1689Dave
Well-Known Member
If you ignore Jesus' description of the Kingdom, you will have only a Pharisee's understanding of the end times.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How to interpret the Bible
- Thread starter Jordan Kurecki
- Start date
The "he" of daniel 9:27 is the ANTICHRIST, prophesied in V. 26. Remember, Jesus has been murdered, resurrected, & returned to heaven for now. And "the people of the ruler who is to come" were the Romans, so Jesus cannot be THAT ruler. Jesus departed before the Romans destroyed J & the temple.
Jordan, I'm sure ya meant "2 Tim. 2:25 in your OP. Here's a better rendering of that verse, from the NASV: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."
"Rightly dividing" is accurate here as well, as one does not teach Jesus' Gospel from the Song of Solomon, as an example.
"Rightly dividing" is accurate here as well, as one does not teach Jesus' Gospel from the Song of Solomon, as an example.
Peter stated though that when israel, the Jewish nation, in the future accepts jesus as their Messiah, what a time of glory upon this earth, as we gentile are roots grafted in, but they are natural roots! Acts 3:19-20
If you neglect allof the NT teachings on it, you end up with a less than understanding!
1689Dave sees thast passaage as meaning Jesus!
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
If you begin with the NT teachings, you will know the kingdom is spiritual, not of this word, it comes without observation, is eternal. not 1000 years long. And that it culminates in the full restoration of Israel (Believers in Christ) in the resurrection and rapture into the new heavens and earth on the last day. It is not a physical kingdom as the Pharisees expect.
No. The 70 week prophecy is about the Anointed One, Jesus. "The people of the ruler who is to come" were the Romans, so Jesus cannot be THAT ruler. That's true, & clear. They did destroy the city and the sanctuary. It's the subject of Jesus' Olivet prophecy & took place in AD 70. Those people, & that ruler are long dead. They "were to come," they came, & fulfilled prophecy.
Whoever the "he" is in v. 27, it can't be Titus - he's not the subject of the relevant clause - the subject is "the people." As the prophecy is basically about the Anointed One & his saving work, the most likely "he" is Jesus, the Anointed One.
Jesus made the New Covenant in his own blood at his death. All the Old Covenants pointed forward to the NC & without the NC would have no basis. He, by his sacrificial death, when the temple veil was rent from top to bottom ended the sacrificial worship - in the midst of the 70th week.
But - why only for one week, ending around year 34? Jesus had been busy confirming the OC with all who received him during his earthly ministry. Thousands received John's baptism, & were advised to follow Jesus. Thousands came to here him, thousands welcomed him on that Palm Sunday, and from Pentecost onwards, thousands received him through the Gospel & were baptised in his name & formed the church. These are the "many" with whom the Covenant was confirmed.
The Gospel call certainly did not end 7 years after Jesus' baptism & anointing, but two very significant events are recorded in Acts about that time, one of which did end the Covenant with the nation of Israel. Acts 7 records the mockery of Stephen's trial, when he, speaking in the power of the Holy Spirit declared them "uncircumcised." Israel's rulers continue with intense persecution to show they are indeed uncircumcised. Then the Gospel is opened to the Gentiles without circumcision - without, of course being closed to the Jews. Paul & Barnabas made the Gospel to the Jews their priority.
All that remained for the nation of Israel was the decreed end.
5. Define words properly
When defining words, context is always so important.
Context defines the meaning of words.
You cannot define a word in one context and force that definition of the word onto every other place the word is used because words can have a range of meaning depending upon the context.
an example is the word for.
For can mean “because of” “in order to get” “on behalf of”
He went to jail for stealing
He went to work for a paycheck
He went to the store for his wife
Another thing to realize is that we have a tendency to apply our own modern english understanding and connotations to the English of our King James Bible which was translated in 1611. Now some words in the English language have changed in meaning and connotation. Let just say though that I don’t think that means we need to switch to a modern version, because they have a lot of problems even though they are in more modern english. Our King James Bible is very accurate and is a very reliable translation and I believe it is the most accurate.
However there are some words that we don’t always understand properly. Realize that you probably have some preconceived ideas about words or phrases in the bible. for example:
Conversation: Behavior
Without (Outside of)
reins (kidneys)
mansion John 14 (Noah Webster 1828 dictionary says mansion means a dwelling)
I remember reading one source that said “in bible culture a mansion was an apartment attached to a father’s house, when the father saw that the work was complete and sufficient he would release the son and without warning the son could go and fetch his bride”
This is why I like to refer to Hebrew and Greek Lexicons because quite often they will clear up my misunderstandings of English words.
Look at Acts 2:38
There is a passage in the Gospels where Jesus says the people repent “at” the preaching of Jonah and the word “at” is the same word here in Acts 2:38 as “for”
There is another passage where Jesus healed a leper and told him to offer a sacrifice “for” his cleansing.
When defining words, context is always so important.
Context defines the meaning of words.
You cannot define a word in one context and force that definition of the word onto every other place the word is used because words can have a range of meaning depending upon the context.
an example is the word for.
For can mean “because of” “in order to get” “on behalf of”
He went to jail for stealing
He went to work for a paycheck
He went to the store for his wife
Another thing to realize is that we have a tendency to apply our own modern english understanding and connotations to the English of our King James Bible which was translated in 1611. Now some words in the English language have changed in meaning and connotation. Let just say though that I don’t think that means we need to switch to a modern version, because they have a lot of problems even though they are in more modern english. Our King James Bible is very accurate and is a very reliable translation and I believe it is the most accurate.
However there are some words that we don’t always understand properly. Realize that you probably have some preconceived ideas about words or phrases in the bible. for example:
Conversation: Behavior
Without (Outside of)
reins (kidneys)
mansion John 14 (Noah Webster 1828 dictionary says mansion means a dwelling)
I remember reading one source that said “in bible culture a mansion was an apartment attached to a father’s house, when the father saw that the work was complete and sufficient he would release the son and without warning the son could go and fetch his bride”
This is why I like to refer to Hebrew and Greek Lexicons because quite often they will clear up my misunderstandings of English words.
Look at Acts 2:38
There is a passage in the Gospels where Jesus says the people repent “at” the preaching of Jonah and the word “at” is the same word here in Acts 2:38 as “for”
There is another passage where Jesus healed a leper and told him to offer a sacrifice “for” his cleansing.
You can continue dogmatically stating that the "he" is Jesus Christ all you want, but you have no authority to say such other than your own. Grammatical rules refute your private interpretation.
You can keep saying it over and over again, but that doesn't make it true, anyone in this thread can go back and read the comments I posted from Pastor Scott Markle and can decide for themselves which position about Daniel 9 is the one that is faithful to the grammar and context.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
He is whoever fulfilled the prophecy in the middle of the 70th week without a gap. It was Jesus.
It wasn’t fulfilled. The sacrifices did not cease when Jesus was crucified. Period.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Then Jesus atonement didn't do the trick? The sacrifices ended when the veil of the temple rent. They just didn't realize it until AD 70.
I would note how Covenanter and Dave they for a gap of about 40 years in Daniel 9:26 between the Messiah being cut off and the people of the prince destroying the city but refuse to allow any gap between the 69th and 70th week and state that there no gaps in the 70th week prophecies.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
No gap between the 69th and 70 weeks. No scripture to support the idea.
No the sacrifices did not cease. They continued offering sacrifices. The text in Daniel 9 says that in the middle of the week the sacrifices would cease. It does not say they would cease being effective. You are adding to the word of God.
“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.)"
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
The sacrifice ceased in God's sight. The early church knew this. The blind Jews did not know until too late.
It does not say that in the scripture. You ARE ADDING to what Gods word says.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Why did the believers trust the gospel and stop sacrificing at the Temple?
how many time must I post this?
“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.)"
“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.)"