BroMatt

Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9

37 posts in this topic

Why “thy people”? Gabriel the archangel is speaking, so he refers to the people in question as “thy people” . . .

Because, indeed, Gabriel is speaking to Daniel about Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, and because the Lord God Himself had determined that the “seventy weeks” would be specifically administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.

. . . whereas if the LORD were speaking, he would have said “my people.”

I myself prefer not to presume on what the all-wise Lord God might have said, especially since that is not what actually happened, and was not what actually was said.  If the all-wise Lord God had desired to speak directly to Daniel, He certainly could have.  Since He chose to send the angel Gabriel, I must believe that this was the wisest course of action in that instance.  Furthermore, since the angel Gabriel used the phrase, “thy people,” I must believe that “thy people” was the exact phrase that the all-wise Lord God instructed and intended for Gabriel to use.

The question of your previous post comes down to:

Is God keeping his promise to Israel as a believing people in the present Gospel age through the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus Christ, or is Israel still waiting to become a godly nation under Jesus as King & David as co-regent?

No, the purpose of my previous posting was as follows:

1.  To emphasize the truth that the “thy people” phrase of Daniel 9:24 truly is a reference unto Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.

2.  To demonstrate that the Lord God’s promise unto Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 corresponds to the “thy people” phrase of Daniel 9:24 through the phrase, “And I will make of thee a great nation,” not through the phrase, “And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

3.  To demonstrate that it is Biblically legitimate to make reference unto the children of Israel as a national people group, as per the Lord God’s own usage of the term nation for them, beginning with the Lord God’s promise in Genesis 12:2 to make out of Abraham’s descendants “a great nation.”

4.  To express a corrective concerning your statement, “Scripture makes it very clear that God's blessings are for all the nations of the earth Gen. 22:18, repeated to Isaac Gen. 26:4 & Jacob Gen. 28:14 . . .”

Now, since the remainder of your previous posting is based upon your misunderstanding concerning the primary points of my previous posting, I do not feel any relevant need to engage any further with it.  Rather, I believe that we should return our focus to the details of Daniel 9:24-27, since that is the actual purpose for this discussion-debate.

_____________________________________

The saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ was FINISHED at Calvary, with his death & resurrection, followed by his ascension.

Throughout your postings your continue to emphasize this point.  Certainly, it is a worthy Biblical and doctrinal point for emphasis.  However, in the context of this discussion-debate, it is not greatly needed.  There is NO disagreement between us concerning this point itself.  The disagreement is not whether, or not, “the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ was FINISHED at Calvary, with His death and resurrection, followed by His ascension.”  Rather, the disagreement is whether, or not, Daniel 9:24 is speaking concerning this saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ.  You say that it is, and I say that it is not.  So then, in the context of this discussion-debate, it is our respective responsibility to give evidence for our opposing positions.

That was in the middle of week 70, assuming that 70 follows 69.

Yes, making that human assumption is necessary for your position.  Indeed, this is a matter of disagreement between us.  We both agree that “week” 70 follows after the first 69 “weeks.”  However, you make the human assumption, based upon the natural manner of counting, that “week” 70 follows immediately consecutive after the first 69 “weeks,” whereas I would contend that “week” 70 follows after the first 69 “weeks,” but with a gap of time between them, rather than immediately consecutive.  Now, if there is nothing in the Biblical revelation of Daniel 9:26-27 to indicate otherwise, then the human assumption of natural counting would certainly be valid.  However, if there is something in the Biblical revelation of Daniel 9:26-27 to indicate otherwise, then the authority of God’s word would cancel any human assumption.

 Did Jesus then bring in everlasting righteousness? Paul discusses this in great detail in Romans. You are contending that the actual application of those blessings is yet future as it must be absolute, perfectly realised, so that week 70 is totally separated from week 69. That is an assumption imposed by your grammatical interpretation, not a straightforward reading of Scripture.

You continue to place my grammatical analysis in contrast to a straightforward reading.  The fact is that if a grammatical analysis is accurate to a given text, then it is equivalent to a straightforward reading, simply with a more detailed understanding for the specific ways in which the words and phrases of the text are being used and are modifying other words and phrases in the text.  As such, a correct grammatical analysis, by definition, does not assume or impose anything on the given text.  It only reveals what is actually, straightforwardly being stated in the given text.  Now, with regard to the discussion-debate itself, I am actually the only one of us who has done any significant grammatical analysis of the passage.  I have to wonder why that might be?  I have to wonder why you yourself do not engage in grammatical analysis?

Did Jesus then bring in everlasting righteousness? Paul discusses this in great detail in Romans . . . .

When Abraham believed in the LORD, & he counted it to him for righteousness, did Abraham immediately become sinless? No, but he did become righteous. We also become righteous by faith, as Paul explains in Romans 3 & 4. The righteousness we have by faith in Christ is everlasting righteousness. I don't think you will dispute that Jesus at Calvary made reconciliation for iniquity, so did he not also finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins? Yes! Rom. 6:22-23 Micah 7:18-20 Isa. 44:22-23 Acts 3:19

Every believer, both in the OT & the NT, possess everlasting righteousness, because we have the righteousness of faith in Christ. Rom. 9:30 Phil. 3:9 Hab. 2:4

Personal salvation takes place in time, but Jesus' saving work was FINISHED during the 70th week. And many thousands of Israel believed in their Messiah within the 70 weeks.

Concerning “everlasting righteousness.”

Throughout God’s Holy Word we encounter various aspects of “everlasting righteousness,” as follows:

1.  Forgiveness & Imputation.  Forgiveness is the work of God wherein, at the moment of an individual’s faith in Christ for salvation, God completely forgives that individual’s account of all unrighteousness, such that that individual believer’s account in heaven is eternally without even the smallest speck of unrighteousness.  In addition, imputation is the work of God wherein, at the moment of an individual’s faith in Christ for salvation, God records the perfect righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself on that individual’s account, such that that individual believer’s account in heaven is eternally filled with the record of absolutely perfect righteousness.  This then provides a heavenly record of “everlasting righteousness.”  (See Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38-39; 26:18; Colossians 1:14; 2:13; Romans 3:21-26; 4:1-25; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:8-9)

2.  Justification.  Justification is the work of God, based upon His work of forgiveness and imputation, wherein, at the moment of an individual’s faith in Christ for salvation, God judicially declares that individual believer to have a judicial standing before Him as completely without any unrighteousness and as completely possessing perfect righteousness.  This then provides a judicial standing of “everlasting righteousness.”  (See Romans 3:24-31; 4:5, 25; 5:1, 9, 15-21; 8:29-33; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16; 3:7-11; Titus 3:7)

3.  Regeneration.  Regeneration is the work of God wherein, at the moment of an individual’s faith in Christ for salvation, God spiritually begets that individual as one of His own dear children, joining that individual believer’s old spirit, which was spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, with Christ spiritually in His crucifixion, so as to remove that old spirit from that individual believer, and joining that individual believer with Christ spiritually in His resurrection, so as to create a new spirit by the power of God the Holy Spirit within that individual believer, which is created after the likeness of God’s own perfect righteousness and true holiness.  This then provides a partial (spirit) condition of “everlasting righteousness.  (See John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; 5:24; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:3-11; Ephesians 2:1-10; 4:24; Titus 3:5-6; 1 Peter 1:3-5, 23)

4.  Glorification.  Glorification is the work of God wherein He shall, at the future resurrection, change each individual believer’s soul from corruptible to incorruptible and each individual believer’s body from mortal to immortality, thereby fashioning each individual believer in spirit, soul, and body after the glorious image of our Lord Jesus Christ.  This then provides a perfect condition of “everlasting righteousness.”  (See John 6:39-40; Romans 8:16-23, 29-30; 1 Corinthians 15:42-57; Ephesians 1:13-14; Colossians 3:4; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 1 John 3:1-2)

5.  Israel’s Restoration.  Israel’s restoration is the work of God wherein He shall save and convert all of the children of Israel by putting a new heart and a new spirit in every one of them, such that He will cause His Law and His fear to be in their hearts, such that He will cause them to obey His Word and His will, and such that He will cause them never to defile themselves or depart from Him again.  This then provides a perfect condition of “everlasting righteousness” for the children of Israel.  (See Jeremiah 3:17-29; 31:31-34; 32:37-40; Ezekiel 36:25-28; 37:21-23.)

So then, to which one of these aspects of “everlasting righteousness” does Daniel 9:24 refer when it presents the purpose statement, “to bring in everlasting righteousness”? 

First, as we seek to answer this question, we can legitimately combine points #1-3 above for this question, since they all occur in the same event, that is – the event of an individual’s faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.  Thus we are able to consider three possible options for our question – (1) the event of a believer’s salvation, (2) the event of a believer’s glorification, (3) the event of Israel’s restoration.

Second, in considering the phrase itself from Daniel 9:24, we find that in itself it does not reveal the answer, since it does not include any further modifiers of explanation.  Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to consider other matters in the context in order to help discern the answer to our question.

Even so, we take notice that this purpose statement is joined with two other purpose statements that seem to present “the other side of the coin.”  These are the two phrases, “to finish the transgression” and “to make an end of sins.”  On the one hand, we have transgression and sins being brought to a complete finishing and a complete ending.  (Note: In previous postings Brother Day has made accusation against me that I am adding to the intent of God’s Word by adding the word “complete” in my explanation for these phrases.  However, by definition the words “finish” and “end” indicate that which is concluded and completed, such that it no longer continues.  Thus, in fact, my explanatory phrases “complete finishing” and “complete ending” are grammatical redundancies, which I have purposefully chosen for the sake of emphasis.)  On the other hand, we have a condition of “everlasting righteous” being brought into being.  So then, of our three possible options, which ones combine a complete finishing and ending of transgression and sins with an ongoing condition of “everlasting righteousness”?  Actually, two options allow for this – the event of a believer’s glorification and the event of Israel’s restoration.

So then, is there any other matters of context that might help us to discern the answer to our question above?  Yes, we take notice that the “seventy weeks” about which Daniel 9:24 speaks is specifically determined by the Lord God to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Now, since the purpose statements of Daniel 9:24 present the Lord God’s purpose for the “seventy weeks,” these purpose statements must be an integral part of the “seventy weeks.”  Furthermore, since the “seventy weeks” are specifically to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, then in this context we should view the purpose statements for those “seventy weeks” as also being specifically for Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  So then, of our three possible options, which one combines a complete finishing and ending of transgression and sins with an ongoing condition of “everlasting righteousness” and applies this specifically to the children of Israel?  Answer – The event of Israel’s restoration.

(Note:  It is likely that Brother Day will discard “the event of Israel’s restoration” as a non-legitimate option for the phrase “everlasting righteousness.”  First, it is likely that he will do so by continuing to disregard the truth that the “seventy weeks” were determined by the Lord God to be administered specifically “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Furthermore, it is likely that he will do so by denying that “the event of Israel’s restoration” has any application unto this present earth, but only an application unto the new earth to come.  As such, it is likely that Brother Day will continue to press “the event of a believer’s salvation,” which includes the “everlasting righteousness” aspects of forgiveness and imputation, justification, and regeneration.  However, if he does continue to press this, he runs into a “timing” problem of his own.)

Brother Day, you have previously pressed “the event of a believer’s salvation,” including forgiveness and imputation, justification, and even regeneration, as the only legitimate option for the case of “everlasting righteousness” in Daniel 9:24.  In so doing, you have presented the apostle Paul’s usage of Abraham as an example for this aspect of “everlasting righteousness.”  Indeed, it is Biblically accurate to use the case of Abraham as an Old Testament example for this aspect of “everlasting righteousness.” 

Forgiveness and imputation as a unit is indeed an aspect of “everlasting righteousness;” and we would both agree that Old Testament believers experienced this aspect of “everlasting righteousness,” even as the example of Abraham would reveal.  Furthermore, justification is indeed an aspect of “everlasting righteousness;” and we would both agree that Old Testament believers experienced this aspect of “everlasting righteousness,” even as the example of Abraham would reveal.  Finally, regeneration is indeed an aspect of “everlasting righteousness;” and you and I would both agree (although some on my side of this debate would not agree with me on this point) that Old Testament believers even experienced this aspect of “everlasting righteousness.” 

Yet since these aspects were already available and experienced by Old Testament believers thousands of years before Daniel, how would they need to be “brought in” hundreds of years after Daniel, as per the phrase, “to bring in everlasting righteousness”?  The phrase “to bring in” seems to indicate something that was not previously present, for there is no need “to bring in” something that is already present and being experienced.  As such, the phrase “to bring in” would reveal that the aspects of forgiveness and imputation, justification, and regeneration are specifically not the aspects of “everlasting righteousness” about which the phrase in Daniel 9:24 is speaking, since those aspects of “everlasting righteousness” had already been brought in to be experienced from the very first Old Testament believer onward.

____________________________________________

[Pastor Scott Markle]

At our Lord Jesus Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of God the Father, He experienced a second anointing (as per Psalm 2:2-9; Psalm 45:1-8; Hebrews 1:8-9).  According to these passages, it appears that this anointing was for our Lord Jesus Christ’s ministry as King.  Even so, Psalm 2:7-9 appears to reveal that this kingship ministry will have its fulfilled application as follows – “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.  Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.  Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” 

[Brother Ian Day]

When was Psalm 2:7 fulfilled? Paul tells us it was at the resurrection. Rom. 1:4 Peter alludes to this in Acts 2:30-32 Peter also applies Psalm 2 to those who crucified the Messiah, both Jewish leaders & Gentiles in his prayer. Acts 4:24-31 He is ascended to his heavenly throne as the anointed One. Heb. 1:1-14

Indeed, Psalm 2:7 was fulfilled at our Lord Jesus Christ’s resurrection.  In fact, I would contend that Acts 13:32-33 substantiates that even better than the verses which you have presented, as follows:

And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

However, the point of my statements above were not only about Psalm 2:7, but were also about Psalm 2:8-9.  In these three verses, a progression of three things is presented, as follows:

1.  The day that God the Father “begot” God the Son, which according to Acts 13:32-33 occurred at the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2.  The day that God the Father gave “the heathen” and “the uttermost parts of the earth” unto God the Son for His inheritance and possession.

3.  The day when God the Son would break the heathen “with a rod of iron” and dash the heathen “in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

So then, when was Psalm 2:8-9 fulfilled; or when shall Psalm 2:8-9 yet be fulfilled?  It was in answer to this point that I presented Hebrews 10:12-13 & Revelation 19:11-16; 20:1-4.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

However, at our Lord’s exaltation to the right hand of God the Father, He did not immediately engage in the administration of that kingship ministry upon and over the whole earth.  Rather, according to the teaching of the book of Hebrews, our Lord Jesus Christ is presently engaged in His ministry as High Priest.  Indeed, Hebrews 10:12-13 appears to indicate that our Lord Jesus Christ is yet waiting for the earthly application of His kingship ministry – “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.”

[Brother Ian Day]

Not at all. Read Heb. 1 before you read Heb. 10. Peter explains what is happening & why there appears to be a slowness to God fulfilling his promises – 2 Peter 3:3-9 Note Mat. 28:18-20 ALL power.

Hebrews, in Heb. 7:1-3 explains Jesus' status as great high Priest & King in his teaching about Melchisedec who was the only Priest-King in the OT, not only a type of Christ, but Christ himself, the LORD, the most high God. Gen. 14:18-22 .....

Please understand that I did not at all deny that our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King.  In fact, I fully acknowledged that He was anointed for His ministry as King at His exaltation to the right hand of God the Father.  However, I presented that our Lord Jesus Christ is presently engaged in the administration of His ministry as Priest, and not as King.  Indeed, I presented that our Lord Jesus Christ shall engage in the administration of His ministry as King in the future when the prophetic events of Revelation 19:11-16 & Revelation 20:1-4 are fulfilled; for then He shall rule over the heathen and the whole earth “with a rod of iron” (see Revelation 19:15) in fulfillment of Psalm 2:8-9.

Now, let us consider Hebrews 10:12-13 in comparison with Hebrews 1.  In Hebrews 10:12-13 we find a number of truths concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, as follows:

1.  He “offered one sacrifice” (of Himself) “for sins for ever.”

2.  Then He “sat down on the right hand of God.”

3.  “Henceforth” (that is – from that time forward) He is sitting at God’s right hand “expecting” (that is – in a spirit of expectation, of expecting anticipation).

4.  He will continue “henceforth” in this spirit of “expecting” anticipation “till his enemies be made his footstool.”

So then, what do we find in Hebrews 1?

Hebrews 1:3 – “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins . . .”  This corresponds perfectly with point #1 above.

Hebrews 1:3-4 – “. . . sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”  This corresponds perfectly with point #2 above.

Hebrews 1:8-9 – “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.  Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”  This continues the correspondence with point #2 above, and reveals the truth that at God the Son’s exaltation to the right hand of God the Father, He was anointed for His ministry as King.

Hebrews 1:13a – “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand . . .”  This also corresponds perfectly with point #2 above.

Hebrews 1:13b – “. . . until I make thine enemies thy footstool?”  This corresponds perfectly with points #3-4 above.

So then, by reading Hebrews 1 before reading Hebrews 10:12-13, I find that my understand of Hebrews 10:12-13 is correct and even has a perfect correspondence with Hebrews 1 (which was certainly as I would expect, since God’s Word does not contradict itself).

_________________________________________________

Your focus on “Israel as a national group” rather than Israel as God's people is a serious division between us.

Is it also a serious division between you and the Lord God? 

Genesis 12:2 – “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing.”

Jeremiah 31:35-37 – “Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; the LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.  Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.”

______________________________________________

The OT prophecies are given in terms of Israel, as descendants of Abraham, through Isaac & Jacob, & the promises to the patriarchs include the nations.  (underline and bold added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Actually, as I have presented in a previous posting, the Lord God presented five different promise statements with His message unto Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3.  To these the Lord God then added a sixth promise statement in Genesis 12:7; and of these six promise statements, only one of them is a promise of blessing specifically for all the families and nations of the earth.  These promise statements are as follows:

1.  “And I will make of thee a great nation.” (v. 2)  This is a promise only to Abraham and his physical descendants, the children of Israel.

2.  “And I will bless thee, and make thy name great.” (v. 2)  This is a promise only to Abraham himself.

3.  “And thou shalt be a blessing.” (v. 2)  This is a promise only concerning Abraham himself.

4.  “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.” (v. 3)  This is a promise and a curse specifically concerning how others relate to Abraham and his physical descendants, the children of Israel.

5.  “And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (v. 3)  This is the one and only promise that is specifically for all the families and nations of the earth, a blessing that is promised in and through Abraham and his physical descendants, the children of Israel.

6.  “Unto thy seed will I give this land.” (v. 7)  This is a promise only to Abraham and his physical descendants, the children of Israel.

So then, why is it that the one who continually claims the principle of a “straightforward reading” as the ground for his position is not actually following the straightforward reading concerning this matter – that “the promises [plural] to the patriarchs include the nations”?

_______________________________________________

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Certainly, John reveals in 1 John 3:9, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, that that part of us believers which has been “born of God” does not ever engage in the commission of sin.  Before an individual’s salvation, that individual’s spirit was spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” (see Ephesians 2:1-3), being completed “alienated from the life of God” (see Ephesians 5:18) and from any walk of fellowship with God.  However, at the moment of faith in Christ as Savior, that individual’s spiritually dead spirit was crucified with Christ and thereby eradicated (see Romans 6:6).  In addition, that individual was raised up with Christ unto “newness of life” (see Romans 4), having his spirit regenerated (spiritually born again) as a new creature in Christ Jesus (see 2 Corinthians 5:15), such that his regenerate spirit is now created after God’s own nature in “righteousness and true holiness” (see Ephesians 4:24).  In this manner, the regenerate spirit of the believer has indeed entered a spiritual condition of “everlasting righteousness.”

[Brother Ian Day]

Again you are adding to the Scripture to make your argument. Where in Rom. 6:6 do we read that our (previously) spiritually dead spirit is eradicated? The body of sin (aka the flesh) is indeed destroyed but our spirit is regenerated. We have new life freed from sin.

I think that last sentence is actually saying that “the regenerated believer is in the spiritual condition of everlasting righteousness.” I hope that means we are in agreement, but again I fear that may not be the case.

I suppose that you can think whatever you want to think about my last statement above.  I suppose that you can even change it however you wish to change it.  However, you cannot change my last statement above and then put it back into my mouth as is if your change is what I said or is what I meant to say.  I said precisely what I intended to say in the statement that I myself made – “In this manner, the regenerate spirit of the believer has indeed entered a spiritual condition of “everlasting righteousness” (not the entire person of the believer, that is – not the soul or body of the believer).

 

DaveW and Alan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Login or register for removal of this advertisement.

I'll select the follow key quotation covering specific aspects of the debate, particularly relating to v. 24. 

Quote: Bro Scott

So then, to which one of these aspects of “everlasting righteousness” does Daniel 9:24 refer when it presents the purpose statement, “to bring in everlasting righteousness”? 

First, as we seek to answer this question, we can legitimately combine points #1-3 above for this question, since they all occur in the same event, that is – the event of an individual’s faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.  Thus we are able to consider three possible options for our question – (1) the event of a believer’s salvation, (2) the event of a believer’s glorification, (3) the event of Israel’s restoration.

Second, in considering the phrase itself from Daniel 9:24, we find that in itself it does not reveal the answer, since it does not include any further modifiers of explanation.  Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to consider other matters in the context in order to help discern the answer to our question.

Even so, we take notice that this purpose statement is joined with two other purpose statements that seem to present “the other side of the coin.”  These are the two phrases, “to finish the transgression” and “to make an end of sins.”  On the one hand, we have transgression and sins being brought to a complete finishing and a complete ending.  (Note: In previous postings Brother Day has made accusation against me that I am adding to the intent of God’s Word by adding the word “complete” in my explanation for these phrases.  However, by definition the words “finish” and “end” indicate that which is concluded and completed, such that it no longer continues.  Thus, in fact, my explanatory phrases “complete finishing” and “complete ending” are grammatical redundancies, which I have purposefully chosen for the sake of emphasis.)  On the other hand, we have a condition of “everlasting righteous” being brought into being.  So then, of our three possible options, which ones combine a complete finishing and ending of transgression and sins with an ongoing condition of “everlasting righteousness”?  Actually, two options allow for this – the event of a believer’s glorification and the event of Israel’s restoration.

So then, is there any other matters of context that might help us to discern the answer to our question above?  Yes, we take notice that the “seventy weeks” about which Daniel 9:24 speaks is specifically determined by the Lord God to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Now, since the purpose statements of Daniel 9:24present the Lord God’s purpose for the “seventy weeks,” these purpose statements must be an integral part of the “seventy weeks.”  Furthermore, since the “seventy weeks” are specifically to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, then in this context we should view the purpose statements for those “seventy weeks” as also being specifically for Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  So then, of our three possible options, which one combines a complete finishing and ending of transgression and sins with an ongoing condition of “everlasting righteousness” and applies this specifically to the children of Israel?  Answer – The event of Israel’s restoration.

(Note:  It is likely that Brother Day will discard “the event of Israel’s restoration” as a non-legitimate option for the phrase “everlasting righteousness.”  First, it is likely that he will do so by continuing to disregard the truth that the “seventy weeks” were determined by the Lord God to be administered specifically “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Furthermore, it is likely that he will do so by denying that “the event of Israel’s restoration” has any application unto this present earth, but only an application unto the new earth to come.  As such, it is likely that Brother Day will continue to press “the event of a believer’s salvation,” which includes the “everlasting righteousness” aspects of forgiveness and imputation, justification, and regeneration.  However, if he does continue to press this, he runs into a “timing” problem of his own.)

Brother Day, you have previously pressed “the event of a believer’s salvation,” including forgiveness and imputation, justification, and even regeneration, as the only legitimate option for the case of “everlasting righteousness” in Daniel 9:24.  In so doing, you have presented the apostle Paul’s usage of Abraham as an example for this aspect of “everlasting righteousness.”  Indeed, it is Biblically accurate to use the case of Abraham as an Old Testament example for this aspect of “everlasting righteousness.” 

Forgiveness and imputation as a unit is indeed an aspect of “everlasting righteousness;” and we would both agree that Old Testament believers experienced this aspect of “everlasting righteousness,” even as the example of Abraham would reveal.  Furthermore, justification is indeed an aspect of “everlasting righteousness;” and we would both agree that Old Testament believers experienced this aspect of “everlasting righteousness,” even as the example of Abraham would reveal.  Finally, regeneration is indeed an aspect of “everlasting righteousness;” and you and I would both agree (although some on my side of this debate would not agree with me on this point) that Old Testament believers even experienced this aspect of “everlasting righteousness.” 

Yet since these aspects were already available and experienced by Old Testament believers thousands of yearsbefore Daniel, how would they need to be “brought in” hundreds of years after Daniel, as per the phrase, “to bring ineverlasting righteousness”?  The phrase “to bring in” seems to indicate something that was not previously present, for there is no need “to bring in” something that is already present and being experienced.  As such, the phrase “to bring in” would reveal that the aspects of forgiveness and imputation, justification, and regeneration are specifically not the aspects of “everlasting righteousness” about which the phrase in Daniel 9:24 is speaking, since those aspects of “everlasting righteousness” had already been brought in to be experienced from the very first Old Testament believer onward.

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

That is what the prophecy is about, & we agree (I think) that it relates to the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ in his earthly life; at Calvary; & by his ascension. 

We also agree that the 69 weeks bring us to the baptism of the Lord Jesus at the beginning of his ministry. We also agree that all believers possess the righteousness of faith. 

That being so, it should be clear on a straightforward reading of Scripture to see the 70th week immediately following the 69th week, relating to the 3 years of Jesus' earthly  ministry, & the 3-4 years following Pentecost. You have used a lot of words & arguments to try to refute the straightforward reading, but they are not convincing. In fact you make the prophecy to fail, as vastly more than 70 weeks have passed.  

You argue that the prophecy solely relates to national Israel whereas the prophecy is given for Daniel's (thy) people. Nations include people, but only people can respond to the Gospel. Godly prophets & kings (like Samuel, David & Hezekiah) influenced the nation they ruled over, so that national blessings ensued, but many wicked people lived in those times. 

Let's relate it to national Israel during that 70th week. Jesus ministered to the people during 3 years or so, teaching, healing, forgiving sin, casting out demons, & generally living a perfect life under the Law. As such he was the surety of the new & better testament/covenant, redeeming his people by his blood. He instituted the communion, or Lord's supper, with the wine representing the blood of the new testament/covenant. He suffered in the midst of the 70th week, rose from the dead, taught his disciples about the kingdom of God, & gave them the commission to be witnesses to all, beginning at Jerusalem.

At Pentecost they witnessed in the power of the Holy Ghost, & 3,000 Jews out of every nation under heaven were converted & baptised in the name of Jesus. A few days later, after a lame man was raised, 5,000 believed. Not long after, when the church had grown to the extent that additional administrators were needed, the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.​

One of those, Stephen, was accosted by the mob, & brought before the council, where he made his defense in the power of the Holy Ghost. After giving them a history lesson he rebuked them & declared them "uncircumcised." So they stoned him. Subsequently Saul was converted. Peter was was given a special vision giving him confidence to preach the Gospel to Gentiles, who were saved, & filled with the Holy Ghost,without circumcision; without becoming Jews. God's exclusive dealing with the physical descendants of Abraham was ended - the Gospel was open to all. 

We can assume Gabriel & Daniel were familiar with the books of Moses, & particularly the promise of the Messiah: 

 Deut. 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. 

Peter quotes that prophecy in Acts 3:

18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

The Apostles preached full & free forgiveness in the name of Jesus. Those who heard & believed would indeed be blessed as children of ... the covenant. 

Those who would not hear, who rejected the Gospel, would be destroyed from among the people

Before that generation passed, within 40 years, that prophesied destruction happened. 

Now you argue:

Yet since these aspects were already available and experienced by Old Testament believers thousands of yearsbefore Daniel, how would they need to be “brought in” hundreds of years after Daniel, as per the phrase, “to bring ineverlasting righteousness”?  The phrase “to bring in” seems to indicate something that was not previously present, for there is no need “to bring in” something that is already present and being experienced.  As such, the phrase “to bring in” would reveal that the aspects of forgiveness and imputation, justification, and regeneration are specifically not the aspects of “everlasting righteousness” about which the phrase in Daniel 9:24 is speaking, since those aspects of “everlasting righteousness” had already been brought in to be experienced from the very first Old Testament believer onward.

Certainly such forgiveness & everlasting righteousness was available & experienced by the OT believers, BUT the basis for that was not established until Jesus completed his saving work. They had examples & shadows of the heavenly things. As we read in Hebrews11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.  

The 70 weeks prophecy was completed within the 490 years. All that remained was the prophesied destruction, & despite the scoffers, it was God's gracious longsuffering that it did not immediately occur.

2 Peter 3:The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  

That is a warning to all of us, to make full use of this age of grace. 10 But the day of the Lord will come ...

And yes, we do look forward to experiencing perfect righteousness:

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.  

 

 

 

Genevanpreacher likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Pastor Scott Markle]

So then, to which one of these aspects of “everlasting righteousness” does Daniel 9:24 refer when it presents the purpose statement, “to bring in everlasting righteousness”? 

First, as we seek to answer this question, we can legitimately combine points #1-3 above for this question, since they all occur in the same event, that is – the event of an individual’s faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.  Thus we are able to consider three possible options for our question – (1) the event of a believer’s salvation, (2) the event of a believer’s glorification, (3) the event of Israel’s restoration.

Second, in considering the phrase itself from Daniel 9:24, we find that in itself it does not reveal the answer, since it does not include any further modifiers of explanation.  Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to consider other matters in the context in order to help discern the answer to our question.

Even so, we take notice that this purpose statement is joined with two other purpose statements that seem to present “the other side of the coin.”  These are the two phrases, “to finish the transgression” and “to make an end of sins.”  On the one hand, we have transgression and sins being brought to a complete finishing and a complete ending.  (Note: In previous postings Brother Day has made accusation against me that I am adding to the intent of God’s Word by adding the word “complete” in my explanation for these phrases.  However, by definition the words “finish” and “end” indicate that which is concluded and completed, such that it no longer continues.  Thus, in fact, my explanatory phrases “complete finishing” and “complete ending” are grammatical redundancies, which I have purposefully chosen for the sake of emphasis.)  On the other hand, we have a condition of “everlasting righteous” being brought into being.  So then, of our three possible options, which ones combine a complete finishing and ending of transgression and sins with an ongoing condition of “everlasting righteousness”?  Actually, two options allow for this – the event of a believer’s glorification and the event of Israel’s restoration.

So then, is there any other matters of context that might help us to discern the answer to our question above?  Yes, we take notice that the “seventy weeks” about which Daniel 9:24 speaks is specifically determined by the Lord God to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Now, since the purpose statements of Daniel 9:24 present the Lord God’s purpose for the “seventy weeks,” these purpose statements must be an integral part of the “seventy weeks.”  Furthermore, since the “seventy weeks” are specifically to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, then in this context we should view the purpose statements for those “seventy weeks” as also being specifically for Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  So then, of our three possible options, which one combines a complete finishing and ending of transgression and sins with an ongoing condition of “everlasting righteousness” and applies this specifically to the children of Israel?  Answer – The event of Israel’s restoration.

(Note:  It is likely that Brother Day will discard “the event of Israel’s restoration” as a non-legitimate option for the phrase “everlasting righteousness.”  First, it is likely that he will do so by continuing to disregard the truth that the “seventy weeks” were determined by the Lord God to be administered specifically “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Furthermore, it is likely that he will do so by denying that “the event of Israel’s restoration” has any application unto this present earth, but only an application unto the new earth to come.  As such, it is likely that Brother Day will continue to press “the event of a believer’s salvation,” which includes the “everlasting righteousness” aspects of forgiveness and imputation, justification, and regeneration.  However, if he does continue to press this, he runs into a “timing” problem of his own.)

Brother Day, you have previously pressed “the event of a believer’s salvation,” including forgiveness and imputation, justification, and even regeneration, as the only legitimate option for the case of “everlasting righteousness” in Daniel 9:24.  In so doing, you have presented the apostle Paul’s usage of Abraham as an example for this aspect of “everlasting righteousness.”  Indeed, it is Biblically accurate to use the case of Abraham as an Old Testament example for this aspect of “everlasting righteousness.” 

Forgiveness and imputation as a unit is indeed an aspect of “everlasting righteousness;” and we would both agree that Old Testament believers experienced this aspect of “everlasting righteousness,” even as the example of Abraham would reveal.  Furthermore, justification is indeed an aspect of “everlasting righteousness;” and we would both agree that Old Testament believers experienced this aspect of “everlasting righteousness,” even as the example of Abraham would reveal.  Finally, regeneration is indeed an aspect of “everlasting righteousness;” and you and I would both agree (although some on my side of this debate would not agree with me on this point) that Old Testament believers even experienced this aspect of “everlasting righteousness.” 

Yet since these aspects were already available and experienced by Old Testament believers thousands of yearsbefore Daniel, how would they need to be “brought in” hundreds of years after Daniel, as per the phrase, “to bring in everlasting righteousness”?  The phrase “to bring in” seems to indicate something that was not previously present, for there is no need “to bring in” something that is already present and being experienced.  As such, the phrase “to bring in” would reveal that the aspects of forgiveness and imputation, justification, and regeneration are specifically not the aspects of “everlasting righteousness” about which the phrase in Daniel 9:24 is speaking, since those aspects of “everlasting righteousness” had already been brought in to be experienced from the very first Old Testament believer onward.

[Brother Ian Day]

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

That is what the prophecy is about, & we agree (I think) that it relates to the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ in his earthly life; at Calvary; & by his ascension. 

I have continually argued throughout this discussion-debate that Daniel 9:24 is not speaking concerning the event of our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation.  Furthermore, there is not one single reference to our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, or exaltation in the entire portion of my posting that you quoted above.  So then, how did you come to the conclusion that we agree on this point?  You could only do so by reading into my statements something that I did not say, rather than reading out from my statements that which I actually presented.

We also agree that the 69 weeks bring us to the baptism of the Lord Jesus at the beginning of his ministry.

We do agree on this point.

We also agree that all believers possess the righteousness of faith. 

We would agree that all believers possess the elements of “everlasting righteousness” which I have listed in my previous post as (1) forgiveness and imputation, (2) justification, and (3) regeneration.  However, this agreement does not have any relevancy to any agreement on our part concerning Daniel 9:24, since I have specifically contended above that these are the very aspects of “everlasting righteousness” that cannot be intended in the context of Daniel 9:24.

That being so, it should be clear on a straightforward reading of Scripture to see the 70th week immediately following the 69th week, relating to the 3 years of Jesus' earthly  ministry, & the 3-4 years following Pentecost.

Since your above listing of “agreements between us” is not accurate, your proposed conclusion is also not so clear.

You have used a lot of words & arguments to try to refute the straightforward reading, but they are not convincing. In fact you make the prophecy to fail, as vastly more than 70 weeks have passed.  

Actually, I have not even engaged very much concerning the grammatical and contextual reasons that the 70th “week” (of years) does not follow immediately consecutive to the end of the first 69 “weeks” (of years).  These grammatical and contextual reasons are found in Daniel 9:26-27, and I have not yet focused upon these two verses in their details.  In fact, I intend to set my focus upon Daniel 9:26 later in this very posting.

However, in order to demonstrate that having a gap of time between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years) is not necessarily to cause the prophecy to fail, allow me to present a couple of illustrations.

1.  Let us suppose that I declare my determination to pay you $70.  Then let us suppose that I count out sixty-nine $1 bills to you.  Then let us suppose that in one week from today, I count out the last and final $1 bill to you.  Did I fulfill or fail my declared determination to pay you $70, even though I put a gap of time between my payments?  Now, let us also suppose that during the days between my two payments to you, I used various other monies to pay bills and to buy merchandise.  Did I then fulfill or fail my declared determination to pay you the $70?  The fact is that I fulfilled my declared determination regardless of the intervening time and regardless of the usage of other monies for other purposes.

2.  Let us suppose that I declare my determination to work for you for seven days.  Then let us suppose that I engage in working for you for six consecutive days.  Yet let us suppose that I then do not work for you for the next six days.  Then let us suppose that after this six day break, I then work for you for one day.  Did I fulfill or fail my declared determination to work for you for seven days, even though I put a gap of time between the first six days of work and the seventh day of work?  Now, let us also suppose that during the time period wherein I did not work for you, I worked for someone else.  Did I then fulfill or fail my declared determination to work for you for seven days?  The fact is that I fulfilled my declared determination regardless of the intervening time and regardless of my usage of that intervening time.

If the Lord God determined (as He did) to administer 70 “weeks” (of years) upon Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, for a specific set of purposes, and if the Lord God administered the first 69 of those “weeks” (of years), but then placed a gap of time until the administration of the 70th “week” (of years), would He have failed in His declared determination and purpose?  He would not, as long as He did not specifically declare that the 70 “weeks” (of years) would be consecutive, and as long as the intervening period of time had no direct relationship to the fulfillment of His declared purposes for the 70 “weeks” (of years) that He had determined.

_______________________________________

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Yet since these aspects were already available and experienced by Old Testament believers thousands of years before Daniel, how would they need to be “brought in” hundreds of years after Daniel, as per the phrase, “to bring in everlasting righteousness”?  The phrase “to bring in” seems to indicate something that was not previously present, for there is no need “to bring in” something that is already present and being experienced.  As such, the phrase “to bring in” would reveal that the aspects of forgiveness and imputation, justification, and regeneration are specifically not the aspects of “everlasting righteousness” about which the phrase in Daniel 9:24 is speaking, since those aspects of “everlasting righteousness” had already been brought in to be experienced from the very first Old Testament believer onward.

[Brother Ian Day]

Certainly such forgiveness & everlasting righteousness was available & experienced by the OT believers, BUT the basis for that was not established until Jesus completed his saving work. They had examples & shadows of the heavenly things. As we read in Hebrews11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.  

By definition the phrase, “to bring in,” indicates the bringing in to existence and/or experience something that was previously not in such existence and/or experience.  Since, as you yourself acknowledge, the elements of “everlasting righteousness” that are related to the event of a believer’s salvation (that is – (1) forgiveness and imputation, (2) justification, and (3) regeneration) were already in existence and experience thousands of years before the prophetic utterance unto Daniel, then these elements of “everlasting righteousness” had no need to be brought in.  They already were in.  Even so, the phrase, “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” must then refer to some other element of “everlasting righteousness” than these. 

Making the argument that “the basis for” these elements of “everlasting righteousness” had not yet occurred in history until our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation is not really relevant, since Daniel 9:24 does not use the phrase, “to bring in the basis for everlasting righteousness.”  Rather, Daniel 9:24 uses the phrase, “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” which is a grammatical reference to the bringing of the “everlasting righteousnessitself.

______________________________________________

Concerning Daniel 9:26.

Grammatically, this verse presents four independent statements (clauses), as follows:

1.  “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.”
2.  “And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
3.  “And the end thereof shall be with a flood.”
4.  “And unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

Concerning the first of these independent clauses, we are agreed that it refers to and was fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, “not for himself,” but the salvation of us sinners.  Concerning the second of these independent clauses, we are agreed that it refers to and was fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the armies of Rome.  Concerning the third of these independent clauses, we are agreed that it refers to and was fulfilled in the “overwhelming armies” of Rome (acknowledging that the word “flood” is a common figure of speech in the Old Testament Scriptures for a multitude of people) that were sent against the children of Israel at that time.  Concerning the fourth of these independent clauses, we are agreed that it refers to the “desolations” that the Lord God has “determined” to administer against the children of Israel throughout and unto the end of the war (conflict) between Rome and the children of Israel.

(Note: The word “war” in this context simply refers to a matter of conflict between two opposing parties.  It may refer to a single battle.  It may refer to a war with an established beginning and ending.  It may also refer to an ongoing conflict over a lengthy period of time that may include periods of intensity and periods of inactivity.  I myself believe that the conflict between Rome, both in its “iron” form as an empire and in its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force, and the children of Israel has not ceased unto this very day.  As such, I myself also believe that the “desolations” which the Lord God “determined” to administer against the children of Israel are still in force unto this day.  However, this is not a point over which I care to make any specific argument one way or the other.)

Now, concerning “the prince that shall come,” there are four characteristics that we can discern from this verse about him, as follows:

1.  He shall be a “prince,” that is – a political leader of some kind.

2.  He shall be characterized by “coming,” whether this means coming into existence or coming specifically to Jerusalem is not specified.  (Note: I myself believe that this is a reference to his coming unto Jerusalem and the children of Israel.)

3.  His “coming” would be in the future to Daniel’s time.

4.  This “prince” will have a direct relationship to Rome (the “people” who would destroy Jerusalem and the temple).  Herein we should note that the verse does not state that this prince would be personally responsible in any way for that destruction.  Rather, it only indicates that this prince would be “of” (that is – would have some form of relationship with) the people who would destroy Jerusalem and the temple.

Finally, concerning the revealed time elements in Daniel 9:24, we find only one at the beginning of the verse – “And after threescore and two weeks . . .”  Even so, this time element clearly indicates that all of the events that are prophesied in this verse will occur after the first 69 “weeks” (of years) are completed.  However, this verse does not make any direct reference at all to the 70th and final “week” (of years).  This verse does not indicate whether the prophesied events of this verse are all to be contained within that 70th “week” (of years), whether they are to occur after the 70th “week” (of years), whether they are to occur through and beyond that 70th “week” (of years), or whether they are to occur in a period of time between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years).  Again, this verse states nothing whatsoever at all concerning the 70th “week” (of years). 

On the other hand, Daniel 9:27 does make specific reference unto the 70th and final “week” (of years).  In fact, Daniel 9:27 makes reference to the beginning of that “week” (of years), to the middle of that “week” (of years), and to the end (“consummation”) of that “week” (of years).  So then, if we consider the Holy Spirit inspired layout of Daniel 9:24-27, we find the following:

                    (v. 24)  70 “weeks” (of years) are determined  by the Lord God upon Daniel’s people, the children of Israel

                ________________________________________________________________________________________

                    (v. 25)  The first 69 “weeks” (of years), from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince

                +  (v. 26)  ---  After the first 69 “weeks” (of years), but no reference to the 70th “week” (of years)  ---

                +  (v. 27)  The beginning, middle, and end of one “week” (of years), the 70th and final "week" (of years)

 

Or, to put this equation in an easier format:

               (v. 24)  70 “weeks”  =  (v. 25)  69 “weeks”  +  (v. 26)  --no “weeks”--  +  (v. 27)  1 “week,” the 70th

 

So then, by the Holy Spirit inspired layout of this passage, we find a gap in the layout between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years).  That gap is found in Daniel 9:26.  I myself did not arrange for that gap in the layout.  God the Holy Spirit arranged for that gap in the layout.  However, I myself intend to accept that gap in the layout just as the Holy Spirit inspired it; and I myself also expect this prophetic utterance to be fulfilled in exactly the same manner as it was presented under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, with the “gap” included.

Alan and Ronda like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, I have not even engaged very much concerning the grammatical and contextual reasons that the 70th “week” (of years) does not follow immediately consecutive to the end of the first 69 “weeks” (of years).  These grammatical and contextual reasons are found in Daniel 9:26-27, and I have not yet focused upon these two verses in their details.  In fact, I intend to set my focus upon Daniel 9:26 later in this very posting.

 

 

However, in order to demonstrate that having a gap of time between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years) is not necessarily to cause the prophecy to fail, allow me to present a couple of illustrations.

 

 

1.  Let us suppose that I declare my determination to pay you $70.  Then let us suppose that I count out sixty-nine $1 bills to you.  Then let us suppose that in one week from today, I count out the last and final $1 bill to you.  Did I fulfill or fail my declared determination to pay you $70, even though I put a gap of time between my payments?  Now, let us also suppose that during the days between my two payments to you, I used various other monies to pay bills and to buy merchandise.  Did I then fulfill or fail my declared determination to pay you the $70?  The fact is that I fulfilled my declared determination regardless of the intervening time and regardless of the usage of other monies for other purposes.

 

 

2.  Let us suppose that I declare my determination to work for you for seven days.  Then let us suppose that I engage in working for you for six consecutive days.  Yet let us suppose that I then do not work for you for the next six days.  Then let us suppose that after this six day break, I then work for you for one day.  Did I fulfill or fail my declared determination to work for you for seven days, even though I put a gap of time between the first six days of work and the seventh day of work?  Now, let us also suppose that during the time period wherein I did not work for you, I worked for someone else.  Did I then fulfill or fail my declared determination to work for you for seven days?  The fact is that I fulfilled my declared determination regardless of the intervening time and regardless of my usage of that intervening time.

 

 

If the Lord God determined (as He did) to administer 70 “weeks” (of years) upon Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, for a specific set of purposes, and if the Lord God administered the first 69 of those “weeks” (of years), but then placed a gap of time until the administration of the 70th “week” (of years), would He have failed in His declared determination and purpose?  He would not, as long as He did not specifically declare that the 70 “weeks” (of years) would be consecutive, and as long as the intervening period of time had no direct relationship to the fulfillment of His declared purposes for the 70 “weeks” (of years) that He had determined.

_______________________________________

 

You are working hard to falsify the promises of God.

OK. You promise to pay me £70, & pay me £69 - Then you say, "I'll pay the £1 to your Great 70x grandson. You die in debt, with your promise broken.

You promise to build me a house - we agree it will take 70 weeks. After 69 weeks all is ready for the final week's work, so I can take possession. Then you tell me, "Yes, there is only one more week before I finish, but I've got a contract to build for someone else, so I am leaving your building indefinitely. That final week could be many years away."  

That is not how God keeps his promises. 

Genevanpreacher likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are working hard to falsify the promises of God.

Actually, no effort at all has been put forth with any intention whatsoever “to falsify the promises of God.”  Rather, some effort was put forth in order to illustrate a single point, the point being that a “gap” of time between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years) would not cause the failure and the falsifying of our Lord God’s prophetic utterance in Daniel 9:24-27.  Furthermore, a great deal of effort has been put forth throughout the entirety of this discussion-debate in order to demonstrate the inaccuracies of your position concerning the details of Daniel 9:24-27.

OK. You promise to pay me £70, & pay me £69 - Then you say, "I'll pay the £1 to your Great 70x grandson. You die in debt, with your promise broken.

Except that the Lord God of heaven and earth, God the Father, does not die; therefore, He can never “die in debt with a promise broken.”

You promise to build me a house - we agree it will take 70 weeks. After 69 weeks all is ready for the final week's work, so I can take possession. Then you tell me, "Yes, there is only one more week before I finish, but I've got a contract to build for someone else, so I am leaving your building indefinitely. That final week could be many years away."  

Except that the Lord God did not wait until after the 69th “week” was completed before He gave report concerning the “gap” in time between the end of the 69th “week” and the beginning of the 70th “week.”  Actually, He gave this report even before the entire process of the 70 “weeks” began.

That is not how God keeps his promises. 

How does the Lord God keep His promises?  He keeps them precisely according to the details with which He gave them.  Now, (as I stated with the conclusion of my previous posting) since God the Holy Spirit through inspiration arranged for a gap in the layout between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years), I myself expect this prophetic utterance to be fulfilled precisely in the same manner as it was presented under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, with the “gap” included.

_____________________________________________

Concerning Daniel 9:27.

Grammatically, this verse presents four independent statements (clauses), as follows:

1.  “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”
2.  “And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”
3.  “And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”
4.  “And that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

Herein we find a specific reference to “one week.”  In this context this appears to be a reference unto the 70th and final “week” (of years) of the 70 “weeks” (of years) that the Lord God had determined to administer “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Even so, this verse begins with a statement concerning the initiation of that “week” (of years) by indicating that some specific “he” will “confirm” some specific “covenant” with a group of “many” (presumably, in this context, a “many” from among the children of Israel) for a time period of “one week” (7 years).  Furthermore, this verse speaks concerning the middle point of that “one week” period (the 3.5 year point), wherein the same specific “he” will “cause the sacrifice and the oblation” (presumably, within this context, at the temple in Jerusalem) “to cease.”  Third, this verse indicates that this same specific “he” at this middle point of this “one week” period (the 3.5 year point) will, “for” the purpose of “the overspreading of abominations,”  make “desolate,” presumably in this context, the temple in Jerusalem (as well as, possibly, the city of Jerusalem and the people of Jerusalem), and that this specific “he” will maintain this “overspreading of abominations” and this desolation “even until the consummation,” presumably in this context, of this “one week” (which would also be the consummation of the entire 70 “weeks”).  Finally, this verse indicates that those desolations which were determined as per the concluding statement of Daniel 9:26 will be “poured upon the desolate” (presumably, in this context, upon the children of Israel).  Thus we are able to observe that Daniel 9:27 covers details concerning the beginning, the middle, and the conclusion of the 70th and final “week” (of years).

However, this general overview of the verse does raise a number of questions concerning certain details, as follows:

1.  To whom does the pronoun “he” make reference?

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.

2.  What is the meaning of the phrase “shall confirm” in this context?

The verb “to confirm” indicates the strengthening of something that had previously been or become weak and/or ineffective.  In relation to a covenant, the verb “to confirm” indicates the affirming, or establishing, or engaging of a covenant that was or had become previously weak and/or ineffective.  As such, the phrase “shall confirm” in this context seems to imply a specific covenant that had previously existed, but that had also previously become ineffective.

3.  To what specific covenant does the phrase “the covenant” make reference?

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.

4.  What does it mean that this “he” will “cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”?

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.”

5.  What does it mean that this “he” shall “make it desolate”?

The third independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:27 states, “And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”  Having caused the sacrificial system of the temple to cease at the 3.5 year point of the 7 years, the “he” of this verse will make something to be “desolate.”  In a context concerning the confirming of “the covenant” of the sacrificial system in the temple at Jerusalem and concerning the cessation of that sacrificial system, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the temple in Jerusalem and its sacrificial system, at the least, is that which is “made desolate.”  It is even possible that this work of desolation by the “he” of the verse will also encompass the city of Jerusalem and the Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem.  Furthermore, this work of desolation by this “he” will occur “for the overspreading of abominations,” that is – for the purpose of abundantly spreading abominations in and upon the temple in Jerusalem.  Finally, this work of desolation by this “he” will continue “even until the consummation,” that is – until the completion of the seven year (“one week”) period, which will also be the completion for the entire 70 “week” period.

Ronda and Alan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My contributions in blue.

Actually, no effort at all has been put forth with any intention whatsoever “to falsify the promises of God.”  Rather, some effort was put forth in order to illustrate a single point, the point being that a “gap” of time between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years) would not cause the failure and the falsifying of our Lord God’s prophetic utterance in Daniel 9:24-27.  Furthermore, a great deal of effort has been put forth throughout the entirety of this discussion-debate in order to demonstrate the inaccuracies of your position concerning the details of Daniel 9:24-27.

I'll modify my response in bold to your previous illustrations, to allow for your response to my response.
Ian:
OK. You promise to pay me £70, & pay me £69 - Then you say, "I'll pay the £1 to your Great 70x grandson.
You die in debt, with your promise broken. I & my heirs for many generations die without receiving the promise.

Except that the Lord God of heaven and earth, God the Father, does not die; therefore, He can never “die in debt with a promise broken.”

God cannot die, but he can tell the time, & he does know the times & seasons. If an interval between promise/warning & fulfilment is intended, he indicates it. See Gen. 6:3 (120 years) Gen. 15:13-21 (400 years) Deu. 18:18-19 (indefinite future) Jonah 3:4 (40 days)

There is no such warning in Dan. 9 – Gabriel gives him the information that seventy weeks are determined ..... Daniel's people can expect the fulfilment of the prophecy in 490 years – within 7 years from the baptismal anointing of Messiah the Prince.

Ian: You promise to build me a house - we agree it will take 70 weeks. After 69 weeks all is ready for the final week's work, so I can take possession. Then you tell me, "Yes, there is only one more week before I finish, but I've got a contract to build for someone else, so I am leaving your building indefinitely. That final week could be many years away."  

Except that the Lord God did not wait until after the 69th “week” was completed before He gave report concerning the “gap” in time between the end of the 69th “week” and the beginning of the 70th “week.”  Actually, He gave this report even before the entire process of the 70 “weeks” began.

You are reading a “gap” between weeks 69 & 70 into the passage. A gap of 350 weeks & counting makes nonsense of the actual duration of the prophecy - 70 weeks, 490 years – that God reveals.

Ian: That is not how God keeps his promises. 

How does the Lord God keep His promises?  He keeps them precisely according to the details with which He gave them.  Now, (as I stated with the conclusion of my previous posting) since God the Holy Spirit through inspiration arranged for a gap in the layout between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years), I myself expect this prophetic utterance to be fulfilled precisely in the same manner as it was presented under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, with the “gap” included.

Yes & No. He keeps them according to his eternal purposes that were progressively revealed until Christ himself was revealed to the nation, the people for whom the promises were made. Abraham had his son Isaac according to the promise, but it was 400 years before his descendants became a great nation, & nearly another hundred before they could say: ... ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. Josh. 23:14 – but read on. Whatever happened thereafter, God kept had his promise to Abraham concerning the nation & the land. Daniel acknowledges God's covenant-keeping in Dan. 9:4, & Israel's failure in Dan. 9:5-6

There was a spiritual, eternal aspect to those promises, given in conditional covenant terms in Exo. 19:4-6 Exo. 24:3-8 because, sadly, their obedience would fail, so God made provision for that failure, first by ordaining sacrificial worship & then by promising the Messiah & a new covenant.

If we consider the inspired record in the Gospels & Acts for the 7 years following the baptism of Christ – week 70 – we can see how the 70 weeks prophecy was completed in the prophesied time.

Your analysis of the 70 weeks prophecy is seriously lacking in your failure to relate the prophecy to its fulfilment as recorded in the NT – the New Covenant Scriptures.

_____________________________________________

Concerning Daniel 9:27.

Grammatically, this verse presents four independent statements (clauses), as follows:

1.  “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”
2.  “And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”
3.  “And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”
4.  “And that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

Herein we find a specific reference to “one week.”  In this context this appears to be a reference unto the 70th and final “week” (of years) of the 70 “weeks” (of years) that the Lord God had determined to administer “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel. 

There we fully agree.

Even so, this verse begins with a statement concerning the initiation of that “week” (of years) by indicating that some specific “he” will “confirm” some specific “covenant” with a group of “many” (presumably, in this context, a “many” from among the children of Israel) for a time period of “one week” (7 years).  Furthermore, this verse speaks concerning the middle point of that “one week” period (the 3.5 year point), wherein the same specific “he” will “cause the sacrifice and the oblation” (presumably, within this context, at the temple in Jerusalem) “to cease.”  Third, this verse indicates that this same specific “he” at this middle point of this “one week” period (the 3.5 year point) will, “for” the purpose of “the overspreading of abominations,”  make “desolate,” presumably in this context, the temple in Jerusalem (as well as, possibly, the city of Jerusalem and the people of Jerusalem), and that this specific “he” will maintain this “overspreading of abominations” and this desolation “even until the consummation,” presumably in this context, of this “one week” (which would also be the consummation of the entire 70 “weeks”).  Finally, this verse indicates that those desolations which were determined as per the concluding statement of Daniel 9:26 will be “poured upon the desolate” (presumably, in this context, upon the children of Israel).  Thus we are able to observe that Daniel 9:27 covers details concerning the beginning, the middle, and the conclusion of the 70th and final “week” (of years).

However, this general overview of the verse does raise a number of questions concerning certain details, as follows:

1.  To whom does the pronoun “he” make reference?

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.” 

When we consider the whole prophecy it is evident that God is answering Daniel's prayer for God's rebellious people by the 70 weeks prophecy by sending Messiah to deal with Israel's transgression, sins & iniquity, & bring in everlasting righteousness. That was accomplished at Calvary.

Thus when Gabriel says, “he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week,” we should expect the “he” to be the one who is fulfilling the prophecies & promises made to Israel, i.e. The Messiah. Israel certainly needs God himself to fulfil the Covenant promises he made to Abraham, the Patriarchs & Moses, because Israel has failed. Moreover, if the city & sanctuary that were to be rebuilt unto Messiah the Prince, why should they be so completely destroyed? (v. 26) After all, God has made the old covenant promises, & promised a new covenant. God's eternal plans did not require an earthly city & sanctuary. (see e.g. John 4)

The old covenant promises required Israel's obedience, so they failed. How could THE covenant be confirmed? Only by the one who made it becoming obedient under the covenant.


 

2.  What is the meaning of the phrase “shall confirm” in this context?

The verb “to confirm” indicates the strengthening of something that had previously been or become weak and/or ineffective.  In relation to a covenant, the verb “to confirm” indicates the affirming, or establishing, or engaging of a covenant that was or had become previously weak and/or ineffective.  As such, the phrase “shall confirm” in this context seems to imply a specific covenant that had previously existed, but that had also previously become ineffective.

God had made many covenant promises both conditional & everlasting. All were summed by the wonderful relationship: “You will be my people, I will be your God.” The conditional covenant promises depended on Israel's obedience. The everlasting Covenants depended on God being faithful to his promises, but how could disobedient & unfaithful Israel benefit from those everlasting covenant promises? Only by God himself – as the Messiah entering that covenant from Israel's position, born under the covenant, living a life of perfect obedience under the covenant, yet suffering for the breaking of the covenant by those he was surety for. Heb. 7:22

As Jesus said at the last supper: 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mat. 26)

The old covenant was confirmed by the blood of animals. (Exodus 24) The new covenant is confirmed by the blood of Jesus, shed at Calvary for many. As Paul wrote in Romans 15: 8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

That was at the mid point of the 70th week.

3.  To what specific covenant does the phrase “the covenant” make reference?

I've answered that.

4.  What does it mean that this “he” will “cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”?

The purpose of the sacrifices & oblations under the old covenant was a covering for sin, but by its repetition, was evidently ineffective. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Heb. 10

That is confirmation of the covenant. The repair of the temple veil, & resumption of sacrifices was in direct defiance of Messiah & his saving sacrifice. The fact that sacrifices continued for 40 years only adds to the guilt of those who rejected their Messiah & rejected the Gospel in the blood of Jesus preached in Jesus' name by the Apostles. The sacrifices became “abominations.” See Isaiah 1.

5.  What does it mean that this “he” shall “make it desolate”?

Jesus cleansed the temple twice. John 2:13-21 & Mat. 21:12-13 There were instructions concerning leprosy in a house. Lev. 14:33 ff. Cleanse it once, destroy it the second time. There would be no third time.

Jesus' prophecies of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem & the temple are in view.

Mat. 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Mat. 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Gabriel is not actually saying that the desolation will take place at the end of the 70th week. The abominations will continue until the consummation, while the covenant would be confirmed with the Jews during the final week before being opened to the Gentiles. Many received the preaching of John, & followed Jesus. Jesus thus confirmed the covenant promises both in his ministry & by his Apostles preaching at Pentecost & beyond. Many thousands of Jews, including priests, believed & were baptised, but sadly the Jewish leaders rejected both Jesus & the Gospel of salvation. They persisted in trying to keep a law that condemned them, & offering sacrifices that could NEVER take away sin. The Apostles were imprisoned & beaten, Stephen was stoned, & so the unbelieving Jews were declared “uncircumcised.” For them the covenant was utterly broken. Desolation & destruction followed. Happily, even those who condemned Stephen included at least one who welcomed the Gospel.

In Acts 3, after a undeniable miracle, Peter reminded his hearers of the dreadful consequences of rejecting the promised one. Deu. 18:18-19 Acts 3:22-23 He also reminds them of the scope of the first covenant with Abraham, taking in all the kindreds of the earth.

Notice Acts 3:24 – Peter is counting in “all the prophets” foretelling “these days” so Daniel is not relegated to some future dispensation.

I'll end with a further quotation from Acts

3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.


 

Genevanpreacher likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God cannot die, but he can tell the time, & he does know the times & seasons. If an interval between promise/warning & fulfilment is intended, he indicates it. See Gen. 6:3 (120 years) Gen. 15:13-21 (400 years) Deu. 18:18-19 (indefinite future) Jonah 3:4 (40 days)

Yes, when an interval of time is intended, the Lord God reveals that through His Word; and He did just that through the Holy Spirit inspired layout of Daniel 9:25-27, which reveals the details concerning the “seventy weeks” (of years) that are announced in Daniel 9:24.

There is no such warning in Dan. 9 – Gabriel gives him the information that seventy weeks are determined ..... Daniel's people can expect the fulfilment of the prophecy in 490 years – within 7 years from the baptismal anointing of Messiah the Prince.

Except that the Lord God actually did provide information concerning a “gap” of time. Yes, Daniel 9:24 does announce the promise of “seventy week” (of years).  Yet Daniel 9:25-27 reveals further details concerning that promise of “seventy weeks” (of years); and through the Holy Spirit inspired layout of those details, a “gap” of time was revealed.

[Brother Ian Day]

You promise to build me a house - we agree it will take 70 weeks. After 69 weeks all is ready for the final week's work, so I can take possession. Then you tell me, "Yes, there is only one more week before I finish, but I've got a contract to build for someone else, so I am leaving your building indefinitely. That final week could be many years away." 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Except that the Lord God did not wait until after the 69th “week” was completed before He gave report concerning the “gap” in time between the end of the 69th “week” and the beginning of the 70th “week.”  Actually, He gave this report even before the entire process of the 70 “weeks” began.

[Brother Ian Day]

You are reading a “gap” between weeks 69 & 70 into the passage. A gap of 350 weeks & counting makes nonsense of the actual duration of the prophecy - 70 weeks, 490 years – that God reveals.

No, I am not reading a “gap” of time into the passage.  Rather, I am reading a “gap” of time directly out of the Holy Spirit inspired layout of the details of the “seventy weeks” (of years), as presented in Daniel 9:25-27.  Again, I present that layout just as God the Holy Spirit inspired it, as follows:

1.  Daniel 9:24 – The “seventy weeks” (of years) are announced.

2.  Daniel 9:25 – Details concerning the entire first 69 “weeks” are revealed.

3.  Daniel 9:26 – Events that follow “after” the first 69 “weeks,” but with no mention whatsoever at all concerning the 70th and final “week.”

4.  Daniel 9:27 – Details concerning the beginning, middle, and end of the 70th and final “week.”

Or, to put this equation in an easier format:

(v. 24) 70 “weeks”  =  (v. 25) 69 “weeks”  +  (v. 26) --no “weeks”--  +  (v. 27) 1 “week,” the 70th

Since verse 25 specifies the first 69 “weeks” and verse 27 specifies the 70th “week,” and since verse 26 is located directly between these two specifications, I am reading directly out of the Holy Spirit inspired layout of the passage and of the promised 70 “weeks” a “gap” between verse 25 and verse 27 (that is – verse 26 and its events), and thus a “gap” in time between the end of the 69th “week” (which is specified in verse 25) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (which is specified at the beginning of verse 27).

Therefore, as I have stated in a previous posting, so say I now again – I myself did not arrange for that gap in the layout.  God the Holy Spirit arranged for that gap in the layout.  However, I myself intend to accept that gap in the layout just as God the Holy Spirit inspired it; and I myself also expect this prophetic utterance to be fulfilled in exactly the same manner as it was presented under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, with the “gap” included.

_________________________________________

Concerning the grammatical and contextual usage of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of each and every independent statement (clause) in Daniel 9:26-27.

As we consider the sequence of the independent statements (clauses) in Daniel 9:25-27, we observe the following:

1.  “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.”

2.  “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

3.   “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.”

4.  “And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

5.  “And the end thereof shall be with a flood.”

6.  “And unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

7.  “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”

8.  “And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

9.  “And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”

10.  “And that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

When considering the two independent statements (clauses) of Daniel 9:25, we notice that the coordinating conjunction “and” is not employed before either statement.  Furthermore, we would recognize that the second independent statement (clause) of this verse does not present an event that would occur sequentially after the event of the first independent statement (clause).  Rather, the event of the second independent statement (clause) of this verse would occur as an event within the time period of the first independent statement (clause).

On the other hand, the first independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:26 does begin with the coordinating conjunction “and.”  Furthermore, in accord with the phrase “after threescore and two weeks,” we understand that the event of this statement would occur sequentially after the events of verse 25.  Again, the second independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:26 begins with the coordinating conjunction “and.”  Again, through the historical record, we understand that the event of this statement occurred sequentially after the event of the statement before it.  Yet again, the third independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:26 begins with the coordinating conjunction “and.”  Yet again, by the reference to “the end” of the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary,” we understand that the event of this statement would occur sequentially after the event of the statement before it.  And yet again, the fourth independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:26 begins with the coordinating conjunction “and.”  And yet again, by the reference to “the end of the war,” we understand that the event of this statement would occur sequentially after the event of the statement before it.

Now, the first independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:27 also begins with the coordinating conjunction “and.”  Yet we shall save our consideration of the sequential or non-sequential nature of this statement until the end, since it will be the matter of controversy.  Again, the second independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:27 begins with the coordinating conjunction “and.”  Again, since this statement makes reference to the middle of the 70th “week,” whereas the statement before it made reference to the beginning of the 70th “week,” we understand that the event of this statement would occur sequentially after the event of the statement before it.  Yet again, the third independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:27 begins with the coordinating conjunction “and.”  Yet again, since this statement makes reference to that which will occur from the middle of the 70th “week” until the “consummation” of the 70th “week,” we understand that the event of this statement would occur sequentially after the event of the statement before it.  And yet again, the fourth independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:27 begins with the coordinating conjunction “and.”  And yet again, since this statement makes reference to the complete fulfillment of that judgment which was previously “determined,” we understand that the event of this statement would occur sequentially after the event of the statement before it.

So then, what about the first independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:27?  Well, what is the lay out of that which we understand thus far?  It is as follows:

1.  “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.”

2.  “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

3.   “And [sequential after statement #2] after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.”

4.  “And [sequential after statement #3] the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

5.  “And [sequential after statement #4] the end thereof shall be with a flood.”

6.  “And [sequential after statement #5] unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

7.  “And [????????????????????] he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”

8.  “And [sequential after statement #7] in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

9.  “And [sequential after statement #8] for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”

10.  “And [sequential after statement #9] that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

Certainly, it must be recognized that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of an independent statement (clause) does not automatically indicate that that given statement must be sequential to the statement before it.  However, in the contextual flow of thought of Daniel 9:25-27, every other usage of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of an independent statement (clause) does seem to signal grammatically and contextually that that statement is sequential to the statement before it.  Even so, it only seems reasonable within this particular context to recognize that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of the independent statement (clause) with which Daniel 9:27 begins also signals that that statement is sequential to the statement before it (which is the statement with which Daniel 9:26 ends).  As such, we find further grammatical and contextual evidence that the events of Daniel 9:26 are to occur within a “gap” of time between the events of verse 25 (wherein the 69th “week” ends) and the events of verse 27 (with which the 70th “week” both begins and ends).

Ronda likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro. Scott:

Certainly, it must be recognized that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of an independent statement (clause) does not automatically indicate that that given statement must be sequential to the statement before it.  However, in the contextual flow of thought ofDaniel 9:25-27, every other usage of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of an independent statement (clause) does seem to signal grammatically and contextually that that statement is sequential to the statement before it.  Even so, it only seems reasonable within this particular context to recognize that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of the independent statement (clause) with which Daniel 9:27 begins also signals that that statement is sequential to the statement before it (which is the statement with which Daniel 9:26 ends).  As such, we find further grammatical and contextual evidence that the events ofDaniel 9:26 are to occur within a “gap” of time between the events of verse 25 (wherein the 69th “week” ends) and the events of verse 27 (with which the 70th “week” both begins and ends

 

And” does not imply a sequence of events, but normally refers to related events which may be sequential or concurrent.

 

For an example of the uses of "and" note the sequence of “ands” - beginning with a new paragraph -

 

32 And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, 33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: 34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again. 35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. 36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

 

I'm not sure that the Holy Spirit follows the same rules of grammar that you & I were taught. My school was founded in 1553, 58 years before the KJV was completed. I would have been in trouble for all those “ands” especially beginning paragraphs & sentences with “and.” Some are concurrent, some sequential, &, in v. 35, “and” bears no relation to what Jesus has been saying.

Now we can consider the “ands” in Daniel 9.

Concerning the grammatical and contextual usage of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of each and every independent statement (clause) in Daniel 9:26-27.

As we consider the sequence of the independent statements (clauses) in Daniel 9:25-27, we observe the following:

v. 25

1.  “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.”

2.  “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

v. 26

3.   “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.”

4.  “And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

5.  “And the end thereof shall be with a flood.”

6.  “And unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

v. 27

7.  “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”

8.  “And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

9.  “And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”

10.  “And that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”


 

  1. The first two 'ands' imply concurrency, while the third 'and' events are sequential.

  2. The 'and' events are concurrent.

  3. 'And' is redundant, beginning a paragraph. v. 26 is surprising, as the expectation from v. 24 is that all Israel's problems will be solved by the coming of Messiah. Instead, Messiah is cut off, & the city & sanctuary destroyed as the direct consequence of that cutting off.

  4. The end is the consequence of the cutting off of Messiah. It's not explained in the passage, but Jesus makes it very clear in his teaching about the consequences for the generation that rejected him. Moses in Deut. 18:18-19 and Peter in Acts 3:22-23 warned them also.

  5. The destruction of city & sanctuary are the end after invasion like a 'flood'

  6. with war & desolations determined until the end.

  7. The 'and' begins a new thought, back to the 70th week, immediately following the 69th, and Messiah's saving work, confirming the covenant with those many who receive him during his earthly ministry & by the Gospel preached by the Apostles. Note specifically Acts 3:24-26 & Rom. 15:8

  8. The final covenant sacrifice will be been made, securing the new covenant/testament in Jesus' blood. All the old covenant sacrifices & oblations were finished at Calvary, according to Jesus' last triumphant shout.

  9. Continued sacrifices in defiance of Christ became abominations, as the prophets had warned. (e.g. Isaiah 1, Micah 6, Pro. 15:8 Luke 16:15-16 )

  10. The end of city & sanctuary – as No. 4.

Gap? There is no inspired gap, unless you think Scofield was inspired. God, by Gabriel, prophesies 70 weeks (or 490 years) and that prophecy is readily understood by the events recorded in Scripture.

Jesus taught the blessings he came to bring in his sermon on the mount, as he fulfilled the Law & Prophets ( Mat. 5:17-18 ), but prophesied the destruction in e.g. Mat. 21:33-46 Mat. 22:1-7 Mat. 24:2

The big problem with your interpretation is the change of emphasis from Messiah to antichrist, leaving Daniel's people with only destruction & desolation ahead of them, rather than becoming the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers.

I'll let Zacharias have the last word:

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. 76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; 77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, 78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, 79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. Luke 1

 


 


 


 


 


 

Genevanpreacher likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Certainly, it must be recognized that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of an independent statement (clause) does not automatically indicate that that given statement must be sequential to the statement before it.  However, in the contextual flow of thought of Daniel 9:25-27, every other usage of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of an independent statement (clause) does seem to signal grammatically and contextually that that statement is sequential to the statement before it.  Even so, it only seems reasonable within this particular context to recognize that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of the independent statement (clause) with which Daniel 9:27 begins also signals that that statement is sequential to the statement before it (which is the statement with which Daniel 9:26 ends).  As such, we find further grammatical and contextual evidence that the events of Daniel 9:26 are to occur within a “gap” of time between the events of verse 25 (wherein the 69th “week” ends) and the events of verse 27 (with which the 70th “week” both begins and ends).

[Brother Ian Day]

“And” does not imply a sequence of events, but normally refers to related events which may be sequential or concurrent.

You are correct that the coordinating conjunction “and” does not automatically indicate sequence of events, which I myself acknowledged in the opening statement of my above quote.  Indeed, as a coordinating conjunction, the conjunction “and” indicates a coordinating relationship between two or more grammatical elements in communication.  This coordinating relationship may be intended to communicate something “sequential or concurrent” (even as you yourself presented in your above quotation).  So then, how do we know in any given case whether the coordinating conjunction is intended to communicate a sequential idea or a concurrent idea?  We discern this through a consideration of the context (which is the very reason that I put forth so much effort in my above posting to engage the contextual flow of thought in Daniel 9:25-27 and the contextual usage of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of each and every independent statement in Daniel 9:26-27).

I'm not sure that the Holy Spirit follows the same rules of grammar that you & I were taught. My school was founded in 1553, 58 years before the KJV was completed. I would have been in trouble for all those “ands” especially beginning paragraphs & sentences with “and.” Some are concurrent, some sequential, &, in v. 35, “and” bears no relation to what Jesus has been saying.

It is true that the rules of English grammar forbid the use of common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences in formal writing.  However, the language in which God the Holy Spirit inspired the Holy Scriptures was not English.  Rather, the original languages of Holy Spirit inspiration were Hebrew (for the Old Testament) and Greek (for the New Testament).  Now, in both Hebrew and Greek it is grammatically acceptable and common to use a common conjunction at the beginning of sentences.  Even so, out of reverence for Holy Spirit inspiration and for the sake of translational accuracy, the translators of the King James translation included these conjunctions at the beginning of sentences (and even paragraphs) in their translation.

Concerning the grammatical and contextual usage of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of each and every independent statement (clause) in Daniel 9:26-27.

As we consider the sequence of the independent statements (clauses) in Daniel 9:25-27, we observe the following:

1.  “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.”

2.  “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

The three uses of the conjunction “and” that you emphasized (those in blue) in addition to those that I emphasized in my original posting are not actually relevant to the matter under discussion.  In fact, in my original posting I specifically stated that my analysis concerned “the coordinating conjunction ‘and’ at the beginning of each and every independent statement (clause) in Daniel 9:26-27.”  The reason for narrowing our focus only upon these usages of the coordinating conjunction at the beginning of each independent statement (clause) is because only these usages can reveal the coordinating relationship between the independent statements (clauses) with each other.  All of the other usages of the coordinating conjunction “and” in Daniel 9:25-27 (of which there are a total of eight) indicate the grammatical coordination between subjects, verbs, verbals, direct objects, and adjectives, but not the grammatical coordination between the independent statements (clauses) with each other.  As such, a consideration of these additional usages of the coordinating conjunction “and” are not at all relevant to discern whether or not the independent statements (clauses) are sequential to one another.

So then, with this understanding in mind, let us return to our consideration of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of the independent statements (clauses) in Daniel 9:25-27.  That consideration is as follows (even as I presented it in my original posting on the matter):

1.  “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.”

2.  “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

3.   “And [sequential after statement #2] after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.”

4.  “And [sequential after statement #3] the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

5.  “And [sequential after statement #4] the end thereof shall be with a flood.”

6.  “And [sequential after statement #5] unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

7.  “And [????????????????????] he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”

8.  “And [sequential after statement #7] in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

9.  “And [sequential after statement #8] for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”

10.  “And [sequential after statement #9] that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

1.  “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.”

2.  “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

1.  The first two 'ands' imply concurrency, while the third 'and' events are sequential.

2.  The 'and' events are concurrent.

As I have indicated above, these usages of the coordinating conjunction “and” are not relevant to the matter under discussion because they are not at the beginning of an independent statement (clause).

3.   “And [sequential after statement #2] after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.”

3.  'And' is redundant, beginning a paragraph. v. 26 is surprising, as the expectation from v. 24 is that all Israel's problems will be solved by the coming of Messiah. Instead, Messiah is cut off, & the city & sanctuary destroyed as the direct consequence of that cutting off.

The coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of the opening independent statement (clause) in Daniel 9:26 is not at all “redundant” because that statement does not actually begin a new paragraph.  Daniel 9:24-27 is a singular paragraph that covers a singular matter, that is – the “seventy weeks” that the Lord God determined to administer upon Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Yet even if Daniel 9:26 did begin a new paragraph, the coordinating conjunction at the beginning of that paragraph would not be grammatically redundant (as if God the Holy Spirit inspired redundancy simply for the sake of redundancy).  Rather, that usage of the coordinating conjunction would help to reveal the coordinating relationship between the new paragraph and the paragraph that preceded it.  Even so, whether this statement is simply an extension of the paragraph or is the beginning of a new paragraph, since the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of this statement is joined with the sequential prepositional phrase, “after threescore and two weeks,” this usage of the coordinating conjunction “and” is clearly intended to signal the sequential relationship between this statement and the statement (or even paragraph) before it.

(Note: The idea that some words in God’s Holy Word are redundant simply for the sake of redundancy is foolish and somewhat offensive in relation to the truth of Holy Spirit inspiration.  Every single word that God the Holy Spirit inspired in God’s Holy Word is absolutely pure and is significantly important.  As such, I would challenge all to develop a greater respect for every single word that God the Holy Spirit inspired and for the grammatical structuring of those words in each sentence that God the Holy Spirit inspired in each given context.)

Furthermore, Daniel 9:26 is not at all surprising in relation to the declaration of Daniel 9:24, since Daniel 9:24 revealed the six-fold results that would come to pass at the conclusion of the “seventy weeks,” whereas Daniel 9:26 is revealing events that will occur prior to the conclusion of the “seventy weeks.”  As such, the revelation of Daniel 9:24-26 concerning the Messiah (according to the three specific references to the Messiah) would be chronologically presented as follows:

1.  Messiah would come – “unto the Messiah the Prince” (at the end of the first 69 “weeks”)
2.  Messiah would be cut off – “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off.” (after the end of the first 69 “weeks”)
3.  Messiah would be anointed – “and to anoint the most Holy” (at the end of the 70 “weeks”)

Yes, to those who had no grasp concerning the suffering and death of the Messiah, the truth that the Messiah will be cut off at all would be surprising.  However, the ordering of these events concerning the Messiah is not surprising, since these events do not conclude with the cutting off of the Messiah, but with the anointing of the Messiah.

4.  “And [sequential after statement #3] the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

4.  The end is the consequence of the cutting off of Messiah. It's not explained in the passage, but Jesus makes it very clear in his teaching about the consequences for the generation that rejected him. Moses in Deut. 18:18-19 and Peter in Acts 3:22-23 warned them also.

First, God the Holy Spirit in His work of inspiration did not include the word “end” anywhere in this statement.  Rather, God the Holy Spirit in His work of inspiration indicated that there would be a destroying, that “the people of the prince that shall come” would do the destroying, and that “the city and the sanctuary” would be that which is destroyed.  Furthermore, since (as you have indicated) the New Testament reveals that this destruction upon the city and temple of Jerusalem would be the consequence of the Israelites rejection of the Messiah, the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of this statement must also signal a sequential relationship between this statement and the one before it; for a consequence by definition is sequential to the cause.

5.  “And [sequential after statement #4] the end thereof shall be with a flood.”

5.  The destruction of city & sanctuary are the end after invasion like a 'flood'

Herein you have made two grammatical changes to that which God the Holy Spirit inspired.  First, in your explanation you made the word “end” a grammatical predicate nominative; whereas God the Holy Spirit inspired the word “end” to be the grammatical subject of the statement.  As such, it is not that “the destruction of city & sanctuary” would be “the end.”  Rather, it is that the end of the city and the sanctuary would be with a certain means.  Second, in your explanation above you employed the preposition “after” in relation to the “flood,” which is a preposition that indicates sequence of time; whereas God the Holy Spirit inspired the preposition “with” in relation to the “flood,” which is a preposition that indicates a tool of means.  As such, it is not that the end of the city and the sanctuary would come “after invasion like a ‘flood’.”  Rather, it is that the end of the city and the sanctuary would come “with” (this is – by the means of) an invasion like the overflowing of a “flood.”  Nevertheless, this Holy Spirit inspired statement concerns the end of the city and the sanctuary, which is sequential to the statement before it.  Thus the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of this statement again signals a sequential relationship between this statement and the one before it.

6.  “And [sequential after statement #5] unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

6.  with war & desolations determined until the end.

Again herein you have made two grammatical changes to that which God the Holy Spirit inspired.  First, in your explanation you made the word “desolations” a part of a compound object of a preposition; whereas God the Holy Spirit inspired the word “desolations” to be the grammatical subject of the sentence.  As such, it is not “with war & desolations determined.”  Rather, it is “desolations are determined.”  Second, in your explanation you change the Holy Spirit inspired prepositional phrase, “of the war,” to the prepositional phrase, “with war & desolations.”  As such, you have changed the possessive preposition “of” to the relational preposition “with;” you have changed the object of the preposition “war” to the compound object of the preposition “war & desolations;” and you have removed the prepositional phrase, “of the war,” from being a modifier for the noun “end.”  To your explanation I might ask the question – Until the end of what is war and desolation determine?  To which question your explanation would provide no answer.  However, to the Holy Spirit inspired statement I might ask the question – Unto the end of what are desolations determined?  To which question the Holy Spirit inspired statement would provide the answer – “Unto the end of the war.”

(Note: Whenever an individual changes the grammatical structure 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 to 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.  Again, I would challenge all to develop a greater respect for every single word that God the Holy Spirit inspired and for the grammatical structuring of those words in each sentence that God the Holy Spirit inspired in each given context.)

7.  “And [????????????????????] he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”

7.  The 'and' begins a new thought, back to the 70th week, immediately following the 69th, and Messiah's saving work, confirming the covenant with those many who receive him during his earthly ministry & by the Gospel preached by the Apostles. Note specifically Acts 3:24-26 & Rom. 15:8

Now, in my above presentation of this statement from Daniel 9:27, I included the “[????????]” in order to signal my recognition (as I indicated in my above posting) that this usage of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement (clause) in this context would be the one of controversy.  In considering the intended usage for this controversial conjunction “and,” we must again ask the question -- How do we discern the intended usage for the coordinating conjunction “and” in any given case?  Again we recognize the answer – We do so through a consideration of the immediate context.  Even so, in my above posting I presented the following contextual consideration:

Certainly, it must be recognized that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of an independent statement (clause) does not automatically indicate that that given statement must be sequential to the statement before it.  However, in the contextual flow of thought of Daniel 9:25-27, every other usage of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of an independent statement (clause) does seem to signal grammatically and contextually that that statement is sequential to the statement before it.  Even so, it only seems reasonable within this particular context to recognize that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of the independent statement (clause) with which Daniel 9:27 begins also signals that that statement is sequential to the statement before it (which is the statement with which Daniel 9:26 ends).  As such, we find further grammatical and contextual evidence that the events of Daniel 9:26 are to occur within a “gap” of time between the events of verse 25 (wherein the 69th “week” ends) and the events of verse 27 (with which the 70th “week” both begins and ends).

Even so, I am contending that this usage for the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement (clause) is intended to be sequential.  However, in your explanation above you are contending something different, as per your opening declaration, “The 'and' begins a new thought.”  So then, what contextual evidence do you provide for this authoritative declaration?  Actually, you provide no contextual evidence whatsoever at all – unless you intended the following statement to be that evidence, “back to the 70th week, immediately following the 69th.”  However, this statement in itself has contextual problems.  First, God the Holy Spirit nowhere in this context inspired the phrase, “immediately following the 69th week,” or even anything similar to that phrase.  Therefore, the source for that “evidence” cannot be the Holy Spirit inspired context, but can only be your personally assumed position.  Second, concerning the phrase, “back to the 70th week,” we understand that by definition in order to go “back to” something, we had to have been there previously and had to have departed from it, in order that we might now return “back to” it.  However, God the Holy Spirit nowhere in the previous context made any direct reference whatsoever at all to the 70th “week.”  Therefore, by definition it is not possible for us to return “back to” it.  Again this point of “evidence” is found to be rooted, not in the Holy Spirit inspired context, but in your personally assumed position.

No, there is no contextual evidence from the Holy Spirit inspired context of Daniel 9:24-27 that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of this statement that begins verse 27 is intended to signal the beginning of a new flow of thought or even to return us back to a previous flow of thought.  Rather, the contextual evidence from the Holy Spirit inspired context simply indicates a sequence of events from the beginning of Daniel 9:26 to the end of Daniel 9:27.

8.  “And [sequential after statement #7] in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

8.  The final covenant sacrifice will be been made, securing the new covenant/testament in Jesus' blood. All the old covenant sacrifices & oblations were finished at Calvary, according to Jesus' last triumphant shout.

This Holy Spirit inspired statement in Daniel 9:27 does not say anything about “the final covenant sacrifice.”  In fact, the word “covenant” is not employed anywhere in this Holy Spirit inspired statement.  As such, this Holy Spirit inspired statement also does not say anything about “securing the new covenant/testament in Jesus’ blood.” 

9.  “And [sequential after statement #8] for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”

9.  Continued sacrifices in defiance of Christ became abominations, as the prophets had warned. (e.g. Isaiah 1, Micah 6, Pro. 15:8 Luke 16:15-16 )

This Holy Spirit inspired statement in Daniel 9:27 does not say anything about the continuance of sacrifices being an abomination.  In fact, the word “sacrifice(s)” is not employed anywhere in this Holy Spirit inspired statement.  Furthermore, I did research on every reference to the word “abomination(s)” in the New Testament (of which there are only six); and I was unable to find a single reference that defined sacrifices of any kind as being an abomination.  So then, let us consider the reference to the Old Testament prophets that you presented as evidence for your assertion.  In their immediate context, both Isaiah in Isaiah 1 and Micah in Micah 6 were speaking against the sacrificial practices of the children of Israel in their day, which in both cases was hundreds of years before the sacrificial death of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross.  Thus these references also provide no evidence whatsoever at all that sacrifices continuing after Christ’s crucifixion were an abomination.  Finally, although Proverbs 15:8 does define certain sacrifices as being an abomination, it does not make any reference to sacrifices continuing after Christ’s crucifixion.  Rather, this verse teaches that the heart-character of the one making the sacrifice determines the acceptance or abomination of that sacrifice.  Religious conduct, even when it is commanded conduct (which would have been the case when Solomon wrote Proverbs 15:8), is not acceptable unless it is motivated by righteous character.  Such has always been true and shall always be true in relation to the Lord our God.

10.  “And [sequential after statement #9] that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”       

10.  The end of city & sanctuary – as No. 4.

This Holy Spirit inspired statement in Daniel 9:27 does not say anything about the end of the city and sanctuary.  In fact, both the words “city” and “sanctuary” are not employed anywhere in this Holy Spirit inspired statement.  Furthermore, the phrase “that determined” in this Holy Spirit inspired statement would refer back to the concluding statement of Daniel 9:26, as per the phrase therein, “desolations are determined” (which would be point #6 in our study, not point #4).  Finally, that concluding statement of Daniel 9:26 (point #6 in our study) does not refer to the end of the city and the sanctuary, but refers to “the end of the war.”

Brother Day, throughout this immediate discussion above, your inaccuracies both grammatical and contextual to that which God the Holy Spirit actually inspired seem to abound in number.  Such inaccuracies place a great deal of doubt upon your credibility as an accurate Bible student.

Gap? There is no inspired gap, unless you think Scofield was inspired. God, by Gabriel, prophesies 70 weeks (or 490 years) and that prophecy is readily understood by the events recorded in Scripture.

Scofield???  Have I made any reference to Scofield anywhere throughout this discussion-debate, or even throughout any of my presentations in any of the external threads?  Have I even once employed Scofield as a point of evidence for that which I have presented and contended?  NO!!!  I have not.  Every point that I have made, I have supported with actual evidence from the Holy Spirit inspired grammar and context. 

Concerning your question of the “gap,” I will repeat myself yet again – God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired this passage to place all of Daniel 9:26 as a gap between the end of Daniel 9:25 wherein we find the end of the 69th “week” and the beginning of Daniel 9:27 wherein we find the beginning of the 70th “week.”  I myself did not arrange for that gap in the layout.  God the Holy Spirit arranged for that gap in the layout.  However, I myself intend to accept that gap in the layout just as God the Holy Spirit inspired it; and I myself also expect this prophetic utterance to be fulfilled in exactly the same manner as it was presented under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, with the “gap” included.

The big problem with your interpretation is the change of emphasis from Messiah to antichrist, leaving Daniel's people with only destruction & desolation ahead of them, rather than becoming the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers.

This assessment of my position reveals your misunderstanding of my position.  My position does not change the emphasis “from Messiah to antichrist.”  Rather, my position acknowledges the work that both the Messiah and the antichrist will perform, as revealed by this Holy Spirit inspired passage.  Furthermore, my position does not end the 70th “week” with the antichrist in power and with Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, in destruction and desolation.  Rather, my position ends the 70th “week” with the fulfillment of the six-fold purpose-result statements of Daniel 9:24, wherein all of the children of Israel who are alive at that time shall place heart-faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and shall be saved (in unity with Romans 11:25-27), wherein all of the children of Israel who are alive at that time shall experience such a transformation of heart that they will never again commit transgression or sins, but shall conduct themselves in perfect righteousness with the Lord (in unity with Isaiah 1:26; Jeremiah 3:17; 31:33; 32:39-40; Ezekiel 36:26-27; 37:23-24), wherein all of the children of Israel that are alive at that time shall be fully reconciled unto the Lord their God as a nation and shall enter into an enjoyment of all the New Covenant promises in every detail, including all of the land blessings (in unity with Jeremiah 31:31-40; 32:37-42; Ezekiel 36:21-38; 37:19-28), and wherein the Lord Jesus Christ shall administrate His kingship ministry bodily upon the earth from Jerusalem as King of kings and Lord of lords over the all the nations of the world (in unity with Revelation 19:11 – 20:4).  It does not at all appear to me that my position concludes and climaxes with an emphasis upon the antichrist.  Rather, it appears to me that my position concludes and climaxes with an emphasis upon the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

I'll let Zacharias have the last word:

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. 76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; 77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, 78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, 79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. Luke 1 (emboldening and underlining added by Pastor Scott Markle)

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?  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?  It appears to me that we must still be looking to the future for the fulfillment of these New Covenant promises unto the children of Israel as a national people group (as per Jeremiah 31:31-40; 32:37-42; Ezekiel 36:21-38; 37:19-28).

MountainChristian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to refresh our memories:

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

Bro Scott, Your extreme grammatical analysis makes it difficult to appreciate what you are actually trying to say.

 

You complain about me rearranging the words of Scripture, but we need to understand what the Scripture is saying before we interpret. Interpreting is seeking to understand & explain the Scripture, so needs additional words or in this case, emphasis of the actual words. The Scripture is saying ”Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city...” However many words you write, you cannot change that statement. Seventy weeks (of years) corresponding to the seventy years of exile just being completed. Inserting a gap of thousands of years or hundreds of “weeks” denies the actual words of the prophecy.

 

I have repeatedly referred to the teaching of Jesus & his Apostles, & the fulfilment of the 70 weeks prophecy as recorded in Scripture, ending about 3 years after Calvary. By contrast, you have insisted on staying in the OT, quoting the land prophecies & promises. We have the inspired record of the fulfilment of the prophecy in the NT Scriptures, so should study the related NT Scriptures.
 

We should look at verse 24 being fulfilled by the saving work of the Lord Jesus. Obviously he considered he had finished the work the Father had given him. John 17:4 John 19:30

He explained to his disciples:

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

 

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

 

As Gabriel prophesied:

Dan. 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

 

Those 70 weeks contrast with the 70 years of exile, the people would be in their homeland for seven times the period of the exile, & by the end of that period Messiah would have come & completed his prophesied saving work.

 

I can't think why you want to deny the simple words of Scripture with your elaborate scheme of distant future interpretation. You deny quoting Scofield, (I agree you haven't referred to him) but you cannot deny his influence on the line of interpretation you follow. His one-volume commentary influenced fundamentalist thinking in the Bible colleges & helped popularise dispensationalism in the last century.

 

As we agree that week 69 brings us to the baptism of Jesus & his earthly ministry, we should expect the key events of the other verses to take place during the following 7 years - week 70. Scripture records these prophesied events as occurring during that final week, while consequential events take place after the completion of the seventy weeks.

 

Verse 25 prophesies the rebuilding, as recorded by Ezra & Nehemiah & the troublous times experienced as recorded by Esther. We agree that the total of 69 weeks takes us to the baptism of Jesus.

 

Verse 26 speaks of events after the 69 weeks, but not necessarily during the 70th week. We know that Messiah was cut off after about 3 1/2 years of ministry, or half a week - 3 1/2 years of the "week" immediately following his baptism. He was cut off, not for himself, but to redeem his people (many), and to ratify the new covenant/testament in his blood. Mat. 26:36-28 Those who would reject the saving new covenant would suffer the consequences prophesied – the city & sanctuary would be destroyed.

 

Verse 27 speaks of events during “one week” which obviously is the seventieth week. The 70th week naturally immediately follows the 69th week, so runs from the baptism of Jesus, through his death, resurrection & ascension in the middle of the seven years until 3 1/2 years after his saving work at Calvary & his ascension to David's throne.

 

These events are recorded in Scripture:

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

Jesus inaugurated the new covenant in his own blood at the last supper, the new covenant fulfilling & ratifying the everlasting covenant relationship of God with his people. We commemorate the new covenant as we drink the 'wine' at every communion service.

As the second half of the 70th week began, Peter assured the Jews :

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Acts 3:25

Paul wrote to the Romans:

Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers Rom. 15:8

The promises made unto the fathers were covenant promises, and were confirmed by Jesus' personal ministry & the Apostolic Gospel.

Many thousands of Jews responded to the Gospel – 3,000 at Pentecost; 5,000 after the healing of the lame man at the temple gate; that number was soon multiplied greatly

and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. Acts 6:7

The Gospel was progressing so rapidly through Israel that the Jewish leaders became desperate to stop the progress. Imprisonment, beatings & stoning of believers in Lord Jesus Christ followed.

Certainly Messiah was confirming the covenant with many through the Apostolic Gospel – the prophesied new covenant ratified by his own blood as the covenant surety.

Peter in his first letter takes up the Sinai covenant dependent on obedience of the Israelites ( Exo. 19:5-6 ) and shows it to be fulfilled in Christian believers. 1 Peter 2:9. The obedience of Christ secures the covenant promises. Everlasting covenants can only be fulfilled through Christ.

Note that Peter says in his letter what he preached in Jerusalem:

Acts 3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

 

1 Peter 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

 

There is absolutely no suggestion of a future dispensation when the covenant promises would apply. Take them NOW by repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, or

every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

But take heart:

Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

 

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

At Calvary Jesus shouted out, “It is finished!” All the sacrifices & oblations of the Law pointed forward to the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus would:

finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,

in the midst of week 70 as prophesied. The temple veil was rent from top to bottom to show the way into the holiest place was open. Heb. 9:1-15

 

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,

The sacrifices that continued to be offered in the temple were the sacrifices of the wicked – an abomination. Prov. 15:8 They were offered in defiance of the sacrifice of Christ. They were sacrifices that can never take away sins. Heb. 10:11 Isaiah 1:10-20 warns against such sacrifices offered by an earlier generation before the 70 years exile & the destruction of Jerusalem & Solomon's temple.

Jesus warned the Scribes & Pharises, hypocrites, the leaders in Jerusalem:

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

 

even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The wrath of God against the people of Israel who rejected their Messiah was limited to this generation. e.g. Mat. 12:41-42 Mat. 23:36 Mat. 24:34 Luke 11:50-51 1 Thes. 2:14-16 They had the testimony of Moses & the prophets, Luke 16:31 John 5:44-47 That wrath would be complete:

Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. 1 Thes. 2:16

That determined was described in verse 26

the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

 

So we see the wonderful blessings of verse 24 realised through Jesus' saving work at Calvary, covenant blessings promised to the Patriarchs realised in time by Abraham's Seed, & received by faith in Jesus as Lord & Saviour. The consequences of rejecting the Messiah, Jesus Christ, are also prophesied.

 

--------------------

 

To answer your other points:

 

  Quote

The big problem with your interpretation is the change of emphasis from Messiah to antichrist, leaving Daniel's people with only destruction & desolation ahead of them, rather than becoming the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers.

This assessment of my position reveals your misunderstanding of my position.  My position does not change the emphasis “from Messiah to antichrist.”  Rather, my position acknowledges the work that both the Messiah and the antichrist will perform, as revealed by this Holy Spirit inspired passage.  Furthermore, my position does not end the 70th “week” with the antichrist in power and with Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, in destruction and desolation.  Rather, my position ends the 70th “week” with the fulfillment of the six-fold purpose-result statements of Daniel 9:24, wherein all of the children of Israel who are alive at that time shall place heart-faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and shall be saved (in unity with Romans 11:25-27), wherein all of the children of Israel who are alive at that time shall experience such a transformation of heart that they will never again commit transgression or sins, but shall conduct themselves in perfect righteousness with the Lord (in unity with Isaiah 1:26Jeremiah 3:1731:3332:39-40;Ezekiel 36:26-2737:23-24), wherein all of the children of Israel that are alive at that time shall be fully reconciled unto the Lord their God as a nation and shall enter into an enjoyment of all the New Covenant promises in every detail, including all of the land blessings (in unity with Jeremiah 31:31-4032:37-42Ezekiel 36:21-3837:19-28), and wherein the Lord Jesus Christ shall administrate His kingship ministry bodily upon the earth from Jerusalem as King of kings and Lord of lords over the all the nations of the world (in unity with Revelation 19:11 – 20:4).  It does not at all appear to me that my position concludes and climaxes with an emphasis upon the antichrist.  Rather, it appears to me that my position concludes and climaxes with an emphasis upon the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

 

I'm glad I have misunderstood your position – you have taken the opportunity to explain more clearly, in a single paragraph.

 

Please note that all those OT prophecies concerning the complete restoration of Israel are stated by Peter to be actually directed towards believers in Jesus - “you” - 1 Peter 1:10-12 to which Hebrews agrees Heb. 11:39-40 These are experienced by faith in Christ now, in our mortal life, but experienced to perfection in the NH&NE where the promised land will truly & perfectly be experienced. There is no future temporary millennium taught in the Gospels nor the Epistles, and there is no salvation for those who reject the Messiah. When he comes again it will be too late -

(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

The Gospel is for all, Jew & Gentile now, in this present age of grace. It's not a promise for the remnant of a future generation of Israelites after Jesus returns, God having abandoned many generations of his chosen people between his first & second comings.

 

----------------

 

  Quote

I'll let Zacharias have the last word:

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. 76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; 77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, 78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, 79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. Luke 1(emboldening and underlining added by Pastor Scott Markle)

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?  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?  It appears to me that we must still be looking to the future for the fulfillment of these New Covenant promises unto the children of Israel as a national people group (as perJeremiah 31:31-4032:37-42Ezekiel 36:21-3837:19-28).

We should look to Scripture for the answer, not to rhetoric.

 

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

 

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

 

The answer of Scripture is a resounding “YES!”

 

Sadly those calling themselves “Israel” but who reject the Lord Jesus Christ are NOT “now serving the Lord their God “without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him,” all the days of their lives?“

They are NOT serving the Lord their God at all. They have good reason to live in fear. As Hebrews warns:

 

Heb. 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

 

 

Invicta and Genevanpreacher like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brethren,

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.

______________________________________________

Brother Day,

Bro Scott, Your extreme grammatical analysis makes it difficult to appreciate what you are actually trying to say.

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?

You complain about me rearranging the words of Scripture . . . .

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.

You complain about me rearranging the words of Scripture, but we need to understand what the Scripture is saying before we interpret.

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.”

Interpreting is seeking to understand & explain the Scripture, so needs additional words or in this case, emphasis of the actual words.

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.

The Scripture is saying ”Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city...” However many words you write, you cannot change that statement.

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.

Seventy weeks (of years) corresponding to the seventy years of exile just being completed. Inserting a gap of thousands of years or hundreds of “weeks” denies the actual words of the prophecy.

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.

I have repeatedly referred to the teaching of Jesus & his Apostles, & the fulfilment of the 70 weeks prophecy as recorded in Scripture, ending about 3 years after Calvary.

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.    

By contrast, you have insisted on staying in the OT, quoting the land prophecies & promises.

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.

We have the inspired record of the fulfilment of the prophecy in the NT Scriptures, so should study the related NT Scriptures.

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.

We should look at verse 24 being fulfilled by the saving work of the Lord Jesus.

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.

Obviously he considered he had finished the work the Father had given him. John 17:4 John 19:30

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.

He explained to his disciples:

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

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.

As Gabriel prophesied:

Dan. 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Those 70 weeks contrast with the 70 years of exile, the people would be in their homeland for seven times the period of the exile, & by the end of that period Messiah would have come & completed his prophesied saving work.

I can’t think why you want to deny the simple words of Scripture with your elaborate scheme of distant future interpretation. You deny quoting Scofield, (I agree you haven’t referred to him) but you cannot deny his influence on the line of interpretation you follow. His one-volume commentary influenced fundamentalist thinking in the Bible colleges & helped opularize dispensationalism in the last century.

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?)

________________________________________

As we agree that week 69 brings us to the baptism of Jesus & his earthly ministry, we should expect the key events of the other verses to take place during the following 7 years - week 70.

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.

Scripture records these prophesied events as occurring during that final week, while consequential events take place after the completion of the seventy weeks.

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).

Verse 25 prophesies the rebuilding, as recorded by Ezra & Nehemiah & the troublous times experienced as recorded by Esther. We agree that the total of 69 weeks takes us to the baptism of Jesus.

Yes, we are agreed.

Verse 26 speaks of events after the 69 weeks, but not necessarily during the 70th week. [emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

We know that Messiah was cut off after about 3 1/2 years of ministry, or half a week - 3 1/2 years of the "week" immediately following his baptism. He was cut off, not for himself, but to redeem his people (many), and to ratify the new covenant/testament in his blood. Mat. 26:36-28 Those who would reject the saving new covenant would suffer the consequences prophesied – the city & sanctuary would be destroyed.

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.”

Verse 27 speaks of events during “one week” which obviously is the seventieth week.

Herein, we are fully agreed.

The 70th week naturally immediately follows the 69th week . . .

Your use of the word “naturally” in the above statement reveals you reliance upon human assumption.

The 70th week naturally immediately follows the 69th week, so runs from the baptism of Jesus, through his death, resurrection & ascension in the middle of the seven years until 3 1/2 years after his saving work at Calvary & his ascension to David's throne. 

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:

When we consider the whole prophecy it is evident that God is answering Daniel's prayer for God's rebellious people by the 70 weeks prophecy by sending Messiah to deal with Israel's transgression, sins & iniquity, & bring in everlasting righteousness. That was accomplished at Calvary.

Thus when Gabriel says, “he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week,” we should expect the “he” to be the one who is fulfilling the prophecies & promises made to Israel, i.e. The Messiah. Israel certainly needs God himself to fulfil the Covenant promises he made to Abraham, the Patriarchs & Moses, because Israel has failed. Moreover, if the city & sanctuary that were to be rebuilt unto Messiah the Prince, why should they be so completely destroyed? (v. 26) After all, God has made the old covenant promises, & promised a new covenant. God's eternal plans did not require an earthly city & sanctuary. (see e.g. John 4)

The old covenant promises required Israel's obedience, so they failed. How could THE covenant be confirmed? Only by the one who made it becoming obedient under the covenant.

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:

These events are recorded in Scripture:

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

Jesus inaugurated the new covenant in his own blood at the last supper, the new covenant fulfilling & ratifying the everlasting covenant relationship of God with his people. We commemorate the new covenant as we drink the 'wine' at every communion service.

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:

As the second half of the 70th week began, Peter assured the Jews :

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Acts 3:25

Paul wrote to the Romans:

Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers Rom. 15:8

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.

Peter in his first letter takes up the Sinai covenant dependent on obedience of the Israelites ( Exo. 19:5-6 ) and shows it to be fulfilled in Christian believers. 1 Peter 2:9. The obedience of Christ secures the covenant promises. Everlasting covenants can only be fulfilled through Christ.

In 1 Peter 2:9-10 does the apostle Peter indicate that New Testament believers are “now the people of Godas a replacement for the children of Israel, or in addition to the children of Israel?

Note that Peter says in his letter what he preached in Jerusalem:

Acts 3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

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.”

1 Peter 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

There is absolutely no suggestion of a future dispensation when the covenant promises would apply. Take them NOW by repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, or

every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

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:

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

At Calvary Jesus shouted out, “It is finished!” All the sacrifices & oblations of the Law pointed forward to the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus would:

finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,

in the midst of week 70 as prophesied. The temple veil was rent from top to bottom to show the way into the holiest place was open. Heb. 9:1-15

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,

The sacrifices that continued to be offered in the temple were the sacrifices of the wicked – an abomination. Prov. 15:8 They were offered in defiance of the sacrifice of Christ. They were sacrifices that can never take away sins. Heb. 10:11 Isaiah 1:10-20 warns against such sacrifices offered by an earlier generation before the 70 years exile & the destruction of Jerusalem & Solomon's temple.

Jesus warned the Scribes & Pharises, hypocrites, the leaders in Jerusalem:

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

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.

____________________________________________

Please note that all those OT prophecies concerning the complete restoration of Israel are stated by Peter to be actually directed towards believers in Jesus - “you” - 1 Peter 1:10-12 to which Hebrews agrees Heb. 11:39-40 These are experienced by faith in Christ now, in our mortal life, but experienced to perfection in the NH&NE where the promised land will truly & perfectly be experienced. There is no future temporary millennium taught in the Gospels nor the Epistles, and there is no salvation for those who reject the Messiah. When he comes again it will be too late -

(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

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.)

The Gospel is for all, Jew & Gentile now, in this present age of grace. It's not a promise for the remnant of a future generation of Israelites after Jesus returns, God having abandoned many generations of his chosen people between his first & second comings.

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.

_______________________________________________

[Brother Ian Day]

I'll let Zacharias have the last word:

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. 76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; 77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, 78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, 79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. Luke 1 (emboldening and underlining added by Pastor Scott Markle)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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?  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?  It appears to me that we must still be looking to the future for the fulfillment of these New Covenant promises unto the children of Israel as a national people group (as perJeremiah 31:31-40; 32:37-42; Ezekiel 36:21-38; 37:19-28).

[Brother Ian Day]

We should look to Scripture for the answer, not to rhetoric.

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:

Sadly those calling themselves “Israel” but who reject the Lord Jesus Christ are NOT “now serving the Lord their God “without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him,” all the days of their lives?”

____________________________________________

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Brother Scott for the manner in which you have conducted the debate & the thought provoking challenges in your postings. I hope & pray that our contributions to this & other threads will be helpful to others as we discuss the Holy Scriptures.

 

While we disagree on many points, it is wonderful that we have a fundamental agreement on our shared salvation by faith in our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ, & our eternal hope of glory in the NH&NE.

 

I'll begin with John's request from the discussion thread, & my reply:

 

John81 said:
Could someone put this in a simple post as I find this thread to be extremely difficult to follow with the long postings and the way some of them are formatted?

Begin with the passage:

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

As I understand this Scripture:

The prophecy is about the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, his saving work & its results for for God's redeemed people;

Generally OT prophecy is best understood by its fulfilment, particularly in the life & ministry of Jesus, his saving work, & the Gospel resulting from the saving work, therefore read the NT to understand the OT;

The timescale - completed in 70 weeks or 490 years - around 35 AD;

69 weeks takes us to the baptism of Jesus, so the 70th week includes Jesus earthly ministry & the early Apostolic ministry - the first half of Acts;

 Old Testament (Old Covenant) vision & prophecy will be sealed up by Messiah's life & saving ministry so that prophecy focuses on Jesus, his saving work & his kingdom, not on Israel's future, apart from the glorious restored covenant relationship detailed in v. 24; 

All the blessings for God's people of v. 24 are accomplished by Messiah's saving work, and are received by repentance & faith and must be appropriated in the present Gospel age of grace;

Messiah's saving work - his death for sinners - ends the examples, shadows & patterns of the Law, so that the temple, and Jerusalem centred worship will cease with the destruction of the temple & city;

OT prophecy includes judgement for those who reject the covenant & particularly for those who reject the Messiah (Deut. 18, quoted by Peter in Acts 3);

The timescale for the perfect realisation of the prophesied covenant blessings of v. 24 is not revealed - the focus is on Jesus & his saving ministry - but Jesus himself in his Olivet prophecy could not reveal the timescale for his coming, only the timescale for the destruction;

The perfect fulfilment of all prophecy & covenant promises for Israelite believers, together with believers from all nations on earth will be accomplished in the NH&NE, after Jesus returns for resurrection & judgement, which is the next & final event of prophecy. 

=============

A gap between 69 & 70, future end times tribulation, millennium, restored kingdom for national Israel, earthly reign of Messiah, etc, are not written in the passage.

==============

As I understand Bro Scott,

He sees OT promises & prophecies specifically relating to the earthly nation of Israel, & as they were not fulfilled before Messiah came, & the nation rejected Messiah & the Apostolic Gospel, & are not being fulfilled now in the present nation of Israel, there must be a future dispensation when all the OT prophecies happen literally. 

That requires a gap in the 70 weeks, re-establishment of Israel as a Jewish nation, rebuilding the temple, & then destroying it all again in the 70th week, after which the surviving Israelites will believe in Jesus Christ who will reign over them as a mortal people, on earth, in person, for 1,000 years. 

The present Gospel age is thus in effect a gap in prophetic revelation between weeks 69 & 70 during which God is not dealing with Israel as a nation, but mainly the Gentiles, & any Jews who do repent & believe in Jesus Christ.

[We don't hear much from the dispensationalists about the dreadful end of their millennium when all hell breaks loose & the wonderful restored earthly kingdom of Israel is burnt up along with the old earth, so that a NH&NE can be established. 

===================

I hope that is a fair brief summary of Bro Scott's position.

=====================

Brother Scott replied:

 

Brother Day,

Although I myself would add more details, and although I would not claim that all of these things are taught specifically in and by Daniel 9:24-27, and although a few of the specifics are not exactly correct to my position, the above was indeed a fair "brief summary" of my position -- all except the parenthetical note at the end of the summary.   

Concerning the truth, instruction, and promise of 2 Peter 3:11 -- Amen, and AMEN!


 

Brother Scott then replied with a detailed summary:

http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/23411-comment-on-current-debate/?do=findComment&comment=412168

================

Putting the summary even simpler, I believe Dan. 9:24-27 refers to the Messiah, Jesus Christ & his finished saving work at Calvary, followed by the Apostolic Gospel, so that the purpose of the 70 weeks is the securing of the promised blessings to repentant sinners, & the confirmation of the covenant – as the new covenant - relationship of God with his people, both Israel & Gentiles who come to the same saving faith in Jesus. The fulfilment of the prophecy is thus recorded in Scripture, in the Gospels & the first half of Acts.

Brother Scott considers that the whole prophecy concerns the nation of Israel, & is yet to be fulfilled - in a future millennium, & has no relevance to the present Gospel age of grace. The blessings of 9:24 teach the perfect millennial condition of the people of Israel.


 

In his final posting, Brother Scott raised points of interpretation – jot & tittle:

[underlining mine for emphasis]

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.”

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 wordthat 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 tittlein 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. 

I agree 100% when Brother Scott says “the primary disagreement between Brother Day and myself is not over Daniel 9:24-27, but is over the method of Bible study itself. 

I replied in detail to his final paragraph (above) in my post of Sept 1st in the comments thread:

http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/23411-comment-on-current-debate/?do=findComment&comment=411823

But, does his attention to every jot & tittle find support in the words of our Lord? I think not, if we analyse them in context.

Mat. 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


 

We need to read the inspired words – the inspired Word – in its immediate context, & in its wider context. Jesus is there declaring that “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” The minutiae of the Law would indeed be fulfilled, perfectly, by the One who gave the Law. The Law & covenants were hopelessly broken by the priests, lawyers & Pharisees who paid extreme attention to the detail. See Mat. 23. Jesus as the true Israel, as the covenant surety for his people, fulfilled the Law, so that in him we have perfect righteousness – the righteousness of faith. As Gabriel puts it: to bring in everlasting righteousness.”

Jesus quoted from Hosea 6:6 on two occasions when the Pharisees accused him or his disciples of breaking the Law – eating with publicans & sinners, & eating with unwashed hands. Mat. 9 & 12. Those who paid extreme attention to the precise details of the Law were rebuked as not understanding the Word of God:

But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Paul the ex-Pharisee puts it like this:

Phil3: For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 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, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:


 

Incidentally Paul is writing to the Philippians, where it is presumed Philippi did not have enough Jews to establish a synagogue, so he went to a riverside women's prayer meeting. And he writes to them: we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. He teaches that the Gentile believers are the circumcision which brings us to another major point of interpretation:

There is no suggestion in the teaching of Jesus or his Apostles that the Gospel age beginning at Pentecost is in any sense a gap in the purposes of God; that God is concentrating on saving Gentiles until such time as the Jews come to repentance after the church has been “raptured.” The inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles into the church was accepted by the Jewish Christians at the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15) and as that went against the laws for incorporating foreigners into Israel, Exo. 12:48 it does show a surprising change. That is not a “replacement” but an inclusion. Paul refers to that inclusion as a mystery. Rom. 11:25 , Eph. 3:1-11 Note particularly:

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 


 

The present Gospel age Jew-Gentile body of Christ is according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: It certainly isn't a gap.


 

Your conclusions from your attention to the precise grammatical detail of OT prophecy show a blindness to the reality of the fulfilment in & by the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ.

You maintain that “not one New Testament passage precisely indicates that it is a fulfillment of Daniel’s 70thweek” of years.”

I maintain that a reading of the Dan. 9 prophecy, in context, and keeping it in mind as we read the Gospels & Epistles will show that countless New Testament passages – indeed the whole message of the NT - show that Jesus Christ & his saving work is the fulfilment of the prophecy.

Dare anyone wait for another dispensation to come to repentance? NOW is the day of salvation. The Jews who rejected the Messiah & the Apostolic Gospel suffered the prophesied consequences.

 


 

Genevanpreacher likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By BroMatt
      The debators: @Pastor Scott Markle & @Covenanter  (Everyone else will just have viewing privileges) 
      Topic: Prophecy on Daniel 9
      Length: 2 Months (Due to Pastor Markle's ability to post once per week.)
      Debate Rules
      No name calling (No accusations of heresy). No copying and pasting from sources around the internet. (You can copy from your own posts on OB). Each persons begins with opening remarks. After opening remarks. Opening discussions will begin. Can't post back to back comments. Must wait for opposing party to post. Topics can't be edited in anyway after posting.  
      Any other suggestions? If both will now agree, I can set this forum up and we can begin. Thank you. We look forward to following this debate.
       
    • By BroMatt
      @Pastor Scott Markle & @Covenanter Seeing now I have more time, I am willing to set up a forum for discussion on Prophecy. If you both agree to this, what type of format and restrictions would you like applied to this forum for your discussion.
    • By Miss Daisy
      I found a link to watch the debate on Feb. 4 with Bill Nye and Ken Ham live. All is says though for an address is http://debatelive.org/. But when I click to sign up it will say please wait and never goes anywhere else.
    • By Jordan G
      Hi guys! first post.. So im active on a board for fitness and in the non-sense board there is a Christian debate going on. I have posted two replies and im wondering if its worth it.

      In person you can talk to a person and see them, and you are not arguing vs who is better at googling answers etc.

      At the same time, just like hearing someing cussing and using Gods name, watching these threads just drive me mental at the ignorance about what "christians believe".


      What do you think?

      Boards like this between christians learning and sharpening theology I love... but the debate vs an atheist.. fruitful?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online