Pastor Scott Markle

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    992
  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Pastor Scott Markle

  • Rank
    Abiding in Christ
  • Birthday 08/13/1971
  • Bio My name is Scott Markle, and I have served the Lord my God and Savior in pastoral ministry since 1992. I have served as the pastor of Melvin Baptist Church, a small country church in the Thumb area of Michigan, since 1998. I have been joyfully married to my beloved wife Kerry since 1993; and we have been blessed of the Lord with two sons, Padraic and Westley.

    My life-verses are Philippians 3:8 and John 15:4-5. "Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ." "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine: no more can ye except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in, and I in him, the same bringeth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." The burden of my life is to pursue "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" and to walk daily abiding in Christ, and Christ in me.

    Concerning all my ministry, it is the burden of my heart to exalt, not myself, but the name of Jesus Christ and the truth of God's Word. It is my burden that Christ must increase, while I must decrease. Therefore, I maintain the policy that my name, as the author of a book, must remain smaller, while the phrase, "For the Glory of the Lord," must stand larger above it. Thus far the Lord our God has graciously allowed me to self-publish two books which can be purchased at my website: "God's Wisdom for Marriage & The Home" and "The Spirit of Revival: A Contrite and Humble Spirit." In addition, I maintain a daily (Monday-Friday) Bible study blog at that website.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://www.shepherdingtheflock.com

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location: Melvin, MI
  • Are you IFB? Yes

Recent Profile Visitors


4,075 profile views

Pastor Scott Markle's Activity

  1. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   


     Brother Day,
    Actually, the majority of your “authoritative declarations” are presented without the support of any “relevant Scriptures,” but only on the ground of your own human assumptions.  (Indeed, I am capable of revealing this methodically, point-by-point in your presentations if it becomes necessary for the discussion-debate.)  Grammatical and contextual evidence is of great value in Bible study and Biblical understanding, since the grammar and context are directly inspired by God the Holy Spirit in accord with His absolutely divine authority.  Human assumptions may or may not be found to be accurate in relation to the grammatical and contextual evidence; however, human assumption carries no weight of authority whatsoever in the realm of Bible study and Biblical understanding.

    Certainly, we are in definite agreement with this Biblical truth.  Indeed, I myself have not presented anything thus far in my postings that would stand in conflict with this truth.  In fact, I have even presented grammatical and contextual evidences from Daniel 9 in order to support this truth in relation to our understanding of Daniel 9:24.  On the other hand, you yourself have presented at least one statement in conflict with this truth, as per your “authoritative declaration” – “The prophecy cannot be exclusively intended for Israel, but as wide in scope as the promise to Abram.”  On the one hand, you declare that Daniel’s people, for whom the “seventy weeks” are “determined” according to Daniel 9:24, must be without question “the people of Israel.”  On the other hand, you declare that the prophecy of Daniel 9:24 “cannot be exclusively intended for Israel.”  Is there a self-contradiction here in your position?

    Actually, this statement can be brought into question.  The phrase, “the descendants of Abraham” (which is not actually a phrase found in the King James translation, since the word “descendants” is not even found in the King James translation), refers the those who have descended from Abraham through physical biology.  Certainly, it is accurate to assert that “the children of Israel” are “descendants of Abraham” through physical biology, as through the line of Isaac and then of Jacob (whose name was changed by the Lord God unto Israel).  However, it is not accurate to assert that the phrase, “the descendants of Abraham,” and the phrase, “the children of Israel,” are strictly equivalent phrases.  In the mathematics of the case, the phrase, “the children of Israel,” only presents a sub-set of the greater set that is presented by the phrase, “the descendants of Abraham.”  In fact, the greater set of the phrase, “the descendants of Abraham,” also at least includes the following:

    1.  The Ishmaelites – the descendants of Abraham through his son Ishmael (by Hagar).
    2.  The Midianites – the descendants of Abraham through his son Midian (by Keturah).
    3.  The Edomites – the descendants of Abraham through his grandson Esau (the son of Isaac).
    4.  The Israelites – the descendants of Abraham through his grandson Jacob (the son of Isaac).


    In the mathematics of the case, the sub-set of “the children of Israel” can be described legitimately as a part of the greater set of “the descendants of Abraham;” but the sub-set of “the children of Israel” cannot be made wholly equivalent to the greater set of “the descendants of Abraham.” 

    So then, is Daniel 9:24, in referencing Daniel’s people through the phrase, “the people,” speaking concerning the whole of the greater set of “the descendants of Abraham” (as you have asserted with your unsupported “authoritative declaration”)?  Or, is Daniel 9:24, in referencing Daniel’s people through the phrase, “the people,” speaking concerning only of the sub-set of “the children of Israel”?  The answer between these two option appears fairly clear, since Daniel’s people do not include the other sub-sets of the greater set, “the descendants of Abraham.”  Indeed, the context appears to grant evidence to this fairly clear answer, since Daniel himself in the very context of Daniel 9 defined his people in Daniel 9:7 and Daniel 9:20.

    Indeed, the majority of the Old Testament Scriptures is about the Lord God’s dealings with the sub-set of “the descendants of Abraham” that is to be defined as “the children of Israel.”

    I am not aware of anything that I have presented that would be in dispute or disagreement with this.

    I am not sure why you presented this passage, unless it was simply to give evidence for your statements concerning “the history of Israel.”  If that was the reason, then again I pronounce that we are not in any dispute or disagreement concerning this matter.  Concerning the “covenant” references in Nehemiah 9, we find three – Nehemiah 9:8, 32, 38.  Nehemiah 9:8 references the covenant that the Lord God made with Abraham, with a very specific focus upon the land-promise aspects of that covenant.  Nehemiah 9:32 references the Lord God as a God “who keepeth covenant and mercy,” thus revealing the character of the Lord our God as being faithful in keeping the covenants that He makes.  Nehemiah 9:38 references the renewed covenant that the children of Israel under the leadership of Nehemiah were making with the Lord their God.  Again, concerning how you intended this passage to inform our understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, I remain uncertain.

    Apparently, Daniel himself and the Holy Spirit of God who inspired Daniel to include Daniel 9 in the Holy Scriptures does not agree with you.  (Or, maybe it would be better to say that you do not agree with Daniel and with the Holy Spirit of God who inspired Daniel.)  Indeed, the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures, as communicated through Daniel in Daniel 9:3-20, state –

    “And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: and I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; we have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments: neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.  O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.  O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee.  To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. 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.  Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice.  And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.  O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.  Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake. O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.  O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.  And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God . . .”

    I am not sure how much more straightforwardly I can present the straightforward grammar of the passage than actually and directly to quote the straightforward, Holy Spirit inspired grammar, emboldening the relevant grammatical structures.  Apparently, Daniel (and the Holy Spirit of God who inspired Daniel) was not at all adverse to including the generation of the children of Israel who were alive at that very time in his prayer of confession for the sinful wickedness of the children of Israel.  Indeed, Daniel was not even at all adverse to including himself in that confession of sin. (See the specific declaration of Daniel in Daniel 9:20)   In fact, Daniel did recognize the difference between his present generation and the past generations of “the fathers;” yet he still included both in his prayer of confession. (See the specific declaration of Daniel in Daniel 9:16).

    Furthermore, these statements reveal that you have a misunderstanding concerning my position.  My position is not that Daniel’s people comprise a specific generational body of people.  Rather, my position is that Daniel’s people comprise a specific national body of people.  The “thy people” phrase of Daniel 9:24 is not to be defined as one specific generation of the children of Israel.  Rather, the “thy people” phrase of Daniel 9:24 is to be defined as the nation of the children of Israel throughout all generations.  (Indeed, it is worthy of notice that Nehemiah 9, the very passage that you instructed me to consider and to compare unto Daniel 9, actually references the ongoing generations of the children of Israel, from the time of their deliverance from Egypt unto the time that was present for Nehemiah in Nehemiah 9.)

    Not much disagreement between us here.

    So then, are you acknowledging that the actual, "straightforward" grammar of any given statement in God’s Holy Word is of significance to a correct understanding for that statement?  If so, then that is good; for my supposedly “complex grammatical analysis” of Daniel 9:24 actually is “the straightforward grammar” that God the Holy Spirit inspired for the sentence structure of that statement in God’s Holy Word.  Even so, allow me to attempt yet again in a slightly different format to present the “straightforward grammar” for Daniel 9:24 –

    “Seventy [an adjective that modifies the word “weeks”] weeks [a noun that serves as the subject for the main/independent clause of the sentence] are determined [a present, passive verb that serves as the verb for the main/independent clause of the sentence] upon [a preposition that initiates a prepositional phrase that modifies the verb “are determined”] thy [an adjective that modifies the word “people”] people [a noun that serves as the object for the preposition “upon”] and [a coordinating conjunction that joins two prepositional phrases] upon [a preposition that initiates a prepositional phrase that modifies the verb “are determined”] thy [an adjective that modifies the word “city”]  holy [an adjective that modifies the word “city”] city [a noun that serves as the object for the second preposition “upon”], to finish [an infinitive that initiates a infinitive phrase] the [the definite article used as an adjective that modifies the word “transgression” and makes it definite in its scope] transgression [a noun that serves as the direct object for the infinitive “to finish”], and [a coordinating conjunction that joins two infinitive phrases] to make [an infinitive that initiates a infinitive phrase] an [an indefinite article used as an adjective to modify the word “end”] end [a noun that serves as the direct object for the infinitive “to make”] of [a preposition that initiates a prepositional phrase that modifies the noun “end”] sins [a noun that serves as the object for the preposition “of”], and [a coordinating conjunction that joins two infinitive phrases] to make [an infinitive that initiates a infinitive phrase] reconciliation [a noun that serves as the direct object for the infinitive “to make”] for [a preposition that initiates a prepositional phrase that modifies the infinitive “to make”] iniquity [a noun that serves as the object for the preposition “for”], and [a coordinating conjunction that joins two infinitive phrases] to bring [an infinitive that initiates a infinitive phrase] in [a preposition that initiates a prepositional phrase that modifies the infinitive “to bring”] everlasting [an adjective that modifies the noun “righteousness] righteousness [a noun that serves as the object for the preposition “in”], and [a coordinating conjunction that joins two infinitive phrases] to seal [an infinitive that initiates a infinitive phrase] up [an adverb that modifies the infinitive “to seal”] the [the definite article used as an adjective that modifies the words “vision” and “prophecy” and makes them definite in their scope] vision [a noun that serves as the first of a compound direct object for the infinitive “to seal”] and [a coordinating conjunction that joins the two nouns “vision” and “prophecy”] prophecy [a noun that serves as the second of a compound direct object for the infinitive “to seal”], and [a coordinating conjunction that joins two infinitive phrases] to anoint [an infinitive that initiates a infinitive phrase] the [the definite article used as an adjective that modifies the word “Holy” and makes it definite in its scope] most [an adjective that modifies the word “Holy”] Holy [an adjective that is used as a substantive and is thus to be grammatically handled as a noun].”

    In the grammatical structure of any given sentence, every word in that sentence has a specific place and usage in that sentence.  Even so, understanding the specific place and usage for each word in any given sentence is “the straightforward grammar” for that sentence. 


    ______________________________________________________________________________ 

     
    In the first portion of this posting, I presented my response to your previous posting.  In the latter portion of this posting, I intend to proceed with the truths of Daniel 9:25 and with our point of disagreement concerning the statement of that verse.  Since we actually have little disagreement concerning this verse, I will not break down the statement of this verse with quite as much grammatical detail. 

    We are in agreement concerning the teaching of this verse that from the decree of the Persians to rebuild Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity unto “the Messiah the Prince” would be 7 “weeks,” or 49 years, plus 62 “weeks,” or 434 years, which equals a total of 69 “weeks,” or 483 years. 

    We are in agreement that this first 69 “weeks” of the 70 “weeks,” or 483 years, is a continuous and contiguous period of time.  In fact, I myself would even provide grammatical evidence for this position, in that the main verb of the first sentence of the verse, “shall be,” is modified by the two prepositional phrases, “from the going forth” and “unto the Messiah the Prince.”  Indeed, the prepositional phrase, “from the going forth,” grammatically indicates the exact starting point for this period of time; and the prepositional phrase, “unto the Messiah the Prince,” indicates the exact ending point for this period of time.  Furthermore, the grammatical use of both of the prepositional phrases to modify the same verb indicates that there will be no break anywhere throughout this period of time.

    We (you and I specifically, although this may not be true for other members of Online Baptist who are in the audience and who might agree with my side of the discussion-debate overall) are in agreement that the phrase, “unto the Messiah the Prince,” as employed in Daniel 9:25 is a reference unto our Lord Jesus Christ’s baptism, by which His earthly preaching ministry was initiated.

    We are in agreement that the rebuilding of Jerusalem occurred during a time of trouble for the children of Israel who were engaged in that rebuilding process, as recorded in such Old Testament books as Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah.

    However, we are in disagreement over one specific point concerning Daniel 9:25.  Actually, it is a disagreement concerning the relationship between a phrase in Daniel 9:24 and a phrase in Daniel 9:25.  With your position you have asserted that the phrase, “to anoint the most Holy,” in Daniel 9:24 is to be viewed as referring unto the same event in our Lord Jesus Christ’s ministry as is referenced in the phrase, “unto the Messiah the Prince,” in Daniel 9:25.  Now, you and I do agree that both the phrase, “the most Holy,” and the phrase, “the Messiah the Prince,” refer unto the same person, that is – our Lord Jesus Christ.  Yet I would contend that viewing both of these two phrases as referring to the same event is not accurate to the mathematics of the context.  On the one hand, the phrase, “to anoint the most Holy,” is grammatically presented as a purpose or result for the entire 70 “weeks,” or 490 years.  On the other hand, the phrase, “unto the Messiah the Prince,” is grammatically presented as the event by which the first 69 “weeks” is brought to a conclusion.  Thus the mathematics of the context would be as follows:

    1.  The anointing event for “the most Holy” in Daniel 9:24 is fulfilled at the end of 70 “weeks.”
    2.  The event for “the Messiah the Prince” in Daniel 9:25 occurs at the end of 69 “weeks.”


    Even so, it appears fairly clear from the mathematics of the context that these two events cannot be the same event, but must be different events, since their timing is separated by one whole “week,” or 7 seven years.  Now, you and I agree that the event for “the Messiah the Prince” that is presented in Daniel 9:25 is the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ, “the most Holy,” “the Messiah the Prince.”  Furthermore, you and I agree that our Lord’s baptism is described in God’s Holy Word as an anointing event for our Lord Jesus Christ, wherein He was anointed by the Holy Spirit for His preaching, teaching, healing, and saving-work ministry.  However, we also agree that God’s Holy Word also presents a second anointing event for our Lord Jesus Christ, that is – at His ascension and exaltation to the throne of heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father, wherein He was anointed by God the Father for His sovereign kingship ministry.  So then, since the mathematics of the context does not appear to allow the anointing event for “the most Holy” in Daniel 9:24 to be the same event as that for “the Messiah the Prince” in Daniel 9:25, and since we agree that the event for “the Messiah the Prince” in Daniel 9:25 is the anointing event of our Lord Jesus Christ’s baptism, then I would contend that the anointing event of Daniel 9:24 must be the anointing event of His exaltation, whereby He was anointed for His sovereign kingship ministry.

  2. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: current debate   

    Brother DaveW,
    I must disagree with the sentiment that the discussion-debate can have "no further progress."  A discussion-debate such as this is not simply for the sake of the debaters, but also for the sake of the audience.  In relation to the audience, each member of the audience has the ability to observe the specific evidence and support that each debater is able to present for his particular position.  As such, each member of the audience is then able to consider which particular position is able to provide more substantial, Biblical evidence and support; and thereby each member of the audience is influenced to move toward one position or the other.  (That is -- unless neither position is able to provide substantial, Biblical evidence and support; in which case the members of the audience would likely reject both positions and go looking for another position altogether.)
    Please understand -- As I engage in any given discussion-debate on a public forum, I fully recognize that I am not just engaging my "opponent" in the discussion-debate, but that I am also engaging the members of the audience, seeking for any and all to observe whether I am able to provide evidence and support for my position with Biblical substance.  Indeed, I fully expect that if I cannot provide evidence and support for my position with Biblical substance, then the members of the audience should reject my position.
  3. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   

    Brother Day,
    This discussion is a debate-discussion.  Therefore, we are engaging in a debate between two opposing views concerning the correct understanding of Daniel 9:24-27.  Even so, the first step of such a debate would be to determine the specific areas wherein the two opposing views actually possess disagreement.  The second step would be for one of the sides to take up one of the points of disagreement, presenting the position of that side and providing the evidence and support for that position.  The third step would be for the other side to take up that point of disagreement, presenting the position of that side in opposition to the other side, providing the evidence and support for that position, and producing arguments against the supporting evidences of the opposing side. 
    In my first posting of this thread, I provided an overview (as an opening statement, just as we were required to provide) of my position concerning Daniel 9:24-27.  In my second posting of this thread, I engaged in a process whereby we could determine the specific areas of disagreement between our two opposing positions, and especially whereby we could determine the primary areas of disagreement of our two opposing positions (with a recognition that a disagreement at a point of foundational premise is the reason for disagreements over additional details).  In my third posting of this thread, I took up one of the foundational points of disagreement between our two positions (that concerning the meaning of Daniel 9:24, with a particular focus upon the purpose statements of that verse), presenting my position and providing a significant amount of grammatical and contextual support and evidence for that position. 
    My expectation in the debate was that you would engage this third posting of mine by presenting your opposing position, by providing evidence and support for your opposing position, and by producing arguments against that which I provided as the evidence and support for my position.  Instead, your next posting focused upon providing your answers to the 15 questions that I had presented at the beginning of my opening post.  Therefore, in my fourth posting, I engaged your presentation and answers with a challenge against the evidence and support that you provided for it.  In fact, I specifically confronted your presentation and answers by presenting the challenge that you made many “authoritative declarations” without providing any grammatical, contextual, or Biblical support whatsoever at all for them.  Involved in this challenge, I pointed out that when you make “authoritative declarations” without providing any grammatical, contextual, or Biblical support, you found your declarations upon your own authority.  Furthermore, I pointed out that in the realm of Bible study, your own authority is of no value for determining God’s truth.  Now, in my fourth posting I did not handle the content of your previous posting in detail, revealing point-by-point wherein you did or did not provide evidence and support.  Rather, I simply took up the very first of the “authoritative declarations” that you made without providing evidence and support; and I provided the grammatical and contextual evidences whereby my position on the phrase “my people” in Daniel 9:24 has Biblical support and foundation.  Thus my argument against your position on this point was as follows:
    1.  You presented a position through “authoritative declaration,” but provided no support.
    2.  I presented an opposing position through the evidences of grammatical and contextual support.
    Your position is this – “The prophecy cannot be exclusively intended for Israel, but as wide in scope as the promise to Abram.” 
    Your first evidence is this – “The immediate understanding is "thy people & thy holy city" meaning the descendants of Abraham, aka "my people Israel" & Jerusalem.”  This is simply an “authoritative declaration” on your own part that the “thy people” phrase means “the descendants of Abraham,” an “authoritative declaration that you make without providing any evidence or support.  So then, are we required to accept this position simply because you said so? 
    Your second evidence is this – “The first promise to Abram included blessing as a great nation & blessing for "all families on earth." ( Gen. 12:1-3 )”  Herein you do provide the evidence of Genesis 12:1-3.  However, you do not then proceed to give evidence concerning whether the prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 concerns “the descendants of Abraham” specifically in relation to the “great nation” aspect of the blessing (which is singular, and thereby refers only to one national group), or specifically in relation to the “all families on earth” aspect of the blessing. 
    Rather, you simply then proceed with the “authoritative declaration” of your conclusion – “The prophecy cannot be exclusively intended for Israel, but as wide in scope as the promise to Abram.”  Indeed, this is an “authoritative declaration” that allows no room for any other option (employing the phrase, “cannot be exclusively intended”).  Yet you have provided no grammatical, contextual, or Biblical evidence for each of the steps by which you came to this conclusion.  So then again I ask – Are we required to accept this position simply because you said so?
    _______________________________________________________________________
     
    Now, in your most previous posting, you did present an opposition to the grammatical and contextual evidences and support that I have provided for my position on Daniel 9:24.  Indeed, your presented opposition appears to be delivered with the following statements:
    ​I'm not convinced that your grammatical analysis leads to a proper understanding of the prophecy, or whether it actually obscures the clear meaning of the prophecy. 
    Herein you appear to reveal another premise against which I will have significant contention and opposition.  It is the premise that grammatical analysis of a passage is not really a help, but is actually a hindrance in Bible study, especially in relation to prophetic utterance.  In opposition to this premise, I would contend that grammatical analysis is the arithmetic of communication.  By definition, grammar deals with the meaning of individual words, the meaning of grouped words by phrases and sentences, and the meaning of contextual statements within paragraphs.  Grammar is the very means by which words, phrases, and sentences have precise meaning in communication.  
    For example, can we discern any real meaning from the following set of words –
    “world whosoever Son life him he God the only his everlasting begotten should perish loved have gave believeth that that so not for but in”
    On the other hand, can we discern real meaning from the following set and structuring of words –
     “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
    No, in the first presentation for this set of words, we cannot discern any real meaning.  On the other hand, in the second presentation for this set of words, we can indeed discern real meaning, and that a very precise meaning.  The reason that we can do this in the second presentation is specifically due to the grammatical structuring by which the words are presented.  Grammar is the very means by which word structuring provides meaning.  To deny grammatical analysis is to deny the precise meaning of any given statement. 

    Indeed, to do deny grammatical analysis for a statement of God’s Holy Word is to deny the precise meaning of that statement as inspired by God the Holy Spirit in God’s Holy Word.  The Lord our God chose to communicate His truth and wisdom unto us by means of the words of His Holy Word and the grammatical structuring of those words, as inspired by God the Holy Spirit.  Thus God’s Holy Word is not simply inspired by God the Holy Spirit word-by-word, but also grammatical construction-by-grammatical construction.  Therefore, to deny the grammatical construction of any statement in God’s Holy Word is to deny the inspired meaning and communication of God the Holy Spirit with that statement. 

    Furthermore, grammar is not only the very means by which word structuring provides meaning, but is also the very means by which statements are narrowed in their application.  For example –

    If I simply employ the word “ball,” then the application is quite broad (although the definition of the word, which is also a point of grammar, does narrow the intention from not including such things as birds, cars, pinwheels, etc.). 

    On the hand, if I employ the grammatical phrase, “the ball,” then the application is now more narrow, not referring to any ball in general, but to one specific ball.  (In fact, this use of a the definite article “the” is the very grammatical construction by which you yourself argue that the “covenant” of Daniel 9:27 cannot be just any covenant, but must be some definitely specific covenant.  Even so, I would challenge you that if you do not wish to focus upon grammar as a means to Biblical understanding, then you need to quit pushing this point.)

    Now, if I employ the grammatical phrase, “the ball in the car,” then the application is now even more narrow, not referring to the ball in the house, or in the field, or under the car, or beside the car, but to the ball that is to be found in the car.  Grammatically, each modifying phrase narrows the application for the meaning of any given statement.  So then, to deny a modifying phrase that God the Holy Spirit inspired for any given statement is to deny the correct understanding and application that God the Holy Spirit intended for that statement.
    Grammatical analysis is not a hindrance to understanding God’s Holy Word correctly, for grammar is the means by which the Lord our God communicated to us in His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.  Indeed, grammatical analysis is the means by which we can correctly understand that which the Lord our God has communicated unto us through His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.
    ____________________________________________________________________
     
    Now I wish to handle your most previous posting point-by-point in detail.
    Actually, grammatical analysis is the very means by which we can understand “the clear meaning” for any statement of God’s Holy Word.
    Indeed, grammatically this verse reveals (1) the time period for the prophetic utterance, (2) the applicational focus for the prophetic utterance, and (3) the six-fold purpose for the prophetic utterance.
    Actually, it is not “70 weeks,” or 490 years to the fulfillment of the prophecy.  Rather, it is “70 weeks,” or 490 years are determined for the fulfillment of the prophecy.  Daniel 9:24 does not specifically state that these 490 years must be consecutive.  It just indicates that they must and will occur by the determination of God, and that they must and will occur “upon” the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.  If there is or is not a gap anywhere within the 490 year period, it will be revealed by the further details of Daniel 9:25-27.
    Actually, we do not agree that the 490 years takes us to the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Rather, we might agree that the first 49 + 434 years (483 years) takes us to the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ, since I do indeed believe that the phrase, “unto the Messiah the Prince,” in Daniel 9:25 is a reference unto our Lord’s baptism, by which His earthly ministry began.
    Yes, my grammatical interpretation, not of Daniel 9:24, but specifcally of Daniel 9:26-27 does indeed relate the last 7 years of the 490 years “to some yet future date.”  Yet this does not destroy the prophecy.  The last “week,” or 7 years is still determined by the authority of God, just as Daniel 9:24 precisely states, and will still be fulfilled “upon” the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, just as Daniel 9:24 precisely states.
    Grammar is not complicated.  Rather, it is the very means by which reading comprehension occurs.  Furthermore, the grammar and the arithmetic are precisely the same.  The grammar is that “seventy weeks are determined.”  The arithmetic is that 70 x 7 equals 490 years.  There is no contradiction.  However, neither the grammar concerning the “seventy weeks” that “are determined” nor the arithmetic that “490 years” is what “70 x 7 equals” automatically indicate that this “seventy weeks” or this 490 years must be continuous and contiguous.  Certainly, natural human logic would lead us to this conclusion; and without any contextual indication otherwise, we could accept this without argument.  However, if the grammar and context of God’s own Word from Daniel 9:26-27 (which explain further details for Daniel 9:24) reveals something different than we would conclude with our human logic, then we should follow the revelation of God’s own Word instead of the conclusion of our human logic.
    Yes, the timing for the first 69 “weeks,” or 483 years, does bring us to our Lord Jesus Christ’s first coming and first earthly ministry.  And yes, there is a dispute over whether the precise timing is Jesus’ birth, baptism, triumphant entry, or crucifixion and resurrection.  However, you and I are in agreement that it is our Lord Jesus Christ’s baptism.
    Yes, we should indeed judge prophet utterances by their faithfulness to God’s Word and by the precision of their fulfillment.  However, we cannot determine their faithfulness or their precise fulfillment without considering a grammatical analysis; for it is directly by grammatical analysis that we are able to determine the precise meaning of a given prophetic statement.  Furthermore, there is no danger “of being Pharisaical.”  There is only a danger of being precisely correct.  Finally, I would agree that we now possess “the mind of Christ” through the indwelling Holy Spirit, whereby the indwelling Holy Spirit is present to guide and aid our understanding of the very Word of God that He Himself inspired.  Yet God the Holy Spirit will only ever guide us and aid us to understand the Word that He Himself inspired in perfect union with the very words and grammar that He Himself inspired.  On the other hand, if our understanding departs from the very words and grammar that God the Holy Spirit inspired, then we can be certain that we are not actually following the guidance and aid of God the Holy Spirit for that understanding.
    It is true that grammar does not require for a simple listing of events of any kind to be automatically presented as a listing in chronological order.  However, certain grammatical and contextual structurings certainly do reveal a chronological order to a given list.  Even so, in my third posting (the one concerning Daniel 9:24), I provided evidence that there does indeed appear to be an ordering (whether logical or chronological) to the six purpose or result statements that are presented in Daniel 9:24.  Now by the manner of debate, it would be your responsibility, not simply to state that an ordering is not necessarily true, but further to provide arguments against my evidence and to provide evidence for your position.
    So then, while you are accusing me of presenting a position wherein this prophetic utterance is not precisely fulfilled in the matter of time, you yourself are presenting a position wherein this prophetic utterance is not precisely fulfilled in the matter of content.  In fact, by presenting a position wherein “the transgression” and “sins” do not actually “finish” and “end” by the end of the 490 years, but only sometime in the distant future thereafter, you present a position that is also not precisely fulfilled in the matter of time.
    Actually, in my position this prophetic utterance will indeed be fulfilled precisely in the matter of content and in the matter of time.  My position simply places an indefinite gap of time between the end of the first “69 weeks,” or 483 years, and the occurrence of the last “week,” or 7 years.  In my position, this indefinite gap of time has nothing directly to do with the “70 weeks” that “are determined” specifically “upon” the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.  Furthermore, in my position the six purpose or result statements of Daniel 9:24 will be fulfilled at the end of this last “week,” or 7 years, with absolute precision.
    No, the question that both of us need to answer is – What is the precise meaning of each phrase and statement that God the Holy Spirit inspired in Daniel 9:24-27? 
    No, the prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24 was not precisely fulfilled in the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.  As you yourself have admitted above, transgressions, sins, and iniquity still continue.  They have not come to a complete finish or end for any individual or group of individuals upon the earth.
    Actually, believers on the earth certainly are still transgressors who commit transgressions against the Lord their God and Savior.  Actually, believers on the earth certainly are still sinners who commit sins against the Lord their God and Savior.  Indeed, we believers do have eternal reconciliation with the Lord our God, such that we are and ever shall be dear children in His eternal family.  Yet it is also true that when we as believers commit transgression and sin in our daily walk, we must yet experience daily reconciliation with the Lord our God in order that we might be restored unto a walk of daily fellowship with Him.  Indeed again, we believers do have eternal justification from and before the Lord our God, specifically because the eternal righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ has been eternally imputed onto our account in the record of heaven.  Yet it is also true that we believers do not walk in everlasting righteousness in our daily walk upon this earth, but that we do yet regularly commit transgression and sin against the Lord our God and Savior.
    Indeed, God’s Word presents two different events wherein our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized.  In your position you have “authoritatively declared” that the anointing event of Daniel 9:24 must refer to the anointing of Jesus’ baptism.  Yet there are, as you have just acknowledged, two different possibilities.  As such, before you can legitimately make such an “authoritative declaration,” you must provide some form of evidence whereby one of these two options is legitimately discarded and the other is legitimately chosen.  If you do not provide any such evidence, but continue to make your “authoritative declaration,” then you leave me to ask the question – Are we simply to accept this on the authority of your own word?
    Actually, reference to the grammar is a reference to Scripture, since it is a reference to the very grammatical structuring that God the Holy Spirit inspired as the Scripture of Daniel 9:24-27.
    This is actually one of the points under question in the debate, a point that is located, not in the general declaration of Daniel 9:24, but in the greater details of Daniel 9:26-27.  As such, this point requires us precisely to understand the statements and points that precede it in the context of Daniel 9:24-25, and then precisely to understand the statements and points that govern it in the actual statements of Daniel 9:26-27.
  4. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   

    Brother Ian, 
    Throughout your above posting, you present many "authoritative declarations" without providing grammatical, contextual, or Biblical support for those declarations.  This leaves me and the audience with only the option to accept these declarations upon the authority of your, Brother Ian's, word.  Yet in the realm of Bible study, the authority of a human's word is of little value in understanding God's truth.  Rather, we must find our authority in the grammatical, contextual, and Biblical evidences of God's own Word.
    The most significant of these "authoritative declarations" that you present concerns your underlying premise in relation the passage, as represented in the quoted statement above.  Again and again you make an "authoritative declaration" to the effect that the entire prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 primarily concerns the Messiah (our Lord Jesus Christ) and is to be fulfilled in the saving work of His crucifixion and resurrection.  Indeed, this underlying premise governs every other aspect of your understanding concerning the passage.  Yet you do not provide grammatical, contextual, or Biblical evidence for this underlying premise.  Now, if your underlying premise is wrong, then the entire rest of your understanding that is built upon that premise would lack foundation and would also be found faulty.  So then, I am presenting a challenge that you substantiate your underlying premise through grammatical, contextual, and Biblical evidence, specifically in relation to the direct statements of God's Word that are found in Daniel 9:24-27.
    Now, I will grant that you appear to make some attempt at substantiating your underlying premise through your answer to my first question concerning the passage, as follows:
    In the answer that you have provided above to my opening question, I find it quite interesting how you made the following progression:
    From the "thy people" phrase of Daniel 9:24 ---- to "the descendants of Abraham" ---- to "my people Israel" ---- to the Messiah as "my servant Israel."
    The most interesting aspect for this presentation is that you made it without providing grammatical, contextual, or Biblical evidence for each step in your progression.  Yet then you appear to take up the conclusion of this progression as the underlying premise for your entire understanding of Daniel 9:24-27.  
    Allow me then to focus upon the first "authoritative declaration" that you make in presenting this progression of thought -- "The immediate understanding is "thy people & thy holy city" meaning the descendants of Abraham, aka "my people Israel" & Jerusalem."  You have provided no grammatical, contextual, or Biblical evidence for the statement that the phrase "thy people" in Daniel 9:24 means "the descendants of Abraham."  On the other hand, the grammatical and contextual flow of thought does appear to be quite clear concerning the phrase "thy people" in Daniel 9:24.  From Daniel 9:21 we learn that "the man" (the angel) Gabriel was sent by the Lord God unto Daniel, and from Daniel 9:22 we learn that the purpose for the Lord God in sending Gabriel to Daniel was in order to give Daniel "skill and understanding."  In fact, the grammar of the passage indicates that throughout Daniel 9:22-27, the angel Gabriel is the one doing the speaking.  Furthermore, the context of the passage indicates that throughout Daniel 9:22-27, Daniel is the one to whom the angel Gabriel is speaking.  Therefore, when the angel Gabriel employs the phrase, "thy people," in Daniel 9:24, while speaking directly to Daniel, the phrase must grammatically and contextually mean, "Daniel's people."  In this context, the pronoun "thy" finds its antecedent in Daniel himself.  
    So then, who specifically were "Daniel's people"?  Let us not guess.  Let us find the answer in the context.  In the opening half of Daniel 9:20, Daniel himself has already made the declaration, "And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel . . ."  In addition, in Daniel 9:7 Daniel himself had already made the declaration, "O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee."  So then, the "thy people" of Daniel 9:24 is not contextually to be understood as "the descendants of Abraham," but as "the men of Judah," and "the inhabitants of Jerusalem," and all the children of Israel.  This is the authority of the grammar and context of God's own Word.  There is no grammatical or contextual authority for viewing the phrase "thy people" in Daniel 9:24 as being a reference to the Messiah.  Rather, there is only grammatical and contextual authority for viewing the phrase "thy people" in Daniel 9:24 as being a reference to a specific body of people, people who had committed sinful wickedness and rebellion against the Lord their God.
  5. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Concerning "The Most High" in Daniel 9:24   

    ​You are correct concerning the mistake in the title of the post.  My brain and my fingers were apparently not in unison.  For all, the corrected title should be --
    Concerning "The Most Holy" in Daniel 9:24.
    And you are further correct in presenting that the Hebrew word "qodesh" means "holy, holiness," and that the doubling of the word emphasizes "holiness," such as "the holy of the holy," or "the holiest of the holy," or "the most holy."
  6. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Concerning "The Most High" in Daniel 9:24   

    ​You do presume correctly.  I, Pastor Scott Markle, am a "he."  (No gender identity questions here!)
  7. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   

    Indeed, the first foundational point of difference in our understanding of Daniel 9:24-27 concerns the six purpose statements of Daniel 9:24.  Let us then begin the focus of our discussion-debate with these statements.

    Grammatically, this verse presents a main statement of four words, and then a series of modifiers to that main statement. 

    1.  The main statement – “Seventy weeks are determined . . .”

    The subject of this main statement provides us with an established period of time for the prophetic utterance.  This established period of time is “seventy weeks” (or, seventy “sevens”), which we both agree means 70 times 7 years (or, 490 years).  The verb for this main statement also indicates that this established period of time (490 years) is “determined” by the authority of the Lord God Himself, such that nothing can alter its flow and fulfillment.

    2.  The first modifying phrase – “. . . upon thy people and upon thy holy city . . .”  

    This modifying phrase actually encompasses two prepositional phrases that modify the verb “are determined.”  These two prepositional phrases are joined by the coordinating conjunction “and,” which indicates that grammatically they stand on equal ground as modifiers for the verb.  Even so, the first of these two prepositional phrases indicates that the 490 year period of time was determined by the Lord’s authority to occur specifically “upon [Daniel’s] people.”  (Note: The context of verses 21-23 clearly reveals that the angel Gabriel was speaking to Daniel in delivering this prophetic utterance from the Lord.)  Thus this modifying phrase indicates that Daniel’s people (the children of Israel) would be a focal point for the events of this 490 year period, such that each of the events of this 490 year period, as revealed in this prophetic utterance, would happen “upon” them.  In addition, the second of the two modifying prepositional phrases indicates that this 490 year period was also determined by the Lord’s authority to occur specifically “upon [Daniel’s] holy city.”  Now Daniel’s “holy city” would certainly be the city of Jerusalem.  Thus this modifying phrase indicates, not only that the children of Israel, but also that the city of Jerusalem would be a focal point for the events of this 490 year period.  Indeed, the events of this 490 year period, as revealed in this prophetic utterance, would happen “upon” the children of Israel and “upon” the city of Jerusalem.  As such, any understanding for the prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 that does not maintain the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem as a focal point for the events of this prophetic utterance misses the revealed and determined purpose of the Lord our God for this prophetic utterance concerning this 490 year period.

    3.  The second modifying phrase – “. . . to finish the transgression . . .”

    This second modifying phrase is the first of six infinitive phrases that also modify the verb “are determined.”  As such, each of these six infinitive phrases reveals either the intended purpose or the consequential result for the 490 year period that the Lord God had determined upon the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.  Now, at this point a question must be considered concerning these six purpose or result statements (the six infinitive phrases).  Are these phrases indicating that these six purposes or results will be brought to complete fulfillment at the end of this 490 year period, through the events of this 490 year period?  Or, are these phrases indicating that this 490 year period and the events of this period are simply are a part of the process by which these six purposes or results will be carried forward unto their fulfillment, such that other “parts of the process of fulfillment” will follow this “490 year process”?  Is this 490 year period itself the means to the fulfillment for these six purposes or results; or is this 490 year period just a necessary part of the process for their fulfillment, to which other parts must be added thereafter?  I myself would contend that the grammatical flow of thought more naturally lends itself to the first of these understandings.  Even so, I would also contend that any understanding for the prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 that does not end with the complete fulfillment of these six purpose or results statements is not accurate to this more natural flow of the thought.

    So then, what does this first purpose or result statement mean?  Grammatically, this first infinitive clause includes two parts – first, the infinitive itself (“to finish”) and second, the direct object of that infinitive (“the transgression”).  The infinitive itself indicates that this first purpose or result for the 490 year period is “to finish” (or, to bring about the completion) of something.  The direct object reveals that the “something” that is to be finished (or, to be brought unto completion) is “the transgression.”  So then, what does it mean for a transgression to be finished, to be brought unto a completion?  It means that the given transgression is stopped, such that it does not continue forward after the stopping point. 

    Yet what “transgression” and/or whose “transgression” is to be finished, is to be brought to completion, through and at the end of this 490 year period?  Is there anything in the context of Daniel 9 that might direct us unto an answer for this question?  I myself would contend that there is a contextual answer to be found in Daniel 9:5-11, wherein Daniel confessed the transgression of his people, the children of Israel, saying, “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments: neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.  O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.  O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee.  To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.  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.”  Even so, I myself would contend that “the transgression” (notice that the definite article “the” is presented to indicate that a definite “transgression” is in mind) that this 490 year period will bring to a finish, to a completion, is “the transgression” of “the men of Judah,” and “the inhabitants of Jerusalem,” and the children of “all Israel” wherein they have departed from and rebelled against the authority of the Lord their God.

    A directed question to Brother Ian:  It is my understanding concerning your position that you would attribute this first purpose or result statement unto the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ in His crucifixion and resurrection, such that this purpose or result statement is fulfilled therein.  Upon the ground of that understanding concerning your position, I would ask the following –  (1) In what manner did or does our Lord Jesus Christ’s saving work bring about a completely stopped finish of “the transgression”?  (2) What specific “transgression” did or does our Lord Jesus Christ’s saving work bring to such a completely stopped finish?  (3) Whose specific “transgression” did or does our Lord Jesus Christ’s saving work bring to a completely stopped finish?  (4) At what time did or does our Lord Jesus Christ’s saving work bring about this completely stopped finish to “the transgression”?

    4.  The third modifying phrase – “. . . and to make an end of sins . . .”

    This third modifying phrase is the second infinite clause that modifies the verb “are determined” and that reveals the intended purpose or consequential result for the 490 year period that the Lord God had determined upon the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.  Grammatically, this second infinitive clause also includes two parts – first, the infinitive and its accompanying object (“to make an end”) and second, a modifying preposition phrase (“of sins”).  As in the previous infinite clause, this infinitive clause also indicates that something will be brought to a point of completion.  Indeed, this infinite clause indicates that this second purpose or result for the 490 year period is “to make an end” of something.  Then the modifying prepositional phrase reveals the “something” of which the 490 year period to bring about the completion.  It is to bring about the completion “of sins.”  Even so, again we are brought to the question – What “sins” and/or whose “sins” are to be made to end through and at the end of this 490 year period?  And again I myself would contend, from the context of Daniel 9:5-11, that it is the “sins” of the children of Israel.  Indeed, this infinitive clause presents a parallel truth to that of the previous infinitive clause.  The one significant difference between the two clauses is that the word “transgression” in the first clause is delivered in the singular, whereas the word “sins” in the second clause is delivered in the plural.  This appears to indicate that the first infinitive clause concerns the overall spirit and transgression of departure and rebellion that the children Israel committed against the Lord and that the second infinitive clause concerns the multitude of individual sins that the children of Israel committed against the Lord within their spirit of rebellion.

    A directed question to Brother Ian:  It is my understanding concerning your position that you would again attribute this second purpose or result statement unto the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ in His crucifixion and resurrection, such that this purpose or result statement is fulfilled therein.  Upon the ground of that understanding concerning your position, I would ask the following –  (1) In what manner did or does our Lord Jesus Christ’s saving work bring about a complete end “of sins”?  (2) What “sins” did or does our Lord Jesus Christ’s saving work bring to such a complete end?  (3) Whose “sins” did or does our Lord Jesus Christ’s saving work bring to a complete end?  (4) At what time did or does our Lord Jesus Christ’s saving work bring about this complete end “of sins”?

    5.  The fourth modifying phrase – “. . . and to make reconciliation for iniquity . . .”

    This fourth modifying phrase is the third infinite clause that modifies the verb “are determined” and that reveals the intended purpose or consequential result for the 490 year period that the Lord God had determined upon the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.  Grammatically, this third infinitive clause also includes two parts – first, the infinitive and its accompanying object (“to make reconciliation”) and second, a modifying preposition phrase (“for iniquity”).  The infinitive and its accompanying object indicate that this third purpose or result for the 490 year period is to bring about a “reconciliation” between two parties.  Herein the Hebrew word that is translated by the English word “reconciliation” indicates some form of atonement for an offending party, that provides that offending party with forgiveness of the offense and thereby provides for a reconciliation between the offending party and the offended party.  In addition, this infinitive clause further indicates that this “reconciliation” is made “for iniquity.”  I myself would contend that this “iniquity” refers to the guiltiness of the offense that was created by “the transgression” and the “sins” which were mentioned in the previous two infinitive clauses. 

    Furthermore, I myself would contend that by this we begin to see a progression of thought emerging through the order of these infinitive clauses of purpose or result.  In the first infinitive clause, we encounter “the transgression,” that is – the spirit of departure and rebellion against the Lord.  Then in the second infinitive clause, we encounter the “sins,” that is – the multitude of sinful activities that occur upon the ground of this spirit of departure and rebellion.  Then in the third infinitive clause, we encounter the “iniquity,” that is – the guiltiness that is created by this spirit of departure and rebellion and by the multitude of sins that this rebellious spirit produces.  Even so, the first infinitive clause speaks concerning the finishing of this rebellious spirit.  Then upon the ground of this finishing, the second infinitive clause speaks concerning the end of the sinful activities.  Then upon the ground of this finishing and this ending, the third infinitive clause speaks concerning the reconciliation whereby the rebellious spirit, the sinful activities, and the resulting guiltiness are all removed, such that the offending party and the offended party will be brought back into a right relationship with one another.  Finally, I would contend that according to the full context of Daniel 9, the offending party for this clause is the children of Israel; and the offended party is the Lord their God.

    A directed question to Brother Ian:  It is my understanding concerning your position that you would again attribute this second purpose or result statement unto the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ in His crucifixion and resurrection, such that this purpose or result statement is fulfilled therein.  (In fact, I myself would agree that the atoning, saving, and reconciling work of our Lord Jesus Christ provide in His crucifixion and resurrection provides the grounds for this reconciliation between the children of Israel and the Lord their God.)  Upon the ground of that understanding concerning your position, I would ask the following –  (1) In what manner are the children of Israel fully reconciled with the Lord their God?  (2) At what time are the children of Israel fully reconciled with the Lord their God?

    6.  The fifth modifying phrase – “. . . and to bring in everlasting righteousness . . .”

    This fifth modifying phrase is the fourth infinite clause that modifies the verb “are determined” and that reveals the intended purpose or consequential result for the 490 year period that the Lord God had determined upon the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.  Grammatically, this fourth infinitive clause also includes two parts – first, the infinitive and its accompanying adverb (“to bring in”) and second, the direct object of that infinitive (“everlasting righteousness”).  The infinitive and its accompanying adverb indicate that this fourth purpose or result for the 490 year period is “to bring in” a circumstantial condition that had not previously been present.  Then the direct object reveals that the circumstantial condition which is to be brought in is “everlasting righteousness.”  The phrase “everlasting righteousness” would refer to a spiritual condition of righteousness that never at any moment whatsoever into the future ceases to be in existence.  Even so, whatever group of individuals that this purpose or result statement is intended to apply shall experience a condition of righteousness, such that there will be righteousness only, with not even a movement back-and-forth between righteousness and unrighteousness.  So then, unto what group of individuals does this purpose or result statement apply?  I myself would contend that it contextually applies unto the same group as is intended for the first three infinitive phrases of purpose or result.  Even so, I myself would contend that this purpose or result statement refers unto a spiritual condition of “everlasting righteousness” for the children of Israel, such as is referenced in Isaiah 1:24-27; Jeremiah 3:15-19; 31:31-37; 32:36-42; Ezekiel 36:24-38; 37:21-28.

    A directed question to Brother Ian:  It is my understanding concerning your position that you would again attribute this second purpose or result statement unto the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ in His crucifixion and resurrection, such that this purpose or result statement is fulfilled therein.  (Indeed, I would further surmise concerning your position that you view this “everlasting righteousness” as being that righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ which is imputed to the spiritual account of whosoever believes on Christ as Savior from sin.)  Upon the ground of that understanding concerning your position, I would ask the following –  (1) Does this condition of “everlasting righteousness” allow for moments of unrighteous character and unrighteous conduct?  (2) In what manner is this condition of “everlasting righteousness” brought in for whomever it is to be applied?  (3) At what time is this condition of “everlasting righteousness” brought in for whomever it is to be applied?  (4) To what group of individuals is this promised condition of “everlasting righteousness” intended to be applied within the context of Daniel 9:24-27.

    7.  The sixth modifying phrase – “. . . and to seal up the vision and prophecy . . .”

    This sixth modifying phrase is the fifth infinite clause that modifies the verb “are determined” and that reveals the intended purpose or consequential result for the 490 year period that the Lord God had determined upon the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.  Grammatically, this fifth infinitive clause also includes two parts – first, the infinitive and its accompanying adverb (“to seal up”) and second, the compound direct object of that infinitive (“the vision and prophecy”).  The infinitive and its accompanying adverb indicate that this fifth purpose or result for the 490 year period is “to seal up” something.  This phrase appears to be employed as a figure of speech to indicate the conclusion of a particular matter.  Then the compound direct object of the infinitive reveals that the matter which is to be sealed up and concluded is “the vision and prophecy.”  Since this compound direct object is encompassed under a single definite article, it appears that we are to view this compound direct object, not as two separate entities, but as a single unit that encompasses two different aspects.  (I myself would contend that the two different aspects are prophetic revelations that were delivered through both visual means and verbal means.)  In addition, since the two nouns of this compound direct object are both presented in the singular, it appears that we are to understand that this compound direct object refers, not to the visual and verbal prophetic utterances in the multitude of their individual deliverances, but to all of the visual and verbal prophetic utterances as a single unit of divinely revealed truth concerning the future. 

    So then, what particular matter of prophetic utterance is to be understood by this reference in this context.  I myself would contend that the matter of prophetic utterance about which this compound direct object speaks concerns the same group of individuals about which the previous infinitive phrases were speaking.  Even so, I myself would contend that this compound direct object refers to the matter of all prophetic utterances that concern the children of Israel.  As such, I would contend that this 490 year period is intended by the Lord our God to bring about the conclusion of His prophetic utterances concerning the children of Israel.  Furthermore, I would contend that this conclusion of the prophetic utterances concerning the children of Israel will be founded upon the progression of the previous four statements of purpose or result.  First, there will be a finishing of a rebellious spirit against the Lord.  Then upon the ground of this finishing, there will be an end of the sinful activities against the Lord.  Then upon the ground of this finishing and this ending, there will be a reconciliation whereby the rebellious spirit, the sinful activities, and the resulting guiltiness are all removed, such that the offending party and the offended party will be brought back into a right relationship with one another.  Then upon the ground of this finishing, this ending, and this reconciling, there will be a bringing in of a spiritual condition of everlasting righteousness.  Then through the fulfillment of this finishing, this ending, this reconciling, and this bringing of everlasting righteousness, there will be a completion concerning the matter of prophetic utterance.  Finally, this completion of prophetic utterance will climax with the final statement of purpose or result – the anointing “of the most Holy.”

    8.  The seventh and final modifying phrase – “. . . to anoint the most Holy.”

    This seventh and final modifying phrase is the sixth and final infinite clause that modifies the verb “are determined” and that reveals the intended purpose or consequential result for the 490 year period that the Lord God had determined upon the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.  Grammatically, this sixth infinitive clause also includes two parts – first, the infinitive itself (“to anoint”) and second, the direct object of that infinitive (“the most Holy”).  The infinitive itself indicates that this sixth and final purpose or result for the 490 year period is “to anoint” someone or something.  The direct object reveals that the someone or something that is to be anointed is “the most Holy.”  At this time, I myself would contend that this phrase, “the most Holy,” is a reference unto “the Messiah the Prince,” our Lord Jesus the Christ.

    Yet the question remains – What is the event of our Lord Jesus Christ’s anointing?  Throughout God’s Word two events appear to present themselves as “anointing events” for our Lord Jesus Christ, wherein God the Father anointed Him for a particular role.  The first of these is the event of our Lord’s baptism, wherein He was anointed with the Holy Spirit for His earthly ministry of preaching, teaching, healing, and doing good as referenced in Isaiah 61:1-3, which our Lord Jesus Christ applied unto Himself in Luke 4:17-21, and as referenced by the apostle Peter in Acts 10:34-38.  (Note: Acts 4:27 might also be a reference to this “anointing event” of Christ’s baptism.)  The second of these “anointing events” for our Lord Jesus Christ appears to be the event of our Lord’s ascension and exaltation to sit in full sovereignty at the right hand of God the Father, as referenced in Psalm 2:2-9, wherein the Lord God’s Anointed is revealed to be God the Son, and as referenced Psalm 45:1-8, which is applied unto our Lord Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1:8-9. 

    Now, of these two “anointing events” for our Lord Jesus Christ, I would contend that Daniel 9:24 is referring to the “anointing event” wherein He was anointed as King of kings and Lord of lords.  I would contend for this on the ground that the “anointing event” of Daniel 9:24 is mentioned at the end of the progression of purpose or result statements as presented in Daniel 9:24.  As such, I would contend that by the contextual flow of thought in this progression, the “anointing event” of Daniel 9:24 is presented THE concluding purpose or result that brings the other purposes or results unto their point of climax.  Even so, I would contend that the anointing of our Lord’s baptism was an event of beginning for His earthly ministry, not an event of conclusion and climax.  On the other hand, I would further contend that the anointing of our Lord’s exaltation was an event of conclusion and climax to His earthly ministry and saving work.  Finally, I would contend that the anointing of our Lord’s exaltation will have its full acknowledgement by and application to the children of Israel and to all the inhabitants of the world at our Lord’s Second Coming as King of kings and Lord of lords to rule physically and literally over all.

    A directed question to Brother Ian:  It is my understanding concerning your position that you would attribute this final purpose or result statement unto the event of our Lord Jesus Christ’s baptism.  Upon the ground of that understanding concerning your position, I would ask the following – (1) How does that understanding fit with the progression and flow of thought in the six purpose or result statements of Daniel 9:24, wherein this anointing is presented as the last of these six purpose or result statements?

  8. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Concerning "The Most High" in Daniel 9:24   

    Brethren,
    In a private message, an individual (who prefers to remain publicly anonymous in relation to my response) sent to me a very gracious and respectful “corrective” concerning my position on the phrase, “the most Holy,” from Daniel 9:24.  In the discussion-debate thread with Brother Ian, I expressed my position that this phrase refers to “the Messiah the Prince,” that is – our Lord Jesus Christ.  The “private messager” indicated that this phrase in Daniel 9:24 is translated from the Hebrew grammatical construction, “qodesh-qodesh,” wherein the Hebrew word “qodesh” is doubled.   The “private messager” also indicated that this Hebrew grammatical construction of “qodesh-qodesh” is often translated with the English phrase, “holy of holies.”  Finally, this “private messager” indicated that this Hebrew grammatical construction refers, not to a person, but to a place (that is – to the most holy place of the tabernacle or temple, wherein was located the ark of the covenant).  Even so, the “private messager” would contend that the anointing of “the most Holy” (that is – the most holy place of the temple) that is referenced in Daniel 9:24 would be a reference to the rededication of that most holy place (and the temple as a whole) after the 3.5 years of the antichrist’s desecration thereof.  This thread is presented as a response to the "corrective" of that "private messager."  (Note: I chose to present this response in the public venue of Online Baptist, rather than just in private message, because I believe that the information presented herein may be of value to others also.  I did first notify the "private messager" of my intentions to proceed in this public manner; and the "private messager" has requested to remain publicly anonymous, as I mentioned above.)
    Now, the foundational premise of this “corrective” from this “private messager” seems to be that the Hebrew grammatical construction of “qodesh-qodesh,” as employed in the Old Testament, is a technical phrase that always and automatically refers to the most holy place of the tabernacle or temple (thus the contention that it refers to a place, and not to a person).  With this thought in mind, I decided to do a study throughout the Old Testament in order find as many places as I was able wherein the Hebrew grammatical construction of “qodesh-qodesh” occurred.  In that study I was able to discover 40 occurrences of this Hebrew grammatical construction.
    Certainly, it is accurate that this Hebrew grammatical construction refers to the most holy place of the tabernacle or temple in 13 of these occurrences (Exodus 26:33; 26:34; 1 Kings 6:16; 7:50; 8:6; 1 Chronicles 6:49; 2 Chronicles 3:8; 3:10; 4:22; 5:7; Ezekiel 41:4; 44:13; 45:3). On the other hand, the Hebrew grammatical construction of “qodesh-qodesh” is not even once translated with the English phrase “holy of holies” in the King James translation.  Rather, the most common English phrase with which this Hebrew grammatical construction is translated in the King James translation is the phrase, “the most holy.”  Furthermore, this Hebrew grammatical construction is employed sixteen times in the Old Testament in reference to the sacrifices themselves or to the resulting food for the priests (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 2:3; 2:10; 6:17; 6:25; 7:1; 10:12; 10:17; 14:13; 21:22; 24:9; 27:28; Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65).  This Hebrew grammatical construction is employed six times for the altars and utensils of the tabernacle or temple (Exodus 29:37; 30:29; 40:10; Numbers 4:4; 4:19; 1 Chronicles 23:13).  This Hebrew grammatical construction is employed one time for the incense of the incense altar (Exodus 30:36).  This Hebrew grammatical construction appears to be employed three times for the entirety of the tabernacle or temple (Numbers 18:10; Ezekiel 43:12; 48:12).  Finally, this Hebrew grammatical construction is employed in Daniel 9:24, which is the occurrence under question.
    By this study it seems clear that the Hebrew grammatical construction of “qodesh-qodesh,” as employed in the Old Testament, is not a technical phrase that refers always and automatically to the most holy place of the tabernacle or temple.  On the other hand, in the 39 occurrences other than that in Daniel 9:24, it does not appear ever to be employed for a person, but only for places or things.  So then, what might we conclude from these things?  First, I would contend that this Hebrew grammatical construction, not being a technical phrase that always refers to the same place, must be understood in any given context by its usage in that immediate context.  Second, I would contend that the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 does appear to direct our attention unto the person of “the Messiah the Prince,” rather than unto the temple or unto any aspect of the temple.  Thus at present I myself continue to understand the phrase, “the most Holy,” in Daniel 9:24 as being a reference unto our Lord Jesus the Christ.  However, I will acknowledge that my position does possess a significant negative in that the Hebrew grammatical construction of “qodesh-qodesh” is not employed anywhere else in the Old Testament for a person.
  9. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Shepherding the Flock - Hearken, My Beloved Brethren – James 2:5-7   

    Weekly SermonJames 2:5-7 reads, “Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?  But ye have despised the poor.  Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?  Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?”Having declared a prohibitive caution against the practice of showing partiality in James 2:1, and having delivered a f [...]
    View the full article
  10. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Prophecy Debate on Daniel 9   

    Brother Ian,
    I can wait.  Often I have requested patience from others; I certainly can grant it to another.
  11. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: How A Signature?   

    Brother Stolzer,
    Thank you.  That information did it.  I found the "signature" option immediately, as per your instructions.
  12. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: How A Signature?   

    Wait?  What???  I just noticed that my posting also has my previous signature, from the previous format of Online Baptist.  How did this happen?  And how might I change it if I would desire to do so (not that I actually desire to do so right now)?
  13. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: How A Signature?   

    To whomever may be able to provide an answer,
    I just noticed today that some others have been able to add a signature at the end of their postings.  Maybe I am just a dunce, but I cannot figure out how to do this.  Could someone please give me instruction on this matter?
    Thank you for your help, whomever it may turn out to be.
  14. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: 7 Words Or Less   

    With God, holiness means more than happiness.
  15. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: 7 Words Or Less   

    Emotionally indulged children will be self-centered rebels.

Blogs


  1. Pastor Scott Markle's Sermons & Devotionals

    • 3
      entries
    • 0
      comments
    • 3393
      views

    Most recent entry

    Wisdom Crieth Without - Proverbs 1:20Ff
    • 0 comments

Also contributes to:



  1. Devotionals    By Devotionals

    • 63
      entries
    • 9
      comments
    • 25428
      views

    Most recent entry

    The Word Listen 聽 In Chinese.

Status Feed

  1. Pastor Scott Markle

    2015 -- Good Soldier, Not Entangled

  2. Pastor Scott Markle

    2014 - Looking unto Jesus

  3. Pastor Scott Markle

    Directing Our Ways to Keep God's Word

  4. Pastor Scott Markle

    Exalting the Name of Jesus Christ and the Truth of God's Word

    1. Eric Stahl

      Doing this will please God and result in reward.