Seal up this Book......

Except Rev 10:4, where John is told the same thing Daniel was.

In Daniel's day there was still intervening events (such as the coming and death of the Messiah). IN John's day there wasn't. That is one of the difference between Daniel and John. The things in Revelation can take place at any time; in Daniel they could not.

 

Pastor Larry,
The "intervening events",as you call them, of Daniel's 70 weeks are actually THE events he was speaking of. Otherwise it would be Daniel's 281 weeks (and counting). There is absolutely nothing about modern so-called "endtime events" in Daniel's 70 week prophecy, including no Antichrist.

I know we haggled about this a few months ago, but the dispensational interpretation of Daniel 9 is such a stretch--it never made sense to me even when I used to believe it. That's why prophecy teachers have to keep drumming it in to the "faithful"--so they won't question the "experts". It's still out of context, and grammatically weak.

In Christ,

Tim

 

[qb]Of course.

Of course not.

I think it is the only view that answers questions. Far from discouraging them, I encourage them because it shows people that this view of the 70 weeks is the only view that actually deals with the text as the text. Your view requires a recharacterization of the text beyond what can be sustained by legitimate hermeneutics.

 

You wouldn't encourage people to insert new subject matter into a passage which clearly has another context, would you?, so why do it here?

The "covenant" is God's covenant with His people, it was the subject of Daniel's prayer, and the subject of Gabriel's answer. It is not suddenly a modern peace treaty between the Antichrist and apostate Israel of the future.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Those who destroy the Holy City are the "people of the prince to come". Do we assume that the Romans are God's people? I thought you were only God's people by faith. It sounds like the Larkinists are confused about the Jews as much as preterists are about the Romans.

 

The world did not see Jesus coming in the sky in year 70 A.D. Jesus is still up in the heaven sit on the right of God the Father right now.

Matt 24:30 and Rev. 1:7 tells us, EVERY ONE will see Jesus coming in the clouds, so, it was not fulfill in 70 A.D. It will be fulfill at the second advent later in the future.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

I haven't and I didn't. You did. Consider your next phrase.

The covenant is not God's covenant with his people. Notice who makes it (V. 27): He, that is the prince who is to come. This passage was written in the mid-6th century. By that time, God's covenant with his people had long been made. Your view doesn't make sense of the context.

The words of Daniel and Gabriel do not even reference a covenant. The plain meaning of hte passage is that covenant is made with Israel for one week (7 years) by the prince who is to come (contrasted with the Messiah so it can't be God). This covenant is broken in the middle of the week, after 3 1/2 years, after which time the abomination of desolation comes until complete destruction is poured out.

There is nothing in history that even remotely resembles this. That is one reason why we take it that it must be future.

My point is that you are the one who added to the context to support your system, rather than deriving your system from teh context itself.

 

Because of what the words say. Messiah the Prince has been cut off in v. 26 and then there is a prince "who is to come." It seems obvious that when Messiah is cut off, this prince is yet to come. He is future, after the death of Messiah. So, the words of the text itself are what answer your question.

 

"The prince that shall come"--Titus

"the people of..." his army

They did destroy the Holy City.

Daniel's concern--How would God keep His covenant with Israel? (Dan. 9:1-19)

Gabriel's explanation--By establishing the New Covenant with many (i.e. the faithful remnant of Israel)

Jesus (the "he" of verse 27--the main subject of the passage) did establish the new covenant with believing Israel, while judging the unbelieving nation.

It's really as simple and straightforward as that. No unmentioned gaps. No bait and switch with the word "covenant". Everything on subject and in context. All historically fulfilled. The only problem--it's not dispensational!

In Christ,

Tim

 

only a couple of problems

But not in the time frame stipulated by Scripture. You require a huge time gap here that you refuse to the dispensationalist. But because your time gap is 40 years, you think it's okay. We reject that line of thinking.

YOU would have a hard time making this case from the Scripture. Daniel's concern was the spiritual state of his people, not God's covenant with them. A covenant is not even mentioned until 9:26, and then the covenant has nothing to do with God.

This is not in the passage. You have added this.

Several problems just with this:

1. The he of the covenant is the prince who shall come after Christ has died. Therefore, it is not Christ.
2. The covenant is made at the beginning of the "Week" And then at the midpoint of the week the sacrifice stops. The NC was provided for by the death of Christ and then all sacrifice stopped. You cannot have the covenant made and the sacrifice stop at the same time. The text specifically rules that out.
3. The NC has not yet been put in force. The other OT passages that actually talk about this covenant (as opposed to this one that you have read it into) give specific descriptions that cannot now or heretofore in history found.

IT is not this simple. YOu do that pesky unmentioned gap as well as a difficulty with that seventieth week time fram. You are the one who bait and switched with teh covenant, bringing in a covenant that has not been mentioned to support your preconceived notion. Your "subject" is not quite on subject and you have dismissed the context.

It seems that you rejected dispensationalism for some bad reasons.

 

Pastor Larry,
O.K. we'll take another go'round:
First off, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black when you object to a supposed`40 year gap while yours is 2000 years. What's up with that? But really I don't think the 70 weeks part of the prophecy extends beyond Christ's sacrifice for sin (v. 24). That is the focus of the prophecy. The destruction of Jerusalem is mentioned almost parenthetically--just sewing up loose ends (v. 26b & 27b). Again Messiah is the focus here.

The first mention of the covenant in Daniel 9 is actually in verse 4. Daniel then continues to echo the promises and curses associated with Israel's covenant with God (see verses 5,10,11,12,13 specifically). His concern is indeed that Israel has broken that covenant, thus deserves the resultant curses, yet he pleads for mercy. That IS the gist of Daniel's prayer. It IS the subject matter on his mind. You can't honestly deny that.

I did not "add" the New Covenant to the passage, I simply drew from N.T. scripture to understand the passage--and it does point to the New Covenant--which is fully in place, as Christ himself declared "This is the New Covenant in my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins"(Mat. 26:28). It was the "end of sins". It "made reconciliation for iniquity", and it "brought in everlasting righteousness" just as Gabriel declared.

Your assertion that the "he" of verse 27 is the "prince" is indeed gramatically weak. "Prince" here is the object of a decriptive phrase which refers to the "people"--making it clear that the people would destroy the city (indeed Titus did NOT want it destroyed). The next verse (27) returns to the subject at hand, Messiah and His work. This is the most logical reading. Otherwise Gabriel has gone off on a "rabbit trail", introducing a totally new subject. Rather, it's about God's covenant and the timetable in which he will bring the Old Covenant to an end , while making transition into the New Covenant.

There's probably more to say, but I think most of it was said a few months ago.

A believer in the better covenant,

Tim

 

Although I am not yet fully convicted to any system of eschatology (although I have a preference), I find 2 Peter 3 to be the one of the biggest roadblocks in my thinking towards preterism.

2 Peter 3
1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 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.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
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.

A couple of specifics:

1) Peter uses the future tense in relation to the "last days". I know that John refers to the last days as having already come, so the last days must be on-going and some things (at the time of Peter's writing were future). And in fact there would be one final event in human history which would be the end of all things adamic at least.

2) Peter derails the figurative interpretaion by using the model of the world-wide flood of Noah's time to parallel the coming conflagration which will not only be world-wide but involve the heaven(s) as well. If the Noahide flood is literal and not figurative it would seem to me that so is it also with His Second Coming and the attendant holocaust.

3) the focal premise is "where is the promise of His coming?" connecting that coming with this literal fiery destruction of the universe which will be the end of adamic human history which will be literal and future.

HankD

[ May 01, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Seems you so quickly forgot. I am not the one that objected to a gap. YOu object to a gap. YOu said, Otherwise it would be Daniel's 281 weeks (and counting). and then, [/i]No unmentioned gaps.[/i]. You had a big objection to the gap in dispensationalist view but then you turn around and insert a gap of your own, a gap that doesn't even make sense. Your gap comes in the middle of a week. That makes no sense at all. At least our gap is defensible because it doesn't split up somethign that is obviously connected. Your 40 year gap in the middle of the week has no possible relevance and cannot be sustained.

To say that the 70 weeks doesn't extend past Christ's death is to ignore the plain meaning of the words. I realize this is teh covenantalist approach to everything that doesn't fit, but it is a bad approach. YOu can't just take the part of the text you like and then ignore the rest. YOu think the destruction of JERUsalem is parenthetical, but the text includes it right along with everything else. That is an unsound hermenuetic to separate that from everything else.

That is not the point. The covenant of v. 26 is a different covenant. You right that it was mentioned, as an appeal to God who keeps his covenant. Israel has turned from their obligations and Daniel is praying for mercy. But the covenant of v. 26 is not made by God, which the context shows. It does not resemble any of the covenants of Scripture. YOU have not gone to the NT to support that becuase it is not there.

Notice the stipulations of the passage.

1. This covenant is made by the prince who is to come after the death of the Messiah. Therefore, it is not made by the Messiah.
2. This covenant is made, and then broken by the person who made it, 3 1/2 years into it. God is not a God who breaks his covenant.
3. The NC was made by God with his people, not by the Messiah, a distinction that should not be overlooked.
4. The NC was ratified by teh death of Christ, but not instituted, as seen by the passages that describe.
5. The covenant of Daniel 9:26 cannot be the NC because of the time frame. YOu have the MEssiah making the NC at the beginning of the week and ending it immediately with his death. (Remember, the NC is instituted by his death). Yet Daniel 9:26 gives a clear timeframe for this covenant, that it is made, and then broken 3 1/2 years later.

YOur time frame simply won't work in the passage.

Then Jeremiah and Ezekiel lied about it?? The NC Has specific stipulations that are in no way in place at this time. YOU must depend on the text meanign something entirely different than the words that both Jeremiah and Ezekiel used to describe it. The NC is ratified and the church participates in the blessings of it. But the NC is not now in force with reference to fulfillment. The text precludes that.

What world are you living in?? There is no everlasting righteousness such as the NC describes, not yet, not until Christ returns as promised to set up the kingdom that the prophets described.

This is weak (And you accuse me of it). The normal antecedent for a pronoun is the closest one. That is the prince that shall come. Your reading is not logical at all. It doesn't work. Gabriel has not introduced something new. He is finishing out the 70 weeks by telling what will happen.

There's a lot more to say if you are going to make any sense of this passage. What you have provided here is less convincing that anything you have yet said. I maintain my position that one does not get your position from the text; they hold it in spite of the text.

As am I, and all dispensationalists.

I am sure that we will not get anywhere on this subject. I enjoy the discussion but it is probably not worth the time of either of us to invest in it. I would simply encourage people to study the text while putting aside the presuppositions about what it must mean in light of what somebody said. Take the text at face value and judge the writings of others by what the text says. I am convinced most of this problem would go away simply by doing that. I think this discussion just points out again that the main difference between dispensationalism and covenantalism is the way we approach the text, and until that matter is settled, this discussion will continue (or until the pre-trib rapture when it becomes obvious )

 

There is NOgap in between Dan. 9:26 and 27.

God already determined on 70 weeks- Dan. 9:24. 70 weeks means 70 weeks 7 is 490 years. I believe Daniel wrote that book whie he was captivity in Babylon 490 years(Hebrew calendar) before Calvary.

There is no 2490 years between verse 26 and 27.

The context of Dan. 9:24-27 focus on only ONE person - Messiah is Jesus Christ. The context of Dan. 9:24-27 does not saying anything about two persons suppose as Jesus and Antichrist.

Dan. 9:24 already fulfilled that Christ is the person who put the sins end by forgived and to make us reconciled together through Calvary - Eph. 2:12-16.

Dan. 9:25 already fulfilled that Jerusalem was rebuilt and the walls were rebuilt by Ezra and Nehemiah.

Dan. 9:26 already fulfilled that Christ was cut off AFTER69th week by crucified on the cross, because people rejected him as Messiah. Then, later city was destroyed in year 70 A.D.

Dan. 9:27 already fulfilled that Christ made covenant with us - Mark 14:24 by Calvary, also, Christ fulfilled the old coevent. We are no longer under old covenant anymore. Now we are under new covenant through Calvary for our salvation.

Does Jesus caused daily scarifices and offerings to cease? YES! He does!

In John 2:19 tells us, Jesus said, "DESTROY this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Jews do not understand what Jesus was talking about. They thought he speaks of building of the temple, that they told him, that Herod Temple was builted for 46 years. Jesus spoken of his body as temple. That he will be risen from the death in three days.

But, in another word, YES, Jesus already did destroyed the building of the temple.

In Mark 15:37-38 telling us, when Jesus yeild up his soul - died on the cross. Then, suddenly, the veil of the temnple was rent from the top to bottom. How did it caused to tear down? God does!! Obivously, Christ is God! Jesus did tore the veil of the temple down. Why? Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED!" - John 2:19. It means, Old testament prophecies(include Dan. 9:24-27) already fulfilled concerned on Jesus Christ for Calvary and salvation, and even old covenant already END!

The reason, why does God tore the veil of the temple down? Because, God does not need another animal sacrifice and offering again any more in the future. Christ is now OUR LAMB!!

Also, we do not need another future physical building - temple again. Because Jesus Christ IS our temple - Rev. 21:22.

I believe Christ was crucified in the midst of the week(70th week). Means he was crucified after 3 1/2 years of the week.

I have a good reason why Jesus was doing ministry for over 3 years. By follow passover three times is 3 years - John 2:13; 6:4; and 13:1.

Obivously, Jesus was doing ministry for 3 1/2 years. So, he was cut off AFTER 69th week, means, he was crucified ON 70th week!

The context of Dan. 9:24-27 do not say anything about two persons and Antcihrist nothing at all. The context of Daniel 9:24-27 focus on only ONE person is Messiah(prince) - Jesus!!

Also, there is NO "seven year of Tribulation period" anywhere in the Bible.

The Bible teaches us, Great Tribulation will be last for only 3 1/2 years - Dan. 7:25; Rev. 11:2-3; 12:6,14; and 13:5.

Please show me where a verse saying Antichrist will reign for 84 months or 7 years in the Bible.

There is no biblical saying that Antichrist will sign peace treaty with Israel. Dan. 9:27 is a big misinterpreting for many Christians. It is talking about Jesus Christ already make a new covenent with many(inlude us) in Mark 14:24 through Calvary for salvation.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

There are just loads of exegetical and theological problems in just this short amount, but let me address just a couple

This is your conclusion. It is not somethign that the text states. There is nothing that precludes there being this gap and in fact there is everything that admits its possibility. You have confused your conclusions about the text with what the text actually teaches.

Not quite. Daniel wrote this in the mid-6th century BC (i.e., 530-540), some 570-72 years before Calvary. The date of 483 years (69+2) is reckoned from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. You can survey the commentaries for the various options.

No one said there was. However, we don't know this since v. 27 has not been fulfilled yet.

It speaks of MEssiah the prince and the prince who shall come. The prince who shall come cannot be MEssiah becuase this is referring to that time after the Messiah has been cut off. So it does talk about two persons.

But look at the text. The putting of an end to sacrifices happens 3 1/2 years after the covenant (whatever covenant that is). If you, like Tim, are trying to make this the NC, you have no way to shoe horn three and 1/2 years into no time, since the covenant was ratified at Christ's death, the same time that you claim the sacrifices were ended. Whatever this passage is talking about, it is not that the death of Christ put an end to these sacrifices.

This is true. But the NC prophesies another rebuilding after which no one shall be able to destroy it (Jer 33:38ff.). The rebuilding you refer to was destroyed and therefore, exegetically and logically, cannot be the rebuilding promised by the NC/

But notice how you, like Tim, have injected the gap you so despise. You have injected a gap of some 40 years, something that you can the text will not allow. Christ was cut off after the 69th week, then the covenant is made, and then 3 1/2 years later the sacrifices end. So Christ death at the end of the 69th week cannot be the end of sacrifices that doesn't take place for 3 1/2 more years. Can you not see how you have not explained what the text says about this?

We are not under the NC per se. We participate in its blessings. Again, when you read the text of the NC, you see that it is made with the house of JUdah and the house of Israel, the people whose fathers God made the Mosaic covenant with when he took them out of the land of Egypt. That can in no legitimate exegetical way speak of the church. Our fathers were not the ones that God made the NC with. The NC speaks of a time of restoration of these people, and that has not yet happened.

Plus, you must remember that Christ didn't make the covenant. God made the covenant. So you fail on that count as well.

NO one disputes that. But that is not the point.

Very true but irrelevant as are the several paragraphs that follow.

The temple of Ezekiel is in the millenniel kingdom. The temple that Revelation 21:22 talks of is in the New heavenly Jerusalem. You have the right teaching but you have applied it in the wrong time period.

Hold on a minute now. YOU said earlier that Christ was cut off after the 69th week. Now you have moved it to the middle of the seventieth. That is a problem. You just contradicted yourself. The cutting off of the Messiah clearly predates the establishment of the covenant in 9:26-27. YOU Can't have it both ways. You have to pick one. But as you already stipulated, the death of Christ was the establishing of the covenant. Now you say that he died 3 1/2 years after the covenant was established. That simply will not work exegetically. Whatever the covenant is, the sacrifices are cut off 3 1/2 years later, and at least 3 1/2 years after the Messiah was cut off.

The text is a narrative with a waw consecutive. Verse 27, follows v. 26, not explains it. You need the latter, but the text is the former. The covenant of v. 27 is made after the cutting off of the Messiah.

Why then the mention of the "prince who shall come"? By the time of v. 26, the Messiah had already come so it would be wrong to mention as the prince that will come. The text makes more sense if talking about two people. The other texts of Scripture relating to the death of Christ and the timing of the 70 weeks preclude your interpretation.

Both revelation and Daniel talk of two periods of 3 1/2 years. That makes 7 years of the Tribulation period, of which the last half is called the great Tribulation or the Time of Jacob's Trouble.

[qutoe]Please show me where a verse saying Antichrist will reign for 84 months or 7 years in the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Dan 9 talks of this prince that shall make a covenant for the 70th week. Which shows yet another reason against your interpretation. The NC is an eternal covenant, not a seven year one. You recognize the first 69 weeks are literal 7 year weeks. Then you come to the seventieth and, without any hermeneutical justification, adjust to be something other than 7 literal years. That is a crime against the text. YOu have no basis to suddenly change referents.

[qutoe]There is no biblical saying that Antichrist will sign peace treaty with Israel. Dan. 9:27 is a big misinterpreting for many Christians. It is talking about Jesus Christ already make a new covenent with many(inlude us) in Mark 14:24 through Calvary for salvation. [/quote]YOU are the one who has misinterpreted this, as I have shown. Christ never made a covenant with many. The covenant was made by God and ratified by Christ in his blood. You cannot just change the text like that.

This is way longer than I intended it to be but this is really simple stuff. The text has to be the rule of authority for us. You cannot just dispense with the text because it doesn't meet your ideas of what should happen. I reject that kind of approach to Scripture. The text says what it says and our theology must be derived from the text, not imposed on it. The exegesis of the text precludes your position.

 

Pastor Larry,

You continue to put words into my posts which aren't there--just as you read things in the scripture that aren't there.

I dismissed any gap (even the 40 years) within the seventy week period. If I have to prove a gap does NOT exist in a time-measured account, then we can assume a gap may be anywhere--maybe in the creation account (the old gap theory)? So maybe the world really IS billions of years old?

I can't figure out where you get the idea that I said the New Covenant was initiated and then ended 3 1/2 years later. God's dealing with the Jews ONLY was ended at the end of the 70 weeks. The New Covenant initiated by Christ goes on forever--from then on with Jews and Gentiles alike. All whose sins are remitted have everlasting righteousness. That's the world I live in.

Blessings Pastor Larry, I think we're not going to agree on these things.

In Christ,

Tim

 

You seem to be playing very loose with the words. Daniel says that the destruction of the city happens at the end of the 69th week and prior to the 70th week and the covenant. You claim that it really happened 40 years after the cutting off of the Messiah and the covenant. That is a gap no matter which way you slice it. That just doesn't work. I am not asking you to prove a gap doesn't exist. I am showing that you are inconsistent in that you blast the dispensationalist view for a gap when indeed you have a gap yourself.

I cannot agree that the cutting off of the Messiah and the making of the covenant are the same thing. The text does not connect them and in fact most naturally separates them. Yet you connect them in spite of the text.

You say Christ made the NC (not true but that is what you said) and cited Matt 26 in support of it. Then you say that the cutting off of the sacrifices (v. 27) happened when Christ was crucified. The two texts you reference for this show that the ratification of the covenant and the ending of the sacrifices were simulataneous--the death of Christ.

However, the text of Daniel says that the cutting off of the sacrifices was 3 1/2 years after the covenant was made. Your view says it was less than 24 hours.

Now who are we to believe: you or Daniel? I think we have to go with Daniel on this one. You cannot shoehorn the making of the covenant 3 1/2 years before the crucifixion. There is no reference to it there and there is no similarity at all to it at that time of his ministry. Yet that is what must happen to fulfill the text of Daniel.

I agree with this. But this 70th week hasn't yet come. The prince that shall come has made no treaty with Israel. There is right now what Paul called a partial hardening so that the fulness of the Gentiles (the church) can come in, and then after that, all Israel will be saved. That will happen at the the 70th week.

This is true, but you have improperly shoved this into the text of Daniel without warrant. The covenant of 9:27 cannot be the NC because
1) this covenant was made by the prince who is to come; the NC was made by God.
2) this covenant cut off sacrifices 3 1/2 years into it; the NC does not.
3) this covenant is broken; the NC will not be.
4) this covenant is followed by the abomination of desolations; the NC will not be.

The text simply doesn't work. All I desire is that we adhere rigidly to the text of Scripture. We cannot just dispense with the things that don't fit our system. That is my concern with the view that you hold (and I don't not mean to impugn your desire for God in anyway). I simply am concerned that you are reading your view onto the text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

[qutoe]Blessings Pastor Larry, I think we're not going to agree on these things.[/QUOTE]Not until the rapture , but I appreciate the conversation.