What does Daniel 9:26 really refer to?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
The language is very figurative - typical of Jewish apocalyptic. We likely miss the point by trying to assign a literal precise year value for the weeks. It is the fact the Messiah will come and be cut off - and the sin of Israel will be dealt with.

The latter reference to Messiah being cut off was a literal reference. There is no reason to be inconsistent in your heremeneutic. You want some of it literal and some of it not literal. Yet you have no basis other than your system for determining what is what. And that leads to wrong interpretation. Virtually every historian admits there is a precise year value to the weeks.

Larry said, "The ultimate arbiter must be the original author intent." But then said, "There is no reason not to take it literally, unless you subscribe to a system with a particular end in mind."

These statements don't really line up! By insisting on a literal interpretation (not the likely authorial intent by what we know of Jewish apocalyptic) we are subscribing to a system with a particular end in mind - and thus the error of dispensationalism!

You miss the point. I am not subscribing to a system with a particular end in mind. I have in fact allowed the text to determine the end. The authorial intent seems clear enough and my system does not require me to violate that to reach an end. I have no problem with the text as it stands because my system does not need another conclusion. In the end, the difference is the hermeneutic that we use.

And that does not equate to error in dispensationalism.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
Can you sustantiate from scripture where it says sacrifices of bulls and goats for a sin offering will be for a commemoration? Or is that an interpretation filtered through the grid of futurism? Scriptures please.

Well, let's look at your inconsistency. You have a clear text that says there will be sin offerings in the millennium and you reject that becuase you have a system that won't allow it. Whatever text I may offer will receieve the same response from you because the text is subservient to your views. Why would you ask me for another verse until you accept one that you already know about??? That doesn't even make sense. But it shows the inconsistency. You like Scripture when it supports your point. When it doesn't, you will glibly explain it away. I am not sure that is the best way to go about this.

My point is not to be rude, but to demonstrate that the text is not the basis for your belief. You reject it because you can't see how it works. I accept it and arrange my own system to accommodate what God said.

The bottom line is that when the text says something, that is the end of it. I am required to believe it, not to dispute it.

 

[firedome]

EE,

Let me get this right, you are saying that the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and the city of Jerusalem was not destroyed until 130 A.D., right? What history book shows this? I believe that the record shows that both were destroyed in 70 A.D. I myself being a retired military man know that upon surveying where the temple was located you have to pass through the city. To do this I surmise that without a doubt that I will have to fight from the walls of the city to reach said temple. We are not talking about strategic strikes with weapons that take out certain targets within and leave the others without untouched. We are talking about a war machine that bowled over its adversaries with brawn, not finesse. With that being said please consider the following:

Jer 32:27
Behold, I am Jehovah, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me? 28 Therefore thus saith Jehovah: Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the Chaldeans, and into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and he shall take it: 29 and the Chaldeans, that fight against this city, shall come and set this city on fire, and burn it, with the houses, upon whose roofs they have offered incense unto Baal, and poured out drink-offerings unto other gods, to provoke me to anger. 30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have done only that which was evil in my sight from their youth; for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith Jehovah. 31 For this city hath been to me a provocation of mine anger and of my wrath from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face, 32 because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: and though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction

How is it that God could bring judgment upon Jerusalem by the Babylonians and not with the Romans? Please consider two more passages and explain what the implications are.

Mt 23:29
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous, 30 and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

Mr 12:1
And he began to speak unto them in parables. A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a pit for the winepress, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country. 2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard. 3 And they took him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. 4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and him they wounded in the head, and handled shamefully. 5 And he sent another; and him they killed: and many others; beating some, and killing some. 6 He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. 7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. 8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard. 9 What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. 10 Have ye not read even this scripture: The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; 11 This was from the Lord, And it is marvellous in our eyes? 12 And they sought to lay hold on him; and they feared the multitude; for they perceived that he spake the parable against them: and they left him, and went away.

Maranatha,
Rodney

 

[Pastor Larry]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
Nothing anywhere in the context of Ezekiel 40-48 mentioned, 'a thouand years' there.

There is no need for a thousand years to be mentioned. I don't understand why that is even an issue.

Ezekiel 40-48 speak about Jesus Christ and the sacrifice.

But funny thing is that is never actually talks about that. There are clear OT passages that talk about Christ and the sacrifice and the language used in Ezek 40-48 does not even remotely resemble that. In fact, if you had not made that statement, there would be nothing in Ezekiel 40-48 to lead one to that conclusion.

I suggest you to read and study whole book of Hebrews in the New Testament, that book discusses about the sacrifice, and it already fulfilled the old covenant, and Old Testament peophecies speak about Calvary.

I have in fact read Hebrews about 10 times in teh last two weeks. This Sunday will be the first sermon in a series in the book of Hebrews that will last until sometime early next year. You should come ...

We do not need another future sacrifice again anymore. Because Christ said, "it is finished" - John 19:30.

The millennial sacrifice is not about "need;" No one is arguing we "need" them. The point is that God stipulated them. He gets to dictate how things go. You have taken a clear text and said it can't possibly mean what it says because of your system. Has it crossed your mind that the God who stipulated millennial sacrifices actually has it all worked out without denying the text?

On Daniel 9:26 speak about the destruction of Jerusalem that was fulfilled in year 70 A.D.

Then Daniel is a very bad prophet because the events of AD70 do not fit the prophecy that Daniel gave in the least.

'people'of the prince shall come and destroy destroy city and the sacrifices too. It does not saying 'Prince" shall come to destroy Jerusalem. It says, 'PEOPLE' of the prince.

That is not under dispute. We agree.

Who is the Prince? Messiah - Dan. 9:25 "Messiah the Prince". Obivously, it speaks of Messiah - Jesus Christ, not Antichrist.

Look again. There is a prince, the Messiah; and a prince who is to come. They are two different people. The prince who is to come with make a covenant with Israel for one week and then will break that covenant in the middle of the week. That cannot be the Messiah since the Messiah will not break his covenant.

John 2:21 - Jesus speaks of his body as the temple.

Yes, Christ did destroyed that building of the temple. It was not destroyed till year 70 A.D.

But as you rightly pointed out, Christ was not referring to the Herodian temple but to his own body. Furthermore, the temple and the city were not destroyed by Christians in AD70 but by Romans. Clearly, your view doesn't fit the text.

When Jesus was on the cross, he said, "It is finished" - John 19:30, he means that the sacrifices are no more again, now Christ is the Lamb, and we are Christ's temple, because He is our temple.

Actually, "It is finished" means that sin has been atoned for.

The context of Dan. 9:24-27 does not mentioned about the Antichrist shall come and make covenant with Israel for peace treaty. It mentioned about the covenant of Calvary already fulfilled 2000 years ago. We do not have to wait for Daniel 70th week to start in the future. It already fulfilled at Calvary.

But as I have pointed out, this has serious problems.

First, the covenant made is broken. Do you really want to argue that Christ breaks his covenant.

Second, the time doesn't work out. Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week. The covenant is made after that and it is broken in the middle of the week.

Third, the covenant in view isn't made by the Messiah but by the prince who is to come.

Your attempt here is a classic example of bringing a position to the text and doing whatever is necessary to make the position work. You have been forced to redefine the text in order to support your view. My view doesn't have to do that.

But when all is said and done, you guys are not prepared to change your view and I have not seen any evidence that is the least bit convincing to me to change my view, so this discussion, as always, will end in a lot of words and no change ... So unless I am extremely provoked, I will bow out

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Pastor Larry,

I am curious, what city you live? I am live in Wixom near Detroit, MI.

I would like to meet you in a person and discuss about doctrine stuffs.

I am think of going to open new thread discuss on every verse to verse and every chapters of the book of Hebrews. What these are talking about. We should understand what the book of Hebrews talking about. It is very important for us to understand them in Hebrews.

Dispensationalism have much of holes and problems, it have much of conflicts with the Bibele. Not what the Bible saying

You say,

You reject that because you have a system that won't allow it.

Reject on what??

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
I am curious, what city you live? I am live in Wixom near Detroit, MI.

I live in teh downriver area ... River Rouge ...

I am think of going to open new thread discuss on every verse to verse and every chapters of the book of Hebrews. What these are talking about. We should understand what the book of Hebrews talking about. It is very important for us to understand them in Hebrews.

I agree that Hebrews is very important because it upholds the supremacy of Christ. A thread to discuss every single verse would be very long ...

Dispensationalism have much of holes and problems, it have much of conflicts with the Bibele. Not what the Bible saying

I would say the same about your position. I think I can defend what I say from Scripture, while refuting what you say from Scripture.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You reject that because you have a system that won't allow it.

Reject on what?? </font>[/QUOTE]This was in response to Grasshopper's questioning about a text that says millennial sacrifices are memorial or commemorative in nature. He denies the existence of these sacrifices. I was pointing out an inconsistency in his argument. He wants a verse that shows these sacrifices are memorial while rejecting a verse that says they exist. He rejects the verse that declares their existence, not because it isn't clear--it is; he rejects that verse because it does not fit his system.

As I pointed out, I was not trying to be rude or arrogant, and I was attacking him in anyway. I was pointing out an inconsistency in his approach to the topic at hand. To want verses to substantiate the meaning of something while rejecting verses that substantiate the very existence of it is inconsistent. Once he admits that Ezekiel does teach the existence of these sacrifices we can move on to what they mean.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

All five offerings of the Levitical system are mentioned by name, and they are expressly declared to be for the identical purposes thereof. There is no hint that they were only to be for a "memorial" or "remembrance." That would definitely make Dispensationalists guilty of reading information into the text. They, then, are guilty of utilizing the same harmenuetic of which they accuse their opponents. If we interpret Ezekiel's vision according to Dispensationalists alleged "literal" harmenuetic, the death of Christ is compromised according to Pastor Larry's own words.

[ February 12, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

[Grasshopper]

Well, let's look at your inconsistency. You have a clear text that says there will be sin offerings in the millennium and you reject that becuase you have a system that won't allow it. Whatever text I may offer will receieve the same response from you because the text is subservient to your views. Why would you ask me for another verse until you accept one that you already know about??? That doesn't even make sense. But it shows the inconsistency. You like Scripture when it supports your point. When it doesn't, you will glibly explain it away. I am not sure that is the best way to go about this.

My point is not to be rude, but to demonstrate that the text is not the basis for your belief. You reject it because you can't see how it works. I accept it and arrange my own system to accommodate what God said.

The bottom line is that when the text says something, that is the end of it. I am required to believe it, not to dispute it.

I guess the answer is NO, you cant find a scripture to prove it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
I guess the answer is NO, you cant find a scripture to prove it.

You still haven't accepted the plain declaration of Scripture. Why not? Why not admit that God said there will be sacrifices and then proceed on that basis??

You want to accuse me of not having Scripture (when I can make the case very well); the reality is that at least I accept Scripture. You deny it for some reason. I don't have any idea why.

As I asked, why hasn't it crossed your mind that God does know what he is talking about and you need to rearrange your system to fit his revelation?

God is the one who said there would be sacrifices; dispensationalism didn't say that. Why not believe God on this matter?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
All five offerings of the Levitical system are mentioned by name, and they are expressly declared to be for the identical purposes thereof. There is no hint that they were only to be for a "memorial" or "remembrance." That would definitely make Dispensationalists guilty of reading information into the text. They, then, are guilty of utilizing the same harmenuetic of which they accuse their opponents. If we interpret Ezekiel's vision according to Dispensationalists alleged "literal" harmenuetic, the death of Christ is compromised according to Pastor Larry's own words.

What??? How did I compromise the death of Christ?? I have affirmed its sufficiency plainly and simply and without qualification. The Bible says that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. So therefore, what the OT sacrifices did, they did not take away sin. So to suggest that bringing them back will somehow compromise the only death that could take away sin is wrong.

If the blood of bulls and goats couldn't take away sin the first time, then how do they compromise the sacrifice that did take away sin?

Even now, we celebrate the Lord's table as a memorial. We do not jeopardize the sufficiency of his sacrifice. We affirm it. To offer a memorial sacrifice in the millennium will not be substantially different.

I ask you what I asked Grasshopper: Why not just believe what God said? Your position requires an out and out denial of the text of Scripture. I realize that is straightforward but give me another option. If it is not a denial then what is it? God said there will be sacrifices; you say there will not be. Why should we believe you?

My position affirms both the sufficiency and finality of Christ's sacrifice and the integrity of the text.

 

[Tim]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />On Daniel 9:26 speak about the destruction of Jerusalem that was fulfilled in year 70 A.D.

Then Daniel is a very bad prophet because the events of AD70 do not fit the prophecy that Daniel gave in the least.

Who is the Prince? Messiah - Dan. 9:25 "Messiah the Prince". Obivously, it speaks of Messiah - Jesus Christ, not Antichrist.

Look again. There is a prince, the Messiah; and a prince who is to come. They are two different people. The prince who is to come with make a covenant with Israel for one week and then will break that covenant in the middle of the week. That cannot be the Messiah since the Messiah will not break his covenant.

The context of Dan. 9:24-27 does not mentioned about the Antichrist shall come and make covenant with Israel for peace treaty. It mentioned about the covenant of Calvary already fulfilled 2000 years ago. We do not have to wait for Daniel 70th week to start in the future. It already fulfilled at Calvary.

But as I have pointed out, this has serious problems.

First, the covenant made is broken. Do you really want to argue that Christ breaks his covenant.

Second, the time doesn't work out. Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week. The covenant is made after that and it is broken in the middle of the week.

Third, the covenant in view isn't made by the Messiah but by the prince who is to come.

Your attempt here is a classic example of bringing a position to the text and doing whatever is necessary to make the position work. You have been forced to redefine the text in order to support your view. My view doesn't have to do that.

But when all is said and done, you guys are not prepared to change your view and I have not seen any evidence that is the least bit convincing to me to change my view, so this discussion, as always, will end in a lot of words and no change ... So unless I am extremely provoked, I will bow out

</font>[/QUOTE]Larry,

I don't want to provoke you (except to love and good works), however, your explanations above are full of unproven assumptions.

You say that the covenant made in Daniel is broken--yet that is nowhere stated in the text. Christ is cut off in mid-week, but that does not mean the covenant is broken then--or ever.

The timing works out fine: The covenant was confirmed with the Jews in the last week--first half-by Christ's ministry among them, mid-week by the new covenant in His blood, last half by His disciples' last exclusive ministry among the Jews. After that all the exclusively Jewish covenant requirements were fulfilled.

You also claim that the prince that shall come makes the covenant--yet he is only mentioned here as part of a descriptive phrase about the people who destroy the city and sanctuary. The grammar doesn't fit--he is not the subject here, Messiah is (from the first phrase of the verse). The statement about the people of the prince is essentially a parenthetical statement in the midst of a detailed description of how God would keep His covenant with Isreal (the undeniable context of Daniel 9). Gabriel said he would give understanding about Daniel's concern, not change the subject on him.

And then there's that gaping gap you insert in the 70 weeks ... It is a flat denial of verse 24.

Are you sufficiently provoked to answer?
Actually, I have a pretty good idea of what you'd say anyway

Tim

 

[Charles Meadows]

Larry,

You said:

"There is no reason to be inconsistent in your heremeneutic. You want some of it literal and some of it not literal. Yet you have no basis other than your system for determining what is what."

The basis of "hermeneutic" here is what the text intended to say. Some literal and some not? Nothing wrong with that! I'm not one to make the bible complicated - the Gospel is simple. But that does not mean that every detail of every passage is likewise. To understand the OT really we need a good knowledge of second temple Judaism, Hebrew language, and extrabiblical literature. These help us with the tough passages. The main point of the passage is a response to Daniel's prayer and the destiny of nation of Israel. I'll blabber a little more after I put the kids to bed!

You said:

"And that leads to wrong interpretation. Virtually every historian admits there is a precise year value to the weeks."

Who is "virtually every historian"?

 

[Ed Edwards]

READER'S DIGEST 1976 ALMANAC AND Yearbook (Reader's Digest, 1976),
page 368, 369:

"132-135 New Revolt by Jews in Jerusalem leads
to final Diaspora (dispersion) of Jews."

"70 Romans Destroy Jewish Temple ; in Jerusalem;
outlaw Jewish priesthood; disperse many Jews throughout
Roman Empire as punishment for Jewish revolt
against Roman rule."

I can understand that much of Jerusalem was destroyed to
destroy the Temple, but that can be rebuilt.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

God did not delight in the sacrificial system when it was in existence. It would be absurd to say that God will bring back the types and shadows of redemption after Christ has completed the work.

"They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain..." (Isaiah 11:9)

Tell that to the sacrificial animals.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
It would be absurd to say that God will bring back the types and shadows of redemption after Christ has completed the work.

Fortunately, nobody here said
any such thing.

In 1987 i was talking on a chat room
with a Jewish Rabbi student. Being he a Jew
and i an gentile, good thing the cyber-barrier
was there, else he would not have spoken
to me. He had no idea of my echatalogy,
so his answers were NOT "prompted" by me.

Here are the things Messiah will do
when he comes:

1. bring peace to Yisrael
2. restore the Daily Sacrifice
3. rebuild the Temple in Yerusalem

Remember, this is NOT what God said,
but what an anonomonous person said.

But compare it to what the New Testament
does say. It looks to me like it is
backwards of what he said, that is,
anybody who will do these things will be
received as the Messiah. And it would not
surprise me that this is exactly what
the Beast from the Sea, the Antichrist,
the Prince who shall come
(not Jesus, the Price who has already come).

Then according to the eternal plan of God
that He has let us see parts of in His
Holy Written Word: the Bible -
we know at mid-trib that the Antichrist
will commit the Abomination of Desolation (AoD).
Then will Millions of Jews see that
their real Messiah is Jesus.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Ed,

Nothing in the Bible saying, the Messiah shall restore the sacrifice, rebuilt another temple building again when He shall come again.

Remember, Jesus Christ is our covenant maker, he ended daily sacrifice - John 19:30. And Christ is the temple - John 2:21, & Rev. 22:21.

Christ finished it, and we do not need another animal sacrifice again anymore. Because Christ is our sacrifice, and He already wash all our sins away through His own blood - Heb. 10:10. We all can do is ask Christ for forgive us our sins daily 24 hours - 1 Thess. 5:17; and 1 John 1:9.

And we can do is to remember what Christ does for us 2000 years ago, we should give thank to Jesus for our salvation and Calvary.

I think many dispensationalists fail to understand the between old covenant and new covenant. We are no longer under the old covenant anymore, now we are under the new covenant by through Calvary - Heb. 8:13.

Nothing anywhere in the New Testament saying, the old covenant shall be restore again after the second advent. Because are are already under the new covenant by through Calvary.

Why need old covenant again? Is Calvary vain for us?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[Ed Edwards]

DeafPosttrib: "Nothing in the Bible saying, the Messiah
shall restore the sacrifice, rebuilt another temple building
again when He shall come again."

You beat the air. Nobody here said "the Messiah shall restore
the sacrifice". If you read, you will see i said the
Anti-messiah (Antichrist, Beast from the Sea, Prince who is to come)
will restore the sacrifice and restore the temple.

Hello! can you tell the difference between Jesus doing
something and somebody else doing it?

 

[DeafPosttrib]

The Bible does not saying that the Antichrist shall restore the sacrifice and rebuilt the temple in the tribulation period.

Christ ended daily sacrifice by through calvary. And Christ is our temple - John 2:21, & Rev. 21:22.

We do not need another building of temple, because Christ is our temple. We can worship Jesus Christ daily 24 hours.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Colossians 2:16 (KJV1769):

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath days:

DeafPosttrib: "We do not need another building of temple,
because Christ is our temple.
We can worship Jesus Christ daily 24 hours."

Amen, Brother DeafPosttrib -- Preach it!

But we won't be here when the Antichrist rebuilds the
Temple in Jerusalem -- Pretribulation Rapture/resurrection, you know.