were determined by the Lord God to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.
Brother Day’s answer has also been given previously (here), as follows:
Yet it should be noted that Daniel did not precisely reference the Messiah even one time throughout His prayer of confession and supplication. Furthermore, it should be noted that Daniel’s primary request of supplication was for the Lord God to turn away His anger and fury from the city of Jerusalem (see Daniel 9:16, 18) and to cause His favor to shine upon the temple in Jerusalem (see Daniel 9:17). Indeed, the Messiah is not first mentioned throughout the context of Daniel 9 until Daniel 9:24. To make the claim that the Messiah is the theme of the entire context of Daniel 9 is not discovered through the method of precise grammatical and contextual analysis, but through the method of human assumption. So then, each member of the audience must now make a decision as to the authoritative basis for his or her own conclusion on this matter.
2. To what specific covenant does the phrase “the covenant” make reference?
My own answer has been given previously, as follows:
The use of the definite article “the” in the phrase “the covenant” seems to indicate that this “covenant” is some definitely specific covenant. However, no further description is given in Daniel 9:27 concerning this “covenant,” or even in the full context of Daniel 9:24-27, by which to specifically define this “covenant.” Therefore, we must consider the broader context of the entire chapter of Daniel 9 and of the entire book of Daniel. In so doing, we find one other reference to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 9, in Daniel 9:4. Furthermore, we find five other references to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 11, in Daniel 11:22, 28, 30 (2), 32.
In Daniel 9:4 Daniel indicated that the Lord God was keeping (in the present tense of Daniel’s time) “the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments.” So then, what “the covenant” was the Lord God keeping with His people at that present time? It would seem most likely that Daniel was referring to the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai during Moses’ time. This would seem to be supported when we consider the similarity in terminology, as per Moses’ declaration unto the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 7:12-13, saying, “Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: and he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.” Furthermore, this would seem to be supported when we consider Daniel’s own reference unto “the law of Moses” in Daniel 9:11-13, saying, “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.” Finally, within their context every one of the five references to “the covenant” or “the holy covenant” in Daniel 11 also appears to be a reference unto the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai.
So then, in what way will the “he” of Daniel 9:27 “confirm” the Lord God’s covenant with the children of Israel that He had made with them at Mount Sinai? In order to answer this question, it might be of value to consider the opposite behavior as presented in Daniel 11:30-31. Therein we learn of a foreign ruler who would “have indignation against the holy covenant,” which he would demonstrate by polluting “the sanctuary of strength” (that is – the temple in Jerusalem) and by taking away “the daily sacrifice” from being engaged. Even so, if having indignation against “the holy covenant” is to pollute the temple and to take away the sacrificial system from the temple, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that confirming “the covenant” would be to support the temple and the engagement of the sacrificial system in the temple.
Even so, I myself would contend that some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force) “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm the covenant with many” among the children of Israel for a seven year period (“one week”), such that there shall be an agreement that those “many” among the children of Israel will be permitted to engage in the sacrificial system of the temple for that period of time.
From his immediately previous posting, Brother Day’s answer appears to be as follows:
However, the understanding that the phrase “the covenant” in Daniel 9:27 is a reference to the new covenant that was established at our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion with His shed blood and sacrificial death has a timing problem. Daniel 9:27 reveals that the “he” of the verse would “confirm the covenant” for the period of “one week,” thus indicating that this confirmation of this covenant will be initiated at the beginning of the 70th and final “week” of years. If we accept for the sake of the argument that the 70th “week” of years began with our Lord Jesus Christ’s baptism, and if we accept for the sake of the argument that the “the covenant” of Daniel 9:27 is the new covenant in our Lord Jesus Christ’s blood, then we are moved to ask – How did our Lord Jesus Christ confirm the new covenant at His baptism 3.5 years before the new covenant was even created in His blood? No, even if I accepted the argument that the 70th and final “week” of years began immediately at the end of the first 69 “weeks” of years and with the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ, I could not accept that “the covenant” of Daniel 9:27 is the new covenant in Christ’s blood; for the method of precise detail would not allow for this.
Yet Brother Day adds further in his immediately previous posting, as follow:
However, in Acts 3:25 the apostle Peter revealed precisely the covenant about which he was speaking. Peter was speaking about the covenant which the Lord God had made with the patriarchal fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-Israel. Furthermore, Peter even specified the specific, singular promise of that covenant about which he was speaking – “. . . saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.” As such, Peter was not speaking about every detail of every single promise that the Lord God had made unto the patriarchal fathers, but only about this one specific, singular promise.
In addition, in Romans 15:8 the apostle Paul also specified the divine promises about which he was indicating that our Lord Jesus Christ had confirmed. Paul specified that our Lord Jesus Christ confirmed the promises that the Lord God had made unto “the fathers,” that is – either the promises that the Lord God had made unto the patriarchal fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-Israel, or the promises that the Lord God had made unto the exodus fathers at Mount Sinai through Moses (and repeated to the next generation in Deuteronomy). Furthermore, the continuing context of Romans 15:9-12 reveals the specific element of those promises that the apostle Paul was seeking to specify, that is – that the gospel of eternal salvation from sin was for all mankind, not only to the circumcision (the children of Israel), but also to the Gentiles. As such, Paul was not speaking about every detail of every single promise that the Lord God had made unto the patriarchal fathers or the exodus fathers, but only about this one element of promise.
In 1 Peter 2:9-10 does the apostle Peter indicate that New Testament believers are “now the people of God” as a replacement for the children of Israel, or in addition to the children of Israel?
Indeed, although not every single prophetic utterance that they delivered concerning those days, every prophet from Samuel forward had foretold of our Lord Jesus Christ’s first coming. Indeed, even the closing line of Daniel 9:25 and the opening line of Daniel 9:26 foretold of those days. (However, this does not mean that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 concerned those days.) Indeed, the audience to whom Peter was speaking at that time were the children of the Old Testament prophets and of the Old Testament covenants; for they were all members of the children of Israel. Indeed, God the Father had sent forth His only-begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, as Savior to bless the children of Israel with eternal salvation from their sinful iniquities in accord with the promise that He had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-Israel; for the children of Israel are indeed a part of “all the kindreds of the earth.”
Indeed, the apostle Peter did not speak concerning the fulfillment of the many detailed promises that the Lord God had promised to fulfill for the children of Israel in the new covenant. This is because in context Peter was speaking to New Testament believers concerning the eternal salvation of their souls. He was not speaking in context to the children of Israel concerning the restoration blessings that the Lord God had promised unto them. Brother Day teaches as if these two categories of truth are mutually exclusive, that they cannot both be true. However, God’s Holy Word teaches them both as truth in accord with God’s divine promises.
4. What does it mean that this “he” will “cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”?
My own answer has been given previously, as follows:
The second independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:27 states, “And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” This statement clearly indicates that this event will occur “in the midst of the week,” that is – at the 3.5 year point of the 7 years for which “the covenant” had originally been confirmed. What then will this “he” do at this time? He personally “shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” He will cause the sacrificial system of the temple in Jerusalem to cease being engaged. He will no longer permit sacrifices and oblations to continue. Now, if it is correct that the confirming of “the covenant” would be an agreement to permit the engagement of the sacrificial system in the temple, then this act would be a direct violation of the agreement of that confirming of “the covenant.”
To this I would add that grammatically the infinitive “to cease” does not possess any modifiers. This phrase means just what it says – At the prophesied time, the sacrifice and the oblations will be made to stop, to cease happening, to cease existing. To add a modifier such as “to cease being effective or acceptable in God’s sight” is to add unto that which God the Holy Spirit inspired. Even to add such a phrase as “to create the cause whereby the sacrifice and oblation would eventually cease” is to add unto that which God the Holy Spirit inspired. (By the way, such also changes the action verb “cause” to a noun, and thereby changes the grammatical meaning of that which God the Holy Spirit inspired.)
From his immediately previous posting, Brother Day’s answer appears to be as follows:
Even so, Brother Day acknowledges that the sacrifice and oblation did not cease occurring at the time of our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion. Rather, he indicates that these sacrifices and oblations were now an abomination before the Lord God. Thereby he implies that these sacrifices and oblations had ceased, not in their occurrence, but in their effectiveness and acceptableness before the Lord God.
Neither 1 Peter 1:10-12 or Hebrews 11:39-40 precisely speaks concerning the restoration and land promises to the children of Israel. As such, it is not even possible for them to indicate those promises about which they do not even speak are now mine as a New Testament believer. (Ah, the method of loose generalities versus the method of precise details.)
I fully agree and have never denied that the gospel of eternal salvation from sin through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, as Savior is for all mankind at the present time. I have never once indicated that this gospel truth is only for a “remnant of a future generation of Israelites after Jesus returns.” Rather, I have argued from the promises of God’s Holy Word that the restoration and land promises are for the entirety of a future generation of the children of Israel at the time of our Lord’s Second Coming, as per Jeremiah 31:31-40; 32:37-42; Ezekiel 36:21-38; 37:19-28; Romans 11:25-27.
Finally, concerning the millennial (1,000 year) reign of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the earth after His Second Coming, God’s Holy Word in Revelation 19:11 – 20:9 is quite precise on the subject.
Asking precise questions concerning the precise promises of God’s Holy Word is not rhetoric, it is “rightly dividing.” The fulfillment of the prophetic utterances in God’s Holy Word are to be considered according to the principle of precise detail. (See Deuteronomy 18:20-22) Now then, Zacharias, speaking as an Old Testament member of the children of Israel, spoke concerning two of the promises that the Lord God had made unto the children of Israel, as follows: (1) “that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us,” and (2) “that he would grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies [as per the first promise], might serve him without fear [of our enemies], in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of or life.” In accord with the principle of precise detail, I then asked the following two questions:
(1) So then, at the time of the Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, did the Lord God fulfill His holy covenant concerning the children of Israel, which He made with Abraham, such that they were delivered out of the hand of their enemies and all that hated them?
(2) Are the children of Israel now serving the Lord their God “without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him,” all the days of their lives?
In answer to the first question, Brother Day presented John 16:33 and Romans 8:28-39, and then declared that the answer of Scripture is a resounding “YES!” However, neither of these passages speaks concerning the children of Israel; therefore also, neither of these passages speaks concerning the children of Israel being delivered from any of their enemies, not to mention all of their enemies and those that hate them. In fact, even concerning the New Testament believer, in John 16:33 our Lord did not promise deliverance from all of our enemies, but actually taught that we most certainly would experience tribulation in this world. Furthermore, Romans 8:36 teaches that we New Testament believers “are killed all the day long” and “are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” Yes, Romans 8:37 declares that “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” Yet this is not because we are delivered from these experiences, but because although we must suffer these experiences, none of them “shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (See Romans 8:39) Even so, the method of precise detail reveals the faultiness in the method of loose generalities.
In answer to the second question, even Brother Day must admit the following:
Throughout this discussion-debate it has become apparent to me that the primary disagreement between Brother Day and myself is not over Daniel 9:24-27, but is over the method of Bible study itself. Therefore, with my conclusion to this concluding post of the discussion-debate, I wish to provide a warning unto the members of the audience. The Lord our God desires that we should study His Holy Word according to the principle of precise detail, “rightly dividing” precisely in accord with the precise pattern that God the Holy Spirit has inspired. Indeed, in Deuteronomy 8:3 the Lord our God teaches the truth that we do not live by physical food alone, but “by every word” that has proceeded out of His mouth as recorded in His Holy Word. In Matthew 5:18 our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the importance of every “jot and tittle” in God’s Holy Word, indicating that not even one of them would pass “till all be fulfilled.” Even so, any Bible study or Bible teaching that follows a method of loose generalities, wherein things that are not precisely presented in God’s Word as the same are claimed to be the same, should be rejected as faulty. Indeed, when a Biblical position teaches us that there is “no need to study every detail” of the truths and promises of God’s Word concerning a matter, or that there is no need to ask concerning specific details of truth on a matter because it would be superfluous to do so, then that position of belief should be viewed with spiritual suspicion.