Originally posted by Tim:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
it "brought in everlasting righteousness" just as Gabriel declared.
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.
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 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 probably more to say, but I think most of it was said a few months ago.
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.
A believer in the better covenant,
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
)
